Contradictions and confusion cloud rape laws. The result is miscarriage of justice

My piece in Tehelka on November 20, 2010

The legal system needs a major overhaul if rapists are to be brought to book

IN EARLY October, three events took place. All relate to women and rape. On 5 October, the Central government decided to make an amendment in Section 375 of the Indian Penal Code. At the moment, if a woman under 15 is forced to have sex by her husband, it constitutes rape. If she is over that age, it does not. The government has decided to push the age limit up to 18, which in any case is the legal age for marriage.

Around the same time, a 30-year-old woman went to a Puja pandal in Navi Mumbai. She fainted during the festivities and was rushed to a nearby hospital. As she lay unconscious in the ICU, the resident doctor on duty apparently raped her. He has been arrested and the case is being pursued.

In the same week, a fast-track court in Mumbai dismissed a case filed last year by an American woman who had alleged that she had been gang-raped by six young men with whom she had gone out one evening. She was attending a short-term course at the Tata Institute of Social Sciences (TISS). The judge declared her testimony as “unreliable” and released the accused.

A related development to the above three incidents was the release of a report by Human Rights Watch (HRW) titled Dignity on Trial: India’s Need for Sound Standards in Conducting and Interpreting Forensic Examination of Rape Survivors. It exposed the extent to which even today the ‘finger test’ is used to establish whether the raped woman had been “habituated to sexual intercourse”.

All these developments are related because they revolve around that four-letter word: rape. In different ways, they also illustrate the contradictions and the confusion that prevail on rape laws, their implementation and therefore their efficacy.

Take the first, the issue of marital rape, or non-consensual sex within marriage. Talk about it, or write about it, and you will instantly get media-savvy minority groups like Save The Indian Family jumping up and down and shouting that if there is a law on marital rape, Indian men will suffer even more than they already do under laws like Section 498 A and that the ‘Indian family’ will fall apart.

It would seem that these groups, and I presume their members are men, have never heard of domestic violence that includes all forms of physical abuse, including burning the woman who is supposed to be your life partner. That they do not know that for every rape case reported and recorded in the crime statistics, there are hundreds that are never acknowledged. That they do not know that one of the largest incidents of violence against women in India is not what they experience in the public space but within the ostensibly secure reaches of their own homes.

So, publicly we do not discuss marital rape. As a result, the only step the government can think of taking to deal with this crime is to raise the age limit to 18 years. By doing this, it believes it has solved the problem.

If it has recognised the anomaly in the age factor in this ‘exception’ to Section 375, then why can it not understand that the ‘exception’ itself is an anomaly? Why is it a crime only if a woman under 18 is raped by her husband and not a person over that age? In other words, you accept that husbands should not rape their wives, and yet apparently, they can the day the wife turns 18. Does this make any legal sense? To compound the contradictions, the Domestic Violence Act 2005 offers a civil remedy for marital rape and Section 498 A considers “perverse sexual conduct by the husband” as a crime.

The rape cases of Navi Mumbai and TISS, clubbed with the Human Rights Watch report, bring out another set of issues regarding rape. Both these cases caught the attention of the media precisely because they occurred in a large metropolitan city and also because the survivors and the perpetrators were middle-class people. That rape of poor women and minor girls takes place almost every day in cities such as Mumbai is a subject that creates barely a flutter in the media.

But what happens when the case is dismissed? The testimony of the survivor in the TISS case was judged “unreliable” by the court as were the witnesses produced by the prosecution. Hence, the case was dismissed and all the accused released.

IS THIS the full story? When the TISS rape case occurred, the media was literally salivating over it. One newspaper ran the entire FIR filed by the survivor including intimate details about how it was she realised she had been raped. All newspapers published detailed information about the survivor barring her name. Other newspapers gave character certificates to the accused, all “good” boys it would seem, and ran headlines such as, “What was she doing out with six men?” So, even before the case went to court, the survivor’s character was on trial.

For every rape case reported in India, there are hundreds that are never acknowledged

What we do not know yet is whether she and the woman in Navi Mumbai were put through the standard ‘two-finger’ test that continues to be used despite a Supreme Court order that it should be discontinued. What this actually means is that if you are a woman who has been raped in your home or outside, and you work up the courage to go and report to the police, as part of the mandatory medical examination, the doctor on duty will insert two fingers into your vagina to check whether you are “habituated to sexual intercourse” or if your hymen is intact.

Why is this necessary especially when, according to the law, the character of the survivor, and hence a detail such as elasticity of her vagina, is completely immaterial in a rape case? Yet, the reality is that this method continues to be used across the country and one of the reasons, according to the HRW report, is that doctors are still being trained with outdated manuals that recommend this test.

Then, if the case ever makes it to court, you have to contend with a prosecution that might not necessarily be interested in pursuing your case. Ranged against you could be well-paid defence lawyers who can, with ease, pull the prosecution’s case apart if it is not watertight or if it has details such as the outcome of the ‘twofinger’ test. And that is precisely what happens. Nine times out of 10, such cases are dismissed because of lack of evidence, or “unreliable” evidence.

Nine times out of 10, such cases are dismissed due to lack of evidence or ‘unreliable’ proof

AND WHEN you hear that the case has been dismissed, you assume that the survivor lied, and that the charge was false. No one, least of all the newspapers that went to such lengths to pursue the case in the first place, bother to check how or why the case fell apart. It becomes one more statistic in the hands of those who want to beat up every woman who dares to cry “rape” and seek justice.

