Landslide victory for Nitish Kumar in Bihar, India

Nitish Kumar of Janata Dal-United (JDU) who ruled the state of Bihar in coalition with the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and contested the elections together are set for a landslide victory. The result is an outcome of some people centric measures.

 

Nitish Kumar, Chief Minister of Bihar 3-10 March 2000 and 24 Nov 2005 till date.  ©  Government of Bihar

 

Elections to the 243 seats of the state assembly of Bihar, India was held in six phases that lasted for more than a month and the results have been announced today. The ruling JDU-BJP alliance with Nithish Kumar as its Chief Minister has won 206 seats, 115 for JDU and 91 for BJP.
 

The surprise part for people in other parts of the country is that the right-wing pro-Hindu BJP has been doing well despite the state having one-seventh of its population as non-Hindus (mostly Muslims). A few months ago, Nitish Kumar, had refused to share a dias with BJP's Narendra Modi, Chief Minister from Gujarat, a state that witnessed one of the worst anti-Muslim riots in 2002.

All this has been possible in Bihar because of some positive measures taken by the government. In 2005 when Nitish Kumar took over the reigns of the state, the word Bihar conjured up a negative image identified with poor law and order, poor infrastructure, high incidences of poverty that led to out migration from the state for basic livelihood and corruption. This was unfortunate because etymological roots of 'Bihar' lies with the monasteries of Gautama Buddha.

The last five years saw a change and Bihar is on its path to a new glory. In the last five years, visits to Patna the state capital and other regions throws up some positive developments. Law and order has improved tremendously. Murder, kidnapping and other crimes have reduced.
 

When it comes to infrastructure, new roads are being laid everywhere. Distances of 60 kilometers from Patna required five hours of travel, whcih could now be covered within two hours and this is the story all over the state. Number of vehicles have increased and travel time has reduced considerably.

To do away with poverty, good cases from other states were studied and JEEViKA: The Bihar Rural Livelihoods Project modeled with the Andhra Pradesh experience was taken up. This organized poorest women and vulnerable sections. One such story is among milkmen (Yadava's who belong to the same community as that of Mr Lalu Prasad Yadav), an earlier Chief Minister and leader of the opposition party). A group of 13-15 milkmen were indebted and had to sell their milk to the lender-trader at a lower price. Jeevika formed a group of these people and gave them a loan of about 75,000 rupees ($1,600) to repay the earlier loan and also helped them in establishing a marketing channel as a result of which the group was able to repay this fresh loan in three months time. There are many such success stories in building people's institutions. Of course, this is just the beginning and a lot needs to be done.

The one thing where perhaps the Nitish government failed is perhaps corruption. It is said that earlier people used to be afraid of the bullet (indicating the law and order problem) but today they are afraid of the pen (referring to the bureaucrats) who seem to be asking for a cut in all the pro-people scheme that have been initiated. The new government has to address this and also chart the new direction with people. The difficulty is that they will not have a credible opposition. One would have been happy if JDU could have formed a government on their own and BJP provided a strong opposition. But, that is not to be, as JDU falls short of a simple majority. One hopes that it is the people of Bihar who provide this critical input to check the coming of vested interests that may scuttle their surge forward. Bihar khush raho!

(This write-up was first put up in Digital Journal, 24 November 2010, http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/300626.)

Day 35 of farmers march coincides with Obama's visit to India

Farmers marching across India to save agriculture are now in Andhra Pradesh. This peoples movement of liberating agriculture and ushering in hope does not reverberate with Obama's call for liberalizing and opening up agriculture.

Logo of Kisan Swaraj Yatra. © Kisan Swarj Yatra

Kisan Swaraj Yatra (KSY) taking inspiration from Mahatma Gandhi started the freedom tour on his 141st birthday has today on its 35th day reached Andhra Pradesh, Mr Obama also started his India tour by visiting his hero Gandhiji's museum 'Mani Bhavan', Mumbai. KSY's journey is a peoples movement that calls for hope to do away with the ills plaguing Indian agriculture, Mr Obama's ascendancy to office two years ago in the United States was also reverberating with hope for people across the globe. The similarities, one hopes, should not stop there; but, unfortunately, it does.

