Mediaboss Marketing

RTI yatra at Kusumpur Pahari in October 2018. Image - Bharat Dogra

To strengthen grassroots democracy citizens need to be much more alert to resist irregularities and corruption as well as to protect their rights and entitlements. This is all the more necessary in slums and hut colonies where poor, illiterate or less educated people are being cheated all the time by unscrupulous powerful persons who do not allow their welfare and rights-based benefits to reach them.

Satark Nagrik Sangathan (SKS Organization of Alert Citizens) is an organization which has been working for nearly 18 years in many hut-colonies of Delhi to empower some of the poorest citizens, particularly the women, to defend their rights and benefits.

More recently this organization has been active in seeking justice and relief for victims of riots as well as people very badly affected by sudden imposition of prolonged lockdown.

To retain our initiative towards free spirited and independent journalism we require your support |Pay Now

Anjali Bhardwaj, the founder coordinator of SKS was closely associated with the movement for enacting of strong RTI (Right to Information) legislation in India. After this law was enacted she started going to hut-colonies to explore possibilities of using the new law for the benefits of the people living in some of the poorest settlements .

She soon realized that it is essential to find out ways of using the RTI law for resolving problems which were prioritized by the poorest people. To take this forward, she looked out for involving men and women from within slum communities. Soon several members from communities including Ashok, Pushpa, Sunita and Kusum Lata had joined the SKS team. In addition educated young women like Aditi Dwivedi provided support for youth-related activities.

Kusum Lata provides a clear example of how those who are from very difficult socio-economic conditions can also emerge as very inspiring social activists with some help and encouragement. As a single women (deserted by her husband), Kusum was bringing up her children in very difficult circumstances, but at the same time still found the time to take up some social responsibilities. When SKS helped and trained her for a wider social role, she progressed very rapidly and played an important mobilization role in several hut colonies. She was selected for the Democracy Fellowship Programme. Here guided by such senior social activists as Aruna Roy, her social work acquired a wider vision and she now speaks with confidence about not just protecting the right of slum-dwellers but also protecting and strengthening the constitution of India.

With a team combining some highly educated persons as well as activists from slum and hut communities, SKS could pick up most relevant issues with its ears to the ground ability and approach. RTI was used to obtain stock registers and sales registers of ration shops. Corruption was detected by comparing the two. Public hearings were organised to share the findings with the entire community. Culprits were also given an opportunity to provide their defense.

There was significant progress. When some corrupt dealers faced punitive actions, corruption levels started coming down. Some other cases dragged on for a longer time.

Later POS machines were introduced at ration shops and ration was given only if thumb prints matched, leading to denial of rations to many people. SKS resisted this and this practice was withdrawn in many shops.

When several highly deserving senior citizens were denied pensions, RTI was filed on the status of their applications and asking reasons why some pensions started earlier had been stopped abruptly. In several cases justice for highly deserving elderly persons, single women and disability affecting persons could be secured.

SKS believed in listening to what community members said. One day a woman from a hut colony said, Even my child gets a regular report-card from his school. Our elected representatives have much more important roles. Why dont they have report cards?

This question of an illiterate hut woman may have been ignored elsewhere, but SKS realised the importance of her question which was basically a very important issue of public accountability. Later SKS went ahead and prepared report cards of local councillors and MLA, raising issues like presence in legislature, active role such as raising relevant questions and utilisation of fund. When an MLAs report card indicated very low presence in the legislature, he seriously said to SKS activists that if they had informed him about the preparation of report card much earlier, he would have attended the legislature more regularly!

SKS has also taken a strong stand on issues like resisting communalism and ensuring social harmony in difficult times. Its activists tried their best to check the spread of communal violence . However when terrible violence actually took place they volunteered to prepare reports on the ground reality so that public and government attention could be drawn to the extent of the great damage that had been done so that a strong case could be built for extensive relief and rehabilitation effort. Following COVID outbreak again SKS became active in getting justice for those who were suffering the most after the imposition of sudden but very long lockdown. As the organisation faces up to increasing difficulties and challenges in coming days, it can call upon the strength of the strong commitment and courage of its earlier work.

Bharat Dograis a freelance journalist who has been involved with several social movements and initiatives. His recent book on survival issues and peoples response titled Planet in Peril has been published by Vitasta, Delhi.

