Monday, November 11, 2019

Ayodhiya

The Ayodhya Verdict is Based on a Strange Feat of Logic

It is foolish to think the Supreme Court’s decision will bring about communal peace. Appeasement, like the Munich pact of 1938, only whets the appetite of the aggressor.

Hindutva activists demolish the Babri Masjid, December 6, 1992. Photo: Sondeep Shankar

Markandey Katju

COMMUNALISM

LAW

3 HOURS AGO

The recent Ayodhya verdict of the Supreme Court will go down in the annals of Indian legal history in the same category as its 1975 decision in ADM Jabalpur vs Shivakant Shukla – except that unlike the latter, in this one there is not a single courageous dissent

In substance, the court has said that might is right, and has laid down a dangerous precedent sanctifying aggression.

As Pratik Sinha noted on Twitter, it is like a bully snatching a child’s sandwich in school, and the teacher giving a ‘balanced judgment’ by allowing the bully to keep the sandwich, and giving the child a slice of dry bread as ‘restitution’.

One need not go into the correctness or otherwise of the court’s suggestion that the Babri Masjid was built by one of Babur’s generals on a site where a non-Islamic structure pre-existed and may have been destroyed. It is true that many Hindu temples were destroyed by Muslim invaders, and mosques built on their sites, sometimes even using the material of the temple. For example, the Quwwat ul Islam mosque near the Qutub Minar in Delhi has pillars with Hindu carvings, or the Gyanvapi Masjid in Varanasi whose rear wall has Hindu carvings, or the Atala Devi Masjid in Jaunpur. But is India to move forward, or backward?

It would be a different matter if a Hindu temple is illegally demolished today and converted into a mosque. But where this was done allegedly 500 years ago, does it carry any sense to go about restoring the structure to its Hindu original? This kind of revanchism, which is what the Vishwa Hindu Parishad sought, will be stupid, and can only polarise society, serving the political agenda of some people who wish to keep the communal fires burning for getting votes.

In paragraphs 786 and 798 of its judgment, the court has observed that the Muslim side adduced no evidence to show that from 1528, when the mosque was constructed, to 1857, it was in possession of Muslims who offered namaz there. But what evidence could possibly be adduced? There cannot be any eyewitnesses alive belonging to that period, and it is well known that in the 1857 war of independence, almost all records in Avadh were destroyed. In any case, it is common sense that when a house of worship, whether a temple, mosque, church or gurdwara is built, it is built for use, and not just for decoration.

In para 798 of the judgment it is stated, “The exclusion of Muslims from worship and possession took place on the intervening night between 22/23.12.1949 when the mosque was desecrated by installation of Hindu idols. Ouster of Muslims was not through lawful authority, and Muslims have been wrongly deprived of a mosque that had been constructed well over 450 years ago “.

Despite this clear finding, the court has handed over the site to Hindus by a strange feat of logic!

In this vein, it is foolish to think that the Ayodhya verdict will bring about communal peace. Appeasement, like the Munich pact of 1938, only whets the appetite of the aggressor. Cries of “Abhi to yeh jhaanki hai, Kashi Mathura baaqi hai” were heard soon after the demolition of the Babri Masjid on 6th December 1992, threatening a move on Muslim sites in Varanasi and Mathura, and are bound to be repeated soon. BJP MP Sakshi Maharaj has said that the Jama Masjid in Delhi was built on a Hindu temple, which should be restored. A similar claimhas been made about the Taj Mahal by BJP hot heads. Where will all this end?

To say that Ram was born at a particular spot is ridiculous. Even if he was a historical, not mythical, figure, how can anyone say where a person was born thousands of years ago?

India is passing through a terrible economic crisis, with GDP growth languishing, manufacturing and business in steep decline, unemployment at a record height (even according to the government’s own National Sample Survey), an appalling level of child malnourishment (every second Indian child is malnourished according to the Global Hunger Index), 50% of Indian women are anaemic, farmers suicides continuing unabated, healthcare and good education for the masses in a pitiable state, etc.

Evidently our leaders have no clue how to solve these huge problems, so to divert attention from them they must resort to gimmicks like Yoga Day, cow protection, Swatchata Abhiyan, abrogation of Article 370 etc. It should be obvious that building a Ram Mandir in Ayodhya is in the same category.

