We ,The Children of Aristotle

We ,The Children of Aristotle

“Let us study Aristotle : The Despot, The perfect Elitist; Philosophical son of Plato: The Tyrant”, This was how i got introduced to the greatest philosopher of ancient Greek world. Initially it intrigued me; a mere thought about such an introduction was kind of blasphemy for me. This was an year back, after turning some pages of ancient history of both know and not so known world , answer seems to be settling for me now; Yes there is certain truth why my philosopher called Aristotle The Perfect Elitist and Plato , a Tyrant. May be it depends upon how you read him; not one , not twice but any time you read. At time, he appears to be “A defender of Monarch”, “advocate of universal monarchy”, at some time he seems to be “Radical Republican”, at some he seems to be “naturalist”, at some point he is advocate of slavery and at others he denounce slavery. Aristotle is not single character , he is like Ravana with many heads.

A man of notorious secrecy and reluctance, he was just referred as “The philosopher” or “The Master of those who know”. He was an unchallenged man of his time; even today he is! After reading his work, i wonder what he would have to say about our world. Would he reject us or give a conning smile of acceptance. He was the first philosopher who said ,“we are the 'zoon politikon': political animal”. For him man alone ,among the animal, had speech or logos(reason). Human was the animal who used logos to distinguish pain and pleasure, who took advantages of harm, who measured just and unjust. It was very particular to humans. It was humans' logos that certain moral categorisation:a sort of moral constitution, to pick things that are harmless, just to him itself, was developed; he called it a family. Family developed into tribe, tribe developed into community, community into village , and then city and then city state. Its natural development .

Polis is for Aristotle a natural entity , which allows humans to achieve their ends and perfect them. Participation in city is necessary for human excellence. A person who is without city is either above humanity(god) or below humanity(beast). However he makes it clear that , naturality is not biological but sociological. He say man(sorry for sexual bias) is political animal not because we have some biological impulse or drive to participate in politics, but , we have power of reasoning. Its reasoning that makes us “political”. We participate because we have reasoning capacity. Connecting logos ie power of speech or reason to politics ,was the greatest outcome of his argument. The power of speech as he calls ,helped us to develop common moral language, a common concept of just and unjust, common shared ideas etc. This is what made the city. Its also brought with it power of love, affection , friendship, sympathy and all the qualities that make us human.

So far he is great , but he starts to narrow down from here. For him this city is a particular city , the polis will be a small city. A polis of closed society. A society that helps us to get our perfection. To achieve these perfection we need to be held together by bonds , bonds of trust, bonds of friendship etc. For him, we cant trust all people, trust can only be extended to small circle of friends or fellow citizens. Only a small city built on trust can be governed justly and in political sense. The empire can only be ruled despotically. Hence imperialism must go in hand with despotism. Think of this statement. These were the first seeds of imperial despotism sown by Aristotle himself.

Man is a political animal and city is by natural but city cant be universal state. It can be something that cant encompass the whole humanity, a world state or world government will be a dream. World state will and can never be as a small , self governing city state. In city, Loyalty is prime virtue , citizen has to be loyal to city. A good citizen of one city cant be good citizen of another. City will exist, and will have enemies and friends; inside city there will test of loyalty and disloyalty, a test of citizen ship and non citizen. Think of this with respect to modern conflict involving nations like India and Pakistan. A City cant be friends with all cities , there will be wars . Wars are unjust but have to be fought.

Inside each city, perhaps during war, citizens have to participate in the offices of city. Freedom will be there but only through political participation, ie only when there is political responsibility(compare this statement with statement related to casting of vote ). Freedom doesn't mean living as you like , but freedom will be in the form of restriction and awareness . Awareness that, not all is permitted(think this wrt PDA, public display of affection ). This society will promote moderation, restraint and self control(think this with respect to dictact on what women should ware in public). In many angle he seems , atleast for me a critique of freedom.

In this city state , according to Aristotle , in equality is basic rule. Its a human rule, hence there exist hierarchy in the citizenship. Those who cant be citizens , they can be owned , because only citizens cant be owned in citizen and all other things can be owned. Hence non citizens can be brought as slaves. As inequality is natural and basic rule ; slavery can be deduced as natural. Distinction between master and slave is natural (think of this argument; think of slavery that exist in world till recently). For me he seems to be the most anti-democrartic philosopher that i have encountered till date. He who is equivalent to Indian Manu. But he also points out that slavery was controversial topic even at that time. Was he speaking in defence of slavery?Perhaps some say yes he was, and some disagree with a note that you better read him once again. He does oppose slavery that is built on unjust wars. He says these type of salvery are not natural , slave-master relationship is relation of power. But it can be argued that when polity is about upbringing and its not biological, which he himself said. How can , hierarchy of intelligence which defines hierarchy of citizenship, be natural and hence how can slavery be called a natural thing?

