Date of Writing: 2013.06.29 Date of Work: 2013.06.26 Source: www.thehindu.com Data Compiled by: www.swatyario.

org Doctors by merit, not privilege [I will try of I will buy Medical Seat Market]
India is the only country that authorises, as official policy, the sale of medical seats by private medical colleges, implicitly accepting the principle that the ability to pay, and not merit, is what counts. Further, in the absence of any system of third party certification by way of an entry or, more importantly, an exit exam which could guarantee the qualities and competencies a doctor must possess before starting to practice many medical colleges are producing quacks. The tragedy is that we all know about it. The issue is not just about illegal capitation fees that range from Rs.50 lakh to Rs.1 crore for a MBBS seat. The process of admission is itself flawed with a walk-in system for those with money but for the others, it is a harrowing tale of expensive tuitions and writing 15 to 20 examinations across the country a process that once again excludes and deters several. Entrance test In order to reduce the stress of multiple examinations, make it more equitable and ensure minimum levels of competence, having the National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test (NEET) as a qualifying requirement for admission has been a long-standing recommendation of experts. It was reiterated in 2010 by the Medical Council of India (MCI), inspired by rapidly deteriorating standards of school education. The delay in implementing NEET was because of a lack of political will and the growing clout of private medical colleges in a neo-liberal environment that has encouraged a deadly cocktail of money power and political muscle. It is creditable that despite pressures, the MCI conducted NEET in 2012, for 90,000 aspirants. Defying the MCI mandate on regulating entry into medical colleges, about 90 private colleges held their own examination and, on specious grounds, successfully obtained a stay from the Supreme Court. On May 13, the Supreme Court issued an interim order, making NEET voluntary and permitting the private colleges to go ahead with admissions based on their own examinations. For the harried students, it was Black Monday. As business Archaic and outmoded rules, regulations and eligibility conditions requiring a capital base of more than Rs.150 crore have made the establishment of medical colleges a business proposition. Combined with no incentives for quality education, there has been a twofold

impact: 1. commercialising the medical profession, where recouping the investment is the prime concern for the investor and graduating doctor alike; and 2. an aggravated shortage of doctors in three ways: 15 per cent of those in the Non-Resident Indian quota within the 50 per cent management quota do not practice in India; of the remaining 35 per cent, many do not practice, migrate abroad or establish themselves in cities for better incomes; and, poor training makes many unemployable as amplified in a provider survey by Jishnu Das in Madhya Pradesh which found a marginal difference in the practices of qualified doctors and quacks. Clearly, the commercialisation of medical education is one of independent Indias biggest mistakes. Therefore, the solution of flooding the market with doctors by opening more medical colleges to contain the menace of capitation fees without in the first instance, overhauling the regulatory framework related to quality of instruction, faculty development, better salary structures and banning private practice, etc has little merit. Issue of quality There are no short cuts or easy solutions to what has become a highly political issue. If peoples health really matters for this government and if India is to stay competitive globally, it can no longer look the other way. It has to exercise its constitutional authority to bring in much needed institutional reform to clean up the mess, just as it did in 2010 by replacing a corruption-ridden MCI with a board of governors by way of an ordnance. In the same year, the ministry also drafted a bill to establish a National Commission for Human Resources for Health (NCHRH) to address the issue of quality by balancing the three critical functions of the profession: a) curriculum what is to be taught and for how long; b) accreditation who is to teach and in what manner; and c) ethical practice adhering to the best interests of patients. While the first two aspects were placed within the domain of a nominated body of experts, ethical medical practice was to be ensured by an elected body of the MCI. A distinction between nomination and election was made keeping in view the professional expertise needed to address complex issues related to content, standards, quality, competencies and skills as required by the country. Such expertise has to be sought and is not thrown up through electoral processes. It is for this reason that in most countries such as the United Kingdom, regulators are selected by the Public Service Commission based on merit and suitability. In addition, the U.K. Medical Council also has patient groups, student representatives and civil society activists as members of the Medical Council. Such openness and transparency is the only effective antidote to an indiscriminate abuse of power. Focus on the regulator