After the partition of 1947, the demolition of the Babri Masjid by political vandals was India’s greatest tragedy. The Ayodhya verdict says this demolition was illegal, but in the same breath sanctifies it. Well done, My Lords!

Markandey Katju is a former judge of the Supreme Court of India READLawyers' Strike to Continue as Meeting to Resolve Tension With Police Fails

4 HOURS AGO

This Is Not Closure – It's a New Beginning for the Forces of Hindutva

5 HOURS AGO

Watch | Hum Bhi Bharat: Will the Ayodhya Verdict Change Indian Politics?

6 HOURS AGO

Watch | The Questions Being Asked on the Ayodhya Verdict

Monday, July 22, 2019

"RTI Elimination Bill"

NEW DELHI:

HIGHLIGHTS NDTV.COM

Bill to amend Right to Information (RTI) Act passed by Lok Sabha
Bill proposes changes to salaries, tenures of Information Commissioners
Amid allegations of dilution, opposition called it "RTI Elimination Bill"

The controversial bill to amend the landmark transparency law, the Right to Information Act, was passed by the Lok Sabha on Monday amid opposition allegations that it was being diluted. The opposition -- which has dubbed the bill "RTI Elimination Bill" and wants to send it to a select committee for further scrutiny -- is hoping to get support in the Rajya Sabha, where the government still lacks the numbers.

The proposed changes involve the salaries and tenures of Information Commissioners at the states and centre: Information commissioners -- who currently have five-year tenures - will have "terms as may be prescribed by the central government". Their salaries, instead of being on par with that of Election Commission officials, will be decided by the Central government.

There are no such provisions available under the RTI Act at present. Activists say this is a coercive measure that will interfere with their freedom to make independent decisions.

"This bill removed the to greatest armors of democracy, it basically demolishes the RTI Act," Congress's Shashi Tharoor said.

The government, however, argues that there is no question of degrading the information commissioners and it is only trying to remove some anomalies in the act. "We are not interfering and will not do anything to affect the autonomy of the institution," said Jitendra Singh, the minister for personnel department.

Moving the bill, which was tabled in the house on July 19, for passage, Minister of State in the Prime Minister's Office, Jitendra Singh said that the current tenure for both the Chief Information Commissioners and the Information Commissioners is five years but the Bill seeks to remove this provision and give the Central government the power to notify the terms of office.

"The salary for the CIC will be the same as Chief Election Commissioner. But the bill seeks to change this and allows the government to fix the salary," he said.

"This is an RTI elimination Bill and a there is a fallacious argument being raised about trying to bring them at par with High Courts, which does not work since the decisions of the President and PM are also contested in High Courts," Shashi Tharoor said.

Earlier on Monday, more than 10 opposition parties, including Telangana's ruling Telangana Rashtra Samithi, wrote a letter to the Rajya Sabha secretariat, demanding that the Bill be sent to a Select Committee of Parliament which can study it and suggest changes.

Activists took to the streets in Delhi, arguing that the amendments are an attempt to dilute the provisions for disclosure of information.

"These bodies play a very important role and these amendments are extremely regressive, because they are trying to control these institutions, trying to make them caged parrots by saying the tenure and salaries of the commissioners will be decided by the central government," said activist Anjali Bhardwaj.

13 COMMENTS

"By degrading them, making them subservient to the central government, making their terms and conditions, salaries subservient... not just Centre, but also the state, they are actually weakening a very important leg of the RTI," said activist Nikhil Dey.

NDTV.COM

Monday, July 8, 2019

DNA Technology Bill

Amid Opposition Criticism, Government Tables DNA Technology Bill in Lok Sabha

Congress leader Shashi Tharoor alleged that the bill would institutionalise a "surveillance state" and suggested that a data protection law should be put in place first.

New Delhi: The DNA Technology Regulation Bill, which seeks to control the use of DNA technology for establishing the identity of a person, was introduced in the Lok Sabha on Monday amid questions being raised by opposition parties on its provisions.

A similar bill was passed in Lok Sabha in January but it could not be cleared in the Rajya Sabha. The bill had then lapsed with the dissolution of the previous Lok Sabha.

