Welcome to Prout Gems Lets look at culture ... Progressive thinking persons should create dynamic political policies in this regard and the following articles can help to achieve this. --- PROTECTING INDIGENOUS PEOPLES' FOLKLORE THROUGH COPYRIGHT LAW By Dieter Dambiec While written in 1994 (with some legal changes since - albeit insignificant for the substance of the discussion), this essay continues to point out the need for radical reform in this area. Folklore reflects a people's culture. It is expressed through music, dance, drama, craft, sculpture, painting, literature and other means of creativity which generally require little dependence on high technology. It tends to be passed on from generation to generation within a community from memory, by word of mouth, or visually. The particular community to which the folklore is recognized as belonging is both its conveyer and user and so works of folklore are easily absorbed into the community's culture and social life. In this respect folklore is part of the collective consciousness of a culture. It is not just a static replication of the past - but rather a dynamic and living entity which evolves with the culture. If the cultural dynamism of that collective consciousness is destroyed then the whole community's backbone and collective sentiment is also shattered. Also, forces outside the community may denigrate the practical use and social value of its folklore which has been intimately crafted for particular ceremonies or other forms of group participation and which is related to a continuum of events and circumstances within the community. This onslaught has already happened in varying degrees to many indigenous cultures around the world. The onslaught of pseudo-culture or materialistic 'cultural' values through colonization and now globalization of 'culture' by mass advertising of materialistic values and products without considering the effect on community cohesiveness, ecological systems or mental and spiritual expansion of the people testifies to this. Indeed, as part of this global pseudo-culture and psycho-economic exploitation many works of folklore are seen as collector's items and as forms of material wealth rather than expressions of indigenous people's aspirations and communal heritage. Misappropriation of works of folklore However, it is not only physical things that have been or are taken away as collector's items from the cultural heritage of indigenous societies such as the Australian Aborigines, the Maori of New Zealand and Indian tribes in the USA and Canada. Many expressions of folklore, which are transient in form or difficult to obtain because they are considered sacred, but nevertheless are lasting in a social sense because of their integral richness and importance in collective and individual life, are also under attack through commercialization and cheap imitations. Examples of this include printing sacred or traditional designs on T-shirts without the indigenous culture's permission, popularizing songs or dances for tourist attraction and re-enacting ceremonies out of context in the name of tourism. Even if some of these may not necessarily be considered wrong, nevertheless, proper consideration should be given to the 'owners' of the culture from which the creative works have sprung. And to go one step further, control of the use of those cultural works may need to be legally vested in the tribe or other indigenous unit from which they derive in order to ensure that the sanctity and moral rights attached to the works remain intact. This would also help considerably in preserving the language, literature and spiritual aspirations of the people which are often so intertwined with their folklore. In nearly all countries of the world today, creative expressions or works are protected by some form of copyright laws. However, modern copyright laws still do not give sufficient scope for the protection of works of folklore from exploitation - particularly indigenous folklore. The reasons for this are primarily that the age-old character of many works of folklore and long history of indigenous cultures usually means that the creators of folklore are anonymous and this is also linked to the communal ownership of folklore compared to individual ownership. Further, the usual length of copyright protection is the lifetime of the author or creator plus 50 to 60 years thereafter. The challenge for progressive minded legislators is to provide a legal regime that gives the required form of protection for indigenous peoples folklore. This cannot be done without taking into account the community ownership of works of folklore. Collective ownership of indigenous peoples' folklore The close identification of indigenous folklore with community life has as its corollary the notion of community control of intellectual and creative works so that to impart total control to the individual creators of these works is seen as undermining part of the foundations of that community. This means that an individual's creative work attains a place and is attributed with some meaning within the indigenous culture when it is somehow co-extensive with the performance of communal obligations and adherence to communal requirements. As a result, the creative expression of an individual or group of individuals is considered to be an expression and product of and for the