The Article 7 of the Human Rights declaration suggests that

“All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.¹ “

The law is supposed to be enforced uniformly, and without any discrimination against the guilty based on their economic and social background.
Yet recently, the Indian Apex Court decided to go against the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
On Monday, the Supreme Court said that the courts should consider the economic status of a murderer before sentencing him to death penalty of life sentence even in cases of crimes falling in the category of “rare of rarest”.
The Bench comprising of Justice P.Sathshivam and H.L Dattu said that poor background of the accused should — along with old age and years spent behind bars while awaiting death sentence — be considered as mitigating factors when courts ponder whether life sentence should be used in an otherwise fit case for death penalty.²
It would be fascinating to know why Supreme Court judges are seeking for the populist issues, is the Supreme legal body of India the Apex Court trying to be the champion of socialism?

Significance of the Supreme Court Statement

Reservation for the Poor in Crime
The Supreme Court believes that socio-economic factors might not dilute guilt, but they may amount to mitigating circumstances. That is, if a girl walking on road is raped and murdered by a rich tycoon, than he is surely guilty and must be punished in the harshest manner, but if the rapist murderer belongs to middle class, than the punishment should not be that harsh, furthermore, if the rapist belongs to lower-middle class, than the punishment must be further “mitigated” and if the rapist is a poor (there is no definite definition of poor), than the punishment can only be for the name-sake. After all, he is poor, he should have reservation to be morally depraved, and he should be having freedom to rape or murder, steal, or rob.
The idea behind this is a morally strong, talented, intelligent person is obviously a criminal to some degrees, on the other hand, a lazy, stupid person, who obviously is poor, is certainly innocent to some degrees. Alternatively, the idea can be, to be rich, hardworking and intelligent is a crime in itself.
Obviously, it is akin to show a green flag for all who consider them poor, to be casual about the moral standards and feel free to commit crimes. It is just like showing the shortcut for the poor to be criminals and make money through mean ways.
Apparently, this trend will increase further crime in cities as now; the poor will get a certain “mitigating” security while committing a crime. The police and law bodies are supposed to deal with “poor criminals” with ease.

Consequences of Such Ridiculous Ruling

As now poor have reservation in committing the crime, they can easily innovate and employ themselves in various crimes. Not only they will feel free to commit robbery, theft, rapes or murders for their benefits, they may be employed by the other “richer” criminals to pursue their benefits. Furthermore, any criminal, if he is rich, can easily deal with some poor and pay him a chunk of money to take the responsibility of the crime. The poor will also feel no harm in taking the responsibility of the crime as that will provide him high money and the Supreme Court has already provided him an assurance that his punishment will be much “mitigated”.
Results will be an obvious increase in crimes, further increase in jail maintenance and police expenses, terrorizing environment for middle class individuals and exploitative situations for the poor individuals. The mafia of government, police, politicians and oligarchic corporatists will enjoy the foolery of Indian public that will appreciate the socialistic thought of Supreme Court and Indian government to give priorities for the poor in committing crime, Nonetheless, the Apex Court ruling have provided an easy money making job for the poor. The poor now doesn’t need to be hardworking, morally strong, intelligent and talented for making his life better, he just need to be morally depraved and ready to commit a crime, or to take the responsibility of any already committed crime.

Trailing the Law further

Indian politicians always remain hungry for any such populism so that they may divide the society in various fragments; cause them to struggle within and than rule over them. Yet this time, the Apex Court of India has taken the route of populism. No politician could have thought such a new sector to be divided in various sects of society. SC has already announced the reservation for the poor eventually the High Court of various states may announce a similar quota for Muslims in crime too and then being a Muslim will also be a mitigating factor for punishment for a crime. Well, terrorism is also a crime, so if a terrorist is poor, SC suggests that he should not be punished severely, if High Court of West Bengal announces similar mitigating quota for Muslims, then if a terrorist is a Muslim, he will also not be punished severely.
Quota for crime based on economical state has been announced, sooner or later politicians will again install some committee’s recommendation, suggesting that Muslims should also get reservation in crime, after all Muslims are predominantly minority, no less than poor. After that, politicians may further divide the criminals among their various castes as SC criminals, ST criminals or OBC criminals, with various “mitigating” degrees that would certainly be prescribed by the Supreme Court bench of judges. Ultimately, government and law authority have started encouraging the crime and producing the criminals.
Conclusion:: Socialism, or the idea altruism, that is, the obligatory immorality of having “pity” on the poor ultimately leads to the destruction of not only the poor but also of the whole social set-up. Whenever the government or central collective law authority takes such altruistic step, irrespective of their good intentions, the results come out to be devastatingly opposite. The recent statement of Supreme Court to discriminate the criminals based on economical class will certainly increase the crime in society and will further cause deterioration. The best way a society can assert uniform justice is by providing free or privatized legal services.³

1. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, United Nations [↩]
2. Poverty could mitigate crime, even murder: SC, Times of India [↩]
3. Prospects of Private Judicial System in India, RFL [↩]