In October 2012, the Parliamentary Standing Committee returned the NCHRH Bill to the government to re-examine three major concerns: 1. States autonomy and potential violation of federal principles; 2. excessive bureaucratisation and centralisation, and 3. faulty selection procedure of regulators, providing scope for abuse. Rather than seizing the opportunity to come up with a better draft, the ministry has, for the third time, reconstituted the board of governors with a retired Directorate General of Health Services as chair. It is believed that the main purpose of the reconstituted body is to oversee the elections to the Board of the MCI. If true, this is disheartening. The MCI is the regulator for medical education and practice just as the Reserve Bank of India is for financial institutions or the Election Commission of India for elections. Regulators cannot be elected on popular mandate they have to be invited by the government for their professional eminence and moral authority. The MCI has to discipline and police the profession, more so on account of the extensive market failures that characterise it. Elected persons are compromised individuals and cannot do the task effectively. We have seen how disastrous our experience has been with an elected body; within the decade 2000-2010, it was set aside twice, once by the Supreme Court and the second time by the government by way of an ordnance. No other regulatory body has suffered such humiliation. Since medical education is in the concurrent list of the Constitution, the Central government needs to leverage that power to bring in some discipline before permitting any more colleges to be established. The time has come to strengthen the regulator first by having the MCI Board freed from the clutches of doctors to include all stakeholders and have the members appointed through a rigorous selection process by an autonomous body like the Union Public Service Commission. This will end the nomination process of the ministry and the consequent conflict of interest. Once appointed, the regulator can be allowed to enforce its own rules and regulations. The government needs to attend to a range of reforms from: appointing a tariff committee, indicating the right quantum of fees to be charged and legally enforcing the same; providing autonomy to medical colleges to stimulate excellence and innovation; constituting a committee of experts under the chairpersonship of a senior politician to examine some of the contentious issues, including the frequently made suggestion to nationalise private colleges, and appointing an advisory committee to undertake some of the critical functions of curriculum change and accreditation pending the establishment of a body like the NCHRH, which in todays circumstances may take not less than three years. What is required is a non-negotiable, high priority concern for patient welfare and safety by focusing on the quality of doctors being produced, in sufficient quantity of the skill mix. In conclusion, sorting out the mess in medical education requires a consensus across the political spectrum. Any shifts in the status quo will be bitterly opposed, so deeply entrenched are the vested interests. But the time has come for the government to act as the acute shortage in human resources is the main barrier to achieving universal health

coverage. The more the delay in addressing the critical challenges facing human resources for health on grounds of political expediency, the greater the social, political and financial costs this country will have to bear in the years ahead. Prudence lies in stemming the rot by decisive action and before it is too late. (Sujatha Rao is a former Secretary, Ministry of Health & Family Welfare. E-mail: ksujatharao@outlook.com) Cleaning the mess in Indias medical education first needs a strengthening of the Medical Council of India through the appointment of members by an independent and rigorous selection process.

Tensions between two natural allies []

