Ban on Blogs - Who is to blame?

Now, here's a twist to the tale. It seems the Government of India wanted only specific blogs to be blocked. But the Indian ISPs went overboard and blocked all blogs.
Is it because of lack of technology with the ISPs to block only specific sub-domains? Or is it plain laziness?
Are the Indian ISPs so technolgically incompetent to ban specific sub-domains? A report in The Hindu has a photocopy of the Governments order asking ISPs to block specific blogs and Web sites. The list has just 17 Web sites. Which means, the ISPs are to blame. Which again means, I have to withdraw my previous posting. If it is the ISPs which are in the wrong, I am sorry that the Government has come in for flak from everyone, including me.
But again, why is the Government banning Web sites and blogs? Why is it so paranoid about sites like hinduunity.org?
About this later.

Harebrained action

Trust the UPA Government to come up with one harebrained move after other. With Ministers like Arjun Singh (quota), Dayanidhi Maran (arm-twisting the Tatas), Anbumani (sacking the AIIMS chief and denying pay to the doctors) and Dayanidhi Maran again (blocking blogs).

Even after a week after the Mumbai blasts, the Government is clueless about those behind them. And it wants to show it is 'taking' action. What does it do? It bans blogs!

It is up to the bloggers to drive some sense into the Government (if you can call it one). CNN-IBN has a poll. Switch on to CNN IBN channel and follow the instructions to participate in the poll. You can also log on to IBNLive.com.

And write. Postin as many blogs as possible. Yahoo360 and MSN Spaces for example. Rediff, Indiatimes and Sify have blogs too. You can create fresh blogs and write against the censorship. But I don't know how many of them have been blocked. Anyway, no harm in trying.

If you want to read banned blogs, esp. in blogger (blogspot), you can do so in http://www.pkblogs.com . You can also type http://www.pkblogs.com/blospotblogname . For example, you can type http://www.pkblogs.com/dinakaran (he he, it's mine!).

Indiatimes has an article on circumventing the ban. Read it at : http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/articleshow/1773722.cms . I also has a link for a wiki site on reading banned blogs.

Now start.

