‘Dalit panchayat chief prevented from hoisting the tricolour’

A National Shame

 A. Kalaimani, a Dalit woman village panchayat president of Karu Vadatheru village panchayat near Vadakadu, was allegedly prevented from hoisting the tricolour on the Republic Day by a group of caste Hindus. The group belonging to the Kallar community, led by Kumar, son of Rangammal, who is the vice-president of the village panchayat, allegedly pushed aside Ms. Kalaimani when she was about to hoist the national flag on the village panchayat office campus.

The village panchayat president told The Hindu on Saturday that she planned to hoist the tricolour at three places – the village panchayat office campus; Raja Kudiyiruppu, a residential colony; and the panchayat union primary school at Kanniyankollai. But, in view of the problem at the village panchayat office, she allowed the group to hoist the flag at the school and cancelled her programme at the residential colony. She has lodged a complaint with the Vadakadu police and submitted petitions to District Collector B. Maheswari and Superintendent of Police R. Tamil Chandran. Ms. Kalaimani said that she had alerted the police a week ago, seeking protection for the smooth conduct of the celebrations. To her surprise, no police personnel were deployed in time. (The Hindu 29-01-2012)

In the 65th year of our Independence, a Dalit woman’s plight that she was not allowed to hoist the tricolour for coming from a Dalit community is very sad and shameful indeed and shocks us if we are truly free. Even after 64 years of becoming independent, certain sections in Indian society continue to suffer from segregation. If the incident of a dalit woman Panchayat chief being prevented from hoisting the national flag couldn't raise ripples in Tamilnadu ruled by Dravidian parties, it clearly exposes the anti-Dalit sentiments of the upper castes and the official machinery. It is the duty of the government to ensure that weaker section is not deprived of their rights to hoist the national flag. Caste Hindus with muscle power and political power should not affect the morale of police.

The continued denial of basic rights to Dalits makes a complete mockery of the Indian state’s much-vaunted claims of being democratic and secular. Thousands of cases of atrocities against the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes are found to be unreported & unregistered due to political clot of the upper castes who exercise money power as well muscle power to nip such cases in the bud. Republic day celebrations have no meaning when a particular section of the society such as the downtrodden are socially & economically segregated from the mainstream.

Panchayat presidents belonging to Dalit communities and women in particular are still being discriminated against. State and district administration should intervene immediately and provide non-discriminatory and atrocity-free political environment for the Dalit chiefs to function independently and effectively. The State Government should ensure legal and administrative safeguards and guarantees enshrined in the Constitution by booking the accused under the provisions of the Prevention of Atrocities against SC/ST Act, 1989.

Privatization of Water- Question of affordability.

Water Policy draft favours privatization of services and calls for abolition of subsidies to agricultural, domestic sector

The Union government has begun consultations on a new National Water Policy that calls for privatization of water-delivery services and suggests that water be priced so as to “fully recover” the costs of operation and administration of water-resources projects. Recently circulated to water experts for consultations, the 15-page draft National Water Policy suggests that the government withdraw from its role as a service provider in the water sector. Instead, it says, communities and the private sector should be encouraged to play this role. The proposals could mean sharp rises in the cost of water for both rural and urban users — an outcome the policy suggests will help curtail misuse of a precious but scarce resource. The draft policy calls for the abolition of all forms of water subsidies to the agricultural and domestic sectors, but says “subsidies and incentives” should be provided to private industry for recycling and reusing treated effluents. It also proposes that subsidy to agricultural electricity users be curtailed, saying it leads to a “wasteful use of both electricity and water.” (Source: The Hindu 21-01-2012)

Water privatization in India will make things worse for common men if we fail to learn from the nations where water is already privatized. Water privatization will invariably lead to price hikes because there are considerable costs involved in upgrading water harnessing, purification and distribution systems. The private companies will recover their costs and expenses by charging the consumer. Increased consumer fees for water can make safe water unaffordable for the impoverished and vulnerable populations. There is a threat of the unsustainable water mining by the private water corporations in an effort to maximize profits. Once water becomes a marketable commodity and a corporation is given sole rights to a body of water, then it is within corporations' rights to mine as much water as possible. Furthermore in an effort to maximize profits, if the corporation may mine an environmentally unsustainable amount of water and deplete the water body at a rate faster than it is replenished.