It is very common to hear some environmentalist on any main stream media freaking out about the global warming and rehashing the swan song of environmentalists concerning assumed disasters that await the world if it carry on with its evil ways of fossil fuel consumption: the disappearance of islands beneath the sea, the flooding of coastal cities, more severe droughts and hurricanes, famines, disease, the displacement of tens of millions of people from their traditional homelands and the disappearance of glaciers.
However now the climate is surely changing and in this new climate, those environmentalists surprisingly are accepting their faults, yet they are not ready to take the responsibility.
Recently, the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which is a panel of 2500 of the best climate scientists in the world, accepted that they made a huge goof-up regarding their blow-horns about the melting of Himalayan glaciers.¹
The IPCC, which is a noble winning organization of environmentalist alarmed about the catastrophic threat of melting of Himalayan glacier by 2035, that is, within 20 years, IPCC expected the disastrous end of the Himalayan range. Now when there are no signs of any such apocalyptic change in any new future, they have accepted that it was mistake. The mistake was a result of extreme irresponsibility and carelessness of these climate scientists of the noble winning IPCC organization. First of all, they never studied the Himalayan glaciers with any objectivity and the report they issued was borrowed from a 1996 Russian study, obviously, the study was not at all authentic. Not only that, the Russian study by V M Kotlyakov also predicted a date of 2350 for an expected decrease in Himalayan glacier. The IPCC scientists and climate reporters not only copied a non-authentic study, they also goofed up with the predicted date and made it to 2035. It might be a small typographical error that advanced the apocalyptic deadline by 300 years.
Similarly, the same reputed UN’s union of environmentalists also issued a report regarding the disappearance of Amazon forests based on another baseless report by some advocacy group WWF.² The author of that report on Amazon was also not written by any specialist on Amazon forests, but by a freelance journalist with no authenticity. IPCC never considered the importance to check the validity of such apocalyptical threat before lamenting it as a possible danger to force their socialistic dream of stern governmental actions throughout the world.
Now it is well known through out the world that all these environmentalists keep lying about the shrinking glaciers, increasing hurricanes, rising sea levels and depleting rainforests. Yet nobody in the IPCC, not even the chairman Mr. R.K Pachauri is ready to take the responsibility of such so-called mistakes. Were they intentional?

Changing views of Climatologists

Some of the climate scientists have started trying to search out some feasible excuses to suggest why not all their predicted warnings about the apocalyptic changes in environment are proving to be true. Such a recent study suggests that the Earth did not warm up noticeably over the period of last decade even though the greenhouse gases are increasing dramatically because of a new stratospheric phenomenon 10 miles above our heads. The study suggests that somehow, the water vapour in the stratosphere has been decreased. As the water in atmosphere traps heat, lesser water in stratosphere means lesser heat. That is, although greenhouse gases are continually increasing, the atmosphere has changed itself in such a way that there is no global warming and in fact there is lesser heat. The atmosphere thus, has acted for the benefit of humanity.³
Although it is just an excuse, it suggests that now instead of keep issuing the threats of apocalypse every second day, environmentalists and climate scientists need to stress over searching for better excuses to hide out their deceits.

The Growing Glaciers

Despite all hullabaloo of global warming, the glaciers are growing all around the world. How is that possible that IPCC issues an unauthentic report about the disappearance of Himalayan glaciers, while the scientists from other group make a documentary about how the Himalayan glaciers are ever increasing since the last three decades?
Here is a list of 12 glaciers that have not heard the news about Global warming. They are growing and growing fast.⁴
It is a fact that the fake calls of apocalyptic dangers of global warming are not going to pay the socialist set of environmentalists any success. Yet, it would also be wrong to say that climate is not changing, climate is always changing and so do the human beings and other life forms. We evolve with time we change.
Professor Ian Plimer (University of Adelaide) in his book “Heaven an Earth” explains why CO2 cannot be a cause of global warming; here is a transcript of his scientifically recognized book Heaven and Earth.⁵
Despite the 21st century decrease in global temperature, we are perpetually warned of dangerous global warming. Every evening one can see a disturbing documentary over some news channel showing some absurd claims (just like that of IPCC claims of disappearing Himalayan glaciers etc.) all these environmentalists and green activists obviously want us to believe that if we try to live a happy, healthy prosperous life, we will be no better than the devil ready to cause havoc on earth. Obviously, they want the governments to control us and force us to sacrifice ourselves, our progress for the greater cause of saving the environment from the alleged threat of global warming.

Alternative solutions for alleged global warming

In the book Super Freakonomics⁶ the author argues that even if CO2 is causing global warming and if global warming is a real threat, then also it is not necessary that governments all around the world need to enforce draconian laws and cuts in carbon dioxide emission that would cost many trillions of dollars and will force the poor to be poorer. Rather some better geo-engineering solutions can be adopted to keep the earth cool despite the increased concentration of green house gases in the atmosphere.
Just like the present water vapor in the stratosphere can actually cause the globe to cool down irrespective of increased concentration of carbon dioxide, engineers can pump sulphur dioxide in stratosphere by a suspended hose using helium balloons. There can be numerous ways to actually control any global warming if it is occurring at any dangerous rate, but the fact is, since the 21st century, the earth is cooling off.
The environmentalists knows that it would be hard for them to contend at the issue of global warming because the evidences are totally against them and hence they are playing the new trick. Now days, the catastrophe lovers does not shout for Global Warming, rather they call for Climate Change. Climate change is a reality, climate keep changing since ever and forever. Mainstream economists, along with scientists and engineers, are increasingly joining in the climate change debate as technical experts, with the prospects of lucrative funding ultimately paid for through coercive taxation. The evolution of the climate change debate mirrors the almost universal support of economists as expert technical advisers for central banking and Keynesian policy prescriptions such as Cap and Trade policy etc.
Conclusion: Global warming is gradually proving out to be another fake call of the socialists just to dishearten the freedom loving individuals and to force common public to suffer under governmental duress and keep thinking that freedom is sinful and progress is evil. We need to save ourselves from such unholy misguiding tirade of socialist environmentalists, economists and media persons who are trying to baffle public to enforce governmental control over their life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.
Update: A good article against Global warming fraud in “Open” : http://www.openthemagazine.com/article/international/the-hottest-hoax-in-the-world

