The Great Hunger Debate

Three year olds in Ganne, a village south of Allahabad eat dried mud and silica because they are hungry. Tribals in Madhya Pradesh are increasingly found on the doorsteps of hospitals and are being refused treatment because of their social and economic conditions. Even as you finish reading this sentence, 5 more people in the world have died as a direct or indirect result of malnutrition, according to the United Nations economic and Social Council. On an average they estimate that malnutrition kills one person every second, 4000 every hour, and one can do the math for the rest. India tops the list of under-nourished countries way above Sudan, Angola and the rest of sub-Saharan Africa. India contributes to more than 5.6 million child deaths a year, more than half the world’s total. The finance minister has promised an economic growth rate of 9 percent in the following year, an upturn from the global recession, and yet political parties continue to disregard this ubiquitous evil, and the death tolls just remain statistics.  Even after almost a decade’s advocacy, why is “The Right to Food” still only a vision?

The debates still rage in the Indian Parliament over the passage of such a bill. Hard core activists believe that India can afford to feed its poor for free, and that it would only cost about 1 percent of its GDP to do so. It is a question of prioritizing issues and deciding where to spend the money. But, unfortunately it is not quite as simple as allocating a budget, a view shared by Dr. Kaushik Basu, the Chief Economic Advisor of the Finance ministry. According to him, simply throwing money at the problem cannot be afforded by the country. For any budgeting to be effective, we need a cleaner, corruption – free and responsible delivery system. But, that is not all…

The murk runs lot deeper than this. Decades of poorly planned laws and un-minded development in the name of progress have been few other reasons for the exponential escalation of this problem. For instance, tribals who have been historically used to hunting and fishing in their forests for food are now banned by law from doing that and hence have been forced to buy bread and vegetables from local markets. For those “lucky ones” who have procured small farm lands to grow crops, the soaring fertilizer and seed prices no longer have a sustainable cost- benefit ratio. The public distribution shops at the ration stores have cut down a family’s supply from 35kgs to 20 kgs of rice a month. In some states, these shops are only open 3 days a month which means that if some one is late for one distribution day, his family can go hungry for a week! Right to Food” seems a long and daunting task.

After years of cross discussions, we have at least taken a step in the right direction with regard to the right to education. But, what use is guaranteeing education to those who may be too weak to drag themselves to school or pursue anything with passion and vigor, if their stomachs are empty? With every step forward, we seem to need to take one step back and re-examine our situation. How far back do we need to look before we can begin to move forward?

Malnutrition in the country by some estimates lead to an economic loss of $29 billion a year, about 4% of India’s GDP. Lack of basic nutrition is in fact a much more serious and urgent problem in need of pro-active and aggressive solutions.

What can “Right to Food” provide?  A food security act may provide food at subsidized cost for very poor families.  Those unable to obtain food may go to a court of law to demand food and the responsible officials may be punished for this offense. Even if such a law is enacted, I would be interested to note how the law would fairly distinguish those who are really in need of food, and those who are not, and how accessible the court is to such people. It would be ironic if the plaintiffs need to wait for ten years for their plea to be heard before they can get food and corrupt officials have meanwhile deprived other families of more food. We undoubtedly need a serious reformation in the way we treat corruption in our society. The right to be heard in a court of law within a person’s life span is still a distant prospect for most common individuals of the society. Where do these reforms need to start? How many reforms do we need before each right can be a reality?

Although we have a long way to go before every citizen can get adequate food of good quality, it cannot be denied that there have been a few successful measures taken. The Mid-day Meal scheme is one such initiative, and has been well adopted in all states. Albeit the presences of issues like food quality, there has been slow progress. There are some NGOs who solely work for the eradication of hunger and malnutrition. The Akshaya Patra foundation is an example of exemplary work. From feeding 1500 children in 2000, today they feed over one million children in the country every day. 

However, this is not enough! The ten year old campaign needs a new spark and more support. This can only be achieved with more awareness. It is a debilitating epidemic for the country and her people, and it is about time we stand up to push for a change.

 

Sources for quoted statistics:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8682558.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7747313.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/8130595.stm

Response to Comments on Previous Post

This is in response to many comments I got(not just the ones who were good enough sports to share their views openly)on my last blog. For the record, I would like to note that so far I have more approvals. This is heartening for I could have wept otherwise.

