Euthanasia refers to the practice of ending a human life in a gentle and easy way in case of incurable and painful disease.
Euthanasia is implemented with the assistance of medical people only after the person suffering has given his consent for the ending of his life. In case of patients who have been incapacitated to the extent of not even able to indicate whether he should be subjected to euthanasia, the ending of life is done only when the closest relatives indicate that euthanasia be effected. The process is generally gone through only in the presence of witnesses. For example, a person has met with a serious accident which has incapacitated him and he cannot be cured with the present level knowledge of medical science.
Present position in respect of countries
As of 2008, some forms of euthanasia are legal in Belgium, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Switzerland, Thailand, the U.S. States of Oregon and Washington, the Autonomous Community of Andalusia (Spain). Medical Associations of many countries have opposed legalizing euthanasia.
A Member of Parliament in India had tabled a Bill a few years back for introducing Euthanasia in India. However, so far the Bill has not been formally proposed for consideration of the Parliament.
//
Classification of euthanasia
1 ) Euthanasia by consent
Euthanasia may be conducted with consent (voluntary euthanasia) or without consent (involuntary euthanasia). Involuntary euthanasia is conducted where an individual makes a decision for another person incapable of doing so. The decision can be made based on what the incapacitated individual would have wanted, or it could be made on substituted judgment of what the decision maker would want were he or she in the incapacitated person's place, or finally, the decision could be made by assessing objectively whether euthanasia is the most beneficial course of treatment. In any case, euthanasia by proxy consent is highly controversial, especially because multiple proxies may claim the authority to decide for the patient and may or may not have explicit consent from the patient to make that decision.
Euthanasia by means
Euthanasia may be conducted passively, non-actively, and actively. Passive euthanasia entails the withholding of common treatments (such as antibiotics, pain medications, or surgery) or the distribution of a medication (such as morphine) to relieve pain, knowing that it may also result in death. Passive euthanasia is the most accepted form, and it is a common practice in most hospitals. Non-active euthanasia entails the withdrawing of life support and is more controversial. Active euthanasia entails the use of lethal substances or forces to kill and is the most controversial means.
Reasons given for voluntary euthanasia:
Choice: Proponents of voluntary euthanasia emphasize that choice is a fundamental principle for liberal democracies and free market systems.
Quality of Life: The pain and suffering a person feels during a disease, even with pain relievers, can be incomprehensible to a person who has not gone through it. Even without considering the physical pain, it is often difficult for patients to overcome the emotional pain of losing their independence.
Economic costs and human resources: Today in many countries there is a shortage of hospital space. The energy of doctors and hospital beds could be used for people whose lives could be saved instead of continuing the life of those who want to die which increases the general quality of care and shortens hospital waiting lists. It is a burden to keep people alive past the point they can contribute to society, especially if the resources used could be spent on a curable ailment.
Reasons given against voluntary euthanasia:
Professional role: Critics argue that voluntary euthanasia could unduly compromise the professional roles of health care employees, especially doctors. They point out that European physicians of previous centuries traditionally swore some variation of the Hippocratic Oath, which in its ancient form excluded euthanasia: "To please no one will I prescribe a deadly drug nor give advice which may cause his death.." However, since the 1970s, this oath has largely fallen out of use.
Moral: Some people consider euthanasia of some or all types to be morally unacceptable. This view usually treats euthanasia to be a type of murder and voluntary euthanasia as a type of suicide, the morality of which is the subject of active debate.
Theological: Voluntary euthanasia has often been rejected as a violation of the sanctity of human life. Specifically, some Christians argue that human life ultimately belongs to God, so that humans should not be the ones to make the choice to end life. Orthodox Judaism takes basically the same approach, however, it is more open minded, and does, given certain circumstances, allow for euthanasia to be exercised under passive or non-aggressive means. Accordingly, some theologians and other religious thinkers consider voluntary euthanasia (and suicide generally) as sinful acts, i.e. unjustified killings. Feasibility of implementation: Euthanasia can only be considered "voluntary" if a patient is mentally competent to make the decision, i.e., has a rational understanding of options and consequences. Competence can be difficult to determine or even define.
Necessity: If there is some reason to believe the cause of a patient's illness or suffering is or will soon be curable, the correct action is sometimes considered to attempt to bring about a cure or engage in palliative care.
Wishes of Family: Family members often desire to spend as much time with their loved ones as possible before they die.
Consent under pressure: Given the economic grounds for voluntary euthanasia, critics are concerned that patients may experience psychological pressure to consent to voluntary euthanasia rather than be a financial burden on their families. Even where health costs are mostly covered by public money, as in various European countries, critics are concerned that hospital personnel would have an economic incentive to advise or pressure people toward euthanasia consent.
Additional points for consideration
· I am 95 years old. Most of my faculties have impaired. I am slowly losing other faculties. Living is an eternal pain for me. Then should not the State assist in my wish to die. But then what about a person who is only fifty but yet don’t want to live any more. A person may be facing extreme poverty and there is nobody to look after him. A person has gone through extreme tragedies in his life and don’t want to live any more. These are only illustrative examples. The situations could be multiplied whereby it would become applicable to a twenty year old person.
· A child is born with some major defect. The child will remain in a vegetable state throughout the life, taking into account the present level of medical science. If the State was to apply euthanasia on such a child, nobody would probably protest. But as said in the earlier point, this could be extended to a number of cases. Say, a child could live and grow up to a man, but the living would be extremely painful or arduous. Parents of one child with such extreme complication may opt for euthanasia but parents of another child with the same condition may decide to take care of the child. In such a case how will the State be adjudged for the action in the case of the first child.
· If euthanasia is allowed under certain extreme ccircumstances, then why not allow suicide. Attempt to suicide is a crime. Why should it be so. Will not somebody argue that he attempted suicide because he has no interest in living. He may be an able bodied person. But the person could argue that the point is of wishing to live or not. If somebody has an incurable disease or cannot function properly and hence makes it clear that he has no interest in living. If the State decides that euthanasia can be done on such a person, then why not on the second person. But would not then the central point gets reduced to interest in living. Then again what about undesirable developments, such as, relatives making the life of an old person miserable to acquisce him to agree for euthanasia.
Here again the dilemma is the role of State to determine or interfere in such maters, and since the State should relect the views of the society, can society allow euthanasia. If yes, then where is the line to be drawn.
In India ( and probably that is the case with most of the other countries ) there is hardly any awareness on the subject under analysis. Medical profession is aware of the fact that its members cannot assist in euthanasia. It is a criminal offense. Hence in the case of patients suffering from various serious ailments or severe pain or inability to look after oneself or there is no cure in the (English) medical system, doctors advise relatives of the patients to take them back to their homes and quietly suggest how euthanasia could be effected. Further, relatives of such persons, unaware of the legal nuances of euthanasia, do not meticulously ensure that their action of effecting euthanasia is kept in wraps. The danger is that if and when police suspect of such action, they can fleece those who indulged in euthanasia.
It is precisely in a poor country like India which should have a law for euthanasia. Poor in many cases are not able to look after invalid and old relatives, not to speak of providing them with treatment and medication. So what happens is those persons go through a painful process of slow death.