Indian Environment Minister Jairam ramesh says:: There is a fine line between climate science and climate evangelism. I am all for climate science but not for climate evangelism. I think people misused the IPCC report,” Ramesh told a news channel here.
Stressing that the IPCC’s weakness was that it didn’t do original research and derives assessments from published literature, the minister announced a climate change panel for India. Economic Times

1. Times of India IPCC retracts 2035 alarm on Himalayan glacier melt [↩]
2. The Telegraph After Climategate, Pachaurigate and Glaciergate: Amazongate [↩]
3. NPR News ,Atmospheric Dry Spell Eases Global Warming [↩]
4. 12 more glaciers that haven’t heard the news about global warming, Turns out the IPCC’s chicken little story that all the Himalayan glaciers are melting is just another exaggeration. Or fraud. Take your choice. You know, like the stats coming out of East Anglia CRU. And its claim that Antarctica is melting. And that Greenland’s ice cap is melting. And that sea levels are rising. And that the polar bears are dying. Fact is, some glaciers are retreating, but many others around the world are growing. [↩]
5. Professor Ian Plimer is Professor of Mining Geology at University of Adelaide and Emeritus Professor of Earth Sciences at University of Melbourne [↩]
6. SuperFreakonomics,Global Cooling, Patriotic Prostitutes, and Why Suicide Bombers Should Buy Life Insurance [↩]

Often people suggest that free-education is a moral, well-intentioned noble idea that somehow fails to work. Free education obviously is impractical but the issue of free education is really a noble moral idea? Can education be designated as a fundamental right and more than that, is education compulsorily needed?
Socialized education just as socialized health-care is not a case of dignified speculation but failure in practice; rather it is a case of inhuman hypothesis that is impractical. Yet, politicians always keep pushing the issue of education upfront for their political motive, painting it as a moral obligation for all and for doing so; they often try to declare education as an Individual’s right. Moreover, by doing so, politicians ensure a very productive education sector under totalitarian governmental control.

What is a Right!

The term “Rights” is a moral political term, Right is defined as a definite course of behavior of Individuals in a society that is sanctioned, proper, allowed, a privilege to be respected by all others and if anybody violates any individual “Right”, he is wrong, immoral, unsanctioned, evil, a criminal.
Now, if education is a right, then anybody arguing that Education cannot be free, education cannot be a privilege, education cannot be a right is obviously a criminal, an evil-doer, and that creates a certain anomaly, a serious contradiction with the term Right. As per the viewpoint of Individual sovereignty and free citizenship in a society, our only rights are the rights to life, liberty, property and pursuit of happiness. That is, we are not born with a right to a trip to visit Taj Mahal, or a dinner at Hotel Taj or a cosmetic surgery or a degree in aeronautical engineering. Why cannot we have such rights? We cannot have such rights because the Individual Rights in a free society does not impose any obligation on other people except that of a negative obligation to leave the individual alone, to not to interfere with his life, to not to exploit his Rights. The Individual Rights guarantees you the freedom and chance to work and put efforts for what you want, rights are not to be given to you without any effort by somebody else. That is, you do not have a right to be fed, to be clothed, or to have a house, a car, an AC etc. Although, you have proper right to work and earn your living but you also have complete freedom to use your earning according to your wishes, you have a right to pursue your happiness. More clearly saying, one has the right to act and to keep the fruits of his actions, to produce and to keep his products or to trade them to others if he prefers. However, he has no right over the actions and products of others, except on the terms of which they voluntarily agree. That is, we all have a right to have a mutually beneficial deal voluntarily. Similarly, the right to the pursuit of happiness guarantees you the freedom and right to act to pursue your happiness and to be happy, to keep the results of your actions. It does not guarantee that other people will make you happy or will try to make you happy. If one’s desire for something imposes a duty on others to satisfy his desire, then the others have no choice in their life. They are merely slaves. One’s right to happiness at the expense of others means that the others become rightless slaves. Your right for anything at other’s expense means that the others become your rightless slaves.