In all , Aristotle seems to regard , all men are not free. Hence all don't have equal rights to participate in ruling (as citizens) and being ruled as citizens of a state. He seems to advocate that discipline and self restraint is necessary for an educated mind . This education should be for closed society. A group of closely linked citizen , who can govern the city(think of modern politician, bureaucrats, corporates , film industry). To be specific, A well educated and well trained aristocrat. Best regime will be an aristocratic republic or monarchy ,where a group of educated elites governs the city or nation for the good of all. Its seems atleast for me ,a very elitist proposition. But think of this, Is is not easy for cricketer son to be a cricketer; Is it not easy for Bhatts or kapoors to enter film industry; Think of political parties: are all becoming group or family run entities; Think about IPL teams and there owners, running show in the name of all Indians ; Think about how officers in Delhi or Bangalore take decision in the name of “Good for all”. Think how we accept our own social hierarchy. Think how we choose our friends and our life partners. Think of our own leaning towards people. Its not hard to imagine how Aristocratic we are. If Aristotle would visit this planet now , he would say ,“YOU ARE ALL MY CHILDREN”.

Dedicated to those who taught me.

Shivaprakash

Sustainable Development

Can any of the sustainable development goals be achieved without a complete change in economic thinking?

Answer depends on ; to whom you ask and conditions of the asked. This might sound vogue. But take Kyoto Protocol itself. US , the richest country and most vibrant country never ratified it, where as EU has done well to implementing protocol. Country like India and china even stumbled from voluntary reduction. Development is dream of every country be its a failed state like Somalia or be a developed states as OECD countries. No one wants "NO DEVELOPMENT". This developmental question has been answered from time to time via industrial revolution, IT revolution, telecom revolution any many more. Countless people vows their developmental stories to this very model which you is in question. A farmer in Nigeria or India can hold on to  mobile phones ; a health worker can access internet in Bangladesh; a developmental worker can download developmental plan on his mobile in Malawi; Ghana cocoa farmer can check international price of cocoa on the internet. These technologies are the product of the very Economics that is being questioned about. Problem is not with Economics but its with implementation and model of implementation.

Its easy to be rhetoric but being solutionist is real challenge. Sustainable development is that challenge and above question is one element in it. What was Economics way back in 19th century ; no one knew "Economics". Model emerged during industrial revolution. But question arises, whether economist deliberately added elements of in-equality , poverty , environment degradation etc. Saying "YES" to this is over stretching of statement. But their is a peculiar behaviour that Humans exhibit; that is to adapt and change as on when required. We have changed earth to an extent never imagined before. Human is prone to make mistake but we correct over-self. We are slow in it, but we have done it; Montreal protocol is example, Hockey stick curve development of green energy is another. Human are not as foolish as economy is!!!!.

Yes Economic model have failed; these were the very same model that made Developed world the "DEVELOPED World". These were the same models that made US a super power. These were the same model that made EU a prosperous region. Back Then , these were expectable for every one. But thing take time , time to show up glitch in the system . One of the first such glitch was ozone hole. The same economics has not include most part of world till 1990s. World realised lately about disparity, destruction and duality of economics. But is it evil then; No , its not. 

SDG has in its plan: ending of poverty, education, inclusion, equity, health, agriculture , urban development, energy , governance .... all these need economics but with the taste of sustaining it for long time. Yes , for this sustaining character of development we need to change economics . Development must have to come under frame work of planetary boundaries. It needs a touch of nature. Its easy to provide Economics to few people. But distributing it among huge number is the greatest challenge. Its classic case of "scarcity" , which in itself is Economics. If we were in a system that provided us unlimited supply of resource than The same old Economics would have been hailed as victor; But world is not plentyful in-front of human desire . Economics was victor for West but not any more. West has realised that its not in hypothetical world of unlimited resource. We in developing economies has seen things changing from : 1 hr daily electricity, with once in 15 days water from municipality, from no phone , no laptop in 1997(as for as i remember at my place)... to 24 hr electricity, once in 4 day s water, 3 smart phone,4 normal mobile, a land line, 2 laptops, a desktop in the same place by 2014. This is gift of the very Economics which is being blamed. My people enjoy this development which world has started to scrutinise, we need it ; but not with same face. We need development that last for longer time, say till 2050 or till my grand or great grand children or score of generation to come . We need Economics that has Sustainability and inclusiveness as its core values .