community as a whole. This is particularly so where current works are derived from older works whose original creation cannot be ascribed to any definite persons. For newly created or recent creative works this situation gives rise to ownership rights within indigenous cultures which are at odds with Western legal concepts such as absolute individual ownership and freedom of alienability of property. Western concepts of individual creation and individual ownership reflected in copyright law through such exclusive rights as reproduction and adaptation, publishing and recording, performing, and broadcasting rights do not necessarily hold up for indigenous peoples. For indigenous peoples it is the aesthetic, social and cultural elements within a creative work that are determinative of its value which has to do with the sentiments and emotions attached to the work and its use and enjoyment. The emphasis is on a spiritual synthesis with the community rather than materialistic privatization of rights. This construct of value represents a communal 'moral right' or moral concern with the work and surpasses whatever economic advantages can be gained from the work by its sale or disposal to others. A system of legal protection for indigenous folklore has to recognize this fact if it is to be effective. This, however, should not deny that within indigenous cultures the value of things may, where occasion calls for it, also be expressed in terms of a potential exchange value. With the availability of contemporary and more efficient technology for making creative works the potential for an exchange value does become an important factor when considering how to legally protect the intellectual property of indigenous peoples. Distribution of rights within indigenous cultures It would be useless to develop or impose a legal or protective regime which has nothing to do with customary rights of ownership of creative works by indigenous communities. The best system of protection should be based on one that already has some inherent recognition. Within Australian Aboriginal society, for example, rights of ownership of creative works are distributed within different groups usually along the lines that ownership of various works, designs or imagery is vested in a clan and the right to use a design or image or to make and sell a work or create a facet of a work for various purposes is vested in certain members of that clan. These rights can be inherited or gained by reputation. Also in New Zealand, in Maori society the use of property including cultural and creative works has traditionally been managed on a differentiated basis so that control and use is distributed over several levels. This ranges from a chief (ariki) who is considered as the guardian of tribal (iwi) interests, followed by minor chiefs acting as 'custodian trustees' within sub-tribes (hapu) in relation to various subordinate and collective affairs, and then extended family (whanau) and individual property rights. Individual rights do exist but are qualified by an over-sight of the community to use property to serve wider needs. The defined bundle of privileges and obligations that exists represents a form of socialisation of wealth. The system holds together because of community social bonding and the imposition of restrictions (eg through concepts such as 'sacredness' or tapu prevalent in Maori society) which govern how certain works can be used for different purposes or ceremonial occasions and maintain the sanctity of the works. Limitations of copyright law - originality and time limits In contrast, today's copyright law is based on the premise that works originate from an author's own judgment, skill or labour. Individually or jointly vested rights (in proportionate shares) enable copyright owners to license or assign their intellectual property to others and thereby obtain some economic remuneration from the copyrighted work. This is different to indigenous peoples customary claims to intellectual property which are in substance those of the tribal community (without any tracing as to proportions). The modern copyright does, however, provide an incentive for creators to produce further works. But a problem posed by the established assumptions of individual and exclusive rights under copyright law is that it is possible for an individual indigenous artist's work to be protectible under copyright legislation as that artist's own intellectual property even if made in an indigenous setting. The artist is the author of the work and all that is required from the artist to gain protection under copyright laws is a minimal amount of originality. However, the customary law is that the intellectual property rights to the work are non-exclusive communal property. In this respect conventional copyright law diverges substantially from the customs and practices of indigenous cultures. Conversely, it is possible that some works by an individual indigenous artist, such as simple paintings or those drawn from or imitating pre-existing traditions, might not be regarded as original works under copyright law. For example, the emblems and designs used may have existed in a tribe for thousands of years and been handed down over the centuries. In this respect the work may have no copyright for the artist which also means that there is no legal protection for the tribe. In such cases