Jeywin Blog

A Law that thwarts Justice

Monday, June 27th, 2011

Prabha Sridevan

Section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act that determines the order of succession in the case of a Hindu woman who dies intestate should be amended for, it reflects an entrenched system of subjugation of women.

The family that had sent a young woman back to her parents after her husband’s death, surfaced when she died. There was a contest between her mother and the husband’s sister’s sons for her property. The mother lost all the way up to the Supreme Court, which noted that it was a “hard case.”

“What women can expect from Courts… is a qualified degree of equal treatment,” wrote Professor Wendy Williams in “The Equality Crisis: Some Reflections on Culture, Courts, and Feminism,” published in 7 Women’s Rts. L. Rep. 175 (1982), adding that “women’s equality as delivered by Courts can only be an integration into a pre-existing, predominantly male world.”

This is so because, though the courts may be well meaning and earnestly intend to uphold equal rights for women, they can only reflect the shared life experience of individuals. This takes a largely male hue, not only because the judgment-deliverers are predominantly male, but also because society systemically supports male supremacy. And this systemic slant shades the thought processes that lie behind laws too, and the courts apply the laws in their judgments.

The skewed reality in which gender is positioned in the social, political, economic and cultural transactions shows up the fact that law is not gender-based — sometimes it is not even gender-neutral. Gender-neutrality will not be enough if it merely maintains the status quo — which is nothing but the perpetuation of gender discrimination. Women need, and must have, affirmation of their equality.

If enactment of laws was sufficient to protect women, then women in India are on velvet. But reality bites. The law is observed in the breach, or the law is not effectively enforced by the law-enforcement agencies, or judicial redress lies beyond the woman’s horizon, or yet, the evil is seen as an accepted practice. Or women get beaten by “hard cases.”

Look at this particular “hard case,” which is reported in (2009)15 SCC Page 66 Omprakash and Others Vs. Radhacharan and Others. In 1955, Narayani Devi married Deendayal Sharma, who died within three months. Soon she was driven out of her matrimonial home. She lived with her parents, earned a living and died on July 11, 1966. She left behind a substantial estate, but wrote no will. Both her mother and her husband’s family claimed a succession certificate. The Supreme Court considered the scope of Section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act and held against the mother.

Section 15(1) says that if a Hindu woman dies without leaving a will, her property will devolve in the following order. The first in the order are her children, children of a predeceased child and her husband. If none of these persons is available, then it will go to the next in line: the heirs of the husband. Standing behind them will be the heirs of the father and the mother. Section 15(2) says that notwithstanding these provisions, if the woman is not survived by a child or the children of a predeceased child, then any property she inherited from her father or mother will go to the father’s heirs, and any property she inherited from her husband or father-in-law will go to the husband’s heirs.

The Supreme Court held that Section 15(1) lays down the ordinary rule of succession; Section 15(2)(a) only carves out an exception to Section 15(1). It observed that the law is silent on a Hindu woman’s self-acquired property, and such property cannot be considered as property inherited from her parents. The court said: “This is a hard case… But then only because a case appears to be hard would not lead us to invoke different interpretation of a statutory provision, which is otherwise impermissible. It is now a well settled principle in law that sentiment or sympathy alone would not be a guiding factor in determining the rights of the parties which are otherwise clear and unambiguous.”

In Narayani Devi’s case, the mother’s claim was not based on sympathy or sentiment, but logic and principles of fairness, equity and justice. The Supreme Court, however, found that the law was a hurdle to her claim.

Justice A.M. Bhattacharjee wrote thus in Modern Hindu Law Under Constitution: “Under the provision of Section 15(1) read with sub-section (2) in the absence of children, the order of succession in the case of a female Hindu would vary according to the source of acquisition of property.” He asked why the source of acquisition should be a determinant in the case of a Hindu woman when it is not so in the case of a Hindu man. “Unless we still want to perpetuate in a somewhat different form the old outmoded view that ownership of property cannot be full but must be somewhat limited.”

A mother shares equally with the children and the widow when a son predeceases her. But when a married daughter dies, the mother ranks after the husband’s heirs. This is the law as enacted in 1955-1956. Hindu law as it existed before the Constitution has been the subject of criticism for the glaring inequalities that it perpetuated. But we find lurking inequalities even in subsequent enactments.

Ironically, some of the ancient texts have a more pragmatic and equal approach in such cases. Stridhana, according to some texts, is categorised as technical and non-technical. Non-technical stridhana is that property which is acquired by a woman through her skill and mechanical arts (Vasishta). In the case of a woman who has no issues, the heirs to stridhana are her husband, mother, brother or father (Devala). Aprajaayaa haredbhartaa mata bhrata pitaapi va, says Devalasmrti (A.D. 600-900).

