Notes From Nowhere

Cross-media Ownership and Competition

The center seems to be working on act on this issue. This is a welcome move and one hopes that the proposed Act will curb emergence of monopolies across the media, and across the markets. Our so-called public telecasting corporation is hopeless and in a decade or so the private media networks have grown by leaps and bounds both in terms of coverage and size of the audience.

Given the linguistic and market diversity it will be a challenge to policy makers to evolve a policy and draft a law that while takes in to account the technological possibilities ensures that no group attains monopoly status in the media as well as the markets. Defining monopoly or significant presence in a market is not going to be easy. The question of FDI in media is also there. I think sooner or later the government will open up the entire media sector for FDI although some restrictions might be placed in terms of management, % of share in equity etc.

The FDI may flow in areas like, production of TV serials/films, media in the regional languages. There may well be a shake out in the media sector. Apart from FDI, some of the closely held / privately owned media groups, like Vikatan, Kumudam might come out with IPOs and FIIs may be interested in acquiring a stake in them. Although there is lot of talk about convergence in media, I wonder whether the bill under consideration takes that also in to account. Or as usual we may have an act after the government sleeping over that issue for many years.

For once the masks are off, and that is good.Thanthai Periyar
Dravida Kazhagam (TPDK) is not against just Hindutva, but
against Hindu religion as well as India. Its president wants
both to be destroyed and eliminated.Could it be a case of
distortion or false news. I dont think so as it has appeared in
their own official magazine.

If you read the speech you may notice that there are many false
statements. To me that is not the major issue. The issue is this-
he has come out categorically against india and hindu religion.
Why this opposition to both. The roots can be traced to Periyar.

According to S.V.Rajadurai till he breathed his last Periyar did
not give up the idea of a separate nation , carved out of India.
Periyar was no fan of Hindu religion. He encouraged conversion
to Islam and found fault with Christianity and Buddhism. For
him converting to Islam is the best option. He also wrote that
for the elimation of caste system hindu religion should be abolished.

So it is no wonder that Mani also speaks on similar lines. Periyar,
as far as I know, did not want destruction of India but only a nation
for the dravidas. But Mani wants both - destruction of the religion
as well as the nation.

Anyway one should be grateful to Mani for making this crystal clear.
There is no beating around the bush. It is not a question of destroying
Hindutva alone. For him the real targets should be India and Hindu religion.
So next time when any of the Periyarties or their fellow travellers
oppose Hindutva dont be mislead by assuming that it is a part of
secular agenda. The real agenda has been spelt out now.

Anyway dont expect that his speech will be condemned by the so
called progressive, rationalist, secular intellectuals in Tamil Nadu.
Because in these days most of them think that nationalism, patriotism,
nation are all bad words as far as they apply to India.

EPW has published articles on Reservations and Higher Education.
The printed issue is out but the site gets updated on tuesdays.So
you will be able to access the articles by 27th June evening. I will
write later about the articles in this issue on that topic.

The article by Kancha Illiah is a disaster. I dont know why it has
been published. Will somebody tell him that essentialism taken
to exteremes results in nonsensical claims. Jayati Ghosh tries
to defend the reservations. After reading that piece I felt like
saying 'Thank God, she is not a doctor'.

Had she been a doctor/surgeon she would have suggested a
simple solution and would have asked the patient(s) to bear
with that it is easy for her to administer a simple solution
than to try a more complicated but better solution. But wait,
depending upon the cirumstances a bad economist can inflict
more damage than a bad doctor. The only problem is while
the poor doctor will be hauled up for the result, the economist
can always give brilliant excuses.

I am sure that there will be responses to these articles in the
pages of EPW. I still remember the hot debates in 1990 and
after, in the pages of EPW on Mandal I. Some of the participants
of that debate (e.g. Ashok Rudra, Dharma Kumar) are no more.
In any case it is remarkable that EPW still adheres to the tradition
set by (late) Krishna Raj. What a journal, what a man .

There is a difference between criticising a judgment and attributing motives
to judge(s) for the judgment(s). The contempt of court, in theory and practice,
as they are now, need to be reformulated. Many have written critical
pieces about judgments and some of the best critiques of the judgments have
been by academics like Upendra Baxi. Recently Ramaswamy Iyer had written
an article in EPW raising some questions about the judicial activism. In my
view Roy does not make efforts to write well meaning and informed critiques
and her observations often do not go beyond rhetoric.