the customary interests of a tribe may come into conflict with the copyright law. This is especially so where there is a tribal assertion that permission must be obtained by others to use a certain design, imagery or concept such as, say, a specific style of dot painting common to Australian Aborigines. One of the reasons for such permission is to ensure that the cultural integrity of similar already existing works is not denigrated or misrepresented. This approach is not easily compatible with that of individual creativity and the free flow of ideas under copyright law. Limitations of copyright law - fixation in material form An unsatisfactory situation which has arisen in Australia concerning the cultural integrity of folklore is where prints on consumer items such as tea-towels, wall hangings, postcards and other souvenirs which are merely adaptations of traditional and possibly sacred pieces of Aboriginal artwork or other cultural imagery are sold to the public without permission and which do not fall within the term of copyright protection because of lapse of time (eg ancient rock art) or there is no identifiable creator. Other works not in a material form such as native dances, music and lyrics have also been known to be performed in the wrong context without emphasis on their inherent cultural or spiritual meaning, especially where the objective is to rake in the tourist dollar under the demands of popular marketing. Verbatim note taking of myths and legends is also a problem in that the notetaker may attempt to become the owner of the copyright in the myths and legends when it should be the person who recited the myths or legends as a representative of their tribe. Many works of folklore do not always have a fixed material or tangible form but are still capable of remaining relatively unchanged and well-known through the ages. Within indigenous cultures a particular work or expression often only exists for a performance or an occasion, but even then it still has a transient type of structural arrangement or formation which continues and can be revived for subsequent performances or occasions in a way very similar to how it was expressed previously. For example, it may be drawn, sung, created musically, performed, danced or recited in a way it has been known from time immemorial or adapted accordingly, and then effaced or destroyed while not being permanently retained or captured by some technological means of recording. Therefore, the work of folklore has some known configuration, (even if somewhat variable in expression) and does exist in the collective consciousness of the community to which the folklore belongs. In this sense it is stored in that collective consciousness. This concept of 'storage' or 'fixation' is very different to that under copyright law which requires that the work must be made in such a way that it is reduced to writing or to some other material form in order to obtain legal protection. So while a work of folklore may often not be in a permanent form it is clearly more than an idea. It is an actual artform having cultural significance or historical value worthy of both tangible and intangible preservation. A system of legal protection also has to recognise that the work may not have been fixed in a material form simply because the particular culture places no predominant importance on such fixation. This does not mean that the culture considers the work to be unimportant. Indeed, the work could be so important or sacred that it should not be fixed in a permanent form capable of easy material reproduction or public viewing. The law of copyright should make provision for such worthwhile differences in cultural perceptions and practices and not allow for loss of protection in these situations. In sum, there should be scope for works of folklore not fixed in a material form to be protected. The equitable interface between customary law and copyright law In many respects the limitations of copyright law in relation to indigenous peoples folklore exist and persist because of the law's difficulty in dealing with communal ownership. However, progressive judicial minds have begun to recognise that established equitable principles should be capable of being applied to copyright law and asserted by indigenous groups to enable them to gain some effective control over creative works which they consider to be communally owned even though the work's tangible creation is by individual authors or artists. Where, as under Australian Aboriginal customary law, an artist is permitted by the tribe to depict certain designs for a particular purpose it is commonly recognised that the tribe is the custodial owner of the rights in the design and the finished product. However, the tribe does not have an actual legal interest in the resulting copyright of the work produced by the individual artist. This can only arise pursuant to a written assignment of copyright from the individual owner to the tribal 'owners' in accordance with the copyright legislation which, at present, seldom happens. Nevertheless, Australian courts have begun to recognise that the tribal 'owners' can have an 'equitable interest' in the copyright of a work and that this equitable interest is vested in the members of the tribe(1). This will give the tribe a right to permit or restrain by injunction the further reproduction, adaptation