It is now a well-known fact that most
pesticides used in agricultural practice have long-term concerns
regarding health hazards resulting from their use. Pesticides are used
in large quantities and in different forms to increase agricultural
yield. All these pesticides enter air, water and soil and because they
are non-biodegradable, they
accumulate in large proportions within these sources. Ultimately,they
enter our body through the food we eat, water we drink and air we
breathe. Since they do not have any immediate effect on functioning of
our body, we do not realize the hazards induced by them until major
organs like kidneys and liver show disfunctioning or their some carcinogenic effect on body organs.
During the later part of the first half of the twentieth century some people realized the harmful effects and shifted to 'Organic Food'. In simple terms 'Organic Food'
is the food obtained from agricultural crops grown without using
pesticides and chemical fertilizers. Gradually, the number of people
supporting organic food is increasing, particularly in western world.
During 1940's, a group of people in Britain started a movement in favour of organic farming targetting mainly the pesticides under the banner of 'SOIL ASSOCIATION'. Since then organisation has been working towards the promotion of organic food habits.
During their campaign against pesticides the Association published a ten-point plan for cleaning up our food:
(1) A number of the most hazardous pesticides should be withdrawn immediately.
(2) Maximum residue limits (MRLs) should be set for all pesticides used, and not just those the government thinks will not consistently show up as over the maximum.
(3) Staff and resources for testing for pesticide residues in food should be increased, especially for imported food, if the MRL system is to be effective.
(4) Fruit and vegetables sold in shops should be labelled with the pesticides used both during growth and after harvest.
(5) Penalties for causing spray drift
must be increased, to reduce accidental contamination of crops, and the
process of claiming damages should be accelerated.
(6) All pesticide exports should be subject to prior informed
consent, whereby buyers are told about possible health risks and
restrictions in the country of origin. This will help reduce the
re-import of hazardous pesticides in food.
(7) A full scale epidemiological study (i.e. a health study on a
large human population, taking all factors into careful account) is
required into the possible impact of low levels of pesticide residues on
our health.
(8) A large education campaign is required to teach consumers and
farmers about how to minimize the hazards of pesticide residues.
(9) Far more research funding is needed to investigate the potential for non-chemical methods of pest and weed control.
(10) Proper government support is required for organic agriculture,
particularly with respect to support over the period of conversion from
chemical to organic methods, if public demand for organic food is to be
met.
After initial resistance by some groups against this plan, some of
the suggestions were accepted by the authorities. It is high time that
people world wide press for the implementation of this type of plan for
the maintenance and restoration of public health in general.
I stand against all types and forms of
pesticides and insecticides and not only those used in farm practice.
Pesticides used domestically to get rid of vector pests like mosquitos and cockroaches should also be completely banned.
Saturday, October 19, 2013
Wednesday, October 16, 2013
Extinction of species and Us
Since the beginning of life ninety five percent of different species of animals and plants have gone extinct till date during the evolutionary process, most of them during early stage when Earth experienced frequent and drastic environmental changes.
Ever since the life originated on Earth in the form of unicellular organisms, the gradual process of evolution has continued giving rise to different forms of life. As a result we have millions of species ranging from unicellular bacteria to giant and highly complex life forms like blue whale. During this natural process of evolution, species have evolved, proliferated and have become extinct. Extinction of species is a part of the natural process of evolution.
Natural extinction is not the cause of great worry as it is inevitable, but extinction due to reasons other than natural, particularly human-induced factors, are definitely a cause of worry. Once the process of environmental alterations stabilised on Earth, the rate of extinction due to natural factors slowed down drastically and most of the species could manage to survive for long after their evolution. The rate of extinction has accelerated in recent past, particularly during previous two-three centuries, largely as a result of human activities. The speed of exploitation of natural resources necessitated by the exponentially rising human numbers is the root cause of extinction of several species. For obtaining short term benefits we are rapidly destroying the wealth of life which has taken billions of years to reach the present state.
The major causes of extinction are:
Hunting: This is an age old activity. Initially hunting was aimed at obtaining food but later it turned out to be a hobby for many. Hunting is also carried out for some commercial purpose as a part of wildlife trade described later.
Habitat Loss: Most human activities have resulted in loss of habitat for several species. Deforestation for obtaining wood (for paper and furniture) and rarely available herbal products has destroyed thick forest habitats. Development of tourism involving forests and mountains as places of interest has also forced us to destroy natural habitat by construction of roads and resorts. Moreover, some parts of the forests have been converted into residences for humans, the rising population being the main reason.