Flag off of Kisan Swaraj Yatra from Sabarmati Gujarat 2 October 2010. © Kisan Swaraj Yatra

The visit has a lot on platter for business ties. An opening up of the economy so that they buy goods and services from America so that there are more jobs back home. There are significant interests in liberalizing agriculture so that Indian farmer relies heavily on the market for inputs such as seeds, fertilizers and pesticides. These benefit business interests in America and also India. These will also have adverse affect on Indian livelihoods as tidbits of news from the Yatra indicates.

In a meeting at Jangaon in Warangal district of Andhra Pradesh on 3 November 2010 the slogans that rented the air are “Farmers’ welfare is nation’s welfare”, “Companies that loot farmers, gotta go; Ministers who are company agents, gotta go”, “Farmer who feeds us, don't commit suicide”. A host of groups came together and the mood may be summed up by the remark of a police official present “I have never seen all these organizations coming onto the same platform. How did you all manage this?” This was possible because of an engagement with people, what the Human Development Report has been stressing.

On 2 November 2010 in a meeting at HD Kote, Karnataka a discussion revealed that not non Bt (Bacillus thuringiensis) seeds and organic seeds are not available in the market and Pandit Krishi Vivek Cariappa added that parental lines of hybrid seeds have been contaminated. Another speaker emphasized that "to save the country, we should save our villages; for saving our villages, we should save our farming; for saving farming, we should save our seed, our land and our ecological farming methods." The absence of regulation for private input providers, the yield stagnation, the increasing health risks were also discussed. The Yatris joined the paddy diversity festival at Rangayana, Mysore.

Meeting and paddy diversity festival Rangayana, Mysore, where Yatris had delicious lunch made out of many traditional rice-based recipes, 2 November 2010. © Kisan Swaraj Yatra

The tour had reached the state of Kerala on 30 October 2010. In a public meeting at Palakkad, Mr Mullakkara Ratnakaran, Minister for Agriculture, conveyed through phone that "all the issues being raised by the Yatra are issues of concern for the state government too." Mr Diwakaran, the local member of the legislative assembly, mentioned about "the disappearance of honeybees and the huge environmental imbalances that we are creating."

The state of Kerala, which has been in the centre of many environmental movements such as the save silent valley, has now also declared itself to be free of genetically modified crops. The state has a policy towards organic farming and plans to implement the same in a few years time said Sridhar Radhakrishnan of Thanal.

Sridhar says that KSY in Kerala is a celebration as the state has declared itself a GM-free organic state, Palakkad, Kerala, 30 October 2010. © Kisan Swaraj Yatra

Kavita Kurangathi of Alliance for Sustainable & Holistic Agriculture (ASHA) who said that the Yatra "aims to provide a message of hope to farmers in the country that there is indeed a way out of the crisis in farming today – that of adopting self-reliant, ecological farming." It comes in the backdrop of the government not addressing "the issue in fundamental ways, including assessing the role of unsustainable technologies in creating and exacerbating the crisis."

On their second day in Kerala the Yatris visited a school where the meeting was organized by the Mallapuram Organic Farmers’ Movement. Dr VS Vijayan (Former Chair, Kerala State Bio-Diversity Board) explained the local practices and gave the example of a farm family that "has been living off the organic farm by integrating innovative cattle and organic farming techniques." The historic relevance of the place Eddappal, Ponnani where there was an uprising in the struggle for independence was indicated by Dr Jacob Vadakkanchery.

Dr. Vijayan addresses the crowd at Eddappal, Mallapuram, Kerala, 31 October 2010. © Kisan Swaraj Yatra

Farmers from different parts of the country shared their story of the over-hyped green revolution in Punjab, the yield of nine tonnes of paddy per hectare during pre-independence days at Chengalpat, Tamil Nadu or how farmers in Budelkhand kept their seed stock for the next generation even during extended period of drought. A second meeting was organized at Nilambur by Haritha Senam, a farmers collective which has been working on the issue of debt and farmers suicides.

The third day in Kerala began at the memorial for Pazhassi Raja, the Adivasi King who fought the British for independence. The town reverberated with slogans in Hindi and Malyalam. The Yatris visited the farm of Mr Raman who has been growing 23 different traditional varieties of paddy. Mr Kalpetta Narayanan, a writer and poet, questioned the industrialization of agriculture. He gave examples from Gandhiji to explain the real meaning of 'swaraj' (freedom).

