Road to Riches

The post How Rich Is RICH: Tracking The Journey Of The Global Superwealthy #Infographic appeared first and originally on Youth Ki Awaaz.

Unrelenting and unrepentant, the draconian blasphemy laws have struck again. This time in Egypt, where prominent public figures have been convicted for blasphemy. These convictions, along with the still hot embers of the conflagration over the movie Innocence of Muslims, have reignited the debate over where to draw the fine line between freedom of expression and defamation of religion. Liberals point out that the former is the most sacrosanct human right and a prerequisite to holistic development, whereas conservatives are quick to highlight that one person’s freedom ends where another’s begins.

This agenda has been intensely debated in the UN too. Each year since 1999, the OIC (Organization of Islamic Countries) has presented resolutions highlighting Islamophobia and condemning “defamation of religions”, in UNHRC and General Assembly. These resolutions have been passed by both these committees, with EU and US having voted against every such resolution.

It would be worthwhile to get a holistic perspective on the reasons behind the glaring dichotomy over this issue between the Western bloc and OIC. Post 9/11, Islam has come under severe, often completely unjustified scrutiny. Muslims are stereotyped as violators of peace, with innocents being singled out at airports for ‘routine checks’. Another major trigger that prompted OIC to present these resolutions was the Danish Cartoon controversy in 2005. On the other hand, EU and US have excoriated any international instrument calling for censuring defamation of religions on a plethora of grounds, the most cogent being that freedom of expression is the most basic and essential of human rights and cannot be taken away unless the severity of offence is really grave.

Governments of Iran, Pakistan, Egypt etc. have been routinely accused by international community of using their ill defined blasphemy laws as tools for punishing political dissenters and minorities. A prominent example is the death penalty awarded to Asia Bibi, a Pakistani Christian, over “alleged” remarks against Prophet Mohammed. It is noteworthy that Salman Taseer and Shabaz Batti were assassinated owing to their astute stand against blasphemy laws. Iran has been accused of using Moharebh to silence political opponents. OIC has also been accused of using blasphemy laws as decoy to restrict online freedom, since with governments coming down on free speech ever more harshly, internet has proved to be the free man’s last standing bastion.

The most well founded criticism of blasphemy laws comes from the fact that they seem to punish differing opinions instead of factually incorrect expressions meant to deliberately incite violence. Indeed it should be recognized that religion is not a collection of facts and is thus open to varied interpretation. Punishing every opinion that varies from the one established by the State or an oligarchy of religious leaders is not just against free expression but also eliminates any chances of a constructive debate between and within religions, which is most vital for promoting religious harmony.

The caveat behind giving into every voice calling for ban of allegedly defamatory material is perhaps best exemplified by India’s situation where a culture of “competitive intolerance” has taken hold. Indian government has almost always taken the easy way out by banning any speech or writing that even logically questions the sanctity of a religion as perceived by its followers. Satanic Verses, Fire, Innocence of Muslims etc. have all been permanently or temporarily banned for fear of violence, giving extremists the whiff that they only need to shout loud enough to have their way. Mollycoddling the extremist factions has only emboldened them over time and has exacerbated the religious divide in Indian society. Such policies have dissociated artists like MF Hussain, Salman Rushdie and Taslima Nasreen from India. The omnipotence and vagueness of blasphemy laws makes them anathema to human development.

Most blasphemy laws don’t even allow for repetition of allegedly defamatory sentences, since repetition is itself considered blasphemous, thus leading to unfounded convictions. Such laws lack evidentiary standards and procedural safeguards to penalize false allegations. What constitutes blasphemy is obfuscated, meaning the standard is left to whims of the accuser. Blasphemy is recognized as a cognizable offence, allowing police to file charges and arrest without warrant. Punishments under blasphemy laws clearly violate doctrine of proportionality by punishing mere utterances against God by death. Another less obvious problem with blasphemy laws is that they seem to protect ideologies instead of individuals. Defamation of religion does not cause any harm to its followers per se. Going by the same yardstick, there could be demand for legislations banning defamation of communism and capitalism.

