“You can make more friends in a month by being interested in them than in ten years by trying to get them interested in you.”
Charles Allen
“अपनों में दूसरों की रुचि जगाने का प्रयास कर आप जितने मित्र दस वर्षों में बना सकतें हैं, उससे कहीं अधिक मित्र आप दूसरों में अपनी रुचि दिखा कर एक माह में बना सकते हैं।”
चार्ल्स ऐलन
Over the years, we have observed in India a visible increase in the number of children enrolled in schools. But at the same time, learning levels haven’t grown. Pratham’s Annual Status of Education Report (ASER) 2021 shows (bit.ly/3Jj3HLZ) that a higher number of older children (ages 15-16) are in school now, with 67.4% students enrolled in government schools (compared to 57.4% in 2018).
In the coming years, it is likely that we will see an even larger number of youth graduating with high school certificates and degrees. These youth are more likely to aspire for jobs in government or the private sector, with hardly anyone interested in agriculture or labour-based work. Yet, if we observe employment trends in India, over 80% of all workers are hired by the informal economy. Put two and two together, and it becomes painfully apparent that most youth are unable to fulfil the aspirations they had outlined for themselves.
Take for instance the youth trained by Pratham Education Foundation’s skilling centres. In 2015, over 85% of the youth enrolled had dropped out of the school system before grade 12. In 2021, however, less than 35% of the enrolled trainees were drop-outs, while the rest had completed grade 12 education. The eligibility criteria, content, courses and sectors have essentially remained the same over the last six years. Yet we can see that more ‘qualified’ youth are choosing to pursue a pathway designed for ‘drop-outs’. These youth who typically come from low-income families do not have the luxury of investing in higher education and advanced learning, given the opportunity cost. In such a situation, the idea that you can be connected from your village to a training centre and then to the workforce in less than 6 months is a more desirable alternative. There is a back-story which needs to be highlighted here.
Despite the higher rate of graduation from schools, most youth do not possess the skills expected of them by prospective employers. Much of this can be attributed to an emphasis on exams and the lack of focus on learning outcomes (bit.ly/3yVHK0M). Trainees who join Pratham centres have spent 3-7 years unsuccessfully looking for jobs after graduation (their median age of enrolment is 24-25), with limited guidance and awareness about opportunities. For years, these youth were conditioned to believe that working as an electrician or a housekeeping attendant is not admirable and they turned to vocational centres only as a last resort. The unfortunate reality is that there are millions in India who choose to stay unemployed instead of pursuing a vocation-based job. We need to shift from a ‘one-size-fits-all’ approach to one that is tailored to match local realities.
With the Kashmir Valley continuing to remain, sporadically, on the boil, and with violence re-emerging in the Northeast, the public and political discourse on the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act (AFSPA) has taken on unusual stridency. But a debate which is swayed by emotion, prejudice or cultivated ignorance, instead of resting upon a bedrock of facts and realities, becomes an exercise in mere sophistry.
Before embarking on a re-examination of the AFSPA, a word about the Indian soldier is necessary. The soldier is a citizen with equal obligations and the same rights as any other Indian citizen; she/he is neither a “slave” of the state, nor is she/he a “dummy” to be manipulated by the exigencies of politics or populism. However, as long as a soldier wears the uniform, she/he voluntarily denudes herself/himself of three fundamental rights granted by Article 19 of the Constitution — the right of free association, the right of political activity and the right to communicate with the press and media. Further, a soldier voluntarily places her/himself under the statutory rigours of military discipline (under the Army/Navy/Air Force Acts) and swears an oath to obey all “lawful commands” of her/his military superiors “unto the peril of death”.
Next, the armed forces are the servants of the Indian state and its ultimate resort. They are duty-bound to do all that is necessary for the “safety, honour and welfare” of our nation and to this end, faithfully and efficiently execute all lawful commands, directions and policies of the government with fidelity and to the utmost of their ability. Reciprocally, it is the bounden duty of the state (i.e., the legislature, judiciary and the executive) to provide the armed forces the means and wherewithal essential to perform the responsibilities and tasks assigned to them.
Coming now to the AFSPA — except in war, or when guarding the international border, the Indian Army has no constitutional authority or legal powers to use force or firearms against anyone whosoever. Like any other Indian citizen, the only legal right a soldier has is the right of “private defence” (of life or property), which must be proved post-facto in a court of law, and this takes many years of court hearings. The only other possibility of such use of force by the armed forces is when called out in “aid to civil authority”, for which a magistrate must be present at each spot to authorise the use of force in writing on a particular form. Only after completing these formalities/procedures can troops be “lawfully” ordered to use “minimum force” against civilians.
The current modus operandi of terrorists, insurgents and militants does not allow the luxury of a magistrate’s presence at the time and place of an operation or encounter. Moreover, unless the security forces are quicker and forestall the adversary’s actions, they are likely to suffer heavy casualties. Thus, any military commander, army chief downwards, ordering his troops to operate in a counterinsurgency role (cordons and searches, ambushes, counter-ambushes, pitched battles) against folks of this ilk, would be giving an “unlawful command”, not liable to be obeyed. If obeyed, it could land all commanders, right down the chain — from corps, divisions, brigades, battalions, companies and, platoons to infantry sections — before the courts of law on charges of murder, assault, injury and destruction of property. Defending such cases, in courts, would, obviously, leave no time or resources for any other military responsibilities, for years.
