INL April 15 2019 Digital Edition

12
APRIL 15, 2019
Viewlink
The English Fortnightly (Since November 1999)
ISSUE 413 | APRIL 15, 2019
The Right to Kill is strangling
More than 90% of
record number of
submissions oppose
End of Life Choice
Bill.
Analysis of 38,707 submissions
to the Justice Select Committee
shows that 34,932 (90.2%)
opposed David Seymour’s End of
Life Choice Bill, while just 3141
(8.1%) were in support.
The remaining 634 (1.7%) were
either neutral or their position
was unclear.
Peter Thirkell, Secretary of
the Care Alliance, said that the
38,707 submissions were a record
for any bill before the House,
“and critically they were unique
rather than ’postcard’ or ‘form’
submissions.”
Protagonists of the Bill, like its
author and ACT Leader David
Seymour would perhaps draw
inspiration from the 1981 drama
film ‘Whose Life is it Anyway?’
which showed Richard Dreyfuss
as Sculptor Ken Harrison who is
paralysed from the neck down
after a car accident, and is no
longer able to create art, make
love or have any semblance of a
normal existence. Confined to a
hospital, Harrison hires lawyer
Carter Hill who, reluctantly at
first, represents him to petition
Subdued, yet we
will remember our
ANZAC heroes
ANZAC Services are another
victim of the terrorist
attack in Christchurch on
March 15, 2019.
Returned and Services Association
(RSA) has announced that
two-thirds of Anzac Day services
have been canned and that there
would be only 26 services across
the region, down from 84 in 2018.
Decisions to cancel or consolidate
services had been made
following discussions with the
police and the RSA.
Day of Significance
Anzac Day is a national day of
remembrance in New Zealand
and Australia that commemorates
all Australians and New Zealanders
who served and died in all
wars, conflicts, and peacekeeping
operations to protect us and our
country.
The word ‘Anzac’ is a part of the
culture of New Zealanders and
Australians.
When Britain declared war on
Germany on August 4, 1914, it was
committing not only its own men,
but those of its Empire.
The five ‘Dominions,’ namely,
legally for the right to end his life.
The Western View
Religions of the Western World
have an uncompromising view,
that it is wrong for anyone to end
lives given by God. The classic
liberal position, which is that of
The Economist, which starts from
a different premise. “Individuals
have a right to self-determination,
and this includes—perhaps,
naturally culminates in—the right
to cut short one’s own life.”
The publication has argued
that Liberals should, however,
recognise two qualifications.
“The first is one of principle.
Men are not islands: in every
life, other people’s interests are
involved. It is often argued, by
those of a paternalistic frame
of mind, that these interests
are also the state’s, which has a
stake in preserving the lives of its
citizens.”
There is something in this: the
state should defend its population
from aggressors, for example. In
individual cases, however, the
notion is offensive. A state has no
property right in an individual, as
if he were a mere payer of dues
and taxes.
His life, including whether or
not he believes in God, is his own
business.
Australia, Canada, Newfoundland
(which joined with Canada in
1949), New Zealand and South Africa,
were self-governing but had
no power over foreign policy. Most
entered the war willingly, proud to
go to the aid of the empire, often
pictured as a lion with its cubs.
But as the war dragged on and
their young men died in droves,
they pressed for more say in its
conduct and, after it ended, more
control over their destinies. The
men who came home often found
that fighting for Britain had, paradoxically,
made them feel more
distant from it. A century later,
many historians see the first world
war as the former dominions’
‘War of Independence.”
As former MP Peter Dunne
wrote, “In the wake of another
ANZAC Day and the rekindling of
national spirit it always engenders,
it is timely to consider our
current relationships with those
whom we have joined historically
in the struggle for what we now
routinely describe as the liberties
and freedoms we enjoy today.
Indian Newslink is published by Indian Newslink Limited from its offices located at Level
1, Number 166, Harris Road, East Tamaki, Auckland 2013 and printed at Horton Media
Limited, Auckland. All material appearing here and on our web editions are the copyright
of Indian Newslink and reproduction in full or part in any medium is prohibited. Indian
Newslink and its management and staff do not accept any responsibility for the claims
made in advertisements.
Managing Director & Publisher: Jacob Mannothra
Editor & General Manager: Venkat Raman; Production Manager: Mahes Perera;
Financial Controller: Uma Venkatram CA;
Phone: (09) 5336377 Email: info@indiannewslink.co.nz
Websites: www.indiannewslink.co.nz; www.inliba.com; www.inlisa.com
The myriad world of Indian politics and elections
Inderjit Roy
Indians are about to start voting
in the world’s largest democratic
exercise.
The country’s 900 million registered
voters will vote in national
elections between April 11 and May
19 across 1 million polling stations in
543 constituencies.
India has a Westminster-style
parliamentary democracy with voters
electing their representatives to
India’s Lower House of Parliament,
the Lok Sabha.
Voting has been staggered over
seven phases to ensure that the
electoral process is provided the
necessary security.
The results will be declared on
May 23.
The Modi Charisma
India’s current Prime Minister
Narendra Modi is up for re-election
as the Head of the Hindu nationalist
Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and its
allies the National Democratic Alliance.
A polarising figure, opinions
diverge sharply over Modi’s record
in government and his legacy.
Supporters insist that Modi has
ushered in economic development,
military strength, national pride
and a sense of confidence among
the country’s Hindu majority. Critics
challenge such claims, pointing to
soaring unemployment (the worst
in 45 years), agrarian distress,
reassertion of caste privilege and
social polarisation.