The extant international law instruments, such as ICCPR, UDHR lay unquestionable emphasis on right to free expression. However, as with all other rights, even this one is not without riders. Article 19 of ICCPR guarantees absolute Right to Freedom of Opinion, differentiating it from Right to Expression by mentioning that the latter may be curbed for (a) respect of the rights or reputations of others and (b) protection of national security or public order. States often cite above provisions while invoking blasphemy laws. However, they choose to ignore General Comment 34 on Article 19 of ICCPR which states that it is the foremost duty of the State to prove that invoking the above law was indeed the last option and that punitive actions were proportional to the offence, thereby establishing beyond doubt that such measures are to be invoked only in the rarest of rare circumstances. This precedent has been set on multiple occasions by courts in democratic countries, an example being Handyside vs. UK (1976), where the gist of the judgement by European Court of Human Rights stood as: “Freedom of expression applies not only to information or ideas that are favourably received or regarded as inoffensive, but also to those that offend, shock or disturb the State or any sector of population.”

The most egregious violation of international law comes from making apostasy punishable under blasphemy, which means conversion to another religion or atheism is banned, thereby murdering Freedom of Religion guaranteed under Article 18 of UDHR. In a world turning increasingly scientific, where certain archaic religious beliefs are being replaced by modern practices, blasphemy laws provide one of the stiffest challenges to scientific thought as well as religious reform.

Western bloc contends that extant international instruments are sufficient to cover any instances of defamation and a “global blasphemy law”, as sought by OIC, would be redundant. It is noteworthy that even western countries have safeguards in their domestic legislation to punish hate speech. However, such laws are rarely invoked and gravity of offence is carefully weighed before punishment is handed over. USA seems to be the one country which allows almost any degree of defamation of religion under the First Amendment to its constitution which astutely guards free expression. US courts contend that the only thing that calls for censuring expression is an “immediate threat to violence”, and have allowed KKK leaders to deliver hate speeches since they were found wanting of the above criteria.

The criticism of blasphemy laws is not to mean that any defamation should go unpunished. Indeed there are times when the motive of defamation is incitement of violence against a particular sect, in which case there must be appropriate legislation. This is the very motive behind Article 4 of ICERD, which obligates its signatories to frame laws banning hate speech and crime. Sadly, USA has reservations to this article. It is the duty of nations to ensure that their officials don’t indulge in maligning any religion, willingly or unwillingly, which is what is happening in certain western countries. Scant knowledge about other religions and deep divides between immigrant and native communities also contribute greatly to one sect perpetuating ill informed criticism of another. Having multiculturalism as state policy and taking initiatives to bring far flung communities closer would help reduce instances of defamation.

However, any legislation against defamation must be used only as a last resort and the criticality of free speech to human development and discourse must be given precedence. Instead of sweeping them under the carpet, defamatory speeches should be held up to bright light of public scrutiny, which would allow the offended to retort by counter speech, a prerequisite to civilized society. This is precisely the motive behind initiatives like Alliance of Civilizations, where in spite of strong disagreement, there is agreement to disagree.

It is a welcome sign that the latest resolution passed in UNHRC drops the term “defamation of religion” altogether and uses more progressive ones which aim to protect individuals rather than faiths. This resolution has been supported by both OIC and the West. There is an irrefutable link between democracy and freedom of expression which is established by the fact that countries like UK and Netherlands, which once had blasphemy laws, have gotten rid of them. History proves that democracy indeed provides the best environment for development of human character, and revoking blasphemy laws is definitely one of the prerequisites to that.

The post Blasphemy Laws: An Impediment To Democracy And Humanity appeared first and originally on Youth Ki Awaaz.

Delhi’s Power Minister Haroon Yusuf was in for a shock on the morning of May 15 when Greenpeace activists decided to deliver a powerful message to him. To make their point that clean energy can solve Delhi’s energy deficit, they wheeled in a set of solar panels in front of the Minister’s residence and then chained themselves to it.

