MyVoice: Views of our readers 23rd February 2020

Need to stop criminals from entering politics

The judgement of the Supreme Court on February 13 by two judges is an important step towards preventing political parties from fielding candidates with criminal cases for both parliamentary and state Assembly elections.

The verdict will help cleanse political parties to some extent and make political leaders and party workers understand the importance of having a clean image in politics.

As per this judgement , political parties cannot field candidates only based on their high chance of winning. They must not have any criminal blemish. If it is not possible , the parties will need to explain it.

This judgement has an enormous impact on the choices of candidates made by political parties and voters.

It is shocking to learn that 43 per cent of the members of the present Lok Sabha have criminal cases against them.

Should electorates meekly and stoically accept the candidature of such tainted persons and cast their votes for them? Do voters have to co-operate and be with such representatives with unclean images?

Political parties often justify their fielding of such candidates by arguing about their winnability and their transformation into publicly acceptable persons. They exploit legal loopholes and manage to field candidates of their choice.

However, voters tend to ignore criminal background of candidates and their behaviour is often influenced by other factors such as "offers" , "freebies" "promises" and so on. Many candidates with criminal cases against them have won elections with big margins.

Voters' behaviour which works against the laws often poses challenges to democracy.

Definitely, the forthcoming Assembly elections in Bihar and West Bengal will witness the implementation of the law. Political parties are sure to justify their choice of candidates with the same old arguments.

Let's wait and see how far the new judgement impacts the choice of candidates and whether the new law helps to rid the political parties of criminality.

Venu G S, Kollam

Use sedition law sparingly

There seems to be an upsurge of sedition cases these days across India. The sedition law should be used sparingly, according to the supreme court, only to curb the inflammatory speeches or deeds that hurt the integrity of the nation and tranquility of the society.

Mere criticism of the government or a specific law or anti national sloganeering should not be the basis for invoking the sedition law.

Though the provocative pro- Pakistan sloganeering by an Indian does not need to be ignored entirely by the law, it would be not proportionate to slap it with such a serious act like sedition law.

Dr D V G Sankararao, Nellimarla

Fourth Estate and credibility crisis

It seems there is a dent on the credibility of fourth estate especially after the advent of electronic media. Till 1990 the executive, the administration as well as the politicians used to take the media seriously.

Now the situation was drifted towards ratings and competition in covering a particular incident. Now a days a lot of discussions are being arranged in some channels which are just a time pass and no outcome arises.

Previously importance was given to the news item and for its genuineness readers used to confirm the happening of a particular issue after seeing the news in the paper.

In the recent years some political parties own a channel and rules and guidelines framed by the executive are given a go by and now things have reached a stage where CMO and PMO are deciding who should get the government advertisements.

The criteria followed by them is loyalty to the party in power. In Andhra Pradesh there are some papers who completely write in favour of a party in power and another write in favour of opposition party.

Some state governments who when news items of government and its policies are criticised they are banned. Thus India's fourth estate is staring at imminent danger and would be left gasping for breath.

T S N Rao, Bhimavaram

Kejriwal has the 'aap'titude to rule Delhi

Achche din has arrived in Delhi. Delhi voted for model of development and they ignored religious symbolist. Kejriwal has given counter to Hindutva politics and got resounding majority.

BJP's entire campaigning was about issues like Hindu Muslim, Pakistan, Shaheen Bagh, mandir-masjid. Every second day one of its politicians would give out provocative speeches and talk about killing, hitting and vandalising, they had no positive agenda to offer from their side.

But on the other hand AAP was its complete opposite talked about positive things in its campaigning issues like education, healthcare, school, hospitals, electricity and water and only these things were focused upon.

One thing has to be conceded the core supporter base of the BJP is staunchly dedicated towards its party or maybe they are blind voters of their party right from 1998 until 2020, the vote share of BJP in the Delhi elections remained more or less constant.

In 1998 it was 34 per cent, in 2008 it was 36 per cent, in 2015 it was 32 per cent and now it is 38 per cent. The BJP has been ruling MCD for 15 years, what is its achievement?

There was such a clear distinction that one party has no agenda and on the other hand votes were being cast on the basis of the work done. Maybe they are afraid that if they don't vote for the BJP the Hindus will be in danger.

Vani Venkatesh, Kurnool

Jagan can heal fiscal sickness of AP

The fiscal status of AP state is certainly "not well "and road to recovery is not bed of roses for the government . ( Tough task ahead, 22 February). However, the people are rest assured that they have a committed Doctor in the young CM, who can heal the fiscal sickness of the state.

The optimism emanates from the fact that the strained relations between Centre and the state are a thing of past.

Thanks to the political will, wisdom and pragmatism of the Jagan's government, the bonhomie between the PM and CM is very cordial, based on give and take spirit, which is likely to open a new era of progress and prosperity in the Telugu state in the years to come.

As a citizen, it is our fervent prayer that the big brother Modi should magnanimously consider grant of SCS to beleaguered AP and copiously release funds under revenue defecit, for polavaram and other pending issues under the AP reorganisation Act. Further, the much discussed 3C decision is seen by the majority people as an economy measure and in the financial interest of the state.

