Analysis of the Armed Special Forces Act 1943 in India

Analysis of the Armed Special Forces Act 1943 in India Civil society is a term oft-repeated in democratic contexts today. Seen as an essential component of the liberal framework of political structures, it is essentially the space of free association for the masses. India, a multicultural democratic country, boasts of a vibrant civil society. At the same time, it also has accusations of being one of the worst offenders of human and civil liberties of some of its people, in the form of the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act. This chapter seeks to introduce the motivation, hypothesis, methodology and key concepts of this paper. Introduction The spotlight of global affairs and the ‘march to democracy has been on the Middle East in 2011. Mass rebellions against autocratic, unjust and oppressive regimes have swept the region in a sort of domino-effect swarming hordes of people rose up to replace what seemed no more applicable or tolerable in Tunisia to Tahrir Square in Egypt, in a bid to in-state the only form of governance that allowed ‘power to the people i.e. democracy. This phenomenon has come to the West as a pleasant surprise, that have viewed the Islamic world as essentially subject to notions of conservatism, violence and religion all seen as harbingers of a pre-modern past that the West feels it has left behind for good. â€Å"What is happening in Tunisia and Egypt is the completion of the 1989 revolutions the Egyptians are reclaiming the values of the Solidarnosc and the Civic Forum from the neo-liberals who usurped them The people in Tahrir Square and elsewhere are giving us back the meaning of c ivil society a place where people can talk, discuss and act freely,† says Mary Kaldor , examining the notion of civil society and how it has changed since the last time it was picked up from the annals of a rejected history and reinvented to bring monumental political change in Eastern European states. Closer home, the beginning of summer this year has seen a heated campaign against corruption being driven by a single mans Satyagraha Anna Hazare would definitely qualify as a ‘non-entity even by the modest standards of celebration that Indian civil society activists enjoy. Yet, this army truck driver of the 1960s is today the poster-boy of ‘publicness, coming to symbolise the space for mediation and political interference to bring out moral dividends that is the hallmark of a vibrant democracy. Some have called his actions ‘Gandhian, one of the few attempts at reform emerging from among the non-political that post-independence India has seen, otherwise witnessed only in Irom Sharmilas consistent campaign from Manipur against the travails of militarisation of the north-east region and abuse of power that the Armed Forces Special Powers Act 1958 has become synonymous with. The Armed Forces Special Powers Act, which the Indian government has thought fit to implement in two contexts all the North Eastern states and Jammu Kashmir is arguably among the most contentious legislations of post-Independence India. Said to be based on a 1942 British ordinance intended to contain the Indian independence movement (Quit India movement) during World War II, it was enacted as a short-term measure to allow the deployment of the army in Indias north-eastern Naga Hills but since has been in existence for five decades. It has, since then, also been implemented in Jammu Kashmir which has shown violent separatist aspirations since the late 1980s. The Act has been controversial because of the fact that it gives to the armed forces extended powers of action without accountability, which has led to abuse of power and gross violation of human and civil rights, building around it a sense of impunity. In a democratic framework, this move to retain the sovereign integrity of the Indian state has been vociferously derided by people both within and outside these regions. Even though justifications for the laws existence abound from freedom of operation to existence of provisions for accountability and redress within the armed forces set up, the Act in itself has become a symbol of oppression at the hands of the Indian state and therefore a part of the problem, not the solution. Hypothesis This paper attempts to therefore study civil society in India its role and scope with specific focus on this nugget of legislation that has a strong reference to the case of maintaining or violating civil liberty in a democracy. It seeks to analyse the effectiveness of the Indian democracy in this respect, considering whether ‘power to the people is just another catchphrase or if it goes deeper than that. This researcher is of the view that even though the definition of a modern civil society in a multicultural context as India needs to be revisited, and even though largely (as in the case of the AFSPA) political, military, judicial and legislative action has a will of its own, there is scope for activism and there are voices that get heard. The necessity of such a space of negotiation in a democracy cannot be stressed hard enough. The arbitrariness of power, possible marginalisation of the ‘have-nots and the dilemma of national unity versus individual rights need to be examined in the light of modern liberal rhetoric of freedom and equality that are foundational aspects of the Indian constitution. Methodology The study has used both primary and secondary sources of data along with analysis using both the deductive and inductive methods. I have analyzed government records, media reports, library sources, existing literature on the subject, archival data, think-tank reports as well as spoken / interviewed a few primary sources within the civil society. The study has also use information and experience gathered at symposiums, lectures and workshops related to the topic. It has been largely qualitative in approach, since the issue required an exploration of theory and potential policy-making role of civil society in situations of conflict and civil unrest. Chapterisation The paper shall follow this sequence: the first chapter will examine the trajectory of conceptualisation of civil society in the corpus of philosophy and political studies and its relevance globally as well as in India. The second chapter will elaborate upon the Act, the controversy and the issues surrounding it. In the third chapter, I will look at civil society initiatives regarding this aspect, both in terms of humanitarian redressal and rehabilitation and attempts at political negotiation and policy amendment. It will also look critically at the degree to which these initiatives have worked in mitigating the more negative consequences of the law. The last chapter, in conclusion, will critically analyse the role that civil society has played so far in the dynamics of the Indian democracy and the scope for positive change it contains. The rest of this chapter is dedicated to elaborating on the key concepts of this paper: civil society and the Armed Forces Special Powers Act. Key Concepts Civil Society: It is crucial to understand what civil society in a changed global context means. Historically, it has been understood to mean the public space that exists between the family and the state that seeks to mitigate the preponderance of individualism as well as the ‘tyranny of the majority. Based on principles of voluntarism, association and pluralism and tolerance, this was an imagination that sought to negotiate with power structures in every context it arose in, whether during industrialisation of England where a new bourgeois class of powerful traders emerged that sought to bargain with the state and the Church for power, or in Eastern Europe of the 1980s where a bid to parlay Communism resulted in associational uprising that stemmed out of sports clubs, trade unions, bars and basements. After 1989, civil society got the rejuvenation that had been missing for the past couple of centuries since Marx and Gramsci had derided it as yet another excuse for state/power domination and co-option of the masses. It has since been taken much more seriously, both academically and in its practical application, although consensus on what it constitutes is hard to come by. However, with democracy becoming the chosen form of ‘correct government, where representation and election to power is ‘by the people, for the people and of the people, civil society assumes new meaning as the arena of civilised battle. There is more to a democracy than public participation through ballot-box approval. This, in a nutshell, could be the motive for a functional civil society.   However, the proprietorship of the West over the concept of civil society is often criticised. By linking it with modernity, it is seen to be a concept both inherently Western and also as the Wests boon to the world. Ernest Gellner paints civil society as the space of the profane that gives freedom to the baser aspects of human beings and their relationships. Having associated it with capitalist liberalism, he posits many upcoming rivals to it such as Islam, Asiatic capitalism, fierce nationalism- leading one to believe that this essentially Western notion is one under threat from more preponderant forces in different parts of the world that do not essentially derive from rationality. Mary Kaldor finds in this a patronising approach of the entire West, evident also in US and Europes response to the upheaval in the Middle East. She observes that there already exists a term for civil society in Arabic Almujtamaa Almadani and therefore finds that the concept has more antiquated roots than otherwise presumed. To offset this overlordism, she says, â€Å"Instead of imposing yet another neo-liberal formula, western countries and institutions should consult the people of the Middle East about how they can help to construct a fairer, more sustainable economy. Instead of giving governments money to buy western weapons, they could discuss with civil society how they could help to restructure the armed forces to provide human security, to establish civilian control over the military, and to convert the substantial military industries to peaceful uses.† Ruminating on the changed idea of civil society, she says disappointedly, â€Å"After 1989, everyone celebrated the idea of civil society. But it was rapidly reduced within the framework of neo-liberal thinking to mean western-supported NGOs who would help to smooth the path of neo-liberal transition.