Yatris pay homage to Pazhassi Raja, the king who fought the British for Adivasi rights, Wayanad, 1 November 2010. © Kisan Swaraj Yatra

Mr Obama are you listening. Farmers' across the country do not agree that opening of agriculture will not affect their livelihoods.

(This write-up was first put up in Digital Journal, 6 November 2010, http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/299596.)

Other articles in this series are day 28 of the Yatra and their travels in eastern regions and northern regions of India.

'People first' stressed on 20th Anniversary edition of HDR

People are the real wealth reiterates the 20th anniversary edition of Human Development Report (HDR) 2010. It also comes up with three new measures for discussing poverty and inequality.

Cover Page, HDR 2010, © HDR 2010, UNDP.

 

The first HDR in 1990 by United Nations (UN) started a new era in development thinking. It put people at the centre and includes the processes of enhancing their choices as well as improvement in their well-being. Human beings are the ends. It is for this that human development is considered to be different from the following approaches.

* Economic growth is a means and not an end of development. Moreover, high GDP growth does not necessarily translate to progress in human development. Global experience has shown that income and human development are not always perfect companions, where some countries display relatively high levels of human development for their income and vice versa.

* Theories of human capital formation and human resource development view human beings as means to increased income and wealth rather than as ends. These theories are concerned with human beings as inputs to increasing production;

* The human welfare approach looks at human beings as beneficiaries rather than participants in the development process;

* The basic needs approach concentrates on the bundle of goods and services that deprived population groups need - food, shelter, clothing, health care and water. It focuses on the provision of these goods and services rather than their implications on human choices.

It can however encompass the above and it is with this broad thinking that the HDR beyond an income-based measure to the human development index (HDI) that had health, education and standard of living as its components. Over time, the index for each component as well as the measure has evolved. Nevertheless, one important criticism of the HDI has been the linear aggregation of three components. The current report takes care of this by proposing a geometric mean. Another alternative, which has not been used in the report, is to calculate the shortfall from the ideal and take its inverse.

There are also some further departures in the way HDI has been calculated. The components of education are mean years of schooling for adults of 25 years and above and expected years of schooling for children of school going age (earlier they were literacy rate for adults and gross enrollment ratio for school children). For decent standard of living the 2010 report uses per capita gross national income in purchasing power parity dollars (earlier it was gross domestic product). Further, the global/expected maximum and minimum are taken from observations or estimations from the last forty years (1970-2010). With regard to education component where minimum can be zero, one is added to all observations to avoid problems in the calculation of a geometric mean.

In addition, there are three more measures in the report

* The Inequality-adjusted Human Development Index (IHDI) adjusts the Human Development Index (HDI) for inequality in distribution of each dimension across the population. The IHDI accounts for inequalities in HDI dimensions by “discounting” each dimension’s average value according to its level of inequality. The IHDI equals the HDI when there is no inequality across people but is less than the HDI as inequality rises. In this sense, the IHDI is the actual level of human development (accounting for this inequality), while the HDI can be viewed as an index of “potential” human development (or the maximum level of HDI) that could be achieved if there was no inequality. The “loss” in potential human development due to inequality is given by the difference between the HDI and the IHDI and can be expressed as a percentage.

* The Gender Inequality Index (GII) reflects women’s disadvantage in three dimensions—reproductive health, empowerment and the labour market—for as many countries as data of reasonable quality allow. The index shows the loss in human development due to inequality between female and male achievements in these dimensions. It ranges from 0, which indicates that women and men fare equally, to 1, which indicates that women fare as poorly as possible in all measured dimensions.

* The Multidimensional Poverty Index (MPI) identifies multiple deprivations at the individual level in health, education and standard of living. It uses micro data from household surveys, and—unlike the Inequality-adjusted Human Development Index—all the indicators needed to construct the measure must come from the same survey. Each person in a given household is classified as poor or nonpoor depending on the number of deprivations his or her household experiences. These data are then aggregated into the national measure of poverty.

Using the previous method of calculating HDI there has been substantial progress in the last 40 years for 135 countries for which comparable data are available, and what is more, this has been possible through diverse path ways. The top mover is Oman that invested heavily in education and public health. The next nine movers are China, Nepal, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, Laos, Tunisia, South Korea, Algeria and Morocco. Incidentally, China is the only one that made the gains because of income as they had earlier made investments in education and public health. Some of the important low-income but substantial gainers are Ethiopia, Cambodia and Benin.

