How vulnerable is the Chicken's neck?

The Chicken's neck of India is the siliguri corridor situated in West Bengal,India.The corridor is so named because of its shape(in Indian map) which resembles the neck of a chicken.It is a narrow stretch of land which connects the North-east India with the Indian mainland.

Although the corridor is a narrow mass of land,it has immense economic and strategic relevance for India.A single railway line passes through the corridor connecting the two regions,apart from the roadways.Most of the goods and Public Distribution System(PDS) are transported through trains,thereby making the railways an important mode of transport.All the passenger trains have to necessarily pass through this narrow strip to move from one region to another.

Strategically,the corridor is sandwiched between Nepal,Bhutan and Bangladesh.At one place,the corridor is just 24 kilometres wide separating Nepal and Bangladesh.After the 1962 Indo-China war,India faced the risk of hightened security concerns from China due to the boundary disputes with China.However,in 2003,when China officially considered Sikkim as an integral part of Indian territory,much of its security fears were addressed.Yet,the narrow corridor could be misused for drug smuggling and infiltration of illegal migrants if strict vigilance is not maintained.

The rugged topography in the region and severities of climate(the downpour is maximum in North-East due to South-West monsoon) has rendered the corridor utter vulnerable to natural disasters.During heavy rains,landslides do occur which could halt the trade and communication entirely,resulting in price rise of essential commodities.Moreover,the rapid-flowing rivers in the region changes its course frequently creating hardships for the people settled around the region.

Trade and economic development is vital for the overall growth of North-eastern region.Only 2 percent of its landmass is connected with the mainland India,while 98 percent of its landmass borders nations like China,Myanmar and Bangladesh.Therefore.it is imperative that there is increased trade links with North-East India.The NF railway should renew its ties with Myanmar and Bangladesh.Additional railway lines should be constructed bypassing the existing railway line.India should sign a free trade agreement with its south Asian and south-east Asian neighbours enabling the trade of goods across these countries.India has agreed upon a multi-modal transport linking India with its neighbours in the BIMSTEC meet.India should,in no time,start implementing the project in co-ordination with its neighbors and stake-holders.

Views on religious conversions

The issue of religious conversions has again become dominant in India's current socio-political discourse.With the BJP at the centre and Congress party being decimated,the focal point of attention has been the legitimacy of religious conversions,which many have referred to as 'Ghar wapsi' programme.But the moot question is-how far is the religious conversions legally sanctified?

Article 25(1)of the Indian constitution states that all people-not only Indian citizens-are entitled to freedom of conscience and have the right to profess,practic
e and propagate one's own religion.It is significant to note that freedom to propagate one's religion is in stark contrast to the forcible conversion of a person to another religion.As Justice A.N.Ray interpreted the word "propagate" to mean "to transmit or spread one's religion by an exposition of its tenets".The Supreme court has also declared illegal the forcible conversions holding it to be against the spirit of Indian constitution.Forcible conversions thus violate the fundamental right of freedom of conscience of an individual and thus cannot be justified in any manner.

Gandhi considered every religion to be true in its own way.According to him,all religions deliver the same essential spiritual message.In an article in Young India in 1931,he stated-"India stands in no need of conversions from one faith to another."Gandhi was for atmaparivartan.a change of heart,but not for dharmantar,or a change in religion.When B.R.Ambedkar embraced Buddhism in 1956,Gandhi stated"Religion is not like a house or cloak which can be changed at will".

The current pattern of religious conversions in India has highlighted a peculiar message which might have seemingly escaped the attention of policy makers.That said,people were ready to embrace another religion primarily for availing economic benefits-like BPL card,ration benefits and decent employment.They were least concerned about the righteousness or propreity of any of the religions.Thus,policy makers should rather focus on improving the socio-economic condition of the masses rather than tacitly patronising the forcible conversions.Also,the current laws are sufficient to control forcible conversions carried out with the aim to ignite communal passions.Any new legislation to ban religious conversions of any kind would further complicate the issue.

Death penalty-an overview

India awards death penalty to convicts involved in heinous offences.Recently,two convicts,namely Afzal Guru and Ajmal Kasab were hanged till death by the state.The hanging of Afzal Guru had even courted controversies with a section of people questioning the procedure followed by the state before hanging him.According to Amnesty International,140 countries throughout the world have abolished the death penalty altogether.Even the International Criminal Court(ICC) prescribes life-imprisonment for the gravest crimes like genocide.In this context,the question assumes significance:Should India abolish the death penalty altogether?

India cites three reasons for retaining death penalty.First,it is the sovereign right of the nation to determine the nature of its law and punitive measures.Second,it is awarded only in the cases of rarest of rare crimes.Third,adequate legal safeguards are followed for appeal by the convict before taking him to the gallows.While India is arguably reasonable in retaining the death sentence,certain facts cannot be glossed over in a country,which claims to be the world's largest democracy.