Now that you are here...From bottled water to oxygen cans, not even the basics are free in a market-driven world. Why then, do we take free and independent journalism for granted? We find ourselves at a time when more people like you, are reading and coming out in support of The New Leams independent, in-depth and throughly issue based journalism than ever before. From grassroot stories and field-reports, to in-depth analysis of the pertinent political issues of our times, to news on gender, culture and educational issues- The New Leam has been dedicated to bringing out stories that speak out the soul of India and take you beyond the propaganda-filled corridors of mainstream journalism in India. We have made an important choice of keeping our journalism free of vested political interests, commercial funding and influence of partisan stakeholders, so that we can bring forward news and stories based on facts and provide a platform where readers can find information with integrity and a journalism premised on honesty.

Your support to The New Leam is your contribution towards giving a voice to the voiceless, going to the depths of issues that others shy away from and rigorously illuminating the flame of criticality and courage in dark times. We hope that you will come forward to support The New Leam today so that we can keep delivering quality-independent journalism to you and inform public opinion in the right direction. No matter how big or small your contribution may be, it is tremendously important.It takes only a moment, Support The New Leam now!

View post:
Activating the Strength of an Awakened Citizenry: Taking Democracy to the Grassroots - The New Leam

During a commemoration event for the victims of Nazi Germanys crimes, the President of its successor country, Frank-Walter Steinmeier, held an impressive speech. There was no end to remembrance, he told the nation.

In Berlin, May 8th, 2020, the 75th anniversary of the defeat of Nazi Germany, is an official holiday. In front of the Neue Wache, Germanys memorial dedicated to war victims, President Frank-Walter Steinmeier, Chancellor Angela Merkel and other high-ranking dignitaries laid down wreaths.

The End of Nazi Tyranny

As he did earlier this year in Yad Vashem and Auschwitz, at the 75th anniversary of the Nazi death camps liberation, and at the Berlin Bundestag, Steinmeier found the right words. Because of the Corona pandemic, the event was much smaller than it would have been.

May 8th was the end of the Nazis tyranny, the end of bombing nights and the end of unprecedented German war crimes and the Shoah, Steinmeier stated. In Berlin, where the war of extermination was contrived and set in motion, we wanted to commemorate [the victims] mutually, with representatives of the Allies in West and East, with partners from all parts of Europe who suffered back then, and with survivors of the German terror and their descendants.

The German President also said Germany had originally invited adolescents from all over the world for a commemoration with those who gave this country a chance for a new beginning.

Day of Thankfulness

On May 8th, Germany was besieged militarily. It was on the ground. We had made an enemy of the entire world. Today we have to commemorate [the victims] on our own, but we are not alone. Steinmeier said now, in the 30th year after Germanys reunification, the country was a stable democracy in a united Europe.

The day of liberation was also the day of thankfulness, he stated. But the liberation had not immediately taken place in the heads and hearts of the Germans. This is how deep the country was entangled in its guilt. The reconstruction of Germany had only been possible because of the generosity of its former adversaries.

Germany had needed decades to come to terms with its past, Steinmeier said in Berlin. During those years, its democracy had matured.

Related Articles (This piece continues below.)

There is No End to Commemoration

There is no end to commemoration, the President stated. Only because we Germans are looking our history in the eye, the peoples of the world have given us new trust. Germanys history is a broken history. It includes responsibility for the murder and the sorrow of millions.

Those who want to put an end [to coming to terms with this part of German history] devalue all the good we have achieved, Steinmeier continued. By saying to, he addressed revisionists and the many right-wing radicals in Germany. Commemoration was not a burden, but not commemorating [the victims] was. Remembering was not a disgrace, but not remembering was, he said.

Steinmeier said that, after World War II, Germany had said never again. Now Europe needed to be held together. If Europe fails, the never again will fail as well, Steinmeier told the Germans today.

Liberation Challenges Us Every Day

He also stated the liberation would never be completed. It challenges us every day. But today, we need to liberate ourselves from hatred, agitation and from contempt against democracy. Those who spread the latter were yesterdays forces in new garment. Germany needed to liberate itself from those dangers.

May 8th, 2020, was taking place in a time of uncertainty, Frank-Walter Steinmeier said. He asked the Germans to commemorate the victims of national socialism in quietude. Think about what May 8th stands for in your life and deeds.