Across regions, the gainers were East Asia, primarily because of China and Indonesia and the Arab countries. The laggards were former Soviet Union and Sub-Saharan Africa and from these three in the former (Belarus, Ukraine and the Russian Federation) and six in the latter (the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Lesotho, South Africa, Swaziland, Zambia and Zimbabwe) showing reductions in life expectancy.

Despite the above-mentioned setbacks in life expectancy,

"The dominant trend in life expectancy globally is convergence, with average life spans in most poor countries getting increasingly close to those in developed countries. In income, though, the pattern remains one of divergence, with most rich countries getting steadily richer, while sustained growth eludes many poor countries."

"Some countries have suffered serious setbacks, particularly in health, sometimes erasing in a few years the gains accumulated over several decades. Economic growth has been extremely unequal, both in countries experiencing fast growth and in groups benefiting from national progress. And the gaps in human development across the world, while narrowing, remain huge."

In South Asia, Iran fares the best (#70); Sri Lanka (#91), Maldives (#107), India (#119) and Pakistan (125) are in the middle HDI countries, whereas Bangladesh (#129), Nepal (#138) and Afghanistan (#155) are among low HDI countries. Data are not available for Bhutan.

As per the current measure of HDI done for 169 countries, the top ten are Norway, Australia, New Zealand, the United States, Ireland, Lichtenstein, the Netherlands, Canada, Sweden and Germany and the bottom ten are Mali, Burkina Faso, Liberia, Chad, Guinea-Bissau, Mozambique, Burundi, Niger, the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Zimbabwe.

IHDI has been applied to 139 countries and the average loss in HDI is 22 per cent. There are variations across regions and dimensions as indicated in the figure/chart given below.

Chart depicting inequality adjusted human development index across regions. © HDR 2010, UNDP

GII, calculated for 138 countries, also varies across regions and dimensions, but the largest contributor to loss is reproductive health. The loss on account of lower empowerment to females is also relatively higher for South Asia and Arab states, as indicated in the figure/chart given below.

Chart depicting loss on account of gender inequality across region and by dimensions (labour market, empowerment and reproductive health). © HDR 2010, UNDP

MPI has been calculated for 104 developing countries using data from household surveys. This as also some other measures used in HDR 2010 has already been discussed in some Oxford Poverty and Human Development Initiative (OPHI) papers. There is also a very lively debate under Let's talk HD. There are variations that one could observe between income-based measures and MPI, as indicated in the figure/chart given below.

Comparing multidimensional and income poverty for selected countries. © HDR 2010, UNDP

(This write-up was first put up in Digital Journal, 5 November 2010, http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/299827.)

Day 28 of farmers marching across India to save agriculture

The Kisan Swaraj Yatra, known as the farmers freedom tour, is mobilizing farmers and public opinion across states of India. It is a call to save Indian agriculture.

Logo of Kisan Swaraj Yatra. © Kisan Swaraj Yatra

A number of farmers and farmer organization have come together under the banner of Alliance for Sustainable and Holistic Agriculture (ASHA, which literally means hope in many Indian languages) and are touring across the country. The Kisan Swaraj Yatra started on 2 October 2010, Mahatma Gandhi's 141st birthday, from Sabarmati, the same place from where Mahatma Gandhi had started his famous salt sayagraha or Dandi march on 12 March 1930. It will end on 11 December 2010 at Rajghat, New Delhi (Mahatma Gandhi's samadhi or crematorium) after having traveled across 20 states.

Today, on 29th October 2010, the Yatra has traversed Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Goa, Karnataka, Puducherry and Tamil Nadu and now reached Tamil Nadu Agriculture University, Coimbatore, a collaborating institute with Monsanto. Farmers' protested by donating money, which the authorities did not accept. The yatris message for the scientists is to take up research that benefit farmers and not the agribusiness corporations.

