In the context of student-teacher relationship, the Dalit dimension takes a new form. While, it is one of the most fundamental relationship an individual has and is at the core of the learning process, it often takes an ugly turn. There are several reports of Dalit students being abused by non Dalit teachers. Typically, these teachers do not belong or stay in the same village. As a result of discriminatory treatment, large number of Dalit children are intimidated and drop out of such oppressive school environments, especially in the early stages, leading to high drop out rates.

In order to address the problem, there were directives to employ Dalit teachers. However, such teachers also reported mistreatment not just by fellow teachers but also by parents of the children. There are instances where the children have refused to eat mid day meals prepared by Dailt cooks. There have been instances of abuse and unfortunately, these have not been dealt with the severity such acts deserved. Such actions that indicate part lethargy and part complicity have only eroded the faith of the Dalit students and teachers in the educational system.

It is indeed shameful that the place of education becomes the stage for perpetuating inequity and the student-teacher relationship that is accorded such a high place in Indian society has become subservient to regressive caste practices. Is there a way out of this?

What was the stated objective of the Foreign Contribution Regulation Act (FCRA)? FCRA came into being with the purpose of maintaining a watch on the foreign exchange received by Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs). The intention was to ensure that the contributions received were used for the purposes specified, and that these were consistent with the principles of national sovereignty.

The stated purpose is stated to install a mechanism to regulate receipt and utilization of foreign contribution. However, other than putting barriers to sourcing funding from abroad, what has been the contribution of FCRA in terms of a serious engagement to monitor utilization? An NGO that wishes to utilize funds of a foreign development funding agency has to register under the FCRA Act. However, as a practice organizations have to apply for prior permission for any funds that it is likely to receive. The department invariably gets a survey done of the applicant organization by state intelligence agencies. While as a procedure it seems reasonable, the practical difficulties it presents to the NGO is enormous and takes a big toll on their time and resources.

Finally, does FCRA really meet its objective- Does it really compare the costs of targets achieved with what was proposed? Do the officials really ever visit the field to verify to monitor achievements as stated in the documents?

It is not time we looked as Acts as constructive instruments and not as instruments to control power.

What is most disturbing about the personality cult of the anti-graft movement?

Why not Gandhian Anna Hazare or yoga guru Ramdev baba? What is wrong in having a torch bearers of the movement? After all don’t movements need a face to rally around?

The question is- is this the kind of civil society led mass movement against corruption we were talking about.? Are we not, once again, getting mobilized around an individualistic pursuit where the masses are just ‘herds’.

How do we address complex issues like corporate-politician relationship? Where is the public education that is required for something as complex as the Lokpal bill? Where is the public debate beyond the newspaper articles, TV shows , mostly in English language and web based interactions, again in English.

It is perhaps time to introspect and reflect on the way the movement is being carried out. Perhaps it is time to  re-orient - moving away from individuals and getting mobilized about the issues.

The harsh clauses in the FCRA radically alter the state-Voluntary sector relationship. To begin with, it must be understood that this relationship is based on contestation. It is the primary duty of the civil society to question the state. However, if the civil society has to depend on a ‘cordial’ relationship with the state machinery for the approval of something as fundamental as funding, does it not defeat the entire point about having a robust sector that challenges as well as partners with the state based on issues?

Admittedly, both the parties have reasons to be alarmed based on certain threat perceptions- the state feels that some elements in the society use the garb of the voluntary sector to source funding to engage in illegal activities that are not in the ‘national interest.’ However, it is also important to ask and find answers to the fundamental question- are all actions of the state in ‘national interest’. After all, national interest is a deeply contentious issue, especially in the context of India where the state idea of national interest is seen as converging neatly with private and corporate interest. At the same time, to declare the voluntary sector as immune to any fraudulent behaviour is also not without mistake.

It is time the state and the voluntary sector come together on a common platform and discuss issues head-on. It is time, the line between the acceptable and unacceptable is negotiated and accepted by both. The lack of clarity does not help either the state or the civil society. It is critical to facilitate a common perspective on these proposed changes and chart out a way forward.

The most unfortunate and undesirable development of the way the anti-graft movement is the fact that now the politicians are alleging that the civil society trying to override the ‘will of the nation’- represented by the elected government and the decisions it takes on behalf of the people who have brought it to power. These are the same people who are known for their complicity in offering huge favours to industrial giants subverting the interest of the people and that of the state- the same people who allow lands to be acquired from the poor famers and given at throw away prices to corporate in the name of public interest of industrialization; the same people who bend backwards to maximize revenue generation for the big corporate groups even at the cost of heavy and totally unwarranted loss to the exchequer. However, we get the government we deserve and now what it does is without question – ‘the will of the nation’.