Firstly, that blog was not a personal attack on anyone. I am too out of touch with all your lives to know or care how you live. So there is no need to get offended . Just like you claim your right to break a few more links in the society to which I also have a right, I have my right to express my opinion and hope a fool's hope to keep people like me from being extinct. I cannot always tone it moderate to appease my readers.

Secondly, I donot care a cent about how you live, I want you to care about how you live. There is a difference, and you need to understand that.

Thirdly, do read and post comments only if you care to go through the whole thing and respond with an open mind. I am not here to preach to anyone, but just to influence atleast 1 reader. If you have already made up your mind, go no further and continue your blissful existence.On the other hand, if you too hope to change my mind, then read on!

This particular post is not a debate between love and arranged marriages, I might like to take that up on some other day, but not here. It is about being in a relationship and being married/ with intentions to get married or being in a relationship and deliberately choosing to be unmarried.

I shall reiterate that if one spends enough time understanding how any culture evolved and degrades, one will have to figure the family system in the equation. Are people disagreeing with me of the opinion that our mothers lead a worthless life. Did they make all those sacrifices for us ,encouraging us to be what we are proud of being today just so we can stand on our "independent" feet and claim that they added no value to the society. So if they too had been selfish and had thought only about themselves, I gather our world would have been a better place to live in. For believe me, maybe the next generation will not see the impact of this shortsightedness, but a few generations down will..that too only if they are lucky enough to realize their loss.

OK, I understand when people say they donot want the hassle of a marriage, the whole big package, the responsibilities and the commitments, and that they are not ready for it. I DONOT have an objection to not getting married. That is indeed one's personal choice. But I have an objection to spreading the epidemic of a mindless and meaningless existence in the same society where I have a part, and my children will too. If one doesnot want to perform their dharma, then one should atleast have a damn good excuse up their sleeve for their time on this Earth. Be it Mother Teresa style or Isaac Newton style or Mirabai style.

I currently reside in a country where this started spreading maybe about two generations back. Not all people I know approve of this, but they already do not even have a choice. Some of their parents and grandparents lived without the concept of a family. One person I know was at his work all day instead of at the funeral when his sister died, because he said he was not close to her. That is all very well, but look at his life and grapple a meaning out of it. He makes loads of money, he does not have any ties that he can be sure will not break, so he tries to lead his life for himself because only that is permanent for him. I pity him and many others like him. I cannot even blame him, for he did not have the choice that our generation is faced with today. What, may I ask is the purpose of this purely materialistic and carnal way of life? We might as well be born animals, if we cannot do something better with our intellect.

No matter which type of lifestyle one chooses, there should be a constant aim to transcend from one mental plane to the other. Random wandering without any bearing of where you are going is futile. I am not talking about this body, but one's soul..for it has a much longer journey , the length of it depending on how much time one aims to waste without any progress in mental level. Acknowledging that is the very first step. Acknowledging a futile existence is better than simply living through it. One needs to look at the bigger picture.

One person actually said that staying married to one single person is no longer a viable option because of globalization and our mobile careers, and claims that this is better than repeatedly obtaining divorces. Any comment I make here on this statement will be inappropriate in my blog.

One person says we are mature enough to not be influenced by others. I am afraid we over estimate our race, and there is a lot of rot involved in the statement (Sorry for the rudeness, but so were you). Because wherever I look in the world, people are influenced by something or someone and there is this mad craving to "fit-in". If history shows anything, it is that people are easily influenced. Why, history itself is written by the most influential piece of write-up.What is easy becomes popular, and what  is popular becomes an accepted norm of life. One's political knowledge is limited by what the media presents to us. Our consumer knowledge is limited to what the advertisements present to us. One cannot buy a simple product or good without reading/ obtaining a 100 other reviews and suggestions. One would not go to a business meeting in summer in cotton T-shirts and shorts just because it makes sense. We do it, because we have to follow the norms at some places. One will not wear a dress if the whole world says it makes them look ugly. If the human race is indeed above such dependence, why is there a furor every time somebody influential makes an inappropriate remark. He/ she is accused of causing discord among people. Why care if Raj Thackrey makes insane remarks, the human race is above all that, isn't it? Why does not someone tell S.Tendulkar that he is wasting his time and efforts in setting an example, for people cannot be influenced. Most of today's adolescent and youth problems ranging from drinking to anorexia are a product of peer influence. If indeed people cannot be influenced, there would not have been a Hitler, a Gandhi or a Karl Marx. The human race thrives on influence.