The Immorality of Current Politicians

Just in order to gain a vote bank, politicians distorts the meaning of right. They say that you are entitled for something because it exists and you want it. You do not need to work for it or earn it; government should provide it to you. The question arises, from where will the government get it? What will the government do to the free individuals and their individual rights to make it possible to shower free gifts, free lunch, free education, free health-care etc on you?
Let us assume that tomorrow, government and politicians assert that you are born with a moral right to hair-care and that government will benevolently provide free hair-care services for all those who want it. Haircuts and shaving would be free. Some people will show up everyday for a new hair-style, eye-brow setting, beard and mustache setting, government will keep showering the governmental hair-saloons with more and more governmental funds collected by taxing middle class citizens. Every bald man would love to come to the governmental hair-saloon to have a hair seeding and implantation. Nobody would be bald and there will be as many hair styles as there are citizens in India. Government will govern the profession of barbers and they will make huge incomes, every second person would like to be a barber, there would be competitive examinations for Indian Barbers Services (IBS). The government will pay for all expenses. Obviously, there will be government schools and colleges providing specific training, certificates and degrees for professional barbers. Government will install a huge administration for the maintenance of the hair-cut sector. The dishonest barbers will make huge profits and so, will the honest one. They will work and spend like mad, trying to satisfy every second person’s desire regarding his hairs, which certainly can be a millions worth specific hair care and services. The budget will start going out of control, government will suffer the pressure to provide enough budgets to maintain the proper services for hair-care. Corruption will rise , soon government will start providing directives regarding hair cuts to control the budget, government will limit the number of barbers, the time spent for one hair-cut, government will start licensing an permitting only certain type of hair cuts, taking away the individual’s liberty regarding his own hairs. Government will start limiting the number of hairs a barber can split, the number of razors a barber can buy. There will be inspectors to check the corruption in governmental barber shops, there will be a new department just to keep records of barbers in a definite constituency and the profession of barbers will be thoroughly red-taped.
It is the case of education. Government controls the education sector and tries to establish education as a right. Obviously, government fails to provide any sort of education to the masses and whatever education it provides always remains way below the required standards. Also, government doesn’t produce the required resources for the provision of free lunch and free education, so who will pay for all that?
The rich people are very few in India and even if government snatches away all the property of the top 100 richest families of India, it cannot sustain the expenditures required for free education. So, who will pay for that? It is us, we poor and middle class people who pay as slave for the government’s immoral desire to provide free education through the taxation system. By stressing free education as a right, government makes all Indians as the slaves who are obligated to pay for the governmental education program without questioning anything about it. By befooling us by the term free education as an individual’s right, government robs us of our very basic right to earn and to hold the fruits and results of our work and efforts. Government taxes us and takes away our hard earned money an in return; we get nothing but a highly imperfect education system. There are no free lunches, but there are lunches being paid for by somebody else.
Conclusion: Rights does not confirm anything freely available for anybody at the expense of others. By terming education, or health-care, or free lunch as individual’s right, politicians try to enslave the public and rob them of their very basic individual right of life, liberty, property and pursuit of happiness. In a free society there can be only the right to live freely, to work and earn freely, to enjoy the produced an earned property freely and to pursue one’s happiness by furthering his efforts and results of his efforts freely. Other than the man’s free will, he has to earn everything honestly in a free society, no other one, not even government is obligated to feed, or cloth or educate him freely.

Man is a rational being by nature; he strives for comfort, well-being, prosperity, progress, security and happiness using his intellectual and physical talents for his proper benefits. Nature created man for a social set-up. His natural necessities remained greater than his individual capacities to fulfil his wants. No one individual is capable enough to supply his own demands without the help of others. He cannot fulfil his wants without the aid of society and those wants, which acts upon every individual drives the whole of them into society. Furthermore, man is naturally selfish, as to fulfil his wants and to pursue his happiness, he is dependent on the reciprocating aid of the society, and he naturally tends to feel affection towards the social set-up, which is necessary for his pursuit of happiness and secured life. Without the aid of society, one may survive, but he cannot be happy and he cannot prosper, that is why, there is no time in a man’s life when his love for the society ceases to act. A man remains a social being throughout his life; society begins and ends with our being.
The property owner, the farmer, the technician, the plumber, the manufacturer, the merchant, the dealer and every occupation prospers by the help that each receives from the other and as a whole; they constitute a society that is regulated by the common interests of every entity. As every individual of a society is well concerned about his personal interests and rational well-being, the society itself evolves the essential sets of natural laws that obviously depends on the mutual benefit of every part, every individual of the society. In most of the cases, a society itself creates a well-arranged mutually beneficial system to avoid any coercive interference from any individual or group of individuals over others, that is, the free society itself denies any necessity of government or any governing coercive body to interfere in the social free domain. If one examines the basic nature and constitution of man, which is the basic unit of the society, he can easily notice that most of the part of the coercive regulatory system that is known as Government is very redundant.

Failure of Government

Often government is considered as obligatory for the working of a society, yet, the more perfect and free a society is, the less it needs a government to govern it. A free society obviously governs itself and provides enough free domains for each individual the right to self govern. All the specific laws of any society or country are basically the very natural laws based on the rational mutual self-interests of the individuals involved. All the laws of trades and commerce with respect to intercourse of individuals or different groups of individuals are based on laws of mutual and reciprocal self-interest. Individuals or groups of free individuals are tend to follow such natural laws of peace and prosperity not because of fear of any formal government, but because of the inherent mutual benefits and profits they are seeking for.
It is quite obvious that if a society is left free, and each individual of that society is provided complete freedom to pursue his progress and happiness, there seldom will be a need of any governing authority. Yet how often is the case where various operations of government destroy the natural peace and mutually beneficial state of free society?
If one look back at the riots and tumults that happened in India at various times, he will find out that government did not want any of those riots, but the government itself was the generating cause. Instead of consolidating the society, government divided it; it deprived the society of its natural cohesion and engendered discontent and disorder. That is, the government itself became the cause of chaos. The riots of 1948 were not because of any misgivings between Hindus or Muslims, both of them were living peacefully in India since hundreds of years, those riots occurred because of governmental want of divide and rule. The bloody conflict of Kashmir is not because of some Islamic group of militants, it is because of the want of two governments to control a peace of land and rule over the people living there. The militants of Punjab demanding for Khalistan were not inspired for any better cause of Sikh community, rather they were looking for making another coercive government, the 1984 riots against Sikh’s again were not because of any sect of society, but they happened because of the impulsiveness of government. The emergency period and all the killings in that period again were because of the government. The opening of Babri Mosque gate was obviously a political step of the government that infuriated the society and became the cause of Hindu-Muslim riots, Babri mosque was demolished because of aspirations of government, and whole society suffered the consequential riots and killings. The burning of Godhra train was again a consequence of the division that the government and the aspirants of government created and that became the cause to further Gujarat violence.
Overall, there seldom occurs a riot or act of violence within the free individuals of a free society, but whenever a self-imposed government intends to interfere within the society; it becomes the cause of riots, tumults, destruction and violence.
The various acts of government, tax-impositions, caste reservations, reservations based on religion etc ultimately divides the society and creates an environment of dissatisfaction an frustration that ultimately leads to violence in various forms and to avoid that, government again tend to divide the society further and deprive it of the natural strength and mutually beneficial state a free and self-governed society may achieve. The recent case of Telangana struggle is also nothing but an example of governmental act going sour, and the very infamous Mumbai riots against the people of UP and Bihar are also nothing but the ill-effects of governmental ill-policies and the war-mongering character of the political aspirants.
What good a farmer ploughing his land will find in leaving his peaceful pursuit of prosperity and happiness and going for a war against a farmer of other religion, state or country ploughing his own land? Why will a manufacturer of a certain religion, caste, state or country wager a war against the manufacturer of another religion, caste, state or country? Does any such war, riot or struggle adds up any acre of land for that farmer, does it increases the productive capacity of the manufacturer, does such wars and tumults and bloodshed increases the venturing probabilities of any entrepreneur or enterprise? No, it adds nothing for any common man, it do no good for any common folk, rather, all such wars, riots, strikes and tumults deprives them of their peaceful pursuit of happiness, their basic right of freedom and security. Though this reasoning is good for a society or a nation and its people to avoid and hate wars, and try to maintain love an peace to pursue their progress, yet it is not so for the government. A society earns nothing from divisions, wars, strikes, tumults and riots, yet a government earns a lot. War is the game of government and the nation and public are the pawns.
In spite of all these depressing and destructive acts of government, the individuals keep striving for their progress, for their living. No matter how high inflation may go, the poor man seeks out a way to feed his children. It is obviously a wonderful attribute of the society that in spite of being ruined and ruled by the government keeps providing enough aid for the individual constituent to survive the harshness and inhumanity of the government.

