Monumental absurdity

Raju Korti

The Indian political mind seems besieged with conspiracy theories. To such absurd and incongruous levels this discourse has gone that we have become experts in creating a controversy where none exists.The agitation and heart-burn on the historic Red Fort taken up for adoption by a private sector group is yet another in that long and apparently unending list. One doesn't have to scour modern history books to know that the Red Fort is an emblem of the country's pride and honor. Successive prime ministers have been addressing the country -- for whatever worth their salt -- on the Independence Day each year. Ritual though it may be, it still is part of the national consciousness. The wrangling over this monument being "sold out" is stupid and deserves to be dismissed with the disdain it deserves.With time, this red bastion has suffered degeneration and merited a face-lift but as is our wont, yet another non-issue has succumbed to public trial that is completely misplaced. To begin with, it is not a sell-out as the chest beating from some quarters shows. The question of selling this national heritage site cannot come to the most puerile of minds.
Criticism on the issue, if any, should relate to the unwitting and tacit admission of the government in failing to upkeep , maintain and preserve this Gothic structure. The place also calls for better crowd management system.
Right when the corporate sector was accused of bleeding public money, it was awakened to what is understood as Corporate Social Responsibility. Ever since the rise of private sector in the post-1991 liberalization and reforms era, we have been educated on the private sector efficiency in boosting economy, job generation and project execution better than their public sector counterparts. Conceding that there are exceptions to public sector inertia, it is still worthwhile to give the "Adopt a Heritage" scheme due thought. The refurbishing of the Red Fort costing Rs 25 crores over the next five years can be a model beginning.
Considering that the Red Fort is the badge of independence struggle the nation wears on its sleeves, one hopes that the government does not mess up this exemplary move by commercializing it and holds the company to the promises it has made. The redevelopment blueprint envisages better public amenities, illumination, sound shows and tourist services and this brief should not be exceeded to deflower its maidenhood.
While companies complain that the Corporate Social Responsibility obligations mandated in the Companies Act are hidden tax and outsources government's social sector responsibilities, projects around such monuments are also brand building opportunities because of prominent visibility and large footfalls. Unlike governments in India that have been by and large indifferent to civic failures, Corporates will hopefully do better if only to stave off adverse publicity for the brand.
If private investment can strengthen national heritage conservation, create a sensible pool of conservationists and increased tourism, the decision is worth going ahead.
Senseless to crib and complain if this antiquated piece of architecture is getting a make-over in tune with its royal existence. But what can you expect when controversy sells more than wisdom? 