† In the post-Cold War phase, since the world has gone more global, the meaning of civil society has veered towards international-level cooperation and institutionalism, through NGOs, forums, transnational networks of activities to work on a ‘global humanitarian regime. It has now become a buzzword relating to democracies, liberalism, neo-liberalism, anti-war movements, global justice and so on, and thereby is seen as a platform inhabited by activists of all sorts. In the normative sense, civil society is and always has been seen as the arena where consent is generated for and in opposition to concentrated authority. In the descriptive sense, or in considering what all should be included in this realm, lies the tensions should regulatory bodies such as the UN and the World Bank be considered part of civil society? Should one include international NGOs that depend on government funding? Does civil society include religious or ethnic organisations? Does it include militant or sece ssionist organisations that are fighting against an oppressive state or for some defined nationalism? As the concerns that occupy minds in a global world change (such as todays preoccupations include AIDS, landmines, terrorism, nuclear disarmament/disaster, receding water levels etc), the definitions of all realms of society would change too. This paper, taking insights from the corpus of philosophy on the subject, defines civil society as the associational space, lying between the family, state and market, where autonomous individuals voluntarily come together to define and pursue common goals to reap collective benefits. Schmitters definition of civil society, as a set or system of self-organised intermediary groups that: (1) are relatively independent of both public authorities and private units of production and reproduction, that is, of firms and families; (2) are capable of deliberating about and taking collective actions in defence or promotion of their interests or passions; (3) do not seek to replace either state agents or private (re)producers or to accept responsibility fo r governing the polity as a whole; and (4) agree to act within pre-established rules of a civil, i.e. mutually respectful, nature. It is civil society based on the four characteristics of dual autonomy, collective action, nonusurpation and civility that this paper will refer to. The Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act (AFSPA): The Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act is a law, enacted by the Parliament of India, to meet violent internal situations created by underground militant outfits to further their illegal and ‘unconstitutional causes. The law was enacted to provide necessary powers and legal support to the Armed forces for carrying out proactive operations against the militants in a highly hostile environment that was threatening the integrity and sovereignty of the Indian nation-state. The Act dates back to September 11, 1958, when the Parliament of India passed the act bestowing more power on the armed forces in â€Å"disturbed areas†. First introduced in the states of Arunachal Pradesh, Assam, Manipur, Meghalaya, Mizoram, Nagaland and Tripura, the Act was later extended to Jammu and Kashmir as the Armed Forces (Jammu and Kashmir) Special Powers Act, 1990 in July 1990. The Act allows an officer of the armed forces to fire upon or otherwise use force, even to the causing of death, against any person who is acting in contravention of any law against assembly of five or more persons or possession of deadly weapons, to arrest without a warrant and with the use of necessary force anyone who has committed certain offenses or is suspected of having done so, to enter and search any premise in order to make such arrests. The act also bestows legal immunity to the officials, which means that they cannot be sued or prosecuted. While the law was enacted to mitigate militant action, violence and to quell secessionist tendencies that violated the essence of the Indian union, it has since inception over half a century ago turned into a controversial aspect of governance in the country. An increasing militarisation of areas branded as ‘disturbed and a consequent violation of human rights and civil liberties has resulted in a worsening of conditions in both the regions it has been applied to. Instead of bringing about greater cohesion, or of managing to bring the north-east and Jammu Kashmir peacefully into the fold of the Indian union, the law has become just another reason for the strengthening of secessionist demands. This is in contradiction with the reasoning given for consistent political will to keep the Act in place in the two regions: in a response to the United Nations Human Rights Committee questioning the validity of the AFSPA under the Indian law and in light of Article 4 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, ICCPR, the Attorney General of India responded that the AFSPA is a necessary measure to prevent the secession of the North Eastern states. He said that a response to this agitation for secession in the North East had to be done on a war footing. He argued that the Indian Constitution, in Article 355, made it the duty of the Central Government to protect the states from internal disturbance and that there is no duty under international law to allow secession.â€Å"The shrill rhetoric demanding that the Armed Forces Special Powers Act be repealed, if allowed to hold sway, may drive us deeper into the dark world of both Islamist terror and the Maoist insurgency, † Brigadier S K Chatterji (retd) has warned more recently. The primary issue of controversy here is the violation of human and civil rights. According to a Human Rights Watch report, the act is in violation in the following respects: The right to life is violated by section 4(a) of the AFSPA, which grants the armed forces power to shoot to kill in law enforcement situations without regard to international human rights law restrictions on the use of lethal force. The right to liberty and security of person is violated by section 4(c) of the AFSPA, which fails to protect against arbitrary arrest by allowing soldiers to arrest anyone merely on suspicion that a â€Å"cognizable offence† has already taken place or is likely to take place in the future. Further, the AFSPA provides no specific time limit for handing arrested persons to the nearest police station. The right to remedy is violated by section 6 of the AFSPA, which provides officers who abuse their powers under the AFSPA with immunity from legal accountability. This section of th e AFSPA prohibits even state governments from initiating legal proceedings against the armed forces on behalf of their population without central government approval. Since such a sanction is seldom granted, it has in effect provided a shield of immunity for armed forces personnel implicated in serious abuses. In practice the AFSPA also facilitates violation of the right to be free from torture, and from cruel or degrading treatment. Since the AFSPA provides powers to arrest without warrant and then detain arrested persons for unspecified amounts of time, the armed forces routinely engage in torture and other ill-treatment during interrogation in army barracks. However, the support from within the armed forces and certain other sections of the political and academic circles is strong for the continuance of this act. Northern Army Commander General Jaswal in Jammu Kashmir gave the following reasoning: I would like to say that the provisions of the Armed Forces Special Power Act are very pious to me and I think to entire Indian ArmyWe have religious books, there are certain guidelines which are given there, but all the members of the religion do not follow it, they break it also, does it imply that you remove the religious book or you remove this chap. My take on it is to find someone guilty, take him to task, but dont touch this pious document or provision of the Armed Forces Special Power Act giving the similarity to religious book.† In the past couple of months Army has argued that without the Act it will not be able to launch proactive operations. The Army will also not be able to use force except in self-defence and not have powers to destroy ammunition dumps and IEDs. The army also says that a majority of human rights abuse cases are found to be false and those found true have been severely dealt with. Human rights activists have however contended time and again that the Act gives excessive powers to the soldiers. Jammu and Kashmir Chief Minister Omar Abdullah has said in recent past that there is a need to revoke the Act since it is prone to abuse. One of the grounds that the citizens have stated is that the people arrested or otherwise detained should be allowed to plead their case under section 130 and 131 of the Criminal Code. The Article 21 of the Constitution also gets violated in the process. In spite of the various cases filed and protests initiated there has been no revocation or dialogue towards the same. The issue revolving the AFSPA is that the principle of national integrity and sovereignty is in direct conflict with the liberal democratic frameworks of human rights and the civil society has the potential to the site for this negotiation. This is the premise under which the rest of this paper seeks to examine how the civil society and the Indian state have sought to deal with the AFSPA. CIVIL SOCIETY This Chapter seeks to chart the history of philosophy on civil society, in political sciences and social sciences. It will then look at civil society in India specifically, in todays context, and some of the major criticisms levelled against the concept and its real-time manifestation. Civil Society: The Concept At the abstract level, civil society has historically been conceptualised as a mediating space between the family, state and recently, also separate from the market. It is the site of association, voluntariness and community engagement, set apart from the politics and compulsions of the state as well as the individuality and liberty of the family. Bruce Sievers identifies seven strands that go into the making of civil society: nonprofit and voluntary institutions, individual rights, rule of law, the common good, philanthropy, freedom of expression and tolerance. Emerging in the context of the 18th century industrialisation rampant in Europe that gave rise to a new class of bourgeoisie and the new ideas of utilitarianism and capitalism, civil society gets inextricably linked with libertarian ideals that seek to carve out spaces for autonomous action in every individual and societal aspect.   