Political front has surprised everyone with their reactions to the HC’s ruling of section 377. While laws need to stem from moral values, moral values do not necessarily become laws, writes Barun Mitra of the Liberty Institute.
The Delhi High Court’s ruling decriminalising section 377 has not only sanctioned strange bedfellows to come out in to the open, but also has brought together people who are hardly expected to share a political bed at all.
The communists, hardly the epitome of tolerance, seem to be the only one among the political class, along with many commentators in the media, to have welcomed this verdict.
On the other hand, following the judgement many leaders of different religions – Christians, Hindus, Muslims - find themselves united in expressing their disapproval. Among many others who normally prefer to wear their secular credentials on their sleeves, some seem to have suddenly discovered their affinity to tradition and culture and come out strongly against this judgment; others have discovered that ambiguity and silence is the better part of valour. They share the bed, but are not sure how to proceed, without assessing the social and political calculus of tilting one way or the other.
Amid such an anti-climax, it is clearly not easy to keep one’s head in place; yet, one must try to distinguish between the ethical values and legal implications of this judgment. While laws need to stem from moral values, moral values do not necessarily become laws. One way to look at this is that while the law provides the floor, the basic framework for individual behaviour in a society, moral values represent the high ceiling, which one should aspire to, but which is well beyond the legal norm.
In that context, the Delhi High Court's ruling to decriminalise homosexual behaviour among consenting adults is a very welcome and long awaited step forward.
However, that does not necessarily make me endorse that behaviour. Just as I will endorse the right of smokers, drinkers, drug users or prostitutes to exercise the freedom of their choices, at the same time I would not endorse many of those behaviours. While we as human beings have the right to be free to make those choices, these are what make us humans; yet, some of those choices that are not seen to be conducive to supporting life itself, should not be endorsed. One should have the right to end one’s life if one so decides, and others need to recognise that decision, but that is not the same thing as to say that one has to then endorse suicides.
As Voltaire is famously (but there is doubt about its historical authenticity!) supposed to have said, "I may not agree with what you say, but I defend to the death your right to say it."
...
Read the full article here.
Showing posts with label analyses. Show all posts
Showing posts with label analyses. Show all posts
Saturday, July 4, 2009
Thursday, June 25, 2009
IIT quota seats not filled
Here is an article from the Times of India with interesting facts...
Every year, lakhs of students burn the midnight oil for months to get into the hallowed Indian Institutes of Technology. But as admissions closed on Wednesday, one startling fact emerged — there weren't enough qualified candidates to fill up the reserved seats on offer for the scheduled castes and scheduled tribes, or the physically challenged.
IIT heads told TOI that over 1,100 seats will now be transferred to the preparatory course. This course, which is like a feeder class, trains quota students for a year to equip them to qualify for the IITs. Students for the preparatory course are selected by reducing cut-offs even further.
On the OBC (other backward classes) reservation front too, 53 seats were transferred to general category candidates, though the IITs are still only in the second year of the quotas (they are implementing 18% quota before moving to the total 27% reservation). The IITs, in fact, had made various concessions to ensure they could fill the SC/ST seats. They lowered entry levels for these categories and even went as low as 50% below the last general category student's marks to do justice to the quota. Even this did not help them get the required number of backward category students.
Read the original article here.
Every year, lakhs of students burn the midnight oil for months to get into the hallowed Indian Institutes of Technology. But as admissions closed on Wednesday, one startling fact emerged — there weren't enough qualified candidates to fill up the reserved seats on offer for the scheduled castes and scheduled tribes, or the physically challenged.
IIT heads told TOI that over 1,100 seats will now be transferred to the preparatory course. This course, which is like a feeder class, trains quota students for a year to equip them to qualify for the IITs. Students for the preparatory course are selected by reducing cut-offs even further.
On the OBC (other backward classes) reservation front too, 53 seats were transferred to general category candidates, though the IITs are still only in the second year of the quotas (they are implementing 18% quota before moving to the total 27% reservation). The IITs, in fact, had made various concessions to ensure they could fill the SC/ST seats. They lowered entry levels for these categories and even went as low as 50% below the last general category student's marks to do justice to the quota. Even this did not help them get the required number of backward category students.