There is no "right or wrong" in this situation: Wrong period

When one is faced with two options in life, the easier one is most likely the wrong one. One who cannot stay married to one person, will find the option of not mating with anyone harder I suppose.

I cannot force anyone to my views, and I would not grab hold of some one and give a lecture, for I have no wish to preach like I said. Someday, maybe this will be a part of the digital remains, and  someone might atleast realize their loss and what might have been.. This is not aimed at any individual, so please tone down your comments.But I wish I too had the right to live the way I like and bring up my children the way I like but that becomes more and more impossible when we live not in seclusion.

A Right to Live, Not Live-In

The Supreme Court has done away with the need to use the term “illicit relationship”, and to satisfy whom this time? I cannot believe that a purely immoral and illogical behavior can now be justified as a fundamental right. I am not afraid of social censure here to suit “modernists”.

Our whole society and culture has been built over 1000’s of years with certain basic building blocks. There is no doubt that the concept of morality has been waning exponentially, but that is no reason to make a wrong-doing legal in order to artificially free people’s mind of any guilt, or to encourage it as acceptable.

Indian culture and society has been built on the family-system as the foundation and to take that away ensures the demise of our only stronghold in this world. One needs to reflect on his/ her life and acknowledge that the strongest impacts on their character and way of living come from the ones closest in blood. It is the way our parents have lived that sets an unattainable example to us. It is the attempt to ape an elder sibling’s virtues that salvages a younger one, and the elder’s knowledge of this fact and hence the need to remain an example that provides a balance to this tightrope act in life. Of course in later years, friends play a large impact, but for most of us, the ability to distinguish right from wrong has already been deeply ingrained. But, even the spirit of independent thought never really came independently.

Making live-in relationships a right is just modernistic trash and perhaps the most short-sighted constitutional right ever. The repercussions of this are enormous and I mean it in a bad way. If two people are in love, what is to stop them from getting married? It is the fear of commitment, and responsibilities. With any kind of sustainable happiness, comes along a certain amount of responsibility. One cannot turn their backs on their duty towards their families and the society. It sounds alright to say that people have a right to live their lives the way they want to. I cannot but disagree. If one’s actions bear an impact on people around, they need to be conscious of the right way of life. Every society is a dynamic, intricately complicated and inter-linked mechanism. People learn their virtues and tolerance for virtues by accepted norms among others in their line of sight. Perhaps, in today’s generation, there are still a lot of people who can relate to what I am saying. But the moment we are forced to turn a blind eye towards this sort of rampant immorality, we endanger the coming generations. Love, trust and responsibilities can give society a foundation, not lust. A hundred years from today, we will have nothing original in our country to boast of, no identity. A few hundred years later, we shall have nothing more than digital remains to show for ourselves.

No doubt, one has a right to live his life, but only to live it responsibly.

Please read next blog for possible rebuttals to your arguments. Thanks!

The Inequalities of Equality?