Tenets of various religions, though may not have explicitly stated, are also against such a deed ( euthanasia ). Hence it becomes extremely repugnant for most people to think of administering authanasia on their relatives. There would also be objections from the society. But the suffering of the one afflicted is overlooked with a sigh of that it is their ‘ karma.’
But somewhere the debate on the subject should start. Awareness of the subject has to be slowly built up with pros and cons thoroughly discussed. Civil societies and medical profession should take a lead in the matter.
****
Sunday, November 23, 2008
Friday, November 21, 2008
Euthanasia
Euthanasia refers to the practice of ending a human life in a gentle and easy way in case of incurable and painful disease.
Euthanasia is implemented with the assistance of medical people only after the person suffering has given his consent for the ending of his life. In case of patients who have been incapacitated to the extent of not even able to indicate whether he should be subjected to euthanasia, the ending of life is done only when the closest relatives indicate that euthanasia be effected. The process is generally gone through only in the presence of witnesses. For example, a person has met with a serious accident which has incapacitated him and he cannot be cured with the present level knowledge of medical science.
Present position in respect of countries
As of 2008, some forms of euthanasia are legal in Belgium, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Switzerland, Thailand, the U.S. States of Oregon and Washington, the Autonomous Community of Andalusia (Spain). Medical Associations of many countries have opposed legalizing euthanasia.
A Member of Parliament in India had tabled a Bill a few years back for introducing Euthanasia in India. However, so far the Bill has not been formally proposed for consideration of the Parliament.
//
Classification of euthanasia
1 ) Euthanasia by consent
Euthanasia may be conducted with consent (voluntary euthanasia) or without consent (involuntary euthanasia). Involuntary euthanasia is conducted where an individual makes a decision for another person incapable of doing so. The decision can be made based on what the incapacitated individual would have wanted, or it could be made on substituted judgment of what the decision maker would want were he or she in the incapacitated person's place, or finally, the decision could be made by assessing objectively whether euthanasia is the most beneficial course of treatment. In any case, euthanasia by proxy consent is highly controversial, especially because multiple proxies may claim the authority to decide for the patient and may or may not have explicit consent from the patient to make that decision.
Euthanasia by means
Euthanasia may be conducted passively, non-actively, and actively. Passive euthanasia entails the withholding of common treatments (such as antibiotics, pain medications, or surgery) or the distribution of a medication (such as morphine) to relieve pain, knowing that it may also result in death. Passive euthanasia is the most accepted form, and it is a common practice in most hospitals. Non-active euthanasia entails the withdrawing of life support and is more controversial. Active euthanasia entails the use of lethal substances or forces to kill and is the most controversial means.
Reasons given for voluntary euthanasia:
Choice: Proponents of voluntary euthanasia emphasize that choice is a fundamental principle for liberal democracies and free market systems.
Quality of Life: The pain and suffering a person feels during a disease, even with pain relievers, can be incomprehensible to a person who has not gone through it. Even without considering the physical pain, it is often difficult for patients to overcome the emotional pain of losing their independence.
Economic costs and human resources: Today in many countries there is a shortage of hospital space. The energy of doctors and hospital beds could be used for people whose lives could be saved instead of continuing the life of those who want to die which increases the general quality of care and shortens hospital waiting lists. It is a burden to keep people alive past the point they can contribute to society, especially if the resources used could be spent on a curable ailment.
Reasons given against voluntary euthanasia:
Professional role: Critics argue that voluntary euthanasia could unduly compromise the professional roles of health care employees, especially doctors. They point out that European physicians of previous centuries traditionally swore some variation of the Hippocratic Oath, which in its ancient form excluded euthanasia: "To please no one will I prescribe a deadly drug nor give advice which may cause his death.." However, since the 1970s, this oath has largely fallen out of use.
Moral: Some people consider euthanasia of some or all types to be morally unacceptable. This view usually treats euthanasia to be a type of murder and voluntary euthanasia as a type of suicide, the morality of which is the subject of active debate.
Theological: Voluntary euthanasia has often been rejected as a violation of the sanctity of human life. Specifically, some Christians argue that human life ultimately belongs to God, so that humans should not be the ones to make the choice to end life. Orthodox Judaism takes basically the same approach, however, it is more open minded, and does, given certain circumstances, allow for euthanasia to be exercised under passive or non-aggressive means. Accordingly, some theologians and other religious thinkers consider voluntary euthanasia (and suicide generally) as sinful acts, i.e. unjustified killings. Feasibility of implementation: Euthanasia can only be considered "voluntary" if a patient is mentally competent to make the decision, i.e., has a rational understanding of options and consequences. Competence can be difficult to determine or even define.
Necessity: If there is some reason to believe the cause of a patient's illness or suffering is or will soon be curable, the correct action is sometimes considered to attempt to bring about a cure or engage in palliative care.
Wishes of Family: Family members often desire to spend as much time with their loved ones as possible before they die.
Consent under pressure: Given the economic grounds for voluntary euthanasia, critics are concerned that patients may experience psychological pressure to consent to voluntary euthanasia rather than be a financial burden on their families. Even where health costs are mostly covered by public money, as in various European countries, critics are concerned that hospital personnel would have an economic incentive to advise or pressure people toward euthanasia consent.
Additional points for consideration
· I am 95 years old. Most of my faculties have impaired. I am slowly losing other faculties. Living is an eternal pain for me. Then should not the State assist in my wish to die. But then what about a person who is only fifty but yet don’t want to live any more. A person may be facing extreme poverty and there is nobody to look after him. A person has gone through extreme tragedies in his life and don’t want to live any more. These are only illustrative examples. The situations could be multiplied whereby it would become applicable to a twenty year old person.
· A child is born with some major defect. The child will remain in a vegetable state throughout the life, taking into account the present level of medical science. If the State was to apply euthanasia on such a child, nobody would probably protest. But as said in the earlier point, this could be extended to a number of cases. Say, a child could live and grow up to a man, but the living would be extremely painful or arduous. Parents of one child with such extreme complication may opt for euthanasia but parents of another child with the same condition may decide to take care of the child. In such a case how will the State be adjudged for the action in the case of the first child.
· If euthanasia is allowed under certain extreme ccircumstances, then why not allow suicide. Attempt to suicide is a crime. Why should it be so. Will not somebody argue that he attempted suicide because he has no interest in living. He may be an able bodied person. But the person could argue that the point is of wishing to live or not. If somebody has an incurable disease or cannot function properly and hence makes it clear that he has no interest in living. If the State decides that euthanasia can be done on such a person, then why not on the second person. But would not then the central point gets reduced to interest in living. Then again what about undesirable developments, such as, relatives making the life of an old person miserable to acquisce him to agree for euthanasia.
Here again the dilemma is the role of State to determine or interfere in such maters, and since the State should relect the views of the society, can society allow euthanasia. If yes, then where is the line to be drawn.
***
Euthanasia is implemented with the assistance of medical people only after the person suffering has given his consent for the ending of his life. In case of patients who have been incapacitated to the extent of not even able to indicate whether he should be subjected to euthanasia, the ending of life is done only when the closest relatives indicate that euthanasia be effected. The process is generally gone through only in the presence of witnesses. For example, a person has met with a serious accident which has incapacitated him and he cannot be cured with the present level knowledge of medical science.