Today [2013.06.26] is the anniversary of the imposition of the Emergency in India in 1975. The day also marks the anniversary of the first introduction of press censorship since Independence, as the two emergencies of 1962 and 1971, declared prior to 1975, were devoid of censorship. On June 26, 1975, the Indira Gandhi government used the Defence of India Rules, 1971 to impose the Censorship Order, requiring every newspaper, periodical, or other document to submit any news, comment, rumour or other report relating to a list of specified subjects to an authorised officer for scrutiny before publication. The government kept expanding this list till the Censorship Order was withdrawn on March 21, 1977 coinciding with revocation of the Emergency. If the history of censorship in modern India is a brief one, this is due at least in part to the judiciary, which has built a natural alliance with the media against any onslaught on the freedom of the press by the executive and legislature. Press freedom has been interpreted by the Supreme Court as an integral part of the freedom of expression, guaranteed by the Constitution under Article 19 (1) (a) and subject to only certain reasonable restrictions specified under Article 19 (2). In return, the judiciarys expectation is that the press will mould public opinion in favour of its independence from executive-legislative interference and ensure the latters compliance with its activist orders. Seminal cases The test of this alliance was evident during the Emergency itself, when, as the famous saying goes, institutions crawled when asked to bend. Two High Court judgments stand out, when even the Supreme Court had delivered a pro-Emergency verdict in the infamous A. D. M. Jabalpur case. One was the Bombay High Courts judgment in Binod Rao v. Minocher Rustom Masani, delivered by Justice Dinshah Pirosha Madon and Justice Madhukar Hiralal Kania on February

10, 1976. Masani was the Editor of the monthly journal, Freedom First, which was subjected to censorship. A single judge of the High Court, Justice R. P. Bhatt had already granted relief, by setting aside the censorship orders against the magazine, which was under appeal before the Division Bench. The High Court held that except in two out of 11 items censored, it did not find any intention or likelihood of the censored articles creating disorder or disturbance of law and order or incitement to violence. It held that most of the consequences contemplated by the censor were fanciful and far-fetched, and that the view taken by it was such as no person acting rationally could ever possibly take. The other was the Gujarat High Courts judgment in Chunibhai Vaidya v. H. J. DPenha (Special Civil Application No. 141 of 1976), delivered on March 22, 1976 by a Bench comprising Justice J. B. Mehta and S. H. Sheth. In this case, copies of Bhumiputra , a journal dedicated to Sarvodaya, were forfeited after it had published a report of a civil liberties conference held at Ahmedabad. The court held that it is wrong to think that once the legislature has made the law which places restrictions on or curtails the inherent and natural right of a citizen to speak and express himself, it is open to the executive to do anything which it likes irrespective of what the law empowers it to do and how much forbidden area it craves out. The Court also refused to concede that there is any nexus between the forfeiture order and public safety and order, as claimed by the Chief Censor to the Government. Last year, the Supreme Courts five-judge Constitution Bench relied on these two cases in its judgment in Sahara India Real Estate Corp. Ltd. & Ors vs. Securities and Exchange Board of India, (known as the legal reporting-media guidelines case), to buttress its holding that prior restraint per se (on the publication) has not been rejected as constitutionally impermissible, and to draw a distinction between prior restraint per se and cases of misuse of powers of pre-censorship which were corrected by the courts. The Supreme Court, in this case, was looking for legal justifications for prior restraint in order to defend its doctrine of postponement of publication or publicity of courtroom proceedings. The doctrine allows a writ court to grant preventive relief, if a litigant seeks an order of postponement of publication or broadcast or reporting of certain phases of the trial in cases of real and substantial risk of prejudice to the proper administration of justice or to the fairness of trial. Ironically, the Constitution Bench relied on cases which ought to be celebrated for their contribution to freedom of the press in order to place further restrictions on that freedom. Since no litigant has so far sought to temporarily injunct the media, the precise implications of the Supreme Courts ruling have not yet become apparent. Prior restraint is just one aspect of the tension between judiciary and media. The other is contempt of court. The Supreme Court evolved the doctrine of postponement, ostensibly to prevent cases of contempt that may arise if the media were free to report, even if there is real and substantial risk of prejudice to the proper administration of justice or to the fairness of trial. But prior restraint in the age of social media makes little sense and is likely to be

