Democracy wins in Sri Lanka

When Mahinda Rajapaksa called a fresh presidential election two years ahead of the scheduled January 2016 end to his second term in office, he did so because he was confident of being voted back for another six years. There was no real challenger on the horizon at that time, and Mr. Rajapaksa, who had made the 2009 military victory over the LTTE the main theme of his government, believed that Sinhalese voters would once again repose their faith in him. Indeed, so entrenched had he become that few imagined he would lose, and that too to a relative unknown like Maithripala Sirisena, who was the Health Minister in the Rajapaksa Cabinet. Mr. Sirisena’s sudden emergence as a candidate of an opposition alliance took Mr. Rajapaksa by surprise. He had been unable to see, surrounded as he was by a cabal, that his one-family authoritarian rule had angered senior members of his Sri Lanka Freedom Party, and taken the shine off his image among the majority Sinhalese as the President who ended a 30-year war. The Tamil voters in the North and East, alienated as they were by the Rajapaksa government’s abject failure to face up to the challenges of post-war ethnic reconciliation, were always going to vote against him. The foot-dragging on investigations into alleged war crimes, the militarisation of the Tamil-dominated North, the hardships that this posed for the people, and the huge political failure on devolution of powers all ensured that the Tamil vote would go against him. Another significant minority, the Muslims, also shifted their allegiance away from Mr. Rajapaksa as a thuggish group of Sinhalese hardliners, the Bodu Bala Sena, went on the rampage against the community every now and then, with no apparent attempt by the government to crack down on communal violence even after a bout of deadly rioting in 2013. The departure of the Sri Lanka Muslim Congress from the ruling coalition to the Sirisena camp just days ahead of the election, was the final blow against the Rajapaksa regime.

Mr. Sirisena rode to victory on an out-and-out anti-Rajapaksa vote that rendered irrelevant his own perceived handicaps: the absence of personal charisma; a late start; doubts about whether a candidate of a diverse opposition group could provide a stable leadership; and the lack of resources in comparison to what the incumbent had at his disposal. He had to his advantage a rural base in the north-central districts of Sri Lanka, and aside from the backing of a ginger group of the ruling SLFP that defected along with him, the backing of the main opposition United National Party, and the Jathika Hela Urumaya, a party of Buddhist monks. With this he managed to poll nearly half of all Sinhalese votes cast, sweeping up in addition the Tamil and Muslim votes to win 51.28 per cent of the vote share compared to his opponent’s 47.58. The outcome is an unequivocal victory for democracy and a lesson to the whole region in peaceful regime change.

The new President of Sri Lanka has his work cut out. To begin with, the focus is bound to be on Mr. Sirisena’s campaign promise to abolish the powerful Executive Presidency, which will require a constitutional amendment supported by two-thirds of Parliament, a difficult proposition. One option before him is to dissolve Parliament and call a fresh election a year ahead of schedule. The coalition itself is made up of disparate and mutually antagonistic parties that must learn to work together. UNP leader Ranil Wickramasinghe has already been named the new Prime Minister. Former President Chandrika Kumaratunga, who, after retiring from politics in 2005 re-emerged on the scene to mentor the SLFP defectors, may well emerge as a third power centre. Quickly, Mr. Sirisena will need to repair the much-eroded confidence in Sri Lanka as a country that respects the rule of law, independence of the judiciary and media freedom. Most importantly, the new dispensation must waste no time in addressing the Tamil demand for a just peace, because on this hinges the future of the country itself. With his vast powers, Mr. Sirisena can immediately redress some long-standing demands including returning to Tamils the land owned by them that the Army took over in the 1990s and has stubbornly refused to vacate. Devolution of powers to the Northern Province should also be high on his list of priorities, and if a new Constitution is being planned with a Westminster-style government, just power-sharing with the Tamil minority should find a place. The new dispensation will also need to move speedily on addressing alleged war crimes, starting with ascertaining how many Tamil civilians actually died in the last phases of the war. But Tamil stridency on these demands will hinder rather than help matters. As the main and most credible political representative of the Tamils, the Tamil National Alliance must play a responsible role.