Present position in respect of countries
As of 2008, some forms of euthanasia are legal in Belgium, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Switzerland, Thailand, the U.S. States of Oregon and Washington, the Autonomous Community of Andalusia (Spain). Medical Associations of many countries have opposed legalizing euthanasia.
A Member of Parliament in India had tabled a Bill a few years back for introducing Euthanasia in India. However, so far the Bill has not been formally proposed for consideration of the Parliament.
//
Classification of euthanasia
1 ) Euthanasia by consent
Euthanasia may be conducted with consent (voluntary euthanasia) or without consent (involuntary euthanasia). Involuntary euthanasia is conducted where an individual makes a decision for another person incapable of doing so. The decision can be made based on what the incapacitated individual would have wanted, or it could be made on substituted judgment of what the decision maker would want were he or she in the incapacitated person's place, or finally, the decision could be made by assessing objectively whether euthanasia is the most beneficial course of treatment. In any case, euthanasia by proxy consent is highly controversial, especially because multiple proxies may claim the authority to decide for the patient and may or may not have explicit consent from the patient to make that decision.
Euthanasia by means
Euthanasia may be conducted passively, non-actively, and actively. Passive euthanasia entails the withholding of common treatments (such as antibiotics, pain medications, or surgery) or the distribution of a medication (such as morphine) to relieve pain, knowing that it may also result in death. Passive euthanasia is the most accepted form, and it is a common practice in most hospitals. Non-active euthanasia entails the withdrawing of life support and is more controversial. Active euthanasia entails the use of lethal substances or forces to kill and is the most controversial means.
Reasons given for voluntary euthanasia:
Choice: Proponents of voluntary euthanasia emphasize that choice is a fundamental principle for liberal democracies and free market systems.
Quality of Life: The pain and suffering a person feels during a disease, even with pain relievers, can be incomprehensible to a person who has not gone through it. Even without considering the physical pain, it is often difficult for patients to overcome the emotional pain of losing their independence.
Economic costs and human resources: Today in many countries there is a shortage of hospital space. The energy of doctors and hospital beds could be used for people whose lives could be saved instead of continuing the life of those who want to die which increases the general quality of care and shortens hospital waiting lists. It is a burden to keep people alive past the point they can contribute to society, especially if the resources used could be spent on a curable ailment.
Reasons given against voluntary euthanasia:
Professional role: Critics argue that voluntary euthanasia could unduly compromise the professional roles of health care employees, especially doctors. They point out that European physicians of previous centuries traditionally swore some variation of the Hippocratic Oath, which in its ancient form excluded euthanasia: "To please no one will I prescribe a deadly drug nor give advice which may cause his death.." However, since the 1970s, this oath has largely fallen out of use.
Moral: Some people consider euthanasia of some or all types to be morally unacceptable. This view usually treats euthanasia to be a type of murder and voluntary euthanasia as a type of suicide, the morality of which is the subject of active debate.
Theological: Voluntary euthanasia has often been rejected as a violation of the sanctity of human life. Specifically, some Christians argue that human life ultimately belongs to God, so that humans should not be the ones to make the choice to end life. Orthodox Judaism takes basically the same approach, however, it is more open minded, and does, given certain circumstances, allow for euthanasia to be exercised under passive or non-aggressive means. Accordingly, some theologians and other religious thinkers consider voluntary euthanasia (and suicide generally) as sinful acts, i.e. unjustified killings. Feasibility of implementation: Euthanasia can only be considered "voluntary" if a patient is mentally competent to make the decision, i.e., has a rational understanding of options and consequences. Competence can be difficult to determine or even define.
Necessity: If there is some reason to believe the cause of a patient's illness or suffering is or will soon be curable, the correct action is sometimes considered to attempt to bring about a cure or engage in palliative care.
Wishes of Family: Family members often desire to spend as much time with their loved ones as possible before they die.
Consent under pressure: Given the economic grounds for voluntary euthanasia, critics are concerned that patients may experience psychological pressure to consent to voluntary euthanasia rather than be a financial burden on their families. Even where health costs are mostly covered by public money, as in various European countries, critics are concerned that hospital personnel would have an economic incentive to advise or pressure people toward euthanasia consent.
Additional points for consideration
· I am 95 years old. Most of my faculties have impaired. I am slowly losing other faculties. Living is an eternal pain for me. Then should not the State assist in my wish to die. But then what about a person who is only fifty but yet don’t want to live any more. A person may be facing extreme poverty and there is nobody to look after him. A person has gone through extreme tragedies in his life and don’t want to live any more. These are only illustrative examples. The situations could be multiplied whereby it would become applicable to a twenty year old person.
· A child is born with some major defect. The child will remain in a vegetable state throughout the life, taking into account the present level of medical science. If the State was to apply euthanasia on such a child, nobody would probably protest. But as said in the earlier point, this could be extended to a number of cases. Say, a child could live and grow up to a man, but the living would be extremely painful or arduous. Parents of one child with such extreme complication may opt for euthanasia but parents of another child with the same condition may decide to take care of the child. In such a case how will the State be adjudged for the action in the case of the first child.
· If euthanasia is allowed under certain extreme ccircumstances, then why not allow suicide. Attempt to suicide is a crime. Why should it be so. Will not somebody argue that he attempted suicide because he has no interest in living. He may be an able bodied person. But the person could argue that the point is of wishing to live or not. If somebody has an incurable disease or cannot function properly and hence makes it clear that he has no interest in living. If the State decides that euthanasia can be done on such a person, then why not on the second person. But would not then the central point gets reduced to interest in living. Then again what about undesirable developments, such as, relatives making the life of an old person miserable to acquisce him to agree for euthanasia.
Here again the dilemma is the role of State to determine or interfere in such maters, and since the State should relect the views of the society, can society allow euthanasia. If yes, then where is the line to be drawn.
***
Sunday, November 16, 2008
Capital punishment
Capital punishment, the death penalty or execution, is the killing of a person by judicial process as punishment. Crimes that can result in a death penalty are known as capital crimes or capital offences.
I. Facts & Statistics
· 137 countries have abolished death penalty in law or practice
· This list of 137 countries include EU and most of the States of USA
· 60 countries, including India, have retained Capital punishment, though mainly imposed on people convicted of murder or terrorism.
· At least 1252 people were known to have been executed in 24 countreis in 2007, out of which 88% took place in China ( by far the largest number ), Iran, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and US.
· Most of the polls conducted in various countries in the recent past indicate that majority of people want to retain this form of punishment.
· Amnesty International is against Capital Punishment.
· Stand of various religions has been somewhat abiguous on this issue.
II. Reasons given by Amnesty International for opposing Capital punishment
· The death penalty is the ultimate denial of human rights. It is the premeditated and cold blooded killing of a human being by the state in the name of justice. It violates the right to life as proclaimed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights adopted by the United Nations’ General Assembly in 1948. It is the ultimate cruel, inhuman and degrading punishment.