In many occassions the Parliament had passed bills to nullify the judgments
given by courts including Supreme Court. Roy is silent on this. When the
Supreme Court had upheld the principle of equality by negating quotas/
reservations in promotions and super speciality courses what had been
the reactions from the political class. They brought an amendment to
give reservations in promotions. The Supreme Court has recently
heard final arguments in various cases on the question of caste based
reservations in promotions. Roy thus gives a false picture about the
powers of the Court and its role. What she has forgotten is that NBA
approached the court to stall the project and requested a rethink of
the project. Even as they were mobilizing people against the project
NBA tried to use all the possible legal options including going to
court, to stop/stall the project. M.C.Mehta had used PIL in many
cases and he had used them effectively. Supreme Court at one
time encouraged PIL and gave PIL respectability and legitimacy.
It used PIL to give some remarkable verdicts, verdicts that broadended
the rights of the citizens, reprimanded the State for its failures, helped
the poor and labor. Even now PIL is used effectively by some. Although
the heydays of PIL seem to be over, PIL is here to stay.

Regarding the powers of the Parliament, The Supreme Court had to
intervene, to tell the Parliament that it had no powers to undermine
or modify the basic structure of the Constitution. Had there been no
judicial intervention the political class would have made Constitution
as tool in their hands to protect their vested interests and to further
their political agendas.

In short Roys may come and go, after basking in glories, borrowed
or otherwise but Supreme Court and the Constitution would be there,
for citizens of this country as beacons of hope. The Court might not
always give us what we want, may even give what we detest most,
but we all including careless and silly critics like Roy need the Supreme
Court.

I think I have given more than enough importance to Roy and the
interview. Let me move on.

The interview reads more like paragraphs of an article published in
Puthiya Kalacharam or Puthiya Jananayagam or Visai or in any of
those leftist magazines .

Some of her observations are incorrect and as usual she has made many
sweeping statements. My problem with her views is much more than these.

I think Roy believes more in giving her target audience what they want to
hear than in making them to think or to understand. In many issues her
understanding is too shallow to be taken seriously. She gives a cocktail
that appeals to the left, left liberals, and those who are unhappy with
columnists like Thomas Friedman. In one sense she is the reverse of
Thomas Friedman. Both give a partial picture, filtered though their
biases and likes, and both offer a simplified picture. But globalization
is a more complicated issue than both would like us believe.

In case of Roy her biases prevent her to see the reality clearly. While the
Supreme Court has given verdicts that have been opposed by the
environmentalists, it has also given some important verdicts that have
gone a long way in protecting the environment and in shaping the
response of the policy makers.

In case of Naramada dam while the final judgment was not as expected
or desired by those who oppose the project, the stay helped them to
mobilize support for their cause. In that way the project was delayed by
about 5 or 6 years. It was a 2-1 verdict. But in many cases in the 80s and 90s
and even later the Supreme Court had given verdicts that had given relief to
those affected by pollution. The government would not have
taken many measures in environmental protection and pollution control
but for the verdicts given by the Court.

In case of New Delhi, (late) Anil Agarwal, alarmed by the increasing air
pollution, filed a petition in the Supreme Court. It is true that the decision
was controversial and some experts did not consider CNG as an ideal
solution.

But the problem would have got worse had there been no intervention
by the Court. The state was not doing what it should be doing. So the Court
had to step in and do something through the verdict. Similarly in cases of
pollution by tanneries in Tamil Nadu the Court gave a verdict that gave
some relief to the affected farmers.

One cannot assess the performance of the Court by taking into account one
or two judgments. It is true that not all judgments by the Court have been
pro-poor or pro-environment. But it is also true that the Court had to
intervene in many issues as the state either failed to do something or
did not bother to implement the laws and guidelines and turned a blind
eye to violations on a massive scale. In case of industries in residential
areas or building violations, in New Delhi, it was the failure of the state
that prompted the Court's intervention. The state does not have a proper
rehabilitation policy, nor has any solid plan to provide housing to the
urban poor. It cares more about the interests of the rich and the
political class than about the interests of citizens. Thus the poor
and marginalized sections pay a heavy price. So instead of depicting
the Court as a villain let us acknowledge that the root cause of most
problems are the failure of the state. I am not holding a brief for the
Court but I will not simplify the issues as she has done.