Farmers in their march as part of Kisan Swaraj Yatra protest against the Tamil Nadu Agriculture University's collaboration with Monsanto. © Kisan Swaraj Yatra

"The overwhelming message from farmers and non-farmers, rural and urban areas, is that such a large mobilization to save Indian agriculture is the crying need today. The Yatra is raising issues like support systems for farmers, remunerative prices, control over seeds, land and other resources, forced displacement and the vicious cycle of high-cost chemical agriculture. The Yatra has had ministers in Madhya Pradesh and Karnataka endorsing the demands, farmers taking out bullock-cart rallies, promising resolutely to be annadatas (providers of food) in the face of adversity and land-grabbing, adivasi (tribal) children laying out their vision of sustainable development, film personalities coming out in support, shopkeepers and transport officials donating money to keep the Yatra going."

To support their call, you may have a look at their petition to the Indian government. "The Kisan Swaraj Yatra is an initiative to strike out a new path in agriculture, which provides a dignified livelihood to all our farmers and farmworkers, and keeps our soil alive and our food and water healthy."

It questions the ethos that "there is no alternative" and throws up a world of possibilities where "many alternatives exist" (MAE).
-----

Those interested may have a look at their petition to the Government of India. If you agree then do sign and share the same.
-----

Other related articles are the coincidence of the Yatra's 35th day with Obama's visit, the tour across eastern regions and northern regions of India.

A similar write-up was first put up in Digital Journal, 29 October 2010, http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/299546.

Prospects and Challenges for India on the Ayodhya Verdict

A group of concerned citizens gathered to discuss the verdict of the Allahabad High Court with regard to the Ayodhya dispute between Ram Janmabhoomi versus Babri Masjid in India. A number of perspectives were put forth.

Left to right: Jyoti Punwani, Vasundhara Mohan and Asghar Ali Engineer at the round table discussion on 'Prospects and challenges of the Ayodhya verdict for the nation' on 23 October 2010 jointly organized by CSSS and IIC and held at the Conference Hall, IIC, Mumbai. © CSSS, Mumbai.

The Centre for Study of Society and Secularism (CSSS) and Institute of Indian Culture (IIC) jointly organized a round table discussion 'Prospects and Challenges of the Ayodhya Verdict for the Nation' on 23 October 2010 to discuss the judgment passed on 30 September 2010 by a three judge special bench from the Lucknow bench of the Allahabad High Court with regard to the dispute between Ram Janmbhoomi and Babri Masjid (Mosque).

The discussions began with a brief history by Dr Asghar Ali Engineer, a scholar on the Constitution of India and Islamic scriptures. As per recorded texts, history of this litigation goes to a suit filed in Faizabad in 1885. At that time, the trial court as well as the subsequent appeal to the District Judge, Faizabad and Judicial Commissioner, Oudh led to a ruling in favour of maintaining status quo. Muslims prayed in the inner portions (the Babri Masjid) and the Hindus in the outer portion (comprising Ram Chabutara and Sita ki Rasoi). This continued till independence and partition of the country (midnight of 14/15 August 1947) and sometime after that in the wee hours of 23 December 1949 idols of Ram Lalla were placed inside the Masjid (or as some groups say, the idol of Ram Lalla emerged there).

The current judgment is with regard to four suits. The first litigation dating to 16 January 1950 is an appeal to be allowed to pray and an injunction against removal of idols of Ram Lalla. Subsequently, there were three suits filed claiming full title to land by Nirmohi Akhara on 17 December 1959, Sunni Wakf Board on 18 December 1961 and Ram Lalla Virajman on 1 July 1989. The two major question that the court had are who the land belonged to and whether Ram Lalla was born at that place. The judgment, Dr Engineer opines, have nothing to do with the cases filed. On the first question, they divided the property into three equal parts. On the second question, they used faith, rather than evidence. Justice Khan also invokes the faith of Muslims by referring to a peace treaty signed by Prophet Mohammad. This is against laid down principles of jurisprudence and constitutional propriety, which was also indicated by a former Chief Justice of India in a recent discussion.

Left view of participants of round table discussion on 'Prospects and Challenges of the Ayodhya Verdict for the Nation' on 23 October 2010 jointly organized by CSSS and IIC and held at the Conference Hall, IIC, Mumbai. © CSSS, Mumbai.

A human rights activist, Dr RM Pal, pointed out that the judgment cannot be independent of the Masjid being demolished on 6 December 1992 leading to rioting and violence that spread across the country. True, a separate case is being heard. But, the least that one can expect from the leaders espousing this cause is to apologize for this act.