Tamil Nadu’s political parties must desist from fanning any extremist demands, for which there is no place on either side of the Palk Strait. For New Delhi, the change in Sri Lanka presents the opportunity to build a bilateral relationship that is based on mutual trust and honesty rather than on mutual suspicion. In recent months, the growing military relationship between Colombo and Beijing was one of the big concerns in New Delhi. As a sovereign country, Sri Lanka must be free to choose its friends and allies. But the least New Delhi can expect is that its defence concerns will not be compromised by a friendly neighbour. India’s relations with Sri Lanka are civilisational, not contractual, and despite all the ups and downs, the ties between the people of both countries, based on culture, religion and trade, have continued to flourish. Both countries have a common strategic interest in a peaceful Indian Ocean. It is from this large base that both must now work to strengthen mutually beneficial ties.

Indians to rise 100th anniversary of the Mahatma's return to India

Mohandas K Gandhi was 45 when he returned to India after spending 21 years in South Africa. Discounting the three years that he spent as a student in London, his life had been divided exactly half and half between the land of his birth and South Africa.

"I was born in India", he was to say "but made in South Africa."

We should know, in our 'Make in India' times, how important it was for Gandhi and for India that he was "made" in South Africa. We should know, too, what it was that went into that "making".

"You sent to us a lawyer", Nelson Mandela said, addressing India and Indians, "we returned to you a Mahatma".

Gandhi became what he became in the country of his adoption, not just because he was hurled out of a train one traumatic morning in Pietermaritzburg but because he came to meet, to get to know and to work with, in terms of exhilarating camaraderie and challenging colleagueship, in that distant land, a cross-section of the people of India. Had he lived and worked as a suburban lawyer in Bombay, he would have co-existed with their prototypes, rubbed shoulders with them indifferently on buses and trains, lived 'back to back' with them. But in South Africa, the dislocation, dispossession, disempowerment of immigrant life placed him in the eye of a growing storm. He saw in indenture, injustice. He saw in voicelessness, slavery, in votelessness, serfdom. He saw in racial discrimination, the very antithesis of what as a student in London he had come to value as Victorian England's political high-ground. But in this very 'hell' of adversities, Gandhi saw an enormous chance for Indians to rise above their circumstances, above the 'hollows' and the 'deeps'.

In the response to his appeal for political action, he saw in his fellow Indians extraordinary guts, unexpected stamina and above all, a readiness that he had not known in himself for sacrifice. He also saw that riven by caste and religious divisions and distrust, the Indian South African was being unjust to himself and to his fellow Indians. Would he, could he rise above the injustices heaped on him and the injustices he heaped on himself and his kind?

The answer he found from among the men and women he worked with was a resounding 'Yes!'. More, he also found bursts of solidarity - inter-caste, inter-religious, inter-language - among them. He found, in other words, not just the need but the scope for what has become a cliche - Indian pluralism.

Gandhi had been 'hired' by a Muslim firm, Dada Abdulla Seth's. He lodged, for various times, with a Parsi family, 'Parsee' Rustomji's. He, his wife and children, became part of a Hindu Tamil family - Tambi Naidoo's. He appeared in court for every segment of Indian society, charging nothing from the poor, charging the rich heftily.

Did he get to know, get to feel with and for the Africans of South Africa, for their future as the true 'owners' of South Africa? He did not, not nearly as well as he could and should have. A century after he left South Africa, this valid criticism is made by Gandhi's critics in India and elsewhere very trenchantly but very comfortably from the vantage of political evolution. But we should hear Mandela on the subject. The greatest South African, and father of that nation in freedom, has educated us on Gandhi's political and personal colleagueship with John Dube, the first President of the African National Congress.

Did Gandhi become a complete human being, a flawless leader, author of a perfect blueprint for India's greatness? No, he did not. He has been criticised, with validity but not without malice, for being a domineering husband, a unilateral householder, a very self-willed leader. But on what basis? That of his own self-excoriating writings, his own self-criticism.

The Gandhi who returned to India on January 9, 1915, as one 'made' in South Africa, was still as fallible as any, as evolving, as 'in the making', as anyone in his mid-40s. But he was almost complete in two roles - that of a satyagrahi with two major disciplined, non-violent 'mass' campaigns under his Gujarati 'belt', and that of what he called himself in his 'Farewell Letter' to Indians in South Africa - a girmitya, 'the community's indentured labourer'.

