Categories
Uncategorized

Accidental Death of an Anarchist

God exists and he too is a clown.
– Dario Fo

Dario Fo

Dario Fo

Image above is from paolomariani69′s photostream on Flickr here and has been published under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 2.0 Generic License.

There is no denying Italians have a sense of humour. No, we are not talking about Berlusconi. Jokers get elected in many mature democracies, but arguably the most successful political farce of all time, Morte Accidentale di un Anarchico (Accidental Death of an Anarchist), was penned by an Italian – the Nobel Prize winner, Dario Fo. The play is based on a real-life incident of alleged anarchist Giuseppe Pinelli, who was accused of planting a bomb. He fell out of the window of the fourth floor of the police building where he was being interrogated. The Italian public, till date, remain sceptical of the official police version that he committed suicide or accidentally fell, owing to no fault of the policemen interrogating him. The incident, which transpired in December 1969, inspired Dario Fo, who was a successful left wing dramatist at that time, to write and produce the masterpiece in 1970.

The play is set in the police building where the death of the anarchist occurred, around a week after the incident. The scene opens with a serial impersonator, a self-confessed histrionic maniac, being interrogated by the police. He soon confuses the dim-witted policemen with his insane logic to the point where they realise it’s not worth the trouble to keep him detained. The “Maniac” however, intercepts a phone call and comes to know of the arrival of a judge to enquire into the ‘accidental’ death of the anarchist. The play progresses with the maniac impersonating the judge, and in the process, managing to expose the contradictions in the police story.

This play about police brutality and fallacy within the construct of the powerful continues to be relevant more than forty years after its creation, and the Maniac remains a dream role for every actor.

The play has slapstick, visual gags, double speak and allegorical sequences which successfully demystify the events relating to the death of the anarchist. With the maniac taking up different roles throughout the play, Fo employs a derivation of the mask technique often seen in Commedia dell’arte, a medieval theatre form having its origins in Italy. The play stands out as one of the few devoid of zoomorphic symbolism, an animal imagery often used to de-humanise existence and bring down authority figures from a pedestal: a staple in Fo works like Archangels don’t play Pinball, Mistero Buffo, La Storia della Tigre and Giullarate.

The play uses Verfremdungseffekt, a technique borrowed from Brecht, which is used in almost all the Fo works. An effect of alienation is brought about by the breaking of the fourth wall – by actors interacting with the audience often by dialogue or actions. It is an exercise aimed at the audience being constantly reminded of the performance as a play and reflecting upon it while the performance is on. The result is that as critic Antonio Scuderi puts it, “Often Fo’s farce leaves the audience not in laughter, but with unreleased anger”.

The historical and political background of the play has to be understood in the context of post-World War Italy. The axis of neo-fascist elements in the state machinery and outside, the Catholic Church and capitalistic agents, were active in their opposition to the rising influence of communism in Italy. A “strategy of tension” was covertly implemented to legitimise a state crackdown on the left wing elements by orchestrating a series of bombings, assassinations, and disruptive activities, which could then be attributed to the radical left. The Piazza Fontana bombing which Pinelli was accused of, was widely seen as a part of this strategy. The policemen involved, including Luigi Calabresi, who was later assassinated by the members of a left wing group, were cleared of all charges following an internal enquiry. The official narrative about the death or the suicide overwhelmed the mainstream media establishments. In this context, Accidental Death of an Anarchist is a true counter to hegemony in the Gramscian sense as moral neutrality was a luxury that Fo did not have.

Accidental Death of an Anarchist has been translated into more than forty languages, and it has been performed in many more countries. A peculiar feature of the play is its inherent scope to go beyond the literal translations and adapt to fit various political and cultural contexts. The play was adapted in India by various groups, of which Three-Star Operation, produced by Asmita Theatre, was highly successful. Accidental Death of an Anarchist, like all Fo plays, according to Fo himself, is meant to be performed and evolve with each performance. It is ironic, therefore, that Fo has been critical of many of the translations and adaptations of the play, including a version in English, directed and acted by Gavin Richards, who placed the play in a British setting in 1981.

(Ajith James is a graduate of the West Bengal National University of Juridical Sciences. This post was first published on myLaw.net here.)

Categories
Uncategorized

Brewing Up a Perfect Storm…and Still We Refuse to Learn!