The popular media perspective on the verdict is that this is a good judgment and we should accept and forget about it. Ms Jyoti Punwani, a journalist, does not accept this. On the faith question, she points out that Hindus believe that Ram Lalla was born in Ayodhya, but not on any particular location. Even if they agree that he was born there they do not want a temple constructed there. In any case, faith cannot be the basis of a judgment. In her discussion with the victims of the 1992-93 riots, many are happy with the absence of communal violence following the judgment. One victim remarked that "dono side ko kuch mil gaya, kuch acha hua," (both sides got something, something nice happened).

A medical practitioner and peace activist, Dr Arif Ali Sayeed, had helped victims of the riot said that there are different reactions to the judgment from the Muslim community. Youth are mostly indifferent, some are happy and there are few with extreme reactions "yeh desh unka hai, yeh adalat unka hai aur yeh zamin unha hai," (this country is theirs, this court is theirs and this land is theirs). Dr Engineer responded to this by saying that the court case should not be construed as Hindu versus Muslim; this dispute is, plain and simple, a matter of title. He further said that the "laws and rules laid down by the Constitution and the State have nothing to do with religion, language and ethnicity." Professor Anthony Kunnath, a political scientist, reacted by saying that "yeh mulk kisika nahin hai, yeh ham sabka hai," (this country belong to nobody, it belongs to all of us).

Arguing from a legal perspective, Advocate R Mishra, practicing in the Bombay High Court, mentioned that a judgment cannot be pro-Hindu or pro-Muslim. This is a sensitive issue and all the three judges gave separate judgments that together run into about eight thousand pages. If the judgments are not proper there are legal channels available to appeal in the Supreme Court and that we should refrain from questioning the judgment. He also mentioned about section 89 where one can go beyond evidence in the process of judgment to ensure mediation and solution.

Professor Kunnath reacted by saying that we can question a judgment. In particular, he raised the controversy surrounding the report of the Archaeological Society of India that the court relied on and whether the data prepared by them has been subjected to scientific scrutiny. It is relevant because court's judgment depends upon facts and figures put forth before the judges. There is an independent open appeal to look into this.

Right side view of participants of round table discussion on 'Prospects and Challenges of the Ayodhya Verdict for the Nation' on 23 October 2010 jointly organized by CSSS and IIC and held at the Conference Hall, IIC, Mumbai, © CSSS, Mumbai.

Speaking from a Muslim perspective, Dr Zeenat Shaukat Ali, a professor of Islamic history and religion and founder Director General of Wisdom Foundation, a World Institute of Islamic Studies for Dialogue, Organization of Mediation, Gender Justice and Peace, puts her point of view in three parts. First, the judgment needs to be dissected and analyzed by experts without judging the judges. Second, the issue has been politicized leading to sectarian strife that led to demolishing the Masjid by divisive forces, but today 18 years later the mind of India has changed with the need to take it to greater heights so that it finds a place among the league of nations.

Third, she invokes Maulana Wahiuddin, a revered Islamic scholar, to state that "this is an opportunity for Muslims of this country giving in good will something in which they believe that Lord Ram was born." The mosque can be shifted to another place and this should not be considered as an act of surrender but rather an act done in the interest of peace and communal harmony leading to nation building. She even cites two instances from the scriptures, one in which Prophet Mohammad refuses to pray in a Church because he does not want Muslims to claim this place of worship as their own and another case in which some Christians claim a portion of the land in which a Masjid stood and this portion was given to them. She reiterated that peace, and not divisiveness, is the central message of Islam.

To a proposal that Hindus should not build a temple and reciprocate this gesture. Dr Ali responded by saying that what Hindus do or will do is an independent act and irrespective of that Muslims should consider giving away their claim to this piece of land. Today, this could be a minority view but with deliberations and discussion efforts should be made to make this a more accepted view within the community. She also elaborated that such sectarian issues should be left behind so that we move forward to more substantive issues under a multicultural plural ethos, which she is proud to be a part.

A second media perspective, with particular emphasis on the Urdu press, was put forth by Mr Mohammad Wajjihuddin. Prior to the judgment being passed all leading newspapers put up messages addressed to Muslims to maintain peace and nothing was mentioned about those who demolished the Masjid. The leading daily applauded the judgment but the Urdu press was saddened and pointed out that the judgment is not acceptable to Muslims. This two positions were also evident from the leading weekly's with India Today thinking it to be a historic moment for reconciliation whereas Outlook highlighting it to be an injustice against Muslims. In subsequent days, the lead articles in the Urdu press where mere translations of English/Hindi writers who were against the judgment. But, by and large, the media played a responsible role and did not inflame passions.

