Round The World

New Delhi, 12 April 2024

India-Greece Relations

BILATERALISM Vs MULTILATERALISM

By Prof. (Dr.) D.K. Giri

(Secretary General, Assn for Democratic Socialism) 

India-Greece bilateralism received a new impetus in an international seminar, organised at Jawaharlal Nehru University early this week. The seminar was devoted to discussing various dimensions of India-Greece relations – history, tourism, culture, geo-politics, diplomacy, trade etc. In my presentation, while commending the initiative of augmenting bilateral relations, I raised the issue of the artificial dichotomy between bilateralism and multilateralism and the need to balance it. 

Pointedly, I referred to the European Union (EU) as a multilateral regional organisation which is by far the best example of regional integration. Yet, EU so far has failed in projecting its political personality to the world. The EU was created not only as an economic union, but a political player in promoting pluralism, democracy, human rights etc., the values the EU member countries dearly seek to adhere to. But there has certainly been a mismatch between these values and the trade policy they adopted. In particular, EU trade with China has been booming although the latter is universally considered to be an autocracy and a consistent violator of human rights. 

Likewise, the other multilateral bodies have failed in their objectives. The biggest of them all, the United Nations, which was created after the horrendous Second World War, to prevent the recurrence of wars, becomes a helpless onlooker as the wars in Ukraine and Gaza rage unabated. The UN certainly has unequal structures, namely the Security Council which is immobilised by the pernicious Veto exercised at will by any of the Permanent Five. The reform of structures and functions of United Nations is another debate we will not engage here. 

The point to note is if multilateralism is being infructuous, it is advisable to focus on bilateralism. At any rate, while multilateralism in a globalised and an inter-dependent world should be aspired for, bilateralism lays out the building blocks. What has been happening is that the quest for multilateralism has downplayed bilateralism. It is, using the popular metaphor, missing the trees for the forest. The India-Greece bilateral efforts should correct the fault line in contemporary geo-politics. 

On India-Greece relations, Amrit Lugun, who served as Indian Ambassador to Greece, narrated the developments between the two countries from during his time and till today. He informed that the long historical link between two countries is reflected in a Greek psyche even today. The former Lt. General, Philip Campose, a strategic expert, made a meticulous presentation of contours of bilateralism. 

The bilateral relations got a shot in the arm in August 2023 when Prime Minister Narendra Modi visited Greece. He was doing so after 40 years of visit by an Indian Head of Government to Greece. Also, significantly, the bilateral cooperation was elevated to a strategic partnership during this visit. Campose attributes this sudden shift to strategic partnership to a response to the growing trilateral relationship between Pakistan, Azerbaijan and Turkey. The strategic partnership is a logical extension to the said response as Greece has stood firmly with India on the Kashmir issue and encountering Pakistan-sponsored terrorism. 

The second push to India-Greece relations came from the visit of Greek Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis early this year as the Chief Guest on the Republic Day parade as well as the keynote speaker in the Raisina Dialogue. He made a strong case for deepening India-Greece relations. He said, “India could not find a better gateway than Greece to Europe and Greece will have no better gateway to Asia than through India”. He asked for working on IMEC project – India-Middle East-Europe Corridor despite the war in Gaza. The Greek PM’s attitude and statements pointed certainly to the acceleration of relations between India and Greece. 

Building India-Greece relations should certainly invoke the rich legacy of history involving both countries. It goes back to 326 BC when Alexander invaded India. The historical anecdotes suggest that Alexander, a great fighter, had to retreat in the North-West of India when an Indian king paraded the elephants on the battlefield. The legend has it that an Indian king from Punjab offered his daughter in marriage to Alexander to buy peace. That sets a matrimonial relation between Greece and India. Likewise, many Greeks came to India as soldiers or traders and settled down forever in this country. 

There is evidence of Greek art and architecture in Indian society and civilisation. In India and ancient Greece, there were similar allegories and analogies, particularly in Plato’s Phaedrus and the Katha Upanishad. The image of the chariot in Phaedrus portraited the structure of an individual’s soul whereas in Katha Upanishad, it is used in order to describe an individual’s structure. There were also maritime trade contracts of Graeco Roman world with South India. The Greek Indologist Dimitrios Galanos lived in India for 47 years and breathed his last in 1833 in Banaras. He translated Indian Vedic texts into Greek language and produced a Sanskrit-English-Greek dictionary of 9000 words. 

