By Amba Charan Vashishth
Can a slap on my face by one friend be an injurious insult to me and the same given by another is something like an affectionate pampering of a flower on my cheek?
Appears, it is being made to look so by the Congress, the United Progressive Alliance and the Left parties.
Last week, our Minister for External Affairs Pranab Mukherjee was an official visit to Moscow on the invitation of Russian government. On his arrival, he was made to be frisked and searched like any ordinary visitor to that country. But the gravest insult hurled at him was the refusal of Russian foreign minister to see him on the plea that he was too busy with his US counterpart, Secretary of State Miss Condella Rice.
Official visits of high dignitaries are planned well-in-advance to suit the convenience of both the host and the guest countries. If something untoward, extraordinary happens in between, the visit is either politely sought to be postponed or even cancelled, but no offence to any of the two countries is intended.
But the refusal to meet Indian Minister on official visit on the invitation of Russia is a great affront and insult to the guest country at the hands of the host.
Russia is, no doubt, a great friend of India since the day we won our independence. But no country, least of all, a great friend like Russia, has a right to what clearly amounts to be an insult to the Indian nation because in Russia Mr. Pranab Mukherjee did not represent his own self alone but the whole Indian nation. He had gone there as a representative of the Indian people. Whatever innuendoes on the pretext of his being too busy with Miss Rice may have been showered on the Indian Foreign Minister, have not been done to him individually but to the nation as a whole.
The UPA government has silently gloated over this slight from Russia, how shall we feel when any other country does so – big or small, friend or foe? That publicly the Indian government does not seem to have conveyed its displeasure to the Russian government at the treatment meted out to our Foreign Minister is all the more intriguing. In fact, efforts are being made to push the matter under the carpet. Should India do so? Doing so, would only encourage other countries to follow the example set by Russia vis-à-vis India.
And we should also not forget that diplomatic courtesies and niceties are always reciprocal, never one sided. We have to return the compliment or otherwise in the same coin and manner. Otherwise, it looks like India being too soft, too immune to such offence.
It is worth recalling that when the then Defence Minister, Mr. George Fernandes had visited USA and was made to be body frisked and searched, a great hue and cry was made both by the Congress and the Left parties of USA having insulted India. But this time the Left remains silent, understandably because for the Left parties whatever Russia does is always right and whatever USA does is always wrong. And since Manmohan Government is subsisting on the outside support provided by the Left parties, its mouth stands sealed to speak, lest it annoys the Left and puts the government in jeopardy, as had the Indo-US nuclear deal done.
But should we compromise with the nation’s honour on account of this? ***
Thursday, October 25, 2007
Friday, October 12, 2007
NEEDLEPOINT: Himachal election announcement flawed, constitutionally
By Amba Charan Vashishth
It is immaterial whether the Election Commission announcement for holding elections about five months earlier than due has been welcomed or not by the people and political parties in Himachal Pradesh. The point at issue is whether it is as per the word and spirit of the law and the Constitution.
It is true that three tribal assembly constituencies are very vital to the formation of a government with just a 68-member house. Results in these constituencies could make or break a government that generally takes precedence to the poll in these constituencies because for the last over 39 years elections have, perhaps, been held together with the rest of the State only once in 1977, because these constituencies remain snowbound in February-March when polling generally takes place in the rest of the State.
Equally true is the fact that declaration of results in the rest of the State and formation of a government prior to polling in these three tribal seats influences the free will of the voters who later turn to vote, with just a few exceptions, for the party in power. But that is too trivial a ground to prepone elections in the whole State.
The present Himachal Pradesh Vidhan Sabha was constituted on March 6, 2003 and as such a new Vidhan Sabha has to be in position on or before March 5, 2008. Similarly, the elections to these three tribal constituencies were completed in the end of May 2003 and their term was co-terminus with the life of the HP assembly. Now, as a result of EC announcement, the term of these three tribal constituencies will stand further curtailed by five months.
Normally, elections to Parliament or State assemblies can be preponed only on the recommendation of the government in power by dissolving the present House. This is because the house of the people is elected by the electors for a term of five years and no authority other than the President or the State governor is empowered to order elections earlier than due without dissolving the existing house.
It is not understood what interpretation has the Election Commission made of Section 15 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 which provides: (1) A general election shall be held for the purpose of constituting a new Legislative Assembly on the expiration of the duration of the existing Assembly or on its dissolution….
Provided that where a general election is held otherwise than on the dissolution of the existing Legislative Assembly, no such notification shall be issued at any time earlier than six months prior to the date on which the duration of that Assembly would expire under the provisions of clause (1), of article 172 3 …(which provides: Every Legislative Assembly of every State, unless sooner dissolved, shall continue for five years from the date appointed for the first meeting and no longer and the expiration of the said period of five years shall operative as a dissolution of the Assembly”.)
An interpretation of these provisions of the Constitution and Section 15 the Representation of the People Act, 1951 clearly means that although the Commission is within its rights to issue a notification for election at any time not earlier than six months prior to the date on which the duration of that Assembly is to expire, yet completion of election ”before 31.12.2007” will mean that the tenure of the existing Vidhan Sabha which, under the provisions of Article 172, was to” continue for five years from the date appointed for the first meeting” has been curtailed by more than two months. The Election Commission under no authority of law has the power to reduce the tenure of Parliament or a State assembly by even a single day.
That the Commission was aware of its infirmity and that is why it fixed the date of counting of votes as 28.12.07, nine days after the polling was to be over in the State on 19-12-2007. There is no justification for putting off the counting in a State for no justifiable reason, except that the Commission was trying not to further curtail the term of the present Vidhan by another week.
It will be a great travesty of law and the Constitution, if the present Vidhan Sabha was allowed to function beyond 31-12-2007 because once the new Vidhan Sabha is constituted, the old one automatically stands dissolved.
The Election Commission needs to ponder. ***
It is immaterial whether the Election Commission announcement for holding elections about five months earlier than due has been welcomed or not by the people and political parties in Himachal Pradesh. The point at issue is whether it is as per the word and spirit of the law and the Constitution.
It is true that three tribal assembly constituencies are very vital to the formation of a government with just a 68-member house. Results in these constituencies could make or break a government that generally takes precedence to the poll in these constituencies because for the last over 39 years elections have, perhaps, been held together with the rest of the State only once in 1977, because these constituencies remain snowbound in February-March when polling generally takes place in the rest of the State.
Equally true is the fact that declaration of results in the rest of the State and formation of a government prior to polling in these three tribal seats influences the free will of the voters who later turn to vote, with just a few exceptions, for the party in power. But that is too trivial a ground to prepone elections in the whole State.
The present Himachal Pradesh Vidhan Sabha was constituted on March 6, 2003 and as such a new Vidhan Sabha has to be in position on or before March 5, 2008. Similarly, the elections to these three tribal constituencies were completed in the end of May 2003 and their term was co-terminus with the life of the HP assembly. Now, as a result of EC announcement, the term of these three tribal constituencies will stand further curtailed by five months.
Normally, elections to Parliament or State assemblies can be preponed only on the recommendation of the government in power by dissolving the present House. This is because the house of the people is elected by the electors for a term of five years and no authority other than the President or the State governor is empowered to order elections earlier than due without dissolving the existing house.
It is not understood what interpretation has the Election Commission made of Section 15 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 which provides: (1) A general election shall be held for the purpose of constituting a new Legislative Assembly on the expiration of the duration of the existing Assembly or on its dissolution….
Provided that where a general election is held otherwise than on the dissolution of the existing Legislative Assembly, no such notification shall be issued at any time earlier than six months prior to the date on which the duration of that Assembly would expire under the provisions of clause (1), of article 172 3 …(which provides: Every Legislative Assembly of every State, unless sooner dissolved, shall continue for five years from the date appointed for the first meeting and no longer and the expiration of the said period of five years shall operative as a dissolution of the Assembly”.)
An interpretation of these provisions of the Constitution and Section 15 the Representation of the People Act, 1951 clearly means that although the Commission is within its rights to issue a notification for election at any time not earlier than six months prior to the date on which the duration of that Assembly is to expire, yet completion of election ”before 31.12.2007” will mean that the tenure of the existing Vidhan Sabha which, under the provisions of Article 172, was to” continue for five years from the date appointed for the first meeting” has been curtailed by more than two months. The Election Commission under no authority of law has the power to reduce the tenure of Parliament or a State assembly by even a single day.
That the Commission was aware of its infirmity and that is why it fixed the date of counting of votes as 28.12.07, nine days after the polling was to be over in the State on 19-12-2007. There is no justification for putting off the counting in a State for no justifiable reason, except that the Commission was trying not to further curtail the term of the present Vidhan by another week.
It will be a great travesty of law and the Constitution, if the present Vidhan Sabha was allowed to function beyond 31-12-2007 because once the new Vidhan Sabha is constituted, the old one automatically stands dissolved.
The Election Commission needs to ponder. ***
Tuesday, October 9, 2007
Me secular, you communal
By Amba Charan Vashishth
In India actually, nobody knows what ‘secularism’ exactly means. The word ‘secular’, inserted in the Constitution in 1976, was never defined, deliberately perhaps. This has provided every political party and politician the right and freedom to accuse the other of defying secularism and indulging in communalism. In common parlance and practice it is ‘secularism’ what a political party claims itself to be doing while it is ‘communalism’ what its opponents indulge in. It is like every person finding fault with the other man’s looks, obviously because one cannot see one’s own face. In the looking glass, everybody appears pretty smiling seeing one’s own reflection.
In this country, the ‘secularism-communalism’ syndrome is as mysterious and unpredictable as are the ways of god. So look the ways of secularism-communalism. What one political party claims to be secularism, is communalism pure and simple to the opponent.
Take the case of Congress and the Left. They brand RSS, its sister organisations and even Bharatiya Janata Party as ‘communal’ only because they plead the cause of the majority community in general though, at the same time, they claim they stand for “appeasement of none and justice to all”. On its part, RSS and BJP charge the Congress and other political parties of indulging in “appeasement of minority/minorities”. This charge is also not entirely unfounded; something does stick on the parties charged against.
It is no exaggeration to say that ‘secularism’ has come to be linked to anything against the majority community of Hindus and Hinduism. If you are for the Ram temple at Ayodhya, you are ‘communal’; if you are for the mosque, you are secular. If you criticize the stand taken by UPA on the myth of Lord Ram and Ramsethu, you are a communal. All ‘seculars’ have taken the stand that Ram and Ramsethu are just myths. And so on.
If you champion the right to freedom of expression of the India-born writer, Salman Rushdie, or of Tasleema Nasreen, whose books have been banned in the country because these “hurt” the religious faith and sentiments of minority community, you are a ‘communal’ one and those denouncing these writers are ‘secular’.
But the situation is in the reverse gear when it comes to the paintings in the nude of Bharatmata and Hindu goddesses by M. F. Hussain. The ‘secular’ liberals beat their chests for safeguarding the constitutional right to freedom of expression for the latter. They think that the publication of Danish cartoons “hurts” the religious susceptibilities of Muslims but the Hussain’s nude paintings of Bharatmata and Hindu goddesses do not injure the sentiments of Hindus and Indian nationals.
Going by the argument of ‘secularists’, if championing the cause dear to the majority community is communalism, how is doing the same for the cause of minority community not communalism? That goes beyond logic. The only distinction one can make is that one is ‘majority’ communalism and the other is ‘minority’ communalism. The majority communalism cannot be an abominable act of sin and minority communalism something pious and sacred. Theft is a theft whether of Rs. one hundred or Rs. one crore. Murder is a murder whether of one man or of ten people. Either both the acts are crimes or pardonable acts. There could be no discrimination between the two acts.
The secularism of the Left parties too has gone through a metamorphosis and got infected with communal virus of being anti-Hindu. It has also joined the race for “minority appeasement”, another name to practise communalism in the garb of secularism. The Communist Party of India (Marxist) has now launched upon its campaign for assiduously wooing the Muslim community. Till now, the faithful followers of communism, CP(M) included, had religiously followed the Karl Marx dictum: “Religion is the opium of the people”. But, for the first time, discarding atheism the CPI(M) unit in Kochi (Kerala) allowed its Muslim members to leave a party meeting for namaaz. On October 1, 2007 the Lanthaparambu branch committee of the party also served refreshments to its Muslim members to break their Ramzan fast.
The Marxist leadership has already started campaigning on issues dear to Muslims such as implementation of the Sachar Committee and Sri Krishna Commission recommendations. It also adopted a similar stand on Danish cartoons.
The Left supports the anti-Hindu stand of DMK and the Congress on Ram and Ramsethu issue. When Congress under pressure of public opinion, diluted its stand, the Left parties criticized it.
While Left is now looking to be condescending to followers of Muslim faith, it is not so with its members who are Hindus. Last year, hell broke out for West Bengal Minister Subhash Chankraborty who being a Hindu committed the “crime” of visiting a temple and offered prayers. There were demands for his dismissal from the Cabinet and expulsion from the party for violating party discipline and defying party ideology which decries religious beliefs.
So under the Left brand of secularism if a Hindu visits a temple and prays, it is an unpardonable crime, but a leftist Muslim has the unbridled freedom to leave his party function to offer namaz (prayer).
Indian Union Muslim League (IUML) is the proud successor to the pre-partition Muslim League which propounded the theory that Hindus and Muslims belonged to two different nations and could not live together. This led to the partition of the country. The membership of IUML is restricted to Muslims only and it espouses the cause of this community alone. Yet, it claims itself to be a ’secular’ political organisation.
