shaktimat

TURNING GUJARAT RIOTS INTO A RIOT OF POLITICS

2011-04-27T04:04:00.000-07:00

TURNING GUJARAT RIOTS INTO A RIOT OF POLITICS

By A. C. Vashishth

New claims surfacing every other day about the 2002 Gujarat riots are puzzling and, to an extent, intriguing because of the contradictory nature of the claims and the counter-claims. This game of one-upmanship is likely only to hinder the process of reaching down to the bottom of the truth. The only hope remains the Supreme Court which is sure to clear the untimely clouds of doubts raised by contradictory and conflicting statements and claims.

A Gujarat IPS officer, Sanjeev Bhatt, in his affidavit in the Supreme Court has claimed that the Chief Minister Narendra Modi in a meeting held on February 27, 2002 expressed the view that Hindus be allowed to vent out their anger.” Media reports quoting sources close to him said he was referring to the affidavit in the Zakia Jaffery case. (http://www.dayandnightnews.com/2011/04/gujarat-ips-officer-alleges-modis-complicity-in-2002-riots/)

The media has gone on to describe this disclosure as a great blow to Mr. Modi and raised finger at his involvement.

On the other hand, K. Chakrabarthi, Gujarat's Director General of Police at the time of post-Godhra riots has said: "He (Sanjiv Bhatt) was not present in that particular meeting held with the Chief Minister and other high-ranking officials. I have told this to the Special Investigation Team (probing the riots) during my deposition." (http://www.asianage.com/india/ips-officer-bhatt-not-present-meeting-modi-guj-ex-dgp-561)

Another queer allegation has been hurled by another IAS officer Mr. Pradeep Sharma, an officer suspended by the Modi government. Mr. Sharma is behind bars for his involvement in an alleged land scam case. He says that he was called by the chief minister’s office and told to ask his elder brother Kuldip, then posted as IG of Ahmedabad range, “that he should abstain from taking any proactive measures in favour of minorities”. (Mail Today, April 26m 2011, P.3)

Does it imply that Mr. Modi thought that IG Kuldip was so high an official that a chief minister dare not speak directly to him and, therefore, he had to seek the assistance of a junior officer and Kuldip’s younger brother to convey his wishes? Does it also mean that the CM perhaps thought that Mr. Kuldip may defy him but will comply with the wishes and directions of his younger brother, Mr. Pradeep Sharma?

Efforts seem to be afoot to put some words in the mouth of Mr. Narendra Modi and to prove through the evidence of certain persons who have now preferred to open their mouth, for unexplained reasons, only after nine years.

But surprisingly our media and politicians are more willing to jump at the ‘truth’ of Mr. Pradeep Sharma’s and Mr. Bhatt’s statement than giving weight to the words of latter’s boss.
GUJARAT & ANTI-SIKH RIOTS
Anti-Sikh riots broke out following the unfortunate assassination of late prime minister Mrs. Indira Gandhi but, surprisingly, remained confined only to Congress-ruled States in the country resulting in merciless killing of more than 5,000 Sikhs (almost more than double the number that died in Gujarat riots). The then Prime Minister late Mr. Rajiv Gandhi is on record having justified the Sikh genocide saying, “When a big tree falls the earth shakes around it.” The tremors will be felt all the way up to Delhi. (http://www.indianexpress.com/res/web/pIe/columnists/print.php?content_id=85795)
Yet, Mr. Rajiv Gandhi continues be a great ‘secular’ icon. Nobody raises fingers at him. This also exposes the hypocrisy, morality, impartiality and fairness of our ‘secular’ intelligentsia.
That is the way of Indian politics, ‘secularism’ and system of justice. No court, so far, seems to have taken cognizance of this confession. More than half a commissions of inquiry into the anti-Sikh riots have testified to the fact that the Police administration and the then Lt. Governor had stood like a silent spectator to the orgy against Sikhs. No official has been punished. No leader is behind bars. In Gujarat numerous politicians have been convicted and many are languishing behind bars. Justice still eludes the women widowed, children orphaned and elders snatched their life support during the anti-Sikh riots even after 26 years.
Compare where do Mr. Rajiv Gandhi and Mr. Narendra Modi stand in the estimation of our ‘secular’ media, intelligentsia and human rights activists all over the world? ***

IS HAMAAM MEIN SAB NANGE -- MEDIA BHI

2011-04-26T08:39:00.000-07:00

इस हमाम में सब नंगे, मीडिया भी

-- अन्‍तर्यामी

साप्‍ताहिक चौथी दुनिया ने अपने 25–—01 मई, 2011 के अपने अंक में ''26 लाख करोड् का महाघोटाला'' शीर्षक से मुख्‍य पृष्‍ठ पर एक रिपोर्ट छापी है जिस में कोयला मन्‍ञालय में हुये घोटाले का पर्दाफाश करने का दावा किया है। संयोगवश इस मन्‍ञालय का प्रभार स्‍वयं प्रधान मन्‍ञी डा0 मनमोहन सिंह के पास है।