Currently, India and Greece need each other in their mutual interests. Greece is a high-income economy and India is a growing economy with a huge workforce and potentially the largest market in the world. The bilateral trade is low at the moment but has the potential of growing manifold. Greece is a member of European Union and NATO, two powerful bodies, economically and militarily, while India is the most populous country in the world and spearheading the Global South. India would need Greece to counter China’s influence in the Mediterranean region, for access to her port and shipping industry and a market, both Greece and EU for its exports. 

Likewise, Greece would need India for its tourism sector, expertise of Indian companies, investment in privatisation of public assets and a market for goods produced in Greece. The future road map for bilateral relations should consist of cooperation on defence and security issues, connectivity between two countries, cooperation in ecological security, skilled manpower migration, joint trainings by army, navy, air force and special forces and developing inter-operability and cooperation in key areas of special interest to both countries. 

That said, the elephant in the room is, as usual, China. One of the Greek participants asked for India’s reaction to China having a port in Greece, Port of Piraeus, as India is also in the process of acquiring a port. The answer to that question is, it is for Greece to decide whether it would open its strategic space to an autocrat like China “posing a systemic threat to the world” (Germany’s stated view). The West – America and the European Union - have created China almost like a Frankenstein. It is time they decide whether they should neutralise the Frankenstein or feed it to become stronger. India will inevitably counter China, Greece and the European Union have to decide whether they will correct the mistakes of the past or continue with it in regard to dealing with China.---INFA 

                      (Copyright, India News & Feature Alliance)

REWIND

New Delhi, 11 April 2024

CORRUPTION, CBI AND VIGILANCE

By Inder Jit

(Released on 12 January 1988) 

The Central Vigilance Commission’s latest report should make all those interested in good, clean Government sit up. The report was presented to Parliament over a month ago. But it has not yet received the attention it deserves --- either from the Government leaders and MPs or from the media. This is despite the fact that the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) was set up amid great expectations by Nehru and Lal Bahadur Shastri in February 1964 in pursuance of the recommendations of the Santhanam Committee on Prevention of Corruption. Many of us have been expecting the Commission to be made more effective under Mr Rajiv Gandhi, who has spoken time and again of an all-out war against corruption. On July 24 last, the Prime Minister asserted that the drive against corruption would be intensified at the administrative and social levels. Sadly, however, this has not happened. On the contrary, even the limited effectiveness of the CVC has been undermined and its functioning hamstrung. This has constrained the Commission to conclude its 23^rd report relating to 1986 with the warning: “Any lukewarm approach to vigilance would be a short-sighted, penny-wise and pound-foolish policy.” 

To begin from the beginning. Under the terms of the Government of India resolution of February 11, 1964, moved by Lal Bahadur Shastri the CVC was assigned three functions: (i) To have complaints of misconduct or lack of integrity on the part of public servants looked into and thereafter as may be necessary to advise as to the disciplinary proceedings or prosecution to be launched. Where disciplinary proceedings are held, the Commission also advises the disciplinary authority about the penalty to be imposed, based on its independent and impartial appreciation of the outcome of the disciplinary proceedings. (ii) The Commission has been given the responsibility of exercising a general check and supervision over vigilance and anti-corruption work in the Ministries/Departments and Public Undertakings etc. and for that purpose receives from administrative authorities progress reports and statistical returns. And (iii) When it appears that any procedure or practice in administration affords scope for corruption or misconduct, the Commission may advise that such procedure or practice should be appropriately changed. 

Importantly, the Commission has been given the same measure of independence and autonomy as the UPSC. Its jurisdiction extends to all employees of the Central Government, Central Public Sector Undertakings and other Corporate bodies. However, ordinarily the Commission advises in individual disciplinary cases only in respect of Gazetted officers of the Union Government, SHOS of the Delhi Police; the officers in the pay scales beginning with Rs 1800 and above in the public sector undertakings; officers in Scale III and above in public sector banks, the officers in the scale of pay the minimum of which is Rs 1,760 or above in Port Trusts/Dock Labour Boards; the officers in the scale of pay the minimum of which is Rs 2,250 or above in the insurance companies and those drawing a basic pay of Rs 1,000 p.m. or above in local bodies or autonomous and other similar bodies. Equally importantly, the CVC is actively aided by the Central Bureau of Investigation which was set up about the same time to help investigate corruption on a systematic and organised basis. The CVC may on its own direct the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to investigate complaints and furnish reports. 