Water is synonymous with life. Water corporations through world bodies such as the World Bank and IMF, are influencing third world governments to push privatization and commoditization of water as ‘the chosen’ alternative to manage the growth in water consumption and the severe water scarcity. As the United Nations has recognized access to water as a basic human right, stating that water is a social and cultural good, not merely an economic commodity, public control of water is essential not only because water is necessary for survival and human fulfillment, but also because of the ever worsening water crisis that India is faced with. Water is a natural resource and every citizen deserves it and it is the duty of the government to ensure every citizen access to potable water. If the government thinks handing over it to private sector will bring in efficiency it must rethink about it. If the government implements privatization of water then it will be a betrayal to millions of common men.

Facebook & Google Censored

Facebook, Google face prosecution

 

The Indian government has garnered media attention for prosecuting social networking sites by enforcing censorship of content identified as controversial. Government censorship of content that is considered offensive or may injure a particular audience or materials that present a cultural threat is a welcome step. Government has every right to block such websites if they cause personal discomfort or have the potential to incite conflict between different racial, ethnic, religious, political and gender groups. Indian society is concerned about online victimization of children through websites that aren't specifically designed for children containing sexually-oriented advertisements and links that misdirect users towards pornographic content.

Though censoring the content is a welcome  decision, the government, at times,  is seemingly unaware of significant unintended consequences, such as the blocking of content that was never intended to be blocked. Once a filtering system is in place, the government may be tempted to use it as a tool of political censorship. There is a possibility to use Internet filtering to control the environment of political speech in fundamental opposition to civil liberties, freedom of speech, and free expression. The consequences of political filtering directly impact democratic practices and can be considered a violation of human rights.

No doubt, social networking sites are a relevant part of the everyday lives of people and have impact not only in terms of personal relationships, but also as tools for staying connected in official lives. But like all worthwhile technology, this too comes with pitfalls. It is also the responsibility of the government to take care of its citizens from not accessing a site that may harbor some malicious content. While content such as pornography and hate speech like obvious choices for Internet censorship, it is also necessary to block social networking sites and other Web pages that are causing distraction.

The decision to prosecute websites centers on protecting the morals or cultural standards of the Community. The Internet offers a broad array of information that is readily and freely available, much of which can trigger moral outrage and sometimes fear psychosis in certain viewers. It is natural for the government to seek to protect community standards by removing or blocking access to content they consider detrimental to the culture of their citizens. In many instances, this concern is expressed most acutely with respect to children. Other key topic areas that are targeted for filtering include gambling sites, provocative attire, hate speech etc. The Government may ask the websites to screen the content but without making them victims of political gimmicks.

Open Letter on Mullaperiyar Dam Issue

Mullaperiyar Imbroglio -Question of safety or control?

 

Being lop-sided and thoroughly opinionated, inflammatory articles published by Malayalam media stoke passions against Tamilnadu over the controversial Mullaperiyar Dam by hoodwinking the people of Kerala as well. The Malayalam media has taken a great opportunity to blow the issue beyond the safety, livelihood of the people in two states and turned into a frantic gathering just for vote-bank politics.

The statement that the Mullaperiyar row between Kerala and Tamil Nadu should be settled out of court implies that the Kerala government disregards opinion of the apex court and the points made were unwarranted when matter is sub-judice. As the sovereign owner of the Mullaperiyar, Kerala has a right to dictate what it wants to do with the dam. Yet, on the Tamil Nadu side, the issue is really the proposed breach of a corporate contract – not sovereign right over the dam and its water. Under the long lease agreement on Mullaperiyar, Tamil Nadu not only gets the water, but also the right to operate and maintain the dam – in other words, it controls the dam. While Kerala maintains that the amount of water that Tamil Nadu receives will be maintained, there is obviously a trust deficit. After repeated failures to resolve the issue at the state level necessitated the entry of Union Ministry of Water Resources and the Central Water Commission under it, into the resolution process, the states are now entangled in a legal battle, with Kerala challenging the certification by the Central Water Commission. In February 2006, the Supreme Court passed a judgment based on the CWC’s report that the water level in the dam could be raised to 142 feet. But the Kerala assembly, in a special session, passed a law that it should not exceed 136 feet. Tamil Nadu responded with a suit in the Supreme Court under Article 131 of the Constitution.