Society in every state is a blessing, but government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil, in its worst state, an intolerable one. Thomas Paine

Indian state is as much a natural conception as it is a political planned fertilization of the diverse linguistically different regions of an area whose only common identity before the unification by the British was the same racial and religious identity. India as a unified state never existed in history, and it never had a common binding factor that unites all its populace regardless of race, cast religion or linguistic identity. The British unification of India not only united the geographical region, but, for the first time in history, it provided them a reason to unite, against the common enemy, the foreign invaders. However, as soon as it was clear that the fight was won, the leaders now had to provide a separate reason for which the state must continue its unified existence, and bar the Muslim League, nobody could propose a clear and distinct definition of what India was going to be like. The Muslim league wanted a state based on religion that could unite the mass after the departure of British, their movement got a great support, and they were able to form their state, an Islamic republic, through the partition of India. Nevertheless, the non-viability of that identity in the sub-continent was proven by the partition of Pakistan, in a linguistic basis, though the inhabitants of both the countries were Muslims predominantly, and had taken part in the earlier partition enthusiastically.
India was born with a nation identity which was conceived in negation to these historical occurrences, India was a sovereign country, which wanted to protect itself from being occupied by foreign force, India was a secular country, unlike Pakistan, and this “unlike Pakistan” part was very important to Indian people, who failing to understand the proper meaning of secularism interpreted it as religious tolerance. India was not going to be divided by the linguistic biases, so, states were created out of linguistically distinct areas. Hence most of Indian identities established at the point of independence were rather reflection to past and present occurrences, rather than being a conception of conceived and new ideas. As time has progressed, the state of world around has changed, but the principal denominator of Indian National Identity has not changed, and deemed extremists demanding independence on mostly ethnic, religious or linguistic grounds have emerged. Thus, the first conceived identity has failed somewhat, as it was precisely against these very ideas.
To add to this has been the indecisiveness over the government form, India, conceived by Gandhi Ji was a state whose power rose from the Panchayeti Raj, that conceived by Jinnah gave states almost full autonomy, and that conceived by Nehru-Gandhi rulers was centrally dominant. As such, states have felt exploited sometimes or the other during history, as most of the states of India have linguistically and culturally distinct people, who do not necessarily identify with the great Indian cause unless their cause has been properly addressed. Furthermore, the government has given some states more power and autonomy than others (e.g. Kashmir) though declaring it to be a special circumstance, the people of other state have not stopped short of creating special circumstances for their own states. The India government has been blackmailed so many times at gun point, that every other ethnic group now has one or two extremist factions.
The failed idea to promote one national identity through one national language during the 60s have been forgotten by the Saffron Brigade who are promoting it in a new pack of triple Indianism (Hindi, Hindu, Hindutwa) with poster boys like Dr. A P J Abdul Kalam, and incidents like the demolition of Babri Masjid. It has quite often published in the media that Dr. Kalam starts his days by reading a verse or two from the Geeta, which according to the saffron brigade, is what an ideal secular Indian would do. Dr. Kalam has been exploited till he could yield no more, he has been used to prove that Muslims can be patriotic, that being a Muslim does not necessarily mean having a soft corner for Pakistan. The saffron brigade in last 20 years has created amidst the majority that they have been wronged time and again throughout history, and then by their very own government. Now, the majority resents having to share a state with Muslims, who were given a separate state — Pakistan.
To add to this feeling have been the introduction of various reservations. India, a country where being of higher caste meant you were worshipped as God once is now seeing various groups demanding that they must be bracketed with the Scheduled classes and tribes. And these demands are often turning violent, and in some extreme cases, given rise to terrorist organization. The introduction of reservation, which it was thought that would get rid of discrimination have divided the Indian populace like none other, and it has involved the educated elite too, who previously did not care about castism. Rather than getting rid of caste differences and making people forget it as a shameful part of history, the government has taken it out and put it before everyone and made it something which everyone must be aware of.
The political parties of India show how far India really is from achieving a true national identity. Most parties are conceived in racial, linguistic or religious circumstances, and barring the communists, no party has a clear economic stand point, forget about individualism. Even the communist, who come from a strong economic and philosophical ideology has been found confused and reacting in a knee-jerk manner. Their acceptance by the educated once showed that India once was prepared to move beyond the politics of cast and religion, but now, communists are mostly seen waving their secular flag rather than using their true red flag of equality and social justice. Hence, they have been rejected by the educated people, and now are in dangerous of being wiped out of a state which they have ruled for 27 years, and that too to a lady whose political agenda is solely based on objecting to the communists and nothing more. Such a shame.