Things worked out well at the start. The “19^th Year of Freedom”, an Indian National Congress publication brought out in 1965-66, claimed that “the anti-corruption measures initiated during the last two years have had a significant impact. Many State Governments have taken similar steps and the drive against corruption appears to have assumed the dimensions of truly national effort.” The CVC achieved much with the help of the CBI, which undertook many overdue probes. But the CVC now finds that it is no longer getting much-needed help from the CBI, originally conceived as the principal tool at its disposal. The reason? The CBI, according to the report, has of late been increasingly busy with cases of conventional crimes, economic offences, smuggling etc. Consequently, the CVC has bemoaned in its latest report that the special investigative body has not been able to give its whole-time attention to anti-corruption work for which the organisation was primarily set up. Indeed, the CVC has not stopped there. It has candidly expressed the view that “there should be a body, exclusively charged with anti-corruption work, to do greater justice to this work.” 

Appropriately, the Commission has, over the years, kept a close vigil over the public sector undertakings in view of the huge national investment and the spread of their industrial and commercial activities. Surprisingly, however, a brake was applied on this activity by the Bureau of Public Enterprises in October 1986. It issued instructions that in future vigilance cases of only Board-level appointees of public sector enterprises need be referred to the CVC for advice. It said: “In respect of appointees below Board-level, no reference need be made to the Central Vigilance Commissioner”. The reason for the change, according to the CVC, appears to be that since the Board of Directors was the appointing authority for below the board-level personnel, they should have the power to take disciplinary action against such personnel. But this stance overlooks the fact that the role of the CVC has always been advisory and does not in any way interfere with the independence or autonomy of the public sector undertakings and of the disciplinary authority to take final decision even in vigilance matters. The advisory role of the CVC had never been incompatible with the ultimate decision-making authority of the disciplinary authorities. 

The report points out: “The cases are not few where those responsible for running the undertaking were themselves involved in financial rackets or that they had shielded those under them responsible for grave misconduct and wastage of public funds for personal benefit.” Independence and autonomy, the CVC asserts, should not “be construed as licence for malpractices and corruption”. Thus, the public sector, which is responsible for most of the public spending, “should not remain outside some central vigilance overseeing and accountability to proper norms of public conduct”. The role of the CVC for overseeing vigilance work as an external advisory agency, if anything, “need to be further strengthened, particularly in the prevailing situation when malpractices and corruption of a serious magnitude continue to haunt the public sector”. The very existence of an independent central vigilance agency has a preventive value besides providing the public sector with such benefits as independent professional advice on vigilance matters and uniform standards for handling vigilance work. 

The decision to limit the role of the Commission vis-a-vis the public sector undertakings not only violates the terms of reference of the Commission as contained in the Resolution of February 1964, but also the spirit behind the creation of an Independent Commission. The Commission is firmly of the view that “this decision of Government would lead to a big set-back in tackling the problem of corruption in public sector undertakings and it is a retrograde step”. In fact, the Commission feels that there is clear need “to strengthen the vigilance set up qualitatively as well as quantitatively in order to keep a watch over corruption prone areas and corruption prone persons especially in the public sector undertakings where large investments have been made”. It finds that the attention paid to vigilance work so far in some of the public undertakings is “totally inadequate”. The department of vigilance, in its view, has to be accepted as an integral part of sound management for improving the financial health and practices of the organisation. “If vigilance units in the public sector undertakings are headed by officers of experience and integrity, they would be able to provide valuable assistance in improving procedures and practices and plugging loopholes in the system, if any.” 

The Commission’s report draws attention to many other points: Evidence of a new five-star culture and ostentatious living in the public sector. Administrative constraints faced by the CVC, including the long-standing need for additional staff over the years. But the Chief Vigilance Commissioner, Mr U.C. Agarwal, is clear that corruption at the administrative level cannot be eliminated without tackling it at the public and political levels. Early in 1986, Mr Agarwal, in a talk delivered to the Association of Indian Diplomats, listed some of the causes for the fall in standards of integrity and efficiency in public administration as follows: “The general social climate has become highly materialistic and no scruples or ethical values worry the people in going ahead. The spread of materialistic culture has become so widespread that all is considered to be fair in making money. No means appear to be questionable. The emphasis appears to be more on ‘making’ rather than ‘earning’ money. There are increasing number of cases of vulgar display of wealth by the socially high-ups in their style of living, housing and social functions.” 

