To Judge

“The highest form of human intelligence is to observe yourself without judgement.” Jiddu Krishnamurty

No it’s not a philosophical piece. Well almost not. As the season of college fests, inter and intra college cultural extravaganza, food festivals, and numerous such competitions, etc., come to a close, the time is ripe to reflect upon that one component that is integral to such contests – judging.

The noun judge refers to an official of a court of law whereas the verb judge, about which few following lines shall harp on, means to form an opinion or draw a conclusion about. Since we are all so familiar with the word, synonyms will be redundant, however, assessment, rating, deciding would fit the bill.

As a judge to various competitions since the last four years now, primarily of cultural and literary events, I have witnessed various spectacular performances and disastrous ones too. I have seen as a judge of such events the best possible judgements delivered and controversies raging too.

Judging per se is a fact of life. You may think it as the most unfortunate exercise that has so seriously gripped mankind or think it to be necessary exercise to distinguish the better and best from the rest, depending on which side of the spectrum you believe in. But judged we get right from cradle to grave. But as I told you in the beginning, we shall not delve much into the philosophy of it.

Events such as dance shows, song competitions, street pays, miming, debates, all require judges to decide which person or which team is the best. Though participation spirit is exhorted in each such competition it is more or less that ‘winning’ which is the motivation that drives people to participate. And to do that most-of-the-times difficult job judges are invited.

To circumvent subjectivity about 3 or 5 judges are invited. At the end of the event however a peculiar phenomenon occurs. The usually senior judge, or the one who has greater expertise in the category of event being judged, try to impose their thought on others. Judges huddle up and if a long discussion goes on, it could be because of such a reason.

Another often observed phenomenon is what I should describe as extreme vs. average marking. There will be judges who either shall award extremes of marks affecting the end result extremely or those who would award so similar marks to each participant that it would hardly make a difference in the end. The gold standard however would be to add and average the scores.

Clarity of thought is the most important virtue that a judge should possess. Only that will have clarity in the end result. Judging is an undesirable act many a times. It often leads you to be hated by a section of people, for obvious reasons. And certainly since we are so hardwired and our lives revolve around being judged and to judge, all this shall stay put.

The article originally appeared on manipalblog.com

http://manipalblog.com/2013/05/01/being-a-judge/

 

Basic Structure Doctrine

 

It would be safe to assume that a large number of Indians feel that had it not been for the Supreme Court, the country would have been up for grabs. To grab, in the pecking order, would be the nefarious political class and various kinds of mafias from media to mining. The existence of democracy, however kinked, whether we agree or not, or delineate all its pitfalls, is at the very core of the nation. It is power of people, even though muted and suppressed, which is responsible for checks and balances. Any idea of subversion of this fundamental structure, detailed in lengthy and well constructed English in the constitution of India, would in all likelihood lead to chaos, anarchy, authoritarianism, and its entire evil ilk.

Such an attempt at subversion was thwarted exactly 40 years back by the Supreme Court; in the now famous Kesavananda  Bharati vs State of Kerela case. On 24^th of April, 1973, the honourable Supreme Court ruled, by a slender margin of 7-6, that the Parliament is not enabled to change the basic structure or framework of the Constitution. Thus the ‘basic structure’ doctrine came into being which has saved the Indian democracy in dire situations.

Well for the simple civics of it, as we have read in school books; the parliament of the country comprising of members of parliament, chosen from amongst the people, frame laws. Laws are established based on the Constitution. Reforms and amendments can be made to the constitution if the Parliament in majority agrees to do so. Therein lays the catch. Thus the question arises whether a majority of MP’s change the constitution so as to alter the fundamental rights? Or provide immunity against laws to themselves or others? It was this very answer which was provided by the Supreme Court ruling 40 years back.

In February of 1970, Kesavananda Bharati, a senior seer of a Hindu Mutt in Kasargod, Kerela, challenged the government of Kerela, which using land reforms act placed restrictions on the Mutt’s management of property. The case was taken up by legendary Nani Palkhivala, a champion of civil democratic reforms. The hearing of the case took a long 5 months. In the two years that the case was fought, great deal of citations of cases of several countries, constitutions of several countries, were brought to the fore.

In the end the Supreme Court judges ruled in favour of Kesavananda Bharati, and as fallout described the basic structure of Constitution. They allowed for amendments and changes to it by the Parliament, but changing it in which changes the basic fundamental nature was restricted. But why is it so important? In the context of past the best example was the case of Indira Gandhi, whose majority government during Emergency wished to amend the constitution which would provide immunity to PM, Governors, President for all their life; she wished to subvert her disqualification from Allahabad constituency. And such an impact on democracy was protected by ‘basic structure’ doctrine.

In contemporary times, given the quality of Indian polity, the disenchantment of the masses, the scale of devious acts by representatives, it could be a scary thought if totalitarianism, autocracy, religious high-handedness, regionalism, would be formulated as laws of the land. In the backdrop of such possibilities, exactly 40 years back, thanks to spirited efforts of Supreme Court judges and arguments of Nani Palkhivala, the subversion of democracy, the fiddling with fundamental rights is kept under check.

Are you Successful?

 

Hey, have you been to the Bahamas for vacation or the exotic Spain or for that matter a spring break trip to London? Well if not vacation, has your job taken you to an on-site posting in the US of A or Germany or China or maybe Dubai? Are you pursuing PhD or a MS degree in universities in America or Singapore? Do you have a swanky office; do you dine at costly restaurants every other weekend, or do wear dress and suits that places you right in the vogue? Also are you in a physical shape that is depicted in the magazines on the fitness section? Well if you do, any of the above, and also have photos of such to be posted on facebook, or shared on twitter, then you can be safely classified as 'successful'.

Definitions of success have always been outlandish and above the normal; it is to set someone different from the crowd, but the contemporary context has changed significantly. With globalisation in past decades, increasing buying power, commoditisation of technologies and showcasing phenomenon of social media, the definitions of success and social standings have become narrower, stricter and myopic.

And these are largely determining the way relationships and friendships are getting shaped. The distinctions between the have and have not’s is on the rise. It is however ironic that this differentiation is amongst the people whose lives are considerably better financially and resourcefully (groups within group). You are likely to attract friends only if you are successful according to others perception.

At this point one may wonder about the logic of this phenomenon; that it is at the root of human nature. Humans tend to form groups based on similarities, identical features or any other commonality. Hence is it not natural again for people to gel with their ilk? Sure it is, but with these groups becoming increasingly smaller and exclusive, the societal dynamics are changing and in fact straining.

Hence you may be losing friends because you have not caught the success train, and you may be finding those friends in other exclusive friends clubs, thanks to social networks which serve as flaunting mediums. What is such a response likely to do with the morale or emotions of a person? No points for guessing. It is likely that by now you, if you have ever experienced this phenomenon, are ticking on those people who have ditched you.

Success is a relative term. It is becoming increasingly materialistic with time. It has always been. True success is more a mental phenomenon than. Psychological and spiritual success is what every so-called-successful people crave for. With people increasingly developing narrower terms and vision for success, ambition, awesomeness, greatness, dynamics of relations are changing. Take time to think for yourself who are those people who you value or who value you. Their success on social media, their oomph factor, their jobs, their status, should not be reasons for you to choose them as your friends.