The proposed law, which has been in the making since at least 2003, is the third attempt by the government to enact a law to regulate the use of DNA technology in the country after an earlier version of the Bill had been finalised in 2015 but could not be introduced in parliament.

Opposing the introduction of the bill, Congress leader in Lok Sabha Adhir Ranjan Chowdhury said the Bill violates fundamental rights as DNA of undertrials can be collected without court orders. Describing the draft law as “flawed”, he said there is no provision of consent on the storage of DNA data.

Congress leader Shashi Tharoor alleged that the bill would institutionalise a “surveillance state” and suggested that a data protection law should be put in place first. “You cannot put the cart before the horse,” he said.

Minister for science and technology Harsh Vardhan, who introduced the Bill, said there is “no serious substance” in the concerns raised by members. He also pointed out that several rounds of consultations have been undertaken and the measure has been pending for nearly a decade. He reminded members that a similar bill was passed by the previous Lok Sabha too after long deliberations.

The legislation seeks to establish a National DNA Data Bank and Regional DNA Data Banks and envisages that every data bank maintain indices like the crime scene index, suspects’ or undertrials’ index, offenders’ index, missing persons’ index and unknown deceased persons’ index.

The legislation also seeks to establish a DNA Regulatory Board. Every laboratory that analyses DNA samples to establish the identity of an individual has to be accredited by the board.

Under the Bill, written consent by individuals is required to collect DNA samples from them. Consent is not required for offences with a punishment of more than seven years of imprisonment or death.

It also provides for the removal of DNA profiles of suspects upon the filing of a police report or court order, and of undertrials on the basis of a court order. Profiles in the crime scene and missing persons’ index will be removed on a written request.

The government has insisted that the Bill will merely expand the “application of DNA-based forensic technologies to support and strengthen the justice delivery of the country”, activists and civil society members claim that the Centre has ignored privacy and security concerns.

The Law Commission, which submitted the final version of the DNA-Based Technology (Use and Regulation) Bill, 2018 to the government in 2017, did not examine the Bill in light of two important privacy-related developments.

The Law Commission finished its deliberations regarding the bill by July 2017, a month before a nine-judge bench of the Supreme Court ruled in Puttaswamy vs Union of India that Indians enjoy a fundamental right to privacy. In its report, the Law Commission made multiple allusions to the then-impending privacy judgement and stated that, “whether in Indian context privacy is an integral part of Article 21 of the constitution is a matter of academic debate. The issue is pending consideration before a larger bench of the Supreme Court.”

Secondly, the Law commission’s report preceded Justice Srikrishna’s report which laid down the rights of ‘data principals’ (Indian citizens), proposed the creation of a data authority to enforce the Act, and set penalties for violations by ‘data fiduciaries’.

Additionally, while the Indian government has maintained that the proposed DNA database project will purportedly cost only Rs 20 crore, analysis by The Wire demonstrates that the cost of just acquiring the DNA samples from people arrested in India on criminal charges alone could be over Rs 1,800 crore.

Another concern raised regarding DNA profiling is related to the lack of proper infrastructure and technical know-how to use it for criminal investigations in a widespread or effective manner

Civil society stakeholders have expressed concerns over the aggravation of institutional biases that are already present in the existing DNA identification. For example, the CDFD already asks for the caste of the suspect during the collection of the DNA sample.

(With inputs from PTI)

Ayurvedic Treatment of Fistulas

While some of them could have been unskilled laymen, most were traditional practitioners who did and are continuing to treat urogenital problems quite effectively.

By Sheela Rani Chunkath

Express News Service

Long years ago, I used to see these small posters stuck on Electricity Board Junction boxes, on walls of government buildings and wonder at the combination of problems that the individual claimed he could treat. Piles, fistula, haemorrhoids and sex problems. I used to be quite intrigued but was also convinced that these were quacks at work.

While some of them could have been unskilled laymen, most were traditional practitioners who did and are continuing to treat urogenital problems quite effectively. There is a presumption that only the poor and those who cannot afford allopathic doctors go to the traditional vaidyars. Many of them, one does have to enquire locally about the bonafides, treat fistula and piles very effectively.I know of many people including dear friends of mine who have been suffering from fistula for many years and unable to find solutions through allopathy. The flap surgery has not been very successful with recurrence being quite high.

