Terrorism and communal violence must carry same stigma and punishment

Three men have been marched to the gallows in recent years in India. All three were convicted of terror crimes. By contrast, I cannot recall a single person awarded the death penalty for communal violence since Independence.

Yakub Memon, convicted for complicity in the 1993 Bombay terror blasts, spent 21 years in prison without a day’s parole before his hanging. Maya Kodnani, convicted for being what the trial court described as the ‘kingpin’ in the 2002 massacre in Naroda Patiya which left 97 people dead — including 35 women and 36 children who were burnt alive, stabbed and dismembered — was awarded imprisonment for life. But she was granted three months’ bail in November 2013 for medical treatment, and the Gujarat High Court confirmed her bail for ill-health from July 2014, which continues until the time of writing.

In both popular, social common sense and the ways in which the laws are designed and implemented in India, there is an implied hierarchy of crimes, in which gravest crimes are seen to be those connected with terror and violence, meriting harsh laws, criminal procedures that severely curtail human rights of the accused, and stricter penalties including death. However, communal violence is akin to terror crimes because it is also driven by hate ideologies and target innocent populations with death and destruction. It is remarkable that these do not carry the same censure and disgrace as terror crimes, both in popular morality and in the framing and implementation of the law.

Read | Old pain, just in new bottles

This hierarchy of crimes was accepted in the Law Commission report, chaired by progressive Justice AP Shah, which recommended the abolition of the death penalty in all crimes except terror-related ones and waging war against the State. This same idea — that crimes of terror fall into a different category from other crimes, including those that target people for their religious and caste identities — is the rationale for special terror laws in India (as in many parts of the world). These laws dilute accepted standards of human rights protection of the accused. They permit statements before police officials as evidence admissible in courts, ignoring that such statements may have been coercively obtained by torture. They delay the period for communicating charges and submitting charge-sheets, and discourage bail.

There are some who argue that these human costs are regrettable but inevitable when the country battles the ever-looming perils of terror attacks; the costs of possible injustice to a small number are morally acceptable to protect the majority from terror violence. This is a deeply problematic position because justice is indivisible and injustice to some cannot result in authentic justice for the many. However, even in a practical sense, officially sanctioned and effected injustice can only breed fear and discontent that would further imperil the social order.

Remarkably, the same arguments are not applied to communal hate crimes. We have studied the aftermath of many communal massacres since Independence, and what binds them all is the pattern that few, if any, are punished for these crimes. This is the outcome of the communal bias or apathy of all arms of the criminal justice system: The police, prosecution, and courts; and the political, social and economic powerlessness of the victims of communal crimes. Among the survivors of these crimes — many of whom fight epic and hopeless battles for justice like the widows of the 1984 Sikh massacre or the survivors of the 2002 Gujarat massacre — there is little popular outrage that these crimes go unpunished. Unlike for terror crimes, there is no demand for special laws and procedures to ensure different standards of gathering evidence, issuing bail and punishment for those who commit hate crimes against persons of a particular religion or caste. We wish to see those responsible for the 1993 Mumbai blasts hang, but we are indifferent when those named guilty by the judicial commission for the Mumbai communal killings in 1992-93 continue to walk free.

Read | 1984 riots: GK seeks Modi’s help for expediting probe into cases

I am neither making a case for death penalty for perpetrators of communal violence, nor for the dilution of their basic human rights. What I am arguing is that both popular stigma and the imperative of law should apply equally to those who are alleged to participate in terror crimes as those who are charged with hate crimes targeting persons for their religious or caste identity. The selectivity of or popular outrage and the application of the majesty of the legal system reveals a very troubling underlying majoritarian bias in society and law. A majority of those charged with terror crimes are religious minorities. While a majority of those charged with communal crimes are from the majority Hindu community, its victims are mostly religious minorities.

If law and social outrage apply so differently when the minority is charged with hate crimes from when they are the paramount victims of mass hate crimes, then the promises of a secular Constitution — of equal treatment of all before the law — stands exposed, in tatters.