It has been reported recently that the Indian government has launched a wide-ranging surveillance programme that will give its security agencies unbridled powers to tap directly into e-mails and phone calls without permission or supervision by courts or parliament. This programme will allow security agencies, and even income tax officials, to listen to and tape phone conversations, access private emails, text messages, posts on Facebooks, Twitter, or LinkedIn. Further, they will access to track searches on Google. It will apparently give the government the ability to target any of India’s 900 million landline and mobile phone subscribers and 120 million Internet users.

surveillance

Image above is from Toban B.’s photostream on Flickr here and has been published under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 2.0 Generic License.

India does not have a formal privacy law. Most probably, the new surveillance programme will operate under the archaic Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, which gives the government freedom to monitor private conversations. While the Supreme Court of India has held privacy to be a fundamental right, it is restricted to certain aspects of a person’s life and is still subject to the courts deciding the limits on a case by case basis (See Govind v. State Of Madhya Pradesh & Anr, 1975 AIR 1378). For instance, in 1996, petitioners had to argue before the Supreme Court of India that the right to speak privately over the telephone was a fundamental right (See People’s Union For Civil Liberties (PUCL) Vs. Union Of India and Anr., AIR 1997 SC 568).

Snowden

Image above is from ubiquit23’s photostream on Flickr here and has been published under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 2.0 Generic License.

This programme – in the world’s most populous democracy – has alarmed privacy advocates at a time when the world is still coming to terms with the shocking revelations by Edward Snowden about the activities of the security agencies of United States. There, it has been revealed that the government was, effectively, snooping on people from within and outside of the country by accessing their personal accounts and data. Cynthia Wong, an Internet researcher at New York’s Human Rights Watch, states that “If India doesn’t want to look like an authoritarian regime, it needs to be transparent about who will be authorised to collect data, what data will be collected, how it will be used, and how the right to privacy will be protected.

(Samar Jha is a member of the faculty at myLaw.net.)

Categories
Uncategorized

Sharaab or Kebab: A Tastefully Legal Take on Tunday Kebabs and Champagne.

“Remember, gentlemen, it’s not just France we are fighting for, it’s
Champagne!”

Winston Churchill, Prime Minister of Great Britain, (1874 – 1965).

Given that food is an unendingly fascinating subject in my life, it follows that some of the most animated and involved conversations I’ve had revolve around it. So, when Haji Murad Ali’s Tunday Kebab opened in Bangalore, it was not-quite-incidental that a discussion would arise around the taste and its authenticity.

Galouti Kebab from Tunday Kebabi

Tunday Kebabi’s famous Galouti Kebab

“It doesn’t taste quite like Lucknow.”

“It’s Tunday Kebab, but not exactly.”

“Tunday Kebab sirf Lucknow main khane chahiye, nahi toh swaad nahi aata.” (Tunday Kebab should only be eaten in Lucknow; it doesn’t taste the same anywhere else.)

Which made me think about the tastes that we associate with particular places. I mean, think about it – if you’ve had pachranga achar from Panipat, no one could fool you with garden-variety, store-bought stuff from anywhere else in the country, could they?

This idea of food being specific to a place got more intriguing, the more I thought about it!

We all know Champagne’s story. If it hadn’t been for the French being, well, French, about their bubbly, sparkling white wine produced anywhere in the country would be sold at champagne rates. In fact, did you know that when the French authorities tried to redraw the boundaries of the region of Champagne for economic and revenue purposes early in the 20th century, it sparked the Champagne Riots of 1908 and 1911? Potent stuff, that bubby is!

Champagne

Image above and on article thumbnail originally published on MCU035’s photostream on FlickrImage published under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 Generic License.

Champagne is not champagne unless it is produced in the Champagne region of north-east France. White wine, with sparkling bubbles, produced anywhere else in the world is just sparkling wine. To be champagne, it must be produced in Champagne.

And so champagne gave the world the first laws on geographical indications.

Geographical indications – that is, information highlighting the exact area of origin of a produce – started soon after the monk Dom Perignon discovered stars in his wine. Almost as early as the latter half of the 18th century, it became increasingly necessary to protect champagne from “impostors” – white wine with some fizziness, but of far inferior quality, being sold as “champagne from Champagne”. By then, pretty much anyone with gold to spare and a taste for the good life had encountered champagne and was increasingly wary of cheap reproductions. The logical step was to regulate the production of bubbly and so emerged the concept of geography-specific protection of products.