I, a libertine, was very much interested in the communist politics in my young adulthood, as that appeared to be the only party which was addressing the real issues and moving away from cast and religion. Many of our friends came to join the party, but soon became disillusioned not because the party was proposing communism, which we did not like, rather because, it was going in the same direction as the others. But all those people from the previous generation, who wanted to vote on economic basis, had no option but to vote for them, and it is sad, for their demise proves that the field for true libertine philosophies is almost non-existent and is violently opposed by the present parties.
Now, the Indian Nation identity is very much limited to that of being born in this country to a mother and father who are Indians. And hence, the rate of emergence of separatist movement is increasing every year, and the government has to bribe to keep the nation integrated. Perhaps, someday, the identity shall be established on economic and philosophical terms, and citizenship by birth be abolished in favour of citizenship by choice. But then, what would limit the boundaries of such a state? A global mega state brought about without the use of arms, perhaps!

Shanbaug , a 61 year old woman¹ , who suffered a brutal rape 36 years ago and has been lying in a vegetative state since last 36 years wants to culminate her pain and misery, her life. Her “Next Friend² ” describes her as

Her bones are brittle. Her skin is like ‘papier mache’ stretched over a skeleton. Her wrists are twisted inwards; her fingers are bent and fisted towards her palms, resulting in growing nails tearing into the flesh very often. Her teeth are decayed and giving her pain. Food is mashed and given to her in semi-solid form. She is in a persistent vegetative state.

She has a right to live, should she be punished for that right? How human is it to force her to suffer all the pain regularly? Does the “right to live” include the “right to die”?

The right to Live

In 1948, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted by the United Nations General Assembly declared in article three:
“Every human being has the inherent right to life. This right shall be protected by law. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his life.”
One must understand that “right to life” just like any other right, is not an inalienable, rather it is a subjected of the liability of the right holder.
It is not only an axiom underpinning the concept of freedom, but rather the necessary means to fulfill man’s ethical requirement to achieve a life in accordance with his nature. That ethical requirement derives first of all from the fact that we are living entities facing, like all living entities, the fundamental alternative of existence or non-existence, life or death. By our nature, our specific capacity to deal with that alternative is reason volitionally applied to action. If one chooses to pursue the alternative of death, questions of first principles are moot. If one chooses life, then life becomes one’s goal and the standard of all values.
The complex and spontaneous nature of our lives requires us to identify those values we must seek in the service of our life and order them into a code of values to guide our choices – i.e. an ethics. The primary precondition is the freedom to exercise autonomy over the application of reason and action in the service of our life. Thus, the right to life and our need for freedom is based on what we are – on the fundamental nature of man.
The moral right to one’s life is not a social/political right. It is that which in principle is right for any individual in the context of his own life. When and if an individual chooses to live among other men and interact with them over the long run, he needs to preserve his ability to live by his moral rights. Nothing can prevent him from doing that except physical force or the threat of force, so, above all, his primary social need is the absence of coercion so he may apply reason and action to production and voluntary trade. Yet, what if a person does not want to be with others, he does not want to live anymore? Is he the soul owner of his life, is he the only decision maker for his own life? Yes, he is free, he is no one’s slave. That is why, human dignity and his self-ownership, his sovereignty is considered even above the right to his life.
A man surely possesses an inherent right to a dignified life and by virtue of this right; he certainly is the sole decision maker of what to do with his life. Society, as a cumulative function of many free individuals is a positive human structure to help the man to attain and enjoy the right to his dignified life, the society cannot dictate the terms of dignity or life to any person and it is his decision to be made, free of any social, political or legal coercion.
Thus, in a case of an individuals like Shanbaug, if she prefers to end her miserable and painful life, it is her decision to be made. She is the sole owner of her life and she inherently owns the right to end her life too.

