Two democratic events happened last week, which has completely different significance, different motive but shows the power of democracy. Opposition parties of India called an all India Bandh on this Monday bring the nation to stand-still and the other one is Former Australian Prime Minister was voted out to be the Vice-President of ICC by virtue of strong Asian bloc representation in ICC.
The Supreme Court of India had banned Bandhs back in 1998, but political parties still organize them. Still all Bandhs although being illegal are carried out which proves how weak is our judiciary system and politicians are not abiding highest court orders. Why Supreme Court failed to punished them? Despite all this the Bandh continues to plague our day to day lives. And today it is adversely going to affect normal life in many cities. Is this right way to protest by disrupting the common man's life? What will happen to poor daily wages workers and people who depend upon daily business or workforce? Will the Bandh decrease the price rise?
I agree for the poor and the middle-class patrons, rising petroleum products prices are proving to be the most unfair tax because it harms them the most. Already, the common man is feeling the pinch, be it in the high price of food commodities, transport, or other basic necessities.
In India, Bandhs or Strikes are a general weapon used by the political parties to express their protests against policies mostly levied by the Government. Even though these bandhs are supposed to be voluntary, but with the kind of shocking impact the political parties impose, people are forced to take part in these strikes. The Bandhs not only lead to paralyzing of normal life, but also force people to stay at home. Schools, Shops and offices are forced to close and the transports are put off the roads and life comes to a halt.
There have been a series of Bandhs, called in protest of the price hike etc, but did the prices ever went down? Why do we need the Bandh? How does a Bandh help to protests against the policies or killings? Does anything change after the Bandh? Has any Bandh had a major positive effect on life and society? Common man becomes the victim of the so-called bandhs without any fault on their part. Is this what the parties calling the Bandhs want? They are fighting for common man or causing more trouble to them?
People who are in need of emergency medical attention get affected the most. If they die who would be held responsible for the mishap? Only some cases get media attention while so many cases go unnoticed.
Offices and schools are forced to close resulting in loss of work and studies. With paralyzing work for the day it seems for them bandhs are more important than work. I am sure political parties will not compensate the financial loss that the people of India will incur in one day. They do not think about economic loss, which happens on a huge level because again the common man- the taxpayer will pay the amount and suffice for the loss.
Protesters motivated by these political parties destroy public properties; uproot railway lines, burn buses and destroying shops. One question that arises is that why are they destroying public property and what will they get from this? How easy it is to ignite other people's properties? But who will be the one to get affected when rails and buses stop to ply?
I am not saying that the common man should not protest. But all such means of protest will not at all affect the government. The protest should to be more selective and bear some positive results. Moreover, for whom are we observing all India close, for those lazy people who would enjoy a day off than to resolve issues of social interest.
If the politicians are so worried, why don't they go on a hunger strike, that will also force the government to reconsider the decision but it will not be at the loss to people of India. Political parties no matter whatever ideologies they follow, their main duty is to work for the welfare of this nation & its people.
In my view, instead of Bandhs, they can protests by wearing black arm bands, by sending continuous petitions to the President, by staging dharna, hunger strike outside the Government offices and compel them to rethink about the policies. Further, the judiciary system should ensure that people who do not want to be part of the so-called political Bandh should have all the liberty to continue their work or move on the streets without any fear. Law and order should be implemented in stringent way.
The other big shocker of democracy was rejection of John Howard from ICC vice-presidency. Whether he has experience of managing cricket is not in question because he has zero knowledge on that, but he has experience of managing a country. His love for the game is as equal as current ICC president Mr Sharad Power if not less. The saddest thing about the rejection of John Howard's nomination to the vice-presidency of the ICC is that, prima facie, the cricket world has split, once again, on the lines of race. For years that was cricket's ugly truth: the white nations v the rest; the us v them syndrome underpinned every major conflict in the cricket.
There are different ways of looking at it. One is this. Seven members of the ICC board didn't want Howard as vice-president. Clearly, he shouldn't then have been vice-president and president-elect. Democracy doesn't always produce the best outcome, but who'd rather have the other system?
Howard was not the best candidate in the eyes of the cricket world. Even between Australia and New Zealand, he was not the unanimous choice. New Zealand wanted John Anderson, the former chairman of the New Zealand board and a proven cricket administrator; and most other members would have preferred him. But Howard was nominated through a rigorous arbitration process, and New Zealand accepted the verdict with good grace.
Similarly, another process has been completed now. Howard's candidature needed to be ratified by a two-thirds majority - it might never have been applied before, but the provision exists. All over the cricket world, non-executive positions - presidents, chairmen - come through an electoral process, which rarely throws up the best possible candidate. Pawar became BCCI president that way, as did Giles Clarke.
There were clear signs for months that Howard's candidature was unlikely to go through, but CA chose to ignore them. Cricket South Africa chairman Mtutuzeli Nyoka wrote to David Morgan, the then ICC president, pointing out that an "overwhelming number of directors were opposed to Howard". It was strong letter which accused Morgan of acting unconstitutionally, a charge Morgan denied equally vehemently. And the Sri Lankan board openly said that they would vote against Howard. Cricket Australia was within their rights to stick by their man. Howard himself made a trip to Zimbabwe, another known opponent, to lobby support. Evidently that mission failed.
There is one crucial difference, though. In a political process, even if it is mere posturing, everyone knows who stands for what. In Howard's case, no one, apart from the Sri Lankan board, has articulated the opposition to him. And the Sri Lankan opposition - that Howard came from outside the realm of cricket administration - was so flimsy that it can't be considered a powerful enough argument to disregard a candidate chosen by two members following due process.
No comments:
Post a Comment