In its quest to make the world a better place, the Indian Ministry for Environments and Forests released the following regulation a few months ago, abolishing the use of dolphins in marine circuses and advising state governments to reject any proposals to establish any enterprise that directly or indirectly supports the capture of cetacean species.
Whereas cetaceans in general are highly intelligent and sensitive, and various scientists who have researched dolphin behavior have suggested that the unusually high intelligence; as compared to other animals means that dolphins should be seen as ‘non-human persons’ and as such should have their own specific rights and is morally unacceptable to keep them captive for entertainment purpose.
There has been a lot of misinterpretation behind this – but let me state that just being “seen” as a non human person doesn’t immediately grant them the rights thereof. Not that this isn’t already a great step towards guaranteeing rights for animals so that they aren’t mistreated. Organizations such as (http://nonhumansrights.org "Non Human Rights") and others have welcomed this step and for good reason – barely any other countries follow this line of thought and I think it’s time they stepped up to do so.
The first impression on reading all the articles surrounding this statement was one of amusement, and a little bit of joy that finally, someone somewhere in the morass of Indian politics did something commendable on the world stage.
The very next thought jarred me though.
The Indian government has gone ahead and guaranteed special protections to an intelligent non human species, but has shown its inability to guarantee basic human rights to its LGBT citizens. I’ve noted (http://www.viksit.com/opinion/decriminalizing-homosexuality-india/) on why I think that was unacceptable – but seeing this in the light of that decision just makes the problems faced by the LGBT community in India that much more pressing.
--
If you have any questions or thoughts, don't hesitate to reach out. You can find me as @viksit on Twitter.
The entire internet is ablaze with headlines that tout how morally repressive, unconstitutional and barbaric the Supreme Court of India has been in upholding a section of the Indian constitution that criminalizes homosexuality. What happens between two consenting adults is entirely their business – obviously, within limits that do not endanger either them or society as a whole. How is it becoming of a country that terms itself as a secular, liberal democracy to pass judgment on this under the rule of law?
As the world’s largest democracy, India has the ability to set a shining example in dealing with issues that can influence the way the world thinks – the denunciation of this very law last year by the Delhi High Court is a great example and was a treat to read,
If there is one constitutional tenet that can be said to be underlying theme of the Indian Constitution, it is that of ‘inclusiveness’. This Court believes that Indian Constitution reflects this value deeply ingrained in Indian society, nurtured over several generations. The inclusiveness that Indian society traditionally displayed, literally in every aspect of life, is manifest in recognising a role in society for everyone. Those perceived by the majority as “deviants’ or ‘different’ are not on that score excluded or ostracised.
The Supreme Court however has slunk away from its moral responsibility, and adhered to a technicality by proposing that amending laws such as these are the responsibility of the legislature, and not of the judiciary. Surely, if it isn’t judicial overreach in protecting rights, upholding liberty, and issuing diktats in the past about everything from red beacons on official cars to the state of pollution in the city of Delhi, then this must not be so either?
What matters is not that this law hasn’t yet been repealed by parliament. What parliament thinks of this law is irrelevant because it infringes on the very basic rights that should be enjoyed by every citizen of the country.
What worries me is that the premier representative body of the people does not have adequate representation of the section of society that this law affects. Nor are a large majority of Indian lawmakers either interested or courageous enough to drive home an act that is bound to affect their mandate, especially if they have conservative and religious groups backing them. The bitter fact is that too often has the judiciary been made the single point of appeal to the wrongdoings and misrule of the legislature – and frankly, unless there are sweeping changes in the mindsets of those who sit in parliament, things aren’t going to change.
If anything, this should be a warning sign for everyone who thinks of the judiciary as a panacea for all ailments that plague the government – judges too have their biases, and in taking this judgment, the bench has definitely shown its inability to think outside of the narrow moral constraints that plague society. One can only hope that there will be some recourse in this decision, driven by groups that will definitely lobby against it. But one way or another, there is an urgent need to rectify this gaping travesty on the face of providing equality and justice to every citizen of India.
--
If you have any questions or thoughts, don't hesitate to reach out. You can find me as @viksit on Twitter.
It’s the beauty of perspective and the state of your mind that governs how you read this Calvin and Hobbes strip.
!(https://i0.wp.com/s2.postimg.org/z1rkge115/last_calvin_hobbes.jpg?w=1050)
If you have the context that this is the last strip of the entire series, there wells up a feeling of nostalgia, almost a sadness that something so good is seemingly coming to an end. Of the familiar having been washed away, to be replaced by a blank slate. I say seemingly because some things are timeless – they never end, they cannot. They aren’t built that way.
But on the other hand, it has to be by far one of the most inspiring strips Bill Watterson ever created – full of promise, of worlds unexplored, of things to do, to go into the future with all the experiences and memories of the past, building upon them, and in every way bridging the past, the present and the future with all the positivity that you can muster.