â€Å"A ‘civil society was civilized and ordered by the rule of law. Unlike tribal so ciety, it was also large-scale and held together by impersonal bonds of interest rather than ties of kin and blood. It was also, to a degree some found frightening, a self-correcting mechanism in which the selfish actions of myriad individuals, brought together only by the rule of law, managed to produce an orderly and dynamic accumulation of prosperity unprecedented in human history,† observes Michael Ignatieff The importance of social engagement and principle of tolerance have only gained more importance in a globalised world that is characterised by multi-cultural, multi-ethnic nations. Robert Putnam identifies civic engagement, dense networks of interaction, political equality, solidarity, trust and tolerance and a strong associational life as crucial to the generation of ‘social capital the resource that could help to facilitate coordination and cooperation for mutual benefit in societies. He says that networks of civic engagement foster norms of generalised reciprocity, encourage the emergence of social trust, facilitate communication, collaboration and therefore collective action on common dilemmas and endorse the idea of collective benefits. Through its history, a number of philosophers have vouched for and expanded upon this realm of an advanced society. Alexis de Tocqueville , in Democracy in America, says that Americas answer to the problem of limiting the absolutist state was to have a constitution defined in law and protected by a counterbalancing force of independent bodies. These were the local associations of citizens acting together in the affairs of daily life. This was a civil society engaged in politics, voluntary by nature. His idea of civil society was based in the observation of an absolute sovereignty of the majority, but this principle, which could just as well turn into a tyranny of the majority, was also mitigated through a non-centralised frame of governance that set importance to localised chains of command and responsibility. Civicness emerged in America, he observed, through the relentless formation of associations: â€Å"Americans of all ages, all stations in life, and all types of disposition ar e forever forming associations. There are not only commercial and industrial associations in which all take part, but others of a thousand different typesreligious, moral, serious, futile, very general and very limited, immensely large and very minute. . . . Nothing, in my view, deserves more attention than the intellectual and moral associations in America.† Civil Society, for Hegel , is the site that lies between the Family and the State in the Ethical Life, as described in his Philosophy of Right. It is the site where the ‘determination of particularity as per individual rights is given free rein, but which has to acquire a mantle of universality for the rights to become acquirable or even legitimate, so to speak. Here, therefore, are two elements: the concrete person who is out to pursue self-interest and personal motive, and the form of universality, or the generation of common motive, through forming bonds and finding over-lapping areas of interest. A particular end, therefore, assumes the form of universality through this relation to other people, and it is attained in the simultaneous attainment of the welfare of others. It has three dimensions: the system of needs, the administration of justice and the police and the corporation. The system of needs refers to the generation of ‘universal human capital through human beings exceptional capacity to generate needs and spot commonness with others and then to satisfy those needs through work and labour. A single persons particularity of interest can be recognised if he manages to associate himself with one sphere of the needs. The administration of justice is the principle of rightness that becomes universally known through a public legal code. Not only does this embed within the principle of freedom in both subjective individual and universal platforms, it also makes wrongdoing an infringement on the people that live within such an ethical life. The polizei, then, is the bearer and the guardian of this publicly generated and accepted principles of right, the public authority that also looks after public utilities and regulation activities as well. The corporation, on the other hand, is the arrangement whereby common interests are brought to fore through voluntary association as in sports or religious clubs etc. All these aspects together form the civil society for Hegel, the space where freedom of self-interest is allowed to reign but within the limits of the principle of universality.   Antonio Gramsci, however, had a more critical view of civil society, from a Marxist vantage point. He saw civil society not as the benign space that afforded a voice and power to the masses, but as an instrument of domination linked in an unholy alliance with the bourgeois elements in the civil society seeking to protect propertied interests . He was also convinced that the intricate, organic relationships between civil society and political society enable certain strata of society not only to gain dominance within the state but also, and more importantly, to maintain it, perpetuating the subalternity of other strata. In other words, the site of hegemony was civil society it was the arena wherein the ruling class extends and reinforces its power by non-violent means through components such as the press, the libraries, schools, associations and clubs that could all become media for propaganda and homogenisation of the masses. The state and the civil society in his purview are inextri cably linked, which only facilitates subordination by the state without coercion, focussing instead on ‘manufacturing consent. However, he does acknowledge the potential of civil society as a site for breeding revolutions and for newer ‘conceptions of the world to take place. However, the manifestation of this fairly utopian concept is fraught with tensions and dichotomies. Ernest Gellner, in Conditions of Liberty, analyses the role of civil society in the Marxist, socialist and capitalist frameworks and has also assessed post-modern rivals to it that have emerged, such as Islam. The Eastern European states found the concept of civil society useful in gaining independence from a Communist stronghold precisely because of the possibility here for mobilisation of the masses in opposition to totalitarian militarist regimes. Through meetings of trade unions, religious groups, bars etc, the emphasis was on autonomy, self-organisation and withdrawal from the state to create islands of civic engagement for the emergence of a ‘parallel polis. For Gellner, a civil society was â€Å"a profane society, a society that explicitly sought to put the lowest of human desires to productive uses. Mandevilles paradox private vices make public virtues naturalized the profane by demonstrating that â€Å"capitalist individuals were more likely to promote the public good when they looked exclusively to their private interest.† He found the Marxist, and therefore the socialist strain of civil society, that stressed on driving religion out of life and also investing the economic with the ultimate sacredness, as faulty for it denied space to the profane, the self-interest and avarice of human nature that could be harnessed and channelled into collective action. With the ‘disenchantment of the world that comes with modernity and its powerful agencies of science and capitalism came the advent of ‘the modular man    who associates voluntarily with other prototypes, giving rise to a Gesellschaft, the inorganic form of social bonding, through fostered ties, rather than a Gemeinschaft, the organic community based on ties of blood and kin. â€Å"The genius of capitalist civil society is that it not only harnesses our profane energies, b ut relieves us of the moral burden of thinking of them as profane. In so doing, it relieves us of the strain of constant longing for unattainable self-transcendence in desperate simulations of paradise,† says Ignatieff. He also observes that liberty in civil society is essentially negative because there cannot be, in principle, agreement among human beings about the positive ends of political communities, beyond the protection of the liberties of the individuals who compose it. If people seek to overcome their own alienation and separateness, they can do so only as individuals or in voluntary groups. Civil society, then, becomes crucial for maintaining checks and balances, says Ignatieff. The realms of politics, economics and culture are neatly segregated, and power in any one domain does not endow power in another. The society is free, acting through a vibrant media and elected representatives, all functioning within the ambit of law. â€Å"Needless to say, no civil society has ever lived up to this goalyet the formal promise is more than hypocrisy: it remains the standard against which civil society judges itself and from which it finds renewed impetus to reform.† In this sense, civil society, albeit being a flawed ideal, also has the potential for redeeming itself simply by virtue of being embedded in the notion of reform, of itself as well as of society, simply by virtue of allowing private trajectories of interest being followed.   