साप्‍ताहिक के अनुसार इस घोटाले की जानकारी उन्‍हें मध्‍य प्रदेश के भारतीय जनता पार्टी सांसद श्री हंसराज गंगाराम अहीर से प्राप्‍त हुई जिन्‍होंने अपने पञ दिनांक 18 नवम्‍बर 2010 को कंटरोलर एवं आडिटर जनरल आफ इण्डिया (सीएजी) को इसकी विस्‍तृत जानकारी दे दी है। सीएजी कार्यालय ने भी अपने पञ संख्‍या AMG-III/Coal Blocks/MP/2010-11/216. दिनांक 8 दिसम्‍बर 2010 द्वारा इसकी पावती सांसद महोदय को भेज दी है। अब इसकी जांच के बाद सीएजी किस निष्‍कर्ष पर पहुंचते हैं और अपनी क्‍या रिपोर्ट भेजेंगे यह तो समय ही बतायेगा।

पर इतना अवश्‍य है कि अभी तक इस संसनीखेज् रहस्‍योदघाटन पर सरकार ने अपनी जुबान नहीं खोली है। न आरोप लगाने बाला ही कोई मामूली व्‍यक्ति है और न ही छापने वाला कोई थैलाछाप समाचारपञ। आरोप एक जिम्‍मेदार सांसद ने लगाये हैं और एक ऐसे साप्‍ताहिक ने छापे हैं जो ब्‍लैकमेलर नहीं माना जाता। यह सा‍प्‍ताहिक 1986 से छप रहा है जिसे एक पूर्व सांसद निकाल रहे हैं।

सांसद और पञकार दोनों ही जानते है कि इतने गम्‍भीर आरोप लगाने का हशर क्‍या हो सकता है। झूठे आरोप लगाना एक आपराधिक कुकर्म है जिस कारण उन्‍हें जेल भी हो सकती है और मानहानि के जुर्म में भारी जुर्माना भी भरना पड सकता है।

सरकार को भी पता है कि चुप्‍पी सदैव निर्दोष होने का सबूत नहीं होती। कुछ लोग इसका अर्थ दोष की स्‍वीकारोक्ति भी मानते हैं। वैसे आज निर्दोष होने के दावे की कोई विश्‍वसनीयता भी नहीं बची है। 2जी स्‍पैक्‍टरम घोटाला हो या कामनवैल्‍थ खेल घोटाला सरकार के मन्‍ञी ए राजा और सुरेश कलमाडी भी छाती ठोंक कर निर्दोष होने का डंका पीटते थे। दोष और निर्दोष का निर्णय न तो आरोपी स्‍वयं ही कर सकता है और न इस पर जनता ही अपना फतवा सुना सकती है। इसका निर्णय तो अन्‍तता अदालत को ही करना होता है।

पर इस सारे प्रकरण में मीडिया की भी पोल खुल गई है। अपने आपको सदा सतर्क, निर्भीक, निष्‍पक्ष और अपने कर्तव्‍य के प्रति ईमानदार होने का दावा भरने वाला मीडिया आज स्‍वयं कटघरे में खडा दिख रहा है।

किसी बडे नेता, विशेषकर गुजरात के मुख्‍य मन्‍ञी नरेन्‍द्र मोदी के, स्‍वामीरामदेव के विरूद्व कोई भी छुटभैयया नेता या नौकाशाह आरोप लगा दे। कोई भी कुछ बोल दे। कोई अनजान स्‍वयंसेवी संस्‍था का सदस्‍य कोई आरोप जड् दे तो यह मीडिया के लिये एक ब्रेकिंग न्‍यूज बन जाती है जिस के लिये हमारी न्‍यूज चैनल घंटों का समय दे देते है। लम्‍बी लम्‍बी चर्चाये शूरू कर देते हैं वह। हमारे समाचार पत्रों के प़ृष्‍ठ भरे पडे रहते हैं। पर अब जब कि एक साप्‍ताहिक पत्र् ने एक सांसद के हवाले से गम्‍भीर आरोप लगाये हैं तो हमारे निर्भीक, निष्‍पक्ष, स्‍वतन्‍त्र् और अन्‍वेषी पत्रकारों की तो मानों आंख पर ही पटटी बंध गई हैख्‍ जुबान बन्‍द हो गई है।

