Editorials hindi vocab included 5/12/2015

The Hindu

Ending politics of remission

The verdict of a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court on legal questions relating to grant(अनुमति देना) of remission( माफी) to life convicts(अपराधी) exposes the haste( तेज़ी) with which the Tamil Nadu government acted in February 2014 in seeking to release the seven persons serving life terms for plotting to assassinate Rajiv Gandhi in 1991. The court’s finding that the Central government has primacy( प्रमुखता) in according remission to life convicts in a case of this nature is a political setback(असफलता) to Chief Minister Jayalalithaa. It was apparent( प्रत्यक्ष) that she wanted to be seen as a champion of Tamil rights rather than the stern(कठोर या निर्दय) opponent of terrorism that she was believed to be. In token compliance( पालन) with a statutory(कानूनी) requirement, she wrote to the Centre, giving just three days’ time for its opinion on their release. Alarmed by the thought of Rajiv Gandhi’s killers being freed, the then United Progressive Alliance government rushed(झटपट दौड़) to the Supreme Court to stall(टालना) the process. Thus, the humanitarian(मानवीय) question whether convicts who had only been accessories(अतिरिक्त) in the LTTE’s assassination( हत्या) plot should languish(दुर्बल) in prison even after 23 years was converted into a political issue. It became embroiled(आपत्ति में डालना, व्याकुल करना) in technical questions that were referred to a Constitution Bench. The validity of the Tamil Nadu government’s decision will be decided separately by a regular bench.

However, the larger significance here is that the court has barred(बाधित) State governments from invoking(आह्वान) their statutory remission power for the premature(अपरिपक्व) release of those sentenced by a High Court or the Supreme Court to a specified term above 14 years without remission. It has rejected the theory that every convict, even those facing life-long incarceration(जेल में बन्द करना), will have to be offered a ‘ray of hope’, placing the interests of the victims of murder above those of the perpetrators(अपराधी). It indicates that those whose death sentences are altered to life terms will have to spend the rest of their life in prison. At the same time, it has kept a small door open for life convicts by declaring that one who had got the benefit of commutation( परिवर्तन) of death sentence to life is not barred from getting remission from the executive. In any case, it has said the constitutional powers of the President and the Governor for grant of clemency( क्षमा) remain untouched. The State government will now have to get the concurrence( सम्मिलन) of the Centre in cases investigated by Central agencies before it can use its power of remission to release convicts. Also, the sentences they are undergoing must be for crimes relating to subjects falling under the Union government’s executive powers. The court rejected the idea that a State government can remit prison terms on its own without following the prescribed procedure. A lesson to be drawn from this episode is that the release of prisoners ought to be dealt with on merits on a case-by-case basis by following statutory procedures and not through whimsical(मनमौजी) or partisan(समर्थक) acts of political misadventure.

The Hindu
Myanmar’s best hope

Aung San Suu Kyi’s meetings with Myanmar’s President Thein Sein and military chief General Min Aung Hlaing, nearly a month after her party’s resounding (ज़बर्दस्त) election win, are highly significant, given the tumultuous(उग्र) civil-military relations in the Southeast Asian nation. Ms. Suu Kyi had reportedly asked for these meetings immediately after the polls. But the delay had triggered some concerns over whether the still-powerful military would accept the election result and let her National League for Democracy form the next government, which is expected to assume office on March 31. A presidential spokesperson later allayed( शांत करना) the concerns, saying both leaders had discussed a “smooth transition(परिवर्तन ) and transfer of power to the newly elected government”. While the military-backed government’s reassurance(समझाना) that it is committed to political transition is welcome, the process of transition and building a constitutional framework for the new government could turn out to be a cumbersome(जटिल) process. That is mainly because the military is unlikely to be willing to cede(आत्मसमर्पण करना,  त्याग करना) full control to the civilian government. The military-written Constitution bars Ms. Suu Kyi from becoming the President because her children are not Burmese, and it reserves key Ministries, including defence, interior and border security, for the military. Gen. Aung Hlaing has already said there would not be any change in the Constitution to let Ms. Suu Kyi become the President. She has, on the other hand, vowed to lead the government “whether or not” she is the President.