In the 21st edition of Principles of Hindu Law (Mulla), it is observed that Section 15(2) “seem to have been made on the ground that they prevent such property passing into the hands of persons to whom justice would require it should not pass and on the ground that the exceptions are in the interest of the intestate herself.” If the intention of this provision is to prevent property from devolving on persons to whom justice “would require it should not pass,” then the family that had refused to take care of Narayani should not have got anything.

In India those who own property do not always write a will. Narayani did not. She did not know the law of succession. She certainly would not have wanted her husband’s sister’s children to grab her earnings. If her spirit is floating around, it must be a very unhappy one. In India if a woman loses her husband because of death, desertion or divorce, there is a high probability that she will come to be with her parents. In the present day, many women have self-acquired property that they have earned because of their parents’ support. These are the ground realities.

Section 15 should be amended. The order of succession should be altered. In addition to “inheritance,” other modes of acquisition from parents or because of parents could be added.

Justice Bhattacharjee’s criticism of Section 15 has been referred to above. Decades after his book was written, the injustice continues. Neither biological nor social differences shall corrupt the ideal of equality or the reality of equality. In this case the law views the man’s estate and the woman’s estate through different spectacles: her autonomy over her property is less complete than his. How else can one explain the injustice? There are many more such cases. The law should not stand in the way of justice.

Whether the Supreme Court could or should have addressed the gender discrimination, and seen that the apparent “hardness” of the case was only the outer layer of an entrenched system of subjugation of women, and unpeeled the layers, are questions that need not be argued now.

Professor Williams’ article says: “But to the extent the law of the public world must be reconstructed to reflect the needs and values of both sexes change must be sought from legislatures rather than courts. And women whose separate experience has not been adequately registered… are the ones who must seek the change.” It is time that this law is made gender-balanced.

(Prabha Sridevan, a former Judge of the Madras High Court, is Chairperson, Intellectual Property Appellate Board.)

Courtesy: The Hindu

NY becomes 6th U.S. state to legalize Gay Marriage

Monday, June 27th, 2011

New York becomes the sixth state where gay couples can wed, doubling the number of Americans living in a state with legal gay marriage.

After days of contentious negotiations and last-minute reversals by two Republican senators, New York became the sixth and largest state in the U.S. to legalize gay marriage, breathing life into the national gay rights movement that had stalled over a nearly identical bill two years ago.

Pending any court challenges, legal gay marriages can begin in New York by late July, 2011 after Gov. Andrew Cuomo signed his bill into law just before midnight on 24.06.2011.

At New York City’s Stonewall Inn, the Greenwich Village pub that spawned the gay rights movement on a June night in 1969, Scott Redstone watched New York sign the historic same-sex marriage law with his partner of 29 years, and popped the question.

“I said, ‘Will you marry me?’ And he said, ‘Of course!’” Redstone said he and Steven Knittweis walked home to pop open a bottle of champagne.

New York becomes the sixth state where gay couples can wed, doubling the number of Americans living in a state with legal gay marriage.

“That’s certainly going to have a ripple effect across the nation,” said Ross Levi, executive director of the Empire State Pride Agenda. “It’s truly a historic night for love, our families, and democracy won.”

“We made a powerful statement,” Mr. Cuomo said. “This state is at its finest when it is a beacon of social justice.”

The leading opponent, Democratic Sen. Ruben Diaz, was given only a few minutes to state his case during the Senate debate.

“God, not Albany, settled the issue of marriage a long time ago,” said Diaz, a Bronx minister. “I’m sorry you are trying to take away my right to speak,” he said. “Why are you ashamed of what I have to say?”

The Catholic Bishops of New York said the law alters “radically and forever humanity’s historic understanding of marriage.”

“We always treat our homosexual brothers and sisters with respect, dignity and love,” the bishops stated Friday, “We worry that both marriage and the family will be undermined by this tragic presumption of government in passing this legislation that attempts to redefine these cornerstones of civilization.”

Legal challenges of the law and political challenges aimed at the four Republicans who supported gay marriage in the 33-29 vote are expected. Republican senators endured several marathon sessions, combing through several standard but complex bills this week, before taking up the same-sex marriage bill 24.06.2011.

The bill came to the floor for a vote after an agreement was reached on more protections for religious groups that oppose gay marriage and feared discrimination lawsuits.

“State legislators should not decide society-shaping issues,” said the Rev. Jason McGuire of New Yorkers for Constitutional Freedoms. He said his organization would work in next year’s elections to defeat lawmakers who voted for the measure.

The big win for gay rights advocates is expected to galvanize the movement around the country after an almost identical bill was defeated here in 2009 and similar measures failed in 2010 in New Jersey and this year in Maryland and Rhode Island.

Jerry Nathan of Albany, who married his partner in Massachusetts, called the vote “an incredible culmination of so much that’s been going on for so many years it doesn’t seem real yet.”

