First a high court judge sentences a Supreme Court judge; now lower courts will dictate governments on policy making: Madras high court stay on Government order

It was not too long after a Kolkata high court judge C S Karnan sentenced the Supreme Court judge explicitly, that this news made it to the headlines. The Madras high court makes another landmark by putting a stay on the Center’s order on banning sale of cattle for slaughter. And this was on a PIL submitted in the court within just days from the release of the Center’s order.  This might be one of the fastest PIL trials the country has ever seen.

But why has the lower court decided to stay on the Center’s order even without consulting with the Center. No representative of the Center was asked an explanation on the case and the court gave the verdict in the litigants’ favor. Or maybe this was just a show by the State government to ease the tension owing to the ban inside their state. Clearly this case has showed that any order from the Center can be rolled back or made ineffective in a sense.

This is particularly important to note since any state that does not have a majority of the ruling Central party can easily create a problem. When we look at our history states that did not obey the orders of the ruling emperor were taken very seriously and in some cases it also led to military coups to dismantle the tension. Such a knee jerk reaction was to ensure that other states take example from them and obey the order. But here this incident is not only raising questions on the governments’ hold on the people but their capability to govern such situations. Firstly the incident of the public slaughter of an animal in Kannur was disturbing and now this stay order is staring the Center in the face.

The problem started from the Center as they did not consult the states before releasing the order. A sudden decision will always attract such a reaction from the people. Or else the Center should have done this in an indirect way using a different methodology. The Center could have demanded a particular tax on the purchase of cattle for slaughter. Another way is to reduce the prices of meat available from government abattoirs. Thereby the problem of illegal slaughter houses and the problem of scarcity of milch cows are also solved.

The farmers have a dual income by using livestock for milk as well as for meat. This has been the practice of farmers throughout history. The government could allow the easy sale of livestock that is healthy to government abattoirs at a higher rate and thereby solve the problem of farmers. But the stay order of the high court should be questioned by the Center to elicit an explanation regarding the abrupt and sudden decision. And also the PILs that come up should be monitored to ensure that they do not contempt the Central Government or condemn its approach. Such PILs can dilute the image of the government and thereby create a dangerous situation of anarchy. People will question every single move of the government and not obey the government. It is true that a tree that grows bigger than the house is dangerous to the house itself. Let’s not be that tree.

Beef-ban or cruelty ban, Kerala must choose: Cattle sale ban protest

The controversial beef ban in the country did trigger a lot of turmoil in the masses. Traders saw it as an invasion over their business and protested it in the best possible manner; and now the latest news from Kerala where people are protesting the ban on the sale of cattle for butchering.  They protested by killing a young calf in front of a camera on a public road in Kannur.

This was an unexpected move for anybody. Not only did the Congress Party but the entire country was surprised by this barbaric move. Everybody was shocked at the incident and the social media fired up the outreach to millions across the country. The ritual was as a protest against the government’s move to ban the sale of cows.

But is this the first time when a ban has been placed on the sale of cows? In the pre-independence era also there were bans on slaughtering of cows and an age was decided for bulls and calves that were to be slaughtered. Kerala is among the few states in India that has allowed the slaughter of cows. Sometimes to fulfill the requirement of meat cows are imported from the nearby Tamil Nadu and sometimes even smuggled. The Center’s intervention in the state’s jurisdiction has made them jittery.

But logically the states had to be asked before taking such a decision. Such a voting would have brought a more democratic opinion. The states would have been ready to cope with the change and central assistance in the matter would have been better. But the problem is that this is seen more as a Hindutva decision rather than a government decision. Had it been the Congress Party this would have been a different scenario. The central government would have been seen as a Saffron Party and the state would have been efficient in controlling the protest under a UDF government.

The ruling Communist party had many disputes with the center on many issues. The latest being the Kochi Metro inaugural ceremony which was planned deliberately on a day when the PM was busy the abrupt suspension of Mr. SenKumar etc. The government whiplash would be really devastating on the Kerala state if it still continues with its uncooperative attitude.