Surely there are problems with the way the movement, if it can be called one, is heading. The leadership is being questioned, and so it the ‘followership’. There is no consensus on the content of the Lokpal Bill. There are questions about the elite and subaltern aspects of the movement. However, are these not a natural outcome of a process like this that is rather unstructured? The allegation that unelected activists are undermining the right of the Parliament right to make laws are nothing but both shields and volleys that the politicians are employing to protect their own interest in continuing with the status quo of mutually beneficial relationship with the corporate and the bureaucracy.

Ostensibly, the basic premise of anti-graft movement with which a lot of politicians are uncomfortable is that all politicians are corrupt. However, is there an answer to the question why the politicians across party lines are so opposed to something that puts accountability under scanner? Do they really want us to believe that it is because they are so worried about the sanctity of political institutions and of democracy? Or is it just because they see it as a curtailment of power?

There are quite a few lessons for the proponents of the movement as well. The groups should go back and get the people support. It now seems.ke a ‘team Anna and his handful of individuals’ versus ‘rest of the politicians’ battle. The movement needs to be a people’s movement and the people need to be more explicit about our support to anti-corruption activities. There is also a need to review the coercive tactics. It is important that the movement does not lose its steam- the conflicts are bound to be there and the content will always be contested. However, it is the time to be perseverant.

Do you think that the anti-graft movement is now all scattered?

“There can…. be no freedom that is worthwhile unless the mind is trained to use its freedom. Deprive a man of knowledge and you will make him inevitably the slave of those more fortunate than himself… de­privation of knowledge is denial of the power to use liberty for great ends. An ignorant man may be free …but he cannot employ his freedom so as to give him assurance of happiness”. B. R. Ambedkar

Education is one of the important instrument of social mobility. Yet, despite over sixty years of the Indian constitution and several progressive legislations, education continues to be a tricky issue for Dalit children in India today. The children continue to experience discrimination in education leading to worrisome enrollment and drop out rates. A study by National Council of Educational Research and Training (NCERT) reveals that schooling is available within a significantly smaller number of predominantly Dalit habitations (37.03 per­cent) as compared to general rural habitations (49.79 percent). With regard to upper primary schools, access within Dalit habitations is lower (6.51 percent) as compared to general rural habitations (13.87 percent). (NCERT 1998, cited in Nambissan and Sedwal 2002, 76).

In addition to problems in access, various studies have documented the discriminatory practices against Dalit children in schools. These include, segregation during Mid Day Meal with the Dalit children required to bring their own plates, refusal to serve melas to the dalit children or served less quantity, refusal of the teachers to touch Dalit children and explicitly mention their displeasure over having to teach Dalit children; children from particular castes being subject of verbal abuse and physical abuse by the teachers. The list can go on.

Noted scholar of Dalit Studies, Abdulrahim P. Vijapur note, “these practices ….in schools and discrimination serve to discourage and alienate Dalit children, contributing to their high dropout rates. In fact, such practices serve to instil and reinforce Dalit children’s sense of inferiority, erode their sense of personal dignity and force them to internalize caste distinctions. Also, such segregations per­petuate “Untouchability” practice by teaching the non-Dalit children that “Untouchability” is both an acceptable and necessary practice”

It is important to address the issue of caste in a human rights framework. The suggestion to sensitize teachers on caste as a regular part teachers training programs might help. Strict punitive action against teachers is also important to send the right signals. In addition, it is important to provide academic support to the children through appropriate pedagogy and support. Special efforts need to be taken to build and sustain enduring relationship between the school and the communities to ease out inequity. To do all these, the schools and the education system need to re-invent themselves as the true agents of social change.

Can the schools be the agents of social change with regards to creating an appropriate teaching-learning environment for the students?

In an alarming revelation it was reported in the newspapers that more children in India are dying every year soon after vaccination. According to the Union Ministry records, 128 children died in 2010 due to adverse effects after immunization. What is more, the count has been going up in the past three years, with 111 such deaths reported in 2008 and 116 in 2009(Times of India, May 31).

There could be many reasons for this- the quality of vaccine may be poor due to poor storage conditions. Inappropriate storage and handling of the vaccination can also lead to contamination. There could be extraneous factors like existing health of the child and complications arising out of pre-existing conditions. There are also concerns that this trend coincides with the governmental decision to close down all three public sector vaccine units and source the vaccines from private suppliers.