or other redepiction of the work. Where sacred or secret ideas, motifs and traditions are conveyed in confidence by a tribe to another person, Australian courts have also intervened through the law of breach of confidence to prevent that person putting them in the public domain(2) and thereby restraining the publisher from selling a book revealing tribal secrets of deep religious and spiritual significance to Aboriginal persons on the basis that their revelation could give rise to serious damage in the form of disruption of Aboriginal culture and society. Such rights or privileges vested in the tribe are essential to stop any debasement of a work for commercial gain. Similarly, in New Zealand, Article the Second of the Treaty of Waitangi of 1840 recognises Maori customary rights. The English version of this Article states that the Crown confirms and guarantees to the Maori "full exclusive and undisturbed possession of their Lands and Estates Forests Fisheries and other properties which they may collectively and individually possess". In the Maori text of the Treaty of Waitangi the word "taonga" is used in substitution for the words "other properties". Taonga when translated means 'treasures'. New Zealand courts have been willing to assert that Maori language is one such treasure that requires protection(3). Obviously if language is a cultural treasure worthy of protection, then other creative treasures including folklore must also be protected under the Treaty in favour of the indigenous people. A legislative regime for folklore recognising indigenous rights These developments also show that the legal conceptions of indigenous peoples, though differently developed, should not be considered as any less precise than those of the English common law so widely adopted by many countries of the world. In line with the evolving nature of folklore, it makes sense that the ongoing observance of customary rights can also be framed in a modernised form. In this regard, it is possible that both indigenous and Western conceptions in relation to intellectual property can be utilised to frame an effective legislative regime for the protection of folklore. This can be achieved by recognising those rights which are integral to the indigenous culture, rational and based on human welfare, and which have been continually observed before and after settlement of indigenous lands by Europeans. Such rights should be capable of being asserted outside the indigenous community, even if not alienable outside the indigenous system. To achieve this a discretion can be vested in the indigenous culture, through various tribal structures, as to how it wishes to reasonably control the dissemination, reproduction or public disclosure of its own folklore (particularly its sacred aspects). Where the use is for education or as an aid in creating other original literary, dramatic, musical or artistic works this should be regarded as a fair dealing which should not be unreasonably denied. Protection of indigenous folklore therefore requires a consideration of the concept of community ownership of works and the management of rights associated with those works in accordance with the customs of the particular indigenous culture. This would enable greater indigenous control of folklore and ensure that its commercialisation does not take place in the wrong context so as to result in indigenous knowledge and creativity being seen merely as a commodity with the folklore loosing its primary role of strengthening the indigenous culture. Only when indigenous folklore is strengthened so that it is no longer, as in some countries, in a state of extreme fragility can its secondary commercial or entrepreneurial potential be appropriately utilized or fairly disseminated within its true cultural parameters. Moral rights - protection by droit moral The basis of a system of legal protection is that it should encourage indigenous peoples' expectations of respect for their creative works, particularly from those outside the indigenous culture. Accordingly, folklore should be legally protected from debasement, distortion and consequent loss of cultural integrity due to inappropriate uses which would be offensive to the community from which it originates or prejudicial to the artist's or tribe's honour or reputation. Copyright law, if taken to be a purely economic instrument, would not be a sensitive enough tool to deal effectively with the management of many works of folklore considered to be spiritually significant. In order for indigenous peoples not to loose their power to protect their cultural heritage and their ability to supervise the commercial by-products of their culture it is necessary to have a mechanism which helps retain the integrity of original works of folklore. If there is no such legal protection, then folklore traditions run the risk of becoming fixed in society's memory devoid of their original context. This would inhibit the creative evolution of that folklore and the spiritual sentiment it can give to society. Moral rights or droit moral give that legal ability to ensure that the integrity of a work when it is used, performed or displayed is maintained. In the Western context, moral rights originated in Europe and are associated with a moral concern of the author with that author's work. Moral rights recognise the personal connection a