· Like torture, an execution constitutes an extreme physical and mental assault on the individual. The physical pain caused by the action of killing a human being cannot be quantified, nor can the psychological suffering caused by foreknowledge of death at the hands of the state.
· As long as human justice remains fallible, the risk of executing the innocent can never be eliminaed.
· Capital punishment in vogue in various countries has not shown to have a special deterrent effect. It denies the possibility of rehabilitation and reconciliation. It promotes simplistic responses to complex human problems, rather than pursuing explanations that could inform positive strategies. It prolongs the suffering of the murder victim’s family, and extends that suffering to the loved ones of the condemned prisoner.
· The death penalty has been and coninues to be used as a tool of political repression, as a means to silence forever political opponents or to eliminate politically ‘ troublesome’ individuals.
· Thousands have been put to death under one government only to be recognized as innocent victims when the new government comes to power.
· Death penalty is not an act of self-defence against an immediate threat to life. It is the premeditated killing of a prisoner who could therefore be dealt with equally well by less harsh means.
· Too many governments believe that they can solve urgent social or political problems by executing a few or even hundreds of their prisoners. Too many citizens in too many countries are still unaware that the death penalty offers society not further protection but further brutalization.
· Scientific studies have consistently failed to find convincing evidence that death penalty deters crime more effectively than other punishments.
· Under the Statute of the International Criminal Court adopted in 1998, the death penalty is excluded from the punishment which the court is authorized to impose, even though it has jurisdiction over extremely grave crtimes, such as, crimes against humanity, including genocide, and violations of the laws of armed conflict.
· Recent crime figures from abolitionist countries fail to show that abolition of Capital Punishment has harmful effects. In fact the rate of crime had actually gone down.
· It is incorrect to assume that people who commit such serious crimes as murder do so after rationally calculating the consequences. Often murders are committed in moments when emotion overcomes reason or under the influence of drugs or alcohol. Some people who commit violent crime are highly unstable or mentally ill.
· Such an act ( Capital punishment ) by the state is the mirror image of the criminal’s willingness to use physical violence against a victim.
· Criminal justice systems are vulnerable to discrimination and error. No system is or could conceivably be capable of deciding failrly, consistently and infallibly who should live and who should die. Expediency, discretionary decisions and prevailing public opinion may influence the proceedings from the initial arrest to the last minute decision on clemency.
· Past experience demonstrates that whenever the death penalty is used some people will be killed while others who have committed similar or even worse crimes may be spared. The prisoners executed are not necessarily only those who committed the worst crimes, but also those who were too poor to hire skilled lawyers to defend them or those who faced harsher prosecutors or judges.
· Officials responsible for fighting terrorism and political crimes have repeatedly pointed out that executions are as likely to increase such acts as they are to stop them.
· The reasons for a seemingly strong public support for the death penalty can be complex and lacking in factual foundation. Public support for the death penalty is most often based on the erroneous belief that it is an effecive measure against crime. What the public overwhelmingly want is truly effective measures to reduce criminality.
III. Supporting views in favour of Capital punishment
· A modern society that outlaws the death penalty does not send a message of reverence for life, but a message of moral confusion. When we outlaw the death panalty, we tell the murderer that, no matter what he may do to innocent people in our custody the care, women, children, old people, his most treasured possession, his life, is secure. We guarantee it in advance. Just as a nation that declares that nothing will make it go to war finds itself at the mercy of warlike regimes, so a society that will not put the worst of its criminals to death will find itself at the mercy of criminals who have no qualms about putting innocent people to death.
· Advocates of Capital Punishment aver that it is a ‘deterrent proviso’ in the law which may dissuade or at least reduce future acts of murder, espionage, extremely violent activities, etc.,
· However, unsaid, what is consciously or sub consciously sought by advocates of Capital Punishment is for the State to ‘avenge’ for the dastardly act of the one who commited the crime. In other words, the demand is for the State to ensure / effect ‘retribution’ for the henious crime committed. Again camaflouging this desire to punish, the demand, euphimistically, is made in the name of ‘justice’ ( it is noticed that the fourth estate also invaraibly confuses justice with retributition/ avenging. In a land dispute or a retrenchment or on such civil matters, court’s role is to hand down ‘ justice.’ In other words, the judiciary does justice to the aggrieved party. But how can death punishment to the accused bring about justice to the victim or his family?)
· Deterrent is the main plank of those who are advocating death penalty. But they do not have answer to the vital question whether death penalty had worked as deterrent. There is hardly any way of verifying this assumption. On a matter like this opinion polls could go widely off the mark. It is extremely subjective. The replies would be based on assumptions. One may feel it is a deterrent but another may feel it is not.
· Should nations continue with the concept of an ‘ eye for an eye’? Should that be the approach of a civilised society. Then what is the diference between the barbaric kings of yesteryears and today’s society which I supposed to be ‘civilised.’
· If the State can murder me because I killed somebody, then what is the difference between my action and the action of the State. Should not the State be above such abhorrent behaviour.
· Should the State have power on the lives of its citizens. A counterpoint would be made that when a State goes to war, it sends its soldiers to fight knowing very well that some soldiers may be killed.
· Murder could have been committed in a rage. Rape could have been committed either due to extreme provocation or uncontrollable passion. It could be argued that these are aberrations to the normal behavious of the culprit. While considering the subject matter, these aberrations have to be necessarily taken into account.
· By awarding Capital Punishment, the state not only takes away a life but punishes the family of the person condemned to death. To this there could be counter argument that when a person is put in jail for years, his family is also seriously affected.
· Period of sentences awarded are at times reduced for good behaviour. But then somebody who has been awarded Capital Punishment is denied such an opportunity.
· Finally, on matters such as these State cannot make decisions based on opinion polls ( ‘ go to war with that country ‘ – so says opinion polls. Should the State then act accordingly ?) Decisions have to be taken by the State on the basis of mature consideration of the matter by wise and mature persons.
*******
I. Facts & Statistics
· 137 countries have abolished death penalty in law or practice
· This list of 137 countries include EU and most of the States of USA
· 60 countries, including India, have retained Capital punishment, though mainly imposed on people convicted of murder or terrorism.
· At least 1252 people were known to have been executed in 24 countreis in 2007, out of which 88% took place in China ( by far the largest number ), Iran, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and US.
· Most of the polls conducted in various countries in the recent past indicate that majority of people want to retain this form of punishment.
· Amnesty International is against Capital Punishment.
· Stand of various religions has been somewhat abiguous on this issue.
II. Reasons given by Amnesty International for opposing Capital punishment
· The death penalty is the ultimate denial of human rights. It is the premeditated and cold blooded killing of a human being by the state in the name of justice. It violates the right to life as proclaimed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights adopted by the United Nations’ General Assembly in 1948. It is the ultimate cruel, inhuman and degrading punishment.
· Like torture, an execution constitutes an extreme physical and mental assault on the individual. The physical pain caused by the action of killing a human being cannot be quantified, nor can the psychological suffering caused by foreknowledge of death at the hands of the state.
· As long as human justice remains fallible, the risk of executing the innocent can never be eliminaed.