Regards
Shivaprakash

Obligation To Protect

March 14 , 1993 Serbrenica, Republic of Bosnia

“I deliberately came here, i have now decided to stay here in Serbrenica. You are now under the protection of the UN forces.” declared General Morillon of UN peace force in his thick French excent to a huge crowd gathered in front of 6  floor building. The Crowd cheered and applauded ; most cried with happiness.

Minutes later ,

Reporter, “Sir, will it work?”

General Morillon replied back, “It will, i will make it work.”

Reporter wrote, “Infront of UN armour vehicle with 6 men; 5 in arms and 1 un armed, General Morillon took salute from his men. One of the soldier hoisted UN flag. Somewhere in these mountains, Serbian commanders might be seeing this through their binocular, reporting back to their infuriated leader Mladic.”

UN , for all these years had played a fairly neutral role and had never took side in the conflict. Before Morillon's announcement it was still doing the same. But unknowingly UN General has taken side, the side to protect the unprotected from the brutality of the invading army. He thought , his action was in response to the humanitarian crisis that was unfolding in front of his eyes. But little did he know that he was establishing a new concept with respect to intervention and national sovereignty.

Its said that the meaning of Intervention and Sovereignty were know to every kind of humans , from Cro-magnon to the modern man, but in different forms. If Aristotle would have taught now, he would have said the same things that modern scholar says. However there was a turn during medieval period , Rules and regulations regarding these 2 were structured and it came to be known as “Treaty of Westphalia”. Nation States have in past fought wars as response to the interpretations of these 2 words ie Intervention and Sovereignty. 

Political legitimacy is one of the supporting concept that is linked with Intervention and sovereignty. Political legitimacy is double edge sword; a sword that cuts both ruling class and the ruled one. How ?...Ask Bush administration!!!! Bush Administration would have said "If its used against ruling, it leads to regime change and If its against ruled ,it leads to state oppression". Problem of legitimacy come into play whenever the state is weak; ie institution strength is low and Rule of law is under question. Effective governance in such a territory is nil. In Hobbesian term its in "state of nature". In this globalised world, there is disincentive, in allowing a state to be in “State of Nature”. Every country acknowledges the fact that intervention is necessary in "State of Nature". Woodrow Wilson was one of the first to advocate internationalism as base of intervention. League of Nation was and UN is the product of this thinking. However when and why to intervene has been the debate which has been going on for a century now.

In post WW2 world, 1 st successful intervention with international base was in Korean war, but this didn't continue due to cold war polarisation. Next success came only during 1st Gulf war ie when USSR was at its death bed. It was during cold war that the question of "why" ? -to expand: why to intervene- was answered; a theory of “Right to Intervene” was discovered. However during the cold war both blocks used “Right to Intervene” to suit their interests. Post cold war(1992) the world has changed; unilateralism under US policemen-ship has been the intervening force. Somalia, Cambodia, Bosnia, Kosovo, East Timor, Afghanistan, Iraq are some of post cold war intervention cases. Right to Intervene or “R2P(Right to protect)” has been used in all cases. However i see a change in the tonality of the “why” question . Some have noticed this but most are ignoring it. My effort here to answer "Whats the changed tone? " and Can intervention be legitimised in other way?

Below argument is for Answer "yes". I would like to call it “Obligation To Protect”, In IR(International Relations) , scholars use “Right to protect” and “Obligation to protect” as one and the same. I would like to make distinction between the 2. Classic case of “Obligation to Protect” is what General Morillon did in 1993 in Serbrenica . 21 st century has seen 2 wars in Asia; Afghan war and Iraq war. I would like to examine tonality of these 2 war. Tonality of “Why” in Afghanistan war was different from that of Iraq war. We need to ask why did the world support the war in Afghanistan but hesitated and even opposed to support the war in Iraq .How 2 wars are different.

Afghan war :  

• Afghan war was a war for greater stability of the region. 
• Afghan war emphasized obligation that world has towards the people of the region and the world, and also to protect world against future attacks from the terror state.  
• Its is also the case of super state having obligation to intervene which i would refer as “Obligation To Protect”.

Iraq war:

• The War was to change the regime and to prevent WMD(Weapons of Mass Destruction) from falling into hands of terrorist.
• Case presented was to prevent proliferation of WMD.  
• Iraq case is classic case of “Right to protect”. Iraq war highlighted the right of a country to intervene.  

There is thin line that differentiates both. This differentiation according to me , is found in the concept “violation of sovereignty”. Lets question our self can a nation's sovereignty be violated?if yes, To what extent?  under what condition? What are grounds for it? Are they legitimate? Who provides that legitimacy?

