NEW YORK — One of the richest men in the world took a stroll
among the people of the protest group called Occupy Wall Street who were
encamped like Bedouins in the Lower Broadway park named after him. Not a
soul knew or guessed that John Zuccotti, 74, was that fellow meandering
anonymously along like everyone else.

A
young woman in her late twenties with long, wavy brown hair and the
fresh innocence of a Brown University graduate stood on the sidewalk
before a congregation of hundreds of people and as a “facilitator”
helped conduct a three-hour “General Assembly” in a style dubbed
“consensus democracy.”

A hand-lettered sign on a corrugated box flap proclaimed:

“There are no leaders here. Don’t ask for them. Get used to it!”

Reporters
sought in vain for authorized representatives to answer their
questions, and many groused about not finding any. Without leaders, they
grumped, who is there to question? Who presents the group’s talking
points and expresses cogent demands?

From
the handmade signs bobbing daily in a sea of humanity, interviews with
dozens of protesters and the ongoing public exchanges among the
thousands at Occupy Wall Street emerge the questions that are beginning
to resonate across America:

» Is
it fair for a tiny splinter of the population, allegedly just 1
percent, to own and control half or more of a nation’s wealth?

» Should
corporations be granted the privileges of “personhood,” via a Supreme
Court decision on campaign finance, when corporations don’t have a
conscience?

» Why have the world’s millionaires increased by almost nine percent since 2009?

» Why are bailed-out banks allowed to hoard their cash?

» Why can’t America eliminate the corrupting and destructive links between politicians and corporations?

The
thirst for answers appears to be gaining momentum. An Associated
Press-GfK poll released Friday says 37 percent of Americans back the
people gathered here. And 58 percent of Americans say they are furious
about America’s politicians.
A slender 27-year-old man, who calls himself Kwame, sat on a granite
slab beside a pale, plump, goat-bearded college professor and they mused
about the characteristics of the crowd.

For
one thing, roughly 99 percent of everyone within sight, no matter how
they are garbed, carries a smartphone. Except for a bronze statue of a
businessman hunched over his briefcase, neckties are scarce. Almost as
scarce are people of color.

Kwame,
who’s black, is working on his Ph.D. in music at Stanford University.
The question was raised, “Why is there just one percent black people
among the 99 percenters in the park?”

“Education,”
he said. “The higher their education level, the more likely anyone is
to be here. Blacks in New York are a shrinking minority and their
schools are not up to high standards. But as this goes on, there’ll be
more.”

There are
just about as many males as females. Many people claim to hold one or
more jobs and about two out of 10 say they can’t find one. People who
haven’t showered in far too long rub elbows with well-scrubbed travelers
from abroad. There are blue-dyed mohawks, a few hippie-ish longhairs,
tattoos of all colors, labor union workers, anarchists, musicians,
hundreds of blue tarpaulins, pillars of pizza boxes, plastic bottles of
water that cost more per quart than gasoline, and wave after wave of
curious tourists and “media” who invariably ask the question:

“Why are you all here and what do you want?”

The answer is both super-simple and ultra-complicated:

“Money.”

The
primary issue for almost every soul in the park — whatever their age,
spiritual faith, political leanings, skin shade, gender, ethnicity,
hierarchical rank, IQ level or social class — is an inquiry into what
money actually is, how money truly functions, what money is worth, how
money affects the way we are governed, how money is stolen and by whom,
how money affects the law, how to get money and how to spend it.

What
so fascinates people about the month-old iCreature called Occupy Wall
Street is that the Occupiers have brilliantly directed the searchlight
of world attention on the global subject of money. Almost everybody
cares about money. As Mark Twain put it, “Some men worship rank, some
worship heroes, some worship power, some worship God, & over these
ideals they dispute & cannot unite — but they all worship money.”
n Zuccotti Park, the lefties, the righties, the middlies and the
politically perplexed have quite amazingly gathered to consider in a
unique 21st-century style the true role of money. In a wild and almost
weird collision of coincidences, Occupy has become the hottest ticket in
town.

The word “occupy” is now attached
to more than 1,000 cities (including Wilmington), states, nations and
locations globally. Plans are afoot for a massive, Internet-coordinated
“international” occupation of Central Park on the easy-to-remember date
of Friday, 11/11/11. A permit is required for large gatherings in the
city-owned park.

•°°

The
privately owned Zuccotti Park is named for a lively and thoughtful man
whose life story epitomizes the wildest American dreams of avarice.
Before becoming one of the world’s wealthiest real estate developers,
Zuccotti checked hats at a super-swanky 54th Street speakeasy with
zebra-striped decor called El Morocco, where his father, Angelo, was the
suave maitre d’.

Zuccotti
graduated from Princeton, earned his law degree at Yale and became one
of the 500 richest men in the world according to Forbes Magazine. He
served on both the National Republican Congressional Committee and with
Vice President Joe Biden’s 1988 presidential campaign. Zuccotti has paid
incognito visits to the park and friends say he was worried about the
disorder and mess, but he nonetheless smiled while strolling through the
plaza that carries his family name.

Then
there is an Estonia-born writer and documentary filmmaker named Kalle
Lasn, 69, the founder and editor of a popular Canadian magazine called
Adbusters, which probes and satirizes the ideas and consequences of
consumerism, an economic philosophy that Adbusters readers regard as
pernicious and fundamentally evil.

This
story began one day in a Vancouver supermarket. Lasn became infuriated
when he had to pay a quarter to rent a shopping car
t. He jammed the coin
in the slot. It was his first act of vandalism against consumerism,
which he sees as an infernal machine that sucks coins from consumers’
pockets and seldom returns fair value. Adbusters soon became one of
Canada’s favorite magazines.
In July 2011, Lasn published an editorial in Adbusters (www.adbusters.org) that called on 20,000 people to “set up tents, kitchens, peaceful barricades and occupy Wall Street for a few months.”

With
what aim in mind? To investigate and eventually sever unscrupulous
links between politics and money and to force the government “to choose
publicly between the will of the people and the lucre of the
corporations.”

A
few dozen “activists” in New York City took note. On Sept. 17, a
Saturday, they showed up at the little–known, granite-paved Zuccotti
Park, about as big as a football field minus the end zones. It is two
blocks up Broadway from Trinity Church, at the top of Wall Street. It
is three blocks from the New York Stock Exchange and four blocks from
Federal Hall, the first capitol of the United States of America, where
George Washington was sworn in as the first president in 1789. Two
blocks to the west, the steel skeleton and glass skin of One World Trade
Center is built up to its 86th floor and will rise eventually to an
altitude of 1,776 feet above the ground on the spot where the North
Tower of the World Trade Center once stood.

Day
by day, that first encampment of vinyl tarps, overstuffed backpacks,
sleeping bags, umbrellas, guitars, drums, a seedy old sofa and
unspeakable mattresses began to grow like the gray matter in a brain
does, neuron by neuron, from person to person, from smartphone to
smartphone, from mind to mind, in a way that the iPeople have come to
call “going viral.”

By
last Monday, Oct. 17, the first month’s anniversary of Occupy Wall
Street’s un-immaculate birth, the “Occupus” had sprouted tentacles in
hundreds of cities around the globe and the number increased each day.
Boston, Baltimore, Washington, Chicago, Denver, Salt Lake City, San
Francisco and Los Angeles were “occupied” within a week or so. Within a
fortnight, the estimated numbers in marching crowds and occupied places
was greater on the West Coast than in the East, where Occupy began. Then
London, Rome and Barcelona joined in, and so on round the globe.
In the first few weeks, Occupy was paid scant attention by the media,
which is not surprising because New York City is awash in political
protests and this one seemed to many editors no more significant than
most. Then, on Oct. 6, Paul Krugman, the 2008 winner of the Nobel
Memorial Prize for economics and the “Liberal” op-ed columnist for the
New York Times, wrote:

“What can we say
about the [Occupy Wall Street] protests? First things first: The
protesters’ indictment of Wall Street as a destructive force,
economically and politically, is completely right.”

It
was the equivalent of a rave theater review. Occupy Wall Street
suddenly gained momentum. A squad of uniformed police was positioned
just outside the park, unthreatened and content on overtime pay. “We’re
minding the trust fund babies,” is how one policeman put it.