Current norms of Right to Life

India is considered as a free nation, a land of free individuals.
Freedom is so little understood in this “land of the free” that it is often confused with its opposite. The current example of Shanbaug is evidence to that prevailing confusion. The Apex court of India that negated the pleas of termination of pregnancy of mentally retarded girl resulting from a rape at Nari Niketan in Chandigarh and a similar plea from a Mumbai couple for terminating a diseased fetus³ , raised questions against the plea of Shanbaug to terminate her own life. The objection was obsolete and rhetoric. ‘‘Do you mean right to life includes right to die?’’
In no way a man’s right to dignified life can be alienated from his proper right to die. If the society or legal codes of society rule over the individual moral code of life, than it means that the individual is not free and certainly have no sovereignty, rather the individual is mere a subject of legal socio-political norms of collective society.
The Apex Court of India now has accepted the plea of Shanbaug to be debated at Supreme Court. The question is why should the Apex Court be considered as more powerful than the individual’s own right to self-sovereignty and Freedom?
Most probably, Apex-court may dictate a directive to discuss the provision of certain amendment in IPC to include the provision of Physician Assisted Suicide; they may subject it to a public constitutional debate. The Supreme Court may totally reject the plea to voluntary suicide too. Yet, if Apex Court accepts Shanbaug’s plea, as doctors have told her there is no chance of any improvement in her state, will it be any positive step towards Individual Freedom? Will the Supreme Court of Free India ever realize that Indians are not a subject of rule of Supreme Court or national government rather they are entitled to individual sovereignty and a dignified life?
To keep a will of a person to end his life under the decision of Supreme Court or under the will of physicians to decide whether to let a man die or not is a direct breach of “right to live with Dignity” confirmed by the Article 21 of Indian Constitution. By force-feeding Shanbaug and treating her, as a vegetative entity for the purpose of medical tests and experiments is not only unjust, it is highly inhuman. She is not a mouse or cat dependent on the will of physicians.
In case, if Apex Court agrees to let Shanbaug end her life “if Doctors permits her to perform Euthanasia”, than again it would be a breach of individual freedom of Shanbaug and her right to her life. She is certainly not a slave to those doctors whom Supreme Court may consider as the decision maker of who should live or who should be allowed to die.
Physician Assisted Suicide (PAS) is a mendacious issue; it confirms that the physician is principle and not the assistant, that it is the physician who will make the decision whether the person should be allowed to die. An assistant generally means the sub-ordinate that helps one in achieving his decision, but in case of PAS, the physician himself becomes the decision maker, the person superior to the patient. PAS simply empowers Doctors and not the individual to make a free decision for their own life. As a matter of fact, PAS is breach of right to life.

Economical Aspects of Euthanasia

Since last 36 years, government hospital is “force-feeding” Shanbaug, keeping her alive with permanent care, which technology has made an option in an overwhelming number of hospitalized cases. It is not the only case and it requires resources that someone must relinquish in order to make it possible. That is, Government is forcing a person to keep living miserably with no dignity against her will like a slave, while the same government is exceptionally unable to provide any proper medical treatment or help to millions of other Indians who often suffers health hazards and deaths because of lack of medical facilities. How proper it is to waste resources and money on simply forcing and enslaving a person who by her own will want to die, at the expense of misery and poverty of millions of other person who may need the welfare health resources desperately?
No matter how much Indian government spent on people like Shanbaug, they will remain vegetative and unwilling to live, they will keep suffering and feeling like encaged, enslaved, undignified things for governmental medical experiments, no better than rats and dogs. Obviously, we the tax-payers are being robbed for such inhuman acts.
In absence of government control over health care, the decision of life or death of Shanbaug would have been in her own hands. Had government not been paying for her hospital care, perhaps interested individuals would have been willing to contribute to her care. As long as private individuals were voluntarily giving of their funds to keep her alive, it would have been much more difficult for a court to order her feeding tube disconnected. However, because the state is paying for it, ultimately, life and death decisions is to come from a high arbitrary government power. Neither Shanbaug nor her close relatives have any say in that, they may keep pleading like miserable beggars for mercy and humanity to the Supreme Court.

Conclusion:

Right to a dignified life is a fundamental moral right that confirms the right to die itself. If right to life is left not as Individual freedom but as a subject of governmental legal whims of lawyers, magistrates and physicians, than it simply means that Individual is not free even to decide for his life, it would certainly be a breach of his right to life. Moreover, by means of coercive tax-collection and universal health-care, Government again breaches the individual’s fundamental right to dignified life at one hand; on the other hand, it is huge wastage of very limited and scarce medical resources.

1. SC admits sexual assault victim’s plea to end her life, Times of India [↩]
2. Next Friend— a legal term used for a person speaking on behalf of someone who is incapacitated [↩]
3. The Issue of twisted Abortions, Reason for Liberty [↩]

War has a Role in Peace¹

While accepting “Noble Peace Prize” at Oslo, Obama did not forget to mention his recent decision to escalate conflict in Afghanistan soil. He further argued that his decision to increase 30,000 some more US troops in Afghanistan is justified to protect the world from terrorism and extremism and to maintain peace.
In short, Obama declared that wars are essential for the establishment of peace. He also paid his tribute to his “Heroes” Mahatma Gandhi and civil rights leader Martin Luther King.
Some will say that Obama wrongly mentioned Mahatma Gandhi as his ideal; Mahatma Gandhi obviously is known as apostle of peace and pacifism. How could a Gandhian support wars? Could Gandhi be a supporter of wars? Are not wars the ultimate and most excruciating form of violence?
It is a well known fact that wars ultimately causes violence, wastage and poverty. Yet, if some nation is all set to attack you and threat other nation, than the nation under the threat of attack would presumably try to defend itself. Self-defence is a natural right, no one can argue against it. Self-defence cannot be termed as violence. Yet, what about pre-emptive wars?
Is it right to attack a nation just because it may or may not attack you in future?
Does self-defence includes pre-emptive wars to be staged in order to dishevel and destroy the other nations. Is it necessary to destroy and defeat all in order to establish peace? Are wars necessary to sustain peace?

