Political Secularism Vs. Social Secularisation

When we say 'secularism', it is often understood in different ways by different people. For example, in India there is this idea among some people that secularism entails respect of all religions. So some these folks say that no one should say this religion is bad/wrong; people need to accept that all religions are equally valid and no religion is more correct than others. Now this is a wrong understanding of secularism. 

In order to remove confusion, we need to differentiate between political secularism and social secularisation. Let me explain what these mean. 

Political secularism does have some sense of respect of all religions. But what is meant here is that the state should not discriminate any citizen on the basis of religion; the state should not say people of this religion cannot vote or people of that religion cannot have access to justice in the Court etc. Political secularism implies that the state is not going to discriminate any citizen on the basis of his or her religion. (As an individual I might say this belief of religion A is wrong or that practice of religion B is morally bad. But that's my opinion, not the state's opinion. As part of freedom of conscience that any citizen has, I can have my negative or positive opinion about this religion or that religion. But the state is not going to discriminate religious believers on the basis on his or her religion.) This is an essential aspect of political secularism. 

But political secularism also implies separation of religious institution and state. Religious leaders will hold the rein of power in religious institution; while political leaders will hold the rein of power in political institution. This is the second aspect of political secularism. 

The third aspect of political secularism is that citizens have freedom of religion. This is closely related to the second point. This says that since the state has no state religion, as religious institution and state are separate, citizens are free to choose this religion or that religion or no religion. The state will not dictate citizens' religious belief. 

Social secularisation on the other hand is the transformation or state of society that is devoid of religious values. For example, if the atheists are successful in converting all the citizens into their way of belief, then that society will be a highly secularised society. 

If the state is politically secular, won't the society also be a secularised/irreligious one? Not necessarily. Apart from the state, there are other institutions. One is family. The state can't dictate what religion a family must follow. So families can choose to be religious. Also there is civil society, and this includes clubs, churches, NGOs, Gurudwara etc. These civil society need not be irreligious; they can be religious too. Freedom of religion that political secularism offers allows other institutions to be religious within the bound of public order. 

 

Dog Meat Ban in Nagaland

On 3rd July, the Nagaland state cabinet decided to impose a ban on "commercial import and trading of dogs and dog market and also the sale of dog meat, both cooked and uncooked". The ban does not include consumption of dog meat in the state if the meat is bought from other states or if it's given by a neighour. Basically, the ban is about trading and selling of dog and dog meat. 

Few years back, when Devendra Fadnavis was the Chief Minister of the state, Maharashtra government also imposed similar ban on beef. Fadnavis went beyond and even banned possession, and thereby consumption, of beef. After all unless one could possess, one could not consume it. But the Court struck it down saying to ban possession (and consumption) is to violate the Constitution. At present, if someone wants to consume beef, one has to bring in from another state. 

In Article 48 of the Constitution, the Directive Principe of state policy has a clause that says that the state shall take "steps for preserving and improving the breeds, and prohibiting the slaughter, of cows and calves and other milch and draught cattle." Since the Hindutva brigade cannot appeal to their religious or dharmic sentiment to seek protection for cows, they seek to implement cow protection through appealing to this Directive Principle. Since the saffron/Hindutva brigade has reverence for cow for so long, the Directive Principle itself was framed this way in order to accommodate the sentiment.

At the same time, matter concerning food is also about life. And state itself exists to protect life. Article 21 of the Constitution says that "no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty...." Now to deprive someone from eating certain item as food which traditionally has been considered as food is to infringe on his right to life. Therefore, the Court could not allow the state to infringe on citizens' right to life. The fine balance, therefore, is to ban trading of beef yet not ban consumption of it. 

Given that the RSS/BJP folks have reverence for cow, one can understand why they tried hard to find reason within the Constitutional limit to ban or minimise beef consumption, and thereby protect and preserve cows. But why would Neiphiu Rio and the Cabinet wish to ban trading of dog meat, and thereby limit dog meat consumption? After all if none could sell, consumption is going to come down. Is it because of their love for dog, like the love of RSS/BJP for cow? Not quite. There is this line that says that dog meat consumption is bringing bad name to Nagaland. So basically, it is to stop defaming of the state that dog meat trading is banned; it is to uplift the name of the state that dog meat trading is banned. This is not entirely unreasonable because dogs are considered to be our best friends. However, to ban trading of an item that is traditionally considered as food item does not sound very plausible. A mature democratic society should not ban a food item particularly one that most of its citizens have been relishing for ages. Moreover, being a state located in the eastern region, which is cold, people need fat in their dietary habit. This has been obtained mainly through consumption of meat be it beef, dog, chicken or pork. The state may urge people to shed meat consumption and go for coconut oil, sunflower oil etc. But the way to do this is not by threatening citizens with imprisonment through a legislation or an ordinance, but through other means. If Rio thinks that dog meat consumption is not a civic virtue or it's not a habit of a civilized community, then for the state to ban it is also not the way a (liberal) democratic society should behave. By imposing a ban on dog meat trading, Rio took one step ahead and one step backward. 

In an age where states have been curtailing citizens' liberty inch by inch, I wish that Nagaland government had sought to bring glory to its name through other measures! 

Was Rohith Vemula Being Anti-National?

Rohith Vemula committed suicide after disciplinary action was taken by the University authority. His death has  triggered a fresh row of debate about the status of Dalits in India; Rohith being from Dalit background. The controversy has its genesis because of a quarrel the students group he was affiliated to had with another students group. Rohith was part of a students group of the Dalits and the other group these students quarreled with was the right wing Hindu group, ABVP, the students wing of BJP. It has been reported that Rohith was labelled 'anti-national' by people in ABVP after he and his friends protested against the hanging of Yakub Memon, the person responsible for the bombing of Mumbai.

Whether the quarrel has anything to do with Dalit vs. Anti-Dalit or whether the extreme step was taken due to external pressure and blame must be shouldered by those putting the pressure, I am not going to touch on those matters. Much has been already said. I want to examine whether the protest against Yakub's hanging was an anti-national activity or not.

I think it is beyond reasonable doubt that Yakub was indeed involved in Bombay bombing. When he was hanged last year, there was protest from different quarter, including Rohith and friends apparently. There was no denial that there was a protest. But why were they protesting against the hanging of a criminal, whose criminal activity led to the death of 257 people besides wounding many?