Now
the more mainstream media began to show up. Reporters immediately
noticed that there are no bathroom facilities in the park and personal
hygiene for the campers is rough. The McDonald’s across Broadway allows
restroom privileges for all (most visitors pay for the kindness by
buying at least a cup of coffee first). So do Trinity Church and an
Episcopal public meeting room called Charlotte’s Place that is decorated
with fresh flowers and offers sparkling-clean bathrooms, Wi-Fi and
tables for computers, and a free conference room where Occupy working
groups meet.

Because
social communication is what Occupy is actually all about, the biggest
obstacle the Occupiers overcame was the police ban on voice
amplification. To hold General Assembly meetings for hundreds of people
alongside the noisy bustle of Broadway without megaphonic help would
have been impossible without Mike Check! Mike is a superhero of Occupy,
which may be leaderless but is not without heroes.

Mike
Check! is the non-electronic human voice amplifier. It works very
simply, and is the primary means of vocal communication among the
participants in the evening plenary sessions, when hundreds of people
form a crescent of participants and onlookers on the Broadway side of
the park. For at least two hours each night, they discuss, decide and
take parliamentary decisions with all words sung full cry in a great
collective voice.
It works this way:

A person shouts: “Mike Check!”

Everyone
who can hear the shout yells back, “Mike Check!” and the crowd even
mimics the inflection and accent of the speaker’s voice.

The person shouts: “There’s a reporter from Coney Island …”

The crowd yells at the top of its voices: “There’s a reporter from Coney Island …”

The shouter: “who wants to interview somebody from Coney Island.”

The crowd: “who wants to interview somebody from Coney Island.”

Shouter: “So if …”

Crowd: “So if …”

Shouter: “you’re from Coney Island …”

Crowd: “you’re from Coney Island …”

Shouter: “Get over here.”

Crowd (laughing): “GET OVER HERE!”

Those
who know how to use Mike Check! best cut to the chase and talk in four-
or five-word bites. If a shouter uses overly long words or too-long
phrases, the crowd garbles them, which makes everything take longer.
Long-winded speakers are warned, “We get it … enough!” by a particular
hand signal from anyone in the crowd (circling hands around each other
like a football referee when he wants to keep the game clock moving).

Occupy
etiquette makes clear that no matter what the shouter says, or how
antithetical the words might be to local or personal beliefs, the crowd
is duty bound to echo the words at top volume.

The
Mike Check! system was born of adversity and is a concept that
fascinates group dynamics people. Mike Check! actually forces people to
listen carefully to what others say and perhaps apprehend precisely what
they are saying before interrupting with a response.

Another
hero of Zuccotti Park is the sanitation volunteer. There is a
cleanliness-is-next-to-godliness attitude among most of the Occupiers
(with a few swinish exceptions), necessary because littering is a
misdemeanor and could give authorities re
ason to kick everyone out on
public-safety grounds. On Oct. 14, Mayor Michael Bloomberg seemed about
to evict Occupy from the park to have it steam-washed by
“professionals.” But John Zuccotti’s company, the park’s owners, backed
away from asking for a confrontation that might besmirch the name of the
park and the property.
To keep the park clean, the volunteer sanitation squads patrol
incessantly with brooms and trash pans, and warn people to put down
tarps when they paint protest signs because spilling paint on the
granite can get a person arrested.

There
are numerous hand-drawn signs that proclaim, “DON’T DO DRUGS” and “NO
ALCOHOL.” At a General Assembly, one of the volunteer security detail
men holds up a black plastic sack. He shouts Mike Check! “There are
three bottles …

The crowd echoes: “There are three bottles …”

“… of liquor in the bag.”

“… of liquor in the bag”

“Alcohol will get us all thrown out!”

“Alcohol will get us all thrown out!”

“Don’t bring it!”

“Don’t bring it!”

By
day 34 on Friday, the Occupiers were revving up for yet another weekend
of chaotic protests and teach-ins. The nightly General Assemblies
carried on under their rules of consensual democracy and the “lack of
leadership” was being criticized by Bloomberg, who prefers to deal with
an organization that has a hierarchy and a chain of command.

Nobody
knows yet what Occupy will become. Will it get kicked out of the park?
Will it survive until Thanksgiving? Will it grow into an iCreature that
eats plutocrats for lunch? Will Kalle Lasn come to Manhattan to see what
he hath wrought? Will it end well, or end ugly? Millions worldwide are
tuned in to see.

Scientific American article  reports

“

Longevity Shown for First Time to Be Inherited via a Non-DNA Mechanism

Experiments with worms show that altering an enzyme can not only lengthen their life spans, but that the longevity effect can be carried across several generations

By Sarah Fecht  | October 19, 2011 | 2

Research on nemotode worms is helping to illuminate ways to lengthen their lifetimes. The findings have yet to be replicated in vertebrates, including humans. Image: Wikimedia Commons

In October 2009 Stanford University geneticist Anne Brunet was sitting in her office when graduate student Eric Greer came to her with a slightly heretical question. Brunet’s lab had recently learned that they could lengthen a worm’s lifetime by manipulating levels of an enzyme called SET2. “What if extending a worm’s lifetime using SET2 can affect the life span of its descendants, even if the descendants have normal amounts of the enzyme?” he asked.

The question was unorthodox, Brunet says, “because it touches upon the Lamarckian idea that you can inherit acquired traits, which biologists have believed false for years.” The biologist Jean-Baptiste Lamarck​ theorized in 1809 that the traits exhibited by an organism during its lifetime were augmented in its offspring; a giraffe that regularly stretched its neck to eat would father calves whose necks were longer. The idea was largely discredited by Darwin’s theory of evolution, first published in 1859. More recently, scientists have begun to realize that an organism’s behavior and environment may indeed influence the genes it passes to its offspring. The heritability of those acquired traits is not based on DNA, but on alterations in the molecular packaging that surrounds a gene. When Greer approached Brunet in 2009 with his question about worms and SET2, such “epigenetic” inheritance had only been discovered for simple traits such as eye color, flower symmetry and coat color.

Brunet and Greer went ahead with the experiment. The results, published October 19 in Nature, provide the first evidence that some aspects of longevity can be passed from parent to offspring, independent of DNA’s direct influence. (Scientific American is part of Nature Publishing Group.)

“I think this is a fundamentally important finding,” says Matt Kaeberlein of the University of Washington in Seattle, who studies molecular mechanisms of aging. “It demonstrates for the first time that aging can be influenced by epigenetic changes that occurred in prior generations.”

The study used Caenorhabditis elegans worms with very low levels of SET2. The enzyme normally adds methyl molecules onto DNA’s protein packaging material. In doing so, the enzyme opens up the packaging material, allowing the genes to be copied and expressed. Some of those genes appear to be pro-aging genes, Brunet says. Her team knocked out SET2 by removing genes that code for it. This had the effect of significantly lengthening the worms’ life spans, presumably because those pro-aging genes were no longer expressed.

Next, the long-lived, enzyme-lacking worms mated with normal ones. The offspring had the regular genes for making SET2, and even expressed normal amounts of the enzyme, but they lived significantly longer than control worms whose parents both had regular life spans. The life-extending effect carried over into the third generation, but returned to normal by the fourth generation (in the great-grandchildren of the original mutant worms). For the first few generations, having a long-lived ancestor increased life expectancy from 20 days to 25, extending a worm’s longevity by 25 to 30 percent on average.

Brunet and her team have not yet determined the exact mechanism for the lifetime extension, or which molecules are at work. This is one of the study’s imperfections, says David Katz, who researches epigenetic transcriptional memory at Emory University. Regardless, “the effect is clearly epigenetic,” he says, “and it’s probably one of the most complicated traits that has been linked to epigenetic inheritance.”

The knowledge that epigenetics can impact a complex trait like life span has scientists curious to find out what other kinds of traits—such as disease susceptibility, metabolism and developmental patterns—are epigenetically heritable. Because epigenetic effects can be modified by environmental stimuli, Kaeberlein points out, it is possible that some of these traits “could be determined, at least in part, by the environment and lifestyle choices of parents, grandparents or even great-grandparents.”

The study’s results are also exciting because the genes that code for the
life-lengthening SET2 enzyme exist in other species, including humans. Brunet says she wants see if the results can be replicated in vertebrates, such as fish and mammals. Those questions will not be answered for many years, because it is unknown whether the SET2 complex has the same function in other species, and because those species have longer generational time frames.

“Worms have very short lives,” Brunet says. “Will the effect apply to mammals that live thousands of times longer? We are excited to find out.”

“

Now this is exciting.