Wildlife Trade: Wildlife trade involves activities like trading of skins of wild animals, extraction of some medicinally important compounds from the bodies of some mammals and fish (codliver oil, for example), Extracts obtained from some herbal plants, organs of these animals as well as smuggling of rare species of animals to different parts of the world. Wildlife trade is highly profitable and many are involved in it. Unlike hunting transfer of an animal does not involve spot killing but the place of their captivity where they are transferred does not replicate their natural habitat and in the absence of natural environment they lose their reproductive potential or their progeny, if any, cannot survive long. Most of the smuggled animals are killed later after removing important organs from their body. Their population (in their natural habitat), in the long run, goes on diminishing and ultimately they become extinct.
Human Interference: Constructing roads and rail routes through forests and mountains for transportation create disturbance in the habitat of wild animals, reduce area for their dwelling and movement and introduce feeling of insecurity among the animals. Similarly, use of boats for fishing, steamers for transportation and cruises for leisure activities disturb marine life. Consequently, there is a gradual reduction in their numbers.
Pollution: In fact, human interference itself is the main cause of pollution. Movement of automobiles and railways through forests and mountains not only pollute these natural habitats by expelling toxic gases that harm both animals and plants but they also create noise pollution affecting the mental state of wild animals. Forest resorts attract a large number of people as tourists. They pollute the forest soil and water resources by throwing nonbiodegradable products like plastics.
Despite efforts to save species from being extinct, the process of extinction has not slowed down much. Once extinction has taken place we are helpless but there are thousands of 'Endangered' species (bound to be extinct if proper steps are not taken) which we can save. Some of them include: Javan Rhino, Mediterranean monk seal, tiger, African elephant, Mountain gorilla, Blue whale, Giant otter, Jackass penguin, Chinese alligator, Kemp's ridley turtle, etc.
WWF (World Wildlife Fund for Nature) has the main aim of protecting and conserving such species. WWF works with governments of different countries to establish reserves and parks. WWF believes that protecting animals and plants has to go hand in hand with satisfying the basic needs of people. Therefore, many of its projects are designed to maintain balance between the sustainable use of natural resources, protection of wildlife and benefits of people.
Ever since the life originated on Earth in the form of unicellular organisms, the gradual process of evolution has continued giving rise to different forms of life. As a result we have millions of species ranging from unicellular bacteria to giant and highly complex life forms like blue whale. During this natural process of evolution, species have evolved, proliferated and have become extinct. Extinction of species is a part of the natural process of evolution.
Natural extinction is not the cause of great worry as it is inevitable, but extinction due to reasons other than natural, particularly human-induced factors, are definitely a cause of worry. Once the process of environmental alterations stabilised on Earth, the rate of extinction due to natural factors slowed down drastically and most of the species could manage to survive for long after their evolution. The rate of extinction has accelerated in recent past, particularly during previous two-three centuries, largely as a result of human activities. The speed of exploitation of natural resources necessitated by the exponentially rising human numbers is the root cause of extinction of several species. For obtaining short term benefits we are rapidly destroying the wealth of life which has taken billions of years to reach the present state.
The major causes of extinction are:
Hunting: This is an age old activity. Initially hunting was aimed at obtaining food but later it turned out to be a hobby for many. Hunting is also carried out for some commercial purpose as a part of wildlife trade described later.
Habitat Loss: Most human activities have resulted in loss of habitat for several species. Deforestation for obtaining wood (for paper and furniture) and rarely available herbal products has destroyed thick forest habitats. Development of tourism involving forests and mountains as places of interest has also forced us to destroy natural habitat by construction of roads and resorts. Moreover, some parts of the forests have been converted into residences for humans, the rising population being the main reason.
Wildlife Trade: Wildlife trade involves activities like trading of skins of wild animals, extraction of some medicinally important compounds from the bodies of some mammals and fish (codliver oil, for example), Extracts obtained from some herbal plants, organs of these animals as well as smuggling of rare species of animals to different parts of the world. Wildlife trade is highly profitable and many are involved in it. Unlike hunting transfer of an animal does not involve spot killing but the place of their captivity where they are transferred does not replicate their natural habitat and in the absence of natural environment they lose their reproductive potential or their progeny, if any, cannot survive long. Most of the smuggled animals are killed later after removing important organs from their body. Their population (in their natural habitat), in the long run, goes on diminishing and ultimately they become extinct.
Human Interference: Constructing roads and rail routes through forests and mountains for transportation create disturbance in the habitat of wild animals, reduce area for their dwelling and movement and introduce feeling of insecurity among the animals. Similarly, use of boats for fishing, steamers for transportation and cruises for leisure activities disturb marine life. Consequently, there is a gradual reduction in their numbers.
Pollution: In fact, human interference itself is the main cause of pollution. Movement of automobiles and railways through forests and mountains not only pollute these natural habitats by expelling toxic gases that harm both animals and plants but they also create noise pollution affecting the mental state of wild animals. Forest resorts attract a large number of people as tourists. They pollute the forest soil and water resources by throwing nonbiodegradable products like plastics.
