O'Deka:
I will pass on speculating on whether Dhiren-da is a an Ognixorma
:-). I do know he is passionately righteous, is an Oxomiya identity
partisan and is very progressive, generally. He also is a good
'kath-mistry' ( carpenter), which I dig, and I know you dig too. The
last qualifier "--generally " I am using is to exclude
certain views he expressed time to time thru the Sentinel as relates
to his political beliefs and leanings, his outlook towards what
ails Assam and how to help cure it and his understandings of certain
aspects of desi-democracy.
That said, let us look at some elements of this piece:
*** First off, the article blasts some of the myths that some of
our own Assam Netters continue to be mired with. That is good to see.
However some of the other paragraphs belie a troubling confusion , not
expected from someone of his
caliber:
>Collective action is crucial, considering that good people
have always failed >because of their inability to unite;! whereas
the main strength of the evil >ones is that they always manage to
remain united.
*** While the first part above is a truism, the second is a
patently simplistic
observation: The "evil-ones" ( where have we heard of
this before?) and its purported strength from its unity. It assumes a
conspiracy of the 'evil-ones', which is there to destroy what he holds
sacred. But if he takes a careful look at who these evil ones are, he
will find that it is none other than people like himself or us,
probaxi-Oxomiyas for that matter, products of the same system and
environment. That fact is that the implied 'conspiracy of the evil' is
a figment of his own confused understanding, much like many of our
Assam Net friends'. It is a disoriented attempt at putting his
fingers on the source of the problems, and he places it way off the
mark, on a mythical entity of a cabal of evil-doers.
>After all, the whole business of corruption started
because people who were not >to certain benefits started hankering
for them, and at one point in the short >history of independent
India too there were people among the rulers who bent >the law or
subverted merit to promote the undeserving ones for a price.
*** Here again is a very simplistic explanation of the roots of
corruption. I will be inclined to ask if it is of any importance to
note that the unnecessary concentration of powers without
accountability has anything to do with giving rise to corrupt
practices? And if such corruption is limited to governance
alone?
>An extension of this aberration of the system is that
chief ministers, >ministers and others in the corridors of power
never get convicted or punished >by our judicial system no matter
how serious or anti-people their crime may be.
*** I am forced to hold this out as a relatively incisive bit of
observation,
considering how some of the others are so simplistic :-) and in
comparison to some of our own Assam Netters' observations of recent
days. But I give credit where it is due :-).
>(Remember, any corrupt action that loots the exchequer is
a crime against the >people because the exchequer belongs to the
people and the money embezzled or >looted from it is public money.
Since there can be no nation without an >exchequer, any loot of the
exchequer is an anti-national or treasonable act. >And let no
quibbling politician try to argue that this is not so.)
*** I am a bit taken aback by the need to elaborate this fact.
But I guess the writer knows what is missing in the awareness of the
general public. If it is true,it would be a troubling
revelation.
>A further extension o! f this aberration is that not only
the lawmaker but also >his family and progeny imagine themselves to
be above the law.
*** While there is truth to the observation, one might have
expected to see an analysis of why: Namely, the need of the corrupt in
positions of power to hand-over charge to family members, cronies and
fellow-travelers in the path of corruption to make sure that the next
batch of rulers would not come after them.
>The conviction rate of even the apex investigation agency
of the country, the >CBI, is a measly eight per cent. Where is all
this winking at the law leading >India to? To the ignominy of being
one of the most corrupt and violence-prone >countries in the world
(because so many people take the law in their own >hands). Is that
where we want to be (with our much-vaunted 3,500-year-old
>civilization)?
*** I am sure glad to see this acknowledgement. Question for
Assam Netters now is how to figure out what it might mean :-)?
>But what can the law-abiding citizens do? That the
question should arise is hardly surprising. After all, in these 57
years since Independence they have done nothing at all to assert
themselves or even to assert the supremacy of the law. Have we ever
encountered a situation where even a hundred law-abiding citizens have
written angry letters to protest a crime by a lawmaker? But is there
any newspaper in the world that dare ignore a hundred letters from
different people on the same issue? And if even a hundred people write
to say that they are disappointed with the Judiciary for having failed
to convict such a criminal, can the magistrate or the judge concerned
fail to act? Can he ignore the force of public grievance that the
hundred letters represent? Certainly not. And none of the hundred
people who wrote the letters of protest in newspapers can be held
guilty of having committed contempt of court. They did not accuse any
judge or magistrate of being biased or partial or even motivated. They
merely expressed their grievance at the Judiciary failing to take on a
>politician with criminal charges against him.