Going by the practice and precept of secularism and communalism, every political party in the country seems to be communal with the only difference that each claims itself to be secular and calls the other as communal.
This war between ‘communalism’ and ‘secularism’ has become perpetual and unending, with nobody winning, nobody losing. ***
In India actually, nobody knows what ‘secularism’ exactly means. The word ‘secular’, inserted in the Constitution in 1976, was never defined, deliberately perhaps. This has provided every political party and politician the right and freedom to accuse the other of defying secularism and indulging in communalism. In common parlance and practice it is ‘secularism’ what a political party claims itself to be doing while it is ‘communalism’ what its opponents indulge in. It is like every person finding fault with the other man’s looks, obviously because one cannot see one’s own face. In the looking glass, everybody appears pretty smiling seeing one’s own reflection.
In this country, the ‘secularism-communalism’ syndrome is as mysterious and unpredictable as are the ways of god. So look the ways of secularism-communalism. What one political party claims to be secularism, is communalism pure and simple to the opponent.
Take the case of Congress and the Left. They brand RSS, its sister organisations and even Bharatiya Janata Party as ‘communal’ only because they plead the cause of the majority community in general though, at the same time, they claim they stand for “appeasement of none and justice to all”. On its part, RSS and BJP charge the Congress and other political parties of indulging in “appeasement of minority/minorities”. This charge is also not entirely unfounded; something does stick on the parties charged against.
It is no exaggeration to say that ‘secularism’ has come to be linked to anything against the majority community of Hindus and Hinduism. If you are for the Ram temple at Ayodhya, you are ‘communal’; if you are for the mosque, you are secular. If you criticize the stand taken by UPA on the myth of Lord Ram and Ramsethu, you are a communal. All ‘seculars’ have taken the stand that Ram and Ramsethu are just myths. And so on.
If you champion the right to freedom of expression of the India-born writer, Salman Rushdie, or of Tasleema Nasreen, whose books have been banned in the country because these “hurt” the religious faith and sentiments of minority community, you are a ‘communal’ one and those denouncing these writers are ‘secular’.
But the situation is in the reverse gear when it comes to the paintings in the nude of Bharatmata and Hindu goddesses by M. F. Hussain. The ‘secular’ liberals beat their chests for safeguarding the constitutional right to freedom of expression for the latter. They think that the publication of Danish cartoons “hurts” the religious susceptibilities of Muslims but the Hussain’s nude paintings of Bharatmata and Hindu goddesses do not injure the sentiments of Hindus and Indian nationals.
Going by the argument of ‘secularists’, if championing the cause dear to the majority community is communalism, how is doing the same for the cause of minority community not communalism? That goes beyond logic. The only distinction one can make is that one is ‘majority’ communalism and the other is ‘minority’ communalism. The majority communalism cannot be an abominable act of sin and minority communalism something pious and sacred. Theft is a theft whether of Rs. one hundred or Rs. one crore. Murder is a murder whether of one man or of ten people. Either both the acts are crimes or pardonable acts. There could be no discrimination between the two acts.
The secularism of the Left parties too has gone through a metamorphosis and got infected with communal virus of being anti-Hindu. It has also joined the race for “minority appeasement”, another name to practise communalism in the garb of secularism. The Communist Party of India (Marxist) has now launched upon its campaign for assiduously wooing the Muslim community. Till now, the faithful followers of communism, CP(M) included, had religiously followed the Karl Marx dictum: “Religion is the opium of the people”. But, for the first time, discarding atheism the CPI(M) unit in Kochi (Kerala) allowed its Muslim members to leave a party meeting for namaaz. On October 1, 2007 the Lanthaparambu branch committee of the party also served refreshments to its Muslim members to break their Ramzan fast.
The Marxist leadership has already started campaigning on issues dear to Muslims such as implementation of the Sachar Committee and Sri Krishna Commission recommendations. It also adopted a similar stand on Danish cartoons.
The Left supports the anti-Hindu stand of DMK and the Congress on Ram and Ramsethu issue. When Congress under pressure of public opinion, diluted its stand, the Left parties criticized it.
While Left is now looking to be condescending to followers of Muslim faith, it is not so with its members who are Hindus. Last year, hell broke out for West Bengal Minister Subhash Chankraborty who being a Hindu committed the “crime” of visiting a temple and offered prayers. There were demands for his dismissal from the Cabinet and expulsion from the party for violating party discipline and defying party ideology which decries religious beliefs.
So under the Left brand of secularism if a Hindu visits a temple and prays, it is an unpardonable crime, but a leftist Muslim has the unbridled freedom to leave his party function to offer namaz (prayer).
Indian Union Muslim League (IUML) is the proud successor to the pre-partition Muslim League which propounded the theory that Hindus and Muslims belonged to two different nations and could not live together. This led to the partition of the country. The membership of IUML is restricted to Muslims only and it espouses the cause of this community alone. Yet, it claims itself to be a ’secular’ political organisation.
Going by the practice and precept of secularism and communalism, every political party in the country seems to be communal with the only difference that each claims itself to be secular and calls the other as communal.
This war between ‘communalism’ and ‘secularism’ has become perpetual and unending, with nobody winning, nobody losing. ***
Thursday, September 13, 2007
RAM - FACT OR FABLE?
By Amba Charan Vashishth
In an affidavit filed before the Supreme Court of India, Director (Monuments) of the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI), Mr. C. Dorjee, has stated that although the mythological texts of Ramayana formed an important part of ancient Indian literature, “but which (it) cannot be said to be historical record to incontrovertibly prove the existence of the characters, or the occurrence of the events, depicted therein”.
The ASI admitted that “it had not conducted any deep study about the underwater formation known as “Adam’s Bridge” believed to be “Ram Sethu” by the Hindus and the evidence available so far, “reasonably concluded that the formation …is not a man-made structure, rather a natural formation made up of shoals/sand bars, which possessed their particular shape and form due to several millennia of wave action and sedimentation.”
This authorized and authentic statement by a senior officer reiterates the official stand of the present Congress-led UPA government to doubt the very veracity of Ramayana and of the existence of Lord Rama and other characters in His life, in the words of Government of India, in the absence of “historical record to incontrovertibly prove the existence of the characters, or the occurrence of the events, depicted therein” But equally true is also the fact that it has with it no “historical record to incontrovertibly” disprove or doubt “the existence of the characters, or the occurrence of the events”. It has produced none.
That the mind of the present government is prejudiced and subjective to the issue can be gauged from its utter and total disregard to the scientific evidence available from a reputed scientific organisation like NASA saying that the bridge is the result of human endeavour. The NASA document at the Internet (http://www.rense.com/general30/nasa.htm and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam%27s_Bridge), says that the Ram Sethu or the Adam’s Bridge is a manmade structure 1.75 million years old. It states further that NASA has come to the first conclusion by examining the base of the bridge. The large chunks of stones with which the base is made could not have been placed in that position by a natural process and hence humans had to carry them from somewhere else.
It further states that the type of the stone, a special kind of sandstone with high percentage of calcium carbonate, called calcareous sandstone, with which the base is made, is not available locally. These led one to conclude that they were carried by humans from elsewhere.
Early this year, the Centre sent a team of scientists to examine the bridge and verify NASA’s conclusions. On 28 July, the team submitted its report that echoed exactly what the scientists of NASA had said. In addition to that, our scientists examined the coral formation on the bridge and found that it is quite different from naturally formed coral, which suggests that the bridge is the result of human activity. The present government needs to explain on what ““historical (and scientific) record” has the Government come to “incontrovertibly” disprove or refute the NASA conclusions.
Actually, at the moment under the present political scenario it has become a fad and fashion of our liberal-secular clan to denigrate Hindu gods and goddesses. M. F. Hussain has his inalienable right to freedom of expression to paint Bharatmata and Hindu gods and goddesses in the nude obviously only because he is a ‘secular’. If he were not ‘secular’, he would certainly not have painted the way he did. But, for unexplained reasons, he did not avail himself of the same right and freedom to paint something concerning his own religion. There is hardly a painter in the world who has painted his/her own mother in the nude – I am sure Hussain too has not – although he knew that all these deities were mothers to crores of Hindus in India and abroad.
God forbid, if tomorrow some naïve and base person were to doubt the veracity of the faith of some non-Hindu religions by raising some controversy or by filing public interest litigation, what stand would it take then? It has neither the proof nor the evidence to take a definite stand on the claim of any faith.
But can the present Government afford to make a similar statement about Lord Christ or Prophet Mohammad that “historical record to incontrovertibly prove the existence of the characters or the occurrence of the events, depicted therein” does not prove their claim? Or does the Union Government have the “historical records” in its possession to say that what our Muslim or Christian brothers believe and have faith in is “incontrovertibly” true.
It must be admitted that faith sustains life. It is because of faith that the world continues as it is today. Otherwise, it would have been perished long, long back. Mary Mcleod Bethune said: Without faith, nothing is possible. With it, nothing is impossible. And Oliver Wendell Holmes added: It's faith in something and enthusiasm for something that makes a life worth living.
There has been peace all around in the world because people respected each other’s faith. The moment they hurt it, there was strife; there were wars.
Our Christian brothers have faith that Lord Christ was born to Vigin Mary. No doubt about it. No conflict about it. It is their faith. Everybody respects it.
According to Muslim faith, in the Hazratbal mosque in Kashmir, lies the “mooaye mukaddas” (holy hair) of Prophet Mohammad. It is the faith of the Muslims; it is the faith of us all. Nobody can question it; nobody should doubt it.
All this has neither to be disputed nor is there need for any infidel to ask somebody to prove it scientifically with “historical record to incontrovertibly prove the existence of the characters, or the occurrence of the events, depicted” in the epics of any faith.
In an affidavit filed before the Supreme Court of India, Director (Monuments) of the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI), Mr. C. Dorjee, has stated that although the mythological texts of Ramayana formed an important part of ancient Indian literature, “but which (it) cannot be said to be historical record to incontrovertibly prove the existence of the characters, or the occurrence of the events, depicted therein”.
The ASI admitted that “it had not conducted any deep study about the underwater formation known as “Adam’s Bridge” believed to be “Ram Sethu” by the Hindus and the evidence available so far, “reasonably concluded that the formation …is not a man-made structure, rather a natural formation made up of shoals/sand bars, which possessed their particular shape and form due to several millennia of wave action and sedimentation.”
This authorized and authentic statement by a senior officer reiterates the official stand of the present Congress-led UPA government to doubt the very veracity of Ramayana and of the existence of Lord Rama and other characters in His life, in the words of Government of India, in the absence of “historical record to incontrovertibly prove the existence of the characters, or the occurrence of the events, depicted therein” But equally true is also the fact that it has with it no “historical record to incontrovertibly” disprove or doubt “the existence of the characters, or the occurrence of the events”. It has produced none.
That the mind of the present government is prejudiced and subjective to the issue can be gauged from its utter and total disregard to the scientific evidence available from a reputed scientific organisation like NASA saying that the bridge is the result of human endeavour. The NASA document at the Internet (http://www.rense.com/general30/nasa.htm and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam%27s_Bridge), says that the Ram Sethu or the Adam’s Bridge is a manmade structure 1.75 million years old. It states further that NASA has come to the first conclusion by examining the base of the bridge. The large chunks of stones with which the base is made could not have been placed in that position by a natural process and hence humans had to carry them from somewhere else.
It further states that the type of the stone, a special kind of sandstone with high percentage of calcium carbonate, called calcareous sandstone, with which the base is made, is not available locally. These led one to conclude that they were carried by humans from elsewhere.
Early this year, the Centre sent a team of scientists to examine the bridge and verify NASA’s conclusions. On 28 July, the team submitted its report that echoed exactly what the scientists of NASA had said. In addition to that, our scientists examined the coral formation on the bridge and found that it is quite different from naturally formed coral, which suggests that the bridge is the result of human activity. The present government needs to explain on what ““historical (and scientific) record” has the Government come to “incontrovertibly” disprove or refute the NASA conclusions.
Actually, at the moment under the present political scenario it has become a fad and fashion of our liberal-secular clan to denigrate Hindu gods and goddesses. M. F. Hussain has his inalienable right to freedom of expression to paint Bharatmata and Hindu gods and goddesses in the nude obviously only because he is a ‘secular’. If he were not ‘secular’, he would certainly not have painted the way he did. But, for unexplained reasons, he did not avail himself of the same right and freedom to paint something concerning his own religion. There is hardly a painter in the world who has painted his/her own mother in the nude – I am sure Hussain too has not – although he knew that all these deities were mothers to crores of Hindus in India and abroad.
God forbid, if tomorrow some naïve and base person were to doubt the veracity of the faith of some non-Hindu religions by raising some controversy or by filing public interest litigation, what stand would it take then? It has neither the proof nor the evidence to take a definite stand on the claim of any faith.
But can the present Government afford to make a similar statement about Lord Christ or Prophet Mohammad that “historical record to incontrovertibly prove the existence of the characters or the occurrence of the events, depicted therein” does not prove their claim? Or does the Union Government have the “historical records” in its possession to say that what our Muslim or Christian brothers believe and have faith in is “incontrovertibly” true.