A few thoughts about Impeachment

Raju Korti

The bubbling cauldron of Indian politics has thrown up many dirty tricks over the years. Few moves, however, can match the diabolical nature of the attempt to remove the Supreme Court Chief Justice from office. You do not have to be aligned with any party ideology to understand that it is a bid to politicize the highest seat of Indian judiciary and a cynical ploy to influence the outcome of a few politically sensitive cases.
Now that the Vice President Venkaiah Naidu has pulled the plug on the impeachment motion against CJI Dipak Misra, this political discourse may extend to the Congress-led motion challenging the Rajya Sabha Chair in the Supreme Court. In that case, the CJI will have to recuse himself being the bone of contention himself unless political prudence prevails.
That the entire move is politically orchestrated is evident given the manner in which events have unfolded since that duplicitous move by four senior Supreme Court judges who more or less complained the CJI was being partisan in allocating the cases to the bench. In simpler words, they have accused the CJI of arbitrary functioning that they interpret as “misdemeanor”.
For all the transparency that is spoken about in healthy democracies, the functioning of the apex court judges has never gone beyond the clichéd “wrongdoings”. Post the Ramaswamy fiasco in 1992, the Supreme Court revisited the issue of what constituted impeachable conduct on the part of the Judiciary. However, it offered no further light on the matter in that, it only elucidated that mere abrasive conduct on the part of a judge could not be construed to be misbehavior. It discussed the possible implications of the term and alluded it to be similar to the conditions for solicitors. In other words, it talked vaguely of misbehavior as being actions that would make them unworthy of the profession.
The Constitution has provided for the impeachment of judges on the grounds of proven misbehavior.  However, the Constitution has acted in bravado while doing so as there is no mandate till date even by statute as to what constitutes ‘misbehavior’. In other words, the framers had risked the independence of Judiciary subject to any interpretation of ‘proven misbehavior’ by the Legislature. This extremely vague conditionality could have prompted a response which set the limit for judicial impropriety very low and thus, subverted judicial independence. While it could even be argued that keeping an indeterminate meaning did more for the protection of the judiciary, I believe the same approach was counter-productive to the aim of this area of Law as the ambiguous interpretation subjected the judiciary to even more frivolous complaints as there was no clear identification of the conditions to initiate impeachment.
Technically, the Chief Justice of India, like the President of India or for that matter any senior Judge, can be impeached. Article 124 of the Constitution gives the Legislature the power to act as a watchdog and a restraining agency on the Judiciary. But the process is sufficiently complex to ensure that this cannot be done frivolously, and is one of the reasons that impeachment proceedings in the past have failed each time. Not a single Judge has been impeached in India so far.
The complexity of the process is the result why the power has been exercised judiciously by Parliament in the past. It has also, thus, made it sufficiently exclusive to act as a major moral comment against the concerned Judge, even if defeated within Parliament.
There is also the argument that the very move to impeach amounts to major censure as it has been the first such move against a CJI. It will also register a deficit of trust in the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of India. The failure to resolve the issue of the roster and the constitution of the benches is the major reason behind the move. However, The CJI is the 'master of roster'. Undoubtedly, the CJI has this power. The CJI has the authority to constitute the benches but under constitutional system every power is coupled with certain responsibilities. The power is required to be exercised not because it exists but for the purpose of achieving public good. You don't exercise the power merely because you have it.
Even if the last, seemingly improbable step in the impeachment motion is cleared, a committee will have to be constituted of one Supreme Court Judge, Chief Justice of a High Court and a distinguished jurist. This committee will then frame definite charges against the judge, in this case the CJI, in question. The Committee will function like a bench and cross examine witnesses if it so wishes.
After it completes the exercise it will submit a report to Parliament. At this stage the Committee can exonerate the Chief Justice as in this case, and the proceedings will be dropped entirely. In case the committee upholds the motion, this will have to be adopted by both Houses of Parliament with a two thirds majority. Even a joint Opposition does not enjoy this majority currently. Besides Parliament can choose not to act even if the committee finds the judge guilty. If this stage is cleared, which it has not been in earlier cases, the President is approached to dismiss the Judge. He can do so only after both the Houses pass the motion in favor of removal. This is improbable, if not impossible.
There is a not very long list of Judges who have faced such action. And a quick look shows that the impeachment proceedings have never really been completed, but at the same time have triggered resignations regardless.
Since there is no precedent in the matter, I wonder if a sitting judge of the Supreme Court can file a defamation case against the MPs should the impeachment motion fail and if he is exonerated from the charges levelled against him.
Parliamentary immunity, also known as legislative immunity, is a system in which members of the Parliament or Legislature are granted partial immunity from prosecution. Before prosecuting, it is necessary that the immunity be removed, usually by a superior court of justice or by the Parliament itself.
Too many ifs and buts but I am inclined to believe that the Constitution is not very clear on this unless there is an impending scenario of a clash between Legislature and Judiciary. A Constitutional deadlock is all that can result.

