Rights, gender, violence, Imbalance ...

I have been watching the trend of converging feminist and modernist movements. Equal status across genders and immunity to (or protection from) violence is called for in a nation wide movement.

A call for stopping violence (of any kind) - is what we need.

"The World did not see the deaths of civilians in Syria as victimization until the 'red line' of usage of conventional weapons deploying chemical weapons began." This has almost created a perception that conventional forms of violence are acceptable. Thereby the world has almost condoned, rather than condemned the violence in Syria.

In modern work environments, water-cooler/cafeteria conversations of women may center on multiple topics including men. Equally, men go about comments in their vocabulary on women who work with them. Yet, it is more frequently published that men 'talk dirty.' This is an observation (of published text) and never a generalization.

I have been in the company of colleagues who have seldom made comments on colleagues who are women or of the opposite gender (to theirs) in any form. Rewarding cultured behavior is seldom done. All focus of media is on abhorrent atrocity. Why?

The focus too, as someone pointed out is on the demographic that provides stronger readership or viewership (for Television).

Evolution has differentiated male and female genders, in physiology, neurology and every way over several billions of years. Is this so difficult to accept, that instincts and perceptions are different even amongst humans across genders?

UNHCR reports record sexual violence is inflicted in perhaps equal amounts on both men and women in interviews. (This includes several scenarios - police-states, civil-conflict, civil-war and inter-state warfare.)

What is this media-frenzy that focuses on making the streets safer for women? Are we preferential to violence that is equally mediated across genders or mediated exclusively on those who are not women?

We must work to cessation of violence and violent behavior. This is no small task for a species evolved originally as a predator. Solutions are never as simple as censorship and police-patrols which may be initial steps toward solutions.

Succouring Satanic Verses

[ Jaipur Literary Festival, India ]

This January, at the Jaipur Literary film festival 2012, Salman Rushdie is not permitted to visit. More distressing is the fact that ambiguous concerns [police investigating public reading of the work] fueling fear led Hari Kunzru, Amitava Kumar, Jeet Thayil and Rushir Joshi to take the exit before the festival could start. All this ruckus has turned our attention away from the "Literary" part of the festival and instead shifted our focus toward 'freedom of expression' and 'human rights' of individuals.

[ The Tolerant India ]
Historically, India has been the least totalitarian or extremist. We have tried not to ban books on account of content even if it were against a majority.  However, due to a complex mix of population, India has always been careful to listen to the requests of minority groups and ban works hoping that the sentiments of the minority will not be insulted. In truth, the populace of India, who are probably not very literate and definitely not very well read - and have never read works like 'Satanic Verses' merely react to the opinions and orders of another individual who does "moral" and to a certain extent 'philosophical' policing.

A message to Advocates against Corruption

(corruption index from 2010 ref: infographicsinsights.com)

It is true that corruption, bribes and inefficient governance have been the bane of India as it transitioned to a Republic. In the last five decades of independence, our growth has been stalled, primarily due to several internal factors. Corruption - the illegal use of office to build one's own wealth or empower the treasury is deeply rooted in history.

So here are some quotes on 'Governance' from the Arthashastra, written by Kautilya (translated, edited, published by L N Rangarajan {pp. 269 - 274} ) with the original written work dating to 150 CE, related to the Mauryan empire (c. 321 BCE - 185 BCE ). This work differs from an earlier translation by Kangle, which is more literal and does not attempt to add context to pronouns. Chanakyan, was synonymously used later with Machiavellian originally. This alternate name was born much later according to research. It is generally presumed that Kautilya and Chanakya are aliases.

Here are some sections, cut from the book for the enlightenment of the Reader.

"Special Levies, Taxes and Collections"

A King, who finds himself in great financial difficulty, may collect [additional] revenue [using the methods described below]. {5.2.1}

INTRODUCE SPECIAL LEVIES
 

On Farmers - usually requiring them to pay a third of their produce as tax or a varied proportion as the King may decree.

Force Compulsory Purchase - making the Government earn money on what the people may not want to buy especially in terms of food grains.

Levies on Merchants, Craftsmen and Professionals - Actors, Courtesans - 50% of their revenue, Fixed levies on Precious Gems, Precious Metals, other Liquids and Metals, Traders, Commodities like wood. 

Levies on Livestock Owners - for Cows, 10%, Small Animals, 16%, Cocks and Pigeons 50%

Miscellaneous - Prostitution being legal, Brothel owners shall on command of the King, send the youngest and most beautiful to collect additional revenue*.

Voluntary Contributions - All the Wealthy shall give as much of their wealth as feasible as the King demands.

Dr. Binayak Sen, what has unfolded ...

Justice as it seems is difficult to understand. Dr. Binayak Sen (ref. The Hindu) has definitely done whatever he could to help the rural population. It also happened that the same population he was helping was in a state of confusion and conflict; turmoil that had almost cut off the Indian government's hold for quite a while. The verdict was "guilty" on sedition. Many prominent individuals and political analysts have expressed shock over the verdict.

The Communist Party (Maoist) which had been banned considerably influenced the life of public in the region where Dr. Sen pursued his mission. The verdict seems to have drawn quick conclusion from post hoc reasoning. The possession of a copy of "Das Kapital" by Karl Marx has been taken in as evidence against him. This is undoubtedly creating a crisis of freedom and identity which is beyond Dr. Sen as an individual.

The accused in the horrific "Bhopal Gas tragedy", "Satyam Computers services scandal," and the currently investigated "Telecommunication License Scandal" do not seem to be under the heat of the scanner. The shocking verdict projects an image of lesser burden to individuals with High Net-worth. Ironically, this seems to reinforce the very ideals of the banned Communist Party (Maoist). The blanket ban on the party has also been on grounds of their support for naxalists and their activities that disrupt governance. There seems to be a complex identity crisis, where the ban cannot be on a group of naxalists or ultranationalists who disrupt government, but on the entire party and anyone with memberships or affiliations to that party. This inability to establish "identity" of those imposing a real threat (by naxalism, terrorism and anti-national activism,) is a serious issue.

Democracy must show tolerance to ideas, support individuals who go out of the way to help the needy. The true strength of democracy will be seen only if support to the needy is possible, when the needy are handicapped further by groups with stances and ideals opposed to the government. Sadly, the Judicial system has been unable to uphold the rights of free people - who fundamentally try to help others to experience the same freedom. As the Largest Democratic Republic in the world, our nation and its citizens are standard bearers of the very ideals of Democracy.

Helping people who are in a state of conflict with the government owing to prior failure of governance to address the issues led to what the courts have ruled as "sedition" and "conspiracy to commit treason." The "Chattisgarh Special Public Security Act (2005)" and "Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (1967)" are said to have been violated. Justice to the letter without consideration of the circumstances and the actual role of the person as a human rights activist seems obfuscated. The same individual has received International awards for outstanding work in providing healthcare.

The first priority of a country is freedom of its people, and therefore preservation of freedom (including national security,) its next and immediate care. The constitution is a rather complicated document (far more complicated than Isaac Asimov's laws for robots.) The interpretation of the rights permitted by the Indian constitution has been inconsistent.

• Has freedom of people been preserved by the verdict?
• Has freedom of the individual and consequently his freedom of expression permitted unabated?
• Are we misinterpreting a true attempt at overthrow of Indian government by misplacing our sympathies with one activist?
• Has our attention been drawn toward this issue because of the action taken on Dr. Binayak Sen?

These answers are presently clouded. The first care of the Indian government (or the Judicial authority) is to elucidate and free information that aids us in finding answers to these questions without doubt.