Ultimately, gay couples will be able to marry because of two previously undecided Republicans from upstate regions far more conservative than the New York City base of the gay rights movement.

Sen. Stephen Saland, 67, voted against a similar bill in 2009, helping kill the measure and dealing a blow to the national gay rights movement. On Friday night, gay marriage supporters wept in the Senate gallery as Mr. Saland explained how his strong, traditionally family upbringing led him to embrace legalizing gay marriage.

“While I understand that my vote will disappoint many, I also know my vote is a vote of conscience,” Mr. Saland, of Poughkeepsie, said in a statement to The Associated Press before the vote. “I am doing the right thing in voting to support marriage equality.”

Also voting for the bill was freshman Sen. Mark Grisanti, a Buffalo Republican who also had been undecided. Mr. Grisanti said he could not deny anyone what he called basic rights.

“I apologize to those I offend,” said Mr. Grisanti, a Roman Catholic. “But I believe you can be wiser today than yesterday. I believe this state needs to provide equal rights and protections for all its residents,” he said.

A huge street party erupted outside the Stonewall Inn Friday night, with celebrants waving rainbow flags and dancing after the historic vote.

Watching the festivities from across the street was Sarah Ellis, who has been in a six-year relationship with her partner, Kristen Henderson. Ellis said the measure would enable them to get married in the fall. They have twin toddlers and live in Sea Cliff on Long Island.

“We’ve been waiting. We considered it for a long time, crossing the borders and going to other states,” said Ellis, 39. “But until the state that we live in, that we pay taxes in, and we’re part of that community, has equal rights and marriage equality, we were not going to do it.”

The bill makes New York only the third state, after Vermont and New Hampshire, to legalize marriage through a legislative act and without being forced to do so by a court.

Dream Dare Win

www.jeywin.com

*******

The Libyan Crisis

Friday, June 17th, 2011

Ramya Bharathi

Missiles landed near rebel positions on 23rd March 2011 and shelling in previous days has killed a small number of rebel fighters. Ali pointed out a freshly dug grave on the roadside outside Ajdabiyah with a revolutionary flag planted in it. He conveyed despair of what he saw as inertia by the rebel leadership in Benghazi and called for more help from the West.

“The National Libyan Council aren’t the people to ask for anything to be frank. We want help from the West. If it weren’t for them, Gaddafi’s forces would be in Benghazi,” Ali said.

Retaking Ajdabiyah would be a morale boost for the rebels and would suggest that air strikes by Western jets are giving them an edge over Gaddafi’s better-armed forces.

The air strikes decimated some of Gaddafi’s forces, including at least 20 tanks, near Benghazi Sunday the 20th of March 2011, after the United Nations agreed to enforce a no-fly zone over Libya and other measures to protect civilians.

Hundreds of rebel fighters have been stationed a few kilometers outside Ajdabiyah since that day. They are prevented from going in by tank fire from Gaddafi’s forces stationed at the town’s entrance.

Fighting between rebels and Moamer Gaddafi’s forces rocked Ajdabiya, with residents fleeing the strategic east Libyan oil town.

Terror-stuck Citizens

A family in a car told AFP, at a point about 15 kilometres north along the coast outside of Ajdabiya, that they were fleeing the town.

“We left because of the fighting. We were very scared; we cannot stay,” said the man, who declined to give his name. His wife and four children looked to be in a state of panic.

An AFP reporter said a pall off smoke hung over the town and the sound of shelling and gunfire was heard intermittently. Hamed al-Qabaili, also fleeing Ajdabiya, described the situation as “very bad.”

“They are firing Grad missiles at the houses,” he said.

Fighting was occurring at the city’s east and west gates but the Tobruk gate was in the hands of the rebels, Qabaili said.

Muftah al-Sheikh, travelling in a car with Qabaili, said he had witnessed two brothers being shot dead in Ajdabiya.

“We left the town because we are afraid,” he said. “There are very few people left. There is no electricity and no gas.”

A group of rebel fighters positioned about nine kilometres from the entrance of Ajdabiya said there were 11 tanks stationed at the town’s east gate.

“When we try to advance they shoot at us with heavy weapons — tanks and 14.5 calibre machine guns. All we have are Kalashnikovs,” said one fighter, Jumaa Suleiman.

Another fighter, Ayyad Jaballah, said wounded rebels were lying near the east gate but no one could reach them.

“Every time we try to get close they shoot at us,” he said, referring to the loyalist forces.

The two 30-year-old travelling together in a car then raced away towards the rebel checkpoint at Zuwatinah, further up the road towards Benghazi.

Gaddafi forces captured Ajdabiya last week on their drive eastward against the month-old uprising and launched a fierce attack on Benghazi.

But they were halted when French aircraft launched air strikes soon after UN Security Council Resolution 1973 authorised all necessary measures to prevent harm to civilians.