Medha Patkar and Emotional Blackmail

By M V Kamath

On March 8, the Narmada Control Authority (NCA) took a decision to give the go-ahead for raising the dam height from the existing 110.64 metres to 121.92 metres. This set in motion a lot of turbulence and opposition from various quarters, but most importantly from the Narmada Bachao Andolan led by Medha Patkar.
The point is made that several thousand families, especially those of tribal people, will be displaced but will have nowhere to go. Even at the height of 110.64 metres, the construction of the dam has reportedly displaced as many as 11,000 families. Were the dam to be raised still further to 121.92 metres, the calculation is that a total of about 45,000 families—over two lakh people—would be displaced.
The charge is made that even after two decades, it has not been possible to arrange satisfactory rehabilitation for the 11,000 families already displaced. Many knowledgeable people—and not just the Narmada Bachao Andolan—believe that given this track record and the obvious unwillingness of the Madhya Pradesh government to find land for those presently displaced, it is unrealistic to hope that with another 34,000 families displaced by raising the dam height to 121.92 metres, the government would meet their needs on the basis of two hectares per family.
As matters stand, the government of Madhya Pradesh has reportedly made it clear that it cannot find land for the evictees, but would be willing to pay cash to the affected families in contradiction to the norms laid down by the Supreme Court. Clearly, those displaced have an indisputable case. But then how is it to be solved?
Prof. Saifuddin Soz, chairman of the Narmada Control Authority's Review Committee has promised "to ensure that the rehabilitation of the project-affected families is undertaken in letter and spirit and in consonance with orders of the Supreme Court of India on the subject". But while Prof. Soz has assumed full responsibility for ensuring that justice is done, even he, apparently, has not been able to make much progress. Which would explain the extreme step taken by Patkar of undergoing an indefinite fast.
As in the case of construction of almost every dam, the displacement of people, from thousands to lakhs, is an inevitable fact. It has been argued that in a city like Mumbai, thousands of illegally built slum hutments have been demolished displacing a couple of lakhs of people and no voice has been raised in their favour. But that argument is faulty. The case of displaced tribals is wholly different.
The tribals have lived lawfully in land that has been theirs for decades if not centuries. They are not, by any calculation, 'outsiders'. To summarily displace them without giving them alternative living sites is cruelty of the worst kind. These are not urban people, but are true sons of the soil with a culture all their own. To uproot them and let them fend for themselves is cruelty beyond imagination.
In the circumstances, Patkar has a sound case. But that said, one must also look at the other side of the coin, too. There are literally millions of people in states like Madhya Pradesh, Jharkhand, Rajasthan and Gujarat who have very poor availability of water and their needs, too, have to be considered. But then the question arises: can one set of people be punished to help another set of people, whatever be the justification?
Is it right to uproot people, especially tribals who have a clear sense of belonging to the land they occupy, and relocate them in an environment they can justifiably describe as hostile to their well-being? The answer is anybody's guess.
Patkar is right in fighting for their just cause, but is undertaking a fast unto death the right approach? That almost amounts to emotional blackmail. The case of the displaced has gone right up to the Supreme Court and there is no higher court of appeal. And there's the rub. Theoretically one can appeal to the World Court but no court in the world can do much if there is not enough forest land available to rehabilitate tribals accustomed to their own way of life.
So ways have to be found that could, on the one hand, give reasonable satisfaction to the displaced persons while, at the same time, enable the governments concerned to do their duty as best as they can. This is where Patkar comes in. Going on an indefinite hunger strike, or undertaking a fast unto death, is not the best way to tackle an admittedly difficult situation. To paint governments—run by whichever party—as inhuman and uncaring may be good heroics but poor judgement.
In the circumstances Patkar is doing no service either to the cause of the displaced tribals or to enforcing social justice by her behaviour. The point has been made by some experts that a wise move would be to give up the idea of raising the height of the dam by a further eleven metres and use the money saved for small-scale water conservation and collection projects and thereby minimising the discomforts to thousands of affected people. This should not be a matter of governmental pride or ministerial egos.
In a democracy, people—including illiterate and helpless tribals—are supreme. Progress achieved at the cost of people is no progress. The question is frequently asked: why can't tribal people give up their ancient ways of life and join mainstream manpower? In the first place the State has no God-given right to change the lifestyles of any people. In the second place, one cannot change the lifestyles of people overnight. In either case it is a painful imposition of one culture on another, which is only possible in a ruthless communist society.
India is a democracy, a fact that needs to be stressed again and again. Every problem has a solution and compromise is part of any solution. For Patkar to undergo a fast unto death is unwise because it makes compromise hard to arrive at. She has been ill advised. It was all very well for a Mahatma Gandhi to undertake such fasts, but they were different times. And in any event, Patkar is no Mahatma Gandhi. Like strikes, fasts unto death have become out of fashion.
There is a lot of social injustice prevalent in the land and, sadly, there are no quick or easily workable answers. That may not be a satisfying answer to a vexing problem, nor is organised violence such as is being resorted to by Naxalites, a way out. But one thing is clear: problems such as we are confronted with cannot be resolved either by emotional blackmail or by violent upheavals. In the end we must sit across the table and negotiate the best deal possible.

Gandhi and Ambedkar (Medha Patkar and Narendra Modi?)

I had written about the indefinte fast by Medha Patkar, quoting a speech by Osho about Gandhi and Ambedkar. Here is a more detailed version of Gandhi's fast, Ambedkar's response and Osho's talk with Ambedkar, in Osho's own words. Just imagine Medha Patkar in Gandhi's place and Narendra Modi in Ambedkar's:

Mahatma Gandhi was the uncrowned king of India. For the simple reason that he was able to torture himself more than anybody else could. For any small reason he would go on a fast "unto death." Every fast was "unto death," but within three, four days, it would be broken -- there were methods to break it -- and soon there would be a breakfast; everything was arranged.

But people can be deceived very easily.... He goes on a fast, and the whole country prays to God that he should not die. All the great leaders rush towards his ashram and pray to him to stop but he won't listen unless his conditions are accepted -- any conditions, undemocratic, dictatorial, idiotic -- any conditions.
For example he fasted against Doctor Ambedkar who was the head of the untouchables.

Ambedkar wanted the untouchables to have their own constituencies and their own candidates, otherwise they would never be represented in any parliament anywhere. Who would give votes to a shoemaker? In India a shoemaker is untouchable -- who is going to give him the vote?