It must be admitted that faith sustains life. It is because of faith that the world continues as it is today. Otherwise, it would have been perished long, long back. Mary Mcleod Bethune said: Without faith, nothing is possible. With it, nothing is impossible. And Oliver Wendell Holmes added: It's faith in something and enthusiasm for something that makes a life worth living.
There has been peace all around in the world because people respected each other’s faith. The moment they hurt it, there was strife; there were wars.
Our Christian brothers have faith that Lord Christ was born to Vigin Mary. No doubt about it. No conflict about it. It is their faith. Everybody respects it.
According to Muslim faith, in the Hazratbal mosque in Kashmir, lies the “mooaye mukaddas” (holy hair) of Prophet Mohammad. It is the faith of the Muslims; it is the faith of us all. Nobody can question it; nobody should doubt it.
All this has neither to be disputed nor is there need for any infidel to ask somebody to prove it scientifically with “historical record to incontrovertibly prove the existence of the characters, or the occurrence of the events, depicted” in the epics of any faith.
Monday, September 3, 2007
A Challenge to Arundhatis, Nanditas, MF Hussains, and Chandermohans
By Amba Charan Vashishth
In an exhibition in Ahmedabad recently, an unknown painter Chander Mohan took a cue from renowned painter M F Husain to paint Lord Jesus Christ and some Hindu goddesses in erotic scenes. There was a great furore.
But the like of writer Arundhati Roy, film actress Nandita Dass, many renowned painters, intellectuals, liberals and human rights activists thronged the streets beating their chests for the freedom of expression of Chander Mohan. Earlier, they had made a similar demonstration when some Hindu organisations had risen in opposition to M.F. Hussain's paintings in the nude of some Hindu goddesses.
Everybody, Chander Mohans and M.F. Hussains included, has a right to freedom of expression. But where were the likes of Arundhati Roy, Nandita Dass, and other intellectuals, liberals, human rightists and liberals when there were violent demonstrations in India over some paintings published, not in India, but in Denmark? Why did they not throng the streets in favour of the Danish cartoonist and against those who were there curbing his freedom of expression. Where were they when a UP Minister had announced a reward of Rs. one crore for the head of the Danish cartoonist? Is the concept of freedom of expression not a conviction with them, but only a subjective and not objective matter? Do they support freedom of expression of Hussain but oppose that of Danish cartoonist?
Where was this tribe of liberals and human rightists when journalist Alok Tomar was hauled up and imprisoned for publishing those Danish cartoons in his weekly? Did Tomar not have the elitist freedom of expression? If he had, why did they go dumb and blind over the treatment that was given to Tomar?
M. F. Hussain did avail himself of the freedom of expression to paint in the nude the deities of a religion not his own. He owes an explanation why did he not first look into his own religion and follow the principle: charity begins at home (his own religion). He dared not, because he knew very well that life would then become a hell for him.
Lord Jesus Christ. needless to stress, is like a father to hundreds of billions of people all over the world. Similarly, Hindu goddesses are mothers to crores of people in India and the world. I don't know -- I am may be an ignoramus -- if any great painter has ever painted in the nude his own wife or his own mother. If anybody has, I wish to be enlightened. M.F. Hussain needs to tell the world why did he not try? Had Hussain done it, he would have known how and where it pinches. That is why it is commonly said that only the wearer knows where the shoe pinches.
The likes of Hussain seem to be following the common practice. Everybody likes to cast an amorous eye on other's wife, sister or mother. But when somebody casts an evil eye on their own wife, mother or sister, it hurts them. Maybe, a quarrel and even a murder or attempt to murder.
But before the likes of Arundhati Roys, M. F. Hussains, Chander Mohans, Nandita Dasses jump to beat their chests when somebody's right of expression is curbed, they need to publicly declare that would also respect the freedom of expression of that individual who seeks to avail himself of the right to freedom of expression to paint them, their mother, or their sister, their wife/husbaband in the nude in the same manner as have done the painters like Hussain and Chandermohan. If they don't declare so publicly, they will stand exposed as hypocrites and humbugs who are not in their real life what they pose in public.
In an exhibition in Ahmedabad recently, an unknown painter Chander Mohan took a cue from renowned painter M F Husain to paint Lord Jesus Christ and some Hindu goddesses in erotic scenes. There was a great furore.
But the like of writer Arundhati Roy, film actress Nandita Dass, many renowned painters, intellectuals, liberals and human rights activists thronged the streets beating their chests for the freedom of expression of Chander Mohan. Earlier, they had made a similar demonstration when some Hindu organisations had risen in opposition to M.F. Hussain's paintings in the nude of some Hindu goddesses.
Everybody, Chander Mohans and M.F. Hussains included, has a right to freedom of expression. But where were the likes of Arundhati Roy, Nandita Dass, and other intellectuals, liberals, human rightists and liberals when there were violent demonstrations in India over some paintings published, not in India, but in Denmark? Why did they not throng the streets in favour of the Danish cartoonist and against those who were there curbing his freedom of expression. Where were they when a UP Minister had announced a reward of Rs. one crore for the head of the Danish cartoonist? Is the concept of freedom of expression not a conviction with them, but only a subjective and not objective matter? Do they support freedom of expression of Hussain but oppose that of Danish cartoonist?
Where was this tribe of liberals and human rightists when journalist Alok Tomar was hauled up and imprisoned for publishing those Danish cartoons in his weekly? Did Tomar not have the elitist freedom of expression? If he had, why did they go dumb and blind over the treatment that was given to Tomar?
M. F. Hussain did avail himself of the freedom of expression to paint in the nude the deities of a religion not his own. He owes an explanation why did he not first look into his own religion and follow the principle: charity begins at home (his own religion). He dared not, because he knew very well that life would then become a hell for him.
Lord Jesus Christ. needless to stress, is like a father to hundreds of billions of people all over the world. Similarly, Hindu goddesses are mothers to crores of people in India and the world. I don't know -- I am may be an ignoramus -- if any great painter has ever painted in the nude his own wife or his own mother. If anybody has, I wish to be enlightened. M.F. Hussain needs to tell the world why did he not try? Had Hussain done it, he would have known how and where it pinches. That is why it is commonly said that only the wearer knows where the shoe pinches.
The likes of Hussain seem to be following the common practice. Everybody likes to cast an amorous eye on other's wife, sister or mother. But when somebody casts an evil eye on their own wife, mother or sister, it hurts them. Maybe, a quarrel and even a murder or attempt to murder.
But before the likes of Arundhati Roys, M. F. Hussains, Chander Mohans, Nandita Dasses jump to beat their chests when somebody's right of expression is curbed, they need to publicly declare that would also respect the freedom of expression of that individual who seeks to avail himself of the right to freedom of expression to paint them, their mother, or their sister, their wife/husbaband in the nude in the same manner as have done the painters like Hussain and Chandermohan. If they don't declare so publicly, they will stand exposed as hypocrites and humbugs who are not in their real life what they pose in public.
Tuesday, August 28, 2007
Don't Deny Diana Peace in Her Grave!
By Amba Charan Vashishth
Controversy is the staple food of our media. The latter thrives on arguments for and against. And that is why nothing, at least in western countries, appears to be final. A controversy that looks to be settling today gets raked up again with fresh leads given out by our investigative journalists and the new books that continue to hit the stands on old issues.
US President John F. Kennedy was killed in 1962, yet it appears the conclusions of none of the numerous investigations conducted and commissions of inquiry set up since then are final. Even after about 45 years of his death, we continue to hear of one lead or the other about the circumstances under which he was assassinated. Doubts persist about what actually happened the day he was shot dead.
The legendry actress Marylyn Monroe died a few years earlier. Investigative minds continue to churn out with new theories every other day that it was not a suicide, as is generally believed to be. It was a conspiracy; she was murdered. Numerous articles and books have appeared in the world.
Similar is the story of UK’s Prince Charles’s estranged wife late Princess Diana who died in a car crash in Paris a decade back. What has not appeared about the accident?
“It is a near certainty”, stated the Daily Express (London) quoting Chris Lafaille, the writer of the latest book called “Diana, The Inquiry They Never Published”, that “Diana was nine to 10 weeks pregnant at the time she died, according to papers from the Paris Public Hospitals archives.”
“The document dated August 31 1997 was sent to the then minister of the interior Jean-Pierre Chevenement, with copies to health minister Bernard Kouchner, foreign affairs minister Hubert Vedrine and Paris police chief Martine Monteil,” he said.
Lafaille’s claims address one of the key questions listed by coroner, Lord Justice Scott Baker, who is investigating Diana’s death over allegations that she was murdered in a criminal conspiracy.
The hearings will examine whether Diana feared for her life, whether she was pregnant and whether chauffeur Henri Paul was drunk or on drugs to answer public’s suspicions that she and Fayed were murdered by British agents because they were about to get engaged and she was pregnant.
Dodi Fayed’s dad Mohamed Al Fayed had always claimed that Diana was pregnant at the time of her death, but these reports have been dismissed by former Metropolitan Police Commissioner Lord Stevens in ‘Operation Paget’ after he was officiated to conduct an independent inquiry into Di’s death. The Harrods boss’ spokesman insisted that if there were any such evidences to support the claims, they should be submitted to the coroner.
The new revelations will raise further speculation as to who might have been the father to Diana’s unborn child as she had been holidaying with Dodi Fayed prior to the fatal crash in Paris, and many believe that Diana was 'pregnant' when she died
Princess Diana was "almost certainly" pregnant when she died, reported another London daily, The Daily Mail, but her boyfriend Dodi Al Fayed, killed alongside her in a car crash in Paris ten years ago, was not the father of the baby, the daily reported on August 22. 2007.
Laffaille claimed to have uncovered the evidence of the pregnancy -- a letter which was sent to the then French Interior Minister Jean-Pierre Chevenement -- from the archives of the hospital where the Princess was taken after the car crash on August 31, 1997.
"This document has never been claimed or proved to be a fake. If genuine, it would mean that Diana's unborn child wouldn't have been fathered by Dodi as she had not met him nine weeks before her death," he said. Instead, the scribe said, the baby might have been conceived while the Princess of Wales was seeing the United Kingdom-based doctor Hasnat Khan.
Laffaille's claim came despite a categorical statement by John Burton, the former Royal Coroner present at the time of post-mortem examination on Diana, who had said: "She wasn't pregnant. I have seen into her womb." But the former reporter with the magazine 'Paris Match' claimed he had conducted a detailed re-examination of all the evidence surrounding the car crash before coming to the conclusion.
What does all this amount to?
She was earlier reported to be having an affair with her coach who taught her horse-riding, Army Officer James Hewitt.
She was having an affair with Dodi Al Fayed with whom she was reported to be going to announce her engagement, while carrying someone else’s baby in her womb because, as per the report, “she had not met him (Fayed) nine weeks before her death”. Instead, the scribe said, the baby might have been conceived while the Princess of Wales was seeing the United Kingdom-based doctor Hasnat Khan.
Royal romances are not something new, anywhere in the world. But here the story is not of a single romance, but of many.
Even late Princess Margret, the younger sister of the present British Queen Elizabeth II, did have a very hot romance that attracted numerous headlines about half a decade back to feed the insatiable hunger of our journalists for news and scoops. But when she failed to marry the man she loved, the matter ended. Her marriage afterwards made no headlines and sent no tongues gossiping later.
By moral standards of the West, royal romances may not be a crime, but in comparison to the conduct of Prince Charles, who ultimately married his old flame, she is made to look the chic, ever smiling beauty who flung her heart at many people.
Maybe, these investigative journalists and writers are doing so just to mint money out of these labours of theirs by feeding such stories which they try to paint them real and convincing, yet they are not doing justice to the darling of millions in Britain and the world over by presenting her in such a hue. They are making this idol of beauty and the ‘Queen of millions of hearts’ to fall from grace.
Whatever it may be, the quest for truth will, for ever, remain elusive, unending, proving tireless and tiring, at the same time, with reality continuing to remain buried under the debris of these reports and books. Diana did not have peace in about the last decade of her life. These writers will not let her have peace even in her grave. That is too cruel to her. ***
Controversy is the staple food of our media. The latter thrives on arguments for and against. And that is why nothing, at least in western countries, appears to be final. A controversy that looks to be settling today gets raked up again with fresh leads given out by our investigative journalists and the new books that continue to hit the stands on old issues.
US President John F. Kennedy was killed in 1962, yet it appears the conclusions of none of the numerous investigations conducted and commissions of inquiry set up since then are final. Even after about 45 years of his death, we continue to hear of one lead or the other about the circumstances under which he was assassinated. Doubts persist about what actually happened the day he was shot dead.
The legendry actress Marylyn Monroe died a few years earlier. Investigative minds continue to churn out with new theories every other day that it was not a suicide, as is generally believed to be. It was a conspiracy; she was murdered. Numerous articles and books have appeared in the world.
Similar is the story of UK’s Prince Charles’s estranged wife late Princess Diana who died in a car crash in Paris a decade back. What has not appeared about the accident?
“It is a near certainty”, stated the Daily Express (London) quoting Chris Lafaille, the writer of the latest book called “Diana, The Inquiry They Never Published”, that “Diana was nine to 10 weeks pregnant at the time she died, according to papers from the Paris Public Hospitals archives.”
“The document dated August 31 1997 was sent to the then minister of the interior Jean-Pierre Chevenement, with copies to health minister Bernard Kouchner, foreign affairs minister Hubert Vedrine and Paris police chief Martine Monteil,” he said.