यह एक ऐसा मौका था जब हमारे पञकारों को अपनी कौशलता, निर्भीकता, स्‍वतंञता व ईमानदारी के सिक्‍के जमा सकते थे। इस समाचार व आरोप को परम सत्‍य का रूप मान लेना भी उतना ही गलत होगा जितना कि उसे सफेद झूठ कह कर नकार देनाा न मीडिया ही इस पर अपना अन्तिम निर्णय सुना सकता है। पर इतना तो अवश्‍य है कि जैसे अन्‍य समाचारों व आरोपों पर मीडिया अपना मत व अपनी टिप्‍पणी प्रस्‍तुत करना अपना नैतिक कर्तव्‍य समझता है, वैसी ही कर्तव्‍यपरायण्‍ता का प्रदर्शन व परिचय उसे इस रहस्‍योदघाटन पर भी करना चाहिये था। वह सत्‍य की तह तक जाकर या उसे नकार देता या स्‍वीकार कर लेता। मीडिया का यह तो ऐसा अधिकार है जिसे भारत सरीखे जनतंञ में कोई चुनौति नहीं दे सकता। पर इस कर्तव्‍यपरायणता से मीडिया अपना पल्‍लू भी नहीं झाड् सकता। ऐसे में तो मीडिया की चुप्‍पी भी उतनी ही रहस्‍यमयी बन जायेगी जितनी कि सरकार की। तब तो इस हमाम में सब नंगे हैं वाली कहावत ही चरितार्थ हो जायेगी--मीडिया भी।

OLD DUD versus AMUL BABY

2011-04-16T00:15:00.000-07:00

Old dud Vs. Amul Baby Hypocrisy -- Secular India’s proud political creed By Antaryami India may be a secular country yet, it seems, hypocrisy has evolved itself into a national creed of the political life of the country, unofficially by practice. Our politicians take pride in criticizing their opponents, calling names and going sarcastic. But when their target retaliates and they are at the receiving end, they cry: “foul, uncivilized, unbecoming behaviour”. The problem with our political class is that normally it doesn’t think before it opens its mouth. Offence, this class believes, is the best form of defence. But it forgets that when it targets somebody, that person is not going to take things lying down and will retaliate in self-defence, may be more offensively, more fiercely and more forcefully. Mahatma Gandhi may have preached that if somebody slaps you on one cheek, offer him the other. But this has never worked. It never happened even in his time, nor does it today. It is natural – and human too – that if somebody hits the other, the latter is most likely certain to strike back. Therefore, if somebody calls bad names, slaps or hits the other, the aggrieved may prove to be more foul mouthed and may hit back by hurling a hundred abuses and beating him into dough. In that eventuality if the person who tried to strike first grumbles that he has been maltreated, inhumanly beaten or abused, sympathy will lie with the person who was the victim first. The golden principle is that before you venture to be on the offensive to be the first to slap a person, you should first be chivalrous and gracious to be ready for a backlash -- to bear 10 or 50 slaps in revenge. Since India won independence, when was political sarcasm and abuse absent? When Mrs. Indira Gandhi was made the prime minister, Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia had dubbed her goongi gudia, a dumb doll. He had also remarked: Nehru gave his ornaments to his daughter and his ashes to the country. The late Prime Minister P. V. Narasimha Rao was repeatedly called mauni baba (a silent saint) Late Mrs. Tarkeshwari Sinha was a deputy minister for finance in Pandit Nehru’s council of ministers. She herself reminiscenced once that when she gave a reply to a question in parliament, a member pointed out that there were discrepancies in the figures quoted by her. On this a member remarked: Let us examine the figure of the minister and then find the difference. She said everybody laughed in the house. Calling our political opponents as chor (thief), daaku (dacoit), corrupt, exploiter, etc. is order of the day. We commonly hear the slogans, “gali gali mein shore hai,…..chore hai”, “is gali-sadi sarkar ko ek dhakka aur do”. Till about five-six years back we cherished the BSP’s pet political slogan: Tilak, tarazoo aur talwar – Inko maro joote chaar”. How many and who had protested then? It is the trick of the game of politics (and election) that one must hit the opponent where it pinches (or punches) the most; touch the raw nerve. This seems what Congress general secretary Rahul Gandhi did when while campaigning in Kerala elections he poked fun at State chief minister V. S. Achuthanandan’s age saying: “If LDF is re-elected, Kerala will have a 93-year old as chief minister in five years time”. Politics, somebody rightly said, is the art of making fool of as many people as one can for votes and whoever succeeds in striking the highest score, wins. It seems to be in line with this doctrine that Congress youth icon derided in Kerala Achhutanandan’s advanced age but in the neighbouring Tamil Nadu he campaigned for M. Karunanidhi for CM who is no less aged than Achuthanandan. Incensed at this remark, Kerala CM hit back: “I need not tell you that Rahul Gandhi is Sonia Gandhi’s son. Rahul Gandhi is an Amul baby. He has launched a large number of Amul babies as Congress candidates”. He further claimed that by the age of 16 he was fighting the British and questioned, "Please tell me where was Rahul Gandhi (politically) before he was 40 years." He did not spare the defence minister too. "Pakistan terrorists came through the sea route to Mumbai and mounted an attack which shocked the nation. Was the Defence Minister in deep slumber, like Kumbhakarna then?" he taunted. In the current political atmosphere, where is the justification for taking offence at such electoral flings when the Congress leaders too have not been that polite and ‘civilized’? It was, therefore, surprising when Finance Minister Pranab Mukherjee called the Achuthanandan comment on Rahul Gandhi as “uncivilized” and Congress spokesperson Abhishek Manu Singhvi calling it “an insult to entire youth of the country”, little realizing that Rahul may be youth icon for Congress but not for the whole youth of the country. And then every leader in every party is an icon for some section or the other. In our country, as a newspaper put it, a 50-year politician is taken as a young man and Mr. Rahul Gandhi is only 40. Moreover, a bachelor is always taken as a boy. Copying the western style we even call an 80 year old person the “birthday boy” on the day he celebrates his birth. The fact is that we are very touchy when the sting hurts us. Otherwise, we enjoy it when it hurts the other person -- our opponent. When did the Congress lag behind in hurling abuses and insults on its opponents? Late Mrs. Indira Gandhi took pride in dubbing everybody who opposed her or the Congress as “anti-national”. During the last Gujarat assembly election campaign, Congress President Mrs. Sonia Gandhi had called Gujarat CM Narendra Modi as maut ka saudagar. Did she or Congress apologise? Who among the politicians has been found amiss in this game of political name calling? During the election campaign Mr. Lalu Prasad Yadav had called Bihar CM Nitish Kumar as emperor Nero when Patna had been submerged during monsoons. At other time he had called Nitish a combination of Adolf Hitler and Joseph Gobbles. His wife Mrs. Rabri Devi had used the word jamai (son-in-law) for some leader. People’s Democratic Party leader had called J&K CM Omar Abdullah as “Blackberry boy”. Punjab Congress chief Capt. Amrinder Singh had branded Punjab Deputy CM Sukhbir Singh Badal (son of Punjab CM Prakash Singh Badal) as balungra (kitten). At different times Mr. L. K. Advani had called Prime Minister Dr. Manmohan Singh as a weak prime minister. Mr. George Fernandes had once called Mrs. Sonia Gandhi as jhoothi challenging her qualifications. Idioms and sayings are the very treasure of any language. These provide richness to the language and help give a better expression and understanding of a situation or a person. Joote chaatn (lick somebody’s feet), kutte ki tarah poonch hilana (wag tale like a dog), kutte ki poonchh jitni bhi seedhi karo, tedhi he rahegi (however you try, dog’s tail will never get straightened), apna ullu sidha karma (serve your purpose) and the like. But when these words and sayings are used in writing or speeches of politicians, the persons for whom these expressions are used, take objection to it. Does that mean that our political class wants all these sayings and idioms to be taken out of our dictionaries and literature? It is time our politicians either stopped hurling abuses or making fun of others. Or they should have the moral strength to put up with the counter-attacks by others if the party tried to be even with them using the same weapons of offence. When a bull will try to attack a person, the latter is sure to catch it by the horns. Nobody should then cry foul.