Was the protest trying to say (1) that Yakub is innocent and he is not responsible for the bombing and so he should not be hanged. (2) that Yakub should not be hanged though other people who would have done similar bombing should be hanged -- because Yakub is Yakub, and no one else, he should be spared. (3) that Yakub should not be hanged because hanging in general is to be done away with; he should just be kept in prison as it has been done till then.

No. 1 is not on the table... because he was guilty. I don't think Rohith and others were saying that Yakub was innocent. No. 2 is unreasonable... because Yakub alone being spared when others would face the rope is unfair. Why should Yakub be given special treatment? Was Rohith and his friends saying that Yakub and Yakub alone should be spared and other similar criminal activities deserve hanging? May be; may not be. How about no. 3? There were people who argued this way. It is possible that Rohith and friend were also saying this thing. The chance of this message being communicated through their protest was higher than other messages being community.

But if this no 3 was what they meant through their protest, was it an anti-national activity? I do not see how this would amount to an anti-national activity. Suppose they were saying for no. 2, would it mean that their protest was an anti-national activity? I would still say their protest was not an anti-national activity though I would say their protest was unreasonable and unfair. I would thus conclude that it was unfair for those in the ABVP camp to label Rohith as anti-national.

Murdered For Supposedly Consuming Beef at Dadri, Near Delhi!

The other day a Muslim man was killed and his son thrashed by a mob for supposedly eating beef. The family of the deceased says he did not eat beef; it was rather mutton. But suppose it was beef, what's the problem? There is no law against beef consumption in Uttar Pradesh, newspaper reports say. You can read an article on beef consumption by the Hindus in the past here; another article on the controversy on beef consumption can be read here, written by a fine political thinker in India. 

In this post I want to respond to one the of the arguments coming from RSS-BJP supporters which goes like this: If pork was not allowed in Saudi Arabia, why should beef be allowed in India? Well, to put it simply: India is not another version of Saudi Arabia; that's why even if pork is banned in Saudi Arabi, beef cannot be banned in India. 

Saudi Arabia's history is different from India's history. Modern India that came to be established in 1947, after getting independence from the British empire, is made up of different religious communities. When such people were invited to be part of India and the idea of India was framed, the idea of a Hindu state was rejected. The people chose not to create another version of Pakistan. Pakistan went on to become a Muslim state; India chose to be a secular state, having no state religion. My ancestors were never ever Hindu and so were the ancestors of the Mizos or the Khasis (of Meghalaya) or most Arunachalis. So how can India be a Hindu state? 

India cannot be a theocratic state. just as Pakistan and Saudi Arabia are.  

Why Beef Ban?

The BJP government in Maharashtra has banned beef consumption. Union Home Minister Rajnath Singh says that his government intends to legislate ban on cow slaughter all over the nation... so that no one in India can eat beef. This cow slaughter ban has been a consistent demand of the saffron brigade for years. And now with BJP government in power in Centre as well as different states, the wishes of the saffron brigade will ever come true! Question is: Is it alright for the government to dictate to the citizens what they can eat and what they cannot eat? 

India is not a theocratic state; it is a secular state. It respects people of all religious persuasions. Given this affirmation, to impose the religious belief on one particular community upon another is not right. Religious chauvinism goes against the ethos of the Constitution of India. To privately believe that one's religion is as good as another religion or even better is fine; but for the government to insist and then impose that one religion or its practice is better than others is definitely wrong. And in imposing beef ban, BJP is doing what is wrong.

But what about imposing a ban by the government on alcohol -- making a state a dry state? Imposing a ban on alcohol is different from imposing a ban on beef eating. The reason for alcohol ban is because of the social cost that alcohol elicits. For example, drunken driving, wife beating, liver damage etc are some of the effects of alcohol consumption in many societies. Certain religion may say that alcohol consumption should be avoided. But when the government imposes a ban on alcohol, it is not because religion A says such and such against alcohol; it is because of the kind of damage that alcohol brings about to a society for which alcohol consumption is banned. Beef eating does not cause such kind of social damage. Of course, excessive eating of beef can cause health problem. But too much of mutton or pork too can cause health problem. Too much of all kinds of things can cause problem for that matter. But the BJP government imposing a ban on beef eating is just because it wishes to impose its religious belief upon all the citizens. This is nothing but damaging the secular fabric of India, working against the Constitutional ethos of the state. Those who believe in religious freedom must protest against such policy of BJP. 

Freedom Fighters or Terrorists

There is a saying that is often repeated: One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. At the superficial level, there appears to be truth in the statement. However, if one digs deeper there are at least two reasons why the statement is problematic. This is important to be set right because faulty idea such as this can have a life of its own and later on hurt the larger society. Arriving at a globally agreed understanding of what consists terrorism has been elusive for various reasons. However, as of today a credible case can be built that defines terrorism as 'employing terror as a political tool by state or non-state actor in a deliberate, systematic and sustained manner upon non-combatants in order to attain certain political objective'.

From time to time Imphal valley has witnessed bombs being planted in public places by non-state actors, resulting in several civilians being killed and wounded by the bomb blasts. Barring an incident or two – like the one where a bomb was planted at Mini Secretariat, Senapati, recently – bomb culture is largely absent in the hill districts of Manipur or even in the entire Naga-land. This suggests that the principle with which some of those in the Imphal valley and the hill districts operate are different. All the non-state actors operating in the Imphal valley or in the hills would insist that they are fighting for self-determination, for political space where they can exercise political autonomy. One important distinction, however, is the way the different parties pursue their political objective.

Given the frequency of bomb blasts in public places, it is hard to miss the point that certain non-state actors are resorting to terror to achieve their political objective. Even in a full-blown war, maximum restraint has to be maintained to avoid civilian casualties. Gun-fights and bomb blasts that target the rival armed forces will occur in battlefield. Yet a distinction must be observed between combatants and non-combatants. Bombs in public places that target non-combatants is terrorism. This is a poor reflection of a group that is pursuing self-determination. Even when the political objective is just, the strategy to achieving the goal can damage the cause. Planting bomb in public places is just the kind of strategy that will invite international and local outrage – a perfect recipe for political disaster; a freedom fighter having become a terrorist.