He saw India's ills beyond political servitude to Britain - her self-inflicted woes, sectarian distrust among her people, casteism, the urban-rural divide, economic disparities, sloth, squalor, superstition, and a proclivity to violence, physical, verbal, emotional. He came determined to labour for their removal. Within the very first week of his landing in Bombay, he met the foremost political leader of the time, Lokamanya Tilak, his political mentor Gopal Krishna Gokhale, the 'GOM of India' Dadabhai Naoroji, the liberal leader Srinivasa Sastri, his future political counter-point Mohammed Ali Jinnah and the Governor of Bombay and a future Governor General, Lord Willingdon. And saw a play - a rare occurrence for him - on the life of the Great Renunciate and spiritual inspiration for India's future Constitution-maker, Babasaheb Ambedkar - in 'Buddhadeva'.

Gandhi's indentured labour for a secular and egalitarian India, committed to non-violence and human dignity began thus, this week, a hundred years ago.

That India clamours to go beyond a nationalism that benumbs its pains with the fantasy of past 'greatness' and the fiction of future glory in super-powerism.

A right to offend

The murder of a dozen journalists (including cartoonists) in the office of a French satirical magazine is an extreme manifestation of intolerance and hate, and to be condemned. Islamist elements are now well known for their intolerance of anything that they consider offensive to their religion, but perhaps it is not them alone. Remember that a rationalist campaigner was murdered in 2013 on a Pune street. Those in India who might argue that the French magazine had the right to publish whatever it did, even if it caused offence, have to reckon with the fact that the country's most famous painter, M F Husain, had to live out his last years in Dubai because a painting of his had caused offence. Do attitudes or interpretations of the law on free speech change, depending on which religion is involved?

Many societies, especially those who are a part of the Western Enlightenment, admit to few if any limits on the right to free speech - including the right to offend. Free speech was included in the "Declaration on the Rights of Man" during the French Revolution as "one of the most precious" rights of man. India has a more nuanced approach; the right to free speech is a fundamental but not an absolute right; the Constitution limits it on grounds of "public order" as well as "decency and morality", all of which are elastic terms. Why, even writing that could affect relations with friendly countries is debarred. Apart from the issue of principle, there is the practical difficulty that there is no approved list of friendly and unfriendly countries. More to the point, in the broad tradition of Sarva Dharm Sadbhav (respect for all religions), it is pretty much inconceivable that any Indian publication would publish a cartoon of Mohammed in the full knowledge that it would cause offence to millions.

Salman Rushdie, whose Satanic Verses was banned in the 1980s before most people had a chance to read it, has argued that the right to offend is part of the right to free speech, and that accepting limits on that would start a society down the slippery slope. But even in societies that would agree with this, there are legal limitations on (for instance) praising Hitler, racist comment and hate speech targeting Jews. Just as the use of pejorative terms for African-Americans in the United States would be considered beyond the pale, in India casteist comment against Dalits would invite court action. So it is futile to pretend that cultural traditions and political correctness do not come into play.

Still, the willingness to take offence has grown. Aamir Khan's latest film, PK, has been watched by millions, but it has raised hackles among those professing to speak on behalf of both Hindus and Muslims. Fortunately, calls for the film to be banned have sensibly been ignored, but it has not always been that way. Meanwhile, the police had to be called in as a precautionary measure when a Hindutva brigade protested outside the office of The Indian Express in New Delhi merely because the newspaper had questioned the government version on the nature of the cargo in the boat that got blown up off the Gujarat coast. The right to free speech includes the right to protest - but not to threaten violence.

On another tack, the politician (now minister) who said that those who opposed Mr Modi should go to Pakistan was roundly criticised, just as another minister who said that those who were not followers of Ram were illegitimate had to apologise. In neither case was legal sanction sought against patently outrageous comments. So even when the law is reasonably liberal, the court of public opinion can come into play. The question is, when does public opinion uphold good sense, and when can it undermine the liberal intent of the law?

essay 1,samveg ias ,dehradun

write an essay in 1000-1200 words.post your points in comment section.