According to the response of the Ministry, no Adverse Effects From Immunisation (AEFI) death has been “attributed directly to vaccine” as the cause of death. At one point of time a child is administered one or more than one vaccine and at times along with vaccine Vitamin A is also administered. Hence, the number of deaths vaccine wise cannot be provided (as there are BCG, DPT, OPV, measles, TT and JE in select districts, Hepatitis B is also given in some districts). Many permutation and combination of these 8 antigens and Vitamin A syrup are also given. The government’s response to the number of AEFI deaths in 2010 said there were 48 ‘coincidental’ deaths including injection reaction; program error and vaccine reaction. As many as 72 deaths have been attributed to ‘unknown’ cause (http://www.hindu.com/2011/05/29/stories/2011052963892200.htm).

That the government is so far unable to identify the source of problem despite so many deaths over the last three years is extremely worrisome as it means that there can be no specific intervention to address the problem.

Whatever the reason, the report is extremely worrisome and reflects poorly on the state of affairs. It demonstrates the callousness of the state machinery in administering the most basic and yet the most fundamental of health services. It needs to be stressed here that it is not a question of ‘only’ 128 kids whereas the vaccination is administered to millions. Each child is precious and not a single death is acceptable. Whether it is at the level of sourcing where there are quality issues or inadequate/ inappropriate storage facilities various locations or the training, monitoring of the health workers to properly store and handle the vaccine – the issue shows that somewhere the interest of the children have been compromised. Even to imagine this is shameful- to say the least. While the newspaper report does not say this, it can be assumed that most of the children who have lost their lives would be from poor families who cannot afford immunization for the children from private clinics. Such callousness further dents the already poor image of the health services provided by the government. In general , it erodes the impression of the state as the poor would put up with increased out of pocket expense on health by getting their children immunized from some place that is safe even if expensive.

It is critical that this report is seen as an alarm. It is important to visit each of these cases and try and ascertain the cause of death by involving multiple stakeholders- the parents, the community members, the health service providers, etc. In addition, due diligence mechanisms that are already in place, at least on paper, need to be followed across the country with strict monitoring and a system of accountability.

Till the time we prioritize the health and well being of our children, as a nation, we are nowhere. And that is it.

Do you think that immunization is a neglected area in healthcare?

Civil Society Organizations have been vocal about their reservations against the Foreign Contributions Regulations Act (FCRA). The Act is perceived as a threat to the functioning of the civil society organizations - the numerous NGOs, especially the Faith Based Organizations (FBOs) that receive funding from abroad. Here is a quick analysis of the functional and operational issues at stake:

• Under the FCRA 2010 an NGO is required to register itself every five years in contrast to the earlier law wherein the registration, however cumbersome, was an one time affair. This means every five years the NGOs have to go through the same bureaucratic process which is difficult as smaller groups often work on limited manpower and unlike corporate entities often do not have a team designated to work on such modalities. More importantly, it inhibits long-term planning as funding remains uncertain as it becomes subject to FCRA registration. Surely, a program is developed according to the time it requires to create and sustain impact rather than on such considerations as FCRA. Naturally, the process is considered to be impeding work by the NGOs.

• The present law puts the NGOs at an uncomfortable position vis a vis the state machinery, for example the district administration. Given that every five years FCRA registration has to be renewed, will it not influence the role of the NGOs who often challenge the same authorities on various issues. Consider the NGOs working on the implementation of the Rights to Information (RTI), for example.

• The present law is rather unclear on the grounds on which registration and renewal may be denied. It does not define what reasons are acceptable for denial and what kind of evidences will be required to substantiate the allegations. This lack of transparency further jeopardizes the interest of the NGOs.

• The FCRA Bill prevents CSO from using the funds for ‘speculative’ activities such as preventing investment in mutual funds with the government reserving the power to define the activities that are considered ’speculative’. However, the same restriction does not apply to CSOs getting domestic or public funds. This is discriminatory and prevents CSOs from trying to become self-sustainable.

Fundamentally, the FCRA does not, in its spirit, adhere to the National Policy on Voluntary Organizations (VOs) adopted by the Planning Commission in 2007 that says: “To enable VOs to legitimately mobilize necessary financial resources from India and abroad. It is also against the spirit of partnership that the Planning Commission talks about making it look like a mere lip service rather than any serious intent. In its present form the FCRA only complicates the legal and administrative environment. The CSOs have to be geared for a long battle ahead.

How can administrative impediments put by the FCRA be negotiated?