*** The above, unfortunately, is one of the most clueless
paragraphs. The gripe about the judiciary's inability to convict and
placing the blame of it alone demonstrates a rather surprising
unfamiliarity with how investigation, prosecution and adjudication are
supposed to work in a democratic society.
can due to
political expediencies or even personal prejudices,
then isn't there a
systemic problem?
not even come up for a
hearing for decades, what are the chances of
investigators, with
its levels of skill, or its resources, can rarely
prosecute the case
successfully? Would that not point to a systemic
failure?
kangaroo court is the
writer advocating?
I can go on and on. I am appalled at the confusion
displayed.
>Thus the first step is to make sure that there is adequate
evidence of the >accused politician having committed the crime he
is charged of.
*** A fine recommendation . But HOW is that to be
accomplished? Why is it not to be found now? Where seems to be
problem? What is the answer?
>Quite often the public perception may be at variance with
what the public >prosecutor may have against the politician. This
does not matter. We have seen >over the decades how keen most
public prosecutors are to let politicians go >scot-free for lack of
evidence.
*** And if so, where is the accountability of the prosecutors?
How will the prosecutor's feet be held to the fire? And how is the
prosecutor's charge, its responsibility is supplemented by the
investigative agencies? Where is their accountability?
>The public campaign must go on in full swing until the
magistrate or judge >begins to respect this public opinion and to
ensure a proper trial.
*** Another clueless observation. Should magistrates and judges
therefore be rendering justice according to the popular will? Is this
the concept of a democratic government the writer is displaying, or is
he advocating tyranny of the majority ?
And if they do not care about conducting a "proper trial"
now, why is that so? What will make them change and fall in line to
conduct them "properly"? How is the public or the powers
that be going to accomplish that?
>The alternative to this is to go on as we have done for
over half-a-century and >do nothing. Ten more years of inaction
from law-abiding citizens, ten more >years of cowardice, and they
will dispossess all law-abiding citizens from >their hearths and
homes and banish the law for good.
*** I find myself in the unlikely situation of appearing to be a
more patient man than the writer. Shantikam Hazarika and Bhuban
Koikideu should take note :-).I agree completely above, except I am
not ready to concede the time-table to self-destruction. Not yet. Nor
am I going to jump on to the cowardice-bashing bandwagon. However I
wonder how some of my net opponents might feel about it all :-).
I can't wait to hear the answers and recommendations on HOW to
accomplish what needs changing, and WHO will do that?
In the meantime, I welcome the support from unexpected quarters
in my lonely arguments here with my esteemed net opponents :-).
O'm
Oxanti
===================================================================
O"Mahanta,
Amaar Bezboruah saaror bor khong uthise. Pise eitu khong okol kagozote ne xosa? Moi Cotton College -ot thakwte pise dhoribo nwarisiliw ketiya Bezboruah saaror khong uthisile?
Abois-se (this is a hard one to write in transliterated Assamese, the word is "However") Cotton College-or English department-ot mwr xodaiye bhoi aasile je mor maamak khobor dibo.
O"Mahanta,
Amaar Bezboruah saaror bor khong uthise. Pise eitu khong okol kagozote ne xosa? Moi Cotton College -ot thakwte pise dhoribo nwarisiliw ketiya Bezboruah saaror khong uthisile?
Abois-se (this is a hard one to write in transliterated Assamese, the word is "However") Cotton College-or English department-ot mwr xodaiye bhoi aasile je mor maamak khobor dibo.
So what do you think? Is it for real?
The meek shall be homeless -I
WITH EYES WIDE OPEN
D. N. Bezboruah
WITH EYES WIDE OPEN
D. N. Bezboruah
The biblical aphorism "The meek shall inherit the earth"
is no longer valid - at least not in Assam. Here the meek are seen not
as being more civilized or law-abiding, but rather as the weak ones of
the species, since it is the lawless ones who rule. In a land where
lawmakers and the rulers of the day prefer lawbreakers to law-abiding
souls, in a dispensation where the ability to break laws with impunity
is a coveted status symbol, the days of law-abiding citizens would
seem to be over, were it not a trifle difficult to banish laws
altogether and yet approach the electors for votes. After all, even
lawless election candidates want some protection from even more
lawless souls with more muscle than themselves. That is when being
able to invoke the law and to file election petitions (if not anything
else) makes the law a handy tool. But otherwise, the ! attempt is
always to break the law and to take advantage of the �hapless�
citizen who quotes the law at every step. As such, the solution to the
current predicament is not to throw the law to the winds and join the
band of rulers who have no need of the law (but must pretend that they
do), since the greatest irony of it all is that they are called
lawmakers. The solution is not only to abide by the law but also to
use the law as a lever to prevail over the lawless ones in the end and
not to permit the system itself to wink at the law at any time. For
this, one needs endless reserves of perseverance and courage and the
help and support of like-minded souls at all times. Collective action
is crucial, considering that good people have always failed because of
their inability to unite;! whereas the main strength of the evil ones
is that they always manage to remain united. This week and the next, I
propose to indicate how this crusade must be undertaken (since nothing
less than a crusade will do now); but before that it is important to
discuss why and how the number of people who attempt to bypass the law
has increased by leaps and bounds.