Lafaille’s claims address one of the key questions listed by coroner, Lord Justice Scott Baker, who is investigating Diana’s death over allegations that she was murdered in a criminal conspiracy.
The hearings will examine whether Diana feared for her life, whether she was pregnant and whether chauffeur Henri Paul was drunk or on drugs to answer public’s suspicions that she and Fayed were murdered by British agents because they were about to get engaged and she was pregnant.
Dodi Fayed’s dad Mohamed Al Fayed had always claimed that Diana was pregnant at the time of her death, but these reports have been dismissed by former Metropolitan Police Commissioner Lord Stevens in ‘Operation Paget’ after he was officiated to conduct an independent inquiry into Di’s death. The Harrods boss’ spokesman insisted that if there were any such evidences to support the claims, they should be submitted to the coroner.
The new revelations will raise further speculation as to who might have been the father to Diana’s unborn child as she had been holidaying with Dodi Fayed prior to the fatal crash in Paris, and many believe that Diana was 'pregnant' when she died
Princess Diana was "almost certainly" pregnant when she died, reported another London daily, The Daily Mail, but her boyfriend Dodi Al Fayed, killed alongside her in a car crash in Paris ten years ago, was not the father of the baby, the daily reported on August 22. 2007.
Laffaille claimed to have uncovered the evidence of the pregnancy -- a letter which was sent to the then French Interior Minister Jean-Pierre Chevenement -- from the archives of the hospital where the Princess was taken after the car crash on August 31, 1997.
"This document has never been claimed or proved to be a fake. If genuine, it would mean that Diana's unborn child wouldn't have been fathered by Dodi as she had not met him nine weeks before her death," he said. Instead, the scribe said, the baby might have been conceived while the Princess of Wales was seeing the United Kingdom-based doctor Hasnat Khan.
Laffaille's claim came despite a categorical statement by John Burton, the former Royal Coroner present at the time of post-mortem examination on Diana, who had said: "She wasn't pregnant. I have seen into her womb." But the former reporter with the magazine 'Paris Match' claimed he had conducted a detailed re-examination of all the evidence surrounding the car crash before coming to the conclusion.
What does all this amount to?
She was earlier reported to be having an affair with her coach who taught her horse-riding, Army Officer James Hewitt.
She was having an affair with Dodi Al Fayed with whom she was reported to be going to announce her engagement, while carrying someone else’s baby in her womb because, as per the report, “she had not met him (Fayed) nine weeks before her death”. Instead, the scribe said, the baby might have been conceived while the Princess of Wales was seeing the United Kingdom-based doctor Hasnat Khan.
Royal romances are not something new, anywhere in the world. But here the story is not of a single romance, but of many.
Even late Princess Margret, the younger sister of the present British Queen Elizabeth II, did have a very hot romance that attracted numerous headlines about half a decade back to feed the insatiable hunger of our journalists for news and scoops. But when she failed to marry the man she loved, the matter ended. Her marriage afterwards made no headlines and sent no tongues gossiping later.
By moral standards of the West, royal romances may not be a crime, but in comparison to the conduct of Prince Charles, who ultimately married his old flame, she is made to look the chic, ever smiling beauty who flung her heart at many people.
Maybe, these investigative journalists and writers are doing so just to mint money out of these labours of theirs by feeding such stories which they try to paint them real and convincing, yet they are not doing justice to the darling of millions in Britain and the world over by presenting her in such a hue. They are making this idol of beauty and the ‘Queen of millions of hearts’ to fall from grace.
Whatever it may be, the quest for truth will, for ever, remain elusive, unending, proving tireless and tiring, at the same time, with reality continuing to remain buried under the debris of these reports and books. Diana did not have peace in about the last decade of her life. These writers will not let her have peace even in her grave. That is too cruel to her. ***
Sunday, August 26, 2007
No Comment: Its parliament business
NO COMMENT: It’s parliament business
By Amba Charan Vashishth
It is a case of Parliament making laws, parliamentarians breaking laws and, finally, Parliament taking care, motherly to be precise, of the law-breakers.
The other day, this writer stumbled at the Parliament site of a report presented in parliament by the Committee to Inquire into the Misconduct of Members of the Lok Sabha upholding as true the allegation made against an honorable member by his wife of having taken another woman and personating her as his spouse on a Committee tour. The Committee held him “guilty of misusing his official air journeys for a woman other than his spouse.” It also held him “guilty of undertaking entitled air journeys on 23 March, 2006 and 21 February, 2007 from Delhi to Mumbai, along with a woman personating her as his spouse.” These acts, in the opinion of the Committee, “tantamount to cheating and impersonation which are penal offences as well as a conduct unbecoming of a member”.
On the recommendation of the Committee, the Lok Sabha suspended the erring member from attending Lok Sabha for 30 sittings. It also recommended that the MP be reprimanded as well. ***
By Amba Charan Vashishth
It is a case of Parliament making laws, parliamentarians breaking laws and, finally, Parliament taking care, motherly to be precise, of the law-breakers.
The other day, this writer stumbled at the Parliament site of a report presented in parliament by the Committee to Inquire into the Misconduct of Members of the Lok Sabha upholding as true the allegation made against an honorable member by his wife of having taken another woman and personating her as his spouse on a Committee tour. The Committee held him “guilty of misusing his official air journeys for a woman other than his spouse.” It also held him “guilty of undertaking entitled air journeys on 23 March, 2006 and 21 February, 2007 from Delhi to Mumbai, along with a woman personating her as his spouse.” These acts, in the opinion of the Committee, “tantamount to cheating and impersonation which are penal offences as well as a conduct unbecoming of a member”.
On the recommendation of the Committee, the Lok Sabha suspended the erring member from attending Lok Sabha for 30 sittings. It also recommended that the MP be reprimanded as well. ***
Saturday, August 25, 2007
My Memoria Miscellany
My Memoria Miscellany
What would you call it?
A natural reaction or human rights violation?
By Amba Charan Vashishth
It was some time in 1966 that a pickpocket ran away with money after piercing his victim’s pocket from Main Bus Stand in Sector 17, Chandigarh. The policeman on duty ran after him. In the meantime he saw a fellow policeman coming from the opposite direction towards which the pickpocket was running.
“Hey!” shouted the policeman following the pickpocket to his counterpart. “Catch hold of him. He is a pickpocket”.
Now the pickpocket was left with no escape route. He had a policeman both sides – in front and on the back. The policeman coming from the other side overpowered him holding him tight in both his hands. The pickpocket took out a knife from his pocket and pierced it through the policeman’s stomach. The latter fell on the ground and died instantly.
The constable following him and other people overpowered the culprit. In the meantime more policemen came. Seeing the condition of their colleague bleeding and dying on the road, they went out with rage. They beat him mercilessly with everything they could catch hold – their sticks, their booted foot and what not. His face swelled. It looked as if his eyes would come out.
The accused was arrested, medically examined and presented before the court.
But what would you call it -- A natural human reaction or a human right violation?
What would you call it?
A natural reaction or human rights violation?
By Amba Charan Vashishth
It was some time in 1966 that a pickpocket ran away with money after piercing his victim’s pocket from Main Bus Stand in Sector 17, Chandigarh. The policeman on duty ran after him. In the meantime he saw a fellow policeman coming from the opposite direction towards which the pickpocket was running.
“Hey!” shouted the policeman following the pickpocket to his counterpart. “Catch hold of him. He is a pickpocket”.
Now the pickpocket was left with no escape route. He had a policeman both sides – in front and on the back. The policeman coming from the other side overpowered him holding him tight in both his hands. The pickpocket took out a knife from his pocket and pierced it through the policeman’s stomach. The latter fell on the ground and died instantly.
The constable following him and other people overpowered the culprit. In the meantime more policemen came. Seeing the condition of their colleague bleeding and dying on the road, they went out with rage. They beat him mercilessly with everything they could catch hold – their sticks, their booted foot and what not. His face swelled. It looked as if his eyes would come out.
The accused was arrested, medically examined and presented before the court.
But what would you call it -- A natural human reaction or a human right violation?
Tuesday, August 21, 2007
My Memoria Miscellany - Times have changed
This time, time off from politics and other dreary subjects. A glimpse from personal memory
My memoria miscellany
Times have changed
Amba Charan Vashishth
Times have changed. Certainly and very much.
I remember vividly when I was studying in a college, about sixty kilometres away from my town, if I had to carry with me a bedding and a tin trunk (attaché cases and modern bags had not yet arrived on the scene) and hired a coolie, it was all right. If I had only one of the two items and I had with me a coolie carrying it, my acquaintances and relatives would chide me, “What’s wrong with you, young man? Don’t you take food?” Meaning that if I was having full meals, why did I have not the energy to carry my baggage myself?
But now, if I carry a 10-kilogram load in my hands, people don’t say it in my face but pointing towards me do murder to their friends, “A silly miser, doesn’t hire a coolie or an automobile to carry this heavy weight home!”
When in school, after examination in March every year, together we all friends visited the Jawalamukhi temple during Navratras, just 11 Kilometer away or Baisakhi fair a few days afterwards celebrated at a distance of about 12 kilometers. Own vehicles or taxis were almost unknown then. We would not even board a bus. We all preferred to walk on foot – resting wherever we liked, exchanging our anecdotes, impressions of our teachers and sharing the food each of us carried with him from home at any place looked nice to us and where we could get clean, potable water.
But when I narrate these experiences to the present generation of our teens, they take it as a tale, interesting to narrate but difficult to believe. They may not say so on our face, but I am sure, they do take us as fools, who had no other source of enjoyment or entertainment, except whiling away our time like that, besides putting ourselves to tire ourselves that much.
To an extent, they are right also. There was no other source of enjoyment in those times. Radio was there, but a rare luxury only, not many could afford or thought it necessary to ‘waste’ money for it. It was not a necessity then.
For sports, we had only the native, rustic games. Of these, at present you can see only the old-timers kabaddi and gulli-dandaa, at times in the village.
Walking preferred
Those days if one had to travel a distance of 4-5 kilometers; one would prefer to walk on foot. “I would have covered more than a kilometer by the time the bus would arrive”, people would say to another if he asked him to wait for the bus expected any time. And even if the bus arrived, many would still not board it. “I would prefer to save the fare and with it drink half a kilogram of milk. That would give me strength and stamina”, he would say.
Those days’ baarats (marriage processions to the bride’s place) would only be on foot. Our beddings and bags were carried to the place on mules. We enjoyed the travel, dressed in our very best according to the standards of that time. We would rest at some places. Tea was not common then. We only had a glass of milk at some place. We reached the bride’s place fresh and cheerful, without the slightest sign of fatigue. We would stay at the bride’s place next day also – and in still earlier times, for one day more – and return the next day. It was an enjoyable experience. We would continue to recall the journey and experience for many days and months to come.
These are now just matters of memory, looking unbelievable and unrealistic in the present times.
***
My memoria miscellany
Times have changed
Amba Charan Vashishth
Times have changed. Certainly and very much.
I remember vividly when I was studying in a college, about sixty kilometres away from my town, if I had to carry with me a bedding and a tin trunk (attaché cases and modern bags had not yet arrived on the scene) and hired a coolie, it was all right. If I had only one of the two items and I had with me a coolie carrying it, my acquaintances and relatives would chide me, “What’s wrong with you, young man? Don’t you take food?” Meaning that if I was having full meals, why did I have not the energy to carry my baggage myself?
But now, if I carry a 10-kilogram load in my hands, people don’t say it in my face but pointing towards me do murder to their friends, “A silly miser, doesn’t hire a coolie or an automobile to carry this heavy weight home!”
When in school, after examination in March every year, together we all friends visited the Jawalamukhi temple during Navratras, just 11 Kilometer away or Baisakhi fair a few days afterwards celebrated at a distance of about 12 kilometers. Own vehicles or taxis were almost unknown then. We would not even board a bus. We all preferred to walk on foot – resting wherever we liked, exchanging our anecdotes, impressions of our teachers and sharing the food each of us carried with him from home at any place looked nice to us and where we could get clean, potable water.
But when I narrate these experiences to the present generation of our teens, they take it as a tale, interesting to narrate but difficult to believe. They may not say so on our face, but I am sure, they do take us as fools, who had no other source of enjoyment or entertainment, except whiling away our time like that, besides putting ourselves to tire ourselves that much.
To an extent, they are right also. There was no other source of enjoyment in those times. Radio was there, but a rare luxury only, not many could afford or thought it necessary to ‘waste’ money for it. It was not a necessity then.
For sports, we had only the native, rustic games. Of these, at present you can see only the old-timers kabaddi and gulli-dandaa, at times in the village.
Walking preferred
Those days if one had to travel a distance of 4-5 kilometers; one would prefer to walk on foot. “I would have covered more than a kilometer by the time the bus would arrive”, people would say to another if he asked him to wait for the bus expected any time. And even if the bus arrived, many would still not board it. “I would prefer to save the fare and with it drink half a kilogram of milk. That would give me strength and stamina”, he would say.
Those days’ baarats (marriage processions to the bride’s place) would only be on foot. Our beddings and bags were carried to the place on mules. We enjoyed the travel, dressed in our very best according to the standards of that time. We would rest at some places. Tea was not common then. We only had a glass of milk at some place. We reached the bride’s place fresh and cheerful, without the slightest sign of fatigue. We would stay at the bride’s place next day also – and in still earlier times, for one day more – and return the next day. It was an enjoyable experience. We would continue to recall the journey and experience for many days and months to come.