· Capital punishment in vogue in various countries has not shown to have a special deterrent effect. It denies the possibility of rehabilitation and reconciliation. It promotes simplistic responses to complex human problems, rather than pursuing explanations that could inform positive strategies. It prolongs the suffering of the murder victim’s family, and extends that suffering to the loved ones of the condemned prisoner.
· The death penalty has been and coninues to be used as a tool of political repression, as a means to silence forever political opponents or to eliminate politically ‘ troublesome’ individuals.
· Thousands have been put to death under one government only to be recognized as innocent victims when the new government comes to power.
· Death penalty is not an act of self-defence against an immediate threat to life. It is the premeditated killing of a prisoner who could therefore be dealt with equally well by less harsh means.
· Too many governments believe that they can solve urgent social or political problems by executing a few or even hundreds of their prisoners. Too many citizens in too many countries are still unaware that the death penalty offers society not further protection but further brutalization.
· Scientific studies have consistently failed to find convincing evidence that death penalty deters crime more effectively than other punishments.
· Under the Statute of the International Criminal Court adopted in 1998, the death penalty is excluded from the punishment which the court is authorized to impose, even though it has jurisdiction over extremely grave crtimes, such as, crimes against humanity, including genocide, and violations of the laws of armed conflict.
· Recent crime figures from abolitionist countries fail to show that abolition of Capital Punishment has harmful effects. In fact the rate of crime had actually gone down.
· It is incorrect to assume that people who commit such serious crimes as murder do so after rationally calculating the consequences. Often murders are committed in moments when emotion overcomes reason or under the influence of drugs or alcohol. Some people who commit violent crime are highly unstable or mentally ill.
· Such an act ( Capital punishment ) by the state is the mirror image of the criminal’s willingness to use physical violence against a victim.
· Criminal justice systems are vulnerable to discrimination and error. No system is or could conceivably be capable of deciding failrly, consistently and infallibly who should live and who should die. Expediency, discretionary decisions and prevailing public opinion may influence the proceedings from the initial arrest to the last minute decision on clemency.
· Past experience demonstrates that whenever the death penalty is used some people will be killed while others who have committed similar or even worse crimes may be spared. The prisoners executed are not necessarily only those who committed the worst crimes, but also those who were too poor to hire skilled lawyers to defend them or those who faced harsher prosecutors or judges.
· Officials responsible for fighting terrorism and political crimes have repeatedly pointed out that executions are as likely to increase such acts as they are to stop them.
· The reasons for a seemingly strong public support for the death penalty can be complex and lacking in factual foundation. Public support for the death penalty is most often based on the erroneous belief that it is an effecive measure against crime. What the public overwhelmingly want is truly effective measures to reduce criminality.
III. Supporting views in favour of Capital punishment
· A modern society that outlaws the death penalty does not send a message of reverence for life, but a message of moral confusion. When we outlaw the death panalty, we tell the murderer that, no matter what he may do to innocent people in our custody the care, women, children, old people, his most treasured possession, his life, is secure. We guarantee it in advance. Just as a nation that declares that nothing will make it go to war finds itself at the mercy of warlike regimes, so a society that will not put the worst of its criminals to death will find itself at the mercy of criminals who have no qualms about putting innocent people to death.
· Advocates of Capital Punishment aver that it is a ‘deterrent proviso’ in the law which may dissuade or at least reduce future acts of murder, espionage, extremely violent activities, etc.,
· However, unsaid, what is consciously or sub consciously sought by advocates of Capital Punishment is for the State to ‘avenge’ for the dastardly act of the one who commited the crime. In other words, the demand is for the State to ensure / effect ‘retribution’ for the henious crime committed. Again camaflouging this desire to punish, the demand, euphimistically, is made in the name of ‘justice’ ( it is noticed that the fourth estate also invaraibly confuses justice with retributition/ avenging. In a land dispute or a retrenchment or on such civil matters, court’s role is to hand down ‘ justice.’ In other words, the judiciary does justice to the aggrieved party. But how can death punishment to the accused bring about justice to the victim or his family?)
· Deterrent is the main plank of those who are advocating death penalty. But they do not have answer to the vital question whether death penalty had worked as deterrent. There is hardly any way of verifying this assumption. On a matter like this opinion polls could go widely off the mark. It is extremely subjective. The replies would be based on assumptions. One may feel it is a deterrent but another may feel it is not.
· Should nations continue with the concept of an ‘ eye for an eye’? Should that be the approach of a civilised society. Then what is the diference between the barbaric kings of yesteryears and today’s society which I supposed to be ‘civilised.’
· If the State can murder me because I killed somebody, then what is the difference between my action and the action of the State. Should not the State be above such abhorrent behaviour.
· Should the State have power on the lives of its citizens. A counterpoint would be made that when a State goes to war, it sends its soldiers to fight knowing very well that some soldiers may be killed.
· Murder could have been committed in a rage. Rape could have been committed either due to extreme provocation or uncontrollable passion. It could be argued that these are aberrations to the normal behavious of the culprit. While considering the subject matter, these aberrations have to be necessarily taken into account.
· By awarding Capital Punishment, the state not only takes away a life but punishes the family of the person condemned to death. To this there could be counter argument that when a person is put in jail for years, his family is also seriously affected.
· Period of sentences awarded are at times reduced for good behaviour. But then somebody who has been awarded Capital Punishment is denied such an opportunity.
· Finally, on matters such as these State cannot make decisions based on opinion polls ( ‘ go to war with that country ‘ – so says opinion polls. Should the State then act accordingly ?) Decisions have to be taken by the State on the basis of mature consideration of the matter by wise and mature persons.
*******
Sunday, November 9, 2008
Meditation and ability to withstand extreme stress
According to a newspaper report:
“Investigators are finding Pragnya Singh Thakur alias Sadhvi Purnachetanand Giri, arrested by Maharashtran Police for her alleged involvement in the Malegaon blast case, a tough nut to crack. And they are blaming her expertise in meditation. The report further says that powered by her meditation training, the 36 year old priestess knows how to control her mind and body mechanism.
A polygraph or a lie detector measures and records several physiological responses like blood pressure, pulse, respiration and skin condutivity when a person is subjected to a series of questions. It measures phisiological changes caused by the sympathetic nervous system during questioning. These are different when people lie.
But in the case of this yogini, since she has been practicing the meditation methods for years and can control her responses making it really tough to believe if the answers even under the polygraph can be believed.”
I have read extensively on Mediation by various experts and none had made this point. Further, I have been doing meditation for a long time. It gives peace of mind and at times one can experience bliss. Meditation calms the worrying mind. Problems confronting one appear to be not that serious after meditation. Meditation provides antidote against negative emotions, such as, anger, envy, anxiety, fear, etc., But I find it difficult to accept the theory of police.