Similarly on other issues also my perceptions are different from her
even as I share her concern for the poor and farmers. Regarding
Maoists I would not give a romantic picture. In any case the origins
of the Naxal movement could be traced to the late 1960s. The
Maoists by and large still swear by Stalin and Mao. They still
have faith in proletarian dictatorship. It is one thing to oppose
state repression in the name of containing naxals, it is another
thing to romanticize the Naxal/Maoist movement. A liberal
would not share the romantic notions of the Naxals but would
not condone the repression and human rights violations of the
state.

I can go on like this but I better stop here as this may become
a very long post. In any case the calls from the stomach are
becoming louder, so I better attend to them :).

I will read what Roy or Friedman says or writes but take them
with an ounce or half kilogram of salt as the need may be.

In a verdict that will be welcomed by those who care for freedom of expression a judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court has stayed the ban on the film. He has slapped a fine of Rs 10,000
on the state government. The producer and the distributor will get Rs 10,000 each. Let me update this post with more information when it is available.

Ravi Kumar has written an article in Dinamani about the centenary year of Tamizhan and
the importance of that publication. He has made some well meaning suggestions. I think
that there would be no copyright issues in making it available in print as well as in digital
format. I would suggest that the issues could be scanned and put in the web so that Tamils
all over the world could access them. They should be made available in CDS and DVDS
with links and annotations. There could be a website on Pandithar and translations of his important writings could be made available in English.

Dalits consider Pandithar as a radical intellectual who was a pioneer in many ways.It is
important that he is not classified just a Dalit intellectual and activist. His contributions
should be understood in a broader perspective. Some of his ideas may not be acceptable
today as our understanding of history has undergone a sea change over the last century.

By making his writings easily accessible it would be possible for many to understand and appreciate his life and work. The government of Tamil Nadu should come forward to
popularise his writings and should celebarate his birth centenary.

Anbu Mani and AIIMS : Antics Unlimited

Anbumani finds fault with AIIMS and appoints a panel to study those issues. He is thus the prosecutor and judge. Two of the panel members report to him. So how can we expect an impartial enquiry? When the minister has stated the Specific problems the panel has no option but to go by them. What will happen if its perceptions are different from that of his? That is ruled out as two of the members are appointed in their official capacity and they are associated with the same ministry. Thus the credibility of the Panel is next to nothing. Had the enquiry been merely on strengths and weaknesses and problems of AIIMS as of now that would have made sense. But the minister has made threats, veiled and otherwise, to the director and has talked of punishments etc. So the panel is already told what it should say and should not say. The whole idea seems to frame the director and ease him out by using the report of the Panel.

Consider this: the govt. acts as the judge and as well as the prosecutor. Now principles of natural justice demand that the judge cannot be the prosecutor and vice-versa. When the Church was indulging in witch hunting and burning at stakes, it was the Judge as well as the prosecutor. Anbumani’s behavior is no different. If the govt. wants to probe the affairs of AIIMS it could have simply appointed a Panel consisting of experts and professionals who are not under or associated with the Ministry as well as not associated with AIIMS in the present. That would have made sense despite the current controversy. But with such a behavior Anbumani has made a mockery of the whole process. He is more interested in settling scores with the director than with making AIIMS a better institution.

I think that the director should approach the Court and seek justice. In my view the behavior of the minister clearly indicates that he is using the Panel to mask his personal vendetta against the director. While the govt. certainly has powers to appoint a Panel to go into the functioning of an institution like AIIMS the way it has gone about and the utterances of the minister are not above board. Man Mohan Singh has been a party to this exercise and his credibility has been eroded further.

Recently Viduthalai, that rag published by DK wrote that Venugopal, the director, was an Andhra Brahmin and should be taken to task for supporting the students and doctors, who went on strike against 27% reservation for OBCs. Anbumani has fulfilled that demand. As Venugopal has committed two 'sins' (of being a Brahmin and of supporting those doctors and students) how can be expected to remain as a director in these days of Mandal Raj. So what next, perhaps Anbumani will order that 27% of the beds should be reserved for OBCs and would like to amend rules of AIIMS so that only an OBC can be director of AIIMS. In any case he can expect the support the left lunatics in such antics, not to speak of the support from advocates of social justice (read OBC dominance). Of course some of them will demand quotas for minorities also in beds as well as in positions in AIIMS. Dont worry, you will find Kancha Ilaiah soon making a demand that AIIMS should be closed down as people still die in India and that too in AIIMS.

Welcome to Mandal II, welcome to the land of social justice!.