Onwards, then.
--
If you have any questions or thoughts, don't hesitate to reach out. You can find me as @viksit on Twitter.
There are three rungs at which conversations around this bill have surfaced recently.
From the perspective of the ruling government, this bill aims to reduce and eventually stamp out the scourge of malnutrition in India, which today is supposedly worse than some sub-Saharan countries; the main opposition party however calls it an attempt to win votes for the general elections of 2014; and economists of various ilks question the sanity of such an endeavor, wondering if the country is stretching itself too thin trying to fund this effort.
Here are a few questions I’d ask before jumping to hyperbole.
Firstly, who is this program targeted at? What in your mind is the most realistic measure of determining the beneficiaries of such a program that does not rely on a formula that is created by a statistician in a governmental organization?
Secondly, malnutrition isn’t all about having no access to food at all. A large component of it is not having enough “higher calorie” foods in your diet — dairy, meat, fruit and vegetables. What does this bill do to solve that? What percentage of people face acute hunger and what percentage face calorific malnutrition?
Thirdly, Indian public distribution systems are notoriously leaky. What will this bill do to overhaul those? The Indian state of Chattisgarh has done well to address these issues, but why does this bill not mention how that model can be applicable across the country? What about overhauling the various issues that have been seen with the introduction of the Aadhar cards?
Fourthly, the question of being able to afford such a scheme is a minor one. The program costs about ₹1.44 trillion (~$22 billion) to implement. India’s GDP hovers around $1.8 trillion. The cost of this is barely 1.2% of total GDP — very comparable to India’s $23 billion in fuel subsidies. Moreover, the bill itself is doing little more than forging a banner under which schemes from previous governments as well as state government schemes are tied together. This means that states are already funding a significant chunk of the total money — the state needs to only fund the delta that this government has introduced.
Fifth — the introduction of this bill is not going to affect the short term rupee decline. Longer term, without the right fiscal policies, this may be an issue especially if the current account deficit remains as high as 6.7%, when it should be around 2.5%. But given this bill doesn’t tax the existing outflow of funds, short term repercussions seem ridiculous to debate about.Given the kind of things the new RBI governor, good looks aside, seems to be doing — it’s entirely conceivable that things will take a turn for the better.
Which brings me to my final point. The Indian media more so than ever has become absolutely sensationalistic — there are hardly any reports that seem well thought out and have the backing of solid facts. Most articles out there on the food security bill have either been instances of cuddling up to the ruling government, or to the main opposition party. While there are a few glimmers of journalistic integrity out there, these instances are so few as to be virtually ignorable — thus creating for the first time in modern post-independence Indian history a populace that is influenced by a fourth estate which is under the thumbs of a political and business elite.
And that does not bode well at all.
--
If you have any questions or thoughts, don't hesitate to reach out. You can find me as @viksit on Twitter.
Surely not. Why then is this such a hard ask, and why has no one done it before?
Simple design is definitely hard to do. Taking a complex workflow and reducing it to something that feels intuitive is challenging for even the best designers out there. This is especially true in the world of physical products, where the best designed products are those which accomplish their function in a manner that is never questioned by their consumers — the iPod, the Vespa or the Leica blend their form and function in a way that is admired universally. The key point these products make is that the thought process behind their design isn’t about what they look like — it’s about how it works. And I think that’s a very powerful idea to keep in mind when designing anything.
Sadly though, this is not true on the web today.
One of the greatest inventions in human history is for the most part really ugly and confusing to use. Most websites try to maximize profits by stuffing their already badly designed pages with ads, further compounding the problem. Clearly, the consumer’s interests aren’t paramount — its the shareholders that matter.But even without the ubiquitous advertising, there hasn’t been much change in design and typography on the web since it was first started in the early 90s. The same firms that spend millions on formatting newsprint and making it look beautiful regard their websites as second class citizens from the looks of it. And there lies the problem.
Contrary to the ideas of physical product design that have been propagated far and wide by designers and design schools, design on the web is tacked on as an afterthought as opposed to it being an important factor during the content creation process. Rather than burden the user with a plethora of (mostly unnecessary) options, design things that do not get in the way of someone achieving what they set out to do. If you run a blogging platform, help your bloggers commit their ideas as quickly as possible into beautiful looking posts. If you run a news website, the fact that you’re viewing the content on a screen should be the only difference from reading uncluttered, beautiful fonts laid out in a manner that makes it easy on the eyes.
Which is not to say that all is lost of course. Examples of excellent design on the web, while far and few, do exist — there are now many websites that boast of amazing typography. As more and more people get exposed to them, other mainstream sites will have no option but to follow this trend or be left out in the cold.This also means that people who have traditional backgrounds in design and typography are going to be much valued in the technology jobs market. And for those that don’t but are interested in it — what are you waiting for?
--
If you have any questions or thoughts, don't hesitate to reach out. You can find me as @viksit on Twitter.