These are now just matters of memory, looking unbelievable and unrealistic in the present times.
***
Sunday, August 19, 2007
Parliament, not Cabinet, supreme and sovereign
Parliament, not Cabinet supreme and sovereign
By Amba Charan Vashishth
Not once, numerous times has the present Lok Sabha Speaker, Mr. Somnath Chatterjee, emphatically declared that Parliament is “sovereign and supreme”. And, ironically, it is the same Speaker – no disrespect intended – who while rejecting the Opposition demand for a discussion on the Indo-US civil nuclear deal in the Lok Sabha under Rule 184 in which voting is mandatory, on August 17 said that Parliament “had no competence” to decide on operationalisation of an international agreement or treaty.
Quoting the Constitution Mr Chatterjee said that in the absence of appropriate laws made by Parliament, the right of the Central Government to enter into treaties and agreements with foreign countries in its sovereign power, is unrestricted and becomes effective without any intervention by Parliament.
“It is also well-established”, he went on to say, “that there is no requirement to obtain ratification from Parliament of any treaty or agreement for its operation or enforcement. Thus, Parliament can only discuss any treaty or agreement entered into by the Government, without affecting its finality or enforceability”.
If we accept the fact of “the absence of appropriate laws made by Parliament” and of any specific provision in the Constitution to restrict the “sovereign power” and “the right of the Central Government to enter into treaties and agreements with foreign countries” and these become “effective without any intervention by Parliament”, equally we can also not deny the fact that there is also no such specific provision which deprives this right to Parliament. It cannot be reduced to a paralysed institution, handicapped by the absence of any specific provision in the Constitution and development of any healthy precedent.
That also raises the question: who is sovereign – the Central government, defined as the “Executive” in the Constitution or Parliament? Both cannot be sovereign to the exclusion or independent of the other. In the face of current controversy over the allegations – and denials -- of the Indo-US Deal compromising on the sovereignty of the nation, who is to be the arbiter – the Council of Ministers or the Parliament?
The Constitution-makers appear to have failed to visualize a situation in which a Parliament may wish to vote on a particular agreement or deal and the ruling government may stubbornly refuse – a demand a government may reject only when either there is no transparency in its dealings or when it is not sure of majority in the House.
Successive governments at the Centre have tried to be autocratic in striking agreements and deals with other countries that bind -- and have bound in the past -- the nation in perpetuity, or for a specified period of time, in the matter of economy, defence, and security of the nation. They never sought approval of Parliament -- a negation of the spirit of democracy.
Unhealthy precedent
India’s first Prime Minister, Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru, is responsible for evolving this wrong practice and unhealthy precedent. By his very nature, he assumed unto himself to be the embodiment of the will of the people and custodian of the interests of the nation. He was never condescending to put before the House of the People for approval of agreements he entered into with foreign powers. Nobody, then, had the courage and stature to challenge his stand.
In contrast, the oldest democracy, the United States of America, does have such a provision and the President is constitutionally bound to seek Congress and Senate approval for all such agreements with other countries.
The nation has had to pay very heavily with this autocratic usurpation of Parliament’s authority in the matter of contracting agreements and deals with foreign powers. Pandit Nehru entering into agreements with China on Tibet and on Kashmir, to quote a few instances, has cost the nation heavily.
By not seeking Parliament’s approval on such matters, successive governments may not have violated the letter of the Constitution, but did certainly hurt the spirit.
No individual Prime Minister, or his Council of Ministers, however well-meaning and patriotic they may be, can usurp unto themselves to be the repository of the will of the House without expressly getting it expressed in a formal session.
The Constitution
Let’s go by the provisions in the Constitution. In Chapter I of the Constitution dealing with “The Executive”, Article 53 (1) says: “The executive power of the Union shall be vested in the President…”
Article 74(1) states: There shall be a Council of Ministers with the Prime Minister at the head to aid and advise the President who shall, in the exercise of his functions, act in accordance with such advice”.
Further, Article 75(3) stipulates that “The Council of Ministers shall be collectively responsible to the House of the People”.
A government enters into an agreement with a foreign power only in exercise of the “executive power of the Union….vested in the President” for which there is “a Council of Ministers with the Prime Minister at the head to aid and advise the President…” Nowhere does the Constitution make the Prime Minister or his Council of Ministers autocratic in the exercise of the “executive power”. On the other hand, it makes the Council of Ministers subservient to the will of the people by providing that it “shall be collectively responsible to the House of the people”.
Therefore, from which letter and spirit of the Constitution can the Parliament be denied the right to approve or disapprove an agreement with a foreign government, like the Indo-US nuclear deal?
If the Constitution could be amended at the drop of a hot a little less than hundred times in the last sixty years, why can’t it be amended to provide for parliamentary approval of the agreements a government enters into with foreign governments? Such a step will not infringe the letter and spirit neither of the Constitution nor of democracy. ***
By Amba Charan Vashishth
Not once, numerous times has the present Lok Sabha Speaker, Mr. Somnath Chatterjee, emphatically declared that Parliament is “sovereign and supreme”. And, ironically, it is the same Speaker – no disrespect intended – who while rejecting the Opposition demand for a discussion on the Indo-US civil nuclear deal in the Lok Sabha under Rule 184 in which voting is mandatory, on August 17 said that Parliament “had no competence” to decide on operationalisation of an international agreement or treaty.
Quoting the Constitution Mr Chatterjee said that in the absence of appropriate laws made by Parliament, the right of the Central Government to enter into treaties and agreements with foreign countries in its sovereign power, is unrestricted and becomes effective without any intervention by Parliament.
“It is also well-established”, he went on to say, “that there is no requirement to obtain ratification from Parliament of any treaty or agreement for its operation or enforcement. Thus, Parliament can only discuss any treaty or agreement entered into by the Government, without affecting its finality or enforceability”.
If we accept the fact of “the absence of appropriate laws made by Parliament” and of any specific provision in the Constitution to restrict the “sovereign power” and “the right of the Central Government to enter into treaties and agreements with foreign countries” and these become “effective without any intervention by Parliament”, equally we can also not deny the fact that there is also no such specific provision which deprives this right to Parliament. It cannot be reduced to a paralysed institution, handicapped by the absence of any specific provision in the Constitution and development of any healthy precedent.
That also raises the question: who is sovereign – the Central government, defined as the “Executive” in the Constitution or Parliament? Both cannot be sovereign to the exclusion or independent of the other. In the face of current controversy over the allegations – and denials -- of the Indo-US Deal compromising on the sovereignty of the nation, who is to be the arbiter – the Council of Ministers or the Parliament?
The Constitution-makers appear to have failed to visualize a situation in which a Parliament may wish to vote on a particular agreement or deal and the ruling government may stubbornly refuse – a demand a government may reject only when either there is no transparency in its dealings or when it is not sure of majority in the House.
Successive governments at the Centre have tried to be autocratic in striking agreements and deals with other countries that bind -- and have bound in the past -- the nation in perpetuity, or for a specified period of time, in the matter of economy, defence, and security of the nation. They never sought approval of Parliament -- a negation of the spirit of democracy.
Unhealthy precedent
India’s first Prime Minister, Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru, is responsible for evolving this wrong practice and unhealthy precedent. By his very nature, he assumed unto himself to be the embodiment of the will of the people and custodian of the interests of the nation. He was never condescending to put before the House of the People for approval of agreements he entered into with foreign powers. Nobody, then, had the courage and stature to challenge his stand.
In contrast, the oldest democracy, the United States of America, does have such a provision and the President is constitutionally bound to seek Congress and Senate approval for all such agreements with other countries.
The nation has had to pay very heavily with this autocratic usurpation of Parliament’s authority in the matter of contracting agreements and deals with foreign powers. Pandit Nehru entering into agreements with China on Tibet and on Kashmir, to quote a few instances, has cost the nation heavily.
By not seeking Parliament’s approval on such matters, successive governments may not have violated the letter of the Constitution, but did certainly hurt the spirit.
No individual Prime Minister, or his Council of Ministers, however well-meaning and patriotic they may be, can usurp unto themselves to be the repository of the will of the House without expressly getting it expressed in a formal session.
The Constitution
Let’s go by the provisions in the Constitution. In Chapter I of the Constitution dealing with “The Executive”, Article 53 (1) says: “The executive power of the Union shall be vested in the President…”
Article 74(1) states: There shall be a Council of Ministers with the Prime Minister at the head to aid and advise the President who shall, in the exercise of his functions, act in accordance with such advice”.
Further, Article 75(3) stipulates that “The Council of Ministers shall be collectively responsible to the House of the People”.
A government enters into an agreement with a foreign power only in exercise of the “executive power of the Union….vested in the President” for which there is “a Council of Ministers with the Prime Minister at the head to aid and advise the President…” Nowhere does the Constitution make the Prime Minister or his Council of Ministers autocratic in the exercise of the “executive power”. On the other hand, it makes the Council of Ministers subservient to the will of the people by providing that it “shall be collectively responsible to the House of the people”.
Therefore, from which letter and spirit of the Constitution can the Parliament be denied the right to approve or disapprove an agreement with a foreign government, like the Indo-US nuclear deal?
If the Constitution could be amended at the drop of a hot a little less than hundred times in the last sixty years, why can’t it be amended to provide for parliamentary approval of the agreements a government enters into with foreign governments? Such a step will not infringe the letter and spirit neither of the Constitution nor of democracy. ***
Saturday, August 18, 2007
Indo-US Deal -- Parliamentary Nod Must, Constitutionally
INDO-US NUKE DEAL
Parliamentary Nod Must, Constitutionally
By Amba Charan Vashishth*
India is a vibrant, living democracy where every action of the government reflects – and should reflect -- the will of the majority of the people.
But, unfortunately, successive Governments at the Centre have tried to be autocratic in striking agreements and deals with other countries that bind -- and have bound in the past -- the nation perpetually, or for a specified period of time, in the matter of economy, defence, and security of the nation. All that the government in the past did was to make a statement in the two Houses of Parliament and, at times, allow discussions on such agreements or deals. But they never sought approval of Parliament. This, obviously, is a negation of the spirit of democracy.
Unhealthy precedent
It was India’s first Prime Minister, Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru, who is responsible for evolving this wrong practice and unhealthy precedent not in keeping with the spirit of democracy. By his very nature, he assumed unto himself to be the embodiment of the will of the people and custodian of the interests of the nation. He, therefore, never thought it necessary to seek the approval of the House of the People which represented the will of the people. Nobody, in his time, had the courage and stature to challenge his stand. He seems to have exploited the fact that there is no specific provision in the Constitution making it obligatory on the government to seek approval of such agreements and deals from the Parliament. But equally true is the fact that there is no specific provision in the Constitution to exclude approval of such agreements by the Parliament of India.
In contrast, the oldest democracy, the United States of America, does have such a provision and the President is constitutionally bound to seek Congress and Senate approval for all such agreements with other countries.
The nation has had to pay very heavily with this autocratic usurpation of Parliament’s authority in the matter of the then governments contracting agreements and deals with foreign powers. One such instance is what Pandit Nehru did in entering into agreements with China on Tibet. It cost the nation heavily. The country lost about 40,000 kilometres of its sacred soil to China and lost thousands of its brave soldiers because of Nehru’s misadventure without the approval of Parliament. Kashmir is yet another of many such examples.
By not seeking Parliament’s approval on such matters, successive governments may not have violated the letter of the Constitution, yet they certainly did hurt its spirit.
No individual Prime Minister, or his Council of Ministers, however well-meaning and patriotic they may be, can usurp unto themselves to be the repository of the will of the House without expressly getting it expressed in a formal session.
A government needs to seek approval of the House of the People on every agreement or deal it strikes, including the latest Indo-US Nuclear Deal, not just because it binds the future of the nation, or atleast the next generation, to the commitments made in the deal, but also because huge financial commitments are involved in implementing an agreement or deal and, more so, the one like Indo-US deal. And under the Constitution the Union Government has no power to spend even a single paisa without the approval of the Parliament.
Constitutional provisions
Let’s go by the provisions in the Constitution. In Chapter I of the Constitution dealing with “The Executive”, Article 53 (1) says: “The executive power of the Union shall be vested in the President and shall be exercised by him either directly or through officers subordinate to him in accordance with this Constitution”.
Then Article 74(1) states: There shall be a Council of Ministers with the Prime Minister at the head to aid and advise the President who shall, in the exercise of his functions, act in accordance with such advice”.
Further, Article 75(3) stipulates that “The Council of Ministers shall be collectively responsible to the House of the People”.
A government enters into an agreement with a foreign power only in exercise of the “executive power of the Union….vested in the President” for which there is “a Council of Ministers with the Prime Minister at the head to aid and advise the President….in the exercise of his functions….” Nowhere does the Constitution make the Prime Minister or his Council of Ministers autocratic in the exercise of the “executive power”. On the other hand, the Constitution makes the Council of Minister subservient to the will of the people by providing that it “shall be collectively responsible to the House of the people”.