To avoid such situations, and to ensure that the Army is able to perform its basic function of external defence and internal security of the nation, pragmatic lawmakers, in the 1950s, devised the AFSPA, exclusively for operations in the Naga Hills. Regrettably, it is now invoked as a “fire-fighting” measure, elsewhere too; not by the Indian Army but by the government when the civil administration is unable to cope and police forces fail to restore normalcy.
In a democracy, only the elected government is mandated to govern. If it fails or cannot find political solutions and needs to exert state power to enforce its writ, then the Army may be called in. Under such circumstances, ordering a soldier, who is also a citizen, to carry out counterinsurgency operations in the absence of any legal mandate, is to order her/him to commit murder and mayhem. This would not be a “lawful command” and is legally and morally open to disobedience.
However, once the AFSPA (or other enabling legal measure) is invoked, and it becomes a duly authorised operation, it will be executed in a military manner, with restraint and responsibility. Stringent rules, guidelines and advisories are in existence, regarding respect for human rights. However, soldiers are human, and aberrations do occur. When they do, military justice is dispensed swiftly and without bias.
In closing, some advice for all those frantically urging the removal of AFSPA. Abolish the AFSPA, humanise it or whatever, but before doing so ensure the resolution of issues, whether socio-political or governance-related, which compelled the state to invoke this Act in the first place. In other words, create conditions which will convince the insurgents to stop insurgency, militants to stop militancy, terrorists to stop terror, Naxalites to stop mayhem and Kashmiri youth to stop hurling stones.
From the Army chief downwards, no one can order a soldier to obey an unlawful command, i.e., to inflict violence without legitimate legal sanction. Thus, debates based on ignorance of ground realities are harmful for the community — akin to banning a book without having read it.
Written by Rajendra Prakash
Source; Indian Express, 30/12/21
The widely telecast inauguration of the Kashi Vishwanath Corridor by Prime Minister Narendra Modi displayed the nefarious designs of the ruling regime. The invocation of Hindu symbols and ritualistic practices by the PM in a state function gave de facto official status to the majority religion. These developments throw open numerous questions regarding the relationship between the state and religion in a multi-religious, multicultural country.
While the Constitution categorically proclaims India to be a sovereign, socialist, secular, democratic republic, the current ruling regime willfully ignores this promise. Choosing to stand true to the vision manufactured in Nagpur, this right-wing Brahmanical regime is prioritising intolerance. While direct physical violence by these forces is the most evident, one has to be equally wary of the deep discursive violence inflicted. For a political formulation whose imagination is propped up by religion, the multicultural reality of the subcontinent is unpalatable. While a single definition of secularism has been evasive, modern nation-states have since long grappled with this principle. Scientific socialism since its inception understood the role religion plays in an unequal exploitative society. Marx famously wrote: “Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions.”In India, too, reformers constantly tried to do away with the orthodoxy practised in the name of religion and bring our society in conformity with modern democratic values.
While significant energies of our freedom movement were invested in driving away the British, at the same time, our leaders were conscious of how independent India would constitute itself. Secularism was a hallmark of the major participants in the freedom struggle. Gandhi, while proclaiming himself a Hindu, never tolerated religious discrimination. Jawaharlal Nehru, Subhas Bose, Sardar Patel, Maulana Azad and other luminaries were steadfast in their commitment to a future secular state. B R Ambedkar gave the clarion call for the annihilation of caste and initiated perhaps the greatest social reform on this land. EV Ramaswamy Periyar established rationality at the core of Tamil society and Sri Narayana Guru’s calls for the end of discrimination based on one’s birth found many echoes. From the leaders of the Ghadr Party to the Left revolutionaries led by Bhagat Singh, complete unanimity prevailed regarding the role of religion in the independent Indian state: It was to be a private affair with the state keeping equidistance from all organised religions. The republic that was inaugurated was a secular democratic republic with fundamental rights ensuring non-discrimination based on faith. The pro-British minority that advocated for a state religion or a theocracy found few takers among the people.
In India, we saw the rise of the RSS-BJP in the uncertain years after the financial crisis of 2008-09, riding the chariot of Hindutva. The Hindu religion had no institution akin to the church and it remained heavily localised in practice. The RSS and its obsession with uniformity has propelled them to devise monolithic interpretations of certain strands of Brahmanical texts, which they wish to impose on this extremely diverse society. This thought is not only dangerous for communal harmony but it can also push us back by hundreds of years by diverting us from issues of material interest. Certain contemporary developments have been disturbing in this regard. Recently, a few municipalities in Gujarat embarked on a mission to outlaw the public sale of non-vegetarian food. A BJP MP from Gujarat issued an ultimatum to tribals that the benefits of reservation will be snatched away from them if they do not convert to Hinduism.
The elevation of the religion of the majority as the de-facto state religion becomes a real threat. We should be conscious of French thinker Voltaire’s words: “… whoever can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.” The rise of religious common sense can be challenged and rejected only by bringing back the focus on the real and concrete issues of dignity, livelihood, health, employment and housing.
The important question before us is: Should we let religion interfere with, or take over, the workings of a secular state or should we resist this deviousness of the Hindu right? The lessons of our independence movement and the sacrifices of countless freedom fighters point us in only one direction.
Written by D. Raja
Source: Indian Express, 30/12/21
“The nice thing about teamwork is that you always have others on your side”
Margaret Carty
“मिलझुल कर काम करने के साथ खास बात यह है कि आपके पक्ष में हमेशा और भी लोग होते हैं।”
मार्गरेट कार्टी