The beauty of the Kshara Sutra method is that it is a simple (if a bit painful) procedure but with little chance of recurrence of the problem. Kshara Sutra was explained by Susruta, considered to be the father of surgery in 500 BC. It is effective, it is cheap and the procedure does not usually require hospitalisation. There are hardly any man-days lost as the post surgical period is not very painful and there is usually very little recurrence of the problem.

One would think that by now we would have people from all walks of life adopting this solution in India. I would have expected people from all over the world to come to India to get a permanent cure. Unfortunately, Kshara Sutra treatment is considered a fringe treatment and not very scientific at that. There have been many papers written on the subject which many of our opinion makers do not read and then dismiss the Kshara Sutra treatment as being unscientific and not a proven line of treatment.

Of course, it would help if some of the issues relating to the performance of the surgery can be resolved. Other than applying local anaesthetic gel, ayurvedic practitioners are forbidden in most states from even giving local anaesthesia. A young friend of mine underwent the Kshara Sutra treatment with local anaesthetic gel. While she did howl with pain during the treatment, she said it was not unbearable. But many do not have the resilience and it remains an unacceptable option for some. However, another friend of mine underwent the allopathic surgery under general anaesthesia and while of course he did not have pain during the surgery, post surgery he did have a lot of pain. He also had to take time off work while recovering from the surgery.

We know that we have a very effective treatment for fistulas. The beauty of the treatment is that the thread used in the treatment is made by applying layers of herbal alkalis. Snuhilatex or Arka latex are commonly used to prepare the thread or Kshara Sutra. This alkali heals the wound from within, the key issue in fistula treatment.

While allopaths must practise allopathy and ayurvedists must practise ayurveda, we need to reexamine the role of local anaesthesia alone in treating fistulas. Ayurvedic practitioners can be trained in giving local anaesthesia so that so that Kshara Sutra treatment becomes more comfortable for the patients. This will help popularize a more than 2500 year old procedure which can hold its own against the modern allopathic treatment for the same condition.

I find that the billboard sticking individuals do have a good competency in handling piles as ayurveda, unani and siddha have many styptic herbs, minerals and other materials. From Terminalia chebula to Natha Parpam (made from snail shells), they have a slew of effective remedies with very little recurrence of the treated condition.So, when I see the small posters stuck on Electricity Board junction boxes, I wish I could make these skilful practitioners more legitimate and give them their due.

The writer is retired Additional Chief Secretary of Tamil Nadu. She can be reached at sheelarani.
arogyamantra@gmail.com/arogyamantra.blogspot.com

budget AYUSH 2019 onward...AYUSH ministry gets Rs 1,939.76 crore

AYUSH ministry gets Rs 1,939.76 crore

PTI

New Delhi

The Modi government’s aim to provide a fillip to traditional alternative medicine reflected in the Union Budget 2019-20 on Friday as the AYUSH Ministry saw around 15 per cent hike in budgetary allocation from the last fiscal.

An outlay of Rs 1,939.76 crore has been earmarked for the Ayurveda, Yoga and Naturopathy, Unani, Siddha and Homoeopathy (AYUSH) sector in the current financial, an increase of 14.59 per cent over the revised estimates of Rs 1,692.77 crore of the last fiscal.

The government allocated Rs 40 crore for the All India Institute of Ayurveda, New Delhi, for financial year 2019-2020, while Rs 50 crore was earmarked for the National Institute of Homoeopathy in Kolkata.

For strengthening of AYUSH Delivery Systems, the Centre granted Rs 92.31 crore. The government had earmarked budget estimates of Rs 71.36 crore in 2018-19 which was later revised and increased to Rs 101.86 crore.

Strengthening of AYUSH Delivery Systems include assistance to accredited AYUSH Centres, Central Drug Controller for AYUSH, development of common facilities for AYUSH Industry Clusters and promotion of international cooperation.

The funds earmarked for statutory and regulatory bodies — Central Council of Homeopathy and Central Council of Indian Medicine– is Rs 8.90 crore compared to the revised estimates of Rs 8.89 crore in the last fiscal.