Despite changing meanings, civil societys core rests in a rule-governed society based on the consent of individuals. The ‘social contract that Hobbes defined is another way of understanding the liberal ideas behind the conception of civil society through different phases, civil society can be seen as the process or the space through which different individuals negotiate, argue, struggle against or agree with each other and with the centres of political and economic authority. The element of autonomy, voluntariness and collective action through association remain hallmarks through all definitions of the term. Civil Society in India: It would seem natural that civil society, as has been described and conceptualised above is an integral part of a democracy, with its accompanying notions of equality, public participation, and masses-oriented governance. Robert Post and Nancy Rosenblum describe a consensus among contemporary theorists â€Å"that democracy depends on the particularist, self-determining associations of civil society, where independent commitments, interests, and voices, are developed . Civil society is the precondition for democratic decision making, whether democracy is conceived as deliberation or as interest group pluralism, and this is true even if the goal of democracy is to transcend particularism and arrive at uncoerced agreement or a common will.† According to Joerg Forbrig, a vibrant and functional civil society can contribute to strengthening a democracy in five ways: control of state power through the incorporation of a body of laws, individual rights and thereby becoming a space that overlooks the relationship between the pr Analysis of the Armed Special Forces Act 1943 in India Analysis of the Armed Special Forces Act 1943 in India Civil society is a term oft-repeated in democratic contexts today. Seen as an essential component of the liberal framework of political structures, it is essentially the space of free association for the masses. India, a multicultural democratic country, boasts of a vibrant civil society. At the same time, it also has accusations of being one of the worst offenders of human and civil liberties of some of its people, in the form of the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act. This chapter seeks to introduce the motivation, hypothesis, methodology and key concepts of this paper. Introduction The spotlight of global affairs and the ‘march to democracy has been on the Middle East in 2011. Mass rebellions against autocratic, unjust and oppressive regimes have swept the region in a sort of domino-effect swarming hordes of people rose up to replace what seemed no more applicable or tolerable in Tunisia to Tahrir Square in Egypt, in a bid to in-state the only form of governance that allowed ‘power to the people i.e. democracy. This phenomenon has come to the West as a pleasant surprise, that have viewed the Islamic world as essentially subject to notions of conservatism, violence and religion all seen as harbingers of a pre-modern past that the West feels it has left behind for good. â€Å"What is happening in Tunisia and Egypt is the completion of the 1989 revolutions the Egyptians are reclaiming the values of the Solidarnosc and the Civic Forum from the neo-liberals who usurped them The people in Tahrir Square and elsewhere are giving us back the meaning of c ivil society a place where people can talk, discuss and act freely,† says Mary Kaldor , examining the notion of civil society and how it has changed since the last time it was picked up from the annals of a rejected history and reinvented to bring monumental political change in Eastern European states. Closer home, the beginning of summer this year has seen a heated campaign against corruption being driven by a single mans Satyagraha Anna Hazare would definitely qualify as a ‘non-entity even by the modest standards of celebration that Indian civil society activists enjoy. Yet, this army truck driver of the 1960s is today the poster-boy of ‘publicness, coming to symbolise the space for mediation and political interference to bring out moral dividends that is the hallmark of a vibrant democracy. Some have called his actions ‘Gandhian, one of the few attempts at reform emerging from among the non-political that post-independence India has seen, otherwise witnessed only in Irom Sharmilas consistent campaign from Manipur against the travails of militarisation of the north-east region and abuse of power that the Armed Forces Special Powers Act 1958 has become synonymous with. The Armed Forces Special Powers Act, which the Indian government has thought fit to implement in two contexts all the North Eastern states and Jammu Kashmir is arguably among the most contentious legislations of post-Independence India. Said to be based on a 1942 British ordinance intended to contain the Indian independence movement (Quit India movement) during World War II, it was enacted as a short-term measure to allow the deployment of the army in Indias north-eastern Naga Hills but since has been in existence for five decades. It has, since then, also been implemented in Jammu Kashmir which has shown violent separatist aspirations since the late 1980s. The Act has been controversial because of the fact that it gives to the armed forces extended powers of action without accountability, which has led to abuse of power and gross violation of human and civil rights, building around it a sense of impunity. In a democratic framework, this move to retain the sovereign integrity of the Indian state has been vociferously derided by people both within and outside these regions. Even though justifications for the laws existence abound from freedom of operation to existence of provisions for accountability and redress within the armed forces set up, the Act in itself has become a symbol of oppression at the hands of the Indian state and therefore a part of the problem, not the solution. Hypothesis This paper attempts to therefore study civil society in India its role and scope with specific focus on this nugget of legislation that has a strong reference to the case of maintaining or violating civil liberty in a democracy. It seeks to analyse the effectiveness of the Indian democracy in this respect, considering whether ‘power to the people is just another catchphrase or if it goes deeper than that. This researcher is of the view that even though the definition of a modern civil society in a multicultural context as India needs to be revisited, and even though largely (as in the case of the AFSPA) political, military, judicial and legislative action has a will of its own, there is scope for activism and there are voices that get heard. The necessity of such a space of negotiation in a democracy cannot be stressed hard enough. The arbitrariness of power, possible marginalisation of the ‘have-nots and the dilemma of national unity versus individual rights need to be examined in the light of modern liberal rhetoric of freedom and equality that are foundational aspects of the Indian constitution. Methodology The study has used both primary and secondary sources of data along with analysis using both the deductive and inductive methods. I have analyzed government records, media reports, library sources, existing literature on the subject, archival data, think-tank reports as well as spoken / interviewed a few primary sources within the civil society. The study has also use information and experience gathered at symposiums, lectures and workshops related to the topic. It has been largely qualitative in approach, since the issue required an exploration of theory and potential policy-making role of civil society in situations of conflict and civil unrest. Chapterisation The paper shall follow this sequence: the first chapter will examine the trajectory of conceptualisation of civil society in the corpus of philosophy and political studies and its relevance globally as well as in India. The second chapter will elaborate upon the Act, the controversy and the issues surrounding it. In the third chapter, I will look at civil society initiatives regarding this aspect, both in terms of humanitarian redressal and rehabilitation and attempts at political negotiation and policy amendment. It will also look critically at the degree to which these initiatives have worked in mitigating the more negative consequences of the law. The last chapter, in conclusion, will critically analyse the role that civil society has played so far in the dynamics of the Indian democracy and the scope for positive change it contains. The rest of this chapter is dedicated to elaborating on the key concepts of this paper: civil society and the Armed Forces Special Powers Act. Key Concepts Civil Society: It is crucial to understand what civil society in a changed global context means. Historically, it has been understood to mean the public space that exists between the family and the state that seeks to mitigate the preponderance of individualism as well as the ‘tyranny of the majority. Based on principles of voluntarism, association and pluralism and tolerance, this was an imagination that sought to negotiate with power structures in every context it arose in, whether during industrialisation of England where a new bourgeois class of powerful traders emerged that sought to bargain with the state and the Church for power, or in Eastern Europe of the 1980s where a bid to parlay Communism resulted in associational uprising that stemmed out of sports clubs, trade unions, bars and basements. After 1989, civil society got the rejuvenation that had been missing for the past couple of centuries since Marx and Gramsci had derided it as yet another excuse for state/power domination and co-option of the masses. It has since been taken much more seriously, both academically and in its practical application, although consensus on what it constitutes is hard to come by. However, with democracy becoming the chosen form of ‘correct government, where representation and election to power is ‘by the people, for the people and of the people, civil society assumes new meaning as the arena of civilised battle. There is more to a democracy than public participation through ballot-box approval. This, in a nutshell, could be the motive for a functional civil society.   