They then pulled back to Ajdabiya, where they easily beat off a rebel advance.

A rebel fighter said Gaddafi was “putting heavy tanks inside Ajdabiya. “It’s full of civilians so we can’t attack them.”

History of Libya

Libya, an oil-rich nation in North Africa, has been under the firm control of Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi since he seized power in 1969 through a bloodless coup. He has built his rule on a cult of personality and a network of family and tribal alliances supported by largess from Libya’s oil revenues.

But in February 2011, the unrest sweeping through much of the Arab world erupted in several Libyan cities. Though it began with a relatively organized core of antigovernment opponents in Benghazi, its spread to the capital of Tripoli was swift and spontaneous. Colonel Qaddafi lashed out with a level of violence unseen in either of the other uprisings, but an inchoate opposition cobbled together the semblance of a transitional government, fielded a makeshift rebel army and portrayed itself to the West and Libyans as an alternative to Colonel Qaddafi’s four decades of freakish rule.

Momentum shifted quickly, however, and the rebels faced the possibilty of being outgunned and outnumbered in what increasingly looked like a mismatched civil war. As Colonel Qaddafi’s troops advanced to within 100 miles of Benghazi, the rebel stronghold in the west, the United Nations Security Council voted to authorize military action, a risky foreign intervention aimed at averting a bloody rout of the rebels by loyalist forces. On March 19 2011, the American and European forces began a broad campaign of strikes against Colonel Qaddafi and his government, unleashing warplanes and missiles in a military intervention on a scale not seen in the Arab world since the Iraq war. The United States withdrew its ambassador from Libya in 1972 after Colonel Qaddafi renounced agreements with the West and repeatedly inveighed against the United States in speeches and public statements.

When a mob sacked and burned the American Embassy in 1979, the United States cut off all relations. In 1986, the Reagan administration accused Libya of ordering the bombing of a German discothèque that killed three people. In response, the United States bombed targets in Tripoli and Benghazi.

The most notorious of Libya’s actions was the bombing in 1988 of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, which killed 270 people. Libya later accepted responsibility, turned over suspects and paid families of victims more than $2 billion.

After a surprise decision to renounce terrorism in 2003, Colonel Qaddafi re-established diplomatic and economic ties throughout Europe. He had also changed with regard to Israel. The man who once called for pushing the ”Zionists” into the sea advocated the forming of one nation where Jews and Palestinians would live together in peace.

He founded a pan-African confederation modeled along the lines of the European Union. On Feb. 2, 2009, Colonel Qaddafi was named chairman of the African Union. His election, however, caused some unease among some of the group’s 53-member nations as well as among diplomats and analysts. The colonel, who has ruled Libya with an iron hand, was a stark change from the succession of recent leaders from democratic countries like Tanzania, Ghana and Nigeria.

The most significant changes had been the overtures Colonel Qaddafi has made toward the United States. He was among the first Arab leaders to denounce the Sept. 11 attacks, and he lent tacit approval to the American-led invasion of Afghanistan. He reportedly shared his intelligence files on Al Qaeda with the United States to aid in the hunt for its international operatives. He had also cooperated with the United States and Europe on nuclear weapons, terrorism and immigration issues.

In August 2009, Colonel Qaddafi embarrassed the British government and drew criticism from President Obama with his triumphant reaction to the release from prison of Abdel Basset Ali al-Megrahi, the only person convicted in the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103. Mr. Megrahi was given a hero’s welcome when he arrived in Libya, and Colonel Qaddafi thanked British and Scottish officials for releasing Mr. Megrahi at a time that they were trying to distance themselves from the action.

February 2011

In February 2011, protests broke out in several parts of Libya on a so-called Day of Rage to challenge Colonel Qaddafi’s 41-year-old iron rule — the region’s longest. Thousands turned out in the restive city of Benghazi; in Tripoli; and at three other locations, according to Human Rights Watch. The state media, though, showed Libyans waving green flags and shouting in support of Colonel Qaddafi.

Trying to demonstrate that he was still in control, Colonel Qaddafi appeared on television on Feb. 22, 2011, speaking from his residence on the grounds of an army barracks in Tripoli that still showed scars from when the United States bombed it in 1986.

In the long, rambling address, he blamed the unrest on “foreign hands,” a small group of people distributing pills, brainwashing, and the naïve desire of young people to imitate the uprisings in Egypt and Tunisia. Without acknowledging the gravity of the crisis in the streets of the capital, he described himself in sweeping, megalomaniacal terms. “Muammar Qaddafi is history, resistance, liberty, glory, revolution,” he declared.

International condemnation of the violent crackdown continued to build. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton protested the violence in a statement. Ban Ki-moon, the United Nations secretary general, said on Feb. 21 that he had spoken to Colonel Qaddafi and urged him to halt attacks on protesters immediately. The Security Council held an emergency meeting the following day to discuss the bloodshed.