Ms. Suu Kyi is the best hope Myanmar has at this point of time. She is a stout( मजबूत) democrat and widely popular, and her party has a legitimate mandate to lead the country, which faces several problems from poverty to ethnic(धर्म या भाषा की विरासत से संबद्ध) conflict. One of the reasons the military agreed to a transition to a more democratic set-up was the realisation that it could not rule the country with an iron fist(मुठ्ठी)”( To rule with an iron fist is to harshly punish anyone or thing that bends the law at all. There are no technicalities, and there are no mercies granted)” forever. Despite years of suppression(प्रतिबंध), the political opposition has been resolute. Besides, the internal dynamics(गतिशील) of the Myanmar society remain fragile(मुलायम). The Rohingya community, Muslims castigated( तिरस्कार करना) as illegal immigrants, have been widely discriminated against by sections of the Buddhist majority. The government’s efforts to end the civil war with ethnic groups through negotiated agreements were only partially successful as rebels in the region bordering China refused to sign ceasefire pacts in October. The country also faces a huge economic challenge. What Myanmar needs now is a leader who can unify the people and take the country to a new era of social and political democracy. A large number of people inside and outside the country believe that, under the circumstances Ms. Suu Kyi may be the best person to take up the challenge. But the question is whether the generals would let her do it. For her part, Ms. Suu Kyi needs to be more forthright( स्पष्टवादी) in articulating(  स्पष्ट रूप से कहना) an inclusive agenda, for example vis-à-vis the Rohingya, that addresses ethnic tensions, and gives democracy in Myanmar a stronger chance.

Business Standard

Beating(आघात) domestic( देशी) violence

A new report from the Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation titled Women and Men in India – 2015 confirmed one of the country’s worst(सबसे बेकार)-kept secrets: that gender inequality begins and flourishes in the Indian home. One of the most depressing points is that more than a third of registered cases of serious crimes against women – the largest share – came under the category of “cruelty by husband and relatives”. This evidence, if any were needed, of extreme chauvinism(अन्ध-भक्ति) within large swathes( पट्टी बांधना) of Indian households finds its external expression in society at large: “assault(प्रहार करना) on women with intent(इच्छा) to outrage( हिंसात्मक कार्य) her modesty(नम्रता)” (euphemisms(कठोर बात को कोमल रीति से कहना) for rape and molestation(कामुकतापूर्ण उत्पीड़न)) accounts for nearly a fourth of serious crimes against women. As with India’s sex ratio and female literacy rates – the worst in South Asia and many sub-Saharan countries – statistics that demonstrate Indian society’s innate(जन्मजात) bigotry( कट्टरता) provoke( ललकारना) little reaction from policymakers. Yet, coming as these do a few days ahead of the third anniversary of the brutal( बर्बर) rape and murder of a student in Delhi, which sparked(चिंगारी) protests that earned India worldwide( विश्व भर में) notoriety(कुप्रसिद्धि), some sort of response is surely warranted(जमानत ,  प्रमाणिक ठहराना).

Formulaic policy prescriptions(निर्धारित औषधि) can rarely alter(परिवर्तन करना) ingrained(गहराई से समाया हुआ) social prejudice(पक्षपातपूर्ण); but there are still a range of options available to policymakers that can alter the terms of engagement in women’s favour. Faster economic growth, for instance, will create its own momentum in empowering women, the sheer(शुद्ध) demands for talent forcing employers to shed( छप्पर) gender prejudices. Information technology businesses, with their global linkages, have potently demonstrated these benefits. Societal(सामाजिक) changes, however, take decades to make an appreciable impact.

In the short run, some practical interventions would help. For one, statistics strongly point to the need to make domestic violence a punishable offence: the Domestic Violence Act of 2006 is a civil law that is primarily aimed at securing protection orders. It is only if these are violated that criminal charges can be brought against the offender. Some succor(सहायता) is available under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (titled “Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty”) that carries a punishment of three years imprisonment plus fine – but it can be invoked only in extreme cases, usually when the victim commits suicide or is murdered. The strengthening of rape laws has gone some way towards at least encouraging more victims to report these crimes; the findings of the report suggest that marital rape urgently needs to be included within its ambit. This is vital(अत्यावश्यक) in a society in which the arranged marriage template(नमूना) uniquely विलक्षण ढंग से) disempowers women. Fast-track courts for domestic violence, as there are for rape, could also partly counter the apathetic(बेपरवाह) approach of most police forces to crimes against women. Admittedly, these are not perfect solutions to a deep-rooted social problem but they have the virtue(सदाचार) of being more workable than downright(स्पष्टवादी) silly initiatives like a bank for women only.