Read the original article here.
Saturday, June 6, 2009
Analysing the voter behaviour
Why was the south Mumbai turnout worse than in South Delhi, both areas populated by the elite chatterati? explores Swaminathan S Anklesaria Aiyar in the Economic Times.
Why did voters in south Mumbai have a pathetic turnout at 42% whereas other areas in India recorded up to 90%? Why was the south Mumbai turnout worse than in South Delhi, both areas populated by the elite chatterati? There was much hand-wringing on TV channels when polling took place in Mumbai.
Many experts attributed low turnout to the alienation of the elite from the democratic process — the secession of the rich. Other experts extolled the virtues of the poor, who supposedly turned out in larger numbers. You see, said the experts, the poor really prize their vote, since it gives them power that they do not get from income, caste or class. And so the poor turn out in large numbers even as the urban middle class claims to be disgusted by the entire electoral spectacle and finds little reason to vote.
…
If we look at the data on voter turnout in all the states, we find that most theories about voting behaviour fail to hold water. It is not that rival theories suddenly appear. Rather, the range of voting turnout across states, and variations in the same state in different elections, is so large that it defeats any quick analysis.
Does the data of voter turnout validate the thesis that the well-off middle class has a poor turnout, while the poor turn out in huge numbers? Not at all. The lowest turnout in both 2004 and 2009 was in Jammu and Kashmir, a special case showing the continued alienation of the local people from the Indian mainstream. But the second lowest turnout of 44.3% in 2009 was in Bihar, our poorest state. And next lowest comes Uttar Pradesh, another very poor state, with a turnout of 47.2%.
…
The turnout in the National Capital Territory around Delhi was 51.8%, below the all-India average of 56.7%. But does that indicate the relative alienation of the urban middle class? Not at all. The turnout was as high as 65.0% in Chandigarh and 60.0% in Puducherry (which recorded a huge 76.07% turnout in 2004). So any quick generalisation about the urban middle class fails. Indeed, the variation in the turnout in Puducherry between 2004 (60.0%) and 2009 (76.07%) drives home the lesson that completely local phenomena, unrelated to any grand theories of class or caste behaviour, can create enormous variations in turnout.
…
Where was the turnout highest? For reasons that are far from evident, the north-east did very well, with Nagaland topping at 90.2%, and Tripura (83.9%), Sikkim (82.0%) and Manipur (73.9%) close behind. This cannot be explained in terms of caste, class or poverty. Nor can it be said that tribal areas have a high turnout — Jharkhand is close to the bottom, and Mizoram too (an exception to the north-eastern pattern, it recorded just 50.9%).
Among larger states, the Marxist strongholds of West Bengal and Kerala come out on top. The richest state in per capita income, Goa, recorded a turnout just below the national average in 2009 and just above it in 2004. No clear lesson here. The second richest state, Gujarat (47.9%) is near the bottom, sandwiched between two very poor states Rajasthan (48.5%) and UP (47.2%). No clear pattern here either.
Conclusion: we really do not know what drives voter turnout. The huge variations in the same state in different elections suggests that purely local phenomena produce major changes that have nothing to do with grand theories of how the rich and poor behave, or how various castes and classes behave. This is an unacceptable line for instant expert on TV (including myself). But experts need to stop taking themselves so seriously and so say, like Winnie the Pooh “nobody knows, tiddledy-pom.”
Maybe we should treat this issue as one of entertainment rather than class analysis. Here is an excellent example from the internet.
Ten reasons why South Mumbai did not vote
10. Clashed with Salsa class
9. Election whites not drycleaned
8. No candidate a hottie
7. Tony Jethmalani contesting from suburbs... Sigh
6. No valet parking at booth
5. Spotted servant in queue ahead of us
4. Driver did not come
3. Elections over dude, Obama won!
2. No party tackling real issues, eg, reduce Gold Gym rates
1. No home delivery!
Why did voters in south Mumbai have a pathetic turnout at 42% whereas other areas in India recorded up to 90%? Why was the south Mumbai turnout worse than in South Delhi, both areas populated by the elite chatterati? There was much hand-wringing on TV channels when polling took place in Mumbai.