The same concept of terrorism applies to para-military forces as well operating in the region. Fake encounter killing is not an unusual story being circulated among the general public. 'Friends of the hill people' undertaking active effort to befriend the hill people get nullified with an instance of fake encounter killing. Given the history in the state or the region, significant number of people grew up thinking of the armed forces as Devil's stooge. With an instance of fake encounter killing, it is so easy to typecast the entire security personnel with the age old impression. Even without any effort to reach out and befriend the hill people, 'friends of the hill people' might as well look within and try to curb any kind of fake encounter killing and harassment of innocent public. This will be more productive in creating a friendly outlook. Yet the more important reasons is because of the moral implication such an action bears and guilt associated with it – or ought to associate with it.

The North East in general has a sense of historical movement which is rather different from the mainstream Indian society in several ways. For example, the mass uprising against the British Raj did not take place in the North East just it happened in other parts of the country in the 1930s or 1940s. This kind of mass movement or the lack has a bearing on the present political scenario. No wonder there is some sort of a political faultline between the North East and the rest of India. Given this reality, the way these different entities – state and non-state actors – respond to the ever evolving society will determine the course of political future and its speed of change. Let no one take the general public for granted!

( For the Hornbill Express for 23rd Feb. 2015)   

Politicising the Womb

In recent times, there has been an attempt by certain social and political figures to use womb to further the religious faultline that is now reappearing after NDA returns to New Delhi. Sakshi Maharaj, a Member of Parliament from Uttar Pradesh and who was selected by the then General Secretary of BJP Amit Shah to contest the election, had recently said that Hindu women should have four children. It was this same person who had said that Nathuram Godse, the one who murdered Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi, is a patriot. VHP working President Praveen Togadia went further by urging Hindu couples to produce 8-10 children each in order to ensure that the religion he adheres to survive for years to come. These two are joined by other members of the Saffron brigades who urge Hindu women to produce more children. Given that the preliminary leak of the Census 2011 report suggests that the Muslim's percentage in India has gone up in contrast to Hindus' percentage having gone down, one should not be taken by surprise if the rhetoric heats up.

It is true that Muslims have higher birth rate than most other religious groups, and that Muslims are more conservative about use of family planning measure and that their children specially the girls get married at an age lower than the girls of other religious groups. However, it cannot be established that the growth is due to deliberate plan to emerge as the biggest religious group in the Indian sub-continent or the world and dominate over the rest; nor is it due to imagine threat or insecurity the community perceived from others. The growth can be mainly attributed to religious doctrine, ignorance, lack of access to family planning measure etc. The point that the sharp increase is possibly best attributed to porous border with Bangladesh, however, cannot be missed here. But this is also unavoidable because right within Bangladesh there are 111 Indian enclaves. The people in these enclaves are Indian, but since they are right within Bangladesh Indian Govt. has not set up Police Station, Post Office, etc. for the people. So legally they are Indian, but practically they are more like Bangladeshi. Similarly, there are 51 Bangladeshi enclaves within Indian states – Tripura, Assam, Meghalaya and West Bengal. These people are legally Bangladeshi but practically more like Indian. Given this kind of situation in the border, strict regulation of crossing the boundary is never easy. If the saffron brigades do not want to see Muslims from across the border coming into India, resulting in Muslims' population increasing, then the more appropriate measure is to tell Modi to settle the border issue quickly. Urging the Hindu women to reproduce more to compete with the religious minority specially the Muslim is more of a crude and irresponsible call.

In sharp contrast, the Pope tells his flock not to produce so many children, but shows responsible parenting. All religions would insist that having so many children is not necessarily wrong. However, responsible parenting requires that you produce children not more than you can raise. Having produced so many children, and yet failed to provide decent education or home for them is not an ideal situation. It is even worse if the untrained and uncorrected children grow up to make life difficult for the parents and the society. There are possibly those who are, due to poverty in training or resources, unable to demonstrate responsible parenting and the result boomeranged on them. But the point that the Pope makes deserves paying attention to across different religious lines.

At a time when communalisation of politics is on the rise, politicising the womb not only disrespects the women but also prepares the ground for polarising the religious communities further. Interpreting the call in the light of what all have been happening – undermining secularism, forceful reconversion to Hinduism, praising assassin Godse, pseudo-scientific remark from Vedic era etc. this is another salvo from the quarter close of the ruling dispensation that tries to threaten the rights of the religious minorities and well-being of the larger society. If RSS and its affiliate are given free hand, our society is doomed. In all of this, one can take comfort in the fact that an idea that is destructive will eventually self-destruct. If politicising the womb is a bad idea, the idea and those who advance it will not be able to sustain it for so long. The larger society will eventually realise the futility and chaos that such idea give rise to. After all sustaining a civilisation and taking it forward requires an idea that does not threaten the rights of the other to flourish.

(This article appears @ the Hornbill Express on 2nd February, 2015) 

Against Anti-Conversion Law

Is BJP's suggestion to introduce anti-conversion bill in the Parliament a good idea? Well, I don't think so. Here is one of the reasons. Suppose, a person from India goes to Cambridge University and receives the finest education available. He then realises that her religion, say, Christianity is not a good religion. He renounces it and becomes an atheist. Well, because anti-conversion bill is in place, there seems to me two options available before him: live as an adherent of this religion which he now believes is bad till his last breathe or go to jail and rot there. 

Or, say, an atheist from India after having done proper study of the matter in Cambridge University realises that Christianity is true and right. Should he convert or still live with the belief that he now considers is mistaken? Well, it would be a bad law if he is not allowed to exercise his freedom of conscience and so freedom of religious belief. Why imprisoned a person in the religious belief that he is born with? Why not let people explore and exercise their choice? If the religious belief is good and right, it will eventually prevail; it has nothing to be afraid of. 

What needs curbing is forceful conversion or conversion through allurement. Let the right to propagate one's religion and so the right to choose religion remain as it is. 

Religious Minorities And BJP's Moral Obligation

The architect of modern India made India a secular state. By 'secular' it means that the state will respect all the different religions in the country. States in the North East like Meghalaya, Mizoram and Nagaland have more Christians than other religious adherents; whereas state like Jammu & Kashmir has more Muslim; and Punjab more Sikhs. People of these different states have followed certain religious practices even before present India is born. The territorial feature of India pre-1947 was never like what we have today. Yet the religious composition of these people have evolved to this pattern even before present India came into being though the states are carved out much later. And since these different people came to be part of India or rather was merged with India with their religious belief already embedded in their identity – as an individual and as a community – it is never going to be fair telling them that India will be a Hindu nation. Due to such diverse religious and ethnic historical baggages, it is just so reasonable that India continues to espouse secularism even today.