The Opposition
Modi faces a range of opposition
forces. The principle opposition is
provided by the Congress Party and
its allies, the United Progressive
Alliance.
Other opponents include regional
parties in different states, such as
Uttar Pradesh, West Bengal and
Andhra Pradesh, as well as leftist
parties in the state of Kerala.
The BJP and its allies enjoy a
crushing majority in the Lok Sabha,
controlling 336 of the 543 seats: the
BJP alone has 268 seats.
Fears abound that Modi’s
re-election will rent asunder India’s
constitutional values and social
fabric. Since the BJP’s ascension to
power, lynching of social minorities,
especially Dalits and Muslims, have
been on the rise.
A supporter of Narendra Modi’s BJP party at rally in late March. Jaipal Singh/EPA
Leaders of India’s historically
oppressed Dalit communities
remain anxious that the BJP seeks to
dismantle the affirmative actions for
oppressed populations guaranteed
by the Indian constitution. The very
idea of India is at stake.
A thriving democracy
When India became independent
in 1947, few people expected the
country to survive.
Nevertheless, Indians introduced
universal adult suffrage soon
after obtaining independence and
adopted a republican constitution in
1950, a full 15 years before economic
superpowers such as the US lifted
literacy and tax qualifications for
voting.
Throughout the 1950s and 1960s
international observers remained
sceptical of India surviving as a
democracy, given its huge levels of
poverty and illiteracy.
Yet, India not only survived but
also emerged – warts and all – as
one of the world’s most thriving
democracies. The country presents
a very moving story of the ways in
which some of the poorest people on
the planet have sought to construct
and sustain democracy against
enormous odds. Their achievements
are under threat today.
India poignantly illustrates the
global challenges posed to democracy
by the rise of nationalism
and populism. Identity politics, or
a politics that focuses on people’s
particular social identities, permeates
political narratives in India as
elsewhere in the world in 2019.
Indians are faced with an idea of
nationalism that seeks to exclude
significant sections of their own
population from its ambit. And they
have borne the brunt of right-wing
populism, as shown by the growth
of cow-protection squads administering
vigilante justice over the last
few years.
Political Mobilisation
Social identity provides the basis
of political mobilisation. India today
faces these challenges alongside
countries such as Brazil, Turkey, the
US and various European countries.
Modi joins a galaxy of strongmen
politicians such as Brazil’s Jair
Bolsonaro, Turkey’s Recep Tayyip
Erdoğan, the US’s Donald Trump and
Hungary’s Viktor Orbán, accused
of rolling back democratic achievements
of the last few decades.
How Indians respond to the
challenges of exclusionary nationalism,
right-wing populism and
supremacist identity politics in the
2019 elections holds key lessons for
the world as it confronts the global
backsliding of democracy.
After all, elections provide a window
onto the hopes harboured by
citizens, the anxieties they confront
and the possibilities they imagine.
The narratives that emerge prior to,
during, and immediately after any
elections offer unique insights into
ongoing processes of social change.
India Tomorrow
It is into these imaginations,
narratives and social processes,
rather than the machinations of the
different political parties, that The
Conversation will delve over the
next few weeks.
Indrajit Roy is Lecturer in Global
Development Politics, University
of York, United Kingdom. The
above article, and picture have
been published under Creative
Commons Licence.
New Zealand lost its Innocence on March 15, 2019
Suzanne Snively
The events of March 15, 2019
mark the beginning of the end
of the age of innocence in New
Zealand.
A remarkable feature of the New
Zealand society before these tragic
events was the trust we had that we
were protected by a ring of confidence
from the horrible things that happened
in other countries.
Now aspects of our lives which
we previously saw as benign, are
suddenly popping up like sore teeth.
And some are much in need of major
root canal work.
Social Media not innocent
If it wasn’t obvious before, it is now
extremely clear that social media is
more than an innocent channel for
communication. The lack of transparency
about both the formulas that are
behind algorithms and the processes
for managing their impact has been
exposed by the Christchurch event.
Facebook, so much a part of the
lives of many families and whanau,
turns out to have hidden algorithms,
some which direct information to us
in a way that has the potential to do
great harm.
While pretending to simplify our
lives by connecting us with information
about useful products and
networks, it has turned out that social
media can also be a wolf in sheep’s
clothing, marching into our homes
spreading negativity that gobbles up
our time and our joy.
After March 15, broadcast media
and world leaders were quick to call
out social media for questionable
application of algorithms that spread
misinformation and hate.
They joined other technologically-focused
commentators who have
been asking that there be greater
accountability from social media for
some time.
Facebook shirks responsibility
Yet, nearly three weeks after
the tragedy in Christchurch, New
Zealand’s Privacy Commissioner
John Edwards, was told by Facebook
that it hadn’t yet made changes to
its live-streaming. It appears that its
founder and management team were
disingenuous in their earlier promises
to do something in response to the
tragedy.
Indeed, the same week, Facebook
CEO Mark Zuckerberg, wrote an opinion
piece in Washington Post, calling
on governments and regulators,
rather than private companies like
Facebook, to be more active in policing
the internet.
Zuckerberg suggested that privacy
rules, such as the General Data Protection
Regulation adopted by the EU, be
adopted globally.
While the idea has merit in that it
would apply to all media, it shows
Zuckerberg’s well-known trait of overlooking
the cost this would impose on
the taxpayer.
Suzanne Snively is Chair of Transparency
International New Zealand Inc
based in Wellington. The above article
which appeared in the April 15, 2019
issue of Transparency Times is the
edited version. For full text, please
visit www.indiannewslink.co.nz