The government’s decision on amending the section on marital rape is just one more illustration of its refusal to acknowledge the extent of violence women suffer within their homes, or the insurmountable hurdles they face when they try to use laws that contradict each other.

---

(To read the original, click on the link above)

Questions we did not ask

The Hindu, Sunday Magazine, November 14, 2010

THE OTHER HALF

KALPANA SHARMA

Even as we arrive as a super power, are we leaving other Indias behind?

“T ell me, this man, the American President who is here, will his visit help us in India?” asked Srinivas, a driver in a private taxi service in Mumbai.

Srinivas once worked in a paint factory. He had a steady job. In 2003, the factory closed. He was laid off. The compensation offered was unacceptable. For the last seven years, he and 105 others have been fighting in court for their dues. In the meantime, he drives a taxi, at half the salary he earned in the paint factory. What did the recent visit of President Barack Obama mean to people like him?

Srinivas asked this question on the first day of the American President's visit to India. Would he have felt satisfied by the third day when Mr. Obama confirmed that India has “arrived” and is now a “global power”? Or would he still have asked the same question?

Deluding ourselves?

In the afterglow of that affirmation by the world's most powerful man, it is easy for us in India to build around us a world of delusion. An Incredible India. Where there is impressive economic growth. Where there is a burgeoning middle class representing a market that rich countries like America are running after to kick start their own faltering economies. Where we are being sought out and invited to join the top table of powerful nations in the world.

Wonderful as that sounds, there is another India we have to remember, and it is not so incredible. Indeed, even as Air Force One took off from Indian soil carrying President Obama and his wife to Indonesia and other countries, the ugly face of Corrupt India was visible on the floor of the very Parliament where he had spoken the night before. The sheen of Incredible India is considerably dulled in the face of such open corruption. And those who pay the real price for these deals that are now being exposed are the millions rendered invisible by all this talk of India, the Powerful and India, the Incredible.

It is interesting that Michelle Obama, who charmed people with her informality and her genuine way of connecting with people of all ages, made a special point of meeting girls as well as children from disadvantaged homes. Although the headlines caught her dancing with children, in fact she has a more serious interest. As The Washington Post reported, “But the first lady arrived in India with a message that goes beyond dancing. She has made education and women's empowerment the focus of her domestic agenda. The message is particularly powerful in India, where many rural women struggle to be educated and where there are enormous obstacles even for a baby girl to be born.” Yet the Indian media was so fixated on whether the US President would use the “P” word, Pakistan, and condemn it for acts of terror, that we barely noticed that Michelle Obama was making a more relevant statement that applies to the other India, one that did not fit into the main agenda of terror and trade.

The other India is known to the world even if we prefer not to acknowledge it. A day before Air Force One landed in Mumbai, the United Nations Development Programme's 2010 Human Development Report revealed how despite a high economic growth rate, India's position in human development terms remained virtually the same over the last five years, improving only marginally. India is ranked a low 119 out of 148 countries.

An important factor pulling it down is its low Gender Inequality Index. And within that, it was the high rate of maternal mortality that contributed the most to its inability to improve. In other words, the real reason for India's low rank in the human development index is because too many women continue to die while giving birth.

But coming back to the Obama visit, within a day of his arrival, after a meeting with some of the most powerful businessmen from both countries, he announced the $10 billion in business deals that would create over 50,000 jobs in the US. This was clearly catering to his constituency at home which has turned ultra-critical of every move he makes. This is what he said:

“From medical equipment and helicopters to turbines and mining equipment, American companies stand ready to support India's growing economy, the needs of your people, and your ability to defend this nation.  And today's deals will lead to more than 50,000 jobs in the United States — 50,000 jobs.  Everything from high-tech jobs in Southern California to manufacturing jobs in Ohio.” 

But what about jobs for Indians, for men like Srinivas? Will American investment in India create jobs here? Srinivas could not understand why an American President should come to India promoting American business. When he lost his job, a local politician told him that this was the outcome of globalisation. So how will more global capital coming into India help people like him, he wanted to know.

Hard questions

In fact, if you scroll down the list of the business deals, there is precious little in it that represents additional employment opportunities for Indian workers. On the other hand, one of the areas where the US is pushing hard for India to open up to foreign direct investment is the retail business to facilitate the entry of some of its large retail giants like Walmart. Will this not kill the small businesses in the informal sector that survive on tiny margins but make the difference between survival and starvation for millions of Indians? Should we not be asking these questions?

In a few days, the Obama visit will be off the front pages. In fact, it already is. But the problems of poverty, of our pathetic gender inequality index, of our unemployment, of our iniquitous growth remain. During those three hectic days, when the media reported every word, murmur and move of the US President and his wife, these stories found no place on the table. Yet, India will not “arrive” until these stories are told, until these problems are addressed, with or without the help of other nations.

(To read the original, click on the link above)

After the hysteria

The Hoot

Second Take

By Kalpana Sharma

Namaste Obama, So Long Obama.  And now, for the rest of the news. 

For three days, news died in India.  There was only one story, the first visit of President Barack Obama to India.  For three days, that is all you saw.  Obama landing, Obama walking down the steps of Air Force One, Maharashtra CM Ashok Chavan greeting him (with TV channels immediately speculating whether he broke protocol) and the President’s helicopter, Marine One, making its way through the Mumbai smog toward the Taj Mahal Hotel. 

Did Indian news television channels need to give the US President’s visit such “blanket” coverage and a “ball-by-ball” commentary?