Therefore, from which letter and spirit of the Constitution does the present Manmohan government draw sustenance in refusing to seek approval of the Parliament? Government sign agreements with foreign countries in the discharge of their “executive power” for which they are accountable to Parliament. UPA is standing not on the strong legal and constitutional foundations but on the feet of clay provided by wrong precedents set by earlier governments having no constitutional sanction. By not seeking an approval to an agreement, like the Indo-US deal, Manmohan government is only defying the spirit of the Constitution that makes it “collectively responsible to the House of the People” At the same time, any disapproval of an agreement or deal should not be taken to mean as lack of confidence of Parliament in a particular government. There should be no need for the government to resign and instead it should come out with a revised draft, for approval, removing the points of disagreement expressed by Parliament. ***
Thursday, August 16, 2007
Pride and Glamour of Politics
Pride and glamour of crime in politics
By Amba Charan Vashishth
As we celebrate the 60 years of Independence, one thing that strikes most is our pride in and infatuation for crime and criminals.
With one voice we, otherwise, condemn criminalization of politics. It is difficult to distinguish whether it is criminalization of politics or politicalisation of crime. We have a host of the honourable men gracing the august offices of ministers, both in the States and at the Centre, and at the same time standing as accused in courts for crimes as heinous as murder, rape, dacoity, corruption, mafia links, extortion, assets beyond known sources of income and the like.
Not only that. We have honourable Members of Parliament rubbing their heels in jails after having been convicted for crimes and sentenced to imprisonment for life. Yet, they continue to be honourable members for all intents and purposes. Recently, they exercised their right to franchise to vote for the highest offices of the country – the office of the President and Vice-President of India. No such election could be complete without their pious valuable vote
Our law is very liberal. And more liberal are our people in power whose seat of power is at stake. They argue: Everybody is ‘innocent’ till convicted by a court of law. Even though some of our honourable MPs stand convicted by courts of law for heinous crimes, yet they stretch the argument: The highest court of the country, Supreme Court of India, has not yet given the final word. Only 20 months are left for the term of the present Lok Sabha to be over and if the final verdict is not received by that time, even in prison they will continue to be honourable MPs for the full term with full pay, perks and funds at their disposal. Can we have an example of political morality loftier than that in India in any other part of the world?
And then we have the complete freedom, nay license, to play, to fiddle with the law.
Last year (2006), in the wake of the caricatures of Prophet Mohammad published by a Danish cartoonist, a Minister in the then Mulayam Singh government in UP, announced a prize of Rs. 10 crores for the head of that cartoonist. Another Indian leader announced a reward of Rs. one crore who cut the hands of renowned painter M. F. Hussain who had painted the Hindu goddesses and Bharatmata in the nude, Although both had violated the law of the land and committed a crime under the Indian Penal Code, the governments both at the Centre and the State ignored these acts of crime as a crime of no consequence. Consequently, no action was taken against anybody, not even against the UP Minister. He continued to be in office till the last.
Now the latest. Controversial Bangladeshi writer, Tasleema Nasreen, was in Hyderabad, on August 9 for the release of Telgu translation of her novels at a private function in the Press Club. The Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen (MIM) MLAs, alongwith others barged into the function and assaulted Ms Nasreen who has earned the ire of fundamentalist Muslims for the crime of her availing herself of the freedom of expression. The Andhra Pradesh (AP) Police was kind enough to register cases against these people, arrest them and immediately let them off on bail. The writer was bundled back in a Kolkata bound airline.
The Police have not taken note of the brazen declaration of Mr. Akbaruddin Owaisi, the leader of MIM in AP Assembly that “it is legitimate to kill Tasleema Nasreen under Islamic law, but unfortunately we couldn’t do it”. Read this statement with the statement of Ms. Nasreen, "I saw death yesterday (August 9 at Hyderabad). They would have killed me," Taslima Nasreen stated at Kolkata. But the perpetrators of the attack on her are not booked for the crime of attempt to murder. On the contrary, a criminal case for inciting animosity between different groups by her writings has been registered against the beleaguered writer.
There is an element of glamour, too, in life and politics of crime. Look at the headlines they created, the special exclusive stories they inspired and generated. Yesterday’s dacoit queen made it to the honourable desks of Parliament, rubbing shoulders with the elite of parliamentarians who claim they never violated even a minor traffic law in their life and who refrain from killing a fly even.
The late dacoit king Abhay Gurjar before being shot down in a police encounter had given out his political ambitions to journalists to fight an election, courtesy the Samajwadi Party, to share the roll of honours with veteran parliamentarians who assiduously stuck the rule of law, principles, morality and ethics in their long career.
If Parliament attack convict Mohammad Afzal Guru were tomorrow to receive clemency and wanted to fight an election, provided law permitted, there would be a beeline of chiefs of almost every political party to beseech, with folded hands, to give their party the honour to field him from a constituency of his choice to raise high the banner of secularism. It will be no wonder if he knocked down the mightiest of the mighty who had so far taken pride of having been the winner in every election.
On the eve of UP elections, even the mafia don Abu Salem facing numerous charges of heinous crimes in courts was toying with the idea to contest UP polls from his home constituency. Somehow the plan got derailed.
We have numerous representatives of the people in the State assemblies and Parliament who were so ‘popular’ that they won hands down from behind the bars. While our prime ministers, chief ministers, ministers and veteran parliamentarians have to toil hard to beg votes, for those in jails the votes come voluntarily without an effort. Even after election, they hold their public durbars in prison. Government officials meet them in jails to seek their directions/guidance to executive schemes of public welfare.
It will be no wonder if the mafia dons, like Dawood Ibrahim, hiding themselves in ‘friendly’ countries from the clutches of Indian law, also get infatuated by the beauty of power and they also fight elections, even if from behind the bars, and get elected, like many others.
The hard reality of the present political scenario is that many of our elected representatives have been alternating between attending to their duties in legislative bodies, in courts and in prisons.
In fact, during the last sixty years we have developed two perceptions of law and its violation – one for those who are not in politics and the other for those who are in politics. If a person in the street is booked for a crime, whether a petty or heinous, he is instantly taken to be a criminal till declared innocent by a court of law. On the contrary, if a politician is booked, even for a heinous crime, he is taken be to be ‘innocent’ even after conviction by a lower court till his conviction is upheld by the Supreme Court of India.
A person is a diehard criminal attracting police ire and people’s hate till he is solely in the business of crime. The moment he jumps into politics also, he acquires a halo of respectability and awe. Police and people try to look the other way to feign ignorance of his (criminal) activities. They are realistic not to ignore the possibility of tomorrow his being their minister and boss. Therefore, they perform their duty only when they cannot but act or try to appear to be acting, unwillingly and under pressure though. The administrative and police action then becomes a political vendetta of his opponents, jealous of his popularity among the masses – an act aimed at character assassination, politically motivated.
Normally for a criminal, his act(s) of crime walk ahead of him. He is first a criminal and then a person. But the moment he embraces the ‘respectable’ profession of politics, he is taken to be a politician first, a criminal afterwards. He commands awe of his authority as a politician first and the tag of being a criminal afterwards, even if police ever dare to haul him up and the courts convict him for his crime. The only problem is to say which of the two – politics or crime – is his main profession and which a side business or hobby. In the media glare of his overt political activities gets eclipsed his covert criminal deeds.
No wonder with the steady influx of criminals into politics, one day politicians get exiled from the field of politics leaving the field only for the desperadoes.
By Amba Charan Vashishth
As we celebrate the 60 years of Independence, one thing that strikes most is our pride in and infatuation for crime and criminals.
With one voice we, otherwise, condemn criminalization of politics. It is difficult to distinguish whether it is criminalization of politics or politicalisation of crime. We have a host of the honourable men gracing the august offices of ministers, both in the States and at the Centre, and at the same time standing as accused in courts for crimes as heinous as murder, rape, dacoity, corruption, mafia links, extortion, assets beyond known sources of income and the like.
Not only that. We have honourable Members of Parliament rubbing their heels in jails after having been convicted for crimes and sentenced to imprisonment for life. Yet, they continue to be honourable members for all intents and purposes. Recently, they exercised their right to franchise to vote for the highest offices of the country – the office of the President and Vice-President of India. No such election could be complete without their pious valuable vote
Our law is very liberal. And more liberal are our people in power whose seat of power is at stake. They argue: Everybody is ‘innocent’ till convicted by a court of law. Even though some of our honourable MPs stand convicted by courts of law for heinous crimes, yet they stretch the argument: The highest court of the country, Supreme Court of India, has not yet given the final word. Only 20 months are left for the term of the present Lok Sabha to be over and if the final verdict is not received by that time, even in prison they will continue to be honourable MPs for the full term with full pay, perks and funds at their disposal. Can we have an example of political morality loftier than that in India in any other part of the world?
And then we have the complete freedom, nay license, to play, to fiddle with the law.
Last year (2006), in the wake of the caricatures of Prophet Mohammad published by a Danish cartoonist, a Minister in the then Mulayam Singh government in UP, announced a prize of Rs. 10 crores for the head of that cartoonist. Another Indian leader announced a reward of Rs. one crore who cut the hands of renowned painter M. F. Hussain who had painted the Hindu goddesses and Bharatmata in the nude, Although both had violated the law of the land and committed a crime under the Indian Penal Code, the governments both at the Centre and the State ignored these acts of crime as a crime of no consequence. Consequently, no action was taken against anybody, not even against the UP Minister. He continued to be in office till the last.
Now the latest. Controversial Bangladeshi writer, Tasleema Nasreen, was in Hyderabad, on August 9 for the release of Telgu translation of her novels at a private function in the Press Club. The Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen (MIM) MLAs, alongwith others barged into the function and assaulted Ms Nasreen who has earned the ire of fundamentalist Muslims for the crime of her availing herself of the freedom of expression. The Andhra Pradesh (AP) Police was kind enough to register cases against these people, arrest them and immediately let them off on bail. The writer was bundled back in a Kolkata bound airline.
The Police have not taken note of the brazen declaration of Mr. Akbaruddin Owaisi, the leader of MIM in AP Assembly that “it is legitimate to kill Tasleema Nasreen under Islamic law, but unfortunately we couldn’t do it”. Read this statement with the statement of Ms. Nasreen, "I saw death yesterday (August 9 at Hyderabad). They would have killed me," Taslima Nasreen stated at Kolkata. But the perpetrators of the attack on her are not booked for the crime of attempt to murder. On the contrary, a criminal case for inciting animosity between different groups by her writings has been registered against the beleaguered writer.
There is an element of glamour, too, in life and politics of crime. Look at the headlines they created, the special exclusive stories they inspired and generated. Yesterday’s dacoit queen made it to the honourable desks of Parliament, rubbing shoulders with the elite of parliamentarians who claim they never violated even a minor traffic law in their life and who refrain from killing a fly even.
The late dacoit king Abhay Gurjar before being shot down in a police encounter had given out his political ambitions to journalists to fight an election, courtesy the Samajwadi Party, to share the roll of honours with veteran parliamentarians who assiduously stuck the rule of law, principles, morality and ethics in their long career.
If Parliament attack convict Mohammad Afzal Guru were tomorrow to receive clemency and wanted to fight an election, provided law permitted, there would be a beeline of chiefs of almost every political party to beseech, with folded hands, to give their party the honour to field him from a constituency of his choice to raise high the banner of secularism. It will be no wonder if he knocked down the mightiest of the mighty who had so far taken pride of having been the winner in every election.
On the eve of UP elections, even the mafia don Abu Salem facing numerous charges of heinous crimes in courts was toying with the idea to contest UP polls from his home constituency. Somehow the plan got derailed.
We have numerous representatives of the people in the State assemblies and Parliament who were so ‘popular’ that they won hands down from behind the bars. While our prime ministers, chief ministers, ministers and veteran parliamentarians have to toil hard to beg votes, for those in jails the votes come voluntarily without an effort. Even after election, they hold their public durbars in prison. Government officials meet them in jails to seek their directions/guidance to executive schemes of public welfare.
It will be no wonder if the mafia dons, like Dawood Ibrahim, hiding themselves in ‘friendly’ countries from the clutches of Indian law, also get infatuated by the beauty of power and they also fight elections, even if from behind the bars, and get elected, like many others.
The hard reality of the present political scenario is that many of our elected representatives have been alternating between attending to their duties in legislative bodies, in courts and in prisons.
In fact, during the last sixty years we have developed two perceptions of law and its violation – one for those who are not in politics and the other for those who are in politics. If a person in the street is booked for a crime, whether a petty or heinous, he is instantly taken to be a criminal till declared innocent by a court of law. On the contrary, if a politician is booked, even for a heinous crime, he is taken be to be ‘innocent’ even after conviction by a lower court till his conviction is upheld by the Supreme Court of India.
A person is a diehard criminal attracting police ire and people’s hate till he is solely in the business of crime. The moment he jumps into politics also, he acquires a halo of respectability and awe. Police and people try to look the other way to feign ignorance of his (criminal) activities. They are realistic not to ignore the possibility of tomorrow his being their minister and boss. Therefore, they perform their duty only when they cannot but act or try to appear to be acting, unwillingly and under pressure though. The administrative and police action then becomes a political vendetta of his opponents, jealous of his popularity among the masses – an act aimed at character assassination, politically motivated.
Normally for a criminal, his act(s) of crime walk ahead of him. He is first a criminal and then a person. But the moment he embraces the ‘respectable’ profession of politics, he is taken to be a politician first, a criminal afterwards. He commands awe of his authority as a politician first and the tag of being a criminal afterwards, even if police ever dare to haul him up and the courts convict him for his crime. The only problem is to say which of the two – politics or crime – is his main profession and which a side business or hobby. In the media glare of his overt political activities gets eclipsed his covert criminal deeds.