UPA as QUATTROCCHI's DEFENCE COUNSEL?

2011-03-02T06:40:00.000-08:00

UPA government as Quattrochi’s defence counsel

By Amba Charan Vashishth

It was never in doubt that Congress and Bofors were real cousins, inseparable. Ottavio Quattrocchi, the main accused in the Bofors pay-off scandal had never concealed his relations with the Gandhis. An India Today report (http://indiatoday.intoday.in/site/Story/125661/india/%E2%80%98quattrocchi-had-free-access-to-gandhis%E2%80%99.html?complete=1) states that Ottavio Quattrocchi's personal driver Sasi Dharan in his deposition talks about multiple meetings between Quattrocchi and the Gandhis. These meetings continued right up to May 1993, till just before Ottavio Quattrocchi fled India for good. In his testimony before the CBI, Sasi gave details of the frequent meetings between the Gandhis and the Quattrocchis.

It is important to note that the meetings between Ottavio Quattrochi and Mrs. Sonia Gandhi continued even after Rajiv Gandhi’s death in 1991. Quattrocchi came to 10 Janpath 21 times after May 1991, he adds.

But when Quattrochi was allowed to slip out of the country during a Congress government in power at the Centre, the Congress and Mrs. Sonia Gandhi claimed that they had no role to play.

During the UPA-I under the leadership of Dr. Manmohan Singh not a leaf could rattle without the implied nod of the Congress supremo Mrs. Sonia Gandhi. During this period the then Law Minister H. R. Bharadwaj made the Additional Solicitor General of India especially fly to London to get the Quattrochi bank accounts defreezed at the cost of the people. This was done in spite of the fact that a red corner notice against Quattrochi issued at the behest of the Government of India was still there at that time.