It is evident that it is the nature of this coverage, and the compulsion to keep up the chatter and micro-analyze everything, that led to the extraordinary turn of events within an hour of Obama’s arrival.  His 10-minute speech at the Taj Mahal Hotel at a function to commemorate the victims of 26/11 sprouted the most amazing instant analysis. Usually, you comment on what a person says.  But the media took off on what Obama did not say, that he did not take the “P” word, did not name Pakistan specifically as being responsible for the 26/11 terror attack.  Given that the journalists anchoring the shows were experienced, should have been aware of diplomacy, geopolitics and the fact that it was highly unlikely that a domestically beleaguered American President was going to launch an attack on Pakistan within minutes of landing in India, it was an entertaining spectacle to watch practically every channel taking off on this issue.

And of course, the over-the-top and instant response by the Bharatiya Janata Party’s Rudi Pratap Singh that was later retracted was probably partly as a result of this concerted harangue by the television channels.

By the end of the third day, NDTV virtually acknowledged that the media might have been a little too obsessive on the Pakistan question and demanding that the US President name Pakistan.  Other channels were not so honest.  In fact, Times Now just stopped short of patting itself on the back when Obama finally uttered the “P” word!

Arnab Goswami of Times Now was, of course, his predictable and entertaining self.  On the first day, the channel kept flashing how the US President was “soft on terror”.  True to style, for the first two days, the channel kept up its tirade about why Obama was not naming Pakistan despite the sentiments of “the people of India”. By day three, and after President Obama’s address to the joint Houses of Parliament, the channel did an about turn.  Suddenly, Goswami decided that this was indeed a “historic” visit and went to the extent of saying that he believed that Obama was a “hawk”!  All this because the American President finally obliged by using the “P” word!

The other issue that media focused on to the exclusion of almost everything else was whether the US would back India’s attempt to become a permanent member of the UN Security Council.  If you listened to some of the discussions on this, and were uninformed about the complexities of the UN system, you would be led to believe that all it needed was a nod from the United States for this to happen.  As a result, when the US President did say in his speech to Parliament that the US would welcome India’s entry into the Security Council, people would have thought that this was the end of the story.  The fact that even this endorsement by the US President is only part of a long and complex process that does not guarantee India a seat barely came across. 

If the Indian media obsessed about the fact that the US President did not use the “P” word, it completely missed the fact that he did not use the “C” word, or China.  As far as the region is concerned, and the economies of both India and the US, China looms large and extremely important on the horizon and simply cannot be ignored in any discussion on the future of the world economy.  The Indian media’s focus on Pakistan detracts completely from an important and informed debate that is needed on China.

While there was routine reporting of the $10 billion in business deals that were struck on the very first day between Indian and American businesses, there was no time to analyze what they actually mean for India because the chatter on the television channels – barring the business channels -- was almost exclusively on the Pakistan factor.  President Obama used the business deals to speak to his constituency at home by emphasizing the 50,000 jobs these deals would create.  But how many jobs will they create in India?  No one asked that question.

It is interesting that at least some American newspapers reported the demonstrations by the Bhopal victims about the failure of the US to help in the extradition of Warren Anderson of Union Carbide.  Again, an important issue like this that actually speaks to the absence of adequate regulation in the early years when American companies did set up shop in India was not addressed in the media discussion at all.

Against the background of the agrarian crisis in India, Obama’s promise of another green revolution – an “evergreen” revolution – with the help of American agro-technology was acknowledged by just one channel that thought this important enough.  NewsX invited Devinder Sharma, a specialist in this area, to comment on the issue of American technology and the Indian economy.

And although President Obama did mention climate change in his speech to Parliament, there was practically no discussion on it on the news channels.  Yet, anyone who has followed this issue knows how crucial is the role of the US.  With a Republican majority in the House of Representatives, there could be more problems pushing through legislation in the US to cut down greenhouse gases.  Climate change affects our agriculture, our climate patterns, and the livelihood of millions of people dependent on natural resources.  Yet, it featured nowhere in the television discussions.

But coming back to the first question: was such blanket coverage really necessary? The US President has announced that India has “arrived” as a “global power”.  TV pundits kept emphasizing that the equation between India and the US has now changed and we are now on a more equal footing.  Yet, if you look at the media coverage of the Obama visit, you would wonder.

(To read the original, click on the link above)

Judges, judgments and women's rights

The Hindu, Sunday Magazine, October 31, 2010

THE OTHER HALF

KALPANA SHARMA

When it comes to women's issues and the law, the courts continue to send contradictory signals…

---

As much as police officers, doctors also need to be taught a rape survivor's rights.

---

Photo: Vipin Chandran 

Speaking out in anguish:Indira Jaisingh.

Two courts. Two judgments. Two attitudes. In the contrast lies the story of what Indian women continue to face when they turn to the law.

On October 21, the Supreme Court, in the context of a case before it, held that a woman in a “live-in relationship” could not claim maintenance in the event of abandonment by the man as such a relationship could not pass as a “relationship in the nature of marriage” as described under the law for arrangements outside formal marriage. The Court held that if the woman was a “keep” of the man, who looked after her financially but “uses mainly for sexual purpose and/or as a servant”, then such a woman was exempted from claiming any benefits of maintenance under the Protection of Women Against Domestic Violence Act 2005 on grounds of abandonment.