But there could be another reason for the longevity found in certain populations such as the Japanese and Chinese. In these cultures, ancestor worship is common, and importantly, elderly are given much more respect than in other cultures of the world. Being regarded as useful and respected could be a driving factor for the old to live on. In most other cultures world wide, the senior citizens are viewed as a spent force, with little if any possible contributions to society.

Being fawned upon by the younger generation who look to them for guidance and advice could well be a motivating factor to live on. Of course this assumes that a person can give up on life and that outlook itself shortens her lifespan. But this is a reasonable assumption.

Look around you. Most of the people who are surprisingly fit and perky at a great age are, if you study their habits, people who have some driving force behind them.

Iqbal

                 പുതിയൊരു കുഞ്ഞ്‌ നമ്മിലേക്ക്‌ വരാനിരിക്കുന്നു എന്ന വാര്‍ത്ത എത്ര
സന്തോഷത്തോടെയാണ്‌ നാം ആസ്വദിക്കാറുള്ളത്‌! കുടുംബത്തിലേക്ക്‌ പുതിയൊരാള്‍
വരുന്നു! ആകാംക്ഷയോടെ ആ കുഞ്ഞിന്‌ നല്ലൊരു പേര്‌ കണ്ടുവെച്ച്‌ നാം
കാത്തിരിക്കുന്നു. ഉമ്മയുടെയും ഉപ്പയുടെയും മനസ്സു നിറയെ ആ
കുഞ്ഞായിരിക്കും.

                അത്രയും
ആനന്ദവും ആശ്ചര്യവും നിറഞ്ഞ കൈകളിലേക്ക്‌ വന്നുവീണവരാണ്‌
നമ്മളോരോരുത്തരും. ഇനി, അതിലേറെ വേദനയും വിഭ്രാന്തിയും ബാക്കിയാക്കി
അവരില്‍ നിന്നെല്ലാം മടങ്ങിപ്പോകേണ്ടവരുമാണ്‌ ഈ നമ്മള്‍.
ജനിക്കുന്നതിനുമുമ്പ്‌ നമ്മെക്കുറിച്ച ഓര്‍മ കൂടിക്കൂടി വരും; പക്ഷേ
മരിച്ചുകഴിഞ്ഞാല്‍ നമ്മെക്കുറിച്ച ഓര്‍മ്മ കുറഞ്ഞുകുറഞ്ഞുവരും.

                എല്ലാവരും
ജീവിക്കുന്നവരാണെങ്കിലും ജീവിതത്തെക്കുറിച്ച്‌ ചിന്തിക്കുന്നവര്‍
കുറച്ചേയുള്ളൂ. ആനന്ദത്തിന്റെ ആഘോഷം മാത്രമാക്കി ജീവിതത്തെ
പുണരുന്നവര്‍ക്ക്‌ കൊച്ചുകാര്യങ്ങളെപ്പറ്റി ചിന്തിക്കാനേ നേരം കാണൂ.
ഭക്ഷണം, വസ്‌ത്രം, സൗന്ദര്യം, സൗകര്യം അങ്ങനെ വളരെ കുറച്ചുകാര്യങ്ങളുടെ
പിന്നില്‍ അവര്‍ ചുറ്റിത്തിരിയും. ചെറിയ ചെറിയ കാര്യങ്ങളേക്കാള്‍ വലിയ
കാര്യങ്ങള്‍ നിര്‍വഹിക്കാനുള്ള സന്ദര്‍ഭമാണീ ജീവിതമെന്ന്‌ തിരിച്ചറിയാന്‍
സാധിക്കുന്നവര്‍ മഹാഭാഗ്യവാന്മാരാണ്‌.

                 സുഖമൊരു
അനുഭവമല്ല. ദു:ഖമാണ്‌ അനുഭവമെന്ന്‌ ദു:ഖിച്ചവര്‍ക്കൊക്കെ അറിയാം.
രോഗങ്ങളും വേദനകളുമൊന്നുമില്ലെങ്കിലാണ്‌ സത്യത്തില്‍ നമുക്ക്‌ ഭയം
വര്‍ധിക്കേണ്ടത്‌. ഈ ജീവിതത്തിന്റെ നിസ്സാരതയെത്രയെന്ന്‌
തിരിച്ചറിയുമ്പോള്‍ വേദനകളെയും സന്തോഷങ്ങളെയും അതിജീവിക്കാന്‍ നാം
പഠിച്ചുതുടങ്ങും. അലക്കുകല്ലിന്റെ നിയോഗം അടിക്കുക എന്നതല്ല, അടി കൊള്ളുക
എന്നതാണ്‌. ഒരര്‍ഥത്തില്‍ നമ്മുടെയും നിയോഗമതാണ്‌. മരിക്കുന്നതുവരെ
ജീവിച്ചുകൊണ്ടിരിക്കുകയും ജീവിക്കുമ്പോഴൊക്കെ
പ്രവര്‍ത്തിച്ചുകൊണ്ടിരിക്കുകയുമാണ്‌ നമ്മുടെ ദൗത്യം.

               അസഹ്യമായ
അനുഭവങ്ങള്‍ വരാനിരിക്കുന്ന ജീവിതമാണ്‌ നമ്മുടേത്‌. അനിഷ്‌ടകരമായ
വാര്‍ത്തകള്‍ കേള്‍ക്കാനിരിക്കുന്ന കാതും ഹൃദയം തകരുന്ന അലര്‍ച്ചയോടെ
കരയാനിരിക്കുന്ന കണ്ണുമാണ്‌ നമ്മുടേത്‌. അത്തരം അനുഭവങ്ങള്‍ വരുത്തരുതേ
എന്ന്‌ പ്രാര്‍ഥിക്കുന്നതോടൊപ്പം അങ്ങനെ വല്ലതും സംഭവിച്ചാല്‍
പിടിച്ചുനില്‍ക്കാനുള്ള കെല്‍പ്പു തരണേയെന്നും പ്രാര്‍ഥിക്കുന്നതിലാണ്‌
തിരുനബി(സ)യുടെ മാതൃക.

                യാഥാര്‍ഥ്യബോധത്തോടെ
ജീവിതാനുഭവങ്ങളെ നേരിടുന്നതിലാണ്‌ നമ്മള്‍ വിജയിക്കേണ്ടത്‌. കുഞ്ഞ്‌
മരിച്ചുകിടന്നപ്പ
ോഴും മുഖത്ത്‌ സങ്കടം വിരിയാതെ, ഭര്‍ത്താവിന്‌ അത്താഴവും
ആനന്ദവും പകര്‍ന്ന സ്വഹാബി വനിതയെ കേട്ടിട്ടില്ലേ? ധീരമായ ഭക്തിയാണത്‌.
കണ്ണീരിനെ മുഴുവന്‍ കണ്ണിനു പിന്നില്‍ നിര്‍ത്തിയ അസാധാരണമായ
സത്യവിശ്വാസമാണത്‌.

              സ്വഹാബികളോടൊപ്പം
യാത്ര ചെയ്യുകയായിരുന്ന തിരുനബി(സ) അവിടെയൊരു ആള്‍ക്കൂട്ടം കണ്ടു.
എന്താണവിടെയെന്ന്‌ അന്വേഷിച്ചു. `അവിടെ ഒരു ഖബ്‌ര്‍
കുഴിച്ചുകൊണ്ടിരിക്കുകയാണ്‌ റസൂലേ’. ഇത്‌ കേട്ടതോടെ തിരുദൂതര്‍
വിഭ്രാന്തിയുള്ള മുഖത്തോടെ ആ ഖബ്‌റിന്നരികിലേക്ക്‌ ഓടി. അവിടെ
മുട്ടുകുത്തിയിരുന്നു. താഴെയുള്ള മണ്ണ്‌ നനയുന്നത്രയും ശക്തമായി കരഞ്ഞു.
എന്നിട്ടിങ്ങനെ പറഞ്ഞു: “എന്റെ കൂട്ടുകാരേ, ഇതുപോലൊരു ദിനത്തെ നേരിടാന്‍
നിങ്ങള്‍ ഒരുക്കങ്ങള്‍ നടത്തണേ.” (ഇബ്‌നുമാജ-സുനന്‍ 4195)