ineffective. It is reasonable to suggest that were the two High Court judgments, delivered during the Emergency, to be written today, the judges might have probably concluded that prior restraint per se is impractical, if not impermissible, because of the growing presence of social media. Rather than prior restraint, it is the chilling effect of certain provisions of the Contempt of Court Act, 1971 and its likely interpretation by the judiciary which has the potential to disturb the relationship between the two natural allies. Weak protection The 2006 amendment to the Act providing for truth as a valid defence in contempt proceedings has not really led to any appreciable increase in reports critical of the judiciary. The reason, perhaps, is that this defence is available to the alleged contemner only at the sentencing stage, and the courts are free to find one guilty, irrespective of the amendment. Besides, Section 13(b) of the Act inserted by the amendment gives wide discretion to the courts to admit truth as a defence to contempt proceedings if such a defence is in the public interest, and the request for invoking this defence is bona fide. The Parliamentary Standing committee which considered the Amendment Bill in 2005 was told by experts that there cannot be truth without bona fides, and when truth is there, public interest is also there. It was felt that imposing these twin limitations would virtually defeat the objective of justification by truth. Despite this, these vague limitations were included. Internal criticism If the 2006 amendment of the Act is controversial, the Act itself has come in for criticism from judges themselves. The Chairman of the Press Council, Justice Markandey Katju, had endorsed the eminent lawyer, Fali S. Nariman, in a lecture in 2007, saying: Contempt jurisdiction is mercurial, unpredictable capable of being exercised (and therefore in fact, exercised) differently in different cases and by different Judges in the same court. He added that there are no rules, no constraints and no precise circumstances when the administration of justice is brought into contempt, and this part of the law of contempt is a standing threat to free expression. The Supreme Court is seized of certain pending matters in which journalists have been arraigned as alleged contemners, and certain recent reports in the media which have raised issues of contempt. In keeping with its sense of magnanimity, the court has refrained from showing any sense of urgency in settling these matters. Hopefully, the tensions between two natural allies will get resolved in the spirit with which the two high courts had come to the rescue of beleagured journalists during the Emergency. The doctrine of prior restraint and the more potent contempt of court provisions have the potential to disturb the relationship between the judiciary and media.

Allowing radicalism to triumph over democracy

June 18, 2013 was a day of starkly contradictory events in Afghanistan. President Hamid Karzai and visiting NATO Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen announced the fifth and last tranche of the security transition, with NATO forces handing over the complete ownership and leadership of all military operations across Afghanistan to their Afghan counterparts. Ordinary Afghans welcomed this development as a major step forward in their quest to consolidate Afghanistans democratic gains. On the same day, it was also expected that an Afghan-led, Afghan-owned, and Afghanexecuted peace initiative would be launched with the opening of a temporary venue in Doha, Qatar, facilitating peace talks between the Afghan High Peace Council and Taliban representatives. It took the Afghan government almost two years to reach this critical point and to form a national consensus on the principles that would govern the peace process. Many consultations were also held with regional and international stakeholders, including the United States and Pakistan, which as two members of the Core Group agreed on the governing principles, clearly articulated in the Peace Process Roadmap to 2015. The Core Group members agreed that in order for the peace process to succeed with sustainable outcomes, the Taliban must accept the Afghan Constitution and respect the democratic gains of the Afghan people, including the constitutionally-protected rights of women. They must also cut ties with al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups, while verifiably renouncing violence. And it has been emphasised time and again that any external interference intended to influence the peace talks would jeopardise and stall the process. As Afghanistans leading strategic partner, the United States provided the Afghan government with specific guarantees against any possible violation of the above basic principles. The name of the venue in Doha was agreed to be the Political Bureau of the Afghan Taliban, nothing more than a political address to be later relocated inside Afghanistan. But much to the dismay of the Afghan people and government, as they were still cheering the last phase of the security transition, Al Jazeera enthusiastically began broadcasting an elaborate inaugural ceremony for the Office of the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan in Doha as its top news story. Granting credibility Qatars Deputy Foreign Minister, Ali bin Fahad Al-Hajri, and Taliban representatives unveiled the plaque that bore that name under which the Taliban had committed unspeakable atrocities against the Afghan people, systematically destroying their cultural heritage and economically isolating their country from the rest of the world. And a white flag under which the Taliban and al-Qaeda had masterminded the 9/11 terrorist attacks that killed more than 3,000 American citizens was hoisted on a tall pole outside the venue in an area of Doha that houses most diplomatic missions. The premeditated event that unfolded before the eyes of the international community betrayed not only the ongoing sacrifices of the Afghan people, but also those of their regional and international allies and friends for the institutionalisation of peace and democracy in Afghanistan. The Afghan people were shocked by, and continue to express their outrage against, the way the event was organised and took place. To Afghans and most of their key allies, it seemed as if the forces of terrorism were being rewarded at the