The civil society organizations have all along opposed the Foreign Currency Regulations Act (FCRA) on an ideological platform. This stems from the genesis of the Act which is an environment of mistrust and the use of the act as an instrument to curtail or weaken dissent and enhance state control.

FCRA was originally conceived during the State of Emergency that was imposed by the then Prime Minister Mrs Indira Gandhi in 1975. The law was brought about to restrain contributions from abroad in support of the movement carried out by the dissenting groups that wanted a change of regime. However, close to four decades since then, each government has decided to have FCRA despite opposition from the civil society that considered it to be a vehicle of state control over their activities.

The whole issue of mistrut and lack of transparency gets further institutionalized with the new FCRA. The earlier FCRA specifically required search and seizure to be conducted according to the procedure laid down in the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC). However FCRA 2010 states that the CrPC will not be followed if its procedures are inconsistent with the provisions of the Act. What is this if not a blatant display of mistrust.

In general, the fear, put in covert terms is that of faith based organizations engaging in work against the national interest. The open innuendo is against the Faith Based NGOs, especially the Christian and the Muslim organizations. However, in the process, it has hurt the interest of NGOs and the people they work with- the disadvantaged sectors. In deed one can ask what rights does the state have to impede such restrictions in a scenario when it is unable to provide the minimum social security for the poor or for the children? Also, does it not, actually feed the corruption in the system by instituting unfettered powers in the officialdom?

Also, to consider FCRA as a guarantee against illegal activities such as terrorism does not make sense. A country needs much more than a draconian FCRA to curb militancy. It is farcical to think that money for such activities are processed or channelized through proper bank process. Also, 36 years after FCRA, and after so many onslaughts, , is it perhaps safe to assume that FCRA has had limited contributions towards curbing militancy.

The ideological opposition to the FCRA is strong but led only by a handful of organizations. In many cases, the Faith Based Organizations have somehow not been able to put the right kind of pressure- partly because they seem to operate in a world of their own and partly because in some cases they do have a comfortable relationship with the state. It is time that there is serious engagement with the state to sort out the issues – especially the ideological ones, as they form the basis for all other issues and any kind of partnership.

Do you think that the CSOs are right in the ideological rejection of FCRA?

Now that the euphoria over the symbolic victory over the Jan Laokpal bill has settled down, it is time to soothe the nerves and take stock of the situation in a positive yet realistic manner without getting frenzied over issues and personalities.

Of course the issue is extremely important and naturally it found resonance. It is also extremely significant that it brought together thousands of faceless Indians fatigued not just by scams but by the way corruption had eaten out public life and out to support a campaign against corruption.

Naturally when there were voices of protest against the bill, tolerance levels were low. However, it is in the interest of any anti corruption move to understand what the critics have to say and to address issues that are pertinent to the cause. So what is it that those seemingly against the Jan Lokpal Bill have to say. Below are some of the points that are at the crux of the debate. No stand is taken here, only the questions asked with the objective of allowing people to think and reflect.

To being with, contrary to its name, is it not an instrument that would actually centralize power? The citizen only has the right to file a complaint and be heard, everything else rests on the Jan Lokpal who will vest extraordinary power.

While the disdain about the political classes is understandable, does the bill undermine the validity of the democratic institutions and in the process strike at the very tenets of democracy?

While many people came out in support of the bill, has the bill itself has been scrutinized through public debate? Has reason been overwhelmed by frenzy? While the expectations have raised, has a proper understanding of what it will take to make it work created? Are the people informed about the content and the implications of the bill?

The bill will put the existing vigilance machinery under the control and supervision of the 11-member Jan Lokpal, or Lokayukta, with an independent cadre of vigilance officers bringing the CVC and that part of the CBI that deals with corruption under the Lokpal. A huge additional bureaucracy will have to be created and additionally, investigations need more staff. Even then, how can a centralized body like Lokpal or Lok Ayukta investigate the huge numbers of complaints received?

At present, the Lokpal’s integrity and accountability is assured through a) a transparent process of functioning, b) judicial review and c) mandating that the main responsibility of the 11-member body is to ensure the integrity of the whole vigilance establishment under them. The basic concern remains: however robust the appointment process, can we justify concentrated power based on “good faith” and “goodness”? (http://www.outlookindia.com/article.aspx?271400).

These are some questions raised by eminent people and civil society activists themselves. These are issues that need discussions and it is in the interest of any anti-corruption movement, to be open to such discussions.

Do you think that the points made against the Lokpal Bill need further debate?