The ruling led to a justifiable outburst by India's first woman Additional Solicitor General Indira Jaisingh, who also happens to be one of the main movers of the Domestic Violence Act. Ms. Jaisingh ticked off the judges for using a term like “keep” which she held was derogatory to women and was “male chauvinistic”.

Wrong precedent?

Ms. Jaisingh's statements in court made it to the front pages of most newspapers. But one wonders how many will pause and think about why she felt she had to raise her voice at the use of such a term in the judgment. It was, as she herself emphasised, because the ruling of the Supreme Court sets a tone and a precedent for future judgments that affect women. One of its judgments in what is called the Vishakha case is even today used as the standard for judging all matters relating to sexual harassment in the absence of a specific law. By using a term like “keep”, you disregard and virtually excuse the responsibility of the man in an arrangement in which two people are involved and where one, the woman, is most likely the more vulnerable. Once this becomes the precedent, any man can go to court and challenge the right of a woman with whom he has a relationship outside marriage, and who demands compensation when abandoned, by claiming that she was merely his “keep”. Therefore, Ms. Jaisingh's intervention needs to be appreciated, as also her courage for speaking out in the highest court of the land where some others might have felt intimidated.

Apart from the Vishakha judgment, the Supreme Court has also passed several orders that make it clear that in a rape case, the woman's character will not be part of the proceedings during the trial and that it is immaterial to the case. This is also an important precedent in the context of women's rights. Yet, as is evident from another judgment, in another court in Delhi, the practice continues.

Pronouncing judgment in a rape case on October 23, Additional Sessions Judge Kamini Lau drew attention to an outdated and barbaric practice that continues to be used in rape cases while collecting forensic evidence. Rather than help the survivor, this particular test, called the “finger test” or the Per Vagina (PV) test, traumatises the survivor and gives the defence in such cases a stick with which to intimidate and demoralise her in court.

When a woman reports rape, she has to go to the police who then send her to a government hospital for a medical examination. The report by the doctor who conducts this test is supposed to be part of the medico-legal evidence that the prosecution presents in a rape case. Yet, although such a test has long been discarded elsewhere, in India doctors are trained to test whether the rape survivor is “habituated to sexual intercourse” by inserting two fingers inside her vagina. Why is this of any relevance to a case where the facts of rape and sexual assault are being determined? Does this mean married women cannot be raped? Does it mean an unmarried woman who has had sex cannot be raped? What does this absurd test actually establish when the woman's character, or sexual habits, are of no consequence in the matter before the court?

It is heartening to read of at least one judge who was incensed enough to speak out against this test. Judge Lau said, “The test is violative of the fundamental right to privacy of the victim.” She went on to say, “State action cannot be a threat to the constitutional right of an individual. What has shocked my conscience is that this test is being carried out in a routine manner on victims of sexual offences (even minors) by doctors.”

The judge recommended that police officers be sensitised to this issue. But as much as police officers, doctors also need to be taught a survivor's rights and informed that such a test is simply not allowed. According to a recent report by Human Rights Watch titled, “Dignity on Trial: India's Need for Sound Standards for Conducting and Interpreting Forensic Examinations of Rape Survivors”, the “finger test” remains standard practice in many parts of India including Mumbai and Delhi. In fact, in Mumbai, three leading government hospitals, where hundreds of rape survivors are examined each year, still use this test.

The HRW report also reveals that outdated medical textbooks recommending this test are still being used. As a result, each succeeding generation of doctors continue to follow the practice without thinking twice about its relevance or the trauma they are causing the rape survivor.

Intimidating practice

Worse still, because the practice continues, many survivors lose their cases in court because they get demoralised, confused or intimidated when sections from the medical report relating to this test are used by the defence to undermine their testimony. Yet, the survivor's testimony is supposed to be enough in a rape case and the forensic evidence is only secondary. This is especially so because survivors often wait before they go to the police and as a result valuable evidence is lost. As a result, several court rulings have emphasised that delay in filing a complaint should not be held against the survivor.

Judge Kamini Lau has drawn attention to an extremely important aspect of the procedures followed in rape cases. Unless something like this is addressed urgently, convictions in rape cases, already abysmally low, will never improve. And women who are sexually assaulted will continue to hesitate before turning to the law.

 
(Click on the link above to read the original)

Conflicting interests: After FIFA and the Commonwealth Games

The questions being asked in South Africa after the FIFA World Cup are similar to those raised in India before, during and after the Commonwealth Games. Who really benefits from these mega events? The people or only the contractors? Transparency International states that public works and construction are the most corrupt sector in the world, says Kalpana Sharma

 

The Commonwealth Games are over but what have they left behind?  Controversies.  Scandals of corruption.  Stories about shoddy workmanship.  “World class” sports facilities.  A Games Village, that went from dirty and unlivable to tolerable in one week, for sale.  The list is long and by now familiar.

But the relevant question to ask is in terms of what such an extravaganza does for the city or cities in which it is located.  Does it really upgrade the infrastructure so that all residents benefit?  Or does it create white elephants at the expense of the exchequer that will take decades to recover the initial investment apart from on-going maintenance costs that will further drain resources?

These are some of the questions that South Africans are asking.  They raised them before the successful FIFA World Cup 2010 matches were held there in June/July this year.  And they are still asking them after the fun and frenzy of the World Cup has subsided and life has returned to normal.