Sovereignty and Its Violation

Lets have brief answers for these. Internationalism is anti thesis to National Sovereignty. Sovereignty is not absolute. We are part of internationalism, being part is the indication that we are moving towards dismantling concept of absolute National Sovereignty. Historically its know that Nation state which feeds on the definition of territorial boundary is part of imaginative fallacy. Sovereignty related to it, has always been open to interpretation ;most of time interpretation has been partisan based on nationalistic agenda. This Imaginative fallacy of nation state have been violated by other nation or group of nation or international coalitions . This type of interpretation and violation has resulted in WW1 and WW2 . Internationalism was and is the consented answer to the question of extent of violation of Sovereignty of  the Nation state .Should it be unregulated violation or should it be a structured and institutionalised violation . Internationalism can as solution to stop future wars . UN and its organisations, ICC(International Criminal Court), INGOs (International NGOs) etc are instruments of violation. The soft word to this concept is International deliberation. It was solution to bring all Nation States from The "state of Nature"  to contact , but in a slowly and incremental manner by establishing a international social contract(Hobbsian).To which all Nation state will be bound. IMF(International Monetary Fund), WTO(World Trade Organisation), World Bank etc are institution of this International contract. International social contract has deliberators, enforcers, legislators etc. International social contract has given sense of stability in otherwise "state of nature", which persisted before WW2(concept; war with all; peace with non). This sense of stability has been disturbed by various factors; cold war being the main. There were other organisation and grouping that went with Internationalism. NAM(Non-Aligned Movement) being the one.

Institutions that got established to defined the extent of intervention :  WTO in trade, WHO in health crisis, UN peace keeping force in war. Its just like federal structure intervening in the state's matter, when state fails to address the issue. This extent is on rise; states all over the world are sinking , which is good sign for Federalist and internationalist like us. Initially UN interfered in Inter-national matters and not in intra-national matter. However Congo (DRC(Democratic Republic of Congo) UNSC resolution 1279 and 1291) case has changed the meaning. UN started interfering in the civil wars as peace keepers; then it started engaging in battles; this metamorphism is sign of moving from “Right to Protect” to “Obligation To protect”. UN used to maintain territorial integrity of Nation State however post cold war there is metamorphism in that also. Establishment of Kosovo, South Sudan and East Timor are result of this changed policy. Pre Cold-War UN mission were to strengthen the institutions of Nation State but with establishment of UNMIT in East Timor, then UNMIK in Kosovo,UNMIS in South Sudan; Its beyond doubt that UN has found way to create new basic structure of a Nation State and their institutions. Its a revolutionary change in the mandate of UN; ie from its agenda of improvement to agenda of creation. This will no doubt that this revolutionary change is the biggest challenge for those who supports the idea of Absolute sovereign Nation State. However for Internationalist, its 1 step nearer to world stability.

Legitimacy: But is it legitimate and who provides this legitimacy?

Any action whether its taken by group of Nation States or UN, needs to have legitimacy especially when it is related to violation of sovereignty of Nation State. Grounds of legitimacy must be put forward before intervention. This is a highly contested area. Should we interfere in civil war or should we interfere in sub national conflicts like Darfur, Chechanya or Kashmir, or in western sahara. Or should we ask the same question in different way , ie  , why UN doesn’t interfere in Kashmir or Chechanya or Quebeq, but , why did it enter unilaterally in Kosovo, Timor and Darfur area of Sudan.

Each case is complex one, but according to Huntington line of thought when Nation State losses its legitimacy among the people of region than UN can and should intervene;

There are certain cases where there is clear case to intervene . Case of Afghanistan is case of regional security as is Islamic State in Iraq and Syria. These are best case of “Obligation to Intervene or protect(O2P)”. Why ? Because States like Somalia , Afghanistan and ISIS are anti thesis to the established system . These rouge state are threat to regional stability. These create scores of problem both regional and global. Refugee problem, cross border terrorism and organised crime, indiscriminate killing, drugs trade, human right violation,illegal trade, blood minerals, migration stress, etc are some of problems these states produces. 


Let us take recent example :

• Syrian civil war has displaced 1.5 million refugees in the region; making it hotbed for various criminal activities and internal hub for terrorism. Al Jazeera in 2012-13 did report the growth of these crimes and growth of terrorism under shadow of civil war. Unintended consequence of not intervening earlier gave birth of IS in 2014 ,Now IS is the greatest challenge to the world .
  
• Absence of state in Somalia has lead to dangerous growth of Piracy at sea which is a threat to shipping lane of the world. Its also terror exporting base in the region. Kenya, Ethopia are effected by this.
  
• Afghanistan's failure is disincentive to the region. Its terror base of the region; exporting terror to India, China and other regional countries.
  
• Case can also be made if a rouge state(North Korea) has proven weapons of mass destruction and if there is high probability that it will use it on the neighbouring state unprovoked.
  