In view of the above , the people of Andhra Pradesh are hopeful that the combination of dynamic CM and forward looking FM will burn midnight oil and take all right steps to completely heal the inherited fiscal sickness of the state.

P H Hema Sagar, Kurnool

Food habits should represent ' indifference to differences'

Further to the article 'Why Hindu Right must chew on its great meat Hypocrisy' (THI, Feb 22), the biggest strength of Indian traditions is an 'indifference to differences.' I may not eat meat, but I would not mind somebody eating the same across the table.

Indian tradition does not talk of acceptance or tolerance, which by connotation means that one is superior and what I am tolerating is inferior. Homo sapiens have an unequal and complicated relationship with rest of the animal kingdom which has evolved over many million years.

Animals come into an equation with humans in myriad ways: as food, as pets, for entertainment (sports which may or may not involve killing the animals), as experimental animals in pharmaceutical and medical industry, as beasts of burden, and as war animals.

The number of animals used in the medicinal industry is too mind boggling to even mention. We are enjoying the longevity provided by the medical and pharmaceutical industry because of experimentation and trials on an infinitude of animals. Many brilliant surgical careers launch in animal labs.

Food animals are too numerous to mention. The point is, do we need to eat animals to survive? There are many arguments in favour of consuming meat- nutrition content being one of them. A well-rounded vegetarian diet is equal in nutritional content to a non-vegetarian one.

A major argument is that land agricultural produce would not be enough to feed the ever-increasing population. Again, this is arguable. The land on Earth is enough to feed the humans with crops many times over its present population.

Low cost food is another. The price of meat produce in shops is low because the agricultural industry spreads the cost elsewhere. Timothy Clack in 'Ancestral Roots' writes that plants allowed us to live, but meat was probably important in evolution.

However, the vegetarian option is seven times more efficient than the non-vegetarian option. Feeding livestock with foods to which they are not normally adapted, like corn to livestock, most of it being beef cattle, has a consequence of converting lands for agriculture to produce corn.

Today, in the US, 60 per cent of the corn is a feed for livestock. Lands converted to feed the livestock and process their excretions are a great cause of land, water, and air pollution. Marine life also disappears by a process of Eutrophication, seen in 50 per cent of lakes in USA and Europe. Some authorities, in fact, have put the blame of global warming on animal farming.

So, one should not really make an argument for availability of meat at a low cost as a reason to universal non-vegetarianism. The meat industry has become the biggest threat to the continued existence of modern humans. At any time, the global agriculture industry is feeding 1.1 billion pigs, 1.8 billion sheep and goats and 15.4 billion chickens.

Meat industry consumes more water as compared to the agricultural practices. Each pound of steer meat from a US feedlot requires about 10,000 litres of water. A pound of potato requires about 50 litres of water. Livestock drink about half the water consumed in the USA. There are such kind of serious arguments against non-vegetarianism, nobody takes them seriously.

The exclusive link of holiness to vegetarianism does not exist in our scriptures. Most scriptures and our deities too consumed meat. Our saints like Ramana Maharishi never made vegetarianism mandatory. It is only an argument to badger the traditionalists into silence by showing scriptural references.

It would be simply foolish to even expect that the world will stop eating meat. The percentage of vegetarians in almost all countries of the world is in single digits; like 3% in the US and 6% for Europe! India stands between 29-40 per cent, which is clearly an outlier. The choice rests with the individuals.

Swami Vivekananda spoke at length on meat consumption and he was aware that it was a highly controversial topic. He says: 'So long as man shall have to live a Rajasika (active) life, there is no other way except through meat-eating.

Rather let those belonging to the upper ten, who do not earn their livelihood by manual labour, not take meat; but the forcing of vegetarianism upon those who must earn their bread by labouring day and night is one of the causes of the loss of our national freedom.

All liking for fish and meat disappears when pure Sattva is highly developed. And where such indications are absent, and yet you find men siding with the non-killing party, know it for a certainty that here there is either hypocrisy or a show of religion. The injunction of the Hindu Shastras which lays down the rule that food, like many other things, must be different as per the difference of birth and profession is the sound conclusion.'

The use and abuse of animals is part of the evolutionary game, and there is no way we can avoid that. We have reached where we are because of exploitation and selective killing of other species. We cannot apply moral standards and ethics in our behaviour towards them selectively.

We have variable standards; and in such circumstances to talk about cruelty of Jallikattu while having a chicken tikka masala does not make any sense.

The Jain monks probably have some moral authority to talk about cruelty to animals; but for most of us, we must accept that humans are a branch of evolution with some distinct exploitative advantages towards survival, and we make use of it.

It is good to have some moral standards in dealing with animal use; but they will always be fluid, grey, and interpretable. A totalitarian view which goes against common sense as the world will never stop eating meat.

Also, they are fighting evolutionary principles and hence is a lost battle from the word go. I believe all animals are holy, not only the cow; but my tradition says that if someone wants to eat them, feel free.

But do not throw scriptures at me. Do not generalise the stand of few unaware individuals to the entire Hindu Right.

Dr Pingali Gopal, Warangal