The founding fathers of RSS never believed in secularism. There is much literature to build a solid case that RSS leaders wanted India to be a Hindu nation. Hindutva is supposedly a way of life of an Indian based on Hindu religious belief.  For RSS and the sister organisations Indian identity is to be identified with Hindu identity; and this Hindu nation is to be a strong and a powerful nation. A superpower. This was envisioned in the formation of RSS and this continues to be the guiding principle even today. BJP is believed to be a political wing of this RSS. No wonder RSS cadres actively campaign for BJP time and again during assembly or parliamentary election; and BJP leaders are often drawn from those with RSS upbringing. Besides RSS, other right wing Hindutva based organisations like VHP and Bajrang Dal constitute the Sangh Parivar that provides massive electoral support to BJP. Thus this association between BJP and right-wing Hindu organisations like RSS, VHP and Bajrang Dal is the main reason why the religious minorities are quite suspicious of BJP. Had such association between a political party and pseudo-religious & political organisation been absent, the predicament of the religious minorities would never have surfaced in the first place!

The infamous demolition of the Mosque at Ayodhya, the mythical birth place of Ram, in 1992 by the combined speech and act of political leaders of BJP and Sangh Parivar and the failure of the state to bring to trial those responsible for the damage, that effected riots leading to hundreds of dead on the street provides a glaring example why BJP and Sangh Parivar pose a threat to the religious minorities.  The killing of Muslims and Christians in states like Gujarat and Orissa by the members of Sangh Parivar and the lackluster response of the state's machinery to the violence are still fresh in the memory. The proven records of how BJP leaders are 'dictated' by RSS ideology as in the case of L K Advani being forced to resign as the President of BJP after his comment on Jinnah in Pakistan or the action taken against Jaswant Singh for his praising of Jinnah etc serve to reinforce the fear that RSS will remote control the BJP government. RSS says that it will not remote control the government, but looking at the past records, it is very difficult to believe the statement.

If BJP is to build a strong, peaceful and prosperous India, let it respect the freedom given to adherents of different religious persuasion as envisioned by the architect of modern India. Let Modi pursue economic liberalisation or set up a strong defence mechanism. One may disagree on how far these things are pursued or how they are pursued, but one can maintain 'let us agree to disagree' kind of a principle on such matters. But my religious belief is so basic to me. I don't want RSS to dictate my religious belief or take away my religious freedom just as I don't want to do the same to others. I would rather see India being torn to pieces – return to pre-1947 state with so many princely states – than let RSS and its cousin BJP take away my religious freedom. Given this kind of deep conviction and the social disorder it could trigger, if undermined, BJP leadership team has a moral and legal obligation to safeguard the basic religious fabric of the state; more so because that is what the architect of the modern believes in. 

( This was published in Hueiyen Lanpao on 21st May 2014. Link is here)

An Opinion on Article 377 of the Indian Penal Code

Article 377 of Indian Penal Code reads: Whoever voluntarily has carnal intercourse against the order of nature with any man, woman or animal, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment of either description for term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine. 

Depending on my health condition, it would be perfectly fine for the doctor to advise me what to eat and what not to eat. But it would be perfectly insane if the Court would provide legal menu to the citizens on what to eat during lunch or dinner. There has to be a limit to which the Court could have a say in my personal life. The question we have here is how far the legal system can or should enforce its view on one's sexual life. 

I don't think criminalising or decriminalising homosexual act takes us back to the past. There are instances in antiquity where it was acceptable and also instances where it was not acceptable. The arguments to criminalise or decriminalise should be based on some other grounds. 

The matter deserve serious deliberation because it would further spill over to the question whether the Court should recognise and affirm if two men/women choose to live as husband and wife, and not limit their relation to occasional 'lovemaking'.  Since legal recognition entails legal affirmation, there is the need to deliberate if we want to affirm, honour and celebrate same sex marriage as a society. This is when, I believe, the collective viewpoint of the society comes into play, or should come in, in framing the legal code of conduct of a state. 

I am not in favour of a society where there is (rampant) fornication or adultery. My religious belief informs me that such acts are not morally right. But I also have reservation about the Court criminalising adult consensual fornication. Isn't the Court impinging too much on individual's freedom if it has to imprison any man or woman who engages in lovemaking behind closed door before they get married? To push the matter little more: how about the Court putting unmarried love-bird into jail for kissing behind closed door? Or how about putting to jail those who hold hands before getting married? 

But suppose the Court decriminalises homosexual act, how far should it go? Should it go to the extent of conducting Court marriage for them? I would answer in negative. My religious view informs me that marriage is a union between one and one woman, and therefore I would like to keep it that way. (The Muslims are informed by their Scripture that even one man and four women is allowed; so let them retain their viewpoint.) One may argue that if in my view concession could be made to the Muslims, why not make concession to, say, an atheist too who has no religious text to inform him or her about marriage and thus allow him/her same sex union. Well, the Muslims have a particular view; it's not that anything will work them. Whereas in the other case, there is no particular viewpoint as such. Today it could be same sex union; tomorrow it could be one man and ten men; and the day after, it could be one man and one horse. Where do we put a stop? When there is no given sanction, it opens up the gate to go down to any extent. Therefore, my view is that in general marriage should be a union between one man and one woman. This is the marital union we as a society should affirm and honour. 

Church, State and Public Justice

Church, State and Public Justice: Five Views

Edited By: P.C.Kemeny

Authentic Books

Page 254

The book presents the viewpoint of five schools on how matters of Church, State and Public Justice should be dealt with. It has the position of the Catholics, Anabaptist, Principled Pluralist, Classical Separation perspective and Social Justice perspective. After each position is explained, the rest of the schools provide comments and thus readers are given good materials to evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of each school.

I picked up this book because I wanted some clarification, and I would say I was provided sufficient information. As a student of theology my interest has been primarily on political theology and eschatology. I am quite aware of the already-and-not-yet tension when it comes to the idea of the kingdom of God. My question was when I pray "thy kingdom come on earth as it is in heaven" how much do I let the aspect of 'already' come into play specially in the domain of political thought. When I read the Anabaptist position in the book, presented by the well-known theologian Ron Sider, I could very well identify myself with him at many point. I thought that used to be me! But even before I came to chapter 4 of Ron Sider, I would say I have found my answer through the writing of Clarke E. Cochran, who outlined the Catholic perspective. One commentator pointed out that Ron Sider's position has a weak concept of the State. I agree. At least for me my understanding of Church-State relationship was at some point fuzzy because I had a weak understanding of the theory of a State. After having read more on Moral and Political Philosophy, I began to wonder how Political Philosophy and Political Theology should relate to one another. And I found that the position outlined by the Catholic position provides the most robust and thought through framework on how a Christian church need to relate with the State. This does not mean that I agree with all the detail in the chapter. In fact Dr. Cochran himself says that not all the Catholics have a uniform position on the finer details. 

