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. ***
Tuesday, August 28, 2007
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)