Inside view of participants of round table discussion on 'Prospects and Challenges of the Ayodhya Verdict for the Nation' on 23 October 2010 jointly organized by CSSS and IIC and held at th Conference Hall, IIC, Mumbai. © CSSS, Mumbai.

The difficulty in ascribing the title to land was echoed by Professor Lionel Fernandez. He is also of the view that the demolishing of the Masjid should not be considered independently. It was an unholy act and by that the place has been devoid of divinity. It should not be used for any place of worship. Further, the people responsible for the act should be identified and punished. He bemoaned "it is a dismal present we are living in, we are not addressing the fundamental issues."

From a sociological perspective, Professor SM Michael mentioned that this is an example of politicizing religion. This will have long term consequences for our future, the future of India. In another fifty to hundred years time we will be judged in how we handled this situation. This is an opportunity for us and particularly for the Hindu leaders and also Muslim leaders to show their magnanimity, come down to talk and take the nation forward.

On the eve of the day of judgment, as Mr Sukla Sen observed, there was a perceptible fear. Roads and otherwise crowded places were empty, but by evening and in a day or two, things started being normal. The overall need of the hour, as the Chairperson Dr Vasundhara Mohan summed up the days meeting, is that the call of the nation is peace, reconciliation, to live and let live. With this, let us move forward!

(This write-up was first put up in Digital Journal, 26 October 2010, http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/299301)

World Statistics Day

The first World Statistics Day, 20 October 2010 (20.10.2010) went by without any formal activity on campus at the Indira Gandhi Institute of Development Research (IGIDR), Mumbai. However, for the Research Methodology course there was a lecture on Measuring Government Output, which was apt for the occasion. This was preceded by a lecture on Price Indices in National Accounting the previous day (19 October 2010).


From a research methodology perspective, the two lectures also have some additional learning. Let me elaborate on two points.

The first is to go down to details. While looking into a problem, start asking questions and while answering some of the questions you will end up many more questions leading to a search for some more answers. The process of raising questions and answering is rewarding as it will take you a step closer towards unraveling 'curiosity', which is an unending journey.

This reminds of a folklore from the Indian Statistical Institute. Post-partition, post-independence in New Delhi a sizable proportion of Muslim population were staying inside the Red Fort. Food was provided to people inside, but there was a feeling in the establishment that large amounts were siphoned.

If I recall correctly, Pandit Nehru called up Professor Mahalanobis so that the Indian Statistical Institute could help them out. There was no way that they could do a survey because anybody going inside would have been killed and likewise someone coming out would have met the same fate.

The statisticians went about the problem in the following manner. They took expert advise to arrive at the minimum amount of salt an individual will consume per day. This figure was divided by the total amount of salt requisitioned (as a proxy for having been consumed) to arrived at an estimate of the total population. Similar expert advise helped them arrive at the maximum amount of rice and other items an individual will consume per day and and divided this by the total amount of that item requisitioned to get estimates of the population. Note that the minimum salt per day will give overestimates of population whereas maximum amount for rice and other items will give underestimates of population. Despite this, the population estimates through rice and other items were many times higher than that estimated by salt giving us an extent of the corruption.

The second is to inculcate self-doubt. This is easier said then done. But, then these are some of the first principles. It is only when we start doubting that we raise questions. When we put ourselves to scrutiny, we may be able to appreciate another point of view. As an aside, it reminds me of the proverbial statement, "if you point a finger at someone then do keep in mind that three of the fingers are pointing towards you."

Having said this, I would like to state that one should be careful in dealing with statistics. It has the potential to mislead. You must have heard about the story of how three persons repeat a lie and make a fourth person believe that the lie is indeed the truth. No wonder, it is often said that "there are three kind of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics." It is for this that everyone in the business of statistics should work with honesty and integrity in their observation and analysis.

This takes me to Tycho Brahe, who till his death believed that the Sun went around the Earth, but despite this belief he did not tamper with his observations and it is for this that Kepler could come up the three laws of planetary motion. Brahe's observation also paved the path for least-squares curve fitting with the most popular being the linear regression analysis in statistics. Long live statistics!