When the eyebrows were raised, the Congress once again said that it had nothing to do with the case. Yet, everybody then knew that the Law Minister Bharadwaj (later rewarded with the office of a governor) was no naïve as not to distinguish between what would send a smile on the face of the madam.

But the gin of Bofors deal, now long considered dead, appeared once again to haunt the Congress and the Congress-led Manmohan government when the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) named Italian middleman Ottavio Quattrocchi as one of the beneficiaries of the kickbacks. An ITAT order dated December 31, 2010, said “payments were made illegally as the government of India’s policy did not allow middleman in defence deals”. Quattrocchi and Win Chadha are accused of receiving `41 crore in illegal kickbacks in the Bofors gun purchase scandal of the mid-1980s. “Bofors admittedly paid the amounts to AE Services, Ottavio Quattrocchi and other entities. It’s a liability for withholding tax is built in. Ottavio Quattrocchi was living in India for a considerable time. This issue about his tax residence status should have been verified,” the order said.

So far maintaining that it had nothing to do with the Quattrochi case, this time Congress, after initially refusing to comment for about a week, had to come out seeking to pick holes in the ITAT order, wondering as to how the name of Ottavio Quattrochi figures in it. But why should the party wonder and worry when it had nothing to do with Quattrochi?

"We all know that in IT proceedings, you cannot deal with third parties. This was a case about assessment of income of Win Chaddha. In the 98-page order, Quattrochi's name comes on the 94th page. Technical question arises as to how his name came," party spokesman Abhishek Singhvi told reporters. He alleged that whenever an individual's name comes up in the Bofors case, it is sought to be "mischievously and misleadingly and deliberately" linked to the Congress party and Rajiv Gandhi. "That is the most unfortunate part".

Congress embarrassment is understandable because of the close family links between the Quattrochis and Gandhis which have never been a secret. Congress Party should know that names of both Win Chaddha and Quattrochi had appeared as the two beneficiaries of the Bofors loot. Therefore, both the names are like Siamese twins, inseparable.

But, what is more surprising is the report in the media (Times of India, February 15) that the government “is readying to appeal the Delhi high court to erase an unexpected tribunal order stricturing the Income Tax department for failing to proceed against Italian businessman Ottavio Quattrocchi for non-payment of tax on the kickback money he received from the Bofors gun deal”.

The department got a favourable order from the ITAT on December 31 last year against former Bofors agent Win Chaddha's son, Hersh Chaddha, asking him to pay up tax dues on the commission from the gun deal with interest, totalling nearly Rs 50 crore. But it turned bitter for the Manmohan government the moment Quattrochi’s name surfaced.

It will turn out to be the rarest of the rare cases when the Government will go in for an appeal against the order in its own favour because the Income Tax Department and the Manmohan government are not two different entities. It is only the aggrieved party which goes in appeal against the judgement of the court. While Quattrochi can be the aggrieved party, how can the UPA government or the Congress?

After acting as the Quattrochi counsels to get his two freezed London bank accounts defreezed, the Congress-led Manmohan government will once again be acting as Quattrochi counsel at the expense of the aam aadmi to get his name deleted from the ITAT order which, in effect will mean pleading to seek loss of revenue to the government and which appeal, in the normal course, should have been filed by Quattrochi himself.

That will only confirm the suspicions in the minds of the people of India, nothing else.

Prime Minister's Media Interaction

2011-02-17T04:43:00.000-08:00

Manmohan’s Interaction with media<
‘Culprit’ but not that much
Caught in adharma of ‘coalition dharma’

By Amba Charan Vashishth

Prime Minister Dr. Manohan Singh went in for an interaction with editors of electronic media. In sum, he made the following important points.

Dr. Manmohan Singh admitted that he is “a culprit but not that much” as is being painted by the media.

He thinks that his duty ends with attending only to those matters that are brought to his notice by the ministers or his office. He has nothing to do with what goes on below his nose in various ministries of the government over whom he presides.

He doesn’t feel responsible for what right or wrong goes on in the PMO or the department of space research (ISRO) directly under him. He admits that he received a letter in July 2010 regarding S-spectrum and if he failed to take action, to guide the department how to act and to prevent a wrong that was committed and for which the nation, according to one estimate, is to be made to cough up a loss of about ` 2 lakh crores is not his business.

On 2G spectrum scam he forgot that he had given a clean chit to his former telecom minister A. Raja and even publicly patted his back after Raja resigned. He admits that he told Mr. Raja to do everything in a transparent manner according to his government’s policy and according to rules. He further said: “f the ministry of finance and ministry of telecom both agree…I did not feel I was in a position to insist that auctions must be insisted” an admission of helplessness. Yet he is the prime minister.