However, the proprietorship of the West over the concept of civil society is often criticised. By linking it with modernity, it is seen to be a concept both inherently Western and also as the Wests boon to the world. Ernest Gellner paints civil society as the space of the profane that gives freedom to the baser aspects of human beings and their relationships. Having associated it with capitalist liberalism, he posits many upcoming rivals to it such as Islam, Asiatic capitalism, fierce nationalism- leading one to believe that this essentially Western notion is one under threat from more preponderant forces in different parts of the world that do not essentially derive from rationality. Mary Kaldor finds in this a patronising approach of the entire West, evident also in US and Europes response to the upheaval in the Middle East. She observes that there already exists a term for civil society in Arabic Almujtamaa Almadani and therefore finds that the concept has more antiquated roots than otherwise presumed. To offset this overlordism, she says, â€Å"Instead of imposing yet another neo-liberal formula, western countries and institutions should consult the people of the Middle East about how they can help to construct a fairer, more sustainable economy. Instead of giving governments money to buy western weapons, they could discuss with civil society how they could help to restructure the armed forces to provide human security, to establish civilian control over the military, and to convert the substantial military industries to peaceful uses.† Ruminating on the changed idea of civil society, she says disappointedly, â€Å"After 1989, everyone celebrated the idea of civil society. But it was rapidly reduced within the framework of neo-liberal thinking to mean western-supported NGOs who would help to smooth the path of neo-liberal transition.† In the post-Cold War phase, since the world has gone more global, the meaning of civil society has veered towards international-level cooperation and institutionalism, through NGOs, forums, transnational networks of activities to work on a ‘global humanitarian regime. It has now become a buzzword relating to democracies, liberalism, neo-liberalism, anti-war movements, global justice and so on, and thereby is seen as a platform inhabited by activists of all sorts. In the normative sense, civil society is and always has been seen as the arena where consent is generated for and in opposition to concentrated authority. In the descriptive sense, or in considering what all should be included in this realm, lies the tensions should regulatory bodies such as the UN and the World Bank be considered part of civil society? Should one include international NGOs that depend on government funding? Does civil society include religious or ethnic organisations? Does it include militant or sece ssionist organisations that are fighting against an oppressive state or for some defined nationalism? As the concerns that occupy minds in a global world change (such as todays preoccupations include AIDS, landmines, terrorism, nuclear disarmament/disaster, receding water levels etc), the definitions of all realms of society would change too. This paper, taking insights from the corpus of philosophy on the subject, defines civil society as the associational space, lying between the family, state and market, where autonomous individuals voluntarily come together to define and pursue common goals to reap collective benefits. Schmitters definition of civil society, as a set or system of self-organised intermediary groups that: (1) are relatively independent of both public authorities and private units of production and reproduction, that is, of firms and families; (2) are capable of deliberating about and taking collective actions in defence or promotion of their interests or passions; (3) do not seek to replace either state agents or private (re)producers or to accept responsibility fo r governing the polity as a whole; and (4) agree to act within pre-established rules of a civil, i.e. mutually respectful, nature. It is civil society based on the four characteristics of dual autonomy, collective action, nonusurpation and civility that this paper will refer to. The Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act (AFSPA): The Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act is a law, enacted by the Parliament of India, to meet violent internal situations created by underground militant outfits to further their illegal and ‘unconstitutional causes. The law was enacted to provide necessary powers and legal support to the Armed forces for carrying out proactive operations against the militants in a highly hostile environment that was threatening the integrity and sovereignty of the Indian nation-state. The Act dates back to September 11, 1958, when the Parliament of India passed the act bestowing more power on the armed forces in â€Å"disturbed areas†. First introduced in the states of Arunachal Pradesh, Assam, Manipur, Meghalaya, Mizoram, Nagaland and Tripura, the Act was later extended to Jammu and Kashmir as the Armed Forces (Jammu and Kashmir) Special Powers Act, 1990 in July 1990. The Act allows an officer of the armed forces to fire upon or otherwise use force, even to the causing of death, against any person who is acting in contravention of any law against assembly of five or more persons or possession of deadly weapons, to arrest without a warrant and with the use of necessary force anyone who has committed certain offenses or is suspected of having done so, to enter and search any premise in order to make such arrests. The act also bestows legal immunity to the officials, which means that they cannot be sued or prosecuted. While the law was enacted to mitigate militant action, violence and to quell secessionist tendencies that violated the essence of the Indian union, it has since inception over half a century ago turned into a controversial aspect of governance in the country. An increasing militarisation of areas branded as ‘disturbed and a consequent violation of human rights and civil liberties has resulted in a worsening of conditions in both the regions it has been applied to. Instead of bringing about greater cohesion, or of managing to bring the north-east and Jammu Kashmir peacefully into the fold of the Indian union, the law has become just another reason for the strengthening of secessionist demands. This is in contradiction with the reasoning given for consistent political will to keep the Act in place in the two regions: in a response to the United Nations Human Rights Committee questioning the validity of the AFSPA under the Indian law and in light of Article 4 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, ICCPR, the Attorney General of India responded that the AFSPA is a necessary measure to prevent the secession of the North Eastern states. He said that a response to this agitation for secession in the North East had to be done on a war footing. He argued that the Indian Constitution, in Article 355, made it the duty of the Central Government to protect the states from internal disturbance and that there is no duty under international law to allow secession.â€Å"The shrill rhetoric demanding that the Armed Forces Special Powers Act be repealed, if allowed to hold sway, may drive us deeper into the dark world of both Islamist terror and the Maoist insurgency, † Brigadier S K Chatterji (retd) has warned more recently. The primary issue of controversy here is the violation of human and civil rights. According to a Human Rights Watch report, the act is in violation in the following respects: The right to life is violated by section 4(a) of the AFSPA, which grants the armed forces power to shoot to kill in law enforcement situations without regard to international human rights law restrictions on the use of lethal force. The right to liberty and security of person is violated by section 4(c) of the AFSPA, which fails to protect against arbitrary arrest by allowing soldiers to arrest anyone merely on suspicion that a â€Å"cognizable offence† has already taken place or is likely to take place in the future. Further, the AFSPA provides no specific time limit for handing arrested persons to the nearest police station. The right to remedy is violated by section 6 of the AFSPA, which provides officers who abuse their powers under the AFSPA with immunity from legal accountability. This section of th e AFSPA prohibits even state governments from initiating legal proceedings against the armed forces on behalf of their population without central government approval. Since such a sanction is seldom granted, it has in effect provided a shield of immunity for armed forces personnel implicated in serious abuses. In practice the AFSPA also facilitates violation of the right to be free from torture, and from cruel or degrading treatment. Since the AFSPA provides powers to arrest without warrant and then detain arrested persons for unspecified amounts of time, the armed forces routinely engage in torture and other ill-treatment during interrogation in army barracks. However, the support from within the armed forces and certain other sections of the political and academic circles is strong for the continuance of this act. Northern Army Commander General Jaswal in Jammu Kashmir gave the following reasoning: I would like to say that the provisions of the Armed Forces Special Power Act are very pious to me and I think to entire Indian ArmyWe have religious books, there are certain guidelines which are given there, but all the members of the religion do not follow it, they break it also, does it imply that you remove the religious book or you remove this chap. My take on it is to find someone guilty, take him to task, but dont touch this pious document or provision of the Armed Forces Special Power Act giving the similarity to religious book.