creator has with the work. Progressive legislators should extend this concept to the tribal connection that members of an indigenous community have to a work. In the context of countries with indigenous cultures the law should give recognition to the communal nature of works of folklore by allowing for the enforcement of associated 'communal moral rights'. The creation of moral rights attaching to a tribe can then sit alongside the individual copyright and moral rights of an artist. Moral rights generally comprise 3 types of rights which are useful in protecting folklore. These rights being the power to control the publication or dissemination of a work (including its alteration and withdrawal from the public), the right to have the artist's or tribe's name associated with the work, and the right to prevent misuse, mutilation or distortion of a work. A communal moral rights mechanism extending indefinitely would be appropriate in order to ensure that sufficient control of works of folklore remain with their indigenous custodians and such rights would apply when a work is displayed, reproduced, performed, used or even transferred. Such moral rights would vest permanently with the tribe and cannot be transferred. This would give the work legal protection from the onslaughts of pseudo-culture and protect its inner meaning from exploitation. Protection by domaine publique payant An extension of economic rights called domaine publique payant is also suitable for the protection and promotion of folklore. This would require commercial users of folklore or unprotected materials that are not subject to copyright, because the work has not been reduced to writing or some other material form, to still pay for the use. The moneys collected should be used to further public rather than private interests by being distributed to artists or organisations concerned with the arts. This can include indigenous tribes and peoples. In this way money can be used for the development of folklore especially if the system of distribution is in accordance with regulations or schemes reflecting tribal or aboriginal rights, customary entitlements and traditions. The need for a domaine publique payant system for folklore arises because this material lends itself more easily to use and exchange through the market place as it is not subject to any authorisation and the charging of private copyright royalties. The impact of charging a public royalty for folklore is that the monetary charge is capable of compensating a social or indigenous group connected with the work. It also gives further control and guardianship over the exploitation or distortion of a work. However, there should be no charge where the purpose is for education or creating a new original work. Protection by droit de suite Another extension of economic rights called droit de suite can also be used to protect folklore. This is a type of resale royalty giving the creator of a work the right to share in the increased value of a work if it is later resold or gives rise to a windfall gain. Given the increased interest in indigenous folklore and art, which can now fetch high prices, it would seem inherently inequitable that creative works and art from indigenous peoples can be acquired at a small cost to the purchaser without proper recognition of the artist's or tribes' labour and skill and later resold at a considerable profit. The collection of part of any windfall gain derived from the sale or resale of works of folklore so that such moneys are used for the benefit of indigenous communities or the promotion of their folklore would also mean that the imposition of such a social tax should reduce speculation in the arts. Joint WIPO and UNESCO models As folklore enhances the whole community's cultural heritage for the benefit of all it is argued that there should be no time limitations both forwards and backwards in relation to its copyright protection. The Tunis Model Law on Copyright for Developing Countries produced by UNESCO and the World Intellectual Property Organisation ("WIPO") in 1976, and which is the basis of copyright laws in countries such as Sri Lanka and Zaire, provides for economic and moral rights for folklore without limitations in time and for the control of folklore to be in a "competent authority" of government for the duration of its protection. It would, however, be preferable for that control to be with the culture from which the folklore stems so long as that culture also recognises the wider public interest. The Berne Convention, an international treaty on which nearly all copyright laws are based, does not contain a direct reference to folklore. A more comprehensive model set of rules dealing specifically with folklore was jointly developed by WIPO and UNESCO in 1985 in the form of the Model Provisions for National Laws on the Protection of Expressions of Folklore Against Illicit Exploitation and Other Prejudicial Actions ("Model Provisions"). This also aims to achieve a compromise between the economic and moral rights surrounding folklore and attain a balance between the protection of folklore against abuse and encouragement of its further development and dissemination. However, the use of the Model Provisions have not been promoted to help achieve these ends. The Model Provisions also do not deal adequately with matters of collective ownership of works. It