Alas, little has been done to fight corruption at the political level. What is worse, a solemn promise made for fighting corruption remains to be implemented. On August 25, 1985, the Rajiv Government came forward with its eagerly-awaited Lokpal Bill to provide for the appointment of an ombudsman to enquire into allegations of misconduct against public men and public servants and wanted it enacted in two days. Following protests in the Lok Sabha against rushing through with this important legislation, the Bill was referred to a Joint Select Committee of Parliament. The Joint Committee was asked to submit its report by March 1986. However, this did not happen. Instead, the term now stands extended up to early May this year… the last day of the Budget Session of 1988. All in all, the powers that be need to be clear about what they want to do. The CVC’s report, which lays emphasis on preventive vigilance, is a timely reminder of the gap between practice and promise. The issue raised in it needs to be discussed in Parliament. We should remember that Parliamentary democracy is a civilised form of Government. It cannot survive the depredations of a corrupt administration and corrupt politicians. --- INFA

(Copyright, India News & Feature Alliance)

Open Forum

New Delhi, 10 April 2024 

Unemployment Challenges

CREATION & QUALITY VITAL

By Dhurjati Mukherjee 

Providing jobs is indeed a big change for a populous country like India with a huge number entering the labour force every year. Moreover, with improvement in education, not just general education but technical too, there is an abundance of job seekers in the country. As usual, guarantees, not just promises, are made during elections by political parties but there is no direct mention of how much employment opportunity would be created. 

The “India Employment Report 2024: Youth education, employment and skills” by the Institute for Human Development (IHD) and International Labour Organisation (ILO),recently released presents extremely concerning facts on India’s labour market over the last decade. Each year, around 70-80 lakh youths are added to the labour force but between 2012 and 2019, there was almost zero growth in employment – just 0.01 per cent. 

The Reportexamines the challenge of youth employment in the context of the emerging economic, labour market, educational, and skills scenarios in India and changes over the past two decades and is primarily based on analysis of data from the National Sample Surveys and the Periodic Labour Force Surveys. It found that 60 per cent of casual workers across the nation find themselves denied the minimum wage they are entitled to. “As much as 62 per cent of the unskilled casual agricultural workers and 70 per cent of such workers in the construction sector at the all-India level did not receive the prescribed daily minimum wages in 2022”, the report stated. 

Labour economist Ravi Srivastava, one of the key figures behind the Report, highlighted the systemic exploitation faced by unskilled workers contracted through intermediary entities. These workers often find themselves short-changed as contractors siphon off a portion of their earnings, leaving them deprived of even the basic minimum wage. 

Highlighting the scarcity of quality job creation in higher productivity manufacturing and services post 2019, the report found that though there was a notable shift in employment from low-productivity agriculture to relatively high productivity non-agricultural sectors, the first two decades of this millennium, the momentum slowed and ultimately reversed between 2019 and 2022. An important point made in the report is the lack of employable skills, but doubts have been raised on this issue as work-oriented skills are being imparted, both by government and private institutions all over the country. It is the demand constraint that is the key factor in job creation.   

As rightly pointed out by Srivastava and several other experts better quality jobs are concentrated among youths with a high level of education. It may also be pertinent to mention here that this education, which is mostly imparted from very well-known private institutions, are very costly and beyond the means of a major section of middle-income groups not to speak of the low-income segments. Thus, quality employment has been concentrated among the rich class who can afford high quality education to their children. 

Another report of the ILO says  “83 percent of jobless Indians are youth, only 17.5 percent of youth in rural areas are engaged in regular work, the share of people employed in industry and manufacturing has remained the same since 2011 at 26 percent of the total workforce, the percentage of youth involved in economic activities decreased from 42 percent in 2012 to 37 percent by 2022. 

The Congress, highly critical of BJP has stated, “Modi government promised 20 crore jobs in past 10 years but snatched 12 crore jobs from the youth”. It’s also alleged the youth unemployment tripled under the Modi government. In its just released manifesto, Congress  haspromised minimum wage of Rs 400 per day, employment guarantee in urban areas and Rs 1 lakh with apprenticeship to every graduate and diploma holder for one year. The BJP is yet to release its manifesto. 

Theproblem of underemployment is also related to MGNREGS programme, which is only for 100 days a year but poor allocation by the Centre can provide employment for not more than 50 days. It is necessary to ensure that this programme should provide at least say 125-150 days’ full employment, keeping in view the critical situation in the job front, the government could levy a super-rich tax of one percent to meet the additional expenses. 