Perhaps the main reason why law-abiding people are looked down
upon today is that the number of law-breaking �lawmakers� has
greatly increased over the past three decades. They constitute the
support base for people who do not have the law on their side, but
have all the money to compensate for the fact that their cases are
backed neither by merit nor by the law. After all, the whole business
of corruption started because people who were not entitled to certain
benefits started hankering for them, and at one point in the short
history of independent India too there were people among the rulers
who bent the law or subverted merit to promote the undeserving ones
for a price. Lets us not forget that bribery and other corrupt
practices were inherited by our rulers from the Moguls as well as the
British. Gandhian norms were too Spartan and bland for that section of
rulers who were waiting for their opportunity to make the kind of !
money from corrupt practices that could not be made from mere
salaries. And pretending that the wrong and the unlawful is right and
the law is an ass is the kind of rationalization that lawless people
must undertake as a kind of psychological defence of their
indefensible actions because the law still exists in some form or the
other to hold our society together.that An extension of this
aberration of the system is that chief ministers, ministers and others
in the corridors of power never get convicted or punished by our
judicial system no matter how serious or anti-people their crime may
be. (Remember, any corrupt action that loots the exchequer is a crime
against the people because the exchequer belongs to the people and the
money embezzled or looted from it is public money. Since there can be
no nation without an exchequer, any loot of the exchequer is an
anti-national or treasonable act. And let no quibbling politician try
to argue that this is not so.) A further extension o! f this
aberration is that not only the lawmaker but also his family and
progeny imagine themselves to be above the law. The judiciary is
clearly to blame for no major politician ever being convicted or
punished for his crime since Independence. The conviction rate of even
the apex investigation agency of the country, the CBI, is a measly
eight per cent. Where is all this winking at the law leading India to?
To the ignominy of being one of the most corrupt and violence-prone
countries in the world (because so many people take the law in their
own hands). Is that where we want to be (with our much-vaunted
3,500-year-old civilization)? Things can only get worse if we decide
to continue with our familiar ways.
But what can the law-abiding citizens do? That the question
should arise is hardly surprising. After all, in these 57 years since
Independence they have done nothing at all to assert themselves or
even to assert the supremacy of the law. Have we ever encountered a
situation where even a hundred law-abiding citizens have written angry
letters to protest a crime by a lawmaker? But is there any newspaper
in the world that dare ignore a hundred letters from different people
on the same issue? And if even a hundred people write to say that they
are disappointed with the Judiciary for having failed to convict such
a criminal, can the magistrate or the judge concerned fail to act? Can
he ignore the force of public grievance that the hundred letters
represent? Certainly not. And none of the hundred people who wrote the
letters of protest in newspapers can be held guilty of having
committed contempt of court. They did not accuse any judge or
magistrate of being biased or partial or even motivated. They merely
expressed their grievance at the Judiciary failing to take on a
politician with criminal charges against him.
Thus the first step is to make sure that there is adequate
evidence of the accused politician having committed the crime he is
charged of. Quite often the public perception may be at variance with
what the public prosecutor may have against the politician. This does
not matter. We have seen over the decades how keen most public
prosecutors are to let politicians go scot-free for lack of evidence.
The public campaign must go on in full swing until the magistrate or
judge begins to respect this public opinion and to ensure a proper
trial. The alternative to this is to go on as we have done for over
half-a-century and do nothing. The criminal elements of our society
who cannot make a living with their skills or education want nothing
better. Ten more years of inaction from law-abiding citizens, ten more
years of cowardice, and they will dispossess all law-abiding citizens
from their hearths and homes and banish the law for good. How this
will be don! e is what I want to talk about next week. But let us not
forget that long before this happens we can say goodbye to any form of
civilized living where there is even a semblance of securityfor
anyone.
_______________________________________________ Assam mailing list [email protected] http://pikespeak.uccs.edu/mailman/listinfo/assam
Mailing list FAQ: http://pikespeak.uccs.edu/assam/assam-faq.html To unsubscribe or change options: http://pikespeak.uccs.edu/mailman/options/assam