does however, recognise in section 3 that a system of prior authorisation of utilisation of folklore "made both with gainful intent and outside their traditional or customary context" can be administered by a "competent authority" or the "community concerned". Although the importance of communal moral rights and tribal equitable interests would better fill the gap. This combination would ensure that there is no exploitation for profitable gain for pseudo-cultural purposes. Conclusion - wholistic position The purpose of protecting an indigenous peoples folklore is not to cut it off from outside influences. It is not in society's best interests or the intention of copyright laws to setback the policy of broadening everyone's knowledge and increasing the free flow of information. There is, however, a need to maintain the integrity of works of folklore and to ensure that they are not distorted out of context. To this end the creation of a sui generis category of intellectual property rights for folklore is a means of giving greater control to the community from which the works derive and to strengthen its folklore. This is necessary for the appropriate realisation of both the cultural and economic potential of works of folklore for the benefit of the indigenous culture and for the spiritual advancement of all society. An appropriate combination of rights and interests as outlined would have a significant impact in elevating cultural expression and defeating the impact of pseudo-culture. Both are important in creating spiritual sentiment so important in any cultural and social revolution. --- Culture By P.R. Sarkar Culture is a vague term. It is the collective name for different expressions of life. People eat, enjoy hospitality, laugh on some occasions and shed tears on others, and thereby express life through various actions. The collective name of all these actions is culture. According to Prout all of society has the same culture. There are local variations in the mode or state of cultural expression, but the expression is universal. While everybody eats, some eat by hand, others by stick and still others by spoon. Indian dance is based on mudra' - dance postures, and European dance is based on rhythm, but they do not represent two different cultures. Local variations will diminish if there is a close blending between different groups of people, because this will create common customs. The local variations are called customs. Thus local modes of expression bearing local or group specialties are customs, but the expression itself is culture. Therefore it is a mistake to readjust boundaries on the basis of language and culture. A particular national culture and the culture of the world are one and the same. Readjusting boundaries on the basis of customs is not possible for customs may differ within the same locality. From "Talks on Prout" (1961) Prout in a nutshell 15 --- Common constitutional defects Everyone has the right to physical, mental and spiritual development. But all constitutions have been written in such a way that they do not ensure the all-round welfare of all citizens. A constitution should be fair and just. The least bias on the part of the framers towards any particular ethnic, linguistic or religious group may undermine the unity and solidarity of the concerning country and thus disturb the peace and prosperity of the society as a whole. Judged from this perspective some of the defects of national constitutions are easily discernible. Many countries require a new constitution to establish unity in diversity in a multi- lingual, multi-social and multi-national country. While drafting the constitution of a country the framers should keep in mind the population structure of the concerning country. The population of many countries is now a blended population of, for example, the Austric, Mongolian, Negroid and Aryan races. But national constitutions, due to inherent defects, have not helped establish social amity, cultural legacy, equality and unity among these races. As a result fissiparous tendencies have developed in the country. There are several fiscal and psychological loopholes in many national constitutions. The fiscal loopholes include the following. First, there is no check on unbarred capitalist exploitation. This is because the leaders of the independence struggles did not give any economic sentiment. For example, in India, the only sentiment was an anti- British sentiment. Thus the independence struggle was only a political movement and not an economic movement. After 1947 instead of white exploitation brown exploitation came up. So, 1947 only brought capitalist political liberty but not economic freedom. As a result unbarred economic exploitation continues today. Secondly, the constitution gives no guarantee for increasing the purchasing capacity of every individual. Thirdly, the president has no constitutional power to check financial or fiscal matters. A few business houses control the national economy of many countries, eg through influences through some chambers of commerce. The president has no constitutional power to check either the price level or the level of exploitation. Neither the president nor the prime minister can check these. Fourthly, there is no provision for inter-block planning for development. Fifthly, no clear concept of balanced economy is found. The