Fake news: Imagine, convince and sell

Raju Korti

Just as one fretted about how to identify what is termed as fake news, comes the report that fraudsters are out to take the craft to the next higher level with the help of Artificial Intelligence. I have always believed that news is and cannot be fake. It is the people who fabricate it for their vested (political) interests who are fake. The phenomenon has reached such alarming proportions now that even a self-proclaimed veteran like me with 38 years of donkey's experience behind finds it difficult to distinguish between what is real and what is fake.
The ability to make out fake news from the genuine one has created a bigger human conflict than for any other reason in recent times what with the social media queering the pitch in an era of information overkill.
A slow or a slack news day? No interesting stories coming in? Then make up or cook up a story.
That’s exactly what many journalists to do. In recent times, the agenda has been usurped by the common man from professional journalists. Citizen Journalism is a handy licence and the social media being free-for-all playground.
Fakery or fabrication of news is a situation where a journalist cooks up a non-existent story or spices up an otherwise drab or dull story just to create reader interest or for some easy fame or play to his master's tune. It is considered unethical because it compromises with the basic principles of journalism like Truth, Objectivity; and Fairness and Credibility. The disturbing fact is more and more journalists have started resorting to this unfair practice in these commercial times. With social networking sites like Facebook and Twitter becoming huge platforms of public interaction, the trend to misinform and fabricate has only increased.
Part and parcel with that access to technology comes the access to anonymity. All it takes is a basic Word Press URL, some HTML and anyone can have a credible-looking news site ready to post whatever they want. This same anonymity can grant journalists in the business the ability to push fake stories under a pseudonym. The majority of the fake news comes from people who are only too happy to slap their byline on the story for all to see. In fact there seems to be an effort to institutionalize fakery of news with imaginary and cooked up news stories circulated on fakingnews.com and such similar sites.
What prompts some journalists to fabricate news stories? Why are once considered credible news sources spreading stories that are clearly, after two seconds of Googling, untrue?
It’s not always intentional. There is a fabricator out there somewhere -- a ‘hits’ junkie who sits at his screen and watches the view meter tick up as the gullible fall for it. Usually, he is an  enterprising journalist who thinks no one will find out, but often the fake stories that end up circulated go around far beyond the fabricator. At times there are journalists who are loathe to do leg work to get an authentic good story and find an easy way out by fabricating stories conceived by their fertile imagination.
Social media is a huge chunk of technology. Any savvy news website has social media bookmarks hooked directly into their articles pages, so they can be shared instantly. The danger of this is the instant-sharing itself. News can spread instantly. Minutes after a story is posted, it has the ability to be everywhere: Twitter, Facebook, Tumblr, and Whatsapp -- a case of rapidly spreading cancer.
Remember that the curse that brings us instant-sharing and fake news stories that look real, also brings you access to Google anywhere you walk. A little research goes a long way in protecting credibility, but research? What's that?
Fake news headlines, stories, articles and posts are everywhere on the World Wide Web and at times, even the most rational thinkers find it difficult to determine what is genuine and what is fabrication. Internet cannot be Gospel Truth. Seeing a story written down in black and white on a web page may give it an air of authenticity, but that is not always the case.
The fact is that the Internet is overflowing with misinformation, likes, inaccurate speculation and utter nonsense. And this hasn’t been helped with a surge of websites designed purely to start rumors and print lies. Did you hear it on a Facebook post? A Tweet on Twitter? Or perhaps on some website you’ve never heard of?

The circulation of fake news depends very much on the readers not verifying what they have heard before they pass it on, or assuming that the source was legitimate and thus verification was not required.
A large number of websites that present their material in a typical news format have surfaced online but will routinely print false stories. These stories may be satirical or entertainment-based, or they may pretend to be satirical. Of course these sites are not reputable sources, much in the same way a Facebook post or Tweet is not a reputable source either. The business of misinformation flourishes with ignorance and failure of rationale.

In the age of information, ignorance is a choice. What do you do when you see a person, friend or family members share a fake news? Confronting them will only push them further away from the truth. I have discovered that the only solution is to join them and share stories, quotes or news that are so fake it’s actually insulting. This can be a test too, if they agree, chances are you are dealing with an unmitigated idiot. Ignorant people will remain ignorant, made worse by today’s social media. Unlike the good old days, people today have too many choices. They only subscribe to Facebook news feed geared towards their political views, further reinforcing their narrow point of views with no alternative source. They will skip videos that they dislike on YouTube and listen to those that agree with their social agenda, shutting out all possible reasoning.
That is what we get for having too much freedom. Too little is as bad as too much, Left wing nuts will only listen to Left wing news, while Right wing nuts will only tune into whatever suits their interests. Both extremes are bad. A case in point is the 2016 US presidential election where so many fake news were created on either sides. Recently, the ministry of information and broadcasting issued and then withdrew guidelines on fake news. It was a well meant but ill-thought-out gambit. In the debate, the real issue got skirted. Fake news is manufactured in factories to revile, debase and smear some person, party or company. Just discussing the damage it does to democracy or the violence it sparks doesn't help. The Indian news industry should be putting its heads together to tackle it. And this is where the profession runs into a wall. Forget whether the government is trying to control the Media, what has the industry think-tank done to extricate the profession from this morass? There is no restraint, no self-control. And there are good journalists who have to compromise to pander to their owners who are mostly politicians and businessmen.
The word freedom loses its sanctity and becomes a specious excuse when it is misused. If Media literacy has become merely academic without any sensible application, the less said about people who believe that news and views are the same. I say this with some responsibility as a professional journalist and a Mass Media professor. If the news industry cannot get together to ensure that audiences stay with credible, fact-checked news, then it cannot blame anyone but itself for losing the same audience to fake news.

Albert Einstein said that his biggest fear was people will attribute fake quotes to him and millions of morons on the internet will believe it. I am sure Dr APJ Abdul Kalam realized this after he died. But wait. Did Einstein really say that?