Should we or should we not?

There has been a furore recently on awarding capital punishment to the convicted in India. The demand for abolishing the capital punishment by Human Rights organizations and upholding it by other organizations has raised the curtains for this debate.

Many eminent indian scholars recently have written on abolishing the capital punishment. The reasons being given are, first, awarding capital punishment to the culprits is a grave violation of human rights. People should note that death penalty is handed over in only the rarest of the rare cases by indian judiciary, where the convicted has commited a inhumane and gruesome act which has shaken the nation's conscience. Whether the convict, who has created a sense of shock and a feeling of insecurity in the minds of people deserve the protection of human rights is a question that human and civil rights orgainizations must ask themselves. What about the human rights for the victims?

Second, a claim that awarding capital punishment to the culprit does not act as a deterrent, is well supported by significant crime data from recent past. The primary aim of punishment is to make the culprit as well as the people aware that he/she has committed a mistake which must not have been, and rest all including it "acting as deterrent" come further. Cuplrits must be punished on the gravity of the crime committed by them but not on the effect of the punishment awarded.

Third, the adverse social condition of the culprits forced them to commit such crimes and the society's indifference is being blamed instead. Significant population our country is under poverty and their situation is similar to the culprits, but not all of them take out their frustration by committing heinous crimes. The poor condition of the people cannot be given as an excuse to justify the crimes committed.

Fourth, no matter how wicked the crime committed by the culprits, they must be given a chance to rehabilitate but not the death penalty. With rampant corruption across various organizations in our country, the culprit if given an opportunity for rehabilitaton can misuse and it definately gives a wrong signal to the culprits that they can walk scot free even if they commit a crime of any magnitude.

Though death penalty is extreme punishment, it should not be abolished with immediate effect in our country where the investigation into the crime and judicial proceedings take very long time, several decades in few cases. Abolishing capital punishment takes the tooth out of indian penal code. The government must first take steps to reform police system to carry out the investigation quickly in a transparent and unbiased manner and judiciary to deliver the verdict as soon as possible. And then a decision on abolishing the capital punishment can be taken.

NOTA, What exactly it means

Supreme court's recent verdict ordering the Election Commision of India to introduce NOTA(none of the above) option in EVMs is seen as a major step forward in the electoral reforms. There is a misunderstanding among the common people that introduction of NOTA gives them right to reject, which is not true. Even though NOTA recieves highest number of votes than any other candidate, there are no re-polls but the candidate with second highest number of votes is deemed as the winner. Though NOTA does not express the peoples' right to reject, it is a mandate from the people to the political parties to field right candidates in the elections.

During the present days where election expenditure by political parties is way above than that is allowed by the election commision, the introduction of NOTA pushes the political parties to field the right candidates. But a lot depends on the voters who are alleged to have accepted money from the political parties for supporting their candidates by casting their vote. People should not be carried away by this once in a five year term illegitimate incentive offered by the political parties. By providing NOTA, supreme court has bestowed upon a huge power in the hands of the voters and now it is the responsibility of the people to make right use of it.

Also, by fielding the right candidate who has more chances of winning the elections, the political parties or the candidate need not spend exorbitantly during election campaign which includes the illegal offering of money or incentives for votes to the electorate. This may result in arresting the corruption by the politicians once they claim power.

The major reason for the low turn-out during the elections is that the electorate does not find none of the candidates fielded in the elections are worth voting. instead of choosing one from the corrupted lot, they choose to abstain from voting. The reason for such an opinion can be attributed to the criminal background of the candidate or his/her corrupt practices. With the introduction of NOTA and political parties thinking twice on fielding the right candidates, there is a hope in increasing the voter turnout, especially the urban educated class. Higher voter turn out increases the chance of electing the right candidate.

This is not the first time the indian judiciary has stepped in, to not only protect the people, but give them the powers to fight the corrput political parties. And introduction of NOTA after persistent reluctance from the government for over a decade, is major develoment in cleansing the indian politics. A time may come with demands for fresh elections with fresh set of candidates, if the NOTA recieves highest number of votes in the first election which could be the next step. However, the ultimate power of NOTA rests in the hands of the electorate to make the best use of it. It is time for the people of this country to be honest and sincere in utilising this opportunity and sending a strong message to the lawmakers of this country about their intolerance to corruption.

A dream come true

With the union government's decision to carve out a new state named "Telangana" out of Andhra Pradesh, the debate "What are the reasons for such a demand?" has come up. Here are a few of them.

The people of telangana were under the rule of Nizam of Hyderabad but not directly under British. This very aspect seems to be the root of the difference between the people of telangana and andhra. Though the language spoken by the people of these two regions is same, they were incompatible from the very beginning.

Firstly, when english education was introduced in India by the British, people of telangana still did not have access to it. They still had the curriculum prepared by Nizam administration where Urdu was the official language, even in the administartion and judicial structure of the state. As a result of this even after Indian independence and subsequent formation of Andhra Pradesh, people of telangana were not qualified enough for government posts across departments when compared to the people from rest of Andhra Pradesh. Though it is agreed that efficient person must hold a post, there were no immediate efforts made for the upliftment of the telangana people on education front. This resulted in the huge variations in percentage of representation of the people from three different regions in the coming years which is continuing till date.

Secondly, during the freedom struggle, the people of telangana were not fighting the British but the Nizam. The leaders from telangana region did not have enough visibility at the national level. This led to inadequate representation of the regional leaders from telangana both at the state and national level. The number of chief ministers from telangana region and their tenure in the office for the state from the formation to this date proves this.

Thirdly, on the agriculture prespective in the state, there was no doubt that coastal andhra was way ahead because of rich agricultural land between the Krishna and Godavari delta when compared to the dry and arid lands of telangana. After the state formation of the state, the policy makers of the state instead of lending a helping hand to the farmers of telangana, have continued allocating the majority of the water resources to the coastal andhra.Coming to the irrigaton projects and providing drinking water to the common people of the state, the government has been failing till date.While the difference in the agricultural output of the telangana and rest of andhra gives an insight into the irrigation projects taken up by the government, government's inablity to provide safe drinking water to the people of one of the worst fluoride hit districts in the country proves its apathy towards telangana. Even though one of the longest river in India, Krishna passes through Nalgonda district of Andhra Pradesh and a home to one of the biggest reservoirs(Nagarjun Sagar) in the country, the situation of people not having access to safe drinking water only worsens the situation.

The above factors are the important reasons for the demand of a separate state. Had the state government taken the necessary steps to address these issues, the demand would have never come up. Having said this, in any relationship where two persons or parties are involved, it is with the consent of both, that can survive and thrive. If one out of the two does not have the willingness, there is no point in forcing to stay together. Forceful co-existence can do more harm than good.