The Colonel’s Security Forces

Colonel Qaddafi, who took power in a military coup, has always kept the Libyan military too weak and divided to rebel against him. About half of Libya’s relatively small 50,000-member army is made up of poorly trained and unreliable conscripts, according to the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

Many of its battalions are organized along tribal lines, ensuring their loyalty to their own clan rather than to top military commanders — a pattern evident in the defection of portions of the army to help protesters take the eastern city of Benghazi. Some Libyans and scholars outside the country say this system of tribal alliances, long Colonel Qaddafi’s most potent weapon, is now emerging as perhaps a potential vulnerability.

His own clan dominates the air force and the upper level of army officers, and they are believed to have remained loyal to him, in part because his clan has the most to lose from his ouster.

Distrustful of his own generals, he built up an elaborate paramilitary force — accompanied by special segments of the regular army that report primarily to his family. It is designed to check the army and in part to subdue his own population. At the top of that structure is his roughly 3,000-member revolutionary guard corps, which mainly guards him personally.

But perhaps the most significant force that Colonel Qaddafi has deployed against the current insurrection is one believed to consist of about 2,500 ruthless mercenaries from countries like Chad, Sudan and Niger that he calls his Islamic Pan African Brigade.

The Ongoing Conflict

On Feb. 25, security forces loyal to Colonel Qaddafi used gunfire to try to disperse thousands of protesters who streamed out of mosques after prayers to mount their first major challenge to the government’s crackdown in Tripoli. Rebel leaders said they were sending forces from nearby cities and other parts of the country to join the fight.

A bold play by Colonel Qaddafi to prove that he was firmly in control of Libya appeared to backfire as foreign journalists he invited to the capital discovered blocks of the city in open defiance. Witnesses described snipers and antiaircraft guns firing at unarmed civilians, and security forces were removing the dead and wounded from streets and hospitals, apparently in an effort to hide the mounting toll.

The ring of rebel control around Tripoli tightened, but in a sign that the fight was far from over, armed government forces massed around the city.

The United Nations Security Council voted unanimously to impose sanctions on Colonel Qaddafi and his inner circle of advisers, and called for an international war crimes investigation into “widespread and systemic attacks” against Libyan citizens.

On March 2, rebels in the strategic oil city of Brega repelled an attack by hundreds of Colonel Qaddafi’s fighters. The daylong battle was the first major incursion by the colonel’s forces in the rebel-held east of the country since the Libyan uprising began.

Air power has proven to be Colonel Qaddafi’s biggest advantage, and rebels have been unable to use bases and planes they captured in the east. Planes and helicopters give the Qaddafi forces an additional advantage in moving ammunition and supplies, a crucial factor given the length of the Libyan coast between the rebel stronghold of Benghazi and Tripoli.

As Colonel Qaddafi’s forces tried to retake a series of strategic oil towns on the east coast of the country, which fell early in the rebellion to antigovernment rebels, the West continued to debate what actions to take, including the creation of a possible no-flight zone to ground Libyan warplanes.

Though the regime of Colonel Qaddafi has clearly been undermined, it still retains significant strength, and enough support among critical tribes and institutions, including parts of the army and the air force, to retain power, if not superiority, for some time to come.

The Opposition

The question of the opposition’s capabilities is likely to prove decisive to the fate of the rebellion, which appears outmatched by government forces and troubled by tribal divisions that the government, reverting to form, has sought to exploit.

Rebel forces are fired more by enthusiasm than experience. The political leadership has virtually begged the international community to recognize it, but it has yet to marshal opposition forces abroad or impose its authority in regions it nominally controls.

While the mood remains ebullient in parts of eastern Libya, largely because few believe that Colonel Qaddafi can reconquer a region that long seethed under his rule, it is more sullen in Benghazi, a Mediterranean port and Libya’s second largest city, where security has begun to deteriorate.

With momentum seeming to shift, the rebels face the prospect of being outgunned and outnumbered in what increasingly looks like a mismatched civil war.                 

Developments in March 2011

March 4th to March 10th 2011

Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi’s government widened its counterattack on its rebel opponents, waging fierce battles to wrest control of the town of Zawiya from rebel troops, attacking an eastern oil town and firing on peaceful protesters after prayers in Tripoli. At least 35 people were reported dead, more than 100 wounded and 65 missing in Zawiya, 25 miles west of Tripoli. His forces fired on unarmed protestors in Tripoli and Zawiyah, and fought with rebels for control of Zawiyah and Ras Lanuf, an eastern oil town. At least 35 people were killed in Zawiyah. Government forces began a new air attack on rebels in the coastal town of Ras Lanuf. The rebels had withdrawn to the town after troops loyal to Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi attacked them in the coastal town of Bin Jawwad using tanks, helicopters and fighter planes, and pushed them east, stalling, for the moment, hopes by the antigovernment fighters of a steady march toward Tripoli.