               ജനങ്ങളില്‍
ഏറ്റവും ബുദ്ധിശക്തിയുള്ളവന്‍ ആരാണെന്ന ചോദ്യത്തിന്‌ തിരുനബി(സ)യുടെ
മറുമൊഴി ഇങ്ങനെയായിരുന്നു: “മരണത്തെ നിരന്തരം ഓര്‍ക്കുന്നവര്‍. അതിനായി
തയ്യാറെടുക്കുന്നവര്‍. ഇവിടെ മാന്യതയും പരലോകത്ത്‌ മഹത്വവും
നേടിയെടുക്കുന്നവരാണവര്‍.” (ബൈഹഖി-ശുഅബുല്‍ഈമാന്‍ 7993, 10550)

              മരണത്തെ
ഓര്‍ത്ത്‌ തയ്യാറെടുക്കുന്നവര്‍ക്ക്‌ അല്ലാഹു ഹൃദയത്തെ ഉണര്‍ത്തുകയും
മരണസന്ദര്‍ഭം എളുപ്പമാക്കുകയും ചെയ്യുമെന്ന്‌ അവിടുന്ന്‌ പറഞ്ഞു. (ദൈലമി:
മുസ്‌നദുല്‍ ഫിര്‍ദൗസ്‌)

             `ജീവിച്ച
വര്‍ഷങ്ങളല്ല, വര്‍ഷിച്ച ജീവിതമാണ്‌ പ്രധാനം’ എന്ന്‌ ഇംഗ്ലീഷിലൊരു
പഴമൊഴിയുണ്ട്‌. ആയുസ്സിന്റെ നീളത്തേക്കാള്‍ ആയുസിലെ കര്‍മങ്ങളിലായിരിക്കണം
നമ്മുടെ ശ്രദ്ധ. നമുക്ക്‌ ഒരു ഏകദേശ ധാരണപോലുമില്ലാത്ത നിമിഷത്തില്‍ ഈ
ജീവിതം അവസാനിക്കും.
ആരോടും
യാത്ര ചോദിക്കാതെ, ആരെയും കാത്തിരിക്കാതെ, എല്ലാവരെയും കരയിച്ച്‌,
പറയാനുള്ളതും ചെയ്യാന്‍ കരുതിയതുമെല്ലാം ബാക്കിവെച്ച്‌ സുനിശ്ചിതമായ ആ
വലിയ സത്യത്തിലേക്ക്‌ നമ്മള്‍ ഉള്‍ചേരുകതന്നെ ചെയ്യും. ഒട്ടം
പരിചിതമല്ലാത്ത മറ്റൊരു ലോകത്തെക്ക്‌ യാത്രയാകും. അതോടെ എല്ലാ രസച്ചരടുകളും
പൊട്ടിച്ചിതറും. ഒന്നിച്ചു കഴിഞ്ഞവര്‍ രണ്ടായി പിരിയും, വാക്കുകളില്‍
കണ്ണീരു കലരും. ഓര്‍മകളൊക്കെയും സങ്കടമാവും. നമ്മെ പുണര്‍ന്നിരിരുന്ന
കൈകള്‍ നമ്മുടെ നേരെ മണ്ണെറിയും; തീര്‍ന്നു!

             ജനിക്കും
മുമ്പ്‌ നമ്മെക്കുറിച്ച ഓര്‍മ കൂടിക്കൂടിവരും. മരണത്തോടെ ആ ഓര്‍മ
കുറഞ്ഞുകുറഞ്ഞുവരും. മരിക്കും വരെ ജീവിക്കുകയും ജീവിക്കുമ്പോഴൊക്കെ
പ്രവര്‍ത്തിക്കുകയുമാണ്‌ നമ്മുടെ നിയോഗം.

ഓര്‍ക്കുക: ഞാന്‍ ചെയ്‌തതിന്റെ
ആകത്തുകയാണ്‌ ഞാന്‍. നിങ്ങളും അങ്ങനെത്തന്നെ.

—

ബുള്ളഷ് റാവുവിന്റെ അമ്മയോട് നാമെന്ത് പറയും?

—

Islamic cultural center open in N.Y.

Sep 22, 2011  |  

An NYPD officer keeps watch during the Wednesday grand opening of the Park51 Islamic cultural center in New York City. It’s near Ground Zero, and the project has drawn criticism from opponents who say they don’t want a Muslim prayer space near the site of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

NEW YORK — The developer of an Islamic cultural center that

opened Wednesday evening near the site of the terrorist attacks that
leveled the World Trade Center says the biggest error on the project was
not involving the families of 9/11 victims from the start.

People crowded into the center, where a small orchestra played traditional
Middle Eastern instruments and a photo exhibit of New York children of
different ethnicities lined the walls. The enthusiasm at the opening
belied its troubled beginnings.

“We made incredible mistakes,” Sharif El-Gamal told the Associated Press in an earlier interview.

The building at 51 Park Place, two blocks from Ground Zero, includes a
mosque that has been open for two years. El-Gamal said the cultural
center is modeled after the Jewish Community Center on Manhattan’s Upper
West Side, where he lives.

“I wanted my daughter to learn how to
swim, so I took her to the JCC,” said the Brooklyn-born Muslim. “And
when I walked in, I said, ‘Wow. This is great.’ “

The project has drawn criticism from opponents who say they don’t want a Muslim prayer
space near the site of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.

The center is open to all faiths and will include a 9/11 memorial, El-Gamal said.
He called opposition to the center — which prompted one of the most
virulent national discussions about Islam and freedom of speech and
religion since Sept. 11 — part of a “campaign against Muslims.”

Last year, street clashes in view of the trade center site pitted supporters against opponents of the center.

When the center was first envisioned, several years ago, activist Daisy Khan
and her husband, Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, played a major, vocal role.
But they soon left the project because of differences with the
developer. El-Gamal, 38, confirmed Wednesday that they parted ways because “we had a different vision.”

The couple said they had discussed plans for Park51, as the center is
known, with relatives of 9/11 victims, first responders and others. But
El-Gamal said he wishes victims’ families had been involved earlier —
before the center became a point of contention. “The biggest mistake we
made was not to include 9/11 families,” El-Gamal said, noting that the
center’s advisory board now includes at least one 9/11 family member.

El-Gamal also noted that the featured photographer in the “NYChildren” exhibit is Danny Goldfield, who is Jewish.

Goldfield said he didn’t want to pass judgment on the center’s opponents. But he
said he’d like them to see the show “more than anyone.”

El-Gamal said that fund-raising is under way to complete the 15-story building
that also is to include an auditorium, educational programs, a pool, a
restaurant and culinary school, child care services, a sports facility, a
wellness center and artist studios.

The mosque is needed in lower Manhattan, he said, because thousands of Muslims either work or live in the area.