The procedure followed while awarding death penalty to a convict is not always fool-proof.There are chances that the judgement becomes arbitrary and judge-centric rather than principle-centric.The miscarriage of justice goes fundamentally against the basic tenet of natural justice which says"The guilty must be punished and the innocent should be freed".Moreover,in a country,where the justice dispensation process is still long-drawn,convicts are left languished in prisons for years before being hanged.The convicts have to bear untold physical and mental harassment in prisons while waiting for clemency as the clemency process is in itself very time-consuming.In this backdrop,the Supreme court recently directed the government to dispose the mercy petitions of the convict as soon as possible(Satrughan case,2014).

In a democracy,the first right of a person is the right to live.The state has the obligation to protect the fundamental right to life of an individual. Justice Krishna Iyer had stated that the state has no business in taking away the life of an individual in the name of ensuring retribution,merely to avenge his acts.Revenge is not equivalent to justice.Also,death is awarded for the acts committed by the convict without taking into consideration the social background and the role of the state in bringing up its citizens.Thus,awarding death penalty is equivalent to the missed opportunity of the state in reforming the convict or providing grounds for reform.

The architect of the constitution,Baba Saheb Ambedkar admitted in constituent assembly that people may not follow non-violence in practice,but "they certainly adhere to the principle of non-violence as a moral mandate which they ought to observe as far as they possibly can".With this in mind,he said"the proper thing for this country to do is to abolish the death sentence altogether".

How far is Gandhi's principle of non-violence valid in today's world?

In one of my previous blogs titled 'Ahimsa is not just physical violence',I had discussed at length about the meaning of 'non-violence' as advocated by Gandhi.Today,I would shed light on the practical applicability of the much cherished principle of non-violence and the extent to which the principle holds good in today's world.Gandhi's principle of non-violence should be seen in the larger context of 'Satyagraha'.Satyagraha is a soul force,unlike physical or brute force.which implies holding on to the truth for the cause of one's principle.It is an infliction  of suffering on oneself without causing any physical harm to the enemy.

A recent survey states that almost 70 percent of cases involving countries struggling for democratic regime were successful through their non-violent struggles.Eminent personalities like Nelson Mandela,Martin Luther King Junior,Aang Suu Kyi,the Dalai Lama advocated non-violent measures to achieve their aims and objectives.Most recently,during the so-called 'Arab Spring',activists in Egypt,Yemen and other countries,hold the pictures of Gandhi and closely studied his principles.Back home,the anti-corruption movement spear-headed by Anna Hazare relentlessly relied on the principles of non-violence.The movement was so effective that it led to the downfall of a political party ruling at the centre as it was involved in various big-ticket scams.

However,the principle of non-violence is not without flaws.Gandhi believed that by inflicting self-suffering and doing no physical harm on the enemy,the crimes committed by the enemy would stand exposed.But,it is applicable only when the enemy realises that the acts committed by him are morally wrong.It could work only against opponents vulnerable to a loss of moral authority and governments responsive to domestic and international public opinion.For instance,countries got the freedom from colonial rule partly due to the rulers respecting the sovereignty and freedom of the colonies.

But when the oppressor believes in the justice of his cause and refuses to accept that he was wrong,adhering to non-violent satyagraha might not yield results.It has also little effect on those who are already seeking to punish you whether you disagree with them or not.For them,your willingness to undergo punishment would make things easier as it would corroborate that they were neither wrong nor oppressive.Therefore.in more complex situations,the applicability of the principle of non-violence might not universally hold good.

Is it practically possible to bring back black money that is stashed abroad?

In both print as well as electronic media,there is hue and cry over the overwhelming quantum of black money that is stashed abroad in foreign banks.In parliament,we do witness disruptive scenes over one political party trying to bring its opponent on its toes over the black money issue.Further,the incumbent Prime Minister,in one of his campaigns for Lok Sabha elections assured the people that if all the black money stashed abroad were retrieved,each household would get an amount of 15 lakh.His assurance of bringing back every pie of black money within six months has added to further hopes among the common people.

But the moot question is:How far is it practically possible to bring back black money stashed in foreign banks?In my view,under current circumstances,it is highly unlikely.I would like to put forth some arguments to substantiate the claim.Investments pour in the foreign banks primarily due to the inherent nature of keeping identity and quantum of money a secret,rather than returns on investments which is considerably very low.Moreover,financial services is a money-spinning sector in countries like Switzerland.Thus,divulging details of their account holders so easily would prove to be a risky step for an economy depending on financial services as a major contributor to its economy.

The Swiss authorities have stated that they would divulge details about the account holders provided the allegations of tax fraud are proved against them in a court of law.But,determining tax evasion is a cumbersome step.It is because the transactions of black money change hands frequently thus making it difficult to determine the exact source of its generation and the quantum of black money.India withdrew at the last moment from signing a treaty with Switzerland on Multilateral Competent Authority,which will provide for automatic exchange of information from 2017.