† In the past couple of months Army has argued that without the Act it will not be able to launch proactive operations. The Army will also not be able to use force except in self-defence and not have powers to destroy ammunition dumps and IEDs. The army also says that a majority of human rights abuse cases are found to be false and those found true have been severely dealt with. Human rights activists have however contended time and again that the Act gives excessive powers to the soldiers. Jammu and Kashmir Chief Minister Omar Abdullah has said in recent past that there is a need to revoke the Act since it is prone to abuse. One of the grounds that the citizens have stated is that the people arrested or otherwise detained should be allowed to plead their case under section 130 and 131 of the Criminal Code. The Article 21 of the Constitution also gets violated in the process. In spite of the various cases filed and protests initiated there has been no revocation or dialogue towards the same. The issue revolving the AFSPA is that the principle of national integrity and sovereignty is in direct conflict with the liberal democratic frameworks of human rights and the civil society has the potential to the site for this negotiation. This is the premise under which the rest of this paper seeks to examine how the civil society and the Indian state have sought to deal with the AFSPA. CIVIL SOCIETY This Chapter seeks to chart the history of philosophy on civil society, in political sciences and social sciences. It will then look at civil society in India specifically, in todays context, and some of the major criticisms levelled against the concept and its real-time manifestation. Civil Society: The Concept At the abstract level, civil society has historically been conceptualised as a mediating space between the family, state and recently, also separate from the market. It is the site of association, voluntariness and community engagement, set apart from the politics and compulsions of the state as well as the individuality and liberty of the family. Bruce Sievers identifies seven strands that go into the making of civil society: nonprofit and voluntary institutions, individual rights, rule of law, the common good, philanthropy, freedom of expression and tolerance. Emerging in the context of the 18th century industrialisation rampant in Europe that gave rise to a new class of bourgeoisie and the new ideas of utilitarianism and capitalism, civil society gets inextricably linked with libertarian ideals that seek to carve out spaces for autonomous action in every individual and societal aspect.   â€Å"A ‘civil society was civilized and ordered by the rule of law. Unlike tribal so ciety, it was also large-scale and held together by impersonal bonds of interest rather than ties of kin and blood. It was also, to a degree some found frightening, a self-correcting mechanism in which the selfish actions of myriad individuals, brought together only by the rule of law, managed to produce an orderly and dynamic accumulation of prosperity unprecedented in human history,† observes Michael Ignatieff The importance of social engagement and principle of tolerance have only gained more importance in a globalised world that is characterised by multi-cultural, multi-ethnic nations. Robert Putnam identifies civic engagement, dense networks of interaction, political equality, solidarity, trust and tolerance and a strong associational life as crucial to the generation of ‘social capital the resource that could help to facilitate coordination and cooperation for mutual benefit in societies. He says that networks of civic engagement foster norms of generalised reciprocity, encourage the emergence of social trust, facilitate communication, collaboration and therefore collective action on common dilemmas and endorse the idea of collective benefits. Through its history, a number of philosophers have vouched for and expanded upon this realm of an advanced society. Alexis de Tocqueville , in Democracy in America, says that Americas answer to the problem of limiting the absolutist state was to have a constitution defined in law and protected by a counterbalancing force of independent bodies. These were the local associations of citizens acting together in the affairs of daily life. This was a civil society engaged in politics, voluntary by nature. His idea of civil society was based in the observation of an absolute sovereignty of the majority, but this principle, which could just as well turn into a tyranny of the majority, was also mitigated through a non-centralised frame of governance that set importance to localised chains of command and responsibility. Civicness emerged in America, he observed, through the relentless formation of associations: â€Å"Americans of all ages, all stations in life, and all types of disposition ar e forever forming associations. There are not only commercial and industrial associations in which all take part, but others of a thousand different typesreligious, moral, serious, futile, very general and very limited, immensely large and very minute. . . . Nothing, in my view, deserves more attention than the intellectual and moral associations in America.† Civil Society, for Hegel , is the site that lies between the Family and the State in the Ethical Life, as described in his Philosophy of Right. It is the site where the ‘determination of particularity as per individual rights is given free rein, but which has to acquire a mantle of universality for the rights to become acquirable or even legitimate, so to speak. Here, therefore, are two elements: the concrete person who is out to pursue self-interest and personal motive, and the form of universality, or the generation of common motive, through forming bonds and finding over-lapping areas of interest. A particular end, therefore, assumes the form of universality through this relation to other people, and it is attained in the simultaneous attainment of the welfare of others. It has three dimensions: the system of needs, the administration of justice and the police and the corporation. The system of needs refers to the generation of ‘universal human capital through human beings exceptional capacity to generate needs and spot commonness with others and then to satisfy those needs through work and labour. A single persons particularity of interest can be recognised if he manages to associate himself with one sphere of the needs. The administration of justice is the principle of rightness that becomes universally known through a public legal code. Not only does this embed within the principle of freedom in both subjective individual and universal platforms, it also makes wrongdoing an infringement on the people that live within such an ethical life. The polizei, then, is the bearer and the guardian of this publicly generated and accepted principles of right, the public authority that also looks after public utilities and regulation activities as well. The corporation, on the other hand, is the arrangement whereby common interests are brought to fore through voluntary association as in sports or religious clubs etc. All these aspects together form the civil society for Hegel, the space where freedom of self-interest is allowed to reign but within the limits of the principle of universality.   Antonio Gramsci, however, had a more critical view of civil society, from a Marxist vantage point. He saw civil society not as the benign space that afforded a voice and power to the masses, but as an instrument of domination linked in an unholy alliance with the bourgeois elements in the civil society seeking to protect propertied interests . He was also convinced that the intricate, organic relationships between civil society and political society enable certain strata of society not only to gain dominance within the state but also, and more importantly, to maintain it, perpetuating the subalternity of other strata. In other words, the site of hegemony was civil society it was the arena wherein the ruling class extends and reinforces its power by non-violent means through components such as the press, the libraries, schools, associations and clubs that could all become media for propaganda and homogenisation of the masses. The state and the civil society in his purview are inextri cably linked, which only facilitates subordination by the state without coercion, focussing instead on ‘manufacturing consent. However, he does acknowledge the potential of civil society as a site for breeding revolutions and for newer ‘conceptions of the world to take place. However, the manifestation of this fairly utopian concept is fraught with tensions and dichotomies. Ernest Gellner, in Conditions of Liberty, analyses the role of civil society in the Marxist, socialist and capitalist frameworks and has also assessed post-modern rivals to it that have emerged, such as Islam. The Eastern European states found the concept of civil society useful in gaining independence from a Communist stronghold precisely because of the possibility here for mobilisation of the masses in opposition to totalitarian militarist regimes. Through meetings of trade unions, religious groups, bars etc, the emphasis was on autonomy, self-organisation and withdrawal from the state to create islands of civic engagement for the emergence of a ‘parallel polis. For Gellner, a civil society was â€Å"a profane society, a society that explicitly sought to put the lowest of human desires to productive uses. Mandevilles paradox private vices make public virtues naturalized the profane by demonstrating that â€Å"capitalist individuals were more likely to promote the public good when they looked exclusively to their private interest.† He found the Marxist, and therefore the socialist strain of civil society, that stressed on driving religion out of life and also investing the economic with the ultimate sacredness, as faulty for it denied space to the profane, the self-interest and avarice of human nature that could be harnessed and channelled into collective action. With the ‘disenchantment of the world that comes with modernity and its powerful agencies of science and capitalism came the advent of ‘the modular man    who associates voluntarily with other prototypes, giving rise to a Gesellschaft, the inorganic form of social bonding, through fostered ties, rather than a Gemeinschaft, the organic community based on ties of blood and kin. â€Å"The genius of capitalist civil society is that it not only harnesses our profane energies, b ut relieves us of the moral burden of thinking of them as profane. In so doing, it relieves us of the strain of constant longing for unattainable self-transcendence in desperate simulations of paradise,† says Ignatieff. He also observes that liberty in civil society is essentially negative because there cannot be, in principle, agreement among human beings about the positive ends of political communities, beyond the protection of the liberties of the individuals who compose it. If people seek to overcome their own alienation and separateness, they can do so only as individuals or in voluntary groups. Civil society, then, becomes crucial for maintaining checks and balances, says Ignatieff. The realms of politics, economics and culture are neatly segregated, and power in any one domain does not endow power in another. The society is free, acting through a vibrant media and elected representatives, all functioning within the ambit of law. â€Å"Needless to say, no civil society has ever lived up to this goalyet the formal promise is more than hypocrisy: it remains the standard against which civil society judges itself and from which it finds renewed impetus to reform.