Experts have rightly pointed out that the minimum the government can do is to increase the allocation for the above programme and also start a similar programme for the urban sector. There are many jobs that are neglected in the cities that include waste collection and recycling, helping in road repairs, keeping parks cleaner, etc. Even after the recent hike in rates of MGNREGS, these are less than the minimum wage of around eight important states. The well- known social activist, Nikhil Dey, has pointed out that the minimum wage remaining lower that the state minimum wage meant denial of basic standard of living to the MGNREGA workers. 

In this connection, it may be pertinent to refer to a stark reality that found millions of women work in Indian households out of which over 67 percent have been employed without written contracts, while 77 percent face violence and 85 percent have no social security, leading to a web of exploitative conditions that is masked by informality. The official figures, a cruel mockery of reality, thus miss up to 45 million workers. This vast discrepancy, reflecting the informal nature of the work, hinders efforts to monitor violations and enforce legal protections. Government initiatives, such as the e-Shram portal for informal workers, have failed to make any headway. 

According to the Periodic Labour Force Survey, over 80 percent of these women journey from rural areas seeking better economic prospects. Around 70 percent of these women fall in their prime working years and yet find themselves stuck in a low wage informal sector. It is debatable whether India’s economic progress can stand on the broken backs and the bruised spirits of these women. 

As regards high-end jobs, reports indicate that in the current year placements in higher educational institutions recorded anywhere between 35 to 55 percent. In addition to fewer offers from companies, there are reports of lower salary packages. In fact, the impact of the global scenario on the educational sector in the country is quite visible with most government and private institutions reporting around 20-25 percent drop in recruitment. One can find many post-graduate students in management or engineering without suitable jobs as most of such candidates do not want to accept a job which offers a salary below Rs 20,000-25,000.  

The situation is thus quite challenging, and the government is silent on how it envisages creation of employment opportunities.Technology-driven manufacturing with artificial intelligence expected to play a crucial role in the coming years obviously goes against employment creation and is indeed a crucial problem for a populous country like India with a huge workforce. It is imperative that with educational levels increasing the government just cannot ignore this vital sector and must come out with an effective plan of action. But before all this, recruitment in the government – both at the Centre and in the states – needs to be given top priority.---INFA 

(Copyright, India News & Feature Alliance)

Political Diary

New Delhi, 9 April 2024

Man Our Netas Are Touchy!

HOW MANY WILL YOU PUT IN JAIL?

By Poonam I Kaushish 

One man’s food is another man’s poison. A succinct testimony to the ongoing maelstrom over growing intolerance for ‘perceived’ disparaging and derogatory speeches in ongoing poll mania. Resulting in nationwide churning. 

 “If before elections, we start putting behind bars everyone who makes allegations on Youtube, imagine how many will be jailed?” Queried Supreme Court while restoring bail granted to a YouTuber accused of making derogatory remarks against Tamil Nadu Chief Minister Stalin and detained by Tamil Nadu Police in 2021. Emphatically asserting, “Everyone who makes allegations on social media cannot be put behind bars.” 

 “We do not think that by protesting and expressing views he can be said to have misused his liberty….” Court added while taking note of the FIR filed against him for participating in a protest opposing Babri Masjid’s demolition wherein he demanded release of some detained individuals. 

Last year a senior TDP leader was jailed for offensive comments against Andhra Pradesh Tourism Minister and is facing charges under several sections of the Indian Penal Code. Controversial Hindu leader Yati Narsinghanand was arrested in Haridwar for making odious and critical remarks against women 2022 but was granted bail by Uttarakhand High Court. 

In 2021 stand-up comedian Munawar Faruqui was arrested and denied bail for “poking fun” at Hindu deities on claims made by a Hindutva vigilante group in Madhya Pradesh. Never mind, he hadn’t made any statement involving Hindu gods. Leaving it to Supreme Court which intervened and released him. In 2017, another comedian Tanmay Bhat was booked for tweeting a meme of Prime Minister Modi with a dog filter on Snapchat. 

And how can one forget a consumer goods giant which was forced to withdraw a Karwa Chauth advertisement celebrating progressive marriage view featuring a lesbian couple. Or a famous designer’s “obscene” Mangalsutra billboard which portrayed a woman wearing a low-neckline dress posing intimately with a man. Big deal if it aimed to talk about empowerment.  

