FTII, Academic Institutions and BJP Politics

The name of Gajendra Chauhan has been making news these days. The man has been appointed as the chairman of the governing council of Film and Television Institute of India by the current BJP government. Yet the students have refused to accept the appointment, and the agitation have continued for a month now. Students have refused to accept the appointment citing that the person lacks the required qualification and that the government has made the appointment based on political connection. 

As a person who is not at all qualified to speak about art and artiste in films and television, I cannot say whether Gajendra Chauhan is professionally qualified or not to head the institution. But the point whether he is professionally qualified to head the institution or not is an important question. The fact that he has connection with BJP/RSS is not a reason for qualification nor for disqualification. The position is not a political office; the position requires professional qualification. And therefore what is required is a professionally qualified person. 

When it comes to political office, the required qualification is that he or she and his/her party get elected. One may be illiterate, but if she has won the election, the political office is for her. However, this does not work in other domain; and ought not to work. The present government has made many key appointments in academic institutions based on political connection, and not based on merit or professional qualification. Nobel laureaute Amartya Sen has also spoken out against such appointment few days back. Given this precedent, I have a suspect even when it comes to the appointment of Gajendra Chauhan. Appointing people in academic or professional position without the required qualification is another form of corruption. And to that end, this government has been corrupt in this regard. 

For example, when a key position is to be filled in History or in a University, whether the person has left leaning or right leaning is not really the point. A person may have left or right  or left-centre leaning. But what is important that the candidate should have published article/journal/book and experience in the relevant area. Without such qualification, if a person is appointed just because he is a member of a political party, this is to damage the institution. Appointing Smriti Irani, the politician who has not even earned undergraduate degree, as education minister is one thing; appointing a businessman as a vice-chancellor of a university is another thing. 

Supporters of RSS/BJP has from time to time argue that 'he is a patriot/nationalist' to justify the appoitment. Yet patriotism of the kind defined by the saffron brigades is hardly a qualification to be in a professional position. Moreover, RSS/BJP's definition of patriotism is not the only definition of patriotism valid in the cultural or academic circle. One person says that to be in a position, one has to believe in India's glorious past. Well, India's past has both ups and downs. There were glorious deeds and there were shameful deeds. And any civilisation is like that. It is naive to believe that India's past is all good and beautiful. Such believers and proponents are doomed to despair if they would move out of their reading ghetto. 

Saffron party is in the government, and therefore one cannot argue against filling academic or professional positions with their partymen or partywomen. Yet in all of this, it is fair to insist that the government appoint professionally trained and qualified people to professional post. Maintain the difference between political post and professional position. 

Maintain Dry Status, Please

Political leaders in the state have been deliberating on the pros and cons of lifting dry status in the state. As per the paper report, there is no sustained argument in support of maintaining status quo. Instead the policy makers appeared to support lifting of dry status and make alcohol consumption legal. Given that the impact felt on the larger society will be tremendous, there requires sustained debate on the subject involving law makers, civil society, religious leaders, researchers etc. One of the MLAs stated that removing of dry status will ensure production and availability of only quality-controlled liquor to the public. This kind of reasoning is without empirical support. The empirical support would rather point to the opposite direction.

Maharashtra, Uttar Pradesh, West Bengal and other states legalise alcohol consumption. But even in these states there are plenty of 'toxic' liquor available, and thriving. Just last month – June, 2015 – in Maharashtra 104 people died after consuming illicit alcohol, and over 40 continued to remain hospitalised. In January, 2015, in Uttar Pradesh at least 25 people died after taking local made liquor, and over 100 hospitalised. Prior to that over 40 people died in the same state after consuming local made liquor during a religious festival. Few years before that 130 people died after consuming illicit liquor in West Bengal, with dozens more landing in hospital. In 2008, 180 people died after taking local made liquor in Karnataka. These are small samples of deaths caused by country-made liquor. It is reported that in Maharashtra in certain areas, within just one Ward – let alone district – death through alcohol poisoning occurs every month.