Many experts attributed low turnout to the alienation of the elite from the democratic process — the secession of the rich. Other experts extolled the virtues of the poor, who supposedly turned out in larger numbers. You see, said the experts, the poor really prize their vote, since it gives them power that they do not get from income, caste or class. And so the poor turn out in large numbers even as the urban middle class claims to be disgusted by the entire electoral spectacle and finds little reason to vote.
…
If we look at the data on voter turnout in all the states, we find that most theories about voting behaviour fail to hold water. It is not that rival theories suddenly appear. Rather, the range of voting turnout across states, and variations in the same state in different elections, is so large that it defeats any quick analysis.
Does the data of voter turnout validate the thesis that the well-off middle class has a poor turnout, while the poor turn out in huge numbers? Not at all. The lowest turnout in both 2004 and 2009 was in Jammu and Kashmir, a special case showing the continued alienation of the local people from the Indian mainstream. But the second lowest turnout of 44.3% in 2009 was in Bihar, our poorest state. And next lowest comes Uttar Pradesh, another very poor state, with a turnout of 47.2%.
…
The turnout in the National Capital Territory around Delhi was 51.8%, below the all-India average of 56.7%. But does that indicate the relative alienation of the urban middle class? Not at all. The turnout was as high as 65.0% in Chandigarh and 60.0% in Puducherry (which recorded a huge 76.07% turnout in 2004). So any quick generalisation about the urban middle class fails. Indeed, the variation in the turnout in Puducherry between 2004 (60.0%) and 2009 (76.07%) drives home the lesson that completely local phenomena, unrelated to any grand theories of class or caste behaviour, can create enormous variations in turnout.
…
Where was the turnout highest? For reasons that are far from evident, the north-east did very well, with Nagaland topping at 90.2%, and Tripura (83.9%), Sikkim (82.0%) and Manipur (73.9%) close behind. This cannot be explained in terms of caste, class or poverty. Nor can it be said that tribal areas have a high turnout — Jharkhand is close to the bottom, and Mizoram too (an exception to the north-eastern pattern, it recorded just 50.9%).
Among larger states, the Marxist strongholds of West Bengal and Kerala come out on top. The richest state in per capita income, Goa, recorded a turnout just below the national average in 2009 and just above it in 2004. No clear lesson here. The second richest state, Gujarat (47.9%) is near the bottom, sandwiched between two very poor states Rajasthan (48.5%) and UP (47.2%). No clear pattern here either.
Conclusion: we really do not know what drives voter turnout. The huge variations in the same state in different elections suggests that purely local phenomena produce major changes that have nothing to do with grand theories of how the rich and poor behave, or how various castes and classes behave. This is an unacceptable line for instant expert on TV (including myself). But experts need to stop taking themselves so seriously and so say, like Winnie the Pooh “nobody knows, tiddledy-pom.”
Maybe we should treat this issue as one of entertainment rather than class analysis. Here is an excellent example from the internet.
Ten reasons why South Mumbai did not vote
10. Clashed with Salsa class
9. Election whites not drycleaned
8. No candidate a hottie
7. Tony Jethmalani contesting from suburbs... Sigh
6. No valet parking at booth
5. Spotted servant in queue ahead of us
4. Driver did not come
3. Elections over dude, Obama won!
2. No party tackling real issues, eg, reduce Gold Gym rates
1. No home delivery!
Why Delhi turned up to vote
- They loved the Tata Tea ad
- They saw the Chopras go out, and thought they must overtake the Lancer from left
- Bunty’s girlfriend wanted to when they were going out for some Chinese
- Diwan Saheb on second floor persuaded them. He is jaaaint saactry in DPCC
- Without stable government, real estate will not revive
- Election Commission directly asked Pappu. So nice of them
- Grandfather started talking on Partition, and they had to run
- Auntyji hoped some TV crew will come and take a soundbite
- Baba Ramdev said it is good for health
And finally, - They had to beat the Bambaiyaas. Izzat ka sawaal hai, hainji?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