Dr. Cochran outlines that Catholic church has four features on how Church and State can relate with regard to matters of public justice: 

Cooperation: This refers to the way the church works together with the government on matters regarding fighting poverty, providing international relief etc. 

Challenge: This takes the form of challenging government policy through agitation, lobby etc.  For example, Catholic Americans  may challenge the policy of the US government to invade Iraq. 

Transcendence: This is about seeking to propagate one's religious belief. This sort of thing transcends the mission of the state, but is part and parcel of being a follower of Jesus Christ.

Competition: This is when Catholic run institution like College compete with government funded institution.

The book would be useful for any Christian student of ethics, political science or political theology. In fact, if people of other religious traditions wish to know the kind of thing that Christians believe, and how the beliefs are applied in political institutions this book may shed light.But non-Americans can skip Chapter 2 which basically is an interpretation of how the framers of US Constitution intended to maintain separation between state and the church.

Syria: This is What Lust for Power Does

The Assad family has been in power in Syria for over 40 years; Bashar for 13 years, and his father before him for 30 years. This is not democracy! Well, democracy is possible in Muslim dominated State as it is happening in Pakistan, Iran, Indonesia etc. though imperfect it may be. One advantage with democratic system is that you can vote a person out if and when he or she is found to be inefficient or corrupt. This is not possible when it's a family that rules or intend to rule as long as the family line continues. 

Suppose Assad prevails finally, what is going to be left of Syria? A deep political divide over the dead bodies of over hundred thousand people, a battered economy and an ostracised political institution. A man who loves his country would not want his nation to reach this state. So what is keeping Assad in power all these days? I can imagine one thing: the lust for power! Even if it means ruling over debris, this man wants to retain his power. Had he left the "throne" last year, his country would not have plummeted this far. 

But what makes Russia take such a stand? Being a democracy, Russia should prefer democracy. But it does not want to lose a friend, even if the friend is not a democratic state. Well, one can understand if it does not want to create political instability and so chooses not to disturb the 'peaceful' state in the first place. But when there is a chance to negotiate for a democratic state of affair to prevail, why not go for that? Again, the answer is power; it does not want to lose power! After all having one friend less is to lose some power. 

It's unfortunate when powerful people/nation are willing to sacrifice hundreds of thousands of people to maintain their status. But this reveals a lesson that human heart has the potential to get corrupt, to go for power at any cost. If the person is infinitely wise and absolutely just, it does not pose problem being so powerful. But mortal human are not so. Therefore, democratic form of government is the most plausible form of government for the present generation. In democracy there is a system when one's power can be kept in check through election. This is not so in totalitarian system; and so often the term 'totalitarian regime'.

NB: But this may also raise a question whether it's the totalitarian system in heaven. I guess, it's yes, because God who is infinitely wise and absolutely just is in total control. But because it's a just reign, it's not a regime and because God is infinitely wise, there has to be total orderliness. So in a way, heaven is where God reigns where justice and peace prevail.

An Idea of Justice: A Book Review

Introduction

I endorse what one reviewer says about the author: one of the most influential public thinkers of our time. And I want to add that Prof. Sen is a very modest intellectual figure, a fine human being. One may not always agree with what he says, but it's hard not to admire his honesty and his love for humankind. He's one person I deeply respect and admire! 

 Critique of Rawls
 

The book is a rather thick one – over 400 pages, without the bibliographies. But it's not a deep philosophical treatise that would render the mind of an amateur reader go round and round. But to understand well what he says, I think one needs to have a fair idea of Rawl's idea of justice. It is so because he critiques Rawl's approach to obtaining justice while advancing his view on how a more just society can be obtained. This is how Rawls' idea of justice go about. Let us take a hypothetical condition where members of a certain polity come together to deliberate what kind of principles they would want to govern their collective life. (This is social contract theory). The members don't have ideas about what their ultimate desire in life is or their social and economic status etc. The 'veil of ignorance' has covered their knowledge about their respective social and economic status. This 'veil of ignorance' is applied so that whatever set of principles is obtained by the members in the hypothetical polity, it will be just; no one would be in a position to tailor the principles to suit their individual's interest; all members are equal, and in such equal and ignorant condition, they choose two set of principles:

1. Each person is to have an equal right to the most extensive total system of equal basic liberties compatible with a similar system of liberty for all.
2. Social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that they are both (a) to the greatest benefit of the least advantage, consistent with the just savings principle, and (b) attached to offices and positions open to all under conditions of fair equality of opportunity. (TJ, 32)

Rawls contention is that if this set of principles, obtained by way of unbiased deliberation of the members, guide political institution then justice would prevail. Sen challenges this approach saying that trying to identify the perfect set of principles is just not possible. People will have difference of opinion about what right principles or just institution are, and therefore Rawl's approach will not succeed, Sen argues. Sen further adds that people in the past did not agree with themselves about what just society looks like before they proceeded to remove injustice. I don't find this point that Sen raises quite convincing. Because one might say that one can work towards removing injustice, say, slavery while at the same time work to identify the perfectly just institution!

There are two more points that Sen raises as critiques of Rawl's approach, and I think the two points are closely related. In Rawlsian method the deliberation to identify the set of principles takes place within a particular political community, a nation-state. ( Rawls tries to refine this process in his later book Political Liberalism to include deliberation across different political units, but I think it is still problematic). Sen argues that when the quest for justice is confined to just one political unit, even if it's just hypothetical principles, then that kind of principle is not applicable across inter-national scenario; when issues of different nation-states intersect. For example, Sen would ask, how will Rawl's approach deal with the issue of international terrorism? A contract theorist might reply – a sovereign global state will deal with inter-national matters. But since there is no sovereign global state, the problem with what a Rawlsian suggests still persists. UN cannot do the job because it's sovereignty is not like the sovereignty of a nation-state!
 