Harsh Mander is convener, Aman Biradari

Source: Hindustan Times, 16-03-2016

 Selflessness is Love

MATA AMRITANANDAMAYI





Selfless action is the outward expression of selfless love.When the heart is filled with love, it expresses itself in the form of unselfish action. One is a deep inner feeling and the other its outward manifestation. Without deep, unconditional love, selfless actions cannot be performed.In the initial stages of our awakening, the actions we perform in the name of selflessness are not selfless, because the love we feel for ourselves is present in everything we do and say . In fact, at the beginning of our journey , our selflove becomes the driving force for each of our actions, even if we choose to call them selfless.Love for the ego, or oneself, is the predominant feeling in every human being. Unless this feeling recedes, real selflessness will not emerge.
Alertness is necessary to prevent the ego from interfering.It is easier to be in love with the ego than feel truly inspired by the ideal of selflessness.
Generally , the selflessness we speak of is actually selfish, because everything stems from the ego. Nothing can be selfless unless it springs directly from the heart, from our true Self.That is why sages have said you should know your own Self before you can love and serve others selflessly . You have to be free of the mind to be selfless.
By helping others, we are, in fact, helping ourselves. On the other hand, we harm ourselves by being selfish. Whenever you perform a good or bad action, it is reflected in the Universal Consciousness. Therefore, learn to be selfless and proffer blessings on one and all.

Environment 4th of behind 1 global deaths'

BLOOMBERG





The lead in the water in Flint, Michigan, is a devastating reminder of how closely human health is intertwined with the environment. While the Flint crisis may be an egregious example of cruelty and neglect, the damaging consequences of a broken environment are all around us, a new tally by the World Health Organization shows.Nearly a quarter of all sed by environmental risks like polluted air, dirty water, hazardous workplaces and dangerous roads, according to the WHO report. The global health authority estimates that 12.6 million deaths in 2012, or about 23% of the total, were attributable to such factors. The burden is greatest on the poor and the youngest. Mortality from environmental risks is highest in sub-Saharan Africa and lowand middle-income countries in Asia.
The risks disproportionately affect children “because of their innate vulnerability ,“ said Frederica Perera, director of Columbia Center for Children's Environmental Health.
The WHO report-which doesn't count risks such as smoking and diet-focuses on environmental risks that are the product of the societal decisions that shape the world we live in. “Some of these are well known, such as unsafe drinking water and sanitation,“ the report says.
To get to those numbers, the WHO examined studies on risks for more than 100 types of diseases and injuries.

Source: Times of India, 16-03-2016

Interest of child comes first: SC

T PUTS IN PLACE SAFEGUARDS AGAINST TRAFFICKING OF CHILDREN IN THE NAME OF ADOPTION: BENCH

Noting that the interests should be kept “first and foremost” during adoption, the Supreme Court on Monday directed the Centre and the States to frame regulations under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act, 2015 to implement the new guidelines for in-country and inter-country adoption to make the process transparent, friendly and fool-proof.

“Whether it is in-country or inter-country adoption, the interest of the child should be supreme. There should be no compromise whatsoever,” Chief Justice of India T.S. Thakur, who headed a three-judge Bench, told the Centre.

The new juvenile law defines “adoption” as the process through which the adopted child is permanently separated from his biological parents and becomes the lawful child of his adoptive parents with all the rights, privileges and responsibilities that are attached to a biological child. Section 2 of the 2015 Act mandates that adoption regulations should be framed by the authority notified for the purpose by the Centre.

Terming the new law and its guidelines “comprehensive” and in line with the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child of 1989, the Supreme Court said it “puts in place safeguards against trafficking of children in the name of adoption.”

The government, represented by both Additional Solicitor-Generals Tushar Mehta and Pinky Anand, said the new Act brings adoption under the subject “care and protection of children” and “totally allays the fears of trafficking of children linked to inter-country adoption by making it transparent.”