No wonder with the steady influx of criminals into politics, one day politicians get exiled from the field of politics leaving the field only for the desperadoes.
Tuesday, August 14, 2007
The Pride and Glamour of Crime in Politics
Pride and glamour of crime in politics
By Amba Charan Vashishth
As we celebrate the 60 years of Independence, one thing that strikes most is our pride in and infatuation for crime and criminals.
With one voice we, otherwise, condemn criminalization of politics. It is difficult to distinguish whether it is criminalization of politics or politicalisation of crime. We have a host of the honourable men gracing the august offices of ministers, both in the States and at the Centre, and at the same time standing as accused in courts for crimes as heinous as murder, rape, dacoity, corruption, mafia links, extortion, assets beyond known sources of income and the like.
Not only that. We have honourable Members of Parliament rubbing their heels in jails after having been convicted for crimes and sentenced to imprisonment for life. Yet, they continue to be honourable members for all intents and purposes. Recently, they exercised their right to franchise to vote for the highest offices of the country – the office of the President and Vice-President of India. No such election could be complete without their pious valuable vote
Our law is very liberal. And more liberal are our people in power whose seat of power is at stake. They argue: Everybody is ‘innocent’ till convicted by a court of law. Even though some of our honourable MPs stand convicted by courts of law for heinous crimes, yet they stretch the argument: The highest court of the country, Supreme Court of India, has not yet given the final word. Only 20 months are left for the term of the present Lok Sabha to be over and if the final verdict is not received by that time, even in prison they will continue to be honourable MPs for the full term with full pay, perks and funds at their disposal. Can we have an example of political morality loftier than that in India in any other part of the world?
And then we have the complete freedom, nay license, to play, to fiddle with the law.
Last year (2006), in the wake of the caricatures of Prophet Mohammad published by a Danish cartoonist, a Minister in the then Mulayam Singh government in UP, announced a prize of Rs. 10 crores for the head of that cartoonist. Another Indian leader announced a reward of Rs. one crore who cut the hands of renowned painter M. F. Hussain who had painted the Hindu goddesses and Bharatmata in the nude, Although both had violated the law of the land and committed a crime under the Indian Penal Code, the governments both at the Centre and the State ignored these acts of crime as a crime of no consequence. Consequently, no action was taken against anybody, not even against the UP Minister. He continued to be in office till the last.
Now the latest. Controversial Bangladeshi writer, Tasleema Nasreen, was in Hyderabad, on August 9 for the release of Telgu translation of her novels at a private function in the Press Club. The Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen (MIM) MLAs, alongwith others barged into the function and assaulted Ms Nasreen who has earned the ire of fundamentalist Muslims for the crime of her availing herself of the freedom of expression. The Andhra Pradesh (AP) Police was kind enough to register cases against these people, arrest them and immediately let them off on bail. The writer was bundled back in a Kolkata bound airline.
The Police have not taken note of the brazen declaration of Mr. Akbaruddin Owaisi, the leader of MIM in AP Assembly that “it is legitimate to kill Tasleema Nasreen under Islamic law, but unfortunately we couldn’t do it”. Read this statement with the statement of Ms. Nasreen, "I saw death yesterday (August 9 at Hyderabad). They would have killed me," Taslima Nasreen stated at Kolkata. But the perpetrators of the attack on her are not booked for the crime of attempt to murder. On the contrary, a criminal case for inciting animosity between different groups by her writings has been registered against the beleaguered writer.
There is an element of glamour, too, in life and politics of crime. Look at the headlines they created, the special exclusive stories they inspired and generated. Yesterday’s dacoit queen made it to the honourable desks of Parliament, rubbing shoulders with the elite of parliamentarians who claim they never violated even a minor traffic law in their life and who refrain from killing a fly even.
The late dacoit king Abhay Gurjar before being shot down in a police encounter had given out his political ambitions to journalists to fight an election, courtesy the Samajwadi Party, to share the roll of honours with veteran parliamentarians who assiduously stuck the rule of law, principles, morality and ethics in their long career.
If Parliament attack convict Mohammad Afzal Guru were tomorrow to receive clemency and wanted to fight an election, provided law permitted, there would be a beeline of chiefs of almost every political party to beseech, with folded hands, to give their party the honour to field him from a constituency of his choice to raise high the banner of secularism. It will be no wonder if he knocked down the mightiest of the mighty who had so far taken pride of having been the winner in every election.
On the eve of UP elections, even the mafia don Abu Salem facing numerous charges of heinous crimes in courts was toying with the idea to contest UP polls from his home constituency. Somehow the plan got derailed.
We have numerous representatives of the people in the State assemblies and Parliament who were so ‘popular’ that they won hands down from behind the bars. While our prime ministers, chief ministers, ministers and veteran parliamentarians have to toil hard to beg votes, for those in jails the votes come voluntarily without an effort. Even after election, they hold their public durbars in prison. Government officials meet them in jails to seek their directions/guidance to executive schemes of public welfare.
It will be no wonder if the mafia dons, like Dawood Ibrahim, hiding themselves in ‘friendly’ countries from the clutches of Indian law, also get infatuated by the beauty of power and they also fight elections, even if from behind the bars, and get elected, like many others.
The hard reality of the present political scenario is that many of our elected representatives have been alternating between attending to their duties in legislative bodies, in courts and in prisons.
In fact, during the last sixty years we have developed two perceptions of law and its violation – one for those who are not in politics and the other for those who are in politics. If a person in the street is booked for a crime, whether a petty or heinous, he is instantly taken to be a criminal till declared innocent by a court of law. On the contrary, if a politician is booked, even for a heinous crime, he is taken be to be ‘innocent’ even after conviction by a lower court till his conviction is upheld by the Supreme Court of India.
A person is a diehard criminal attracting police ire and people’s hate till he is solely in the business of crime. The moment he jumps into politics also, he acquires a halo of respectability and awe. Police and people try to look the other way to feign ignorance of his (criminal) activities. They are realistic not to ignore the possibility of tomorrow his being their minister and boss. Therefore, they perform their duty only when they cannot but act or try to appear to be acting, unwillingly and under pressure though. The administrative and police action then becomes a political vendetta of his opponents, jealous of his popularity among the masses – an act aimed at character assassination, politically motivated.
Normally for a criminal, his act(s) of crime walk ahead of him. He is first a criminal and then a person. But the moment he embraces the ‘respectable’ profession of politics, he is taken to be a politician first, a criminal afterwards. He commands awe of his authority as a politician first and the tag of being a criminal afterwards, even if police ever dare to haul him up and the courts convict him for his crime. The only problem is to say which of the two – politics or crime – is his main profession and which a side business or hobby. In the media glare of his overt political activities gets eclipsed his covert criminal deeds.
No wonder with the steady influx of criminals into politics, one day politicians get exiled from the field of politics leaving the field only for the desperadoes.***
By Amba Charan Vashishth
As we celebrate the 60 years of Independence, one thing that strikes most is our pride in and infatuation for crime and criminals.
With one voice we, otherwise, condemn criminalization of politics. It is difficult to distinguish whether it is criminalization of politics or politicalisation of crime. We have a host of the honourable men gracing the august offices of ministers, both in the States and at the Centre, and at the same time standing as accused in courts for crimes as heinous as murder, rape, dacoity, corruption, mafia links, extortion, assets beyond known sources of income and the like.
Not only that. We have honourable Members of Parliament rubbing their heels in jails after having been convicted for crimes and sentenced to imprisonment for life. Yet, they continue to be honourable members for all intents and purposes. Recently, they exercised their right to franchise to vote for the highest offices of the country – the office of the President and Vice-President of India. No such election could be complete without their pious valuable vote
Our law is very liberal. And more liberal are our people in power whose seat of power is at stake. They argue: Everybody is ‘innocent’ till convicted by a court of law. Even though some of our honourable MPs stand convicted by courts of law for heinous crimes, yet they stretch the argument: The highest court of the country, Supreme Court of India, has not yet given the final word. Only 20 months are left for the term of the present Lok Sabha to be over and if the final verdict is not received by that time, even in prison they will continue to be honourable MPs for the full term with full pay, perks and funds at their disposal. Can we have an example of political morality loftier than that in India in any other part of the world?
And then we have the complete freedom, nay license, to play, to fiddle with the law.
Last year (2006), in the wake of the caricatures of Prophet Mohammad published by a Danish cartoonist, a Minister in the then Mulayam Singh government in UP, announced a prize of Rs. 10 crores for the head of that cartoonist. Another Indian leader announced a reward of Rs. one crore who cut the hands of renowned painter M. F. Hussain who had painted the Hindu goddesses and Bharatmata in the nude, Although both had violated the law of the land and committed a crime under the Indian Penal Code, the governments both at the Centre and the State ignored these acts of crime as a crime of no consequence. Consequently, no action was taken against anybody, not even against the UP Minister. He continued to be in office till the last.
Now the latest. Controversial Bangladeshi writer, Tasleema Nasreen, was in Hyderabad, on August 9 for the release of Telgu translation of her novels at a private function in the Press Club. The Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen (MIM) MLAs, alongwith others barged into the function and assaulted Ms Nasreen who has earned the ire of fundamentalist Muslims for the crime of her availing herself of the freedom of expression. The Andhra Pradesh (AP) Police was kind enough to register cases against these people, arrest them and immediately let them off on bail. The writer was bundled back in a Kolkata bound airline.
The Police have not taken note of the brazen declaration of Mr. Akbaruddin Owaisi, the leader of MIM in AP Assembly that “it is legitimate to kill Tasleema Nasreen under Islamic law, but unfortunately we couldn’t do it”. Read this statement with the statement of Ms. Nasreen, "I saw death yesterday (August 9 at Hyderabad). They would have killed me," Taslima Nasreen stated at Kolkata. But the perpetrators of the attack on her are not booked for the crime of attempt to murder. On the contrary, a criminal case for inciting animosity between different groups by her writings has been registered against the beleaguered writer.
There is an element of glamour, too, in life and politics of crime. Look at the headlines they created, the special exclusive stories they inspired and generated. Yesterday’s dacoit queen made it to the honourable desks of Parliament, rubbing shoulders with the elite of parliamentarians who claim they never violated even a minor traffic law in their life and who refrain from killing a fly even.
The late dacoit king Abhay Gurjar before being shot down in a police encounter had given out his political ambitions to journalists to fight an election, courtesy the Samajwadi Party, to share the roll of honours with veteran parliamentarians who assiduously stuck the rule of law, principles, morality and ethics in their long career.
If Parliament attack convict Mohammad Afzal Guru were tomorrow to receive clemency and wanted to fight an election, provided law permitted, there would be a beeline of chiefs of almost every political party to beseech, with folded hands, to give their party the honour to field him from a constituency of his choice to raise high the banner of secularism. It will be no wonder if he knocked down the mightiest of the mighty who had so far taken pride of having been the winner in every election.
On the eve of UP elections, even the mafia don Abu Salem facing numerous charges of heinous crimes in courts was toying with the idea to contest UP polls from his home constituency. Somehow the plan got derailed.
We have numerous representatives of the people in the State assemblies and Parliament who were so ‘popular’ that they won hands down from behind the bars. While our prime ministers, chief ministers, ministers and veteran parliamentarians have to toil hard to beg votes, for those in jails the votes come voluntarily without an effort. Even after election, they hold their public durbars in prison. Government officials meet them in jails to seek their directions/guidance to executive schemes of public welfare.
It will be no wonder if the mafia dons, like Dawood Ibrahim, hiding themselves in ‘friendly’ countries from the clutches of Indian law, also get infatuated by the beauty of power and they also fight elections, even if from behind the bars, and get elected, like many others.
The hard reality of the present political scenario is that many of our elected representatives have been alternating between attending to their duties in legislative bodies, in courts and in prisons.
In fact, during the last sixty years we have developed two perceptions of law and its violation – one for those who are not in politics and the other for those who are in politics. If a person in the street is booked for a crime, whether a petty or heinous, he is instantly taken to be a criminal till declared innocent by a court of law. On the contrary, if a politician is booked, even for a heinous crime, he is taken be to be ‘innocent’ even after conviction by a lower court till his conviction is upheld by the Supreme Court of India.
A person is a diehard criminal attracting police ire and people’s hate till he is solely in the business of crime. The moment he jumps into politics also, he acquires a halo of respectability and awe. Police and people try to look the other way to feign ignorance of his (criminal) activities. They are realistic not to ignore the possibility of tomorrow his being their minister and boss. Therefore, they perform their duty only when they cannot but act or try to appear to be acting, unwillingly and under pressure though. The administrative and police action then becomes a political vendetta of his opponents, jealous of his popularity among the masses – an act aimed at character assassination, politically motivated.
Normally for a criminal, his act(s) of crime walk ahead of him. He is first a criminal and then a person. But the moment he embraces the ‘respectable’ profession of politics, he is taken to be a politician first, a criminal afterwards. He commands awe of his authority as a politician first and the tag of being a criminal afterwards, even if police ever dare to haul him up and the courts convict him for his crime. The only problem is to say which of the two – politics or crime – is his main profession and which a side business or hobby. In the media glare of his overt political activities gets eclipsed his covert criminal deeds.
No wonder with the steady influx of criminals into politics, one day politicians get exiled from the field of politics leaving the field only for the desperadoes.***
Saturday, August 11, 2007
We've Sonia at Rajiv's 'request'!