Ambedkar was absolutely right. One fourth of the country is untouchable. They are not allowed in schools because no other student is prepared to sit with them, no teacher is ready to teach them. The government says the schools are open, but in reality no student is willing.... If one untouchable enters, all thirty students leave the class, the teacher leaves the class. Then how are these poor people -- one fourth of the country -- going to be represented? They should be given separate constituencies where only they can stand and only they can vote.
Ambedkar was perfectly logical and perfectly human.

But Gandhi went on a fast, saying, "He is trying to create a division within the Hindu society." The division has existed for ten thousand years. That poor Ambedkar was not creating the division, he was simply saying that one fourth of the people of the country had been tortured for thousands of years. Now at least give them a chance to advance themselves. At least let them voice their problems in the parliament, in the assemblies. But Gandhi said, "I will not allow it while I am alive. They are part of Hindu society, hence they cannot have a separate voting system" -- and he went on fasting.

For twenty-one days Ambedkar remained reluctant, but every day... the pressure of the whole country. And he started feeling that if this old man dies then there is going to be great bloodshed. It was clear -- he would be killed immediately, and millions of the untouchables would be killed everywhere, all over the country: "It is because of you that Gandhi died." When the whole arithmetic of how it would work out was explained to him -- "You figure it out soon, because there is not much time, he cannot survive more than three days" -- Ambedkar hesitated.
He was perfectly right; Gandhi was perfectly wrong.

But what to do? Should he take the risk? He was not worried about his life -- if he was killed it was okay -- but he was worried about those millions of poor people who didn't know anything about what was going on. Their houses would be burned, their women would be raped, their children would be butchered. And it would be something that had never happened before.

Finally he had to accept the conditions. He went with the breakfast in his hand to Mahatma Gandhi, "I accept your conditions. We will not ask for a separate vote or separate candidates. Please accept this orange juice." And Gandhi accepted the orange juice.

But this orange juice, this one glass of orange juice, contains millions of people's blood.

I have met Doctor Ambedkar. He was one of the most intelligent men I have ever met. But I said, "You proved weak."

He said, "You don't understand: the situation was such that I knew I was right and he was wrong, but what to do with that stubborn old man? He was going to die, and if he died then I would have been responsible for his death, and the untouchables would have suffered."

I said, "That is not the point. Even an idiot could have suggested a simple thing to you. You should have gone on a fast unto death. And you are so overweight." He was a fat man, four or five times heavier than Gandhi. "If you had asked me.... A simple solution: just put another cot by the side of Mahatma Gandhi, lie down, and fast unto death. Then let them see! I promise you that Gandhi would have accepted all your conditions within three days."

Ambedkar said, "But this idea never occurred to me."

I said, "You are a fool if this idea never occurred to you! That was the idea with which that man was controlling the whole country -- and it never occurred to you. The only difficulty would have been to go on a fast -- particularly for a man like you: fat, eating four times a day. Naturally you would not have been able to manage it. Gandhi has practiced his whole life, he is an experienced faster; and you may not have ever missed a single breakfast."

He said, "That is true."

I said, "Otherwise if it had been my problem and he was being so illogical, I would have just lain down, even if I was going to die, and let him be responsible. He would not have allowed that, because my death would have taken away all his mahatmahood, all his aura, all his leadership of the people. He would not have allowed me to die; he would have accepted my conditions.
"But unfortunately I am not an untouchable, and anyway why should I be bothered with you two idiots? To me both of you are idiots. You have one fourth of the country in your hands and you can't do anything; that man has nothing in his hands -- but just by fasting.... He has learned a womanly trick. Yes, I call his whole philosophy a feminine psychology."

That's what women do every day. Gandhi must have learned it from his wife. In India women do it every day. The wife will fast, she won't eat, she will lie down. And then the husband starts shaking. He may be right, that is not the point.
Now there is no point of right or wrong; now the point is how to persuade her to eat? Because she is not eating, the children are not eating -- and who is going to do the cooking in the first place? Is he also going to fast? And the children are weeping, and they want food, and the wife is on a fast -- so you agree. She needs a new sari, you bring it. First you bring the sari, then she goes into the kitchen. This is an old Indian strategy of all women in India.

Gandhi must have learned it from his wife, and he used it really very cleverly.But there is some strange side of the human mind which is impressed by anybody who is capable of torturing himself.