The recent surrender by the Indian government to KCR's "fast-unto-death" raised a lot of fresh questions in my mind about the purpose of the Indian Constitution and the relevance of fundamental rights and the selective applicability of certain sections of the Indian (Ranbir) Penal Code .
Fasting unto death is by no means a new form of political agitation. The earliest and most quoted and probably the most inspiring of such fasts was that of Mahatma Gandhi. The British who wrote-in section 309 of Indian Penal Code back in 1860 did not deem it fit to imprison MK Gandhi because they maintained that his purpose was justified and the law should be employed judiciously. Over the centuries, our law makers have regularly debated on whether an attempt to suicide is really a criminal offense or whether it is a law meant for political misuse. The supreme court's verdict in 1994 making section 309 unconstitutional was reversed in 1996. Over the decades, a number of civilians and politicians have attempted the 'fast-unto-death' blackmail for various political reasons and very noticeably, while the politicians get their way, the civilians have been arrested and tortured even when critics have maintained that their causes remain just. I am talking about the likes of Medha Patkar and Irom Sharmila.
Irom Sharmila's case to me is particularly shocking and cruel. Her protest ,unparalleled in world's history of political agitations has evoked nothing but world wide horror at the treatment meted out to her. Her 10 year fast to protest against the Armed Forces Special Powers Act has been acknowledged just simply because of the excesses committed by the army in the state of Manipur under this act's protection. She has been imprisoned for the last 10 years under section 309 of the RPC (released periodically every year as required by law and then re-arrested), secured in a high security vault and has been force-fed through pipes and tubes. Even with support from the United Nations and human rights activists across the globe, there have been nothing more than empty promises assuring changes in the vague future from every prime minister since she began the fast in November 2000.
The issue of whether or not Irom Sharmila's treatment is humane is wholly different, but I am a little confused about the relevance of Article 14 in the Indian constitution, known to the common man as "Equality before Law" as part of every Indian citizen's right to equality."Article 14 of the constitution guarantees that all citizens shall be equally protected by the laws of the country. It means that the State cannot discriminate against a citizen on the basis of caste, creed, colour, sex, religion or place of birth." Is it a deliberate loophole that the constitution does not mention that a citizen cannot also be discriminated based on his/ her political influence?
Why did the government not only not arrest KCR for his attempt to suicide but also "gave-in" because they were "concerned" for his health. If they were indeed that concerned, why did they not force-feed him through tubes like they do to Sharmila? Can Irom Sharmila or anyone else on her behalf file a petition with the court for the upholding of our fundamental right to equality before law? I do not think there are any answers to these questions...but we can indeed draw some conclusions. This is just another glaring example of how we are governed..it is not true that all citizens are equal before the law. Some laws like section 309 appear more to be for the protection of the state than for the individual.

Fire the Gun

A friend of mine recently enlightened me about the seriousness of certain constitutional rights in the US and the inability of the federal government to ban the right even when they wanted to. I am referring to the right to carry fire arms allowed by the second amendment of the constitution of United States of America.
The subject of guns has always been sensitive with me. I am apalled that there are so many men and women who feel that there is need to carry a gun for any reason other than shooting at dart boards. Now every state in the US has minor variations of the laws pertaining to guns. I am not sure how many states have similar laws, but the state of Arizona allows the citizens to carry firearms without a license as long as it is visible and they do not use it. I believe no federal law can over ride this. Okay, this seems all hunky-dory on paper but Obama's recent presence in Arizona just emphasized how risky this law is.
A few people who attended Obama's health-care conference openly carried guns. One person even carried an AR-15 rifle. These men said that they were just trying to uphold their second amendment rights. One man's explanation was" If you do not use your rights, you lose your rights". All of these men also incidentally happened to be protesting against the new health-care policy. Other people in the gathering viewed it as a clear act of intimidation and a threat to people who were there to uphold their first amendment rights. Eventually, people will forget this incident because nothing eventful happened.
The non-occurrence of a fatality was sheer luck I would associate with first time events. But now, this right has been so well publicized in a manner that it clearly opens up new vistas to potential troublemakers. I am afraid of future repercussions. Even a not-so-well informed man can guess how easy it is for a crazed terrorist (who has no fear for his life) to wreak havoc and further destabilize the world. While I am nervous that the possibilities for chaos are enormous, I am even more distressed that the federal government cannot even do anything about it. The Supreme Court ruled last year that an outright ban on carrying firearms is a violation of the second amendment!
I have heard similar arguments from the law-makers of other countries which revolve around an obsession to uphold constitutional laws written many decades ago. In this particular case, over two centuries ago. I doubt that the authors of the Bill of Rights envisaged the blood thirsty world we live in today two hundred years back. In those lost ages, while the law and order mechanism was not as well regulated, the inherent goodness among men was more prevalent. There weren't so many fundamentalist groups warring for causes they even don't remember.There was not such a clear hierarchy of power among different countries of the world. Globalization which brought different countries to war as much as they brought lucrative friendships amongst others did not exist then.( I pause to mention that I believe that the common kind of friendship among countries is the lucrative one). Well anyway, the point I am trying to make is that we need not trust the wisdom of our predecessors on every issue. their lack of foresight need not prevent us from having any. There must be a way for the Congress to bring in an amendment to get around the second amendment and various state laws at least so a national leader can travel in a weapon free environment.
On a personal note, even though I am not important enough to be assasinated, I would feel extremely uncomfortable to be among a group of people openly displaying weapons. I am sure there are a lot of people who share my feelings.