We’ve Sonia at Rajiv’s ’request’
By Amba Charan Vashishth
“Myself and Rajiv (Gandhi) were never interested in politics. Rajiv joined politics on the request of Indiraji, while I joined it at Rajiv’s request”.
This is what INDIA TODAY (August 13 2007 issue) quotes Congress President, Mrs. Sonia Gandhi as having said.
There is no dispute as far as the first part of the statement of both Sonia and Rajiv “never (being) interested in politics” is concerned. But it is the second part that “Rajiv joined politics on the request of Indiraji“ and me “at Rajiv’s request” that rattles the ears.
It is true that after the death of Sanjay Gandhi whom Mrs. Indira Gandhi had groomed as her political heir in preference to the ‘disinterested’ Rajiv, she did make the latter reluctantly agree to quit his Indian Airlines job as pilot and join politics as she wanted the mantle of political leadership fall on her own son and none else. But to say it was at his mother’s “request” may be too much given the Indian traditions and culture. The word “request” she used may be because of her not being that much acquainted with the Indian traditions and ethos. In India mothers do not request their sons, the former only wish or desire which need not be expressed in so many words. Sons come to understand their parents’ wish in the normal course because of the family chord of understanding. It is the sons who act to fulfil the wishes of their parents.
But her claim that she joined politics “at Rajiv’s request” looks quite incongruous.
Those who know the facts know that immediately after the unfortunate assassination of Rajiv Gandhi, Mrs. Sonia Gandhi refused to jump into politics join and lead the Congress Party despite the likes of Arjun Singh and others making numerous pleadings before her at 10 Janpath. If it genuinely was Rajiv’s ‘request’, nothing could have been a better tribute from her than to instantly ‘join politics’ in fulfillment of his ‘request’ and enrol as a Congress worker (leader) to accomplish the work left unfinished by Rajiv’s sudden and untimely death.
On the contrary, it was only in March 1996 (about five years after Rajiv’s death) that she ultimately relented and joined as an ordinary Congress worker. It was a different matter that immediately after that she was catapulted to the centrestage of Congress politics and became the Congress President consequent upon the then Congress President, Sitaram Kesri, having been made to make a departure most humiliating for a person of his stature.
So the question still remains: When did Rajiv “request” her to join politics?
If he did ‘request’ her in his life time, she should have given Rajiv the pleasure of acting as per his ‘request’ when he was alive. Did she have some reservations then? Further, why did she wait for five years after his death to accede to his ‘request’?
Therefore, it remains a mystery as to when did Rajiv ‘request’ her to join politics and whether her decision to join politics was genuinely prompted by Rajiv’s ‘request’.
At the time of resigning as MP as also Chairman of the National Advisory Council after some opposition parties had filed a memorandum with the President of India for her disqualification on account of her holding an office of profit, she said: 'I have stated earlier also that I am in politics and public life not for my selfish ends …I have taken a pledge to serve the people of the country and to protect secular ideals. “
To cherish and realize these high ideals, she should have joined politics much earlier and, at least, the moment Rajiv made a ‘request’ to do so. Why she didn’t is anybody’s guess!
***
By Amba Charan Vashishth
“Myself and Rajiv (Gandhi) were never interested in politics. Rajiv joined politics on the request of Indiraji, while I joined it at Rajiv’s request”.
This is what INDIA TODAY (August 13 2007 issue) quotes Congress President, Mrs. Sonia Gandhi as having said.
There is no dispute as far as the first part of the statement of both Sonia and Rajiv “never (being) interested in politics” is concerned. But it is the second part that “Rajiv joined politics on the request of Indiraji“ and me “at Rajiv’s request” that rattles the ears.
It is true that after the death of Sanjay Gandhi whom Mrs. Indira Gandhi had groomed as her political heir in preference to the ‘disinterested’ Rajiv, she did make the latter reluctantly agree to quit his Indian Airlines job as pilot and join politics as she wanted the mantle of political leadership fall on her own son and none else. But to say it was at his mother’s “request” may be too much given the Indian traditions and culture. The word “request” she used may be because of her not being that much acquainted with the Indian traditions and ethos. In India mothers do not request their sons, the former only wish or desire which need not be expressed in so many words. Sons come to understand their parents’ wish in the normal course because of the family chord of understanding. It is the sons who act to fulfil the wishes of their parents.
But her claim that she joined politics “at Rajiv’s request” looks quite incongruous.
Those who know the facts know that immediately after the unfortunate assassination of Rajiv Gandhi, Mrs. Sonia Gandhi refused to jump into politics join and lead the Congress Party despite the likes of Arjun Singh and others making numerous pleadings before her at 10 Janpath. If it genuinely was Rajiv’s ‘request’, nothing could have been a better tribute from her than to instantly ‘join politics’ in fulfillment of his ‘request’ and enrol as a Congress worker (leader) to accomplish the work left unfinished by Rajiv’s sudden and untimely death.
On the contrary, it was only in March 1996 (about five years after Rajiv’s death) that she ultimately relented and joined as an ordinary Congress worker. It was a different matter that immediately after that she was catapulted to the centrestage of Congress politics and became the Congress President consequent upon the then Congress President, Sitaram Kesri, having been made to make a departure most humiliating for a person of his stature.
So the question still remains: When did Rajiv “request” her to join politics?
If he did ‘request’ her in his life time, she should have given Rajiv the pleasure of acting as per his ‘request’ when he was alive. Did she have some reservations then? Further, why did she wait for five years after his death to accede to his ‘request’?
Therefore, it remains a mystery as to when did Rajiv ‘request’ her to join politics and whether her decision to join politics was genuinely prompted by Rajiv’s ‘request’.
At the time of resigning as MP as also Chairman of the National Advisory Council after some opposition parties had filed a memorandum with the President of India for her disqualification on account of her holding an office of profit, she said: 'I have stated earlier also that I am in politics and public life not for my selfish ends …I have taken a pledge to serve the people of the country and to protect secular ideals. “
To cherish and realize these high ideals, she should have joined politics much earlier and, at least, the moment Rajiv made a ‘request’ to do so. Why she didn’t is anybody’s guess!
***
Friday, August 10, 2007
Public representatives superior to public?
Public representative superior to public?
By Amba Charan Vashishth
The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India was more than generous when it “drew a clear distinction between an MP and a common man and said elected representatives cannot be denied the right to vote in the presidential election even if they are serving a sentence in criminal cases or lodged in prison as undertrials.”
But the verdict raises more questions than it answers. Article 14 of the Constitution stipulates: The State shall not deny to any person equality before law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India”. And Article 15 prohibits the State to “discriminate against any citizen on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth or any of them”. Obviously, it also implies that no person can be favoured or disfavoured on grounds of his position “as an elected representative of the people” because laws of the country are equal to all – ordinary citizens or elected representatives who, in turn are, citizens first and elected representatives afterwards. Representatives are elected for a term of 5 years but citizens are so for the whole of their life.
Further, as per law a member of the legislature (MP or MLA) ceases to be so on being convicted for a criminal offence for a term of more than two years by a court of law.
In the instant cases, the MPs like Shibbo Soren, continue to be in jail because their conviction and sentence have not been stayed by the superior court, although it equally is a fact that the highest court of the country, the Supreme Court, has as yet not given its final verdict. It is a travesty of our judicial and legislative system and, perhaps, because of flaw or weakness of our law that on the pretext of a final word not having yet been said by the highest court, jails seem to have been converted into working offices of our honourable representatives of the people undergoing their punishment of life sentence or other rigorous imprisonments for heinous crimes. They continue to enjoy their pay, perks, privileges and disburse discretionary development funds at their disposal, although they are not performing any of the functions for which they have been elected by the people. In other words, they will continue to be MPs and MLAs for a full term for all intents and purposes even if convicted and in jail, courtesy our courts.
Therefore, it is unreasonable – even against the letter and spirit of law and the Constitution -- to draw a clear distinction between an MP and a common man, as the Supreme Court did when it said “elected representatives cannot be denied the right to vote in the presidential election even if they are serving a sentence in criminal cases or lodged in prison as undertrials” when it said MPs represent a constituency and the entire population of the constituency cannot be debarred from the indirect method of elections.
When the Election Commission announced the schedule for election to the posts of President and Vice-President, a number of seats in Parliament and in State assemblies were vacant for various reasons. It clearly meant that “the entire population” of these constituencies stood “debarred from the indirect method of elections.”
On that analogy, no election to the office of the President or Vice-President should be held till there is no vacancy in either houses of Central and State legislatures because otherwise doing so will amount to “debarring the entire population of these constituencies” from the “indirect method of elections”. You cannot take one stand in the case of constituencies represented by elected representatives convicted by courts for heinous crimes and those who have lost their representatives for reasons beyond the control of the electorate.
All MPs and MLAs did not cast their vote in the election. In other words, while the Supreme Court felt it could not debar “the entire population of the constituency…… from the indirect method of elections”, the respective public representatives did exercise their unchallenged discretion to deny or debar “the entire population of these constituencies” from the “indirect method of elections”. What the Supreme Court thought it fit to abjure, the elected representatives considered it their privilege to endure. Should the right of our elected representatives not also be his “duty” to the people?
As per law, the individual out of the two contestants, who received a point more than 50 percent of the votes polled (5,47,600 out of 10,95,194 votes) would have been declared a winner.
It is hazardous to presume that the conviction of all the MPs and MLAs will, ultimately, stand in the Supreme Court. Taking a hypothetical view, supposing if it does, that means the candidate who won would stand to lose the votes the convicted MPs and MLAs cast, upsetting the apple-cart of the winning candidate if the victory margin was a wafer thin one.
Some may argue that the day they cast their vote, they were eligible to exercise their right to franchise. But equally true is the fact that the day they cast their vote, they stood convicted and their conviction had not been suspended. Therefore, they were not legally eligible to vote on that day. ***
By Amba Charan Vashishth
The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India was more than generous when it “drew a clear distinction between an MP and a common man and said elected representatives cannot be denied the right to vote in the presidential election even if they are serving a sentence in criminal cases or lodged in prison as undertrials.”
But the verdict raises more questions than it answers. Article 14 of the Constitution stipulates: The State shall not deny to any person equality before law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India”. And Article 15 prohibits the State to “discriminate against any citizen on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth or any of them”. Obviously, it also implies that no person can be favoured or disfavoured on grounds of his position “as an elected representative of the people” because laws of the country are equal to all – ordinary citizens or elected representatives who, in turn are, citizens first and elected representatives afterwards. Representatives are elected for a term of 5 years but citizens are so for the whole of their life.
Further, as per law a member of the legislature (MP or MLA) ceases to be so on being convicted for a criminal offence for a term of more than two years by a court of law.
In the instant cases, the MPs like Shibbo Soren, continue to be in jail because their conviction and sentence have not been stayed by the superior court, although it equally is a fact that the highest court of the country, the Supreme Court, has as yet not given its final verdict. It is a travesty of our judicial and legislative system and, perhaps, because of flaw or weakness of our law that on the pretext of a final word not having yet been said by the highest court, jails seem to have been converted into working offices of our honourable representatives of the people undergoing their punishment of life sentence or other rigorous imprisonments for heinous crimes. They continue to enjoy their pay, perks, privileges and disburse discretionary development funds at their disposal, although they are not performing any of the functions for which they have been elected by the people. In other words, they will continue to be MPs and MLAs for a full term for all intents and purposes even if convicted and in jail, courtesy our courts.
Therefore, it is unreasonable – even against the letter and spirit of law and the Constitution -- to draw a clear distinction between an MP and a common man, as the Supreme Court did when it said “elected representatives cannot be denied the right to vote in the presidential election even if they are serving a sentence in criminal cases or lodged in prison as undertrials” when it said MPs represent a constituency and the entire population of the constituency cannot be debarred from the indirect method of elections.
When the Election Commission announced the schedule for election to the posts of President and Vice-President, a number of seats in Parliament and in State assemblies were vacant for various reasons. It clearly meant that “the entire population” of these constituencies stood “debarred from the indirect method of elections.”
On that analogy, no election to the office of the President or Vice-President should be held till there is no vacancy in either houses of Central and State legislatures because otherwise doing so will amount to “debarring the entire population of these constituencies” from the “indirect method of elections”. You cannot take one stand in the case of constituencies represented by elected representatives convicted by courts for heinous crimes and those who have lost their representatives for reasons beyond the control of the electorate.
All MPs and MLAs did not cast their vote in the election. In other words, while the Supreme Court felt it could not debar “the entire population of the constituency…… from the indirect method of elections”, the respective public representatives did exercise their unchallenged discretion to deny or debar “the entire population of these constituencies” from the “indirect method of elections”. What the Supreme Court thought it fit to abjure, the elected representatives considered it their privilege to endure. Should the right of our elected representatives not also be his “duty” to the people?
As per law, the individual out of the two contestants, who received a point more than 50 percent of the votes polled (5,47,600 out of 10,95,194 votes) would have been declared a winner.
It is hazardous to presume that the conviction of all the MPs and MLAs will, ultimately, stand in the Supreme Court. Taking a hypothetical view, supposing if it does, that means the candidate who won would stand to lose the votes the convicted MPs and MLAs cast, upsetting the apple-cart of the winning candidate if the victory margin was a wafer thin one.
Some may argue that the day they cast their vote, they were eligible to exercise their right to franchise. But equally true is the fact that the day they cast their vote, they stood convicted and their conviction had not been suspended. Therefore, they were not legally eligible to vote on that day. ***
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