Despite efforts to save species from being extinct, the process of extinction has not slowed down much. Once extinction has taken place we are helpless but there are thousands of 'Endangered' species (bound to be extinct if proper steps are not taken) which we can save. Some of them include: Javan Rhino, Mediterranean monk seal, tiger, African elephant, Mountain gorilla, Blue whale, Giant otter, Jackass penguin, Chinese alligator, Kemp's ridley turtle, etc.
WWF (World Wildlife Fund for Nature) has the main aim of protecting and conserving such species. WWF works with governments of different countries to establish reserves and parks. WWF believes that protecting animals and plants has to go hand in hand with satisfying the basic needs of people. Therefore, many of its projects are designed to maintain balance between the sustainable use of natural resources, protection of wildlife and benefits of people.
Monday, October 14, 2013
Thank Godse, You Killed Me...
Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi, better known as Mahatma Gandhi or Gandhi Bapu, died in 1948 after being assassinated by Nathuram Godse. Mahatma Gandhi, the Father of Nation, throughout his life preached and practised 'Ahimsa' (non-violence) and 'Satya' (Truth)
and proved to the world that a battle of freedom could be fought
without bloodshed.
When India became independent in 1947, Gandhiji and other freedom fighters had dreamed of the India with 'Ramrajya' (an ideal state where all are happy and the rulers are not only honest but devoted to larger public interest to see that each citizen enjoys his/her rights with all freedom and justice). Gandhiji, unfortunately, died hardly six months after India got freedom.
After more than six decades of independence India has definitely made progress on several fronts but the fruits of development have reached a few of upper class people and the common man of Gandhiji's dream is still far behind in being the part of that lucky lot. Corruption and greed for material wealth are so dominant that moral values have no place in Public life.
If Mahatma Gandhi was alive to see India in her present state the first major alteration he would find is that 'A' from his 'Ahimsa' (nonviolence) has crept openly to join his 'Satya' (truth) to change them to 'Himsa' (violence) and 'Asatya' (untruth). This small alteration brought about by the creeping of 'A' has created an atmosphere far from his dream of 'Ramrajya' (ideal state).
Mahatma Gandhi did not live for 125 years as he had wished. Had he lived long I am sure he would have committed suicide. If he could witness the present scenario of India...
...he would say to Godse: "Thank Godse, you killed me!!!"
When India became independent in 1947, Gandhiji and other freedom fighters had dreamed of the India with 'Ramrajya' (an ideal state where all are happy and the rulers are not only honest but devoted to larger public interest to see that each citizen enjoys his/her rights with all freedom and justice). Gandhiji, unfortunately, died hardly six months after India got freedom.
After more than six decades of independence India has definitely made progress on several fronts but the fruits of development have reached a few of upper class people and the common man of Gandhiji's dream is still far behind in being the part of that lucky lot. Corruption and greed for material wealth are so dominant that moral values have no place in Public life.
If Mahatma Gandhi was alive to see India in her present state the first major alteration he would find is that 'A' from his 'Ahimsa' (nonviolence) has crept openly to join his 'Satya' (truth) to change them to 'Himsa' (violence) and 'Asatya' (untruth). This small alteration brought about by the creeping of 'A' has created an atmosphere far from his dream of 'Ramrajya' (ideal state).
Mahatma Gandhi did not live for 125 years as he had wished. Had he lived long I am sure he would have committed suicide. If he could witness the present scenario of India...
...he would say to Godse: "Thank Godse, you killed me!!!"
Wednesday, October 9, 2013
Population - Can we reach a steady state?
The ever rising population is creating
several long term social, economical as well as environmental problems.
There must be an end to this situation if we want the future
generations to live happily.
The population is growing at an alarming rate
even in this so-called modern and well-educated world. Nobody can deny
that most of the problems faced by us have their root cause in the rising population.
Despite efforts by governments as well as NGOs world over the growth
rate has not fallen as expexted. We need to be more specific to solve
this problem by taking a more rational view of what best can be done in
near future besides what is being done at present. Does a rational and
still more realiastic approach exist?
The population dynamics as applied to all organisms, not just humans, indicate that the number of all organisms has a tendency of increasing upto the capacity of the environment (habitat)
to support their sustenance. The balance between the reproduction rate
and the rate of mortality determines the rate of their increase. The population profile of most organisms has made it clear that adults of any organism tend to replace themselves by a greater number
of progeny. Thus, if factors bringing higher mortality are absent, then
the potential of the increase in their numbers becomes dominant. For
example, if organisms of a species can double their number in a year, there will be a thousand-fold increase in ten years. If this continues further, it leads to shortage of resources and space in a habitat and the net mortality rate shoots up establishing an equilibrium resulting in no further increase in numbers.