Athletic, Muslim, Fashionable – a Tale of the Sports Hijab

Olympic hopeful, 17-year-old Zeinab Hammoud

സകാത്തുല്‍ ഫിത്വ്‌ര്‍

റമദാന്‍ മാസത്തില്‍ പ്രത്യേകമായി ശ്രദ്ധപതിപ്പിക്കേണ്ട ഒരു സകാത്ത്‌ ഇസ്‌ലാം നിശ്ചയിച്ചിട്ടുണ്ട്‌. അതാണ്‌ വ്രതസമാപന സകാത്ത്‌ അഥവാ സകാത്തുല്‍ ഫിത്വ്‌ര്‍.
“മുസ്‌ലിംകളിലെ അടിമകള്‍, സ്വതന്ത്രര്‍, പുരുഷന്മാര്‍, സ്‌ത്രീകള്‍, ചെറിയവര്‍, വലിയവര്‍ (എന്നീ വേര്‍തിരിവുകളില്ലാതെ) എല്ലാവരുടെ പേരിലും ഓരോ സ്വാഅ്‌ കാരക്കയോ ബാര്‍ലിയോ ഫിത്വ്‌ര്‍ സകാത്ത്‌ നല്‍കല്‍ ബാധ്യതയായി അല്ലാഹുവിന്റെ ദൂതര്‍(സ) നിര്‍ബന്ധമായി നിശ്ചയിച്ചിരിക്കുന്നു. പെരുന്നാള്‍ നമസ്‌കാരത്തിന്‌ ആളുകള്‍ പുറപ്പെടുന്നതിനു മുമ്പായി അത്‌ നല്‍കണമെന്നും അദ്ദേഹം കല്‌പിച്ചിരിക്കുന്നു.” (ബുഖാരി, മുസ്‌ലിം)
റമദാന്‍ അവസാനിക്കുന്നതോടെയാണ്‌ ഈ സകാത്ത്‌ നിര്‍ബന്ധമായിത്തീരുന്നത്‌. ഈദുല്‍ഫിത്വ്‌ര്‍ (ശവ്വാല്‍ ഒന്ന്‌) നമസ്‌കാരത്തിന്‌ പുറപ്പെടുന്നതോടെ അതിന്റെ സമയം അവസാനിക്കുകയും ചെയ്യുന്നു. ഹ്രസ്വമായ സമയപരിധിക്കുള്ളില്‍ അത്‌ പൂര്‍ണമായി നിര്‍വഹിക്കപ്പെടാന്‍ പ്രയാസമാണെങ്കില്‍ വ്രതസമാപനത്തിന്‌ രണ്ടോ മൂന്നോ ദിവസം മുമ്പായി അത്‌ കൊടുക്കുകയും ചെയ്യാം. ഇബ്‌നു ഉമര്‍(റ) പറയുന്നു: “അവര്‍ (സ്വഹാബികള്‍) ഫിത്വ്‌ര്‍ സകാത്ത്‌ പെരുന്നാളിന്റെ ഒന്നോ രണ്ടോ ദിവസം മുമ്പ്‌ നല്‍കാറുണ്ടായിരുന്നു.” (ബുഖാരി)
സമ്പത്ത്‌ എന്ന അല്ലാഹുവിന്റെ അനുഗ്രഹം ലഭിച്ചവര്‍ക്ക്‌ മാത്രം നിര്‍ബന്ധമാണ്‌ സാധാരണ സകാത്ത്‌. അതിന്‌ നിശ്ചിത പരിധിയും കൃത്യമായ തോതും കണക്കുമെല്ലാം നിശ്ചയിക്കപ്പെട്ടിരിക്കുന്നു. എന്നാല്‍ സകാത്തുല്‍ ഫിത്വ്‌ര്‍ സമ്പത്തിന്റെ മാനദണ്ഡമനുസരിച്ചല്ല നല്‍കേണ്ടത്‌. കണക്കനുസരിച്ച്‌ തന്റെ സമ്പത്തിന്റെ സകാത്ത്‌ കൊടുത്തുതീര്‍ത്തവരും കണക്കനുസരിച്ച്‌ സകാത്ത്‌ കൊടുക്കാന്‍ മാത്രം സമ്പത്തില്ലാത്തവരും സകാത്തുല്‍ ഫിത്വ്‌ര്‍ കൊടുക്കേണ്ടതുണ്ട്‌. നിത്യവൃത്തിക്ക്‌ വകയില്ലാത്തവര്‍ മാത്രമേ ഇതിന്റെ നിര്‍ബന്ധ കല്‌പനയില്‍ നിന്ന്‌ ഒഴിവാക്കപ്പെടുകയുള്ളൂ.
മനുഷ്യസഹജമായ താല്‌പര്യം അംഗീകരിച്ചുകൊണ്ട്‌ അല്ലാഹു നിശ്ചയിച്ച ആഘോഷം എന്ന നിലയില്‍ പെരുന്നാളിന്റെ ആഹ്ലാദം പങ്കിടുവാന്‍ നിത്യവൃത്തിക്ക്‌ കഷ്‌ടപ്പെടുന്നവര്‍ക്കുപോലും സാധിക്കണമെന്നതാണ്‌ സകാത്തുല്‍ ഫിത്വ്‌ര്‍ കൊണ്ട്‌ ലക്ഷ്യമാക്കുന്നത്‌. ജീവിതത്തില്‍ സൂക്ഷ്‌മത കൈവരിക്കാനും വന്നുപോയ പാളിച്ചകള്‍ക്ക്‌ പരിഹാരവും പ്രായശ്ചിത്തവുമായിക്കൊണ്ടുമാണ്‌ സത്യവിശ്വാസി വ്രതമനുഷ്‌ഠിക്കുന്നത്‌. നോമ്പുകാരന്‌ വീണ്ടും വിമലീകരണത്തിനുള്ള അവസരം കൂടിയാണ്‌ സകാതുല്‍ ഫിത്വ്‌ര്‍. “അനാവശ്യമായ വാക്കും പ്രവൃത്തിയും മൂലം നോമ്പുകാരന്‌ വന്നുപോയ പിഴവുകളില്‍ നിന്ന്‌ അവനെ ശുദ്ധീകരിക്കാനും പാവങ്ങള്‍ക്ക്‌ ആഹാരത്തിനുമായി റസൂല്‍(സ) സകാത്തുല്‍ ഫിത്വ്‌ര്‍ നിര്‍ബന്ധമാക്കിയിരിക്കുന്നു.” (അബൂദാവൂദ്‌, ഇബ്‌നുമാജ)
കാരക്കയും ബാര്‍ലിയും മാത്രമല്ല നാട്ടിലെ പ്രധാന ആഹാര സാധനങ്ങളാണ്‌ ഫിത്വ്‌ര്‍ സകാത്തായി നല്‍കേണ്ടത്‌ എന്നാണ്‌ സ്വഹാബിമാരുടെ പ്രവര്‍ത്തനങ്ങളില്‍ നിന്ന്‌ മനസ്സിലാകുന്നത്‌. അബൂസഈദില്‍ ഖുദ്‌രി(റ) പറയുന്നു: “ഒരു സ്വാഅ്‌ ഗോതമ്പ്‌, അല്ലെങ്കില്‍ ഒരു സ്വാഅ്‌ ബാര്‍ലി, അല്ലെങ്കില്‍ ഒരു സ്വാഅ്‌ പാല്‍ക്കട്ടി, അല്ലെങ്കില്‍ ഒരു സ്വാഅ്‌ മുന്തിരി എന്നിങ്ങനെയായിരുന്നു ഞങ്ങള്‍ സകാത്തുല്‍ ഫിത്വ്‌ര്‍ കൊടുത്തുവന്നിരുന്നത്‌.” (ബുഖാരി)
സകാത്തുല്‍ ഫിത്വ്‌ര്‍ അരി കൊടുക്കണമെന്ന്‌ വിശുദ്ധ ഖുര്‍ആനിലോ ഹദീസിലോ പറഞ്ഞിട്ടില്ലെങ്കിലും നമ്മുടെ നാട്ടില്‍ അരിയാണ്‌ സകാത്തുല്‍ ഫിത്വ്‌ര്‍ നല്‍കേണ്ടതെന്ന കാര്യത്തില്‍ മ

Jan Lok Pal is no solution
June 22, 2011   12:00:00 AM

Tackling
corruption requires economic reforms and a popular re-engagement with
electoral politics. We should shun the politics of hunger strikes.

The
idea of a ‘Jan Lok Pal’ is flawed and profoundly misunderstands the
causes and solutions of corruption in India. It seeks to create another
chunk of Government, more processes and rules, to solve a problem that,
in part, exists because of too many chunks of Government, too many
processes and rules.

If the ‘Jan Lok Pal’ presides over the same
system that has corrupted civil servants, politicians, anti-corruption
watchdogs, judges, media, civil society groups and ordinary citizens,
why should we expect that the ombudsman will be incorruptible? Because
the person is handpicked by unelected, unaccountable ‘civil society’
members? Those who propose that Nobel Laureates (of Indian origin, not
even of Indian citizenship) and Ramon Magsaysay Award winners should be
among those who pick the Great Ombudsman of India — who is both
policeman and judge — insult the hundreds of millions of ordinary Indian
voters who regularly exercise their right to franchise. For they are
demanding that the Scandinavian grandees in the Nobel Committee and the
Filipino members of the Magsaysay foundation should have an indirect
role in selecting an all-powerful Indian official.

The argument
that people should be involved in drafting legislation is fine, even if
it misses the point that the Government is not a foreign entity but a
representative of the people. It is entirely another thing to demand
that the legislation drafted by an self-appointed, unaccountable and
unrepresentative set of people be passed at the threat of blackmail. If
we must have representatives of the people involved in law-making, we
are better off if they are the elected ones, however flawed, as opposed
to self-appointed ones, whatever prizes the latter might have won.

The
‘Jan Lok Pal’ will become another logjammed, politicised and ultimately
corrupt institution, for the passionate masses who demand new
institutions have a poor record of protecting the existing institutions.
Where were the holders of candles, wearers of Gandhi topis and
hunger-strikers when the offices of the Chief Election Commissioner, the
Central Vigilance Commissioner and even the President of the Republic
were handed out to persons with dubious credentials? If you didn’t come
out to protest the perversion of these institutions, why are you somehow
more likely to turn up to protest when a dubious person is sought to be
made the ‘Jan Lok Pal’?