President Steinmeier concluded his speech by saying May 8th of 1945 had not been the end of the liberation. Freedom and democracy are its mission. Our mission.

Originally, a much bigger memorial event had been planned, in front of the Reichstag, with guests from the four Allied countries. Because of Corona, the big commemoration had to be cancelled. Only Steinmeier, Chancellor Angela Merkel, the presidents of the Bundestag, the Bundesrat and the Federal Constitutional Court came to Berlins Neue Wache.

By the way:The publication you are reading,The Berlin Spectator, was established in January of 2019. We have worked a whole lot, as you can see. But there has hardly been any income.As of May 7th, 2020, we made an average of 74 Euro per month since starting the project, which is far from enough.Would you considercontributing? We would be very thankful. If you like what we do and you want to support us, you can do soby clicking here(Paypal).Thank you so much!

Read more:
Steinmeier on May 8th: 'Freedom and Democracy are Our Mission' - The Berlin Spectator

News comes that the environment ministry has cleared the governments project for constructing a new parliament building.

The above media report informs us that two sorts of observations have been made during the course of deliberations on the project.

One pertains to its timing and cost, and the other to the heritage value of the existing complex.

Both observations, it must be admitted, are germane, but I wish to suggest that whereas questions related to the timing and cost of the project have obvious weight, given that in times of the current pandemic moneys should be saved for rejuvenating a collapsed economy and for alleviating the unprecedented suffering of millions, the argument about heritage value is open to interrogation.

Heritage buildings do not comprise only aesthetic features but memories of bygone worlds of social and political organisation.

Often, structures of monumental cast remind us of historical practices not always acceptable in the present day. Thus much as we admire such expressions of power, it is to be doubted that we wish to see a return of the social equations or modes of governance of which they speak.

We are thrilled to visit a Red Fort or a Bastille, but hardly desire to bring back monarchy, be it benevolent or brutal.

Also read: What HT Wouldnt Publish: The Folly and Vanity of the Project to Redesign Delhi

A caveat though: not everything built by pre-republican structures of power may be said to be inhumane, exclusive or oppressive. We must continue to thank many of them for the tree-lines, the gardens, the roads, the resting places for travellers, the music, the art, the literature and often forms of social harmony they bequeathed to us. Not to speak of the cuisine.

But parliamentary buildings of colonial times remain rooted in memories of colonial oppressions as well, however the architecture may enthral us. Therefore, the moot point is not whether or not we may retain the old structure of our parliament building complex or construct a new one, but whether the new constructions will bring with them a new spirit of democracy as well.

Thus, if the colonial structures have embedded in them legislative histories that gave us a Rowlatt Act, or laws pertaining to sedition, we may not enhance the spirit of democracy much should such histories continue to inform our current-day legislative agendas. Or, if in our legislative career cesspools of feudal thought continue to find place because these persist in influencing the social lives of vast segments of our populations, from the top down, it may be added.

If the ventilator is a source of oxygen for the coronavirus patient, the oxygen of our republican democracy, incontrovertibly, is stored in our founding constitutional values.

Therefore, if the new building brings with it a new conviction in universal human rights, in the fundamental rights of free expression and informed critique, in the right of free association, a dedicated commitment to national health, with the last woman and child at the centre of policy, to providing livelihood on a sustained and dignified basis to millions of our working citizens bereft of the privileges of class, to the independence of state institutions, a willingness to learn lessons about the environment that the coronavirus phenomenon has brought to us, and , above all, to the all-important ideal of secularism, the new building may have served a purpose larger than those of a renewal of brick and mortar.

Also read: In Light of the COVID-19 Pandemic, the Central Vista Project Should Be Reviewed

Most of all, were the new building to inspire our legislators finally to evict such draconian colonial laws as sedition, UAPA, PSA, NSA and the many digital provisions of policy that function as mechanisms of surveillance, allowing the citizenry to make free and bold contributions to firming up the spirit of democracy, we may applaud the moneys spent on the new construction.

But if a new building carries with it an old heritage inimical to a republican way of life, we may feel that the moneys could have been better spent.

If a parliament building is the body of our democracy, the soul is the spirit of free enquiry and public accountability, and an impartial rule of law, none of which may be deleterious to that spirit. A mere change of vestments, it may be agreed, is a poor substitute for a transformation that may reinforce the faith of the commonweal in the ideals of the national struggle against the values of the old parliament, and in the resolve of our rulers to abide by those ideals, come what may.