expense of the democratic gains made in Afghanistan, a remote possibility that no one could have logically predicted would happen. But it unashamedly did, inviting a strong international reaction in support of Afghanistans peace conditions. The people and government of Afghanistan are particularly thankful to India and Russia for their immediate, principled reactions against the blatant violation of their peace conditions. The government of India has rightly cautioned against creating equivalence between an internationally recognised government of Afghanistan and insurgent groups, which would legitimise insurgent groups or convey the impression of two competing state authorities for Afghanistan. Similar statements of support from Canada, China, Iran, Germany, Italy, and others have called on the Taliban to accept the Afghan Constitution, cut ties with terrorist networks, and cease violence against civilians, all while cautioning against any imposed measures on the Afghan-led peace process. In Afghanistan, the unexpected Doha events have unprecedentedly unified the Afghan people in support of their elected governments efforts to reject any peace deal that infringes on their sovereignty and the democratic achievements of the past 12 years. The Afghan people have not been losing their children day after day, year after year, just to return to the same foreign-installed Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan that violated the very basic human rights of Afghan women, and that harboured al-Qaeda, which first terrorised the Afghan people and then masterminded the tragedy of 9/11. Standing firm Afghans remain astounded at the way radicalism has been allowed to triumph over their new democracy. But they hold the moral high ground, and are firmly determined to consolidate the strategic gains of the past decade against the terrorism that continues to find a home and institutional support in Pakistan. Now is the time for the international community to recommit to standing by the Afghan people and helping them realise their democratic aspirations for an Afghanistan free from the dark forces of extremism and terrorism. Afghans deserve moral and material support and respect for their decade-long sacrifices to institutionalise peace and democracy in their country. Failure to deliver on these basic expectations would surely take Afghanistan back to the 1990s, a scenario few want to repeat. The only way forward is to help sustainable peace take root in Afghanistan, and to protect it from any previously tried and failed shortcuts that cost both democracy and liberty. ( The writer is Afghanistans Ambassador to India, and formerly served as his countrys Deputy National Security Adviser. ) The ceremony surrounding the opening of Talibans Doha office made it look as if terrorism was being rewarded at the expense of democratic gains in Afghanistan

Alternative to the politics of hatred I am resolutely opposed to the politics represented by Narendra Modi, which I find deeply inimical to the pluralist and humane idea of India, to secular democracy, and to caring and inclusive governance. There are many, on the other hand, who are evidently greatly