Advanced medical facilities, increase in food production and better understanding of hygiene has resulted in lower death-rate for humans in recent times. Because of this the human population is increasing quite rapidly. The human population, however, has not reached the equilibrium stage and the numbers are increasing despite several efforts on the front of controlling population. This does not mean that the human population is not subject to regulatory factors similar to those that control the population of other organisms. We cannot afford, however, to wait for the equilibrium to establish naturally. We have reached a stage where it has become need of the time to control population growth as early as possible so that the equilibrium is reached far in advance.
Advanced medical facilities, increase in food production and better understanding of hygiene has resulted in lower death-rate for humans in recent times. Because of this the human population is increasing quite rapidly. The human population, however, has not reached the equilibrium stage and the numbers are increasing despite several efforts on the front of controlling population. This does not mean that the human population is not subject to regulatory factors similar to those that control the population of other organisms. We cannot afford, however, to wait for the equilibrium to establish naturally. We have reached a stage where it has become need of the time to control population growth as early as possible so that the equilibrium is reached far in advance.
This is possible, too, if we limit the size of families. Ideally,
each pair of parents must be prepared to reproduce not more than two
children. If this self-imposed practice continues globally, human population will automatically reach the much awaited equilibrium at an early stage. Efforts have been made in the past to promote
this concept, particularly in India during 1970s and 1980s by spreading
the message through a slogan ‘WE TWO, OUR TWO’ as a part of the Family
Planning Programme. It failed, much due to reasons like low literacy
level among rural and tribal people, ignorance, superstition, and above
all, the lack of political will. However, the time has changed a lot now
and if properly executed this concept is bound to bring about good results. If it is not followed voluntarily, it has to be made mandatory by enforcement of law and declaration of
special benefits to the citizens having not more than two children. A
strong political will and rational thinking on the part of people are
must to make ‘WE TWO, OUR TWO’ a magically successful concept.
Man - A social animal?
The fact is that we put all our efforts
to understand the natural laws but we refuse to follow them just for
small and short-period benefits, both on individual level and
collectively as a species.
Man (human being) is a social animal. This sentence is taught in schools
to describe the nature of man. It was originally quoted way back in
seventeenth century by Baruch Spinoza. In what sense are we social ? Is
it because we live in family, interact with one another, rear and
educate our children, make friends,
etc.,etc.? To some extent we are social on personal level but as a
species we have never shown SOCIAL BEHAVIOR…we kill other animals…we
destroy environment…we do great harm to mother nature for short-term
gains…we fight among ourselves…in family…in streets…on borders…and then
we call ourselves SOCIAL ANIMAL!
Robert Ardrey has clearly stated the human nature in : ‘The tragedy and the magnificence of Homo Sapiens
(human beings) together rise from the same smokey truth that we alone
among the animal species refuse to acknowledge natural law’.
The fact is that we put all our efforts to understand the natural laws
but we refuse to follow them just for small and short-period benefits,
both on individual level and collectively as a species. The moment we
started understanding nature we developed a misconception that nature
can be controlled and so began disrupting natural balance for selfish gains. Man has been trying hard to alter nature in all its aspects and is turning blind eye to the devastating consequences of his misbehaviour.
Ian Mchang rightly quoted: ‘Man is a blind, witless, low-brow, anthropocentric clod who inflicts lesion upon the earth.’
The civilization of machines, for whose creation man is very proud, has converted him into a machine and has forgotten his very essence of humanity. The manner in which modern man is behaving clearly indicates that MAN IS THE MOST ANTI-SOCIAL ANIMAL on this planet earth.
Ian Mchang rightly quoted: ‘Man is a blind, witless, low-brow, anthropocentric clod who inflicts lesion upon the earth.’
The civilization of machines, for whose creation man is very proud, has converted him into a machine and has forgotten his very essence of humanity. The manner in which modern man is behaving clearly indicates that MAN IS THE MOST ANTI-SOCIAL ANIMAL on this planet earth.
Friday, October 4, 2013
Election Reforms for India - My view
Elections in India, as an essential part
of democratic process, have some unjustifiable aspects. I want the
process to be rectified and modified in the interest of people of India.
Suggestion #1
We more than often see during general elections that a person fights election from more than one constituency. Constitutionally one can do so but the practice appears unjustifiable. Generally, big names of political parties prefer this option when they smell defeat from a constituency. I believe that…
A CANDIDATE SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO CONTEST FROM THE CONSTITUENCY WHERE HIS/HER NAME HAS BEEN REGISTERED AS VOTER
If a candidate wins from, say, two constituencies, he/she has to vacate one of them in a very short period because constitutionally a person cannot represent two constituencies simultaneously in Local Municipal corporation, State Assembly, and the Parliament. We have by-election in the constituency vacated by such elected person. This lays additional burden on the Election Commission as well as the people of that constituency. The money spent on election process comes from the tax paid by the citizens of India. Thus, there is additional burden on the tax-payer as the amount spent on such useless procedures is non-productive.