DOM PERIGNON

Image above and on article thumbnail originally published on facelikebambi’s photostream on FlickrImage published under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 Generic License.

Towards the beginning of the 20th century, appellation d’origine contrôlée (AOC – translated as “controlled destination of origin”), the first of the regulatory frameworks granting recognition to region-specific products, came into existence. Since then, France has closely protected many agricultural products, especially food items such as cheeses, by providing recognition of standards and quality associated with a product that originates in a particular region.

Needless to say, the world figured how economically viable this is.

Intellectual-Property-LawAnd now, India is protecting its kebabs, along with the laddoos from Tirupati and its very own Nashik wine! Recently, a Geographical Indicator (GI) recognition application for Lucknow’s kebabs was sent to the office of the Controller of Patents, Designs and Trademarks for registration. If granted this registration, kebabchis in Lucknow can better maintain the standard of the product and ensure protection of the brand. They will also be able to standardise pricing. But most importantly, they will be able to stop export of the product, unless it meets the industry standard as recognised by the registered GI standard.

So no matter where Miyaan Haji Murad Ali’s family makes its kebabs, to be Tunday Kebab, it’ll have to taste just like Lucknow!

(Suhasini Rao Kashyap is part of the faculty at myLaw.net.)

Categories
Uncategorized

The Three Laws

No discussion on science fiction can be complete without the Three Laws of Robotics of Isaac Asimov, considered by many to be the father of hard science fiction. They are one of the most common themes running through science-fiction writing – especially when dealing with the subject of robots.

Isaac_Asimov_on_Throne

Isaac Asimov

The Three Laws of Robotics are:

1. A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
2. A robot must obey any orders given to it by human beings, except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
3. A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.
While the Three Laws are quite evidently rudimentary in nature – Asimov was no lawyer after all – many ethicists and roboticists accept them as starting point for discussions on the applications of artificial intelligence and on governing the conduct of robots towards humans.

The Three Laws are believed to have their genesis in the general expectations about human behaviour. In one of his short stories, Evidence, Asimov expounds on this through the protagonist, pointing out that humans are typically expected to refrain from harming one another – the basis for the First Law. With reference to the Second Law, humans are generally expected to obey authority figures such as the police, judges, and ministers, unless obeying them would conflict with the first principle of not harming another human. Lastly, humans are not expected to harm themselves, except perhaps when sacrificing themselves in pursuit of the first and second principles. Note that when it comes to humans, none of these are set in stone. Society always accepts certain exceptions — such as military men killing other military men during wars and conflict, or people refusing to follow orders when such orders are blatantly immoral, or in the case of euthanasia, which is now legal in several jurisdictions. When it comes to machines however, there is a clear moral ambivalence, some would say even fear, about imbuing them with free will beyond a point.
The Three Laws can only serve as a foundation. Indeed, it is sometimes said that they are already obsolete. Asimov himself demonstrated twenty-nine variations in his writing and even propounded a Zeroeth Law, which would override the three other laws. Rules always follow the advent of technology – and we are only at the beginning of imagining, let alone understanding, what we are capable of in terms of creating machines that today look like Honda’s Asimo or Sony’s Aibo (now discontinued) but that someday may look like us, talk like us, and act like us.

New challenges will come to light, especially given that some of the most promising developments in robotics are taking place under military control — the United States’ military plans to have a fifth of its combat units fully automated by the year 2020 – where the Three Laws are not likely to find much purchase. There is no doubt however, that the creators of robots with military applications will likely build in some level of protection for their users and compatriots — imagine the hullabaloo if an autonomous machine were to lead to American casualties. Another very practical challenge is posed by the use of robotic assistants for the elderly, a field of engineering being pioneered in Japan due to its rapidly-ageing population. Recently, Google announced that it had launched a fleet of automated cars that had driven 1,40,000 km across California with minimal human intervention; and they had been involved in only one minor accident — the Google car was rear-ended by another human-driven one. Liability will be a major issue — an autonomous machine programmed with the ability to learn from its circumstances — who is responsible for its actions: its owner, user, or creator? Or will the machine itself someday be recognised to have rights and responsibilities?

(Abhishek Shinde is a New Delhi-based lawyer. This post was first published on myLaw.net here.)

Categories
Uncategorized

The Live Discussion Forum sessions on myLaw.net continue with two scheduled for today. Check out the details below and, if you’re a student on any of the programmes, make sure you attend…

LWPC-Tennille

 

B&F-Deeksha