However, the court said several steps were yet to be taken to effectuate the implementation in the States.

“We prodded you to make this law just like the Vishaka guidelines. This was Parliament’s function and not ours ... but nevertheless you have done it now,” Chief Justice Thakur said.

When Ms. Anand responded that the issue of adoption was “emotional” and problems all hard to confine in a statute, Chief Justice Thakur said that was all the more reason to codify it in law so that nobody took undue advantage of persons wanting a child. The court asked the government’s statistics on child adoption.

To this, Ms. Anand replied that in 2007, there were 1,560 in-country adoptions and 770 inter-country adoptions. In 2011, there were 5,964 in-country adoptions and 589 inter-country adoptions. In 2014-15, there were 3,988 in-country adoptions and 374 inter-country ones.

Disposing of the PIL filed by NGO Advait Foundation in 2012 highlighting the trafficking of children in the cover of adoption, the Bench, however, refused the NGO’s plea for an omnibus CBI probe into such rackets in the past in various parts of the country.

“Bring specific instances of adoption rackets, we will order for CBI investigation. You cannot ask for an omnibus CBI probe into all adoption issues,” Chief Justice Thakur said.

Keywords: new adoption law, Supreme Court, interest of child, Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act, 2015

Source: The Hindu, 15-03-2016

Why marital rape must be a crime

The question whether marital rape should be treated as a criminal offence has once again arisen after Union Minister for Women and Child Development Maneka Gandhi repeated the government’s stand in a written reply in Parliament. She said, “The concept of marital rape as understood internationally cannot be suitably applied in the Indian context due to various factors like level of education/illiteracy, poverty, myriad social customs and values, religious beliefs [and the] mindset of the society to treat the marriage as a sacrament.” This controversial formulation must be familiar to those calling for marital rape to be criminalised and those opposing it on the ground that it would ruin the institution of marriage. The argument that there is too little education and too many customs and beliefs in Indian society is often held up to stall legal reforms. The principal objection to the criminalisation of rape within a subsisting marriage is rooted in western tradition too. It originates in the common law principle of marriage as ‘coverture’, the idea that the woman is always under the husband’s protection and authority. In England, Matthew Hale’s 1736 dictum that a man can never be guilty of raping his lawful wife, “for by their mutual matrimonial consent and contract, the wife hath given herself up in this kind unto her husband which she cannot retract”, has been abandoned in progressive jurisdictions.

Also read: Marital rape: the numbers don’t lie

The Justice J.S. Verma committee, which recommended sweeping changes in the law relating to offences against women, called for marital rape to be made an offence. This was not implemented. The present Indian law exempts non-consensual sex between a husband and wife, not being less than 15 years of age, from being charged with rape. However, by another provision it makes rape of a wife who is living separately a criminal offence. The age limit of 15 years above which marital rape is not an offence is inherently problematic, as normally sex with a girl up to the age of 18 is an offence regardless of consent. The exemption given to marital rape, as Justice Verma noted, “stems from a long out-dated notion of marriage which regarded wives as no more than the property of their husbands”. Marital rape ought to be a crime and not a concept. Of course, there will be objections such as a perceived threat to the integrity of the marital union and the possibility of misuse of the penal provisions. It is not really true that the private or domestic domain has always been outside the purview of law. The law against domestic violence already covers both physical and sexual abuse as grounds for the legal system to intervene. It is difficult to argue that a complaint of marital rape will ruin a marriage, while a complaint of domestic violence against a spouse will not. It has long been time to jettison the notion of ‘implied consent’ in marriage. The law must uphold the bodily autonomy of all women, irrespective of their marital status.