I cannot understand why such useless, expensive and unjustifiable(from all angles) options have been generated. All political parties should come forward to endorse the concept that
We more than often see during general elections that a person fights election from more than one constituency. Constitutionally one can do so but the practice appears unjustifiable. Generally, big names of political parties prefer this option when they smell defeat from a constituency. I believe that…
If a candidate wins from, say, two constituencies, he/she has to vacate one of them in a very short period because constitutionally a person cannot represent two constituencies simultaneously in Local Municipal corporation, State Assembly, and the Parliament. We have by-election in the constituency vacated by such elected person. This lays additional burden on the Election Commission as well as the people of that constituency. The money spent on election process comes from the tax paid by the citizens of India. Thus, there is additional burden on the tax-payer as the amount spent on such useless procedures is non-productive.
I cannot understand why such useless, expensive and unjustifiable(from all angles) options have been generated. All political parties should come forward to endorse the concept that
‘ONE PERSON CAN CONTEST FROM ONLY ONE CONSTITUENCY AT A
TIME’ in the interest of the nation and its democracy.
Suggestion #2
We witness, rather helplessly, scores of independent candidates during each election. If one studies the statistics of all elections, I am sure, one would find that most of the independent candidates lose the election. Rarely an independent candidate can collect victorious support on his own. Majority of them not only lose the election but they also lose their deposit money.
Indian constitution gives the right to contest election to all eligible citizens without being attached to any political party. There is nothing wrong in it, but this right is misused by some individuals as well as some political parties. Since the requirements to file the nomination paper are not stringent and the deposit amount is nominal (affordable) some people use election as a means to become publicly known. Some individuals use their candidature as a means to bargain with the party candidates. This happens when the candidature of a person as an independent poses a potential threat to a party candidate by eroding a fraction of the party’s support base. The party candidate, in such circumstances, has to enter a bargain (by paying handsome amount of money to the candidate) as a result of which the independent candidate declares his support to the party candidate publicly and makes requests to vote for that candidate.
Often the political parties themselves bring such independent candidates to fight the election with a view to reducing the vote share of the candidate from the opposite party. The so called independent candidate is in reality a party-man supported from behind the curtain by the party so that he stays in the fray till end and helps the party candidate by obtaining votes from the share of the opposite party’s candidate.
All above aspects are political but I am more concerned with the problems such independent candidates give rise to. For the Election Commission, a large number of candidates makes the situation more difficult to handle. Besides administrative problems the Commission has additional burden on its electoral expenses. I remember an example in which more than 300 candidates had filed nomination in an assembly constituency in Karnataka. The ballet paper was actually a booklet which not only created problems for the Election Commission but also to the voters.
In the interest of democracy and the nation, I suggest that :
A CANDIDATE, IRRESPECTIVE OF HIS/HER PARTY AFFILIATION, SHOULD BE BARRED FROM FIGHTING ANY ELECTION FOR NEXT SIX YEARS IF HE/SHE LOSES HIS/HER DEPOSIT IN AN ELECTION.
We witness, rather helplessly, scores of independent candidates during each election. If one studies the statistics of all elections, I am sure, one would find that most of the independent candidates lose the election. Rarely an independent candidate can collect victorious support on his own. Majority of them not only lose the election but they also lose their deposit money.
Indian constitution gives the right to contest election to all eligible citizens without being attached to any political party. There is nothing wrong in it, but this right is misused by some individuals as well as some political parties. Since the requirements to file the nomination paper are not stringent and the deposit amount is nominal (affordable) some people use election as a means to become publicly known. Some individuals use their candidature as a means to bargain with the party candidates. This happens when the candidature of a person as an independent poses a potential threat to a party candidate by eroding a fraction of the party’s support base. The party candidate, in such circumstances, has to enter a bargain (by paying handsome amount of money to the candidate) as a result of which the independent candidate declares his support to the party candidate publicly and makes requests to vote for that candidate.
Often the political parties themselves bring such independent candidates to fight the election with a view to reducing the vote share of the candidate from the opposite party. The so called independent candidate is in reality a party-man supported from behind the curtain by the party so that he stays in the fray till end and helps the party candidate by obtaining votes from the share of the opposite party’s candidate.
All above aspects are political but I am more concerned with the problems such independent candidates give rise to. For the Election Commission, a large number of candidates makes the situation more difficult to handle. Besides administrative problems the Commission has additional burden on its electoral expenses. I remember an example in which more than 300 candidates had filed nomination in an assembly constituency in Karnataka. The ballet paper was actually a booklet which not only created problems for the Election Commission but also to the voters.