Inspirational stories from 2010 Lindau meeting of Nobel laureates

The annual Lindau meeting of young scholars with Nobel laureates concluded its 60th edition in 2010. To celebrate this milestone, Nature has come out with a supplement. The collections are a must read for young scholars and their mentors.

This is the cover page of the Nature outlook: Science masterclass, a supplement brought out to acknowledge the 60th edition of Lindau Meeting of Nobel Laureates with Young Scholars in 2010. © Nature.com

Nature Outlook in a supplement Science masterclass comes up with with stories that arouse curiosity. There are ten question and answer (Q&A) sessions put here. The questions posed to Nobel laureates were selected through an online voting process.

Arno Penzias, Physics, 1978, in runaway success advises youngsters to 'ask questions' particularly, those that illuminate, and not those that destroy. Gerardus 't Hooft, Physics, 1999, says that one should not fear from making mistakes, rather, one should make it a honour to be the first one to fine out ones mistake, but even if someone else does it, they must be happy for having asked the right kind of questions.

Peter Agre, Chemistry, 2003, the family naturalist, adds that a young scientist should not work towards prizes, but rather pursue towards making discoveries, earning the respect of peers and training next generation of scientists. Christian de Duve, Medicine, 1974, in joy of discovery, highlighted to youngsters the need to excel intellectually and technically, as the endeavour in science has to be 'unashamedly elitist'.

"In conducting your research, observe total rigour and intellectual honesty in the analysis of facts, consider all possible hypotheses, plan your approach to test those hypotheses, and submit your conclusions to the verdict of observation and experimentation without preconceived ideas. Never conduct research with the aim of proving a theory, but, rather, to invalidate it if it should be wrong. The best proof is failure to disprove."

Oliver Smithies, Medicine, 2007, response to the question on convincing public about relevance of fundamental research with no applications in sight refers to the Hubble telescope and its image revealing the universe that satisfies 'curiosity' which is a basic part of human nature that builds science brick by brick.

In politics and prophecy, John Mather, Physics, 2006, adds that the public should feel inspired from the many stories of fundamental research leading to world-changing applications. Co-recipient, George Smoot's, thought in aeons points out the relevance of interdisciplinary research but there is a need to understand the differences - the complex biological systems with a difficulty in measurement and observation call for high level and rough understanding whereas physicists are trained for rigour and precision.

The relevance of interdisciplinary research was also highlighted by David Gross, Physics, 2004 in the frontier physicist and Paul Crutzen, Chemistry, 1995. The latter was trained in civil engineering who moved to computer programming to work on meteorological models that got him hooked to atmospheric chemistry. He is the one who coined the term 'Anthropocene man', that is a nuclear war will lead to 'nuclear winter' with more people dying from starvation and diseases than the bomb. Harold Kroto, Chemistry, 1996, working at the coal face, argues a case to delink science funding from peer-review because of the difficulty to foresee important breakthrough.

The annual Lindau meeting which started in post-war Germany to revive science, health and economy has now become a global meeting that fosters the culture of science and with the coming of the digital age the way we do science. In turning the tables, where the expert panel comprises of young scholars and the audience are selected laureates, the lessons learned for young scholars are:

• choose a supervisor who does not travel too much,
• don't try to please your supervisor all the time, be prepared to challenge them,
• put questions to your supervisor, but think of some possible suggestions beforehand,
• assume your supervisor is wrong and develop your own way to approach the problem,
• idealism regarding science in politics is good, but be aware that it will be a steep challenge, and
• don't give up too easily.

And that for laureates, rather for mentors are:

• reply to emails from students within twelve hours,
• don't dictate a student's life,
• give creative freedom,
• foster relationship among students in the lab, not just with them,
• let students develop their 'voice' when writing papers, and
• communicate your science to the public by using the media.

The supplement also has links to some collection from past issues to help the young scholars in their career, on alternative paths and how to prepare. Equally inspiring is the collection from the archives that include inspiration from the life of Dorothy Hodgkin, a female Nobel laureate, and how to make mentoring and networking work.

A small disappointment about this coverage is that it has excluded the interactions and discussions with the laureates of Literature, Peace and Economics. On a personal note, this is somewhat made up by the guide for mentors.

(This write-up was first put up in Digital Journal, 18 October 2010, http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/299076.)