As world powers debate measures against Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi, including the creation of a no-fly zone, the Libyan leader vowed that his countrymen would take up arms to resist such measures. Rebels were dealt military setbacks in Zawiyah and Ras Lanuf, part of a strengthening government counteroffensive, as the opposition’s calls for foreign aid amplified divisions over the need for intervention. Provisional leaders warned that a humanitarian crisis may loom, as people’s needs begin to overwhelm fledgling local governments.

Forces loyal to Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi renewed their onslaught on both the eastern and western fronts, apparently establishing control of the western city of Zawiyah and conducting airstrikes in Ras Lanuf, taunting rebels with flyovers and bombing runs near the coastal city’s oil refinery. The attacks came amid reports of a possible peace offer from the Qaddafi camp and growing debate in Western capitals about imposing a no-flight zone over Libya.

Rebel fighters fled the strategic refinery town of Ras Lanuf under ferocious rocket attacks and airstrikes by forces loyal to the Libyan leader, Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi. Bold plans of a westward drive to Tripoli by the undermanned and ill-equipped rebel army were dashed by the superior Qaddafi forces, which are seeking to retake several eastern oil cities that slipped from the government’s control in the first days of the uprising. Morale among the fighters seemed to be weakening, even as Agence-France Presse reported that the French president, Nicolas Sarkozy, had recognized the opposition Libyan National Council.

March 11th to March 20th 2011

Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi’s forces advanced on the strategic oil town of Ras Lanuf, a day after battering the rebels in a sustained assault by land, air and sea. The rebels went into a chaotic retreat, changing the momentum in the three-week old uprising and providing a stark illustration of the asymmetry of the conflict. The White House announced a five-point program of steps to isolate Colonel Qaddafi and ultimately drive him from power, all stopping well short of military action. The Arab League asked the United Nations Security Council to impose a no-flight zone over Libya in hopes of halting Colonle Qaddafi’s attacks on his own people, providing the rebels a tincture of hope even as they were driven back from a long stretch of road and towns they had captured in the three-week war.

Following a brutal, weeklong battle that recaptured — and nearly demolished — the strategically important town of Zawiya, forces loyal to Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi cranked up military and psychological pressure against rebels on two fronts, offering an amnesty to those who surrendered their weapons while bombing Ajdabiya, a strategic linchpin in the east, and surrounding a rebel-held town in the west.

A day after routing a ragtag army in an eastern town near the rebel capital of Benghazi, forces loyal to Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi launched attacks on the city of Misurata, the last rebel stronghold in western Libya, about 125 miles east of the capital, Tripoli. Government forces fired artillery, bombarding the city of several hundred thousand as tanks moved in preparation for a ground advance.

The rebels seeking to oust Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi claimed minor victories in some of their last footholds at both ends of the country’s coast as they battled to hold off the Qaddafi forces’ superior firepower. After days of often acrimonious debate, played out against a desperate clock, the Security Council authorized member nations to take “all necessary measures” to protect civilians, diplomatic code words calling for military action. Benghazi erupted in celebration at news of the resolution’s passage.

Hours after the United Nations Security Council voted to authorize military action and the imposition of a no-flight zone, Libya performed what seemed a remarkable about-face after weeks of defiance, saying it would call an “immediate ceasefire and the stoppage of all military operations” against rebels seeking the ouster of Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi. But the United States, Britain and France pushed forward, declaring that the cease-fire announcement was not enough, at least for now, to ward off military action against his forces. President Obama ordered Colonel Qaddafi to implement the cease-fire immediately and stop all attacks on Libyan civilians or face military action from the United States and its allies in Europe and the Arab world.

The military campaign against Colonel Qaddafi was launched under British and French leadership as President Nicolas Sarkozy of France convened an urgent meeting of European, African and Arab leaders in Paris. American forces mounted an initial campaign to knock out Libya’s air defense systems, firing volley after volley of Tomahawk missiles from nearby ships against missile, radar and communications centers around Tripoli, and the western cities of Misurata and Surt. American and European militaries intensified their air and sea barrage against Colonel Qaddafi’s forces, as the mission moved beyond taking away his ability to use Libyan airspace, to obliterating his hold on the ground as well, allied officials said. Rebel forces, battered and routed by loyalist fighters just the day before, began to regroup in the east as allied warplanes destroyed dozens of government armored vehicles near the rebel capital, Benghazi, leaving a field of burned wreckage along the coastal road to the city.

March 21st to March 25th 2011

The military campaign to destroy air defenses and establish a no-fly zone over Libya has nearly accomplished its initial objectives, and the United States is moving swiftly to hand command to allies in Europe, American officials said, but fighting continued as reports began to emerge of the crash of an American warplane. The crash, which was probably caused by mechanical failure, was the first known setback for the international coalition attacking Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi’s forces in three days of strikes authorized by the United Nations Security Council. Colonel Qaddafi’s forces showed no sign of let up in their siege of rebel-cities.