In the interest of democracy and the nation, I suggest that :
A CANDIDATE, IRRESPECTIVE OF HIS/HER PARTY AFFILIATION, SHOULD BE BARRED FROM FIGHTING ANY ELECTION FOR NEXT SIX YEARS IF HE/SHE LOSES HIS/HER DEPOSIT IN AN ELECTION.
Suggestion #3
Every citizen of India has the right to contest elections for Municipal Councils, State assemblies and the Parliament if he/she can fulfill legal requirements for that. At times we find persons without proper education entering the election fray only because they have backing of a particular political party. Such persons, if elected, can do little during their tenure as far as policy matters are concerned. Their only job is to raise their finger in favour of or against some point being debated in the house because they are told to do so by the party leader. They do not have even superficial knowledge of the issue being debated. Such members often do not even have proper knowledge of the geography, demography and history of the constituency they represent. This is not in the interest of the people of this country as far as progress and policy-making are concerned.
I firmly believe that :
THERE MUST BE SOME MINIMUM EDUCATIONAL QUALIFICATION MANDATORY FOR A PERSON TO BECOME ELIGIBLE FOR CONTESTING AN ELECTION
so that the democracy of this country is strengthened.
However, the million-dollar question is : WILL ALL POLITICAL PARTIES BE WISE ENOUGH TO REACH A CONSENSUS AS REGARDS MINIMUM EDUCATIONAL QUALIFICATION?
Suggestion #4
Every election witnesses partial voting; sometimes well below 50% voters exercising their right. During the heat of elections we all debate the question of poor voter turnout and scores of suggestions are put forward from all corners of India aiming at increasing poll percentage. Once the elections are over, we forget poor voting till next election as if it were a non-issue.
One most widely uttered suggestion is “Compulsory Voting”. Can voting be made mandatory ? Can people be forced to vote irrespective of their desire to do so ? What are the limitations of “mandatory voting”? Before we think about voting being made compulsory let us first think what the reasons for poor voter turnout can be. A person may not vote because he/she…
Some of the above are circumstantial limitations for which a person cannot be blamed if he/she does not exercise the right to vote.
I think the concept of “Compulsory Voting” is not justifiable as one may not be in a position to vote due to the reasons which are genuine and out of his/her control. There may be some alternative approach by which a strong opinion in favour of maximum possible voting be created nation-wide. All political parties and the Election Commission along with some NGOs should take an initiative right from now in this direction to work out a people-friendly policy which encourages people to vote in a positive manner rather than the so-called “Compulsory Voting”.
Every citizen of India has the right to contest elections for Municipal Councils, State assemblies and the Parliament if he/she can fulfill legal requirements for that. At times we find persons without proper education entering the election fray only because they have backing of a particular political party. Such persons, if elected, can do little during their tenure as far as policy matters are concerned. Their only job is to raise their finger in favour of or against some point being debated in the house because they are told to do so by the party leader. They do not have even superficial knowledge of the issue being debated. Such members often do not even have proper knowledge of the geography, demography and history of the constituency they represent. This is not in the interest of the people of this country as far as progress and policy-making are concerned.
I firmly believe that :
THERE MUST BE SOME MINIMUM EDUCATIONAL QUALIFICATION MANDATORY FOR A PERSON TO BECOME ELIGIBLE FOR CONTESTING AN ELECTION
so that the democracy of this country is strengthened.
However, the million-dollar question is : WILL ALL POLITICAL PARTIES BE WISE ENOUGH TO REACH A CONSENSUS AS REGARDS MINIMUM EDUCATIONAL QUALIFICATION?
Suggestion #4
Every election witnesses partial voting; sometimes well below 50% voters exercising their right. During the heat of elections we all debate the question of poor voter turnout and scores of suggestions are put forward from all corners of India aiming at increasing poll percentage. Once the elections are over, we forget poor voting till next election as if it were a non-issue.
One most widely uttered suggestion is “Compulsory Voting”. Can voting be made mandatory ? Can people be forced to vote irrespective of their desire to do so ? What are the limitations of “mandatory voting”? Before we think about voting being made compulsory let us first think what the reasons for poor voter turnout can be. A person may not vote because he/she…
- …is physically unfit.
- …is not in his/her constituency on the day of election.
- …is socially engaged.
- …does not find, from the list of candidates, a proper person to vote for.
- …feels that his/her vote is not going to make much difference as the constituency has been largely dominated by a person/ a political party for last several elections.
- …feels that all political parties/candidates have one common minimum programme which excludes common man’s interest once they get elected/ get power.
- …is tired of voting frequently.
Some of the above are circumstantial limitations for which a person cannot be blamed if he/she does not exercise the right to vote.