Science and Technology for Human Development.

hints :following matter may be use ful


http://samvegias.blogspot.in/2015/01/text-of-pm-shri-narendra-modis-address.html

http://samvegias.blogspot.in/2015/01/shri-narendra-modi-to-inaugurate-102nd.html

Time to honour all our founding father

 Malaviya rose to prominence as a populariser of Hindi in the United Province (present Uttar Pradesh). He attended the second annual conference of the Indian Congress and subsequently became Congress President for four times, 1909, 1913, 1919 and 1932. This feat was matched only by Jawaharlal Nehru. In Nehru’s case, twice he became president as Gandhi wanted it;  in the first instance to fulfil Motilal Nehru’s desire and in the second instance to help Nehru come out of his grief on the death of Kamala Nehru. Malaviya’s achievement was that these Presidentships meant acceptance of him by a wide range of leaderships in different circumstances.

Malaviya was a believer in the varnashrama system but had no caste prejudices. He facilitated Jagjivan Ram’s education at BHU and Calcutta University. He was the President of the Hindu Mahasabha in 1906 and retained that position for many years even after leaving the Congress in 1934. He had serious differences with Gandhi regarding the Civil Disobedience Movement in 1920-22 but participated in the subsequent Salt Satyagraha and was also arrested. His opposition to Gandhi in 1920 was about the mode and timing of the movement.

As a constitutionalist Malaviya wanted dialogue to take place within a constitutional framework in which both the views of the rulers and the ruled would be exchanged. Denial of rights and non-inclusion of the ruled cannot last long as democratic institutions were an essential pre-requisite for proper administration in a modern society.  In this context he pointed out that the 1857 revolt was because of the absence of representative institutions. He rejected the notion of ‘White Man’s burden’ as Hindus and Muslims had practiced self -government for centuries, something which the British ignored. Like the early Liberals and Gandhi he too believed in the innate British sense of justice. Echoing Gandhi, he too believed that the attention of the colonial administration is through patience and suffering and not merely by raising slogans or organising meetings.

Malaviya considered the right of self-determination to be non-negotiable and as the basic condition anywhere in the world and cited the example of Great Britain which fought the two World Wars in order to preserve the right of self-determination not only for itself but for others also. The Russo-Japanese war also demonstrated that no power could be subdued forever. History taught us, he noted, that legitimate rights whether of individuals or nations, had to be conceded and that even a generous and benevolent rule cannot be an alternative to self-rule. He also prophesied that the age of imperialism and colonialism was coming to a close. He emphasised on the need to develop conscious educated citizenship while equally stressing the evils of subordination. Despite his unshakeable belief in constitutional struggle, he appealed to the Viceroy for mercy in the case of Bhagat Singh, Rajguru and Sukhdev to commute the death sentence to life sentence as their lives could be saved. Calling for clemency on grounds of humanity, he pointed out that the actions of Bhagat Singh, Rajguru and Sukhdev was not for advancing any personal cause but motivated by their deep sense of patriotism. Execution on the contrary would be a severe shock to the Indian people in general. Commutation to life sentence would be beneficial to the British as the Indian public earnestly hoped for commutation and if that happened, then the popular perception of the British rulers would change for the better.

Malaviya looked to the past with pride, glorifying both the Hindu and Muslim periods though both have fallen from ancient glory. He pleaded for limited measure of autonomy and self -rule as a way of revival. Malaviya concurred with Besant that Indian nationalism originated in ancient times. The Vedic culture and the Vedas and the Upanisads reflected the continuity of Indian civilisation which emphasised persuasion and debarred the use of force. Believing in the contemporary relevance of the ancient Indian texts as he did, one of the important motives of his establishing the BHU was that apart from teaching modern disciplines of both natural and social sciences it would also concentrate on studying Indology.

Malaviya popularised the phrase satyameva jayata, an Upanisadic one, which has been accepted as our national motto. Believing in some important rituals, he started the popular arati at the Harki pauri in Hardwar. He was also closely associated with the construction of Laksmi Narain temples by the Birlas in New Delhi and elsewhere.  He fought equally against untouchability and wholeheartedly supported Gandhi’s demand of temple entry for the Harijans. Like Gandhi, he was a modernizer of tradition and believed in secular values which the BHU embodies. His emphasis was on culture and religion. Even the Ali brothers accepted Malviya was broadminded.