Sen also raises another problem for Rawls. In Rawlsian method the deliberation of the members is assumed to be taking place within a political unit in an impartial and fair manner. Sen calls this as closed impartiality. How much ever impartial we try to be, Sen argues, we have our own parochialism. No peoples group or region or political unit is free from parochialism. So we need interaction with people outside of our own community to tell us our parochialism and our flaws. Sen calls this as open impartiality. Rawls' approach suffers from what is called closed impartiality; but what we really need is open impartiality. The latter is superior, argues Sen!

Capability Approach

In the capability approach, Sen argues, the three points that he raises against Rawl's method are overcome. But what exactly is capability approach? In Rawls' approach the quest for justice is about setting just institutional structure; whereas in Sen's approach the quest for justice is about enhancing the capability of a person – enhancing the freedom of a person to choose the kind of life a person has reason to value. Rawls talks about liberty, but Sen would argue that liberty is not quite the appropriate category wrt a discourse on justice if a person is unable to go to vote because she requires wheelchair to “walk” and she has no wheelchair nor paved road to “walk”. In this case her capability to “walk” is absent; and so seeking justice needs to consist of enhancing her capability. 
 

For Sen the quest is about capability, not functioning. Let me differentiate the two; and this is a very important point. Let us say there are two people who are fasting: A. Gandhi and G. Mogambo. Gandhi is a political activist and he is fasting in order to seek a change in Army Act; whereas Mogambo is fasting because there is famine in his region. In term of 'functioning' both of them are fasting. However, in term of 'capability' the two are different: Gandhi can give up his fasting and choose to eat whereas Mogambo does not have the choice to give up fasting; he is forced to fast because of famine. Let me also give another example. For a proponent of capability approach what is of concern is whether a person has the capability to vote or not, not really whether one is voting or not. Due to religious reason a person from a religious community like Amish Mennonites may not vote. An Amish Mennonite may choose to vote if she wishes to but in order to respect his freedom of religion, the choice is left open to her. If the concern of a proponent of capability approach is 'functioning', one would have to seek that she votes. However the concern is 'capability' and therefore the choice is left open to her.

 A Brief Remark!

 I think Sen is largely successful is filling the lacunae that social contract theorist leave behind. Sen's approach is simple and yet touches the lives of ordinary people. The book has some repetitive points but I take them to be something which the writer is trying to reinforce his thought. And one great thing about the book is that it is made available at a much cheaper rate compared to many other books published by reputed publishers. What the book does not address is the idea of the good. One might say that because of the fact that people of different philosophical and religious persuasion have different opinions about what the good life is, therefore it's best to take just the 'overlapping consensus', the strand of belief that is common to all the social and religious groups. But can a moral and political philosophy really avoid this subject matter of the good life? Didn't some people group take slavery or infanticide to be a good thing? When Sen argues that substantive freedom must extend even the slaves, won't some people in the 19^th century in North America argue back that he must not say anything like that.

The other day Irom Sharmila was produced before the Court saying her fasting amounts to an attempt to commit suicide. Sharmila says that she wants to live, not to die. But she also says that her fasting is against the AFSPA that gives immunity to the army even if the act of the army officer violates the dignity of a human person. As a thinker seeking to influence the public policy, would Sen argue that the Court was mistaken for being concerned with the “functioning” of Sharmila and therefore needs to change its legal position or rather say that it was right for the Court to be concerned with her “functioning”?

But being concerned just about capability, I think, leads a person onto some sort of libertarianism. Should the state ever say this act or way of life of an individual is wrong? If I am allowed to use my capability even to harm my own well-being, where does that lead us onto? So coming back earlier point – Can we really be silent on the idea of the good life in a discourse of moral and political philosophy?

These are some issues I think Sen and his well-wishers must grapple with. Capability approach is still evolving as its proponents admit, and we'll have to wait and see how it evolves further...

Which is Easier: Straightening a Dog's Tail or Making Election Clean?

Politics has become a dirty game. It has now come to a situation where people say unless you are a crook, you cannot make a career in politics. But if politics has become a den of thieves and robbers, we cannot expect them to legislate rules that would govern our collective life towards a more progressive society; to enhance our well-being. How can we expect thieves and robbers to lead the way in striving for common good? Good people must enter the political arena if we have to have a decent society. 

So this campaign -- Clean Election -- by certain groups is a brave and a desirable move. And to make Clean Election more effective in the future, this is what I have to say. It is not sufficient to say that candidates should not distribute money or that people should not take money from the candidates. I call telling the candidates not to try to lure people with money or telling people not to take money as the first line of Strategy for Clean Election campaign. I think we need a second line as well to make it more effective. And this is the second line of strategy: Even if you have taken money, you need not vote for the person from whom you have taken money. Don't let your conscience prick you into voting for the candidate from whom you have taken money! 

Now let me provide a theological justification for the second line. Over the years if all the candidates realise that giving money does not really gather votes, they will stop using money to purchase votes. If money does not gather votes, real issues that affect the lives of the people will have to be the subject of electioneering. And this is what Clean Election campaign wants to obtain.

Human being is intrinsically good. I am a Christian and I believe that when God made us, he declares his creation good. But there is also something that has gone wrong. So there is also this part of fallenness in all of us. So trying to get a perfect world through democracy or theocracy or monarchy or whatever is going to be like trying to straighten a dog's tail. However, we can make the world less unjust or a little better place to live. This is possible!

Amartya Sen, Religious Identity & Conflicts

In his essays and lectures, Amartya Sen emphasizes again and again that all individuals belong to different groups. The fact that Paole is a teacher does not entail that being a teacher is his only identity. Besides being a teacher, he is also affiliated to diverse groups that give him some sort of identity. He is a hockey player, political activist, poet, Christian, childless parent, Indian etc. Affiliation to different groups give him identity which if a particular identity is prioritized over others, Sen argues, his identity would be wrongly misconstrued. This multiple affiliation by an individual leads Sen to argue that mono-categorisation of a person's identity is unhelpful and can easily play into the hand of a religious fundamentalist. Is Prof. Sen correct? 

I think as a non-religious person Sen fails to see how much religious worldview shapes the identity of a person. Key questions like where am I headed? How do I obtain moral learning from? What is the purpose of my life? etc are very significant matters in the life of a person. For a practising Christian or a Muslim these questions are answered through the sacred text. Unlike a non-religious person for whom where there is no particular source from where all these answered can be derived, a Christian or a Muslim search deep into their respective Scripture to get the answer. Departure from this practice would make him or her a non-practising Christian or a Muslim. 