Take Johannesburg, for instance.  Soccer City, the striking looking football stadium was constructed in the heart of Soweto, the township of urban poor known best for its rebellion and uprising at the height of the apartheid regime in 1976.  On June 16 that year, hundreds of school children had dared the police and came out on the road and protested against the imposition of Afrikaans as the medium of instruction.  Amongst those shot dead by the South African police was 12-year-old Hector Pieterson, in whose memory a museum has now been erected.

Soccer is the game of townships like Soweto.  The people there are passionate about it.  Much as kids play cricket in this country on any open space they can find, in South Africa, and townships like Soweto, soccer is played.  Yet, even though Soccer City is visible from most parts of Soweto, an ordinary soccer fan from that township would not have been able to watch a live match there.  Why?  Because you could only buy tickets on the Internet with a credit card.  Poor people have neither.

That was only one of the problems.  Although most South Africans are proud that the one month of matches passed seamlessly without any incidents and everyone who visited South Africa had nothing but praise for the facilities, the urban poor cannot help but wonder if the funds could have been better used.

For apart from being denied the chance to watch matches, the areas around stadia like Soccer City were sanitized so that no informal vendor could sell goods anywhere in the vicinity.  With its high levels of unemployment, one of the only forms of livelihood available to poor people in South Africa is selling goods on the street.  You see vendors everywhere you go, often sitting on a box with a tray full of a variety of goods.  This is no different from the options facing the urban poor in this country.  Yet, street vendors were barred from selling anywhere near the stadia and oddly, the ban continues and will stay until December.

A stone’s throw away from Soccer City is one of the many tin shack settlements where the poor live. Fifteen years back, the entire area looked like that.  These are slums not very different from many of our in cities like Mumbai.  Although South Africa has made a herculean effort to deal with housing for the urban poor, something that this country can certainly learn from, there is still a great deal to be done.  And the contrasts are only too visible.

One of the plus points of the investment surrounding the FIFA World Cup was the investment in public transport, something that has a direct benefit for the poorest.  The total amount spent on enhancing transport systems in the different cities where stadia were built or refurbished exceeded what was spent on the sporting facilities. You can see evidence of this in the new Bus Rapid Transport System (BRTS) introduced in Johannesburg, a city that has no bus system.  The only way poor people can travel is by “taxi”, a privately-owned mini-bus with around 12 seats that runs on the main roads and picks up passengers at crossroads.  Because of the World Cup, this system has also been streamlined with large terminals where people can go and pick up a taxi ride to their destination.  As a result, even if poor people still live outside city limits, a legacy of the apartheid era where under the Group Areas Act people from the different races could not live in the same locality, they can commute more easily to their jobs in the city than they could in the past.  But it is still not easy and if there is anger at the slow pace of change, it is not entirely surprising.

But the questions being asked in South Africa several months after the FIFA World Cup are similar to those raised in this country before, during and now after the Commonwealth Games.  Who really benefits from these mega events?  Do people benefit or only the contractors?

The answers to those questions are also strikingly similar in India and South Africa.  A fascinating monograph, brought out in the run-up to the FIFA World Cup, exposes the extent of corruption, crony capitalism and nepotism that was an integral part of the construction frenzy that preceded that event.  “Player and Referee: Conflicting interests and the 2010 FIFA World Cup”, edited by Collette Schulz Hersenberg[i], points out that according to Transparency International (TI), the extent to which corruption is concealed is directly related to the size of projects.  In TI’s “Bribe Payers Index 2002”, public works and the construction sector were identified as the most corrupt in the world.  It estimated that the amount lost worldwide due to corruption just in infrastructure procurement was in the region of US$3,200 billion a year.

Several other interesting points emerge from this monograph.  One, that the corruption disease is not restricted to poorer countries or emerging economies like South Africa or India.  Even the 2006 FIFA World Cup held in Germany threw up a corruption scandal involving the president of one of the hosting clubs.  The very size of the event and the temptation to exploit the contract system to benefit friends and family, are tendencies that are universal, it would appear.

The second point that would have a resonance to the situation in India is how one maintains and covers the on-going costs of expensive stadia.  According to the editor of the monograph, some of the stadia built for the 2002 FIFA World Cup in Japan and South Korea could not be maintained and ultimately had to be demolished.  In South Africa, similar questions are already being asked about Soccer City in Gauteng and Green Point in Cape Town. 

And third, whether these mega events actually yield economic benefits to the host country as is projected before the event.  The story from South Africa is that FIFA made more than the government of South Africa.  In India, we will have to see whether the contractors from outside India made profits far in excess of anything India gained from hosting the Commonwealth Games.  Certainly in South Africa, local people did not benefit.  For instance, despite South Africa producing many different brands of beer, the FIFA contractual terms restricted the sale of beer to only one brand, and that too an imported one. 

The bottom line in any city, particularly in cities in South Africa or India, is how one sets priorities for development.  If mega events such as these do not boost the local economy, only marginally contribute to urban development by way of additional transport infrastructure, and divert funds from the more pressing issues, such as housing for the poor, are they worth it?  Whose image do they boost, especially if corruption in every deal seems to be the inescapable hallmark of all such events?

The scorecard on Delhi after the Commonwealth Games has yet to be prepared.  It is fairly apparent already, that no one is going to win any gold medals in the Organising Committee and perhaps even in the Delhi government.  And citizens of the national capital – all citizens and not just those who could afford to buy tickets to the events – will have to decide whether in the end their lives have been made easier, have remained the same, or become even more stressful after this showpiece mega event. 