India can still sign the treaty.The government should declare tax evasion as a criminal offence.Currently,tax evasion is considered as a civil offence.This has made retrieval of black money extremely difficult as the foreign governments take shadow under the shallower provisions of the Indian law.As recommended by the SIT,Permanent Account Number should be made mandatory for all cash and cheque transactions above Rs.1 lakh.Moreover,there is a need to initiate regulatory measures to curb enormous cash transactions carried out in shopping malls,real-estate sector,education and mining sector.These are the sectors that generate black money.Unless effective steps are taken to stem the domestic generation of black money,Indian economy will continue to suffer.Therefore,the wise thing is to forget the past and bring reforms to prevent generation of black money.

Section 66-A of the Information Technology Act-Is it draconian?

The section 66-A of the IT act,2008 seeks to regulate speech on internet and other communication electronic devices.Though the act was legislated with good intentions,of late,it has created controversies.On many occasions,the state and the influentials are alleged to have misused the provisions of the act for vested interests.Let us delve into the pros and cons of this legislation.

With the advent of digital era,internet has become a preferred mode of communication.Though the information technology has made our lives easier,there is a flip side to it.Incidents of cyber-bullying,spams,online harassment,hate-speeches with the aim to divide society have also increased.Therefore,the section 66-A of IT act seeks to control internet-related crimes.Even section 499 and section 500 of Indian Penal Code(IPC) is silent about the crimes committed through electronic format.The IT act is thus a legislative measure to regulate such incidents.

However,there are a number of demerits of the act.The section 66-A(a) of the act penalises sending information which is 'grossly offensive' or 'menacing' in character.But the illustrations regarding these terms are ill-defined and open-ended.Therefore,determining the exact meaning of what is offensive or menacing falls within the subjective discretion of the complainant leaving enough room for its wide misuse.Moreover,in criminal jurisprudence,a crime has two components-intention and act.The offence is committed under the IT act the moment an individual acts through electronic devices although his intentions were non-offensive in character.

The act,in all likelihood,violates the fundamental right of speech and expression,as enshrined in article 19 of Indian constitution.The 19(2) of the constitution mentions the grounds of reasonable restrictions imposed on the freedom of expression.However,as the terms mentioned in the act are open to subjective interpretation of the complainant,it is an affront to the right of free expression-a corner-stone of our democratic constitution.

Further,the act legally recognises the act of 'transmitting' offensive messages a punishable offence.The word 'transmitting' is vaguely defined and thus it is prone to wide misuse.For instance.liking a post or commenting on a post might attract punishment under the act.The arrest of two girls in Mumbai in 2012 on the charges of liking and commenting on a face-book post was an instance of severe misuse of the act.Moreover,section 81 of IT act,2008 states that on grounds of contravention of this act with other acts(such as IPC).the IT act would prevail.This very provision would subject the individual to undue harassment.

Therefore,it is imperative that the government undertake measures to clearly define the inherent terms in the act thus narrowing down its subjective interpretations.Due to the public pressure,the government recently mandated the prior permission of a senior police officer before exercising the act.But,in a country,where the police reforms haven't been successfully carried out till date,undue political interference may dilute the noble purpose of the act.It is not to be forgotten that laws meant for the public good shouldn't be misused against public interest.

India's stand on climate change negotiations

It is now a well established fact that climate change is real.Several bodies like Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change(IPCC) and other independent studies have shown that the mean global temperature could rise by 2-3 degree celsius from current levels unless real-time effective steps are taken in short term,medium as well as long-term.After initial vacillation,finally there seems to be a convergence among the global nations on reducing the effects of climate change.The upcoming Paris summit in 2015 is conceived to be a game-changer as far as commitments towards environmental sustainability is concerned.

It is significant to note India's stand on global climate change negotiations.First,India believes that Common But Differentiated Responsibilities(CBDR) should be the basis of future laws on climate-change.The historical responsibility was a cardinal principle as agreed upon by United Nations Framework on Climate Change(UNFCC) and Kyoto protocol in 1997.Accordingly,the developed countries were among the largest emitters of Green-House Gases(GHGs) since industrial revolution.Therefore the onus lies on developed nations to undertake proactive steps towards reducing climate change.

Second,India supports an adaptation-centric approach(preparing themselves to reduce the vulnerability and risk due to impact on climate change)rather than mitigation centred strategy(excessive emission-cut).India agrees that adaptation should be the basis of Intended Nationally Determined Contributions(INDC) or individual voluntary commitments to reduce the effects of climate change.Moreover,the developed countries should primarily make meaningful financial contribution and help in the transfer of technology to poorer nations.There is a need for technology development through joint collaborative research.

Overall,India has outlined five pillars of strength as key to climate change.They are adaptation,mitigation,finance.technology transfer and capacity building.The climate deal should also include review of laws on biodiversity,wildlife and also air,water and land resources.Moreover the laws must be transparent with adequate focus on accountability of institutions.The research and development(R&D) should channelise its efforts towards making alternative sources of energy viable and affordable.