After a second night of American and European strikes by air and sea against Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi’s forces, European nations rejected Libyan claims that civilians had been killed. Pro-Qaddafi forces were reported, meanwhile, to be holding out against the allied campaign to break their hold on the ground while enforcing a no-fly zone. Rebel fighters trying to retake the eastern town of Ajdabiya appeared to have fallen back to a position around 12 miles to the north on the road to Benghazi, the de facto rebel capital.

To Continue ……

Dream Dare Win

www.jeywin.com

 

******

Euthanasia – India’s call

Friday, June 17th, 2011

Anjana

The legality of mercy killing or euthanasia and its ethical and moral sides have been hotly discussed and debated in the Indian media and society for the last week or so.

Mercy killing is defined as the killing of one person by another. The victim of mercy killing is normally in the vegetable state or has an injury or illness that cannot be cured, as it is usually in its last stage. The victim experiences immensely painful last days just before his or her death.

For a voluntary case of mercy killing to take place, the killer must first obtain the consent of the victim, but there have been recorded cases of mercy killing against the wishes of the victim as well. This is known as involuntary mercy killing. The victim of a mercy killing dies a painless death after suffering an incurable ailment or serious injury. The term euthanasia, which means mercy killing, is derived from the Greek word for ‘good death’. Euthanasia has been legalised in some Western countries but is still considered to be an unethical practice in the Third World.

Also known as assisted suicide and mercy death, euthanasia is the intentional killing by act or omission of a dependent human being for his or her alleged benefit.

It is illegal in India and most countries of the world. Only ten odd countries have legalised the practice of mercy killing. Some social activists claim that euthanasia and assisted suicide are government mandated suffering for the terminally ill persons.

The DoctorNDTV.com survey on this issue has shown a mixed response. More than half the respondents feel that the decision should not be left to the doctors or the next of kin, while one third support the doctors / relatives right to take this decision. Two-thirds agree that euthanasia is the same as mercy killing . Though 71 per cent people feel that legal advice is necessary before taking a decision, most people (>88 per cent) feel that it may be misused in India.

The following are the pros and cons for allowing euthanasia.

Pros:

  • It provides a way to relieve extreme pain
  • It provides a way of relief when a person’s quality of life is low
  • Frees up medical funds to help other people
  • It is another case of freedom of choice

 Cons:

  • Euthanasia devalues human life
  • Euthanasia can become a means of health care cost containment
  • Physicians and other medical care people will get involved in directly causing death
  • There is a ‘slippery slope’ effect that will occur.
  • Stances, views and opinions on euthanasia vary greatly; it is called murderous by some and merciful by others. Such controversy arises generally from the serious social, cultural and moral issues attached to the subject.

A Matter of Life and Death – March 7th 2011

Bringing the issue into the limelight has been the case of Aruna Shanbaug, who has been in a vegetative state of 37 years. A nurse at Mumbai’s KEM hospital in 1973, she was sexually assaulted while working and the incident left her in a vegetative state, relying on life support systems since the incident.

On Monday the 7th of March 2011, the Indian Supreme Court ruled that passive euthanasia was legal in India and could be practiced in special circumstances, but struck down any hopes of active euthanasia in the country. The Supreme Court was responding to an appeal filed by a friend of Shanbaug. The Supreme Court stated that the plea from the friend was not a valid reason enough to grant euthanasia to the ex-nurse. The apex court also stated that if the hospital taking care of Shanbaug had filed a similar appeal, it would carry more weight and authenticity than the one currently filed. One of the reasons given by the court in rejecting the appeal was that the hospital and the nurses taking care of Aruna Shanbaug were opposed to euthanasia of the patient.

India has given the green light for passive euthanasia, a decision seen as welcome and progressive move by many doctors across the country. Passive euthanasia is administering euthanasia by removing the life support extended to a patient in vegetative condition. This is in contrast to active euthanasia, where an active chemical or agent is injected or delivered into the body of a patient in vegetative condition. The apex court observed that the country might not be ready for such radical and drastic ruling. The court stated that the only way active euthanasia could be legalised is if the Indian Parliament passed a law to that effect.

A Bench of Justices Markandey Katju and Gyan Sudha Misra, however, did not accept the plea of Pinky Viranai seeking permission to withdraw life support to her friend.  Writing the judgment, Justice Katju said that there was no statutory provision in our country as to the legal procedure for withdrawing life support to a person in PVS or who is otherwise incompetent to take a decision. He agreed that passive euthanasia should be permitted in our country in certain situations.

