Public Opinion must count
India is a democratic country and therefore it follows that ultimately it is ruled by its people. How the process of that rule comes to be derived and how distortions creep in at every stage is certainly not the subject of this post. But I wish to emphasize that public opinion must count; at least in cases where larger interests of the public is concerned and where the public has expressed its opinion.
I do not wish to create an impression that for every little thing an opinion poll should be conducted and then the government of the day should take a decision while ensuring that they adhere to the public opinion. This can not be done, as, at the moment, it may slow down the process of decision making. Not that it is theoretically impossible; perhaps, some time in future, with the all-encompassing development of intelligent information networks and spread of the information processing (including receiving and transmitting) tools to the extent that it reaches practically all the adult population, it may become possible. Just have a look at the progression of the process of price discovery of shares in the capital markets. There was a time when transparency was a commodity in short supply but with the advent of technology the market forces’ impact can be felt instantly, though the system is still far from being perfect.
Coming to the point, let us consider a recent case. The good doctor Venugopal has been at the receiving end of the wrath of the health minister. Some how, he could manage a temporary reprieve from the judiciary. Now, the Government has prepared a detailed submission to be made before the judiciary to seek the withdrawal of the reprieve that Dr. Venugopal had got.
I do not wish to go in the details of the case as I am not qualified to do that (I may not have all the relevant data). My only contention is that going by the news reports in almost all the mainstream media and several letters written in by the readers of the mainstream media, it definitely seems that an overwhelming majority sympathizes with the good doctor.
Off course the counter argument behind not giving weight to such public opinion could be that, a very small percentage of the country’s vast adult population is competent to read the news reports in the mainstream media and just a microscopic part of that competent population has the capacity to express its opinion and finally an almost negligible part of that microscopic part actually comes around to expressing its opinion, hence, that opinion does not matter. Well, the basic fallacy of this argument is that the opinion matters only when the opinion is seen. If by default, the opinion of only a small segment of the population comes to the fore, it can not be termed as substandard or skewed or biased or irrelevant and discarded on the ground that only a few people have expressed the opinion. The fact will remain that it is “the public opinion” notwithstanding the fact that it was voiced by a small number of people (relative to the total population). This is so, because in the absence of public opinion in the opposite direction, the public opinion which comes to the fore has to be accepted as the credible and relevant public opinion
Once the process of giving due importance to public opinion is initiated, the public will start coming out of their shells and a healthy and constructive debate will start evolving. Just have a look at the highly developed (especially in terms of quality of human life index) Scandinavian nations. In fact, it is my personal opinion that, this process may ultimately culminate in motivating the country’s population towards seeking better education to ensure the augmentation of their capacity to comprehend issues and then express opinion and as a result ensure their relevance in the democracy.
Coming back to the issue at hand, I fail to understand why the Government can not just withdraw from the fracas between the Managing Body of AIIMS (read minister) and its Director. It goes without saying that interim judicial injunction on the Director’s ouster has given a God sent opportunity to the beleaguered Government to exit from the case, on which the public and media, at large, have already expressed their opinion.
Even otherwise, the matter basically rests on the allegation (at least in theory) that by criticizing the Government publicly the Director had violated the Conduct Rules and had committed an act unbecoming of a Government Servant. My question is first and foremost, has it been established whether the Director had indeed criticized the Government and that criticism had indeed amounted to violation of the Conduct Rules; secondly whether the criticism had taken place before general public in an open public forum or before other Government Servants in a sort of internal meeting/discussion; thirdly whether the penalty imposed on the Director is in consonance with the purported misconduct.
The matter, as reported in the media, assumes serious dimensions for the reason that, when on a seemingly frivolous ground, the Director- who incidentally happens to be a person of international repute and a Padma Bhushan awardee- of one of the premier institutes of the country can be so ill treated, what of the multitudes of other Government servants.
The action of the Managing Body of the AIIMS has not only raised a question mark over the collective wisdom of its constituents and sullied the collective reputation of its constituents, but has also raised questions about the rule of law in this country. There can not be any doubt that their reckless action has violated the principles of natural justice which incidentally happens to be the cornerstone of modern jurisprudence.