The activists were protesting against Delhi’s dull performance on its renewable energy targets as highlighted in the Greenpeace report, ‘Powering Ahead with Renewables: Leaders and Laggards’. Over 75% of Delhi’s electricity comes from coal-fired power plants from other states. During the biggest blackout in India’s history in 2012, Delhi was severely affected and came to a standstill for two days. If decentralised renewable energy like solar power was available, Delhi could have powered itself to a large extent during the grid failure.

Soon after the activists positioned themselves right outside the Ministers gate, police forces told them to leave but their persistent demands ensured a meeting with the Minister. He did not commit on a timeline for a strong policy on renewable energy in Delhi. However, he did agree to forward the Greenpeace report and recommendations to the Delhi Electricity Regulatory Commission (DERC) for future action.

The solar panels displayed a message urging the power minister to “Switch on the Sun“. But that was not their only use. The 2.3 KW panels can light up Power Minister Haroon Yusuf home meeting most of its energy needs. The activists handed over the solar panels to the Minister to emphasise that he should look at using solar energy to power Delhi’s homes and commercial establishments by installing them on rooftops. The Minister reluctantly accepted the solar panels from the activists after the meeting.

Anand Prabhu Pathanjali, Energy Campaigner at Greenpeace India says, “The Power Minister has no plans to deal with the electricity crisis. Despite holding the power portfolio, he has hardly enunciated on how he intends to deal with the gap in demand and supply of electricity in the Capital. In our report we have highlighted how Delhi has completely ignored its renewable energy targets under the RPO (Renewable Purchase Obligation) mechanism. Meeting renewable target could have staved off the power-cuts that residents in various colonies in Delhi are facing.”

The Greenpeace report measures the performance of all states on their renewable energy targets under the RPO. The RPO, Introduced by the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission, guides state electricity regulatory bodies to set targets on renewable energy supply in their energy mix. However, compliance under RPO is not mandatory. So only seven out of 29 states have met their targets. Delhi achieved only 0.01% of its 3.4% target showing a serious lack of political will.

Pathanjali adds, “Greenpeace believes that renewable energy is the key to energy independence and access to quality electricity supply in all the areas of Delhi. The government should earnestly take steps to improve its performance on the use of renewable energy in the national capital to deal with the increasing demand and uncertain supply from conventional sources.”

This summer the Delhi government can make history. It can face the energy crisis and power deficit in Delhi by initiating strong fiscal and policy measures to promote renewable energy. If Delhi implements a strong renewable energy policy it will benefit the entire country, not to mention the people of Delhi. It can also set a positive example to the 22 other states who did not meet their RPO targets. You can also urge the Delhi government to go renewable. Visit here

Photo Credit: Sudhanshu Malhotra/Greenpeace

The post Time To Switch On The Sun: Greenpeace Activists Take Solar Power To The Delhi Power Minister appeared first and originally on Youth Ki Awaaz.

Dedicated to the few professors who are indirectly encouraging the diversion of respect, that a student should feel for them. “A professor is a scholarly teacher; the precise meaning of the term varies by country. Literally, professor derives from Latin as a “person who professes” being usually an expert in arts or sciences, a teacher of high rank.” – Wikipedia

“A teacher of high rank” it says. A teacher – a second parent, someone who is always there to guide you in the most crucial crossroads of your life. Someone for whom teaching should not be a business but a profession chosen from heart. Standing today, this definition, learnt long back, seems to have grown old with age. Time for a new definition: “Someone who is there to ridicule you, someone who is not there to help you overcome the hurdles but present you with a sarcastic remark on your hard-earned success.”

I have not lost my mind that I am penning  this down at this hour of the night. I am just answering the question asked by one of the professors during my final year project presentation yesterday, after showing a sarcastic attitude on my decision of joining a B-School (IIM L, to be specific): “What do you think of the teachers of our college?” Call me a coward that I couldn’t answer you on your face because that the age-ridden definition of a teacher is still in my mind though the heart protests hard against acknowledging it.