Here is that magnificent plea that Macbeth makes in the play of the same title: Do not dress me in borrowed robes. Supposing the old parliament complex to have been a borrowed robe, our new building then must be our own robe that houses the covenant that we the people gave to ourselves not just in form but in a persuasive praxis that may make of the new building a heritage in turn to be truly proud of.

Badri Rainahas taught at Delhi University.

The rest is here:
If We Really Want a New Parliament Building, it Should Reflect the Spirit of Democracy - The Wire

If Gotabaya Rajapaksa and the political mechanism that brought him to power had really wanted to gain the control of central power of the State, they should have contested for the post of prime minister on which the 19th Amendment had vested Executive powers rather than contesting for the presidency which is only a nominal post sans Executive powers

Sri Lanka and India can be considered as the only two Asian countries that have chosen and followed the democratic path since independence.

The Indian National Congress which led Indias freedom struggle had a very clear democratic vision from its very beginning. It can be said that the democratic outlook of the Congress had advanced further after Gandhi took over the leadership of the Congress. The Congress appeared strongly for democratic values and played an important role in socialising them. It had a Charter of Human Rights of its own as far back as 1936 when there was no organisation of the United Nations.

In a democratic sense, Sri Lankas independent movement did not reach such an advanced stage. Though some leaders of the independent movement of Sri Lanka had been educated in the West, they however, did not have an advanced liberal outlook. All the leaders of the independent movement except A.E. Gunasinha were so backward in their outlook that they opposed the proposal to grant universal suffrage.

From an ideological point of view, despite the leaders of Sri Lanka being so backward compared to their Indian counterparts, the country still chose the path of democracy notwithstanding these limitations and shortcomings.

Sri Lanka faced two military coups dtat and three armed insurrections in the interim, and none of them were able to change the democratic path that Sri Lanka had been pursuing. Both President J.R. Jayewardene and President Mahinda Rajapaksa, who can be considered the two most powerful leaders that emerged in Sri Lanka since independence, attempted to establish a long-term one-party rule, but, in the final analysis, they failed to achieve their dream.

Dictatorial expectations

By the time the last Presidential Election was held, Sri Lankas democratic system of governance was not on a stable footing; it was in a state of extreme decay and dilapidation. Numerous factors such as the lack of a strong foundation for democratic polity, failure to maintain the system properly, violation and deformation of the Constitution by ruling parties which came to power from time to time for their power-hungry objectives and converting public administration into a system of plundering public property after 1978 caused this situation.

The distortions and degradation of the political system caused a major breakdown in public confidence in democracy. In this undesirable social environment an idea was spreading among the people and was also being spread subtly that the country needed a benevolent dictator, a well-deserving ruler who loves the country. Obviously Gotabaya Rajapaksa was being introduced to the country, both directly and indirectly, as the best person for the purpose.

The successful role he played as the Secretary of Defence in the war against the LTTE and in beautifying Colombo city later, after the war was over, was used to build his political image. There was a strong propaganda campaign in operation for two to three years aimed at preparing the mindset of Sinhala Buddhist majority to ensure the victory of Gotabaya. This campaign was successful in building the image of Gotabaya Rajapaksa as the only hero who could rescue the Sinhala Buddhist people and the country from the grip of Tamils and Muslims.

The knotty 19

To bring Gotabaya to the fore as the presidential candidate at a time when the 19th Amendment had deprived the Executive powers of the president, thereby reducing his status to a level of a nominal head of state, was a significant aspect inherent in the program implemented to bring him to power.

Prior to adopting a presidential system in 1978, Sri Lanka had a parliamentary system of governance based on the British Westminster model. At that time, the presidents position was similar to that of the constitutional monarch of Britain. The real centre of political power rested on the cabinet of ministers headed by the prime minister, elected by the Parliament.

With the adoption of a president-centred Constitution in 1978, the importance of Parliament in State power became secondary, with the president being its main centre. Consequently, the power of Parliament was subordinated to that of the President. Now, 37 years later, with the enactment of the 19th Amendment, the situation has been reversed and the Executive power of State held by the President removed, making him only a nominal head and the cabinet of ministers led by the prime minister being made the main centre of State power.