As per Press reports (The Times of India, February 17) Finance Minister P. Chidambaram wrote to Prime Minister that “…if a licensee sells his licence (including spectrum) to another person, it could be stipulated that the licensee should share with govt a part of the premium/profit gained…through the sale”.. If not PM, who was to do it? Why did PM not act and issue any direction to Mr. Raja?

Dr. Manmohan Singh did confess that a number of scams did take place under his regime but tried to explain these away as “aberration”. So many scams, yet these are all ‘aberrations’.

He refused to accept responsibility for what went on in his council of ministers. The council of ministers is individually and collectively responsible for all the acts of omission and commission. He tried to feign ignorance about the provisions of Article 75(3) of the Constitution which says: “The Council of Ministers shall be collectively responsible to the House of the People”.

Some time back Dr. Manmohan Singh did take pride in comparing his government to that of Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru. But he forgot that in Nehru’s cabinet ministers resigned the moment a finger of suspicion was raised at them. But Dr. Manmohan Singh himself is bold to declare that nobody can be held guilty till convicted by a court of law. Whether it was the then finance minister T. T. Krishnamachari and others, they resigned the moment their names appeared in a bad colour. Late Lal Bahadur Shastri resigned in 1956 when 144 people were killed in a train accident. Late Shastri was not driving the railway train himself, nor was he a station master or the signal man. Yet he resigned taking moral responsibility for the mishap. But here is the Manmohan government where none, including the prime minister, has the courage to take moral responsibility for the numerous scams that have taken place under this government. Yet Dr. Manmohan Singh compares his cabinet with that of Pandit Nehru.

Dr. Manmohan Singh said that opinions can be different but “facts are sacred”. But he, or his government, did not treat the facts pointed out by the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) of India on 2G spectrum scam. His ministers and party imputed motives to the conduct of CAG, an institution of the Constitution.

More surprising was his comparing the loss calculated in the issue of 2G spectrum with the food subsidy. Was his government extending a subsidy to those whom it gave spectrum licences at the cost of the nation? The food subsidy helped the poor to have if not two, one meal, a day. What did the 2G spectrum favours do to the aam aadmi, except filling the pockets of the rich? And that is the allegation against Raja and his government. Only thing he has so far not admitted is that a part of the ‘subsidy’ granted by Raja has percolated to the accounts of some leaders.

He was very aggressive when he put the blame on the opposition for not allowing the two houses of parliament to function during the last winter session on the issue of JPC. He tried to wipe out the impression that he stood in the way of JPC formation as he feared appearing before it. He declared he is ready to appear before both the PAC and the JPC. But now that the Congress seems to have almost conceded the opposition demand for JPC, does it not mean that had the Congress party not been that adamant and unrelenting, the whole winter session would have been saved and parliament functioned normally?

It is difficult to say how proud he felt as a prime minister when he said he did not differ with his Home Minister Chidamabaram who had said that Manmohan government suffered from a “governance and ethical deficit”.

Dr. Manmohan Singh declared that no wrongdoer shall be spared. But when did he not say that? But during the last about seven years of his prime ministership, how many people who did “wrong” have been punished?

He said that “some compromises have to be made in managing a coalition” which conduct he labeled as coalition dharma. But what is important – the interests of the nation or “compromises” to stick to power? Does his “coalition dharma” preach to follow Mahatma Gandhi’s legendary monkeys who speak no evil, hear no evil and see no evil? Does this “dharma” require promoting corruption and promoting the corrupt?

To a pointed question, Dr. Manmohan Singh said he had no plans to quit. He admitted that things were “not entirely what I would like them to be”, yet he had had a job to do and would “stay the course”.

But in May 2010 he is on record having praised Rahul Gandhi saying he had all the qualities to be a prime minister and he expressed his readiness to vacate his chair for Rahul. Dr. Manmohan is not ready to quit accepting moral responsibility for being cornered from all sides from corruption indulged in by his colleagues, but meekly surrender. ***

INDEPENDENT INDIA suffering under a SLAVE GOVERNMENT

2011-02-15T05:44:00.000-08:00

By Amba Charan Vashishth

The various UPA constituents, including the Congress, drew satisfaction from the fact that Congress General Secretary Rahul Gandhi did not name any particular ally when he said that UPA government was “not able to control inflation and corruption as his grandmother and late prime minister Indira Gandhi could do” because of coalition compulsions”.

The new Maharashtra chief minister Prithviraj Chavan echoing Rahul remarks said that coalition politics was sometimes a hurdle in decision making. “Coalition can be a hindrance and one has to find a way out to make things happen”, he said on January 12.