psychological loopholes in national constitutions include the following. The first is the imposition of national languages which are flawed. For example, in India English imperialism has been followed by Hindi imperialism. Hindi is a regional language. The selection of one such regional language as the official language adversely affects the psychology of other non-Hindi-speaking people. As the consequence of such a defective language policy in the constitution, the non-Hindi-speaking people face unequal competition at the national level and they are forced to use a language, either Hindi or English, which is not their natural language. Hence they are relegated to "B class" citizens. No regional languages should be selected as an official language in a multi-national, multi-linguistic and multi-cultural country. Such a selection would affect the minds of other language speaking people. A regional language should not be so used. Even if a good language it should not be forcibly imposed on others. Imposition should not be done. The spirit of secularism provides equal scope and equal avenues to all for the maximum psycho-social-economical development of every individual. Looking at India again. Sanskrit may be the national language of India - even if not spoken. It is the grandmother of almost all the modern languages of India and has a great influence on the languages of India. It may take 5, 10, 50 or 100 years to take this language to all people. Roman script should be used for the language, as Samskrta has no script of its own. All groups of people including linguists of India should get together and decide this controversial matter. The second psychological loophole is that there are several disparities in the law. The constitutions of many nations proclaim that all are equal in the eye of the law. But in practice, this principle is not followed, and as a result disparity is growing in the arena of law and justice. Such disparity is adversely affecting the different groups of people in the country. For example, in India there are disparities between the Hindu Code and the Muslim Code. Hindu women and Muslim women, although they are all Indian citizens, do not get equal advantages in law. In Hindu law, men cannot have more than one wife but under Muslim law men can have two, three, four, etc, wives. Both Hindu wives and husbands have to go to get a divorce, but Muslim men can say "Talak, talak, talak" and divorce their wife. Thus Muslim men don't have to go to court to secure a divorce. Moreover Muslim men can divorce their wives but Muslim women cannot divorce their husbands. Also it is not necessary for Muslim men to give any reason for their divorce. Disparity in the eye of the law is creating all these problems. The root of all these evils lies in the psychological loopholes of the constitution. Why are constitutions allowing this - different codes to stand side by side? Let there be only one code. This Code should be based on cardinal human values, with a universal approach and neo-Humanistic spirit. Then only equality before the law can be established in practice, and equal protection of the law for all can be guaranteed. So the constitutions should remove the psychological loopholes by eradicating existing disparities in the eye of the law. The third psychological loophole is that there is no law against the indiscriminate destruction of flora and fauna due to the absence of Neo-humanistic sentiment. In the Cosmic Family of the Universe, humans, animals, plants, and inanimate objects exist together and maintain a harmonious balance. However, human beings, because of their superior intellect, are indiscriminately destroying plants and animals for their own narrow, selfish ends. In the constitutions, there is no provision for the safeguard of the plants and animals. In a constitution, there should be safeguards for the lives of plants and animals. The absence of such provisions in the constitution creates psychological loopholes, which should be corrected without delay. Fourthly, the relation between the centre and the states in a confederation should be clearly defined in the constitution. Otherwise, there will be centre-state conflict and the whole country will be psychologically affected. State boundaries may need to be redrawn to reflect communities and states may need to be abolished or made into regional governments to best meet the needs of the people. Among all other aspects of this relation two important aspects should be clearly defined - the right of self-determination, and the right of secession of a particular component of the confederation. In many constitutions these are not clearly stated. As a result, the relation between the centre and the states is always strained and under pressure. Fifthly, in the constitutions, there may be no clear definitions of indigenous cultures or tribes. Rather, these cultures remain disadvantaged on the basis of racial considerations. Instead of this unscientific approach, cultures and tribes should be given preferential treatment to remedy their educational and economic backwardness. Once those problems are cured, then non-discriminatory and non-preferential treatment is to be afforded to all. Non-discriminatory treatment should, of course, exist from the beginning for all peoples. Adapted from a discourse by P.R. Sarkar given on 22 September 1986 at Calcutta