I think the concept of “Compulsory Voting” is not justifiable as one may not be in a position to vote due to the reasons which are genuine and out of his/her control. There may be some alternative approach by which a strong opinion in favour of maximum possible voting be created nation-wide. All political parties and the Election Commission along with some NGOs should take an initiative right from now in this direction to work out a people-friendly policy which encourages people to vote in a positive manner rather than the so-called “Compulsory Voting”.
Wednesday, October 2, 2013
Next time when You go to a zoo...
Oxford Dictionary describes a ‘zoo’ as a place where living wild animals are kept for the public to see them and where they can be studied and bred.
Most zoo authorities claim that they work to save rare species and, through captive breeding, replenish populations in the wild. A zoo’s main role is of saving the planet’s wildlife.
There are thousands of zoos on this planet. In the beginning the idea of saving endangered species could have given birth to the concept of establishing zoos but modern zoos, despite their big claims, have primarily turned more into a business activity and a place of entertainment. The commercialisation of zoos has far outweighed their importance as a place for protection of endangered species.
Time and again people have raised their voice against the pattern of functioning of modern zoos. There are several study reports revealing that less than one percent of zoo’s animals are endangered. This clearly shows that most of the animals (birds included) kept in cages are for entertainment only and not for conservation.
There are certain laws and directives regarding conditions to be maintained in the zoos. The laws may differ from region to region but the central idea, that these caged animals must be provided with conditions matching to their natural habitat as far as possible, remains the same. Recent studies show that most zoo authorities fail in maintaining hygienic conditions and supplying enough food to animals in the zoo. Next time when you go to a zoo, think how many of these caged animals are endangered and, therefore, fit for being caged. How many of the people visiting the zoo have in mind the idea of getting knowledge about wildlife and how many of them have come just for entertainment? In this era of technology we have other better means of getting knowledge of wildlife and studying them in a more scientific manner than keeping animals in zoo.
Next time when you go to a zoo, while standing outside the cage of an innocent animal (for me all animals are innocent) try to see in the eyes of that caged animal. You will witness that though it is regularly getting its food and though the conditions are very good, it constantly tries to find a way out. Replace yourself with that animal, of course in imagination, and think: Would I be happy to be there with all luxuries guaranteed till my death? The answer is a big ‘NO’ because the greatest luxury of life is ‘FREEDOM’ even if it may threaten your survival at certain occasions.
During my visit to a zoo, some days back, I was standing in front of a cage. The animal (a deer) on the other side was persistently trying to find a way out. Then it stood facing me, silent pain rolling down the eyes, staring at me with an unspoken hope and helplessness. I felt that it was asking me: “What is my crime? Why don’t you let me live my life with freedom?” It stared in my eyes for a few moments and then turned its face from me realising, perhaps, the greater degrre of my helplessness. My eyes became wet.
I decided…
Next time when I go to a zoo…
No, no I will never go to a zoo. There will be no next time…!
Most zoo authorities claim that they work to save rare species and, through captive breeding, replenish populations in the wild. A zoo’s main role is of saving the planet’s wildlife.
There are thousands of zoos on this planet. In the beginning the idea of saving endangered species could have given birth to the concept of establishing zoos but modern zoos, despite their big claims, have primarily turned more into a business activity and a place of entertainment. The commercialisation of zoos has far outweighed their importance as a place for protection of endangered species.
Time and again people have raised their voice against the pattern of functioning of modern zoos. There are several study reports revealing that less than one percent of zoo’s animals are endangered. This clearly shows that most of the animals (birds included) kept in cages are for entertainment only and not for conservation.
There are certain laws and directives regarding conditions to be maintained in the zoos. The laws may differ from region to region but the central idea, that these caged animals must be provided with conditions matching to their natural habitat as far as possible, remains the same. Recent studies show that most zoo authorities fail in maintaining hygienic conditions and supplying enough food to animals in the zoo. Next time when you go to a zoo, think how many of these caged animals are endangered and, therefore, fit for being caged. How many of the people visiting the zoo have in mind the idea of getting knowledge about wildlife and how many of them have come just for entertainment? In this era of technology we have other better means of getting knowledge of wildlife and studying them in a more scientific manner than keeping animals in zoo.
Next time when you go to a zoo, while standing outside the cage of an innocent animal (for me all animals are innocent) try to see in the eyes of that caged animal. You will witness that though it is regularly getting its food and though the conditions are very good, it constantly tries to find a way out. Replace yourself with that animal, of course in imagination, and think: Would I be happy to be there with all luxuries guaranteed till my death? The answer is a big ‘NO’ because the greatest luxury of life is ‘FREEDOM’ even if it may threaten your survival at certain occasions.