Given that people in the state are equally money minded, if not more, illicit liquor will thrive. State machinery will find it impossible to ensure the quality of alcohol being brewed by the local vendors. If dry status is lifted, the state will have thousands of local brewers, and the state machinery will never be in a position to monitor the quality. When the state machinery is unable to effectively check petrol adulteration, can it monitor and regulate the quality of possibly thousands of local liquor brewers? Empirical findings prove that illicit liquor thrive so much more in states where liquor is legalised compared to dry states. The MLA is mistaken to believe that removal of dry status will engender quality-controlled liquor.

The paper reported that the government expects to make Rs. 300-500 crores through alcohol related business once dry status is lifted. This needs critical evaluation. Tripura, whose population higher than that of Manipur, makes around Rs 124 crores out of alcohol related business last year. It is highly unlikely for Manipur Goverment to generate revenue 2-4 times more than Tripura by removing dry status. If such a monetary figure is to obtain, it can do so only if a significant percentage of population is driven to drinking. But with more drinkers, social cost increases. At present Supreme Court normally directs government to pay Rs. 5 lakhs as compensation for undue death. Placing monetary value on a person's life is problematic. Despite the problem, if one takes this figure, it would take the death of 600-1000 people that government must compensate to neutralise the monetary gain of Rs. 300-500 crores. In a small state, such number of death is unlikely. And God help us that such thing never happens! But even if dozens of death occur in, say, a far flung village in the hill, the chance of the event not being reported is so high. Media coverage in the sate is far below the desired level. And with many villages several miles away from the nearest police station, there is no measure the state government will step in to investigate the disaster and prevent further incident of such sort.

Once dry status is lifted, more men will come home and beat up their wives and children. Domestic quarrelling and beating are much more common in homes where the husband drinks compared to those where no one drinks alcohol. Poor productivity in offices and field will be more widespread. Local fights between drunkards will be common scene. Drunk driving will increase manifold resulting in higher number of accidents and increasing medical care cost to the injured. But the cost for such hospitalisation is not born by the 'bad' boy himself; the cost falls is born by the entire family. Kidney-liver damage will rise substantially, adding financial pressure on the wife specially. With more illicit liquor brewers thriving than it is under dry status, more families will fall under the spell of alcohol related illnesses. It is not just the money spent to buy one drink, which in many cases would have been earned by the wife selling vegetables on the roadside, but the physical abuse on the wife that gets more frequent and the tense environment in which the children are raised which is followed by apathy towards children's education and moral progress. Hundreds of homes will get wrecked by removing dry status. The big question is: Has the government calculated such social cost and converted them in monetary value? What is the net monetary difference between the gain and the loss?

State exists for the flourishing of the citizens. And given this function of a state, it is high time that it cracks down on alcohol business prevailing under dry status. Lifting dry status will rather be going towards the opposite direction the state ought to pursue. Instead of facilitating and developing the skill and excellence of a human person, by removing dry status the state will impregnate the health and minds of the citizens with illness and darkness. Policy makers have moral obligation not to lead the citizens toward such dark abyss. Therefore, maintain dry status, please.

(This article appears on The Herald on 11th July, 2015) 

Nature's Beauty

Courtesy: Dr. James Pao

The Other Side of India

The other Sunday, someone in the Church premise asked me, 'Are you from China?'. Last week one guy at the Safal shop from whom I have been buying vegetables almost every week for over two years ask, 'Are you from Nepal?'. Last year in Goa, in the premise where the dead body of Francis Xavier is kept, one man asked, 'Are you from Philipines?'. I said 'I am from India'. 'No, you must be from Malaysia or Philipines', he replied. Few years back, someone asked, 'Are you from Taiwan?'. 'No', I said. Then he spoke to me in Cantonese or Mandarin or whatever it was, perhaps to test me. 

Three months back I went to Mexican embassy in Delhi for a visa appointment. The guard at the gate asked, 'Have you come from Nepal?'. I said 'No, I am from Manipur'. When I visited the embassy again, three weeks back, I was asked' Are you from Nepal?'. 