A clothing brand was accused of “defacing” Diwali by naming its festive collection Jashn-e-Riwaaz. A jewellery brand was forced to discontinue a commercial which showed a baby shower organised by Muslim in-laws for their Hindu bride. Predictably, some BJP MPs, Bajrang Dal and Yuva Morcha called these “insults to Hindu culture. 

Alas, we have been through seasons of intolerance whereby any film, book or artwork which pokes fun or is not in sync with our leaders thinking, cause and outlook is not only banned, vandalized and the offender arrested. Whereby, space for liberal discussion is becoming narrower shown by repeated incidents of threats, lynching and banning by self-appointed censors. 

Questionably, is India in an era of political intolerance? Have we lost the ability to accept criticism? Bordering on a narcissist phobia? Is it mere coincidence or a sign of an increasingly knee-jerk, reactionary country where one is forced to go public about a frown, removal from job or punishment? 

Is the polity afraid of clash of ideas in public life? Is Government, Centre or State crushing free expression, suppressing dissent? Are we so paranoid or intolerant that any outpouring is viewed as a threat? Underscoring the narrow-minded climate of political discourse we live in. 

Obversely, does criticism of Government or leader connotate putting a person behind bars? Is this a Government’s way of teaching us a lesson in rashtra prem and desh bhakti? Do we want to produce robots who only act at the command of what their leaders and chela thinkers, benefactors and wealth creators’ desire? 

Either way, India is in the grip of self-styled chauvinism wherein critics, intellectuals or hoi polloi are soft targets with imprudent reactions taking over debates and calibrated decisions.  Life is lived in the slim strip called official and every tweet, satire or defiance treated as a monster. Big deal if this makes public discourse impoverished and toothless. 

As blinkered, dogma-ridden debates rage on it marks a dangerous political trend of intolerance vis-à-vis freedom of expression and personal choices. If this trend goes unchecked society will get dangerously dogmatic and fragmented. Think. As India marches ahead, enroute to being Atmanirbhar our leaders need to realize in a mammoth one billion plus country there would be a billion views and one is free not accepting views of others as it is a matter of perception. A statement objectionable to a person might be normal to another. cannot curtail people’s fundamental rights. At the same time we need to desist from acerbic and speeches which spew hatred and narrow-mindedness.

Clearly, one cannot curtail people’s fundamental rights. So do we pander to rabble rousers or muzzle their voices? No. Notably, no licence should be given to anyone to spread hatred or the perilous implications of their insidious out-pourings. They need to realise a nation is primarily a fusion of minds and hearts and secondarily a geographical entity.

Besides, courts safeguard this right whereby citizens enjoy fundamental right to have different opinions, criticize Government actions and express disagreement with judicial pronouncements. The aim should be to raise the bar on public discourse, not lower it any more than has been done. 

Alongside, our netas need to realize criticism is a sign of a thriving and robust democracy. Take a lesson from leaders world-wide who are more tolerant about what’s written or depicted about them. Two classic examples of political freedom are former US President Trump who continues to be mercilessly satirized globally and ex-Italian millionaire-playboy-PM Berlusconi. In UK and France people take a lot of liberties vis-à-vis their rulers.

Undoubtedly, when taking a final call Government and Court should keep in mind that procedural safeguards almost never work in a country where the prosecutorial proclivity to arrest overrides all else. An example: Police used Section 66A of the IT Act long after it was scrapped. Moreover, conviction rates languish in single digit underlining the scant evidence that underpins such charges.

Additionally, the Apex Court’s thrust on liberty and individual freedoms as guaranteed by Article 19. Certainly, the State must be able to defend itself for what it considers derogatory and offensive but such action should never come at the cost of Constitutional rights.

Remember, democracy is not just a system of Government, it is a way in which evolved and civilised societies organise themselves; within which people live and interact with one another; based on the values of liberty, equality and fraternity. And criticism is a sign of a thriving and robust democracy. 

At some point we need to realize that coercion has a thousand fathers, while liberty is an orphan. As George Orwell said, if liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear. Hence, India could do without netas who distort politics and in turn destroy democracy and laughter. 

India was conceived as a democratic rather than majoritarian country wherein all citizens have certain basic rights. When it comes to democracy, liberty of thought and expression is a cardinal value that is of paramount significance under our Constitutional scheme. Our democracy will not sustain if we can’t guarantee freedom of speech and expression. What gives? ----- INFA,

(Copyright India News & Feature Alliance)