This is where public opinion comes into the matrix. Even before any kind of judicial intervention was in sight or any judicial pronouncement was made, the public outcry was there for all to hear. The Government, in its own interests and in the larger public interest must pay heed to public opinion.
I do not wish to create an impression that for every little thing an opinion poll should be conducted and then the government of the day should take a decision while ensuring that they adhere to the public opinion. This can not be done, as, at the moment, it may slow down the process of decision making. Not that it is theoretically impossible; perhaps, some time in future, with the all-encompassing development of intelligent information networks and spread of the information processing (including receiving and transmitting) tools to the extent that it reaches practically all the adult population, it may become possible. Just have a look at the progression of the process of price discovery of shares in the capital markets. There was a time when transparency was a commodity in short supply but with the advent of technology the market forces’ impact can be felt instantly, though the system is still far from being perfect.
Coming to the point, let us consider a recent case. The good doctor Venugopal has been at the receiving end of the wrath of the health minister. Some how, he could manage a temporary reprieve from the judiciary. Now, the Government has prepared a detailed submission to be made before the judiciary to seek the withdrawal of the reprieve that Dr. Venugopal had got.
I do not wish to go in the details of the case as I am not qualified to do that (I may not have all the relevant data). My only contention is that going by the news reports in almost all the mainstream media and several letters written in by the readers of the mainstream media, it definitely seems that an overwhelming majority sympathizes with the good doctor.
Off course the counter argument behind not giving weight to such public opinion could be that, a very small percentage of the country’s vast adult population is competent to read the news reports in the mainstream media and just a microscopic part of that competent population has the capacity to express its opinion and finally an almost negligible part of that microscopic part actually comes around to expressing its opinion, hence, that opinion does not matter. Well, the basic fallacy of this argument is that the opinion matters only when the opinion is seen. If by default, the opinion of only a small segment of the population comes to the fore, it can not be termed as substandard or skewed or biased or irrelevant and discarded on the ground that only a few people have expressed the opinion. The fact will remain that it is “the public opinion” notwithstanding the fact that it was voiced by a small number of people (relative to the total population). This is so, because in the absence of public opinion in the opposite direction, the public opinion which comes to the fore has to be accepted as the credible and relevant public opinion
Once the process of giving due importance to public opinion is initiated, the public will start coming out of their shells and a healthy and constructive debate will start evolving. Just have a look at the highly developed (especially in terms of quality of human life index) Scandinavian nations. In fact, it is my personal opinion that, this process may ultimately culminate in motivating the country’s population towards seeking better education to ensure the augmentation of their capacity to comprehend issues and then express opinion and as a result ensure their relevance in the democracy.
Coming back to the issue at hand, I fail to understand why the Government can not just withdraw from the fracas between the Managing Body of AIIMS (read minister) and its Director. It goes without saying that interim judicial injunction on the Director’s ouster has given a God sent opportunity to the beleaguered Government to exit from the case, on which the public and media, at large, have already expressed their opinion.
Even otherwise, the matter basically rests on the allegation (at least in theory) that by criticizing the Government publicly the Director had violated the Conduct Rules and had committed an act unbecoming of a Government Servant. My question is first and foremost, has it been established whether the Director had indeed criticized the Government and that criticism had indeed amounted to violation of the Conduct Rules; secondly whether the criticism had taken place before general public in an open public forum or before other Government Servants in a sort of internal meeting/discussion; thirdly whether the penalty imposed on the Director is in consonance with the purported misconduct.
The matter, as reported in the media, assumes serious dimensions for the reason that, when on a seemingly frivolous ground, the Director- who incidentally happens to be a person of international repute and a Padma Bhushan awardee- of one of the premier institutes of the country can be so ill treated, what of the multitudes of other Government servants.
The action of the Managing Body of the AIIMS has not only raised a question mark over the collective wisdom of its constituents and sullied the collective reputation of its constituents, but has also raised questions about the rule of law in this country. There can not be any doubt that their reckless action has violated the principles of natural justice which incidentally happens to be the cornerstone of modern jurisprudence.
This is where public opinion comes into the matrix. Even before any kind of judicial intervention was in sight or any judicial pronouncement was made, the public outcry was there for all to hear. The Government, in its own interests and in the larger public interest must pay heed to public opinion.
posted by Better Tomorrow For India @ 12:19 AM
0 comments
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home