Tags:
Journalism of Courage
It is indisputable that frequent and indiscriminate strikes cause serious inconvenience to the public and also impair the smooth functioning of the administration. But why do workers strike work and suffer loss of earnings during the period of strike, risk disciplinary action and decisions from unsympathetic courts?
At times it is for trivial reasons. Sometimes it is on account of misguided trade union leadership. Such strikes certainly cannot claim public sympathy nor legal or judicial protection. But surely there are occasions when long-standing and genuine grievances of workers causing tremendous suffering to them and their families have been persistently ignored and remain unremedied. In such situations workers are left with no option but to exercise their cherished right to strike.
The Father of the Nation had formulated certain maxims relating to strikes, one of which was that 8216;8216;there should be no strike 8216;without a real grievance8217;.8217;8217; It is obvious that Gandhiji did not rule out strikes altogether. Recent judicial dicta that there is no moral or equitable justification to go on strike under any circumstances are beyond comprehension. They reflect a mind set which does not regard employees as an important and vital segment of our society but considers their existence to be solely for the benefit of the government as employers and whose interests are subordinate to the convenience of the public. Such an approach is not in tune with the ethos of our Constitution and the Directive Principles whose unmistakable signature tune is social justice.
Trade unions can be unreasonable in their demands and strikes have been undertaken to unfairly pressurise the management. But instances are also not unknown when employers have been intransigent and insensitive to the just demands of the workers.
Employees have been dragged from the Industrial Court to the High Court and to the Supreme Court in order to tire them out and make them give up some increase in wages and dearness allowance which they have successfully secured. The inequality of arms between employees and employers in litigation is a stark reality.
Recently the Supreme Court rightly deprecated strikes by lawyers. Even so it recognised that there are exceptional cases where a strike by lawyers for a brief duration may be justified and the Court may turn a blind eye to it. The crux of the matter is that there should be no generalisations. Strikes have to be judged on a case-to-case basis without recourse to absolutism.
HOMOSEXUALITY
Concepts of morality change radically with the times. Poor Oscar Wilde had to suffer humiliation and rigorous imprisonment for his sexual orientation. The only consolation is that the world of literature benefited by his poignant Ballad of Reading Gaol.
Today homosexuality is not a badge of shame in many countries. Persons of eminence in their respective walks of life including stage and screen personalities, lawyers, judges, politicians and dignitaries of the Church, are known for their sexual preferences for the same gender. Justice Michael Kirby, one of the most distinguished and erudite judges in the Commonwealth, has no inhibitions on this score. Nonetheless irrational prejudices persist against homosexuality which is not universally accepted. There are laws in several countries which criminalise homosexual relations between consenting adults in private. Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code is an instance. The constitutionality of this provision has been challenged and the writ petition is pending in the Delhi High Court.
Homosexuality provisions have been struck down by Courts in South Africa and Canada as well as by the European Court of Human Rights. A contrary view taken earlier by the US Supreme Court has undergone a change. In its recent decision in Lawrence vs. Texas, the Court held that a Texan Anti-Sodomy legislation violated the right to privacy.
The appointment of the Reverend Gene Robinson, who lives with his gay partner, as the bishop of the state of New Hampshire in the US Episcopal Church has aroused intense controversy. The curious part is that the most vociferous opposition has been from African countries, especially Nigeria and Kenya, and also from Asiatic countries.
Bishop Lim Cheng Ean, leader of the Anglican Church of West Malaysia said that 8216;8216;practicing homosexuality is culturally and legally not acceptable here8217;8217;. One of the Anglican bishops in Kenya thundered that 8216;8216;it is against the Bible. How can we go against God8217;s words?8217;8217; and bemoaned that 8216;8216;you in the West may not consider it a sin, but we in Africa do8217;8217;. Pascal was right: Sin is geographical.