Mahatma Gandhi on Wars

As Obama reverberates himself as being a disciple of Gandhi, we should look at Gandhi’s attitude about Wars. Gandhi ji was obviously against staging any war, he was a supporter of Non-violence, yet there was not a war that he did not support. He supported all the wars in his life time. The apostle of peace Gandhi himself supported British in the Boer War, Zulu War, WW1, WW2.
In 1914, Gandhi himself joined British army as volunteer for the Ambulance corp. to serve the injured Indian and British soldiers at Zulu war. One may understand his compassion for the suffering of soldiers; he was not taking part in active violence.
Yet, in April 1918, Mahatma Gandhi urged Indian youth to take part in British army as war recruits. Perhaps to show his support for the Empire and help his case for India’s independence, he deemed it necessary to take part in the war.² He might have considered it as pacifist way of non-violence, that is rather than fighting against the British rulers, let the Indian youth fight for the British Empire and in turn demand or beg independence as reward. It should be mentioned that while he openly demanded Indian youths to help British army in World War1, he felt aghast when some Indian youth tried to protest against British brutality on Indians “violently” and because of that, he took his Non-cooperation movement back in 1922.³ Obviously, Gandhi was strictly against any form of violence against British Empire by Indians, yet he was ready to recruit Indian youths to kill enemies of British empire, including the Zulu protesters. For Gandhi, the most necessary peace was, peace of Indians against British Empire.
For Gandhi, the pacifist form of war in order to establish and sustain peace was non-violent, hence although he urged Indian youths to fight and die in battle grounds for British Empire, he also maintained that Indian youths must not fight against British rulers in India, because that would be direct violence, and that was not acceptable to Gandhi. Why was Gandhi ready to recruit Indian youths to “co-operate” with British Army in Imperial wars, while he himself was launching the Non-cooperation movement?
During the WW2 again, Pacifist Mahatma Gandhi again favored offering Indian moral support to British army in 1939 when Nazi Germany invaded Poland. Obviously, it seemed right decision as Nazi Germany obviously was violent. Yet, when other leaders of India objected Indian youth’s inclusion in British war, Gandhi declared that India could not be party to a war ostensibly being fought for democratic freedom, while that freedom was denied to India itself. As the war progressed, Gandhi drafted a resolution demanding for British to Quit India. Obviously, his pacifist support for British army during the wars became the saddle of deal for Indian independence. Gandhi realized that British Empire would be exhausted after the two consecutive world wars and hence he declared that even if some Indians directly fight violently against British Empire, he would not take his Quit India demand this time as he did after the World War1.⁴
He knew it was the ripe time to force exhausted British Empire to Quit India.
Thus, it can be seen that if Obama mentions that he took his inspirations from Mahatma Gandhi, he does not sound hypocrite or wrong.

Changing standards of Noble peace prize community

Mahatma Gandhi was nominated for Noble Peace prize many a times, but he was rejected every time. The last time Gandhi was nominated, the Noble prize committee rejected Gandhi because of his known support for Indo-Pak war.
Based on a telegram from Reuters, The Times, on September 27, 1947, under the headline “Mr. Gandhi on ‘war’ with Pakistan” reported:

“Mr. Gandhi told his prayer meeting to-night that, though he had always opposed all warfare, if there was no other way of securing justice from Pakistan and if Pakistan persistently refused to see its proved error and continued to minimise it, the Indian Union Government would have to go to war against it. No one wanted war, but he could never advise anyone to put up with injustice. If all Hindus were annihilated for a just cause, he would not mind. If there was war, the Hindus in Pakistan could not be fifth columnists. If their loyalty lay not with Pakistan, they should leave it. Similarly Muslims whose loyalty was with Pakistan should not stay in the Indian Union.”⁵

That became the reason for Gandhi’s rejection for Noble price of peace.
Yet now, when every body is familiar with Obama’s support for Afghanistan war, when Obama himself argues and justifies his decision to escalate combat against Afghanistan on the platform while receiving the Noble price, nobody really think that he should not get a Noble because his support to wars.
Maybe now, the Noble Committee agrees that War is necessary for maintaining peace and that preventive war are a part of establishment of peace. Obviously, this is a change in the attitude. Gandhi was rejected the Noble for his support to war against Pakistan in order to keep peace, while Obama has been given Noble despite of his support to war at Afghanistan to keep peace.

How Gandhian Idea would help Afghanistan Situation?

Pacifism of Gandhi suggest that the native Afghans should openly help US troops in order to fight against Taliban and Osama Bin Laden and after the end of Taliban and Osama Bin Laden, the Afghans should peaceful demand evacuation of US troops from Afghanistan. That is the appropriate way and it will ensure the non-violence of Afghans supporting US army against Taliban. Gandhi might have urged Afghan youth to recruit themselves along with US troops to fight against Taliban. A Gandhian may request Indian government too, to help US army to fight against Taliban as a “pre-emptive non-violent measure to maintain peace.”

Libertarian Idea on Pre-emptive Wars

Unlike Pacifists, a libertarian does not believe in preventive wars. A libertarian cannot support an attack on a nation or a person on the name of defensive necessity. The right to self-defense does not mean to attack first in order to remove any chances of being under attack. Libertarian sense of Self-Defense necessarily means No use of Violence at first but full right to defend yourself within your limits if you are being attacked. An Indian libertarian might not have thought of fighting for British Empire and than to argue for his own independence. Rather he would have preferred to fight against the British Empire, as they were the invaders, attackers because self-defense is not a right, it is basically a duty of a freedom lover, a Libertarian, or a Libertarian might have simply adopted non-cooperation in all accounts, including no-operation for British Empire in their wars too.
Unlike a pacifist Gandhian, a libertarian will oppose Obama’s decision to increase troops in Afghanistan and will demand a sudden end to all war fronts, just like Ron Paul did during his famous Libertarian speech “What If” in assembly–

1. Obama :War has a role in Peace, Times of India [↩]
2. Role of Mahatma Gandhi in WW1, Wikipedia [↩]
3. Mahatma Gandhi, Non-cooperation, Wikipedia [↩]
4. World War2 and Quit India, Wikipedia [↩]
5. Mahatma Gandhi, the Missing Laureate, Nobleprize.org [↩]