But this is us. Given this reality, the
solution for corruption and malgovernance should be one that does not
rely on the notoriously apathetic middle classes to come out on the
streets. The solution is to take away the powers of discretion, the
powers of rent-seeking from the Government and restore it back to the
people. This is the idea of economic freedom. Societies with greater
economic freedom have lower corruption. I have long argued that we are
in this mess because we have been denied Reforms 2.0.

How can we
have Reforms 2.0 if “those politicians” are unwilling to implement them?
The answer is simple: By voting. Economic reforms are not on anyone’s
political agenda because those who are most likely to benefit from them
do not vote, and do not vote strategically. At this point, it is usual
to hear loud protests about how voting does not work, most often by
those who do not vote. This flies in the face of empirical evidence —
when hundreds of millions of people turn up to vote. If it were not
working for them, why would they be voting? They might not be demanding
Reforms 2.0, but something else, and are getting what they want. Instead
of ephemeral displays of outrage — what happened to those post-26/11
candle-light vigils?— it is engagement in the electoral process that is
necessary. There are some innovative ideas — like that of voters
associations — that can be attempted.

There are no better words than those of BR Ambedkar on the place of satyagraha
in India after the Constitution came into force on January 26, 1950:
“…we must abandon the bloody methods of revolution. It means that we
must abandon the method of civil disobedience, non-cooperation and satyagraha.
When there was no way left for constitutional methods for achieving
economic and social objectives, there was a great deal of justification
for unconstitutional methods. But where constitutional methods are open,
there can be no justification for these unconstitutional methods. These
methods are nothing but the Grammar of Anarchy and the sooner they are
abandoned, the better for us.” Ambedkar was speaking in the Constituent
Assembly.

In my view civil disobedience in general and hunger
strikes in particular must be used in the most exceptional circumstances
where constitutional methods are unavailable or denied, and only till
the time constitutional methods remain unavailable or denied.

Some
contend that the system isn’t working, or has been so perverted by the
incumbent Government that it is necessary to resort to public agitation.
This is a dubious argument. Constitutional democracy is an enlightened
way to make policy by reconciling — to the extent possible — the diverse
interests, opinions and levels of political empowerments of a diverse
population. Any other way amounts to coercion in one form or the other.

If
we are to allow that hunger strikes and street protests do better than
constitutional methods, then how would you decide issues where there are
sharp differences? If two Gandhians go on hunger strike asking for
polar opposites, do we settle the issue by seeing who gives up first?
What if competing groups escalate the agitation to violence against each
other? Should we condone civil war?

The working of those
constitutional mechanisms can and must be improved. By us. The
anti-defection law must go. India does not have a comprehensive law
governing political parties. It needs one. Police reforms have been
stalled for decades. There is a substantial reform agenda that must be
pursued. By us.

However, the inability to implement these
reforms is no excuse for resorting to civil disobedience or, as it
happens in other countries, calling in a dictatorship of the
proletariat, the military or the priesthood.

The ‘Jan Lok Pal
Bill’ is not a solution to the problem of corruption. It risks making
matters worse. Hunger strikes are not the right means to promote a
policy agenda in a constitutional democracy like ours. The promoters and
supporters of ‘Jan Lok Pal’ and the public agitation to achieve it are
profoundly misguided. Their popularity stems from having struck a vein
of middle class outrage against the UPA Government’s misdeeds. That does
not mean that the solutions they offer are right.

I oppose ‘Jan Lok Pal’ and the politics of hunger-strikes as much as I oppose corruption and misgovernance.

Jan Lok Pal: unconstitutional, unnecessary

The battle against corruption must be fought by strengthening existing instruments

The debate on how to eradic
ate corruption, kick-started by Anna
Hazare’s indefinite fast, has now moved into its second phase. This
involves the drafting of a bill that will provide a foolproof mechanism
to bring the corrupt to book. Here is an examination of the structural
flaws inherent in the Jan Lok Pal Bill

The bill, also known as The Anti Corruption, Grievance Redressal and
Whistleblower Protection Act, 2010 (which will be referred to as the Jan
Lok Pal Bill) is about the most overwhelming piece of legislation since
Independence.

Why the big fuss, you may ask. Don’t we have any laws against
corruption in India? Well, of course, we do. Taking of illegal
gratification by public servants was made a criminal offence way back in
1860 by the repository of all that’s evil—the Indian Penal Code, in
Sections 161-165A.

The Prevention of Corruption Act was first enacted in 1947. In fact,
when the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (the parent
statute of the Central Bureau of Investigation) was enacted, it was
primarily to investigate allegations of corruption against central
government employees.

A “new and improved” Prevention of Corruption Act (PoCA) was enacted
in 1987, complete with special courts and tougher punishments, and with
it, the relevant sections of the Indian Penal Code stood repealed.

Photo: V Singh

The new Prevention of Corruption Act is not without controversy, and
the Supreme Court usually has to consider who a “public servant” is
every other month. However, the main issue with the PoCA is that while
it targets employees of nationalised banks, lower level policemen and
similar other members of the government food chain, the higher-ups just
never manage to face the heat, and even if they do, it takes years for
cases to see the light of day.

And all we really want is to see the corrupt thieves in jail, or at
least, not in any position of power. Why is it so difficult to just
throw out corrupt unmentionables? For that, we need to go back to the
hallowed Constitution of India. Article 311 is the party pooper, which
requires that a civil servant can only be dismissed by an authority
equal or superior to that which appointed it. That at least is at the
stage of dismissal. Even for prosecution, the PoCA requires previous
sanction, according to Section 19.

Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, follows suit for
offences committed “in the discharge of official duty”. Obviously, the
public perception is that government officials will always refuse to
accord sanction to protect their minions, perhaps rightly so.

Keeping this in mind, the government proposed the Lok Pal Bill, 2010,
as a mechanism for inquiry into allegations of corruption against
public functionaries. As a response, several public-spirited citizens
countered with their own draft Jan Lok Pal Bill. The latter is so much
broader in scope compared to the government’s draft that it is not even
fair to compare the two. The activist’s Jan Lokpal Bill, version 2.1
doesn’t just stop at inquiry. It goes the whole hog.

It says that the Lok Pal shall consist of one chairperson along with
10 members. These persons should not, at the time of appointment, be
holding any “office of profit” or be a member of parliament or the
legislature of any state. It also bars persons who have even been
charged (not convicted!) under the IPC or PoCA or penalised under the
Central Civil Services Conduct rules.

Out of these 10 members, four must have some “legal background”,
bringing in former judges and lawyers. A maximum of two of these members
can come from a civil services background. Looks like a healthy mix. So
far, so good.

Then there is this requirement: “The members and Chairperson should
have unimpeachable integrity and should have demonstrated their resolve
to fight corruption in the past.”

This is jarring for two reasons: one, it looks like the bill is
leaving a lot of scope for canvassing for these posts, and two, isn’t
impartiality a much more important consideration? The objective of the
Lok Pal ought to be to conduct an honest and fair inquiry. Anyone who
has demonstrated their resolve to fight corruption in the past might end
up being a trigger-happy vigilante in judicial robes (and police
uniform—but we’ll get to that later), especially when empowered in such a
manner.

The cream of the crop, including the chairperson of the National
Human Rights Commission (oh, the irony!) are involved in the selection
process. In fact, a previous version (1.9, apparently) proposed former
Magsaysay award winners and Nobel laureates “of Indian origin” to be
members of this selection committee. The good news is that they have
been shoved aside to accommodate “retired army personnel who are five
star generals”. It is unclear if they asked the 92-year-old Marshal of
the Air Force, Arjan Singh, before adding this post to the list,
considering he’s the only living five star general we have.

Any person can propose the name of a deserving candidate to be
appointed to the Lok Pal, and after initial sifting by the selection
committee, the person recommending a candidate has to provide material
to support his nomination. Thereafter, the names will be put up on the
Internet to solicit public feedback, and the committee can also use “any
means” to collect more information about the background and past
achievements of the shortlisted candidates. Lok Pal members are
appointed by the President of India.

So despite all of this, if a member is found being
less-than-unimpeachable, the Supreme Court of India—yes, the highly
overburdened final court of appeal and protector of the Constitution—in a
bench of five judges, no less (normally known as a “constitutional
bench”), will have to conduct the inquiry.