Kerala’s demand for a new dam defying the SC verdict, disregarding the dam panel technical members’ report underestimate the competence of the supreme technical authority of the country to decide over dam safety and poses a serious threat to interstate relations which are already tainted. If safety is the only issue, there are easy solutions but if Kerala is miffed about losing control of a dam on its soil, the solutions remain remote. Kerala’s adamancy on a new dam is based on perceived threats rather than any real danger. A perceived fear has no scientific basis or theoretical backing. If at all an earthquake above 6.5 on the Richter scale hits Kerala or Tamil Nadu, since South India does not fall on any fault line there are other dams, too, which might develop cracks.  The agitation to rebuild the 100-year-old dam started after some newspapers put out alarmist reports about earthquakes far away in the Indian Ocean. Minor earthquakes of less than 4 on the Richter scale keep happening and a region which has had no earthquakes is quite unlikely to break apart at the prospect of bringing down a 100-year-old dam.

The argument that Tamil Nadu's rights in this case are not riparian rights as in the Cauvery case, but arise out of an agreement is highly prejudiced. The lease between Travancore and Madras presidency was for 999 years, and hence has not expired. If the agreement between Travancore and Madras presidency were invalid, the dam and its catchment area should have been handed over to TN when the new states were created. It was only after the creation of Kerala, in 1956, that the state raised objections that the old agreement had become invalid. Kerala even challenged it in the Supreme Court, but the court ruled that the agreement would hold. With the Kerala government’s threat that Mullaperiyar is not an inter-state river and TN has no right to water from it, it is absurd for TN to believe Kerala’s assurances. TN is unlikely to believe Kerala’s protestations that it will provide the same amount of water to TN after a new dam is built because, in an earlier submission to the Supreme Court, Kerala had said Tamil Nadu has no right to the dam and the water as the catchment area and the dam lie within Kerala.

The argument that ecology is at risk in the downstream areas is also erroneous as people were allowed freely to settle in these eco-sensitive areas. The statement that since the dam  is unsafe, it must be demolished is also fallacious as it doesn’t give attention to the fate that will befall two lakh acres of cultivable land in Tamil Nadu. The article tries to undermine the fact that being a water scarce State with its agriculture crucially dependent on irrigation water, and therefore drought prone, the water issue is a highly emotional issue in Tamil Nadu. If Tamil Nadu farmers and farm workers are dependent on the Kerala market as a dependable and sure outlet for their farm products, Kerala is equally dependent on Tamil Nadu for a significant part of its food requirements. The statement that as the dam is nearing the end of its useful life, it will have to be gradually phased out over a period of time is again bigoted. More than 500 dams in India are too old and have been constructed during the British times and some 115 of them, are more than a century old and all of these dams are still very much in use with the oldest being the Thonnur Tank in Karnataka which dates back to 1000 AD.

It’s clear that there’s a concerted effort on the part of the media, government, politicians and social networks to exaggerate the fears over Mullaperiyar dam. The comparison between Koodankulam  Nuclear power plant issue and Mullaperiyar is totally irrelevant. The tones of all the political parties in Tamil Nadu and Kerala are acrimonious and strident, not giving a very congenial atmosphere for an amicable settlement of the issue. With the Centre’s stoic silence and inaction and failing to rein in Kerala for not honouring the Supreme Court verdict on the Dam issue, the possibility for tri-partite talks is remote and will prove futile. First and foremost, both the Tamils and the Malayalis should stop demonizing each other falling into the traps of politicians with vested interests.    

My Letter to The Hindu dated 04-01-2012

This refers to the report “New dam is the only solution, says Kerala” and the article, “The case for a new Mullaperiyar dam” (Op-ed, Jan. 3). As the owner of Mullaperiyar, Kerala has every right to decide what it wants to do with the dam. But, on the Tamil Nadu side, the issue is the proposed breach of a contract — not the right over the dam and its waters. Under the agreement, Tamil Nadu gets not only water but also the right to operate and maintain the dam. Although Kerala maintains that the quantum of water Tamil Nadu receives will be maintained after a new dam is constructed, there is obviously a trust deficit. Kerala's insistence on a new dam poses a serious threat to inter-State relations, which are already under strain.