Never did the country have a government as paralysed and as benumbed to act as we have today, particularly since May 2004, called UPA-II under which the Prime Minister is not able to exercise the kind of authority and leadership he should, in the normal course, on the council of ministers, particularly those belonging to the allies.

It is an accepted principle of the parliamentary democracy that it is the unchallenged prerogative of a prime minister to choose his team in the council of ministers and to allocate portfolios. But that is not the case under the present UPA-II government wherein it is not the prime minister but the alliance party bosses who decide who should be the minister (and of what rank) and which portfolio he/she should hold. The prime minister just faithfully abides by the wishes of the allies on whose support his government subsists.

Even in the case of recalcitrant ministers, like the union minister of chemicals and fertilizer M K Azhagiri, the former communications minister A. Raja, railway minister Mamta Banerjee, agriculture minister Sharad Pawar, the prime minister has found himself helpless to act. Mr. Azhagiri has played truant from the parliament and his office for unusually long periods. Despite reports of wrongdoings in communications ministry, Dr. Manmohan Singh and Congress President Mrs. Sonia Gandhi continued to defend him till the last. Even after Manmohan government was left with no alternative but to show the door to Mr. A. Raja on the eve of presentation of CAG report, Congress had to continue to defend him, even after CBI registered a case and conducted raids on Raja’s residence and interrogated him. The question remains: If Mr. Raja was not even a distant suspect in any crime, why at all was he made to resign? Why was he humiliated by conducting raids on his premises and those of his aides? If we go by the stand of the Congress and the DMK, it appears he has been made a scapegoat and punished for no crime of his.

Whatever explanation the Congress Party may proffer, the message has been well read and taken by the people: In independent India we are at present sufferings the pangs of a government that is slave to the circumstances.

Not in control

About a year back when prices started skyrocketing unusually and the aam aadmi was crying aghast, in irritation the Agriculture and Food Minister, Mr. Sharad Pawar, shot back that “I’m no astrologer” when a media person asked Pawar when he expects the prices to fall. But he did behave as an astrologer whose predictions always go wrong when he said a number of times that prices of particular commodities will continue to rise “for another three months” or ease after some time. Our Finance Minister has, on a number of occasions, predicted that inflation and prices will come down in “three-four months” or by the end of the year or so. But each time that didn’t happen.

On January 16, 2011 Mr. Sharad Pawar said that there was a wrong perception (created by media) that the agriculture ministry was responsible for rising prices. In reality, he added, the ministry had no role to play, and that it was entirely dependent on market conditions.

People of the country have voted this government to power to govern and administer and not just to volunteer excuses for non-performance, non –functioning and failures. People are eager to see it work to make their life convenient, easy, safe and secure; they are not interested in excuses.

To rule is easy, said Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, to govern difficult. Messers Rahul, Sharad Pavar or Prithviraj Chavan have only sent out a message loud and clear: this government is not able to perform and is just drifting by various forces beyond their control. A government must anticipate things and takes corrective steps in advance to meet the situation. If price rise and inflation are “entirely dependent on market conditions”; if UPA government was “not able to control inflation and corruption” because of coalition compulsions; if “coalition can be a hindrance (in taking a decision) and one has to find a way out to make things happen”, does it not mean that at the moment there is no a government worth its salt in power in the country? If not those in power who else “has to find a way out to make things happen”?

A government irresponsible

The stance of the UPA government amounts to the government virtually abdicating its authority, right and capacity to govern and administer “entirely” to “market conditions”. Our democracy too seems to have drifted to being a government by the aam aadmi, of the “market conditions” and forces, and for everybody else except the aam aadmi.

Democracy, good governance and modernity, Emile Lahud has rightly said, cannot be imported or imposed from outside a country. And the words of Thomas Jefferson apply aptly to the present Indian conditions when he said: “Experience hath shown that even under the best forms (of government) those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny”.

The confusion has further been worse confounded by the scenario of utter sense of irresponsibility prevailing in the government. Everybody, the prime minister included, washes his hands of the responsibility for everything wrong taking place under their nose.

Atheist turns believer

About thirty years back, a joke was widely quoted in India A leader from the then USSR which being a communist country did not believe in god, on return from a visit to India told his fellow citizens that he had now come to believe that god does exist there. Curious people asked, “How?” He replied: “There was no government worth the name, yet the country was going. God must be running the government and the country”.

Coalition adharma

Of late, we have come to hear of a new terminology of ‘coalition dharma’ which means taking every constituent of the alliance along, giving weightage to each one’s point of view and respecting their feelings which many a time are in conflict with each other. But what is of supreme importance – the ‘coalition dharma’ or the need to govern and perform in the interest of the people for which they had been mandated? Whether it is fighting corruption or terrorism, bringing down prices and inflation or the like, it is the ‘coalition dharma’ that appears to be a stumbling block for any action by the government. It cannot be a dharma but only adharma that can stand in conflict with the interests of the nation and ushers in sufferings for the common people.