However absurd an allegation, the Act specifically bars the Supreme
Court from dismissing the petition at the threshold stage. The Supreme
Court can order a report of “investigation” by a Special Investigation
Team and can bench the allegedly errant member while such inquiry is
being conducted. If someone makes a false complaint, they can be
punished with fine and imprisonment.

There is, however, no appeal for a member who may have been wrongly
dismissed. Neither is there is any discretion left with either the Prime
Minister or the President of India to withhold the person’s removal.
So, the President can refuse to sign bills passed by both houses of
Parliament, refuse to sign orders of impeachment of Supreme Court
judges, commute a sentence of death which could have been upheld by four
different courts (including two benches of the Supreme Court in appeal
and review), but she must remove a member of the Lok Pal on the
recommendation of the Sup
reme Court.

Moving on. What does this wonderfully constituted Committee get to do, anyway?

According to the Bill, the Lok Pal shall be responsible for receiving
complaints for offences under the PoCA, or for “misconduct” which
includes “vigilance angle” which in turn includes the very carefully
worded “Gross or willful negligence; recklessness in decision
making; blatant violations of systems and procedures; exercise of
discretion in excess where no ostensible/public interest is evident;
failure to keep the controlling authority/superiors informed in time”.

Presently, complaints for offences under the PoCA go to the
anti-corruption wings of either the CBI or the local police. The police
investigate, and present their findings to a government authority for
sanction. The government authority is supposed to independently apply
their mind and accord sanction if a case has been made out. The case is
then tried before a special court. The procedure for complaints under
the PoCA now is that the Lok Pal will order an inquiry or investigation,
and only when the Lok Pal is satisfied that a case is made out, will it
direct that prosecution be launched. The procedure for obtaining
sanction prior to prosecution is eliminated, once the Lok Pal orders
investigation it is deemed that sanction is accorded.

The branch of the CBI that deals with investigation and prosecution
of offences alleged to have been committed under the PoCA, will now be
the “Lok Pal Investigation Wing” and be under the direction and control
of the Lok Pal.

To start with, it crosses the line when it comes to the separation of
powers. Each wing of Government—the Legislature, Executive and
Judiciary—keeps checks and balances on the other, and so they must
remain separate, because that’s the only way to ensure that there is no
abuse of power. Here, the Lok Pal, which is a judicial body, for all
practical purposes, will have control of the part of the Executive that
conducts investigations on its behalf. To add to more confusion, the
chairperson, members of Lok Pal and the officers in investigation wing
of Lok Pal are to be deemed to be “police officers” as defined under the
Code of Criminal Procedure, for the purpose of carrying out
investigation.

When a complaint comes before the Lok Pal Committee, they can either
initiate investigation straight away, or conduct a preliminary inquiry.
Interestingly, the Lok Pal can also direct any other person to
make this preliminary inquiry as it deems fit for ascertaining whether
there exists a reasonable ground for conducting the investigation.

An aside here—the whole wording of this bill can get kind of
confusing, because, for example, in criminal law, “Inquiry” is usually
meant for a stage prior to the filing of an FIR, and Investigation
denotes that an FIR has been filed. In this Bill, the Lok Pal can, after
investigation, order that Prosecution be launched, which means an FIR,
after which investigation has to be carried out. Again.

While the complainant is mandated to be kept in the loop regarding
the inquiry into his complaint at all times, the same is not true for
the public servant. In fact, it isn’t very clear when the public servant
is allowed to make his representation, which is slightly disturbing
considering the possibilities at the end of this inquiry/investigation,
which we’ll get to in a bit.

Calling for the say of the public servant at the stage of inquiry is
entirely at the discretion of the Lok Pal. At the stage of
investigation, thankfully, the Lok Pal “shall afford to such public
servant and the complainant an opportunity to offer comments and be
heard”. What is the scope of offering comments, though? Does the public
servant have the right to legal counsel? It is also very disturbing that
there is no provision which prevents the bench of the Lok Pal that
conducts the preliminary inquiry from being the one that conducts the
investigation, which is a necessary safeguard from a “judge, jury,
executioner” situation.

After completion of due investigation, the Lok Pal has several
options, including (besides dismissing the complaint) initiating
prosecution against public servants as well as abetting private parties,
imposing of penalities under the conduct rules, order cancellation or
modification of a licence or lease or permission or contract or
agreement, or even blacklisting the concerned firm or company or
contractor or any other entity involved in that act of corruption.

Pretty harsh punishments, probably what these people who are guilty
of corruption-related offences deserve—but wait—this is all prior to
having been found guilty by a court of law. Since the
inquiry/investigation/what-have-you is in the nature of a civil Inquiry,
the standard of proof is very different than of a prosecution under
criminal law. Take the example of people who are found guilty in
departmental inquiries who often get acquitted by courts in PoCA
offences. In criminal law, the standard of proof is beyond reasonable
doubt. If this standard of proof is not adhered to, and at this stage
which is prior to any independent investigation authority even looking
into the matter (the Lok Pal Investigation Wing not really fitting in
with the concept of “independent”) the ability to blacklist corporations
is absolutely absurd. Another point to ponder—if the Lok Pal decides to
“initiate prosecution”, who is the investigating authority then? Is it
the Lok Pal Investigation Wing again? God forbid!

That’s not all—even at the stage of inquiry (that is before even
concluding their inquiry and referring this case for initiation of
prosecution) the Lok Pal can move for interim measures to restrain him
or his orders from causing further harm. However, even at the stage of
investigation, the Lok Pal can ask for a tabulation and freezing of
immovable and movable assets of the public servant. It is not even
necessary to show that these assets are disproportionate or reasonably
suspected to have been derived from funds which are the subject of
inquiry.

The Lok Pal Bill moves further into uncharted territory with the
possible prosecution of the “bribe giver”. For years, the position of
law as to whether a person could be prosecuted for giving a bribe was
unclear. Under PoCA, a statement made by a person in any proceeding
against a public servant that he offered or agreed to offer any illegal
gratification would not make him liable to face prosecution as an
abettor. The purpose behind this was simple—to encourage reporting of
offences and ensure convictions. It looks like a person who had to give a
bribe may not get this cushion of protection before the Lok Pal.

More absurdity—the act also takes the liberty of amending the
Prevention of Corruption Act. Sections 7 – 15 of the Act which have
minimum punishments of six months to a year and maximum punishments of
5-7 years are now amended to two years minimum imprisonment and a
maximum punishment of life imprisonment. If the accused is an officer of
the rank of joint secretary or above or a minister, a member or
chairperson of the Lok Pal, the min
imum imprisonment is ten years. A
fine of five times the “loss caused to the public” will be recovered in
case the beneficiary is a “business entity”, and if the assets of the
company be not enough to recover the amount, it will have to be
recovered from the personal assets of the directors.

Theoretically, this is fine if you have an independent judiciary,
again, the hallmark of a democracy. Already, there are special courts
constituted to handle matters under the PoCA (the Bombay Sessions Court
has four such Courts). The appointment and superintendence of these
judges, who are at the level of district judges, should be by the
governor of the state in consultation with the High Court exercising
jurisdiction in relation to such state, since that’s what the
Constitution of India says.

The Lok Pal Bill pays no heed to such niceties, and instead the
Government (they probably meant “Governor”) has to take advice from the
Lok Pal on the selection procedure of these judges, which one hopes is
not that these judges have shown a zeal for rooting out corruption in
the past.

Never mind, at least there is a provision for appeal. Or is there?
Along with the ignorance of the Doctrine of Separation of Powers, the
other big problem with the Lok Pal Bill and which demonises it
completely is the utter disregard for the right to appeal. It is not
clear, whether a bench of the Lok Pal is to be considered on par with a
magistrate (since it conducts inquiry), a court of sessions, a High
Court (though it is to be treated so for the purpose of the Contempt of
Courts Act), a tribunal or a quasi-judicial body (like the Human Rights
Commission).

Regardless of what it fancies itself to be, by the lack of provision
for appeal, it is unconstitutional. Granted, the Lok Pal itself doesn’t
convict anyone, but that doesn’t mean that there should be no right to
appeal. The right to at least one appeal against an order, which affects
someone adversely, is inherent in the Constitution. There is no
specific clause regarding appeals in the Jan Lok Pal Bill, and that is
unconstitutional, to say the least.