But if we accept what the Police say, then there are immense possibilities. Parents in the case of their off-springs, wives in the case of their hubbies and close friends in the case of close friends, can without any effort detect when a lie is said. Now those who read the above report, and if they believe in what has been said, are going to join meditation courses. What about politicians, spies, lazy office staff, etc., Many of them would at least try their hand in learning meditation. Some of these species are adept in it without any learning of meditation. Yet there may be those who are worried at their inability to speak a lie with a straight face. For all those the above report would give some hope. It is a known fact that wives can, by just looking at the husband even before the husband opens his mouth, know in advance whether the husband is going lie, not to speak of finding out the same after the husband has spoken. Same is not the case of husbands so far as lies said by wives. Husbands are not the only group. Children are always surprised when the mothers find out when they lie. Hence if they read this report they are going to join covertly some meditation course. Of course, lawyers need no such course, because they are adept in lying without being found out.
And think of the explosive demand for our expertise in meditation in the world markets. Crooks abound everywhere. Not only present day crooks but those who want to opt out for that profession would like to have a special course in meditation which can beat a lie detector.
Lie we do and we have no qualm about doing it. What we don’t like is the person lied to finding out the truth by looking straight at us so that our eyes or our facial expression or our whole demeanour give away whether what we said is the whole truth.
In the matter of lying, the general conviction is that so long as the lie is white one ( and not black or red one ) there is not much harm in indulging in it.
I am sure that some of the readers of my write ups are way ahead of me in the art of lying undetected. I would like to hear from those veterans. I would like to assure them that not only their names would remain secret until my death but more than that I would be ever lastingly grateful to them for making my life a wee bit better.
I have studied the subject of lying in depth. There are lies and lies. White ones, black ones, yellow ones, etc., I will share my expertise with all of you at no fee at some time in the future.
Nominated members of Rajya Sabha
N.K. Singh, who was former Cabinet Secretary, and Rangarajan, former Governor of RBI and currently Chairman of PM’s Advisory Coucil for Economic Affairs are the personse who have been nominated to the Rajya Sabha in the recent times. And look at the names of some ( names of all those nomninated are not given ) of the eminenet personalities nominated to Rajya Sabha in the past, as below:
Vyjayantimala Bali, Dr. Raja Ramanna, Mrinal Sen, Shabana Azmi, Kuldip Nayyar, Lata Mangeshkar, Fali S. Nariman, Cho. S. Ramaswamy, Bimal Jalan, Dara Singh, Hema Malini, Dr. Chandan Mitra, Dr. K. Kasturirangan, Shobhana Bhartia, Shyam Benegal
Constitution makers made this provision so that Rajya Sabha would have the benefit of the views of eminent personalities in different disciplines. But with the passage of time, it has become largely one of giving favours to individuals by the senior politicians. With the slow degeneration of values this was bound to happen. They are not the heavy weights in politics who get sufficient time to express their views on any subject. These nominated MPs are not gate crashers like some of the politicians who, ignoring the command of Chairman of the House would go on speaking expressing their views. Hence these nominated MPs speak only rarely, which is largely ignored by other MPs. What they say, not being sensational, is largely ignored by the fourth estate also.
But my focus on this brief write up is why these people at all want to get into Rajya Sabha. Yes, some are nominated by the State without their asking or seeking. But in the case of some, if not many, nomination is the outcome of extensive lobbying. What attracts these people to become members of Rajya Sabha. Over a period of time MPs have been devalued. Most of the people nominated have excelled in different disciplines and they are revered by many people in the country. That is not the case with MPs these days. They can do a lot of service to the country by contributing to the area of their discipline. Then what attracts them to be MPs. Salary and perks. Considering that most of those nominated are well off, this cannot be an attraction. To help them lobbying with the Government for their disciplines. They can do this without being an MP.
The issue foxes me.
“Investigators are finding Pragnya Singh Thakur alias Sadhvi Purnachetanand Giri, arrested by Maharashtran Police for her alleged involvement in the Malegaon blast case, a tough nut to crack. And they are blaming her expertise in meditation. The report further says that powered by her meditation training, the 36 year old priestess knows how to control her mind and body mechanism.
A polygraph or a lie detector measures and records several physiological responses like blood pressure, pulse, respiration and skin condutivity when a person is subjected to a series of questions. It measures phisiological changes caused by the sympathetic nervous system during questioning. These are different when people lie.
But in the case of this yogini, since she has been practicing the meditation methods for years and can control her responses making it really tough to believe if the answers even under the polygraph can be believed.”
I have read extensively on Mediation by various experts and none had made this point. Further, I have been doing meditation for a long time. It gives peace of mind and at times one can experience bliss. Meditation calms the worrying mind. Problems confronting one appear to be not that serious after meditation. Meditation provides antidote against negative emotions, such as, anger, envy, anxiety, fear, etc., But I find it difficult to accept the theory of police.
But if we accept what the Police say, then there are immense possibilities. Parents in the case of their off-springs, wives in the case of their hubbies and close friends in the case of close friends, can without any effort detect when a lie is said. Now those who read the above report, and if they believe in what has been said, are going to join meditation courses. What about politicians, spies, lazy office staff, etc., Many of them would at least try their hand in learning meditation. Some of these species are adept in it without any learning of meditation. Yet there may be those who are worried at their inability to speak a lie with a straight face. For all those the above report would give some hope. It is a known fact that wives can, by just looking at the husband even before the husband opens his mouth, know in advance whether the husband is going lie, not to speak of finding out the same after the husband has spoken. Same is not the case of husbands so far as lies said by wives. Husbands are not the only group. Children are always surprised when the mothers find out when they lie. Hence if they read this report they are going to join covertly some meditation course. Of course, lawyers need no such course, because they are adept in lying without being found out.
And think of the explosive demand for our expertise in meditation in the world markets. Crooks abound everywhere. Not only present day crooks but those who want to opt out for that profession would like to have a special course in meditation which can beat a lie detector.
Lie we do and we have no qualm about doing it. What we don’t like is the person lied to finding out the truth by looking straight at us so that our eyes or our facial expression or our whole demeanour give away whether what we said is the whole truth.
In the matter of lying, the general conviction is that so long as the lie is white one ( and not black or red one ) there is not much harm in indulging in it.
I am sure that some of the readers of my write ups are way ahead of me in the art of lying undetected. I would like to hear from those veterans. I would like to assure them that not only their names would remain secret until my death but more than that I would be ever lastingly grateful to them for making my life a wee bit better.
I have studied the subject of lying in depth. There are lies and lies. White ones, black ones, yellow ones, etc., I will share my expertise with all of you at no fee at some time in the future.
Nominated members of Rajya Sabha
N.K. Singh, who was former Cabinet Secretary, and Rangarajan, former Governor of RBI and currently Chairman of PM’s Advisory Coucil for Economic Affairs are the personse who have been nominated to the Rajya Sabha in the recent times. And look at the names of some ( names of all those nomninated are not given ) of the eminenet personalities nominated to Rajya Sabha in the past, as below:
Vyjayantimala Bali, Dr. Raja Ramanna, Mrinal Sen, Shabana Azmi, Kuldip Nayyar, Lata Mangeshkar, Fali S. Nariman, Cho. S. Ramaswamy, Bimal Jalan, Dara Singh, Hema Malini, Dr. Chandan Mitra, Dr. K. Kasturirangan, Shobhana Bhartia, Shyam Benegal
Constitution makers made this provision so that Rajya Sabha would have the benefit of the views of eminent personalities in different disciplines. But with the passage of time, it has become largely one of giving favours to individuals by the senior politicians. With the slow degeneration of values this was bound to happen. They are not the heavy weights in politics who get sufficient time to express their views on any subject. These nominated MPs are not gate crashers like some of the politicians who, ignoring the command of Chairman of the House would go on speaking expressing their views. Hence these nominated MPs speak only rarely, which is largely ignored by other MPs. What they say, not being sensational, is largely ignored by the fourth estate also.