During my visit to a zoo, some days back, I was standing in front of a cage. The animal (a deer) on the other side was persistently trying to find a way out. Then it stood facing me, silent pain rolling down the eyes, staring at me with an unspoken hope and helplessness. I felt that it was asking me: “What is my crime? Why don’t you let me live my life with freedom?” It stared in my eyes for a few moments and then turned its face from me realising, perhaps, the greater degrre of my helplessness. My eyes became wet.
I decided…
Next time when I go to a zoo…
No, no I will never go to a zoo. There will be no next time…!
Tuesday, October 1, 2013
Right to Reject
Anna Hazare and his team,had come out with the concept of ‘Right to Reject’ as a part of their movement to reform the existing election system and electoral process for all levels starting from the Gram Panchayat to the Parliament. They had demanded that the list of candidates for any election must have ‘None of These’ as an additional option so that a voter, if not happy with all the candidates in fray, may choose that option. If the votes polled in favour of ‘None of These’ are in majority, then none of the candidates would win and there would be re-election in that constituency with a fresh list of candidates, containing none of the previously rejected lot.
The demand, as it had been put forward and recently approved by the Supreme Court of India directing the Election Commission to do necessary changes, may appear an attractive proposition but there are certain aspects which must be considered judiciously.
(1) What do we actually want to attain by ‘Right to Reject’? What if the voters of some constituency reject another lot of candidates too, when re-election takes place? Shall we go for yet another re-election? We must not forget that frequent elections add to the financial burden and it is voters who ultimately bear this burden.
(2) If we analyze the results of previous elections (all elections that took place after Independence) we find many examples in which, for one or the other reason, an honest and suitable candidate loses election and some notorious antisocial element gets elected as an MLA or an MP.
(3) A person, as a voter, casts his / her vote in favour of a candidate under the influence of several factors. It is a pitiable situation that even after more than six decades of Independence and a lot more socio-economical development along with education spreading to once inpenetrable tribal and poverty-bound pockets, a majority of us vote based on caste, creed, religion, provincialism and nepotism.
(4) During elections, generally, we observe very low voter turnout for which there may be several reasons. But the major reasons are: (i) Indifference on the part of a large proportion of voters towards the election and (ii) pessimistic view of some voters who assume that their vote is not going to make much difference and their candidate is bound to lose.
(5) Some voters keep away from voting assuming that whosoever gets elected, will ultimately practise one or other form of corruption and use the power delegated to him / her to increase personal wealth without worrying much about the common man’s problems. Not voting for this reason is as good as ‘None of These’.
My personal view, therefore, is that instead of going for the option of ‘Right to Reject’, we should carry out a nation-wide movement of political awakening which persuades voters to vote by their conscience without being influenced by the trivial factors like caste, creed, religion, etc. The political parties must exhibit wisdom by fielding only candidates with good social background, history of service to mankind, clear image and versatility in administrative processes. To me, ‘Right to Reject’ appears to be somewhat absurd proposition.
The demand, as it had been put forward and recently approved by the Supreme Court of India directing the Election Commission to do necessary changes, may appear an attractive proposition but there are certain aspects which must be considered judiciously.
(1) What do we actually want to attain by ‘Right to Reject’? What if the voters of some constituency reject another lot of candidates too, when re-election takes place? Shall we go for yet another re-election? We must not forget that frequent elections add to the financial burden and it is voters who ultimately bear this burden.
(2) If we analyze the results of previous elections (all elections that took place after Independence) we find many examples in which, for one or the other reason, an honest and suitable candidate loses election and some notorious antisocial element gets elected as an MLA or an MP.
(3) A person, as a voter, casts his / her vote in favour of a candidate under the influence of several factors. It is a pitiable situation that even after more than six decades of Independence and a lot more socio-economical development along with education spreading to once inpenetrable tribal and poverty-bound pockets, a majority of us vote based on caste, creed, religion, provincialism and nepotism.
(4) During elections, generally, we observe very low voter turnout for which there may be several reasons. But the major reasons are: (i) Indifference on the part of a large proportion of voters towards the election and (ii) pessimistic view of some voters who assume that their vote is not going to make much difference and their candidate is bound to lose.
(5) Some voters keep away from voting assuming that whosoever gets elected, will ultimately practise one or other form of corruption and use the power delegated to him / her to increase personal wealth without worrying much about the common man’s problems. Not voting for this reason is as good as ‘None of These’.
My personal view, therefore, is that instead of going for the option of ‘Right to Reject’, we should carry out a nation-wide movement of political awakening which persuades voters to vote by their conscience without being influenced by the trivial factors like caste, creed, religion, etc. The political parties must exhibit wisdom by fielding only candidates with good social background, history of service to mankind, clear image and versatility in administrative processes. To me, ‘Right to Reject’ appears to be somewhat absurd proposition.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)