The only mention of an Appeal is in Section 28A regarding disposal of
“Properties deemed to have been obtained through corrupt means” where
appeals against the orders of the Lok Pal shall lie in High Court of
appropriate jurisdiction, which shall decide the matter within two
months of filing of the appeal.”

Gautam Patel, a lawyer, points out, that according to Section 27 (2),
there appears to be a further ousting of the power of the judiciary by
barring any proceedings or decision of the Lok Pal from being
challenged, reviewed, quashed or called in question in any court of
ordinary civil jurisdiction. While in my opinion that doesn’t preclude
the interference of the High Court in its extraordinary writ
jurisdiction, thus allowing for judicial review, the section is
extremely high handed.

The bill is also contradictory and confusing when it comes to
inquiries and investigations against various public officials. The big
ticket is of course the judiciary. Special provisions exist only as
regards judges of a High Court or Supreme Court. All complaints
concerning these persons will be subject to a preliminary screening for
prima facie evidence—interestingly, judges will only be considered for
offences under the PoCA and not for “other” offences and misconduct.

Registration of a case will only be done with the approval of a full
bench of the Lok Pal, a majority of the members being from a legal
background. Even after registration, such cases shall be investigated by
a special team headed by an officer not below the rank of a
superintendent of police. This is all well and good, because this makes
absolutely no difference to the Judge who is protected by the rigorous
impeachment method.

The proposed Jan Lok Pal Bill is a knee-jerk reaction to the present
scenario. No doubt, corruption is draining our exchequer as well as our
sense of morality and faith in the system. Like most knee-jerk
reactions, it is not well thought out, and by taking over the
independence of courts and the investigating authorities, leaving no
scheme of appeal, and the ambiguous treatment of the right to be heard,
the bill is absolutely unconstitutional and should not be implemented at
any cost—fast-unto-death or not. The possible implications of its
enactment far outweigh the obviously good intentions that it was drafted
with.

It is always easy to criticise and walk away without any suggestions.
So let me throw in my ideas. Say you remove the unconstitutional and
absurd bits from the Jan Lok Pal Bill, what do you have? A legislation
that prides itself on transparency in its constitution and functioning
and easy accessibility by the public, all of which can and should be
strengthened in existing mechanisms. The provisions regarding protection
to whistleblowers should extend to all endangered witnesses in general,
and should find place in a separate legislation or appropriate
amendment to the Criminal Procedure Code.

The purpose of the Lok Pal Bill should be a transparent means of
pre-trial evaluation of material against public servants, and providing a
more public alternative to the closed door sanctioning process under
the PoCA and the Code of Criminal Procedure. Like it or not, the process
of sanction is a necessary evil especially when dealing with publicly
elected officials. It cannot be the tool of a witch-hunt, and it must
respect the boundaries of due process and constitutionality.

When you already have courts and police personnel devoted exclusively
to unearthing offences under the PoCA, an act which actually places the
burden of proof on the accused, why not expend resources in trying to
strengthen these?

By bringing in the spirit of the Jan Lok Pal Bill and improving
citizen access to complaint mechanisms, ensuring witness protection,
along with a transparent and public process of according sanction for
prosecution, there will be a great improvement in the effectiveness of
the PoCA, which itself would be a huge deterrent.

A relook at the PoCA and its scope, particularly the inclusion of the
private sector, would also not be out of place. Enacting the Jan Lok
Pal Bill in its present form, the appointment of the officials and the
sure-shot constitutional challenges it will face will be a waste of
time, energies and effort. Let’s get to work with what we have.

Why an ombudsman won’t help India

Henry Louis Mencken—the 19th century American essayist and
satirist—once said “For every problem there is a solution which is
simple, clean and wrong”. The proposed Lokpal (Ombudsman) Bill, in both
the government and non-government versions, is one such solution to the
problem of corruption. India is high on corruption because it is low on
business freedom. This relationship holds true across the world,
including the Nordic nations from whom the concept of Ombudsman has been
borrowed. The solution lies in changing the nature, and not necessarily
the size, of the Indian state.

Photo: Deepankar Raj

The Heritage Foundation and Wall Street Journal’s annual Index of
Economic Freedom ranks countries based on ten benchmarks, including
business freedom, trade freedom and property rights. Business freedom is
“a quantitative measure of the ability to start, operate, and close a
business that represents the overall burden of regulation as well as the
efficiency of government in the regulatory process”. There is a strong
correlation between business freedom and Transparency International’s
corruption perceptions index—a measure of the “degree to which public
sector corruption is perceived to exist”. Seven of the world’s ten least
corrupt countries rank amongst top ten in business freedom: New
Zealand, Singapore, Denmark, Canada, Sweden, Finland and Iceland. The
ten most corrupt countries have an average business freedom rank of 154,
while the ten least corrupt have an average rank of 12. India has a
business freedom rank of 167, below Burkina Faso, Mozambique,
Bangladesh, Pakistan, Sierra Leone and Egypt. The correlation
coefficient—a measure of the strength of linear relationship between two
variables—between business freedom and perceived corruption for the
year 2010 is a high 0.68.

The story gets even more fascinating. The relationship between size
of government and corruption is weaker than and opposite to that of the
relation between business freedom and corruption. If we rank countries
starting with the nation with the lowest ratio of government spending to
GDP, the ten most corrupt countries have an average government size
rank of 52, the ten least corrupt have a rank of 129. The correlation
coefficient between size of government spending and corruption is a
negative 0.32. We have a bit of a paradox here. When government
intervention takes the form of lowering the freedom to start and run
businesses we have more corruption, but when government intervention
takes the form of taxation and redistribution we don’t see an increase
in corruption. Why so?

The public choice school of economics tells us that politicians and
bureaucrats are self-interested agents who are likely to exploit profit
making opportunities. Low business freedom corresponds to extensive
government intervention in the form of licenses, permits and quotas
(LPQ). Profit-maximising politicians use LPQ levers to extract rents
from businesses. Entrepreneurs too are profit-maximising agents, but
they operate under the perennial gale of market forces. These forces
play the tune to which entrepreneurs dance to satisfy consumers. It is
for this reason that Adam Smith held that “it is not from the
benevolence of the butcher, the brewer or the baker, that we expect our
dinner, but from their regard to their own self interest.” Thus while
market forces channel the self-interest of private entrepreneurs to
promote social good, making the pie grow larger, the undisciplined
self-interest of politicians extracts a piece of the sweet pie while
hindering its growth. High government taxation and redistribution does
not necessarily create LPQ levers for extraction of rent, and this is
why we do not see a positive relation between size of government and
corruption internationally.

Empirical evidence and economics theory tell us that an ombudsman is
unlikely to solve the problem of corruption in India. In the Nordic
countries all the ombudsman does is fine-tune a well-functioning system.
According to the Swedish Parliamentary Ombudsmen Report a total of
6,112 complaint cases were concluded during the period 1 July 2007 to 30
June 2008, of these only one ended with “prosecution and disciplinary
proceeding.” Imagine the number of people such an institution would have
to prosecute in India. A good analogy is that of the anti-trust
commissions in the United States and the European Union who look into
acts of abuse of market power by monopoly firms to promote healthy
competition. The institution is meant to work in a largely free-market
economy. In the same way that a competition commission fine tunes a
market economy an ombudsman too may fine tune a mostly uncorrupt system
but it cannot create one. An ombudsman cannot fix a broken system like
India.

Jakon Svensson writes in a 2005 Journal of Economic Literature
article: “Strikingly, many [of the most corrupt countries] are governed,
or have recently been governed, by socialist governments.” Technically,
India too is socialist. But socialism comes in various flavours; the
command and control philosophy and welfare state philosophy mean very
different things as far corruption goes. Well-designed welfare schemes
in which government plays the role of a financier rather than producer
can go a long way in cutting down on corruption. India needs innovation
in governance; and for lessons on governance, bureaucrats in New Delhi
need not trouble themselves with a flight to Oslo—Patna will do. The
Nitish Kumar government handed out money to parents to buy bicycles for
girl children, rather than use government employees or contractors to
produce and distribute them. This cut out a whole group of parasites.

Publius Cornelius Tacitus (AD 56-117), a senator and historian of the
Roman Empire, in the Annals says “The more corrupt the republic, the
more numerous the laws.” There is no genetic or cultural reason to
presume Indians are less ethical than Norwegians. The difference lies in
legal rules that govern economic activity, and that is what needs to
change.