But my focus on this brief write up is why these people at all want to get into Rajya Sabha. Yes, some are nominated by the State without their asking or seeking. But in the case of some, if not many, nomination is the outcome of extensive lobbying. What attracts these people to become members of Rajya Sabha. Over a period of time MPs have been devalued. Most of the people nominated have excelled in different disciplines and they are revered by many people in the country. That is not the case with MPs these days. They can do a lot of service to the country by contributing to the area of their discipline. Then what attracts them to be MPs. Salary and perks. Considering that most of those nominated are well off, this cannot be an attraction. To help them lobbying with the Government for their disciplines. They can do this without being an MP.
The issue foxes me.
Sunday, November 2, 2008
Corruption Perception Index
Transperancy International ( TI ) is a non Governmental organisation, which has been coming out with Corruption Perception Index of various countries during the last few years. TI has chapters in various countries which are manned by eminent persons. Admiral Tahilani, formerce Chief of Indian Navy, is the Chief of TI Chapter in India.
Governments of countries, which are identified in the higher level of Corruption Perception Index, obviously are chary of both quoting the Index or accepting the veracity of the Index. Yet it is a fact that over a period of time world-wide there is considerable credibility to the Index.
In the Index published by TI for the year, India has been ranked at 74, i.e., there are 73 countries in the world which according to TI have levels of corruption less than that of India. It is the Scandinavian counrtries which are least corrupt. Then comes most of the Western countries.
The Corruption Perception Index has sometimes been criticized as the perception of a select few, since it ignores the perception of the wider population, and instead focuses on that of a few experts like the rest of science does. Furthermore, some have opined that the index analyzes a "mere perception", and that the method followed in preparing the index couldn't measure institutional corruption.
While on can’t dismiss the above view points, still the fact remains that India is a very corupt country, a fact known to all Indians and those foreign inviduals or institutions which had to do business or work in India.
Having lived with corruption for such a long time, unfortunately, Indians tend to accept the same as a fact of life and resigned to the situation. But why should it be so. Consider the massive investments being made by Government for improving the lot of the poor. But a large part of such investment does not reach the poor because of massive corruption. Further, project cost goes up because of corruption. In brief, corruption corrodes our endeavour to improve the position of India and Indians. There is also the danger of corruption being accepted as a part of life in this blesseed country. Today, there is hardly any stigma attached to it. One does not mind friendship at individual or family level with corupt people. That is the tragedy of India.
Downward journey of fourth estate
· Electronic media is increasingly reporting remarks and issues out of context. TV channels ignore wittingly or unwittingly historical context, nuance, explanatory arguments and the innate complexity of issues and personalities involved in the news. There is often ‘ Do you continue to beat your wife‘ syndrome, whereby both answers of ‘ yes ‘ and ‘ no’ would show in poor light the person replying the question .
· There is a wide-spread perception that both print and visual media are slowly pandering too much to the base instincts of human beings and abdicating from giving perceptive analysis on serious matters, with not a single angle but inclusive of both pros and cons. One must hasten to add that there could be developments where there may be only ‘ pros ‘ or ‘con.’ But objective reporting is being increasingly substituted with subjective reporting. Frivolous angles are highlighted. Depth and content are both slipping away slowly. Sort of Americanism is seeping, i.e., unwanted aggression in the coverage and comments and question & answers and in dress style of female anchors. . Scandals are given repeated coverage and often blown out of proportion.
· The arguments of the media that they are all the time pressed for time, that they are only catering to the tastes of the viewers / readers, that they are following the trend in advanced countries, that the time span of viewer on any matter is short, etc., while cannot be dismissed should be taken as an excuse rather than justification. To some extent it is the print and visual media which influences the tastes of viewers. So first they influence viewers / readers by repeatedly presenting news as mentioned above and then they take the stand that what they give is according to the tastes of the viewers.
Why should our worthy Prime Minister curry for favour
‘Indian people love you’ – So said Mr. Manmohan Singh to Mr. Bush. The allergy of Karat against anything American prompted him to caustically comment ‘ Yes, we all know that Manmohan Singh likes Bush but why should he bring Indian people into the statement. While I am not in cahoots with Karat in his total hatred for the Americans, in this instance I agree with him. Why should a level headed Man Mohan Singh make such a statement. Most of the Indians have no admiration and much less love for Bush.
Nobel prize for peace.
Former Finnish President was selected for the Nobel Peace Prize and the print media published this in one of the inside pages with a short write up, as against the hoopla created by the print media when the prize is given to a known personality. Yes, when it is a well known figure, there is bound to be detailed write ups and at times criticism on the choice. But does that mean a figure unknown in Indian circles should be virtually written off with a few sentences.
Resistance to change related to modernity:
A lady teacher in West Bengal School has been taken to task by the management of the school for wearing salwar kameez instead of the usual dress of saree for the teachers in the school. ‘ We have nothing against the salwar kameez but there is something called tradition,’ so said the management. Apart from other reasons for wearing saree, the lady teacher has said that she has to travel in bus for coming and going to school and salwar kameez is more comfortable and convenient for traveling in bus rather than saree. In many parts of the country salwar kameez was taken in the past as North Indian dress. However, during the last few years in many places, particularly in cities and towns, both girls / women in large number, and the number is increasing as time goes by, have opted for salwar kameez. It is also catching up in villages.
Somerset Maugham had said that tradition is a guide and not a jailer. For many elders in this country tradition is a non negotiable mater, rooted as they are to tradition
Sacrifices of judges
When it comes to self interest – or should one term it as ‘ selfish interest, ‘ judges are not above you and me. In the aftermath of Pay Commission recommendations, there have been statements of sitting and retired judges to the effect that ‘ the judges of HCs and SC, who are experts in law, have sacrificed lucrative practice at bar to serve the country.’ It is the hyperbole that was used by serving and retired soldiers of all ranks for claiming higher remuneration, i.e., ‘ sacrifice ‘ for the country. From the bar once a while somebody is seconded to the Bench by Government. Those advocates who have lucrative practice often decline the offer of Government because of level of salary of Judges, which by itself is not on the lower side but when compared to good practice in the bar would be less. But then there is prestige in being a judge.
The job of a successful senior lawyer is very arduous as compared to that of judge. A judge gets his salary and perks irrespective of the level of his performance. Not so in the case of advocates. And then there is life long pension for judges, which is not the case with Advocates. So where is the question of ‘ sacrifice.’ In any case they joined the Judicial service in the beginning because of the prestige. Now you can’t have the cake and eat it too.