To generalise ; UN can use “Obligation to Intervene or protect” in case where:

• The Nation becomes state less and plunge into civil war with no effective government creating huge humanitarian crisis.
• State become a terror hub and active exporter of terrorism.
• State having WMD and their is high probability that it uses.

Now let us answer the question that has deluded many IR theorist. Ie Can a nation state other than UN, intervene? ... I would answer it as “Yes”. There are lot of instances where concept of intervention is used. Example: India's intervention in Bangladesh independence war. Its one of the first cases of “Obligation To Intervene or protect(O2P)”. There was less incentive for India in Bangladesh's War of Independence but we intervened. Intervention was due to the migration pressure , which civil war has created along India's border. India asked world to intervene but  world failed to intervene and stop humanitarian crisis that was unfolding in Bangladesh. Its know fact that India had been preparing for Intervention in worst case scenario. As worst case approached it intervened, while world called it as adventurism. Question arises, what did we gain? Was it at right time? This debate has always been shadowed by Nationalist literature in IR field. I will not address that, but i believe that Bangladesh saved a lot, it saved itself from becoming another Rawanda. Intervention of US in 1 st Gulf war can alsoo be counted in this. Nation States have previously intervened in other state due to security region ie to bring regional stability, which can be brought under umbrella of "Obligation To Protect". However idea of intervention has lead to arbitrary use. 2003's , US coalition war on Iraq is one of the numerous cases. Reason given by US and Its coalition partners for intervention was WMD and their proliferation ;which were never found and never proved. This falsified intervention is a classic case of “right to intervene” . This case show thin line that exist between “Right to intervene ” and “Obligation to intervene” . Not many nation supported the campaign in Iraq; hence legitimacy was low and WMD were never found. Tonality of intervention was much towards right of some countries led by US to fight against terrorism and fight against state sponsoring terrorism . However if US coalition was able to prove presence of WMD and intention of Iraq State to use it on the neighbouring countries beyond any doubt. And if it had mandate of UNSC or UN general assembly then i could have put this case as metamorphosed case of “right to Intervene” to “Obligation to Intervene”.

Old Intervention: Right to Self Determination

In cases like Darfur, kosovo, East timor etc , UN has in past used “Right to Self Determination” to intervene. According to UN's “Right to Self Determination”  self determination is inalienable right of community and hence UN is bound to help community to achieve it ,when called upon. UN rarely used this during sub-national conflict during cold war period; however post cold war, it has been used in kosovo, East Timor ,South Sudan. Every nation in the world is the entity of self preservation. No nation want it to be divided; however ,very presence in UN is indication that we have agreed on “Right of self determination”. Its other matter that some Nation State gives opportunity for community to exercise this right(England, Canada) and some don’t(Like China, India, Russia, USA). “Right to self determination” can be used only when people of that region loses faith in the Nation State and  states legitimacy in that region is in question. 

 

Problem that exist to date is : how to test this legitimacy? Referendum is the only possible solution so far used. It was used in Timor, Kosova, South Sudan. UN facilitated these referendum. Referendum are used in a sense to represent the "will of the people" on the assumption that it  people of region has right to decide their own faith; a new contract to begin with; It doesn’t give power in the hands of elites of the society who are representative of the society to decide on the behalf of general population. Timor, Kosova, South Sudan ,All  had bloody history of their own and suffered many humanitarian crisis . UN intervened in these humanitarian crisis . Who legitimised it. It came from UNSC resolution. Legitimacy was further strengthened by referendum in which regions opted for independence. Now with UN help, all 3 new nations are coming back to stability;Out of years of underdevelopment and poverty and security nightmares. Usage of “Right to self Determination” by UN in truest sense is another example of metamorphism of “Right to Protect(R2P)” to “Obligation To Protect(O2P)”

“Obligation to Protect” is powerful interventionist concept of internationalism. Legitimacy to this is and has to be provided by UN. There were case in the world such as Rawanda genocide, Serbrenica genocide ; during which world didn’t do any thing resulting in killing of score of people. There are and will be certain cases which requires no legitimacy; only the "will to confront" the terror is required. Presently IS(Islamic State in Iraq and Syria) is one such case where world must not wait to see whether its legitimate to intervene. People of world need security from rouge state and its duty of UN to protect people. Its UN's “Obligation To Protect”.

Dedicated to Francis Fukuyama

Minimal Democracy and Judiciary

Democracy that we have is minimalist democracy, a Jeffersonian democracy or a more latest word;Schumpeter's competitive democracy. Minimalist democracy need weak executive so "system of Veto" are introduced to check its power. Judiciary, legislature, constitution; are, in all check and balance concept,which is designed not to concentrate power in executive. why? because world have seen most charismatic leader turning into despot.