---

[i] Monograph 169, Published by Institute of Security Studies, Pretoria, South Africa

(To read the original, click on the link above)

NDTV gets it right

The Hoot

Second Take

NDTV did a brave thing on October 14.  On a day when Karnataka Chief Minister was exulting over having won the vote of confidence in the Assembly and the Commonwealth Games were winding up, at prime time the channel telecast an environmental story.  It was not just another environmental story.  It was one that hardly anyone had reported.

On August 15, Nand Aparajita, a 78-metre long cargo ship belonging to Essar Shipping floundered off the coast of Kavaratti island in the Lakshadweep and was grounded.  Since then it has been sitting there, buffeted by strong waves even as efforts to salvage it flounder because of the weather.  The ship was carrying 35,000 tonnes of cement that has now been off loaded.  Fortunately, it had very little oil by the time it ran ashore and that has also been removed. 

Any shipwreck is a disaster but an accident off Lakshadweep is especially tragic even though no one was killed. This is because the Lakshadweep is one of the most fragile ecosystems and is one of the global biodiversity hotspots. These islands consist of 12 atolls, 3 reefs and 5 submerged banks apart from 36 islands with an area of just 32 sq km.  Only 10 islands are inhabited and Kavaratti is the administrative centre.  The coral reefs of Lakshadweep are some of the best preserved in the world displaying an awe-inspiring array of biodiversity and are the only living coral reefs in India.

Significantly, a few days before this accident, the MSC Chitra collided with MV Khalijia near Mumbai.  The former was carrying oil and pesticide and as a result an estimated 800 tons of oil spilt into the sea.  Marine life was affected, as were mangroves.  The media gave it detailed coverage including efforts to clean up the oil.  The story has now disappeared from the radar but the effects of that oil spill will still be playing out.  Thus, the story is far from over.

The Lakshadweep accident is also an on-going story.  There is the environmental cost of the damaged coral that has yet to be estimated.  There are the long-term costs of further damage if the ship is not salvaged soon.  And there are linked stories about pollution, construction, tourism, global warming and other factors that are already stressing coral reefs around these islands.  In other words, an accident that the shipping company dismisses as minor because it has not resulted in a major oil spill could actually open the way for a larger environmental crisis. The coral reefs are the only protection for the islands from erosion. If they are damaged, life on the islands would be severely affected. 

Coverage of many events is still determined by physical proximity even though today media houses have far better resources to be able to send their journalists out to follow up on stories even in remoter locations.  The pity is that the Indian media continues to function within a very narrow geographical area – usually around the national capital, state capitals and a few other important cities.  The rest of the country only appears on the radar when a disaster of what they consider major proportions takes place.  Then too it is covered and forgotten.

Therefore, full credit must go to NDTV for following up on this story that could otherwise be easily forgotten.  For every one story like this, there are dozens waiting to be reported.

We are so cavalier in our approach to nature in this country.  The media will take up the bigger campaigns, the tiger, elephant corridors etc.  But the environment is damaged daily by such occurrences, ships that get wrecked off our shores and are allowed to remain there until they break apart.  For instance, in Goa, the MV River Princess, a 240 metres long cargo ship belonging to the Salgaocar Shipping Company, ran aground near Fort Aguada in June 2000.  Yet 10 years later, the ship continues to be in the water and nothing is being done.  Meanwhile, it has altered the tidal pattern and damaged the popular beach of Sinquerim-Candolim.

An interesting aspect of the Lakshadweep story is the effort by the administration to keep media away.  Why?  NDTV quoted from a letter written by the Indian Broadcasters’ Association to the islands’ administration which stated: “The capricious denial of entry to journalists directly and immediately impedes their right to carry on their profession and violates the free speech guarantee contained in the Constitution.  Above all, such action on the part of your administration deprives the people at large of their ‘right to know’ about the goings on in their own country by receiving news from all over.”  As a result of such an intervention, the ban was removed.  Yet not many journalists have rushed to cover the story.

Apart from the on-going environmental angle, this reason behind the media ban needs to be investigated. Who prompted the island administration to ban the media?  What was it afraid of?  Are there other developmental activities taking place in the Lakshadweep that are also impacting the environment?

NDTV should follow up all these aspects after this important exclusive.

(To read the original, click on the link above and if you want to see what is meant by "living coral" click here)

In a class of our own

The Hindu, Sunday Magazine, October 3, 2010

THE OTHER HALF

KALPANA SHARMA

The Commonwealth Games fiasco, more than anything else, has exposed the hypocrisy of our attitudes…

---

If toilets for the athletes were filthy, think of the 665 million Indians who do not have a toilet.

---

Photo: Kamal Narang 

Reality check:The collapsed foot-over bridge near the Jawaharlal Nehru Stadium.

The Commonwealth Games have begun — and the common man or woman must wonder what all the fuss is about. Why has the media, those consuming the media, politicians, athletes, sports officials from around the Commonwealth, and even the Prime Minister and the Cabinet, been so hugely engaged in a 10-day event in one city in India? How does what happens over these 10 days make such a difference to the lives of India's 1.2 billion?

Yes, there has been huge corruption, the details of which will emerge once the games end. But is that new or all that surprising? Yes, the work is shoddy and the finish sub-standard. Yes, the toilets were filthy, liberally decorated with paan spit and stray dogs had a grand time. Is that so unusual? How and when did we delude ourselves into believing that things are now done differently in India? Merely because of the Delhi Metro or a handful of airports? Incidentally, systems even at these posh airports have broken down. Visit the toilets in the sparkling Mumbai domestic airport at night and you will see what is evident in the majority of public toilets around India.