Being older in age, many a times the professors unknowingly lead the students to following them as their role model. At this age, we are in a stage of a continuous learning process; taking in even insignificant things from everyday life. It is very hard to tell how a small incident can impact one’s life in the long run. Ragging, for example; a fresher who is being ragged awaits eagerly for the time when he gets the chance to repeat the same with his juniors and the history keeps on repeating itself every year. Same is the case here. A boy who is a student today may choose to take up teaching as his profession tomorrow. And we know for sure if he was treated badly by his own professors, probability is huge that he may repeat the same thing with his future students.

With high expectations, we look up to our teachers but when our well-dedicated efforts are made fun of, when we are denied a little support of any form, the student’s heart aches. The sarcasms directed at us hurt a lot. For a moment, self-confidence abandons you too. It sometimes becomes hard to hold back your tears, becomes difficult to keep your head strong and carry on with your goal. These are the moments that demoralize us and lead to quitting.

We are at a very funny age of our life, where a pat on our back can make us love them while an unintentional smirk can leave us feeling avenged. Being away from our homes, we start looking at our teachers as our virtual parents, whose few words of encouragements are equivalent to a warm fatherly hug. The students are already under a lot of pressure, worth mentioning are the huge syllabus, project/assignment deadlines, keeping in pace with the fast-moving world, preparing for entrances, interviews and other commitments. There may be times when a deadline is missed. We don’t dread the punishments or the scolding. These are parts of a beautiful student-teacher relationship. What we hate the most is the misuse of their power and position!

We already know that the teachers are way knowledgeable than us. What is the use in proving that in harsh insulting voices? We are always ready to learn what we don’t know. There are few teachers who find pleasure in just pointing out the students the areas they are weak in, giving no credit to the things that they are actually capable of doing. These constant negative attitudes can unknowingly leave deep marks in a student’s mind.

A few degrees after a name cannot make a highly respectable teacher. Their attitude towards their profession does it.

The post We Want To Respect You, Please Let Us: An Appeal To The Teachers appeared first and originally on Youth Ki Awaaz.

All of us would collectively acknowledge and accept the fact that it’s high time for the government of India to initiate sweeping electoral reforms to strengthen our democracy. The populist opinion in the country is that the politics of the country is chaotic and electoral reforms is one of the most fundamental steps that the government needs to take to improve the state of polity in the nation.

Electoral reforms have been on the Government’s agenda since quite some time but they caught the public eye when social activist Anna Hazare announced that he’ll be launching a countrywide movement to initiate electoral reforms. Anna Hazare and his team have come up with a couple of proposals which they think are game-changing in nature but before critically analyzing their proposals, I would like to put forth my views. Instead of asking for the introduction of bizarre rules and regulations, I root for something far more basic and necessary.

The first step that needs to be taken is to debar criminals from contesting polls. One of the primary reasons for the hatred of the common man towards politics is because of its criminalization. The Election Commission did summon an All-Party meeting to discuss this highly important issue but the proposal was unanimously nailed down by all the parties. Mainly two arguments were fielded to skill-fully downplay the proposal of the Election Commission. The first one said that the Election Commission cannot debar anybody from contesting elections who has been accused of a serious offence but hasn’t been proven guilty. The reason behind this being that the law of the land says that a person is innocent till proven guilty and since the person has still not been proven guilty, the EC cannot take away his right of contesting in polls. The second argument which all the parties collectively fielded was that many a times false and frivolous complaints are registered against politicians to defame them. Ironically, this is done by their political opponents only to garner political advantage by tarnishing their rival’s image.

According to me, both the arguments fielded were quite reasonable but were not reasonable enough to reject the proposal. We need to categorically debar individuals from contesting elections who are facing serious charges and for this we need to develop an effective strategy within the framework of the constitution. It should not violate the rights of those who are accused and want to contest but at the same time it should ensure that no criminals are given the liberty to contest. Political intellectuals, bureaucrats, jurists, civil society members and academicians need to sit down together and devise a pragmatic policy to eliminate criminals from politics. The second thing which I want to see is State funding of elections because my motto is, ‘Dissociate money power and muscle power from politics’.