So Jeffersonian democracy was to keep executive less powerful ,but what if its executive is weak below par. This wasn't looked upon. So field is left to either Judiciary or legislature to fill gap as on when required. in 1800s US congress filled the gap. However when congress started to become inefficient infront of charismatic personality , Judiciary stepped in. In Britian it didn't happen , so their, Legislature is power ful. In India we basically designed Neither Jeffersonian nor Schumpeter democracy. our design to check execute had failed in some cases. Executive and Legislature is intertwined. We havent designed constitution to counter despotism. And Golden thumb rule for people like us is that, if executive is left without checked; despot will sure to appear in near future. And executive will always work towards getting more power.

In India, is a assumption that executive is weak. My view is that its getting far more power than what it needs to have. When legislature cant counter it, Judiciary need to move to fill gap.

In judicial philosophy Judicial activism is excepted in 2 cases

1. when executive is too strong and legislature is weak: 1970s

2. When executive is weak below par: 2009 onward. Most people dont see other side of story. Most know case 1 stories.

Various legal luminaries have different ways to see this.Legal Realist, Legal positivist, conventionalist, pragmatist etc have different way to approach this prb. Legal interpretation depends on which philosophy they believe upon  and not only on constitution . Legal intervention is necessary in common law, statutory and constitutional law.

Common law includes contract, however not the policy making.  in common law we have concept called "Destructive burden on Careless". Destructive burden means: fine. Careless is loose word. Careless can be govt and company. Company will  pay fine and what govt needs to pay?

Judiciary always check for and  wait for executive to correct itself(as it has given opportunity for NDA 2 on coal block allocation policy ), if not then it takes up the policy as "Destructive Burden" for government and use pragmatist method of approach and "What good for Society" and form the policy. There is no wrong in it.

Question come whether it is legitimate.?

Yes it is in most case ie in case of Common law, statutory law, constitutional laws. Most modern judge are inclined toward "Dualist Democracy"(ie democracy through legislature and judiciary), where Judiciary is active judiciary rather than passive. Dualist democracy revolves around "Right Fundamentalism". Basic structure of constitution is element of "Right Fundamentalism". This is judiciary's defence against legislature. It came up in Germany after Hitler's Reich. Hitler was democratically elected despot.
Executive and legislator , time and then try to make Judiciary , a commited judiciary. Passing JPC, and Tribunal mentioned are some attempts. Other countries have tried this, US tried this during "New Deal " era. Its not new to world judiciary as whole. Their is always pattern, legal luminaries know this will. and do have devices to stop it.

coming back to question whether its legitimate. While framing laws Judges use following in Judicial activism.

1. Convention

2. Pragmatism

3. coherency

4. Fairness

5.Justice

6. Due process

7. No arbitrary compromise(eg: cancelling all private and private partenered allocation except 4 which were govt) .

 All these summed up in one word called Judicial Integrity with respect to actvism. Laws are not perfect , their exist gaps and gaps has to be filled, how you fill depends on maturity of democracy.

Questions are...

1.Do we need specialized bench dedicated to deal with financial matters?

Yes we might need benches or tribunal but under frame work of basic structure. As complexity increases more distribution of justice structure need to happen(as US has 2 system of judiciary) but free from executive influence and par with High court or below it. its part of common law or statutory law and "Ideal of protected expectation" can be used to give justice.

2.Are social issues being sidelined or neglected by our higher courts, because of such lucrative financial cases?

Justice must not be seen as either lucrative or non; Courts are their to provide justice whether its related to money, power, rights etc. Efficacy of judiciary is measured by Judgement they pass,interpretation and ideology. Ideal judiciary must be in pyramid shape in handling and giving justice. But it doesnt happen so Art 32 is with Supreme court. Basic social issues could and are handled by lower however gap in justice exist hence higher court. Segregation of benches is settled solution. And in distributed and complex economy lower court cant handle financial cases in line with justice . so assumption is that higher court have greater jurisdiction and efficacy to handle power and financial cases.

3.Whether such demarcation would violate the constitution, as felt the SC in below case.

Justice is done according to constitution and also beyond that, where their is gap. Segregation of financial and non financial doesnt violates constitution as constitution doesnt explicitly gives the priority of cases (interpretation based on strict conventionalism)to which we have to deliver; it only give priority to rights; thats according to "Right Fundamentalism " philosophy. if in an hypothetical constitution where its written that quantum of financial injustice is less than that of social injustice than according to that constitution ,if only cases related to financial justice are taken neglecting social justice cases ,than its violation of constitution. More over justice is huge umbrella very hard to down size.