Wrong lessons

We are drawing the wrong lessons from Commonwealth Games mess. We are told India's “image” has been damaged. That we should hang our heads in shame now. Why? Because we did not match up to the expectation of being “world class”, whatever that means? That we did not manage to put across to the world that India has changed, that it is now an efficient, non-corrupt, functioning democracy?

In my view, the Commonwealth Games fiasco is a much-needed reality check for us. It has not only exposed that we are a long way from being “world class”, but it has also reminded us that we remain a corrupt society and that our standards of efficiency, leave alone cleanliness — whatever Lalit Bhanot might think — are unacceptable.

If toilets for the athletes were filthy, think of the 665 million Indians who do not have a toilet. If the buildings where the athletes are housed are sub-standard, think of the millions who are without a roof over their heads. If some of the homeless get houses, courtesy the government, or some private builder availing a scheme, they usually leak, are lower than sub-standard and look like ancient relics within a few years of completion. Drive around Mumbai and you will see “new” buildings, constructed for the poor that already look decades old.

But more than the sub-standard structures that have apparently brought such disgrace to India, we should be worried about sub-standard attitudes. Why is no one really concerned about the workers injured when a foot overbridge collapses? Why do we know nothing about the workers who built these “world class” facilities, where did they come from, and what happens to them now that the work has ended? If some of them are guilty of having messed up the toilets, do we know whether they had access to sanitation, or even clean drinking water, where they lived for months, perhaps years, as they slaved over these “world class” facilities?

And then there is corruption. Blatant. In your face. Yet, we cannot forget that the real price for the deep-rooted corruption in this country is being borne by the poorest, those without the ability to pay their way.

In the welter of the scandals emerging every day from the Games, an important report on the real picture of India's maternal mortality rate was lost in the fine print. “No Tally for the Anguish” is based on a study by Human Rights Watch on the conditions women face in Uttar Pradesh when they seek help during and after pregnancy. The stories are chilling. They speak of women dying as they are pushed around from one facility to another, of husbands begging doctors and nurses to treat their dying wives, of petty corruption at every level that exacerbates an already scandalously high death rate amongst Indian women.

Other realities

One such story, which I quote below, will suffice as an illustration:

“One man I know had taken his wife for delivery to the CHC. He had sold 10 kilos of wheat that he had bought to get money to bring his wife for delivery. He had some 200-300 rupees [US$4-6]. Now in the CHC they asked him for a minimum of 500 rupees [US$10]. Another 50 [rupees] to cut the cord and 50 [rupees] for the sweeper. So he started begging and saying he did not have more money and that they should help for his wife's delivery. I... asked them why they were demanding money. The nurse started giving us such dirty [verbal] abuses that even I was getting embarrassed and wanted to leave. You imagine how an ordinary person must feel who wants help. –Activist from a local non-governmental organisation in Uttar Pradesh, March 2, 2009.”

And finally, the differing standards of hygiene that Lalit Bhanot so famously spoke of when those inspecting the site mentioned how appalled they were to see a member of the staff urinating in the public area. Well, here is a reality that even the most skilled managers of an event in India will not be able to hide. And although a part of the problem does arise from the lack of toilets — not all of it does as far as Indian men are concerned. For some reason, regardless of facilities available, the nearest wall is the favoured spot for urinating.

A recent study on women and sanitation in the slums in Mumbai by the activist group Jan Jagruti revealed that while men can use pay public toilets free of cost if they want to urinate, women must pay one rupee each time they use it. Yet, you see only men urinating in public and not women.

Long way to go

I know these are not pleasant subjects to write about when we are trying to project an image of ourselves as “world class”. But every time I hear that phrase, I shudder at our rank hypocrisy. How can a country where children die within days of being born, mothers die while giving birth to babies, millions die from communicable diseases, malaria and dengue are even today wreaking havoc in many parts of the country, still continue to harp on growth rate and some illusory standard of “world class”?

I hope some of our athletes, who in non-Games times are not given anything resembling the facilities available in Delhi now, do well in these games. And I hope that when the Games end, heads do roll and the men who have made this mess are held accountable.

But more than anything, I hope the Commonwealth Games drama will make many of us who live in comfortable homes in India's cities spare a thought to those who build our homes, those who clean them, those who have no homes, no toilets, no access to healthcare, no food and little work. That is the real India. And I don't know what “class” it is but it is a far cry from the concept of “world class” that we have been bombarded with for the last many months.

(To read the original, click on the link above)

Should journalists apologise?

The Hoot


Are reporters, who fall for police and IB plants and happily give chapter and verse on the lives of individuals suspected of terror links, bound to apologise if they are proved wrong?  Does anyone bother to find out what happens to those who are picked up, wonders KALPANA SHARMA