As Mr Siddiqui correctly points out, unlike Gandhi, Malaviya supported industrialisation for poverty alleviation. He popularised the sentiment of ‘buy Indian’ in order to reinforce swadeshi. He was of the view that for disseminating the nationalist view a free press was an essential requirement. With that in mind, he started an English paper, The Leader from Allahabad in 1909.  He, along with G.D. Birla and Lajpat Rai, founded the English daily, The Hindustan Times and its Hindi version, the Hindustan in 1936. He was a member of the Imperial Legislature from 1912-19. Along with Tilak, Besant and Jinnah, he played a crucial role in the historic Lucknow Pact in 1916. Though he had given up a lucrative legal practice, in 1911 he defended the accused in the Chaura Chauri case and got 156 out of 177 acquitted. He opposed the Khilafat movement as he did not want to mix religion with politics. Along with Jawarharlal Nehru and Lajpat Rai he opposed the Simon commission in 1928. He was a delegate to the first RTC in 1930. Malaviya’s idea of composite nationalism did not have any place for separate electorates, which is why he criticised the 1919 Montford Reforms and the 1932 Ramsay MacDonald communal award. Along with Madhav Shrihari Aney he founded the Congress Nationalist Party after leaving the Congress in 1934. In the same year, in the elections to the Central Legislature, the CNP won 12 seats.  Malaviya bid good bye to active politics in 1937.

Malviya is one of the finest propagators of constitutional mechanism for change, and is comparable to early liberals like Ranade, Naroji, Gokhale and Surendranth Banerjee and later liberals like Srinivasa Shastri and Sapru.

He dedicated his life to social reform, constitutional struggle and self-government. In honouring Malaviya with the Bharat Ratna it is way of reminding ourselves that many streams formed the nationalist movement to make it a success. The time has come to remember all of them, in the American way, as India’s Founding Fathers.

PM Narendra Modi inaugurates Dandi Kutir museum in Gujarat

Prime Minister (PM) Narendra Modi has inaugurated the Dandi Kutir museum in Gujarat’s capital of Gandhinagar. It is a state-of-the-art three-storey museum, based upon the life and works of Mahatma Gandhi.

It was inaugurated on the occasion of the 13th Pravasi Bhartiya Divas (PBD) and 7th edition of Vibrant Gujarat.

Key facts about Dandi Kutir museum

• It is the biggest permanent museum in the world based on life of one person- Mahatma Gandhi.
• It traces the life and times of Mahatma Gandhi through various faces as barrister, his struggles in South Africa, return to India and successfully leading the freedom struggle.
• Each and every aspect of Gandhi’s life is portrayed in the form of sculptures in the ‘salt-mound’ at Mahatma Mandir.
• Dandi Kutir is located inside a 41-metre high salt-mound. This salt-mound depicts Gandhiji’s famous Dandi march of 1930 against the salt tax provisions imposed by the British regime.
• Through number of exhibits that are displayed in museum, key concepts of Gandhian thoughts like Satyagraha, non-violence, self-reliance, Gram Swaraj are elaborately explained.
• This museum also showcases 3D short film and also an audio-visual presentation of milestone incidents of the Indian Independence Movement.

Governor’s rule imposed in Jammu and Kashmir

Governor’s rule has been imposed in the state of Jammu and Kashmir (J&K).

It was imposed after President Pranab Mukherjee approved the recommendation of J&K Governor N. N. Vohra as there is deadlock in the State over formation of a newgovernment after state assembly election.

Earlier, Governor had submitted a report to the President, after caretaker Chief Minister Omar Abdullah had resigned.

Background

Jammu Kashmir State assembly election held in December 2014 had given hung verdict as no party has majority to form government in State.

In this election, Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) has emerged as the single largest party with 28 seats in the 87 members House. While Bhartiya Janta Party (BJP) has emerged second largest party winning 25 seats. But both parties failed to get the magic figure of 44 to form a government.

Other parties like National Conference (NC) have 15 MLAs while Indian National Congress (INC) has 12 MLA’s.

What is Governor Rule in Jammu & Kashmir?

• In case of failure of constitutional machinery in any other state of India, the President’s Rule is imposed under Article 356 of the Constitution.
• But in case of J&K, as per Section 92 of state Constitution, the Governor’s Rule can be imposed in the state for a period of six months only after the consent of the President of India in case of failure of constitutional machinery. During the Governors rule, State Assembly is either suspended or dissolved.
• If the Constitutional machinery is not restored before the expiry of this six month period, the provision of Article 356 of the Constitution of India are extended to J&K and the President’s rule is imposed in the State.
• It should be noted that, Governors rule has been imposed in the state for the 6 time since 1977