The Bench pointed out that in the absence of a law against sexual harassment at work places, the Supreme Court in the Visakha case had laid down guidelines. Similarly he claimed that he was now laying down the law in this connection which will continue to be the law until Parliament makes a law on the subject. According to him, a decision has to be taken to discontinue life support [to a patient in PVS] either by the parents or the spouse or other close relatives, or in the absence of any of them, such a decision can be taken even by a person or a body of persons acting as a next friend. It can also be taken by the doctors attending the patient. However, the decision should be taken bona fide in the best interest of the patient.

The Bench believes that if they leave it solely to the patient’s relatives or to the doctors or the next friend to decide whether to withdraw life support to an incompetent person, there is always a risk in our country that this may be misused by some unscrupulous persons who wish to inherit or otherwise grab the property of the patient. Considering the low ethical levels prevailing in our society today and the rampant commercialisation and corruption, they cannot rule out the possibility that unscrupulous persons with the help of some unscrupulous doctors may fabricate material to show that it is a terminal case with no chance of recovery.”

In the present case, the Bench declared that Aruna Shanbaug’s parents are dead and other close relatives had not been interested in her ever since she had the unfortunate assault on her. It is the KEM Hospital staff, who has been amazingly caring for her day and night for so many long years, who really are her next friends, and not Ms. Pinky Virani, who has only visited her on a few occasions and written a book on her. Hence it is for the KEM Hospital staff to take that decision. The KEM hospital staff has clearly expressed their wish that Aruna Shanbaug should be allowed to live.

The nurses and doctors at the hospital were jubilant over the Supreme Court ruling. A few nurses at the hospital remarked to the media that the ruling was the best women’s day gift the top court could have given them. The nurses even went on to question the authenticity of Ms. Pinky Virani, Shanbaug’s friend who appealed to the Supreme Court to grant euthanasia. The nurses at KEM hospital claimed that Shanbaug was like family to them. They claimed that Shanbaug was not completely vegetative and that she responded to touch and food. Nurses were of the opinion that Ms. Virani, who had not taken care of Shanbaug through the 37 years of being comatose had no right to ask for the withdrawal of life support systems.

 “India is not mature enough to handle euthanasia,” senior Bangalore-based cardiologist Devi Prasad Shetty said while expressing his happiness over the verdict on a mercy killing plea on behalf of 60-year-old Aruna Shanbaug. Dr. Shetty’s view was shared by Chief Cardiologist of Bombay Hospital B.K. Goyal, who said euthanasia is an emotional issue which can be “misused.”

There was joy among Aruna’s former colleagues and nurses in local KEM hospital who have been tending to her. Nurses distributed sweets at the hospital after the Supreme Court ruling.

While comparing euthanasia with MTP, senior doctor Goyal said that in such a case they should ensure the safety of people at large because when in India, MTP is allowed, it was misused right and left. In the same way, he feels euthanasia can be misused too.

Dr. Shetty said that financial constraints and inability to look after cannot be the reason to ask someone to terminate life. This is unacceptable.

He believes that this country is not mature enough to handle this major legal issue. It is not possible.

March 9th 2011

No parent would like to see their children killed, even if disabled, but watching the nightmarish existence of their physically challenged sons has prompted a couple from Bihar to seek euthanasia from them. Mukesh Kumar, a marginal farmer from Ratwada village of Muzaffarpur district filed a mercy death plea for his sons, Nitin, 15, and Anshu, 13, both living with muscular dystrophy (MD), a terminal and degenerative condition that has crippled the two brothers.

Muscular dystrophy is not just a disability, but a genetic and inherited disorder that gradually deteriorates killing muscle cells and tissues until the patient finally dies.

According to the parents, the boys were born healthy and were like normal children till age two when they got the muscular disorder. The boys cannot talk or stand on their feet and are completely dependent on their parents. They are also paralysed below their chests and are unable to move or eat without assistance.

Although, MD has no cure, some treatments are available in US. However, these are expensive, something to the tune of over Rs. 30 lakhs which are far beyond the poor farmer means.

The financial resources of the couple have been exhausted completely. They have sold off their few valuables and ancestral land to meet the expenses for their sons’ medical treatment.

Mukesh stated that they have been pleading for their mercy killing because we cannot continue costly medical treatment, which anyway will not cure them, only prolong their unhappy lives. He believes that the state government should either grant permission or provide us help for treatment.

Watching the discomfort, torturous pain, indignity and utter helplessness of the two sons virtually turn into vegetables over the last 10 years is distressing for the parents.

With doctors giving up hope, the parents feel death is the only solution that can put an end to the tyranny of their fate.

The dignity of life and the right to live without pain and discomfort are the major issues in the limelight. If active euthanasia is implemented in India, there is a considerable chance that it could be misused, especially in areas that are rural and withdrawn from the mainstream. The Supreme Court seems to have made a sensible decision on the issue. May be, India will have to wait a few more years until the nation is ready for legal active euthanasia.

Dream Dare Win

www.jeywin.com

*****