† In this sense, civil society, albeit being a flawed ideal, also has the potential for redeeming itself simply by virtue of being embedded in the notion of reform, of itself as well as of society, simply by virtue of allowing private trajectories of interest being followed.   Despite changing meanings, civil societys core rests in a rule-governed society based on the consent of individuals. The ‘social contract that Hobbes defined is another way of understanding the liberal ideas behind the conception of civil society through different phases, civil society can be seen as the process or the space through which different individuals negotiate, argue, struggle against or agree with each other and with the centres of political and economic authority. The element of autonomy, voluntariness and collective action through association remain hallmarks through all definitions of the term. Civil Society in India: It would seem natural that civil society, as has been described and conceptualised above is an integral part of a democracy, with its accompanying notions of equality, public participation, and masses-oriented governance. Robert Post and Nancy Rosenblum describe a consensus among contemporary theorists â€Å"that democracy depends on the particularist, self-determining associations of civil society, where independent commitments, interests, and voices, are developed . Civil society is the precondition for democratic decision making, whether democracy is conceived as deliberation or as interest group pluralism, and this is true even if the goal of democracy is to transcend particularism and arrive at uncoerced agreement or a common will.† According to Joerg Forbrig, a vibrant and functional civil society can contribute to strengthening a democracy in five ways: control of state power through the incorporation of a body of laws, individual rights and thereby becoming a space that overlooks the relationship between the pr

Psychology of Prediction Essay

Over the decades, there has been much controversy on the effectiveness of clinical predictions which are mostly based on experts’ intuition. Researches from the past decades have proven that statistical methods are more accurate than clinical predictions and other researches examined heuristic principles used in predicting and judging outcomes during times when there is uncertainty or insufficient information. Although relying upon these heuristics simplifies judgment to a certain degree, this may lead to severe errors. Basically, there are three heuristic principles proposed by Kahneman and Tversky (1974). The first is called the availability heuristic, wherein predictions are made based on the information available. The second is anchoring, wherein predictions are based on a series of numerical estimates or â€Å"anchors†. The third one is called the representativeness heuristic, wherein predictions are made based on the subsistence of apparently similar cases. This paper studies one of these heuristic principles namely, representativeness heuristic, to show how this heuristic can lead to bias on clinical predictions and hence, show that such heuristics are, indeed, less accurate than predictions based upon statistical methods. First, the author feels compelled to give a little background on a few studies over the on-going clinical-statistical controversy. In 1996, Grove and Meehl proved that statistical method â€Å"is almost invariably equal to or superior to clinical method† (p. 293) in terms of accuracy in prediction. They analyzed secondary data coming from 136 published English researches since the 1920s which dealt with the prediction of health-related phenomena or human behaviour. These researches should also contain at least one of each prediction — that is, at least one clinical prediction or one based on human judgment and at least one mechanical or statistical prediction. As have mentioned earlier, all of the researches they included in their studied proved that statistical method is indeed almost always equal to or superior to clinical method because statistical prediction obtained from organized data are almost always free from bias. These data are observed from actual experiences and are recorded with precise instruments instead of relying on unaided memory. Moreover, statistical inferences are more objective than the human mind which can be bias at times or which can neglect certain important attributes that are necessary before even concluding on the result and thus, sometimes resulting to severe errors in predictions. Hence, predictions obtained from these statistical methods produce unbiased results in contrast with predictions made from human judgment. There are many reasons and examples that can show the superiority of statistical method over clinical method. In this paper, one type of heuristic is presented based on the observations of Kahneman and Tversky in their paper On the Psychology of Prediction (1973). Their paper is chosen due to the fact that it presents how people, specifically clinicians, judge certain events based on similar events that happened in the past. In the end, this paper shows how such a heuristic (representativeness) can lead to certain and possibly severe errors in judgment as compared to the event of using statistical method. Data analysis, discussion and conclusion are all based upon the findings of Kahneman and Tversky (1973) and Grove and Meehl (1996). In 1973, Kahneman and Tversky discussed two classes of prediction, the categorical prediction, in which predictions are presented nominally and numerical prediction, in which predictions are presented in numerically. They first examined category predictions by dividing 248 participants into three groups — 69 participants for the base-rate ¬ group, 65 participants for the similarity group and 114 participants for the prediction group. The base-rate group was asked to guess the percentage of first-year graduate students in the US who are enrolled as of the time the study was in progress in each of the nine fields of specialization namely, Business Administration, Computer Science, Engineering, Humanities and Education, Law, Library Science, Medicine, Physical and Life Sciences, and Social Science and Social Work. The similarity group was given a personality sketch (see Kahneman and Tversky, p. 38) and asked to rank the nine areas in terms of â€Å"how similar is Tom W. to the typical graduate student in each of the following nine fields of graduate specialization? †. The prediction group, which consists of graduate students in psychology at three major universities in the United States was also given the same personality sketch as that given to the similarity group with some additional information (see Kahneman and Tversky, p. 239) and was asked to predict Tom W’s choice of specialization. Kahneman and Tversky compared the results of these three groups by presenting a table (see Kahneman and Tversky, p. 238) and computing the product-moment correlations between the columns of the table. In so doing, they confirmed their hypothesis that most people predict certain events based on representativeness. Kahneman and Tversky explained that this happens because all the participants ignored certain important features before drawing their conclusions. In this way, they violate the normative rules of information. The participants, basically, ignored the three types of information relevant in any statistical analysis namely, prior or background information (presented to the participants using base rates of fields of graduate specialization, specific evidence concerning the individual case (presented to the participants using the personality sketch of Tom W. ) and the expected accuracy of prediction. The statistically correct method of predicting Tom W’s choice of specialization would be to compare the relative weights assigned to specific evidence and prior information with that of expected accuracy. As Kahneman and Tversky explains â€Å"when expected accuracy decreases, predictions should become more regressive, that is, closer to the expectations based on prior information† (p. 239). However, the participants in their study predicted without even considering the prior probabilities assigned to the specific evidence as described in Tom W’s personality sketch. Kahneman and Tversky (1973) also examined in their paper how numerical predictions can also lead to bias judgments or severe errors. In a study designed analogously with their study on categorical predictions, they showed that people also tend to predict by representativeness. That is, most predict an outcome using a score that is most representative of the description they were provided. Kahneman and Tversky’s showed us that whether people were given nominal or numerical data, they tend to predict outcomes by representativeness. Most may think that predicting by representativeness is more efficient than statistical methods since one should only consider similar or representative events while statistical methods require rigorous (as most think) tasks such as observing and gathering data and computing for too many measures such as mean, standard deviation and the like. However, this can become less accurate since they fail to consider some important parts in their analysis before drawing conclusions whereas statistical methods consider all of the important parts required before completely analyzing a data. Such statistical and mechanical methods reduce bias since these methods rely on precise measuring instruments than heuristic methods which rely almost entirely to memory or past knowledge which are most of the time insufficient or cannot wholly represent a certain event. Moreover, results derived from heuristic methods such as representativeness can vary depending upon the perception of different people. Results from statistical method, on the other hand, vary only because of variation between groups or within-groups. But even if data is given to five hundred different people, as long as the data is still the same, it will still yield the same result.