The innumerable killings of political workers in the state are a matter of deep concern. In such a situation this incident of a public slaughter of an animal is just raising questions on the state government. The offender must have been caught and jailed immediately instead of allowing a ‘Beef Party’ in the middle of the street. And to accept that the state government with all its police force cannot do anything to contain such a protest is really a black mark in the Red Party’s flag.

But nonetheless this incident is surely a black mark on the Congress Party whose workers were instrumental in this ordeal. Surely Rahul Gandhi and Sonia Gandhi will have to take the heat of this barbarism in the media as the issue has surely rattled many animal activists. There is a popular belief that we should aim small so that we miss small. Probably they never heard of it but surely this is going to damage Kerala’s image.

Dare not pick a fight with the Godfather of Internet India- Snapchat’s India Remark

The week before the previous saw a drawn battle between Snapchat and the people of India. The row was caused as a result of the comment by the CEO Evan Spiegel who termed India as a poor nation and not worthy to expand into. The comment received the ire of the Indian youth who were primary users of the app and led to an epic number of uninstallations of the app. This and also the low rating on the play store may have been a big blow to the app which had become quite a trend among youngsters. 

But the entire fight did explain one clear thing. The Internet and its many technologies which form the backbone of many businesses in the current world are significantly impacted by India. And it has a good reason because the Internet penetration in the country is far better than any other country in the world. Also there is hidden potential in the rural India which has a mere penetration of less than 30% (about 200 million users). Also the Smartphone penetration in rural India is less than 20% which is poised to increase in the coming decades.

India’s youth has an inquisitive nature that prompts them to try out various apps that come out. The Silicon Valley and various other IT hubs in the world are earning profits in the Internet business using this user base that is abundant and immense. In such a case careless remarks made by the core marketing person of the company comes as a massive shock to the world. In the Internet world the news spreads even faster than a wild-fire. Such news could have been the death-spell of a flourishing business. And particularly one expects some maturity in chatter coming from a CEO as compared to a normal employee. In this case apparently the employees were sensible enough to put the limelight on their boss’ words.

The fight was a one-sided affair as the people are the principal stakeholders in a transparent world. Gone are the days of closed-room corporate meetings that were exclusive. The average stakeholder knows more than the owners of the company and is free to choose whom to support and whom not. Well it is better late than never; even now the tables can be turned and the company can choose whether to let a good forest burn due to a careless fire or put out the fire before it turns on them as well. 

Is Jio encouraging Internet consumption or addiction?

Time and again invaders and dictators have used their power to usurp the power of expression from people. They have taken away natural resources that have been the fundamental right of a person. A person has to pay for them. In this age of technological revolution, Reliance has come up with a new policy to enslave the Internet surge. Jio was the brainchild of Mukesh Ambani who calculated the potential of the rising number of users of Internet in India. He thinks that by being the first person to launch Jio 4G technologies in India he can make Indians addicted to the Jio experience. The initial bounty of free offers and unlimited bandwidth attracted the maximum number of unique customers to Jio. Then after the bounty period is over the people will have been quite used to the brand of Jio. This will make them pay for the usage and thus increase the usage. 

 

Internet speed and Internet consumption are just two sides of a coin. As one increases the other one also increases. People who are just concerned about the service will never understand this relation. But slowly the average consumption of a person will increase three to four times more than his current consumption. This will make them spend more on the Internet usage per day as compared to the current expenditure.

To understand this, consider a person who smokes one cigar a day at the price of a cigarette for 3 months. After the bounty period the seller can charge him the actual value of the cigar and the person will spend it. He will never think about smoking a cigarette again because he’s used to the cigar. In fact in some cases the person under consideration can also increase his consumption.

In this age of Internet proliferation even the United Nations has declared the Internet as a fundamental right of the people. Nations like Estonia and Lithuania are known for their free Public Wifi Internet. Why is then India the world’s largest democracy in the world paying for its Internet consumption? Possibly it is because the people never think of it. They never realize that Internet has now become like air and water. Will you pay everyday for breathing oxygen? But this can only be understood by the future technologies that are coming up. Like the Internet of Things, which will change the way data is used. But these are later things. Primary is to realize that it is time that Internet becomes free like an open source platform which is only under one surveillance and that is the government and not any corporates.

Cigar or cigarettes either are going to burn; or can people get away with these? But in the end the choice should be that of the people.