Doing gender

 Doing gender

"Doing gender" is relatively new word for old concept of gendering or gender typing which Indian  authors once used. However our sociological study on gender is still entrenched in antecedent, hermetic and deceptive traps of caste and religion. "Doing Gender" is action oriented concept establishing authority and use of power. It does question the very nature of how all systems like state,religion,literature,knowledge; institutions like family,kinship, marriage; and How individual participate in "Doing Gender". It includes how institutions are planned, buildings are planned, power structures are planned in order to keep women out of authority and power. 
Best example of this is: 

Example 1: Lack of toilets in the building plan, in school and workplace, which in long term reduces women work force. 
Example 2: Using husband name as surname or using Mrs in place of her own name.  even today in Indian military , wife of officers are addressed as Mrs Edward(If Guy is Edward) etc. 
Another example of doing gender is separate sex based toilets and their planning. 

uniforms in school is another curious example . Its funny why not to allow girls to wear shirt and trousers instead of shirt and skirt. 

There is another curious historical example. Its related to jeans. 

1950s and 1960s jeans were called mens' dress but with time that notion changed due to change in design of clothing. Result was 70s saw jeans pant for women. During 50s and 60s there was a ridiculous argument that jeans is mens' wear not women; this kind of argument still goes on in India (we are engulfed in mythological thought of sari being women ware). 

Another example that goes unnoticed is weapons in military. These weapons are made  from heavier material not because there is  no light material and technology but designer never felt that women are also the customer and would be the part of fighting force. Never there has been much research to have weapons made up of lighter materials. Or never there has been research design aspects that suits women in combat.

Indian sociologist are less likely to using  term doing gender. As this concept gets to core by  a questioning power and design structure of existing sysyem, I get feeling that it attacks basic structure of hyped family and kinship values of tribal continuum society like that of modern India. Sociologist like M N Srinivas has in my view glorified the fossilised Indian society, though criticising very little. Srinivas doesn't having leaning towards this kind of revolutionary concept.

Srinivas's theory has invariably helped in what is called "Structuration" (by Antony Gibbens) i.e reimposing what we never wanted women to suffer.  Structural ion is system and agency theory (agency being we). Statments like "Boys are Boys" are best example of structuration. "Right to touch women","right to pass eve comment","right to have sex with wife" etc are some of the typical examples of structuration. Structuration systematise and legitimise the process that re-enforces ideological belief. This structuration is at both micro and macro level. Some of abyssal 

Structuration example are as follows : "Raksh bandan","Duty to protect women(as she is weaker sex)","sati system", "arrange marriage which also include marriage related laws". Latest concepts like "concept of love jihad","Nymphomania" are some of best example of structuration . Nymphomania  with respect to women is considered to be clinical problem as if she doesn't have right to enjoy sex). Structration is time and again reinforced by hollywood and bollywood films . 

Lady With Lamp

Sleeping Beauty

Structuration also include concept Idealisation of sexes. Structuration brings whole question of sexes into  either "0 or 1" question ie either explicitly men or women character. It would never bring sexual choice as a continuous distribution of variations. This idealization is best protested by Indian serials, best example being is "Kusum " character in one of the hindi serial . Another example is Ravi varmas painting using "Lady with Lamp" painting to idealise women rather than using " Sleeping Beauty" even though both painting are from same person (Ravivarma has drawn some of the most artictic nudism of time. No one knows it as an art, even a year back i didn't,  until i came across Gibbens theory).

(Given  2 paintings are of Ravi Varma)

Below are some of the argument put to me in recent time so here is the argument and counter argument of the same. 

Argument : India is still not tolerant and matured enough to accept such kind of ideas, in this conservative society. It is also necessary to know, how women of this country, expect them to be treated? or want to live? or want to dress?

Concept of "Right to Question"

Yes that argument may be to an extent a valid one . I have seen many others using this as base to oppose the idea in itself. I want idea to start; engagement is important, conversation is important. It might offend some people but this must not stop the discussion all together. Even government has used this argument. Countries like Australia, England , USA, Canada did use this bogey not to tell ethnic minorities, Hispanic people  and conservative majority to mend their rules with the idea that it would hurt the sentiment of people. Recently there were cases of honour killing in UK and Canada. A country with such a liberal view like Britian must not have registered such cases.  Even in France, Britain and Canada sikh and muslim councils dont allow women in discussion; dowry is common among south asians in UK,Canada,US. So if liberalism was agenda then this Honor killing would not have happened. Government of liberal countries must tell the conservative minority to get integrated with liberal culture. These type of discussion is not to bring radical change but to engage, question, converse about unwarranted, detrimental, irrational and institutionalised social behaviours. Women exclusion revolves around power and authority. Power to control resource. All societies in the world according to various (almost all) anthropologist is patriarchal and patrilineal. Even European society followed this, but thing changed , irrationality changed. Reference of "Madame" went, culture of calling with Mrs went Ms came. It take time, but we must never stop questioning. 