But this amendment did not venture to change the system of electing the president; and as such, an appropriate methodology to elect the nominal president was not prescribed. Usually, a nominal president is elected either on the recommendation of the prime minister or like in India, by the vote of a limited body exclusively appointed for the purpose.

Strangely, in Sri Lanka, provisions adopted for electing the executive president were not changed despite the 19th Amendment having already deprived him of Executive power. So the same method used for electing the executive president was continued for electing the nominal president as well, i.e. by public vote in a Presidential Election held treating the whole country as a single constituency. Needless to say, this is a serious error.

Law and power

Gotabaya Rajapaksa was able to achieve a remarkable victory in the Presidential Election 2019 on the strength of Sinhala Buddhist votes. Despite the fact that the new President had been elected by a General Election held treating the entire island as a single constituency, unlike his predecessors he doesnt have Executive power; according to the Constitution he is only a nominal president.

Apparently the majority who voted for the new President were not aware of the changes effected by the 19th Amendment in the powers of the President. They seem to have believed that the new President had the same power possessed and exercised by his predecessors.

If Gotabaya Rajapaksa and the political mechanism that brought him to power had really wanted to gain the control of central power of the State, they should have contested for the post of prime minister on which the 19th Amendment had vested Executive powers rather than contesting for the presidency which is only a nominal post sans Executive powers.

Yet, strangely, not only Gotabaya Rajapaksa, but also the political mechanism that brought him to power were not interested in securing the major post of the central power of the State; instead they were keen on securing the post of president, which is only a nominal position.

It is not clear whether this decision to contest for the presidency was a legal misreading of the power distribution under the 19th Amendment or a deliberate strategic attempt to gradually appropriate supreme power as a sequel to the ascension of office. If the latter is true, it is not a simple error but a serious offence.

Whats the end?

It is quite clear that the coronavirus pandemic has created a situation where a Parliamentary Election cannot be held as required by the Constitution. It is very rarely that extraordinary and unforeseen situations of this nature may arise, which are not prescribed in statutes and cannot be foretold.

In such situations, the Parliament is empowered to make laws and adopt policies necessary to meet the situation. However, the Parliament finds it impossible to intervene in this situation and find a solution as it stands dissolved at the moment and the President has stated unequivocally that he is not in favour of reconvening the Parliament despite having the power to do so.

The President too, is unable to offer a solution to the problem, as he has no legislative power to enact laws. Under the circumstances, it is the responsibility of the Judiciary to offer a solution to the problem which is of great national importance.

The Election Commission had the ability and opportunity to refer the issue to the Judiciary and to find a solution to the crisis. There was also a very clear and important Court decision to guide the Commissioner of Elections on situations of this nature. Yet, the Commission refrained from referring the matter to the Judiciary, informally passing the buck to the President.

The President also did not comply with the request of the Election Commission and refrained from consulting the Judiciary or reconvening the old Parliament. The Opposition parties too were not keen in instituting legal action or consulting the opinion of the Judiciary.

Ultimately, the issue will end at the Judiciary, subjecting the latters independence and fairness to a litmus test. Failure to find a legitimate and practical solution acceptable to all will inevitably result in Sri Lanka entering the annals of history as a nation that plunged into a state of anarchy amidst a pandemic.

Read this article:
Will the pandemic gorge up democracy? - ft.lk

This refers to the Chinese Whispers item Ripe for the picking (May 6). In politics, leaders can leave any party and join any other. The BJP claims to be the biggest party in the world. Then why does it want leaders from other parties? Surprisingly in most cases, the leaders happen to shift loyalty to the very party, which they have been hitting out at all along.

It needs to be noted that turncoats would have been appreciated had they first resigned from the party to register their differences with the leadership. If the party leadership had not lent an ear to them, then they would have had the right or option to do what is best for them politically. For them, the party ideology or heritage does not count much. That is why they have no qualms about jumping ship and looking for greener pastures if the situation demands. The Ayarams and Gayarams will, therefore, remain permanent feature of our democracy.

Tarsem Singh Hoshiarpuri

Letters can be mailed, faxed or e-mailed to:

The Editor, Business Standard

Nehru House, 4 Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg

New Delhi 110 002

Fax: (011) 23720201 E-mail: letters@bsmail.in

All letters must have a postal address and telephone number

Read the original post:
Letter to BS: Turncoats will remain a permanent feature of our democracy - Business Standard