Autonomous bodies — Central Council for Research in Ayurvedic Sciences, Central Council for Research in Homeopathy and Central Council for Research in Unani Medicine — were allocated Rs 292.31 crore, Rs 118.53 crore and 152.65 crore, respectively.

Monday, April 8, 2019

AYUSH drugs must involve domain expert, says AYUSH advisory

SCIENCE

Study of AYUSH drugs must involve domain expert, says AYUSH advisory

R. Prasad

CHENNAI, APRIL 07, 2019 23:33 IST

The Ministry of Ayurveda, Yoga and Naturopathy, Unani, Siddha and Homoeopathy (AYUSH) has issued an advisory on April 2 asking all non-AYUSH researchers and institutions to “involve appropriate expert/institution/research council of AYUSH” while carrying out any “scientific study, clinical trial or intervention” using AYUSH drug or treatment.

The involvement of AYUSH experts is also needed for “vetting of the publication” [that arises from the research] for its “outcomes and findings”.

Though the note is an advisory to researchers in modern medicine, it concludes with, “are urged to take note of the advisory for compliance” thus making it mandatory to involve an expert for carrying out research on AYUSH systems of medicine.

Enforcement issue

The advisory has been issued in order to “protect [the] public image of AYUSH” and to “prevent incorrect, arbitrary and ambiguous statements and conclusions about AYUSH”.

The advisory is also meant for editors of medical and scientific journals. It is not clear how the Ministry would be able to enforce this on editors, particularly editors of international journals.

According to the advisory, research papers and scientific studies on AYUSH drugs and treatments have been “published by non-AYUSH scientists/researchers with unfounded statements and conclusions to damage the credibility and sanctity of the whole system”. It says that such studies have been carried out by non-AYUSH researchers without involving qualified AYUSH experts.

‘Cannot jeopardise AYUSH potential’

Further, “arbitrary statements and unfounded conclusions in the scientific studies and research publications related to AYUSH” cannot be allowed to jeopardise the potential and scope of AYUSH in public healthcare and distract or dissuade people from resorting to AYUSH.

“I am quite disturbed by this notification. If such curbs are placed on researchers and research journals, it has a bad portend,” says Subhash C. Lakhotia of Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi. He has been working to understand the mechanism of action of some standard Ayurvedic rasayanas. “If we want to get results as desired by AYUSH ministry or AYUSH practitioners, then that is not research,” asserts the professor.

A knowledge black box

While he concurs that it is desirable to involve AYUSH experts in a study, he is peeved that it is now being made mandatory. “How can the Ministry insist that every study should involve an expert? It should be left to the choice of the researchers,” he says. He believes that the need of a domain expert would be context-dependent and should not be a mandatory requirement in every case. The domain expert has to be a collaborator rather than a monitor, says Prof. Lakhotia.

According to him, Ayurveda as currently practiced remains a black box. Unless people from other fields contribute to its understanding, it will only worsen the situation. “The way Ayurveda has been practiced is not evidence-based but largely remains experience-based. Only good quality, unbiased research can provide the evidence for or against what has been believed. Results of such studies may even change some of the basic principles. Any domain of knowledge has to remain dynamic and results/opinions contrary to the so-called established view must not be rejected and taken as damaging the credibility,” explains Prof. Lakhotia.

Different views

However, Dr. Mitali Mukerji, scientist at the Institute of Genomics and Integrative Biology (CSIR-IGIB) who has been studying the principles of Ayurveda for over a decade says it is essential to collaborate with an Ayurveda expert while carrying out a scientific study. Taking a closer scientific look at Ayurvedic medicine using modern technologies should be in the interest of all stakeholders — patients and doctors and researchers - says the researcher. “I have gained much by collaborating with Dr. Bhavana Prasher an Ayurveda expert and scientist at IGIB,” shares Dr. Mukerji.

“Any research work on Ayurveda drug or treatment should involve an Ayurveda expert. A domain expert is necessary. What is wrong in that?” questions Dr. Samir K. Brahmachari, former Director General of the Council of Scientific & Industrial Research (CSIR) and founding Director CSIR-IGIB.