attracted by his muscular style of leadership and his focus on market-led economic growth. The battle between these two ideas of India and of government is the stuff of democracy. But I wish this battle is fought without resort to untruth and disinformation. In a series of recent public statements, Mr. Modi has described me repeatedly as a Maoist sympathiser. Though I feel uncomfortable being drawn into his style of strident public polemics, he leaves me no choice. I feel constrained to respond because his remarks are utterly false and contradict my deepest lifelong convictions. I have since my college days, in my years in the civil service and the decade since in public life always been passionately and publicly opposed to all forms of violence: violence which is communal, terrorist, antiDalit, anti-woman, anti-poor, and also equally Maoist violence. No justification I strongly disagree with those, among them my liberal friends, who in any way romanticise or even indirectly rationalise the resort to violence by left militants, suggesting their violence is justified because of the structural violence of poverty, exploitation and state violence. I am convinced there is no such thing as altruistic violence. Violence, even when in the name of the oppressed, brutalises all, and the oppressed suffer the most. The only legitimate instruments to fight injustice are non-violence and democracy. As evidence of my Maoist sympathies, Mr. Modi speaks of the employment in an orphanage run by an NGO with which I am associated, of a Maoists wife. The facts of the matter a re as follows. As one part of our resistance to the politics of hatred, it is our conviction that we must also build an alternative politics and civic action based on love and caring. One such task we chose, was to reach out to as many homeless children as possible who are brutalised on city streets. Over the past seven years, in several cities, my colleagues and I helped establish and run 45 residential homes for the education and care of around 4,000 homeless street girls and boys. These employ more than 500 staff, as child carers and teachers. For running these homes, it is our policy to give preference to single women, women survivors of domestic violence, and homeless and destitute women as house mothers and home managers, so that the childrens home also provides them a place of safety and healing. Under the name of Sirisha, a woman came to my colleagues in Hyderabad in the year 2008 saying she was estranged from her husband and only son and was in severe depression, and that she be given the chance to live among the children as a volunteer so that it would help her to heal. In time, when a position in the same home fell vacant, she was appointed as one of the home managers, because she performed her duties of child care well. No one had the faintest idea about her true identity. After more than two years with us, she applied for 10 days long leave for the first time. A few days later, we learned from the newspapers that she was Padma, second wife of a Maoist leader, and she was arrested by the police in Odisha. Apart from her, we learned after several years about another former staff who also hid his Maoist antecedents. I have consistently written and spoken about my unambiguous and resolute opposition to all forms of violence, including Maoist violence. Before he claimed that I have Maoist sympathies, Mr. Modis advisers could have undertaken a casual search on the Internet, to read my many writings on the subject. I reproduce just a few short extracts from some of my numerous published writings on the issue:

More than forty years of Maoist insurgency in India has not altered its culture of casual acceptance of the inevitability of loss of life, even of civilians, in such battles. I find it extraordinary that people who oppose the death penalty are also willing to support the execution of people by private armies and militant peoples courts. In this rude justice of Maoist executions; men and women are eliminated for crimes such as informing the police, joining a rival faction, choosing to opt out of membership of a militant group, or belonging to an oppressing category of people. Maoists continue to resort to violence and terror. These include the physical liquidation of people, attacks on police stations and targeted killing of police personnel, summary executions of so-called informers and coverts, exploding of landmines resulting in large scale deaths, destruction of public property, death threats, and bans on political parties. The Sankaran Committee rightly condemns Maoist violence for its focus on military actions rather than on the mobilisation of people for social transformation. The arbitrary and violent actions of Naxalite parties contribute to further brutalis(ing) the society and lead(ing) to the shrinkage of democratic space for mobilisation and direct participation of the people, impairing the very process of transformation that the movements claim to stand for. I believe and the experience of human history bears me out that it is violent movements which are much more likely to fail to achieve their initial stated objectives than non-violent ones. Justice can never be violent or retributive: its intrinsic character is compassionate, measured and wise. It is self-evident to me that it is impossible to build a just and humane society by means which are unjust and inhuman. The outcomes of strategies which are built around bloodshed, vengeance, repression and hate will always ultimately be brutal and unjust, even if the violence is undertaken for lofty ideals. ( The writer is a social worker. ) A life-long believer in non-violence rebuts Modis charge that he is a Maoist sympathiser Beneficent and baleful This year, the monsoon has been in rumbustious form. It swept in to Kerala on June 1 and then headed off north with surprising rapidity. So much so that the rain-bearing cloud systems covered the whole country by June 16, a process that is typically completed only by around the middle of next month. Moreover, it has rained copiously. Consequently, about three-quarters of the country have received much more rain than usual. After last years poor monsoon, the plentiful rains have aided the planting of this years kharif crops, improved water storage in reservoirs and helped recharge badly depleted, underground aquifers. But for Uttarakhand, which in the course of a week was hammered with eightfold more rain than it typically gets, the deluge was too much. Human environmental depredations worsened the resultant flooding and landslides, and poorly managed disaster relief efforts added to the calamity. With this months heavy rains, flooding has been reported from other parts of the country too. North-western India has received over twice its usual rain. Although the eastern and north-eastern States are showing deficits, the country as a whole has thus far got 32 per cent more rain than average. It is a far cry from