Human and Evolution Essay

Human desire is unlimited, everyone also will hold a laziness attitude, so to own desires, human need to work harder to satisfy their own, therefore society in constant evolution! Sigmund Freud once said that human evolution is mainly has two conditions as the driving force, one is sex and another is eager to greatness. However, this is unscientific if we observed from another perspective. Through understanding and awareness the history of Europe and Asia, we can assume this argument exists only in the view of philosophy and cannot afford to ponder in reality. With the era and knowledge progress, people have analyzed the reason of human evolution to be more simplified and clearly, it can be summarized in a word: survival. Evolution is a process of fittest survives, not suitable people will be eliminated, each of the person’s genetic are constantly changing, and is non-directional, genes control human’s activities of all life. In addition, when people confronting difficulties or changing, some mutant gene fit, but some do not, so those who do not fit will naturally died and eliminated. Generally, humans will choose to make changes and through evolution to maintain their patterns of life. According to Plato, â€Å"human is an animal that have no feathered and stand on two feet, the selection of human walk upright, maybe just to make walking easier.† Through some scientists verification, as the substantial change in the natural environment, such as the climate was changed erratically and deforestation cause the forest reduce, using walking upright is more conducive to human migration between the various settlements. This real case of human history is showing the evolution of standing and walking firstly to make the human brain has been gradual evolution and improvement. On the other hand, to stand up for walking and running, human need to balance the body and motor coordination of body parts, for the cerebellum of evolution has played a significant role in. Moreover, because of the evolution of standing and walking, human’s hands and feet also gradual evolution of division of labor. Besides that, because of people habit of laziness, there are more and more inventors to create something to provide life convenience for human, such as paper to convenient human communication and armillary sphere, seismograph to facilitate the people to observed celestial bodies and natural disasters. All of these are the inventor’s creative inspiration that obtained by the evolution. After a long time, those items are cannot satisfy people’s needs, then people will have to evolution to reform it or create another items. At the time of human invented complex instruments, the item is also forcing humans to adapt to its complexity, which in turn will promote human accelerated pace of evolution. Until today’s living environment has already evolution to become high tech, human science and technology has been rapid improvement and the invention and use a variety of tools are also complicated, for example: mobile phone has became the main item to work, to connect people communicate, replace people entertainment and vehicle became main transportation for people to move, all of the people who are following in this environment are also affected. So, they have only one way to avoid being eliminated the social environment, and that is evolution together. Everyone needs to make changes by themselves, learning and contacts more stuff, broadening their horizons.

The 1820 Missouri Compromise - 1190 Words

The 1820 Missouri Compromise Slavery and the Civil War By Stephen Waters Research Task- Describe the role of the 1820 Missouri Compromise in the campaign against slavery! The 1820 Missouri Compromise played a large role in the campaign against slavery. In 1819 Missouri became a statehood and congress considered framing a state constitution, with this a representative attempted to add a anti-slavery legislation with it. This is what started the process of the campaign against slavery. Henry Clay made a large contribution toward this compromise in 1820, with his new ideas on how to settle the conflict between the North and the South, which lasted until 1954.All the compromises made from 1820s to the Kansas Nebraska†¦show more content†¦Slade took up the challenge to speak with these protestors through a speech, which revived the unpleasantries of the 1820 Missouri Compromise. By 1854 the Missouri Organization was overdue along with other states. As the falling out of slaves was becoming very common in certain territories which further complicated this issue, along with the location of the projected Transcontinental Railroad. This Missouri Compromise was the third debate on slavery in that certain area since 1789. The Kansas Nebraska, in 1854, was very contradicted to the 1820 resolution to slavery, although the new compromise became known as one of the major elements that led to the Civil war. This Compromise was created by Stephen A. Douglas who was a chairman of the Senate committee on territories. After three months of debate in congress, Douglas, who was supported by President Pierce and the southerners, saw it adopted. This bill that was reported in Jan, 1852 stated that slavery should be left to the territorial settlers themselves, in its final bill provided the creation of two new territories Kansas and Nebraska- instead of the one. The First stat e would be for slavery, second would be a free state. The result was it created more of a sectional division, it also created a new Political Organization, this is what propelled to the civil war. Ever since the beginning of Slavery in the United States, itShow MoreRelatedThe Missouri Compromise Of 1820868 Words   |  4 PagesThe Missouri Compromise of 1820 was an attempt by Congress to defuse the sectional and political rivalries triggered by the request of Missouri late in 1819 for admission as a land in which slavery would be allowed. At the time, the United States contained twenty-two states, evenly divided between slave states and free states. (Missouri Compromise , 2016) The Compromise of 1850 was laws admitting California as a free state, creating Utah and New Mexico territories with the question of slavery inRead MoreCauses Of The Missouri Compromise Of 1820877 Words   |  4 Pages The Missouri Compromise of 1820 The Missouri Compromise of 1820 helped to mend the relationship between the north and south. All the states in the Union were in an argument over what the new states should be - free or slave states. With the conflict steadily rising a congressman came up with a solution to alleviate the tension. This compromise set the tone for the rest of the civil rights time period. It ended after holding peace for a few decades. The Missouri Compromise of 1820 relieved the intensityRead MoreEssay on The 1820 Missouri Compromise1146 Words   |  5 Pages The 1820 Missouri Compromise Slavery and the Civil War Research Task- Describe the role of the 1820 Missouri Compromise in the campaign against slavery! The 1820 Missouri Compromise played a large role in the campaign against slavery. In 1819 Missouri became a statehood and congress considered framing a state constitution, with this a representative attempted to add a anti-slavery legislation with it. This is what started the process of the campaign against slavery.Read MoreCauses Of The Missouri Compromise Of 1820814 Words   |  4 PagesThe Missouri compromise of 1820 was enforced to stop tensions between Pro-slavery and Anti-slavery factions within the U.S. congress and across the county. The history of slavery and manifest destiny became one of the main reasons why The Missouri Compromise came to be. Meanwhile, the senate was debating whether they should abolish slavery or expand it, as well as how slavery befits the country economically. Many economic, political, and social events occurred in order for The Missouri CompromiseRead MoreEssay about Missouri Compromise of 18202681 Words   |  11 PagesThe Missouri Compromise of 1 820 In November of 1818, Missouri petitioned Congress for statehood and ignited a controversy over slavery and a balance of power in the Senate that would span two sessions of Congress and threaten the dissolution of the Union and a civil war. Prior to the Missouri question, the Union had eleven Free states and eleven slave states, each with two Senators. The Missouri Territory, carved out of land acquired in the Louisiana Purchase in 1803, covered an expanse of landRead MoreCompromise Essay1263 Words   |  6 Pagesï » ¿ Compromise Essay Prior to the 1820’s, the people of the United States had been struggling to find a way to solve their sectional tensions brought on by slavery in the south. The south had always had an economy based on agriculture that could not strive without their uses of slavery. They did not plan on ending slavery anytime soon, especially since it was really all they had to support themselves. They were against establishing an industrial based economy like the north had began to doRead MoreAnalyze the Effects of Political Compromise in Reducing Sectional Tension in the Period 1820-1861.623 Words   |  3 PagesDouglas Okwu 12-1-2012 Period: 7th Analyze the effects of political compromise in reducing sectional tension in the period 1820-1861. During the period of 1820-1861 the north and south debated on issues that dealt with slavery and unbalance power, in order to reduce sectional tension between these two states, the Missouri Compromise, Compromise of 1850, and the Kansas-Nebraska Act were proposed. The North and South both had opposite opinions about slavery, The South favored slavery becauseRead MoreWhat Or Who Is To Blame For The South’S Secession . Nanci1669 Words   |  7 Pagesthe compromise that held the nation together began to come apart. The constitutionality of this compromise was disputed by the union. This compromise was the first one to create sectionalism inside the union. Even though due to several varied factors, the divergent paths taken within the economic improvement of North and South contributed to the animosity between the regions, the improvement of the Confederacy and the violence in ultimately, the victory of the Union. The Missouri Compromise of 1820Read MoreThe Compromise Of 1850 During The Civil War925 Words   |  4 PagesThe Compromise of 1850 played an enormous event in the history of the United States. This compromise disabled an on-going political conflict between free and slave states. This conflict began during the Mexican-American w ar of 1846 and it regarded the amount of territories obtained. The Compromise of 1850 delayed the Civil War by establishing the Fugitive Slave Act, separating Texas Territory, banning slave trade in D.C., admitting California as a free state, and also by installing popular sovereigntyRead MoreThe Civil War Of 18121560 Words   |  7 PagesIn 1820, the Congress of the United States passed The â€Å"Missouri Compromise†. This compromise went over the sectional differences the states had at the time, but was able to maintain the balance between states who favored slavery, and those who were against it and banned it in their respective state. But how this was achieved? After the â€Å"War of 1812†, the American people started to contemplate the idea of expansion more thoroughly, which led to the â€Å"Era of Good Feeling†, from 1817 to 1823. This ideas