While the first initiative which I mentioned earlier will take care of the latter concern, the first concern is going to be addressed by the State funding of elections. Most of the campaigning in elections is done with help of black money. To stop this, the State needs to plunge into action. State funding of elections will not only block the flow of black money into elections but will also ensure a level playing field for all contestants. Every contestant (having political affiliation or not) will be given the same amount of money for campaigning. This move can certainly address many serious concerns in relation to elections in India.

I also feel that there is an urgent need to further strengthen the Election Commission. The Chief Election Commissioner needs to be elected by a cross political body comprising of Government representatives as well as Leaders of the Opposition in both the Houses of the Parliament and not just by the Government so as to give his office a more non partisan look. We should ensure that the Election Commission doesn’t become yet another asset at the Government’s disposal while tackling other political parties.

The next two issues that I am going to deal with are the Right to Reject and the Right to Recall. The beauty of India is its pluralistic form of parliamentary democracy but the problem lies in the fact that politics in India is party oriented. We don’t elect individuals on the basis of their merit or policies, we elect individuals as per our political loyalties. We vote for that party’s candidate whom we support on the national scene. We are so ignorant that we often vote for a candidate whom we have no knowledge of but still we don’t mind voting for them because they belong to party to which we are politically inclined to. The Right to Reject can work out properly only when politics is individual centric. In the current political set up, it will be a failure. The Right to Recall is an even more bizarre proposal. In India, most of the people are passive recipients rather than being active participants in our democracy. We are not even aware of the policies enacted or initiates undertaken by our Government since its inception for our benefit. In such a scenario, the inevitable question is how will we judge the Government? We shouldn’t be judging them on the basis of populist opinions. We need to become aware citizens first and only after that should we be given such a power. The Right to Reject as well as the Right to Recall is like asking a science student (symbolizing the people) to correct the answer script of a commerce student (symbolizing politicians) and this science student feels that all commerce students are fools just like we think that all our politicians are incompetent and immoral. Such prejudices can be extremely lethal for our democracy if they are given a chance to speak.

Since most of us have no knowledge of the candidates who represent us and their policies, we do not deserve the Right to Reject and the Right to Recall. I personally feel that Electoral Reforms are a must and should be initiated immediately. The priority should be on debarring criminals from politics and on State funding of elections while the Right to Reject and the Right to Recall can take a backseat till politics becomes individual centric.

The post Electoral Reforms: Disassociate Money Power & Muscle Power From Politics appeared first and originally on Youth Ki Awaaz.

“Families are held together by blood, by obligation, by desire and sometimes, if you are very lucky, by love.”

Like it or not, our lives in India are bound in strange ways to our families. It’s like we come in a package. A lot of our decisions are made under the immense influence of, if not entirely by, our families. From the right time to get married to the right number of children to career choices, every aspect of life requires a nod from everyone, including distant tayajis and phuas. That is when blood and consequently obligation take precedence over everything else.

In this light, enterprising kids have it really bad here. I’m not saying our elders shouldn’t have a say in our lives, of course their experience and wisdom count infinitely, whether they support of don’t approve of our decisions.

It’s just that life in India tends to follow stereotypical dictates where one is often compelled to bow down to filial desires and pressures. I remember how stressed some of my friends have been, year after year, after each of them took the 10th. Taking up any stream other than Science was out of the question, according to their parents. And these weren’t people who were contemplating; they didn’t see themselves doing Science at all. A miserable two years later, they’ve taken up law or social sciences.

I can say without the slightest bit of hesitation that all our parents want only the best for us. It’s just that their ways of defining the ‘best’ are possibly based on individual prejudices, desires and often unfulfilled dreams. In a chat I had with five friends from different parts of the country who are based in Delhi, three said their parents wanted them to take the UPSC. They didn’t want to, but were going to anyway.

Read more at British Council India blog

DISCUSS: Can Your Hobby Be Your Profession?

The post Pressure From The Family Affects Education And Career Choices #YouthMatters appeared first and originally on Youth Ki Awaaz.