last year, when the countrywide rainfall deficit soared to 50 per cent by mid-June and the month ended with a considerable shortfall. Good rains this month do not necessarily mean that the rest of the rainy season will be just as bountiful. However, if June ends with surplus rainfall of 20 per cent or more, then, going by the record of past years, there is a good chance that this monsoon could see above average nationwide rainfall for the season as a whole. The updated forecast that the India Meteorological Department released recently was remarkably similar to the one it issued in April: a normal monsoon, with countrywide seasonal rainfall between 96 per cent and 104 per cent of the long-period average, had the highest probability of 47 per cent. That was followed by the odds for a below normal monsoon, with seasonal rainfall between 90 per cent and 96 per cent of the long-period average. The met agency has also indicated that July, which provides close to one-third of the seasonal rainfall, could see normal or above normal rain; rains in August might be below par. But the monsoon can be capricious and difficult to predict. How sea surface temperatures and atmospheric conditions evolve in the central Pacific Ocean and the equatorial Indian Ocean can strongly influence the rains over India. Hopefully, despite such uncertainties, this monsoon will turn out well. History and sedition The Tamil Nadu government is palpably in error in invoking the penal provision of sedition against the author of a book that it banned last month. The book, Meendezhum Pandiyar Varalaaru (Resurgence of Pandya History), a Tamil work by K. Senthil Mallar, argues that the Pallars, a Dalit community, had once ruled southern Tamil Nadu. Extracts given in the government notification ordering forfeiture of all copies of the book suggest the author has made loose assertions and claims about various groups, as well as sweeping generalisations about different castes. Though such writing is ill-advised in these hypersensitive times, the May 30, 2013 government notification surely exaggerates when it claims that the content and language employed by the author clearly reveals his intention to spread hatred and disharmony among communities in the guise of research and thereby to cause disturbance to the public peace and tranquillity. A book that runs to more than 600 pages and purports to be based on research ought not to be banned simply because its thesis and arguments are controversial. While historians, scholars and others have the right to refute or critique the authors claims, or even campaign against the book being taken seriously, the government cannot decide on the authenticity or historicity of events in his book or indeed the accuracy or acceptability of opinions found in it. In any event, regardless of whether the ban amounts to a reasonable restriction on the authors freedom of expression, the slapping of sedition charges seems to be an invidious attempt to throttle him and the viewpoint he represents. The books contents may, at a stretch, perhaps attract legal provisions relating to creating disharmony between different sections of society, but definitely not sedition. Sedition involves promoting disaffection against the government established by law, but it is doubtful whether merely making some explosive claims about sections of society can come under its ambit. In recent times, the use of the sedition charge in Tamil Nadu and elsewhere has been questionable. It was invoked against activists engaged in the prolonged agitation against the Kudankulam nuclear project

in a bid to portray the protest as anti-national activity. For those who see this books subject as a form of Dalit assertion and an effort by an oppressed community to reconstruct its past, the ban as well as the sedition case against the author may mean that alternative histories are being suppressed by the authorities to placate dominant communities. There is indeed a strong case to question the States approach without undermining its legitimate right to take steps to maintain communal harmony.

Colour Scheme: Bold Black Important Red Explore Blue Understand Underline - Vocabulary