The hoopla on banning of smoking in public places
The media, both print and visual, have covered this action of the Government as a momentous one. As if a burning problem ( double entendre intended ) facing the nation, has been effectively dealt with. Now what are the facts. Over 90% of the smoking in this blessed country is of bidis. Though strictly speaking smoking of bidis has also been banned in public places. But the fact is that bidis are never smoked in public places. Even after the ban, one can smoke in his house and in open areas. Only in public places, i.e., offices, cinema theatres, eateries, etc., the ban is applicable. Smokers working in offices would go out of the office and smoke. They will smoke in cars. Yes, a few would be booked. I a m a smoker and yet I support the ban. But I am not going to be hooked in to the wild cheering for this step of the Government
Transperancy International ( TI ) is a non Governmental organisation, which has been coming out with Corruption Perception Index of various countries during the last few years. TI has chapters in various countries which are manned by eminent persons. Admiral Tahilani, formerce Chief of Indian Navy, is the Chief of TI Chapter in India.
Governments of countries, which are identified in the higher level of Corruption Perception Index, obviously are chary of both quoting the Index or accepting the veracity of the Index. Yet it is a fact that over a period of time world-wide there is considerable credibility to the Index.
In the Index published by TI for the year, India has been ranked at 74, i.e., there are 73 countries in the world which according to TI have levels of corruption less than that of India. It is the Scandinavian counrtries which are least corrupt. Then comes most of the Western countries.
The Corruption Perception Index has sometimes been criticized as the perception of a select few, since it ignores the perception of the wider population, and instead focuses on that of a few experts like the rest of science does. Furthermore, some have opined that the index analyzes a "mere perception", and that the method followed in preparing the index couldn't measure institutional corruption.
While on can’t dismiss the above view points, still the fact remains that India is a very corupt country, a fact known to all Indians and those foreign inviduals or institutions which had to do business or work in India.
Having lived with corruption for such a long time, unfortunately, Indians tend to accept the same as a fact of life and resigned to the situation. But why should it be so. Consider the massive investments being made by Government for improving the lot of the poor. But a large part of such investment does not reach the poor because of massive corruption. Further, project cost goes up because of corruption. In brief, corruption corrodes our endeavour to improve the position of India and Indians. There is also the danger of corruption being accepted as a part of life in this blesseed country. Today, there is hardly any stigma attached to it. One does not mind friendship at individual or family level with corupt people. That is the tragedy of India.
Downward journey of fourth estate
· Electronic media is increasingly reporting remarks and issues out of context. TV channels ignore wittingly or unwittingly historical context, nuance, explanatory arguments and the innate complexity of issues and personalities involved in the news. There is often ‘ Do you continue to beat your wife‘ syndrome, whereby both answers of ‘ yes ‘ and ‘ no’ would show in poor light the person replying the question .
· There is a wide-spread perception that both print and visual media are slowly pandering too much to the base instincts of human beings and abdicating from giving perceptive analysis on serious matters, with not a single angle but inclusive of both pros and cons. One must hasten to add that there could be developments where there may be only ‘ pros ‘ or ‘con.’ But objective reporting is being increasingly substituted with subjective reporting. Frivolous angles are highlighted. Depth and content are both slipping away slowly. Sort of Americanism is seeping, i.e., unwanted aggression in the coverage and comments and question & answers and in dress style of female anchors. . Scandals are given repeated coverage and often blown out of proportion.
· The arguments of the media that they are all the time pressed for time, that they are only catering to the tastes of the viewers / readers, that they are following the trend in advanced countries, that the time span of viewer on any matter is short, etc., while cannot be dismissed should be taken as an excuse rather than justification. To some extent it is the print and visual media which influences the tastes of viewers. So first they influence viewers / readers by repeatedly presenting news as mentioned above and then they take the stand that what they give is according to the tastes of the viewers.
Why should our worthy Prime Minister curry for favour
‘Indian people love you’ – So said Mr. Manmohan Singh to Mr. Bush. The allergy of Karat against anything American prompted him to caustically comment ‘ Yes, we all know that Manmohan Singh likes Bush but why should he bring Indian people into the statement. While I am not in cahoots with Karat in his total hatred for the Americans, in this instance I agree with him. Why should a level headed Man Mohan Singh make such a statement. Most of the Indians have no admiration and much less love for Bush.
Nobel prize for peace.
Former Finnish President was selected for the Nobel Peace Prize and the print media published this in one of the inside pages with a short write up, as against the hoopla created by the print media when the prize is given to a known personality. Yes, when it is a well known figure, there is bound to be detailed write ups and at times criticism on the choice. But does that mean a figure unknown in Indian circles should be virtually written off with a few sentences.
Resistance to change related to modernity:
A lady teacher in West Bengal School has been taken to task by the management of the school for wearing salwar kameez instead of the usual dress of saree for the teachers in the school. ‘ We have nothing against the salwar kameez but there is something called tradition,’ so said the management. Apart from other reasons for wearing saree, the lady teacher has said that she has to travel in bus for coming and going to school and salwar kameez is more comfortable and convenient for traveling in bus rather than saree. In many parts of the country salwar kameez was taken in the past as North Indian dress. However, during the last few years in many places, particularly in cities and towns, both girls / women in large number, and the number is increasing as time goes by, have opted for salwar kameez. It is also catching up in villages.
Somerset Maugham had said that tradition is a guide and not a jailer. For many elders in this country tradition is a non negotiable mater, rooted as they are to tradition
Sacrifices of judges
When it comes to self interest – or should one term it as ‘ selfish interest, ‘ judges are not above you and me. In the aftermath of Pay Commission recommendations, there have been statements of sitting and retired judges to the effect that ‘ the judges of HCs and SC, who are experts in law, have sacrificed lucrative practice at bar to serve the country.’ It is the hyperbole that was used by serving and retired soldiers of all ranks for claiming higher remuneration, i.e., ‘ sacrifice ‘ for the country. From the bar once a while somebody is seconded to the Bench by Government. Those advocates who have lucrative practice often decline the offer of Government because of level of salary of Judges, which by itself is not on the lower side but when compared to good practice in the bar would be less. But then there is prestige in being a judge.
The job of a successful senior lawyer is very arduous as compared to that of judge. A judge gets his salary and perks irrespective of the level of his performance. Not so in the case of advocates. And then there is life long pension for judges, which is not the case with Advocates. So where is the question of ‘ sacrifice.’ In any case they joined the Judicial service in the beginning because of the prestige. Now you can’t have the cake and eat it too.
The hoopla on banning of smoking in public places
The media, both print and visual, have covered this action of the Government as a momentous one. As if a burning problem ( double entendre intended ) facing the nation, has been effectively dealt with. Now what are the facts. Over 90% of the smoking in this blessed country is of bidis. Though strictly speaking smoking of bidis has also been banned in public places. But the fact is that bidis are never smoked in public places. Even after the ban, one can smoke in his house and in open areas. Only in public places, i.e., offices, cinema theatres, eateries, etc., the ban is applicable. Smokers working in offices would go out of the office and smoke. They will smoke in cars. Yes, a few would be booked. I a m a smoker and yet I support the ban. But I am not going to be hooked in to the wild cheering for this step of the Government
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