Keywords: UNDP chief Helen Clark, marital rape, Maneka Gandhi, marriage, patriarchy, domestic violence, consent of spouse, husband and wife, misogyny in India

Source: The Hindu, 15-03-2016

Overcome All Fear

MAULANA WAHIDUDDIN KHAN





Fear being a problem of the mind, is unlikely to be allayed by physical solutions. So, it is better to identify the cause of fear and then overcome it by reasoning. Being a perfectionist, I wanted things to be in order. Whenever I found things were not in perfect order, I became distressed. This anxiety increased to such a great extent during my childhood that I wrote a poem that said, “Life seems to me to be a dreadful dream.“ I have read and thought a lot about this subject.According to the law of nature, man has to live with contradictions. The world is not perfect. Once I realised this, I developed a realistic approach to life. Becoming aware that `Maturity is the ability to live with things we cannot change,' I was able to rationalise the issue and live tension-free. The solution is not external; it has to be managed in the mind.
If you can become aware that fear is imaginary and not real, your mind will be rid of fear.Fear is apparently a negative experience, but there is a positive aspect to it. Fear stimulates intellectual activity , which leads to creative thinking. In this sense, fear has an important role to play in our lives.
Fear keeps one's mind alive.Without fear, one risks descending into a state of intellectual stagnation. We have, therefore, only one option before us, and that is, to control our minds so that we may regard fear as a positive rather than as a negative phenomenon.

What We Can Do To Get Happier

Stefan Klein





We see nothing strange in the study of unhappiness. Clinical psychologists have long attended to unpleasant feelings, and for the past two decades or so brain researchers have become increasingly knowledgeable about the origins of anger, fear and depression. An entire industry that sells pills against pathological dejection profits from their discoveries, as, indeed, do countless patients. But for a long time happiness was more or less shrugged off.We are now beginning to answer questions that people have always asked themselves. Is happiness more than simply the opposite of unhappiness? Is it genetic? Does the feeling of anger pass if you vent it? Is it possible to prolong the good moments? Does money make people happy? Can we stay in love with the same person all our life? What is the greatest happiness?
Central to answering these questions are two fairly recent insights of brain research. One concerns the parts of the brain that produce a sense of well-being: our brains have a special circuitry for joy, pleasure, and euphoria ­ we have a happiness system. Just as we come into the world with a capacity for speech, we are also programmed for positive feelings. This discovery will shape our understanding of mankind as powerfully as Freud's theories of the deep unconscious did in the last century .
The other, still more surprising discovery is that the adult brain continues to change.Until a few years ago scientists believed that the brain, like bones, was fully grown by the end of puberty . But exactly the opposite is true: the circuits in our brain are altered whenever we learn something, and new connections are forged in our network of nerve cells. Using the right microscopes, we can even see these transformations within the skull. These changes are triggered by thoughts, but even more by emotions.This means that with the right exercises we can increase our capacity for happiness. Much as we can learn a foreign language, we can train our natural aptitude for positive feelings.
Our happiness depends at least as much on our environment and our culture as on our genes, which is why we need to consider not only the brain as a source of happiness but also the cultural influences and the daily occurrences that set these processes in motion.
Unhappiness destroys the body . Happiness strengthens it.
Persistent fear and despondency endanger one's health because they cause stress. And stress increases the risk of dying of a heart attack or stroke, for example. By contrast, someone who has learnt to contain his dark moods and to fortify his sunny ones is also taking care of his body . Positive feelings counteract stress and its consequences for health.They even stimulate the immune system.
They increase mental productivity even more. In terms of the brain, thoughts and feelings are two sides of the same coin: happy people are more creative, and, as many studies show, they solve problems better and more quickly . Happiness makes people smart, and not just momentarily , but permanently . Positive feelings stimulate growth in the nerve connections in the brain ­ happiness and new mental associations go together.
Finally , happy people are also nicer people. They are more aware and more likely to see the good in others. They are more likely to act altruistically and they are more successful mediators in resolving conflict.
Negative moods limit people, whereas positive feelings expand options.
Happiness brings vitality . (Abridged from the Introduction to the new book, `The Science of Happiness' ­ Speaking Tiger Publishing Pvt Ltd.)