Once a Christian or a Muslim learns an ethical pattern from the Scripture, he or she will apply the learning in all the domain of his or her life. Thus religious affiliation effects the person to live out his or her religious conviction. This religious affiliation takes priority over even national affiliation or family affiliation. This is the nature of religious affiliation. Religious affiliation does not always come into conflict with national or family affiliation. But sometimes it does. For example, even when former USSR adopted atheism as its official religion, faithful Christians refused to comply with the state's law.

Does this entail that a clash of civilisation is inevitable? No. But that is not the point of inquiry here. In this post I seek to underline that religious identity of particularly the Christians or the Muslims is the most primary identity and will continue to remain so.

Can Indian Secularism Tolerate Beef & Pork?

Securalism in India has been considered to be an inclusive one. It is the kind that does not try to kick all the gods upstair so that the citizens could have a godless polity; but  it is rather the kind that attempts to accomodate all the gods into the system. In a premier institution, Jawaharlal Nehru University, a group of students who called themselves The New Materialists plans to organise a beef and pork festival in the campus on the 28th of September. The plan has been opposed by Vishwa Hindu Parishad, Bajrang Dal etc., all belonging to the Hindutva camp. 

Hindus do not eat beef -- or are not supposed to eat it. And Muslims are not to eat pork. Yet a large section of the Indian population are neither Hindu nor Muslim. And among this crowd a large number enjoys eating beef and pork. So whose right is being deprived of when such a controversy surfaces: those who find eating such meat offensive or those who are refused permission to eat such meat openly? The issue is not unrelated to the BJP's agenda, on and off though, that it would seek to ban cow killing all over the country. This would mean that no one would be allowed to eat beef. If ever BJP happens to take up such a Bill in the Parliament  I would not be surprised if some politicians from Kashmir or Nagaland or Mizoram or Meghalaya etc say that they would prefer that India splits into pieces than give up beef once and for all! 

As more and more people try to assert their rights, I believe this tension will get louder. One's food habit or one's religious belief is very close to each party. And I don't think hiding the controversy under the political carpet would help Indian democracy. People must debate about how custom and polity must take shape... and debate in a civil way. And in this regard I first want to hear from the defender of the cows and pigs why they think such animals are precious so much so that its worth depriving some people of exercising their age old food habit in public.

Is Taxing the Rich to Give to the Poor Fair?

The libertarians have the idea that the right to liberty is fundamental to each of us and so governments' enforcement of law should be minimal as far as possible. Only in those areas such as maintaining the social contract, protecting private property from theft etc should be within the purview of government's law. It is because of this sense of right to liberty that they believe in a meritocratic idea of social system. Meritocratic sense of social system is the idea that distribution of goods and opportunities in society should be based on merits and individual capability. Government then is not supposed to tax the rich to give to the poor; there should not be SC/ST quota, government also should not legislate moral conviction of the majority and impose it on all the members of the society etc. The notion of freedom of the person thus poses as a key feature for the libertarians.

John Rawls has an argument against this form of idea. He argues that those who are rich and talented are so not solely because of their doings. If Amir Khan is making so much money as an actor, it is because he is born into an era where people have developed technonoly to make and market films. And this technological development is not really his doing; he just happens to be lucky enough to be born in this generation. If Rahul Gandhi is powerful and rich, it is not really his doing; He happened to be born into such a family that is powerful and rich. Amir Khan or Rahul Gandhi cannot claim that their status is solely because of their hard work. Since luck/contingent factor had played a role in their rise, they must not keep the fruit of their status only for themselves. Or for example, if one is born into a slum and therefore she has no access to education for which she is now at the bottom of the social ladder, it is not her doing; she did not choose to be born into such social circumstances. So she cannot really be "blamed" for the condition she got into.  Had all these people been born some 1000 years earlier in some other parts of the world, their situation would have been so different. Therefore, the less fortunate ones need to be 'compensated'.

Some people are more talented than others. Some are born with certain deformity. Considering these factors should everybody start at the same line to run the race of life? If unlucky ones are not compensated, they will forever remain at the lowest rung of the social ladder. Libertarians may reply “well, that's life”.

Envy and jealousy are natural propensity of human nature. Unless checked or rectified, wider social gap can engender stronger jealousy. Since natural resources are not unlimited, if the more talented and so richer and so powerful ones own too much, leaving aside nothing much for the less fortunate ones in the lottery of life, jealousy and anger will take over and social system will crumble. If the social contract is keeping some people at the lowest rung of the social ladder, what incentive is there to prevent them for taking everybody to the state of nature where there is no law and everybody is on his/her own?

So my is that imposing reasonable amount of tax on the rich that may result in giving subsidy to the poor is fair and just; society would be worse off without such taxation.

NB: I find the libertarians idea against moral legislation unsatisfying. Can human moral sentiment take anything that comes about? I think not. If state's legislation of moral conviction is not to be practised one has to allow consensual polygamy. What about suicide or selling of one's organ like kidney or an eye? What about consensual cannibalism? Are you okay about a person giving himself to be eaten by another person? ( This incident really took place in Germany in 2001.) I believe humans are morally hardwired and goal-directed being. Doing away these traits in the name of freedom will make human less human.

Operation Bluebird, Killing of Naxalites and Just War

It was on July 9th, 1987, a "battle was fought between Indian army and Naga armies at Oinam village in Shepoumaramth Region with the 3rd Assam Rifle. The entire company of the 3rd Assam Rifle was overrun by the Naga army. The full arsenal of the company was captured; ten who were on sentry duty were wiped out, the rest of the rank and file surrendered. " ( Naga Hoho in White Paper on Naga Integration). The Indian army launched Operation Bluebird to recover the lost weapon in the neighbouring villages for over a month. Unarmed and innocent men were tortured to death and women were made to deliver babies in public. People that I know personally were disabled for life by the torture. Many of the innocent villagers trembled in fear; while many went to join the Naga army to fight the Indian army. The Nagas till today have not forgotten the torture on the unarmed civilians by the Indian army. 

On June 28, 2012, seventeen people were killed in what policed termed as the "biggest Naxal encounter" in the Chhattisgarh. Naxals usually don't leave the dead bodies behind. But in this situation, the bodies of 16 people killed were recovered. ( One person died in the hospital later.) Despite report of "heavy firing" only three country-made firearms were found. Even after two days of the encounter police were unable to trace Naxal connection of most of the people who were killed. What has gone wrong? Are those people killed really Naxalite fighters? Oh, no. Most of those who died were innocent and unarmed civilians. 