If Nehru had bowed down to Karpatri Maharaj massive rallies after independence then Hindu code bill could have been a dream. Even people like Rajendra prasad, Kripalani, shyam prasad mukerji,Ramnarayan opposed these bill which world now considered as Primary gender revolution by law. Value of irrationality towards gender is embedded in the most society whether its south asian, muslims ,sikh,  hindus , all should be removed.

We must mark that conservative voice historically till today enjoyed authority and power. Hence they will be much vocal. If modernist doesnt raise voice it will not effect those who are moving on but it will effect who are left behind under conservative forces. World will not stop whether you come along with it or not. We never asked women in India to wear bikinis and tight jeans but they did, right! that beauty of Individuality (not to get confused with individualism). Certain section invariably will move forward, even though society approve it or not. Struggle is about doing whats right, whats right to my consciousness, if it against right consciousness then it should be questioned. struggle is about this; "the right to question". To develop this, environment has to be provided. Patriarchal society's basic tenet opposes this very idea of "Right to question". We have been raised not to question; In sociology Indian sociologist emphasise on "relationships of avoidance" ie daughter in law must avoid questioning both in laws and sister in law. But son in law has right to question. This is not only prb of hinduism; such quote and quote examples are present in islam,Christianity etc. When we develop environment and idea and attitude of "Right to Question" then we could ask them your questions

 "how women of this country, expect them to be treated? or want to live? or dress?". 

According to my knowledge no organisation has conducted country survey on what women want ? what they want to wear? whether they want to love stranger or of other religion? whats their though about pre-marital sex? what about have partner? what about dates and sex? what about property?their design or army? their design of sports? their design mm mi jjy society? their views on property and success? what about living single? etc . These questions are the best way to start a survey organisation dedicated to "Women empowerment and Women wants" .

Word of Caution

 Word of Caution

Ghettoisation, exclusion, victimisation, prosecution, state sponsored prosecution, collective punishment, quarantine, final solution; this is minority prosecution sequence. 19 th century and 20 th century saw this. Many countries have becoming victim of their own fear. Finding so called “Inner Enemy” of the state was tool to cover up inefficiency of the so called “Great Society”. Their is nothing great about society, and their is no need to make one. Its a mythical conception of few, implemented by many more few, participated by many. Society is what we and what we intend to be; we dont need myths, heroes, messiah or saviour. What we need is rationality, tolerance, empathy. European societies have fallen victim of concept of “Great Society”,”Inner enemy” etc. It was century back; we are within the next victim of this megalomania. I am seeing the very sign in front of me; Ghettoisation,exclusion, individual victimisation and to some extent collective victimisation. Its said that only a trained eye can recognise the crack in the Gem. I am not well trained but trained enough to see the signs. Reader may not even understand what its about. Most people in megalomania follow what other follow. Majority during 20 th in Europe, didn't object to what few were doing in the name of The “Majority”. They could have stood up against, but they let it go; resulting of million were killed for just being minority . But 21 st century is different; people have tool to rise their voice; tools to campaign against ,what these fringe elements are doing in the name of “Majority”. I believe collective intelligence will prevail. Its upto people to say “No To Minority Victimisation”. Be a part of this consciousness, quarter century down the line you will be proud to tell your children that you were part that stood against “Prosecution and Collective victimisation”.

Huntington's Actors

Huntington's clash of civilisation is one of the scores of theory, that want to or atleast try to predict the unpredictable? As many are saying ,he seems to be reductionist. Definition of culture hasn't settled yet. there exist lot of overlap between religion or culture or any other unifying forces. Is there clear cut demarcation between cultures? Huntingon know that there is no such thing. can this demarcation emerge in due course of time?. Yes this can happen. When Marx proposed his theory, people laughed at him. Socialism, communism never existed as separate entity but humanity created it, influenced it, polarised it. Difference does exist today as existed from centuries. 18 th century Europe used some difference to create nationalism and concept of nation state, if same notion were to be used then Indian subcontinent would have had many nations. But it didnt , so then can we say that theory of nation state is faulty; no we cant. Over generalisation or over stretching can be disastrous. can we ignore it (nation theory); no we cant. super slav state balkanised into 9 state. point is we as player fail to recognised our own bias; we take theorist at their face value. Although huntington has failed to describe players involved in it. inter civilisational clashes and alignment effect and many such things. He has left people to discover possible solution or resolution etc. Actor of clash of civilisation are very important; he has given that credit to whole community which may not be fare. However i want to ask other here ; Is ISIS or IS one of the actor of Clash of Civilisation.