“Is the media becoming increasingly susceptible to police plants?” This is the question The Hoot has posted on this site. It will be interesting to know the results of the survey, particularly if any journalists covering the police take part in the survey.   Run these results alongside the letter of protest by Siddharth Vardarajan, National Bureau Chief of The Hindu, to the jury that gave the Indian News Broadcasting Award to Neeta Sharma of NDTV India. Vardarajan pointed out in his letter that Sharma was the reporter who wrote a false story inHindustan Times in 2002 claiming that Iftikhar Gilani, Chief of Bureau of Kashmir Times in Delhi, had admitted in court that he was an ISI agent. The story, obviously a plant, appeared even as journalists were consolidating their support for Gilani. Because of this report, and others like this, Gilani ended up in jail for nine months where he was tortured and his family suffered terrible humiliation. Although the paper for which Sharma wrote did apologise to Gilani, the reporter did not. Vardarajan states in his letter, “I hope that even at this late stage, you as jury members can either find a way to withdraw this award or at least shame Neeta Sharma into acknowledging that the basic code of a good reporter involves respecting the truth and having the decency to say sorry when you make a grave mistake.”   For those interested in this particular case, it is also worth reading Gilani's comment on Sharma getting the award and seeing his power point presentation of the media coverage during the time when he was charged and incarcerated. So are reporters, who fall for police and IB plants and happily give chapter and verse on the lives of individuals suspected of terror links, bound to apologise if they are proved wrong? I suspect if this became the norm, more than one prominent journalist would have to do this.   After every so-called terror attack, the police round up suspects and question them. Sometimes their identities are not revealed to the press and only people in the neighbourhood where these men live know that they have been picked up. At other times, publicity hungry police in some states, run to the media every time they have some incremental piece of information on a terror plot and reveal that they have caught the “mastermind”, only to backtrack a few weeks, months or even years later when another “mastermind” is caught. But has anyone bothered to find out what happens to the men who are picked up, questioned, possibly tortured and finally let off if they happen to be lucky enough to find a lawyer who will take up their case and prove their innocence or at least establish that the police does not have a case? Nine times out of ten, this does not happen. Iftikhar Gilani was based in Delhi, worked for a prominent Kashmiri newspaper and therefore got some help. But what of scores of others like him?   Take the curious case of the Mecca Masjid blast on May 18, 2007 in Hyderabad. Initially the police said they were certain it was the work of the Harkat-ul-Jihadi Islami (HuJI). Around 60 young Muslims were arrested on suspicion, one of their ostensible crimes being viewing DVDs depicting the demolition of the Babri Masjid in 1992 and scenes from the Gujarat riots. Thanks to the intervention of a human rights group and their lawyer, the men were released and the police admitted it did not have any evidence against them. Meantime, three years after the blast, with no leads, the possibility of the involvement of Hindutva groups like the ones held responsible for the Malegaon blasts is now being investigated.   But what about those 60 men who were wrongly implicated? Who will compensate for their loss of reputation at being labeled terrorist? Will the journalists and the newspapers that perpetuated this theory apologise?   The most recent such case was that of Samad Bhatkal. On May 25 this year, the Maharashtra Anti-Terrorism Squad (ATS) picked him up from Mangalore airport when he returned from Dubai. He was called “suspected terrorist” in the early reports and a “co-conspirator” in the Mumbai terror attack. He was also written of as a “prize catch” in the Pune blast case of February this year. Yet when the police produced him in court to get custody, only an arms seizure case of 2009 was mentioned in the remand application in which they claimed Bhatkal was involved in supplying arms to three persons in South Mumbai in 2009. Bhatkal got bail on June 15 and was finally released three weeks later when the police admitted that they had no evidence to hold him any longer.   We know Gilani's story because he is our colleague, a fellow journalist, and based in the national capital. And he has written a book, “My days in prison” that should be made compulsory reading for budding journalists so that they understand how even in a democracy laws like the Official Secrets Act can be misused and how being in the media cannot protect you. If Gilani's is the story of a man with some influence, what about those without, who are picked up for “routine” questioning? How many more Samad Bhatkal's are there in each of our cities and do we in the media bother about them, follow up on their stories when the police drops these cases without acknowledging that they made a mistake?   And now we have the Jama Masjid shooting and once again, even as the police is taking care to say they do not know, “sources” in the police and intelligence are already telling journalists that this is a “terror” attack and is the “handiwork” of the Indian Mujahideen (IM). “The modus operandi in the firing, which left two Taiwanese tourists injured, carries the signature of Indian Mujahideen, home ministry sources said,” reported DNA on September 19. Similar reports have appeared elsewhere including an edit in The Hinduthat states, “Police believe the attack was most likely carried out by one of the Lashkar-e-Taiba-linked cells that are collectively referred to as the Indian Mujahideen”.   The alleged email sent by the IM is already being accepted as genuine. Curiously, even though nowhere in the mail is there a claim that the IM carried out the shootout, many in the media seem to have jumped to that conclusion. Over the next days the drama will unfold with “highly placed sources” placing different versions of what happened, who was responsible, whether the explosion in the car was really a crude bomb etc. As in previous cases, “suspects” will be rounded up for questioning and perhaps soon a “mastermind” will be found.   The police face a difficult task cracking such cases. No one doubts that. But the question we in the media have to continue asking is how we deal with the piecemeal information we are fed? For instance, should we publish the mugshots of suspects rounded up by the police - photographs that the police provide - even though there is now a considerable record of the number of times the police have been wrong in such cases? Don't these individuals also have the right to protect their privacy? And when we are proved wrong, should we not acknowledge the mistake and issue a correction, if not an apology?   There are far too many uncomfortable questions before us in the media and we cannot overlook them. Even if this cannot form the subject of a general debate, surely within our own newsrooms the issue can be discussed and some kind of code formulated for such reportage. The credibility of the media has already touched rock bottom with the “paid news” phenomenon. Add to that the “plant news” aspect and you wonder why readers should believe anything that appears in the media.

(Click on the link above to read the article on The Hoot website)