One of the reasons that the army usually gives for killing unarmed civilians is that these civilians are sympathisers of the armed  group. Now if the villagers perceived the armed group to be fighting on their behalf or for a just cause, then sympathy is bound to arise. On the other hand, the army too have their own sympathisers. People pay tax so that these army personnel would fight on their behalf and defend the country.  Thus each armed group has their own sympathisers and support system. So this raises the question whether it's fair for armed personnel to torture and kill unarmed sympathisers of the rival armed group. Should the principle of JUST WAR exclude sympathisers of the rival armed group to be free from being harmed? Yes, it is a must. Just as the Naxalites should not harm any unarmed Indian civilians for paying tax to support the army, I expect the Indian military personnel too to refrain from harming Naxalite supporters. The respect should be mutual. 

Armed personnel who torture or kill innocent and unarmed civilians should be punished. And systematic torture or killing of unarmed civilians in the past should be apologised to and compensated appropriately. Someday I wish that someday the Indian army would apologise to the Nagas for its deliberate and systematic inhuman treatment on the unarmed civilians. If the army personnel do not want their children or wife being killed or bombed, then they should also refrained from harming innocent civilians though these people may in one way or the other show their support to rival armed group. If at all the armies want to deal with such civilians, let the police keep them in jail.

Democracy: Government off the People, fool the People and buy the People?

The write up is to be situated in the context of the election that was held in Manipur, a north eastern state of India, on 28th January 2012. The election was probably the most corrupt eonein the history of Manipur's democracy. There would have been not a single candidate that did not use unfair means to get votes. At then end it was the Congress that emerged victorious. And the reasons are many, but one key reason was that no one else could match the money power of the Congress party.

It has become a kind of a set pattern to buy voters. There were candidates who did not visit their constituency due to threats to their life. ( I am not going to get into that now.) But even such candidates got elected. How was that possible? They sent in their workers to the constituency with bundles of money. And voters were purchased. All candidates used money power to purchase voters. And buying voters likewise is illegal. And it is immoral too. It is immoral because election are supposed to be fought on the basis of candidates' merits. And distributing money distorts the very definition of democratic election. Candidates who purchased voters , therefore, are using unfair means to get elected. Period. 

The voters who took money in exchange for her vote too is wrong. Even if the money was distributed, the voter need not take it. So the voter too was a party to the malpractice. And I appreciate those voters who were able to say NO to money. And this refusal to take money in exchange for vote is something we all need to copy.

I would further say that even if money has been taken by a voter from a candidate, there is no valid reason to be obligated to vote for the candidate. As of now if voters have taken money from Mr. A, they are obligated to vote for Mr. A. So the the one who offers more money will get more votes! But such obligation will perpetuate the ongoing corrupt practice. And if we have to blunt the power of money to purchase voter, we have to do away with the obligation. Therefore, to achieve an end which is good i.e making the power of money to buy voter redundant, I believe it is okay not to be obligated to vote for the person from whom one has taken money. 

This is not to say "take money, but don't vote for the who gave you the money". It is rather saying "don't take money; but even if you take money you don't have to feel obligated to vote for the one who gave you money".  So the actual emphasis is on "don't give money & don't take money". The third punchline is to provide additional cushion to fight unfair way of using money power during election.

Fair Conduct on Bandh & Blockade!

Manipur would be the state in India that tops in experiencing some kinds of bandh or blockade. This time the bandh in and around National Highways started on 1st August The bandh was called by Sadar Hill District Demand Committee (SHDDC) in their demand for the upgradation of Sadar Hill area of Senapati District into a full-fledged district, which entails that present Senapati district be bifurcated into two. Six people have lost their lives in bandh related incident, and 12 women have began fast unto death, out of which 7 are reported to be critical condition. United Naga Council, the apex body of the Nagas in Manipur, oppose the move and therefore have called for indefinite bandh in the Naga areas from 21st August This implies that Imphal, the capital of Manipur, is virtually cut off from all kinds supplies.

SHDDC argues that the demand for upgradation is for better administration of the Sadar Hill area. UNC argues that Naga villages be excluded from the proposed district, implying that only non-Naga areas should be considered for upgradation. This tussle, for and against, has been going on for decades. And it is high time that Government finds a solution that is acceptable to both the parties, instead of postponing it for later generation as well to fight! 

This post, however, is meant to be about how one should conduct bandh and blockade. This time the third major community of Manipur, the Meeteis, are ambivalent on the issue. But they seem to be the community that suffers the most because they live mostly in and around Imphal. However, considering that Meeteis are equally notorious in calling bandh or blockade, this post is meant for them too. If anyone would accuse me of seeing the problem through communal lens, let me assure that such is the ground reality. Whether one likes it or not the political aspiration in the state are drawn almost virtually on ethnic lines. 

First, I would say 'economic blockade' is not an appropriate phrase.  I thought so because I believe it is wrong to put a bandh/blockade on all kinds of economic activities. I believe food item should be given safe passage even in bandh/blockade. 'Food items' are basic needs for survival, and imposing bandh/blockade amount to assaulting on human right of a person or a community that suffers due to such bandh/blockade. Second, I also believe that ambulance should be given safe passage. Even in time of war, Red Cross is allowed to work per international norms. And this is not even war, so ambulance, medical supply etc should be allowed to pass through. Third, party on a funeral duty should be exempted from such bandh/blockade. Allowing such party would not affect the bandh/blockade overall because such party would generally be very rare. Moreover, on humanitarian ground such party should be given safe passage.Fourth any party calling for bandh should not cause major damage to roads, bridges or property, private and government. Fifth, this is a slightly different point in that it is about the norm to protest, not bandh/blockade. I believe 'fast unto death' as a political tool should be employed only in extreme situation. For example, I support the kind of 'fast unto death' by Irom Sharmila because her demand is against human violation by the army. However, the 'fast unto death' by the women demanding Sadar Hill district does not amount to human right issue, and so is not an extreme situation that deserves 'fast unto death' kind of protest.

I believe bandh/blockade are democratic means to press for one's demand or aspiration. So I am not against any party calling for bandh/blockade to press for their legitimate demand. But such activities must be carried out within certain norms. And unfortunately, in Manipur all the parties calling bandh/blockade oftentime violate one of these norms. And it is high time we rectify such erroneous methods for the sake of common good.

NB: Since the issue is highly explosive I would request that those who post their view do so in a civilized way. Thanks!