The other Sunday, someone new in the Church asked me, 'Are you from China?'. Last week the guy in Safal shop from whom I have been buying vegetables almost every week for over two years asked, 'Are you from Nepal?'. And last year in Goa, a guy asked me ' are you from Philipines.' I said, 'I am from India'. He replied, 'No; you must be from Malaysia or Philipines'. And the other year someone asked ' are you from Taiwan?' 'No, I said'. Then he spoke to me in Cantonese or Mandarin or whatever it was, perhaps to test me. Four months back I had gone to a hotel near the airport to meet relatives. A boy inquired, 'They are all from China or Nepal?'. The other year I had gone to Taj Mahal with few friends. The guards at the gate refused entry to the only girl with us. (Indian are to pay Rs. 30 for entry and foreigners 700 or 800. She had Rs. 30 worth ticket.) she had no ID proof to prove that she needs to pay just Rs. 30, and not more as she is not a foreigner. Three of us who had gone in through the male Q and were not now waiting inside had to come out to find out why she got stuck. Fortunately, we all had ID proofs and after showing our IDs and that she is with us, she was allowed to enter.

Four months back or so I had gone to buy milk as usual from the nearest Mother Dairy, which is just some 150 meters away from where I stay. On my way back, one man shouted at me, from the other side of the road, 'Bahadur, iddhar aa'. (Bahadur is a term commonly used to refer to those from Nepal working in Delhi/India). I ignored and continue to walk home. He seemed upset that I did not obey him. Fixing his eyes on me, he rushed towards me, perhaps to thrash me for ignoring his call. Suddenly a car zoomed past, and he had to stop for 4-5 seconds to cross over to my side of the road. By then I had walked further ahead, closer to my gate. And he left. 

Perhaps it is high time government does something to put an end to all this... through television or Bollywood or Cricket! 

In Defence of Dry Status

One of the repeatedly stated reasons for lifting of dry status is that the prohibition is not really effective as it was anticipated when the legal provision kicked in. Reason such as this, however, requires further inquiry. In any given decent society, actions like murder or rape are criminalised with heavy penalty. However, no political society has been able to curb such criminal actions with cent percent efficiency. This does not entail that murder or rape can now be legalised because the state machinery has failed to effectively prevent such actions. It rather implies that the state needs to wake up from its slumber and get to work. True, alcohol consumption is unlike rape or murder; after all there is no apparent violation of anyone's right by one's liquor consumption as it is so with rape or murder. However, the given reason that dry status is not quite effective in curbing drinking is not a valid reason for lifting of the dry status; if at all it must imply a lesson, then it is that the state machinery is a failure. Given this factor, maintaining dry status or otherwise would have to depend on the social benefit or social cost that alcohol consumption elicits.

If there are black marketers today making profit from the business, at the expense of the general public, it is not proper for government to fit into the shoe of these black businessmen. With legal provision, government can indeed make black money white. Yet, the moral reason remains; and therefore, the so called white money may not really be white. There are black businessmen making hefty profit for selling heroin, ganja, pseudoephedrine and other tablets. State cannot be venturing in to fill the shoe of this thriving black market and make these businesses legal.

The reason why government had introduced dry status in the first place was due to social cost, and even today if government is to lift dry status, this factor must determine its course of action. Public health experts everywhere are unanimous in voicing that social cost is far higher than the social benefit that the state can dole out through revenue that it generates from liquor business. Kidney-liver damage, poor parenting, accident from reckless drunken driving, local fights, spouse quarrel, lower work productivity etc. are going to be rapidly increasing with far more easy access to liquor. If the state machinery is helpless in effectively maintaining prohibition, to consider effective monitoring of import-export and prevent further social degeneration it is not being realistic.

On behalf of the citizens, political leaders must legislate and pursue a wide range of goal that includes health, education, social harmony etc. Political goal is not about making more money, but about human development and therefore human flourishing. It is not state's business teaching husband how to express love to his wife, but it must be of state's concern if husband would come home drunk and beat his wife and children. If the state needs more money to ensure protection and care of its citizen and also its infrastructural development, it must explore other measures to generate revenue – the kind of measure that will not damage human development. Tourism may serve a fine example for such measure. Any measure that will radically increase physical abuse, health hazard, social tension etc. ought not to be pursued. The state has a moral obligation to steer clear of such policies by virtue of the moral ideal upon which the state is based and also has envisioned for its citizens. The state is not an amoral institution and ought not to be one because human being is an inherently moral animal. Therefore lifting of dry status which certainly will have massive social cost ought not to be considered at this point of time.

What good is money if its pursuit results in damaging human lives?