Government for what?

If the present UPA dispensation is not to work to solve the burning problems of the country; if it has not to help the aam aadmi come out of his present state of suffering, and the administration has just to drift on its own, what for do we need an army of ministers at the Centre and in States -- just to enjoy the fruits of power at the cost of the people for whom they are not working? In that case a political system without a government would be much more desirable, as it would, at least, save the people of thousands of crores of money which they can spend on themselves to usher in their own prosperity.

Know your Prime Minister Dr. Manmohan Singh

2009-05-23T05:48:00.000-07:00

KNOW YOUR PRIME MINISTER of India
Dr. Manmohan Singh

Born: Sept 26, 1932, in Gah, West Punjab (presently Pakistan)
Married: Sept 14, 1958. Has three daughters —Upender, Daman and Amrit.
Education: M.A., D.Phil (Oxford), D. Litt (Honoris Causa), Educated at Universities of Panjab, Cambridge and Oxford.

Positions Held:

1972-76: Chief Economic Advisor, Ministry of Finance.
1976-80: Director, Reserve Bank of India; director, Industrial Development Bank of India; alternate Governor for India, Board of Governors, Asian Development Bank, Manila; alternate Governor for India, Board of Governors, International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (IBRD).
Nov 1976-April 1980: Secretary, Ministry of Finance (Department of Economic Affairs): member, Finance, Atomic Energy Commission; member, Finance, Space Commission.
April 1980-Sep 1982: Member-Secretary, Planning Commission.
Sept 1982-Jan 1982: Governor, Reserve Bank of India.
1982-85: Alternate Governor for India, Board of Governors, International Monetary Fund (IMF)
1983-84: Member, Economic Advisory Council to the Prime Minister.
Jan 1985-July 1987: Deputy Chairman, Planning Commission.
Aug 1987-Nov 1990: Secretary General and Commissioner, South Commission, Geneva.
Dec 1990-March 1991: Advisor to the Prime Minister of India on Economic Affairs.
March 1991-June 1991: Chairman, University Grants Commission (UGC).
June 1991-May 1996: Union Finance Minister.
Oct 1991: Elected to Rajya Sabha.
1991-95: Governor for India on the Board of Governors of the IMF and IBRD.
June 1995: Re-elected to Rajya Sabha.
1996 onwards: Member, Consultative Committee for the Ministry of Finance.
Aug 1996-Dec 1997: Chairman, Parliamentary Standing Committee on Commerce.
March 1998 onwards: Leader of the Opposition, Rajya Sabha.
June 2001: Re-elected to Rajya Sabha.
May 2004: Appointed Prime Minister of India.
May 22, 2009: Sworn in as Prime Minister of India for the second time.
— IANS
(Courtesy: Saturday, May 23, 2009, Chandigarh, India)

NEEDLEPOINT

2008-11-14T01:40:00.000-08:00

A Bangrappa emerging in Madhya Pradesh?

By Amba Charan Vashishth

One of the weaknesses of Indian system of democracy is the lack of birth control on our political parties. Just as uncontrolled sex is the cause for booming population, so is the uncontrolled ego and ambition the cause of the almost daily birth of our political parties. That is one of the reasons why during the last sixty-one years we have failed to have a ruling party which commanded more than 50 percent of the votes cast. India could never register a poll percentage of more than 70 percent and this only means that India has always been ruled by a party/alliance not commanding the majority support but only a minority of much less than one-third of the total electorate.

It is the feeling of self-righteousness, arrogance and ego fuelled by the henchmen of the leaders that we witness birth of a new party the moment a party fails to satisfy the whims of individuals bred and brought up by it. Equally true is the fact that in political parties justice is not always dispensed to individuals or merit is not always rewarded. But if one believes in inner party democracy, the aggrieved individual should fight for justice and prove the justness of his cause/stand within the party. But, no. Our leaders wish to teach the party and its leadership a lesson for a wrong, they think, has been done to them. Many have the airs that the party exists only because of them; the moment they leave it, it is a void, doomed.

Comparisons may be odious, yet not always out of place. There is a great similarity between the cases of Mr. S. Bangrappa and Sushri Uma Bharati. Both are former chief ministers, one of Karnataka and the other of Madhya Pradesh. They nurture, right or wrong, the grievance against their respective party leadership that they have been wronged.

Mr. Bangrappa was the chief minister of a Congress government in Karnataka. He was made to resign by the high command. On the eve of 1989 assembly elections, he quit Congress, formed his Karnataka Congress Party and contested 218 out of 224 seats. The incumbent Congress government facing an anti-incumbency wave crumbled from a tally of 178 seats to just 34, its vote share crashing down to 26.95% from 43.76%, a loss of 16.81%. Congress loss was shared by BJP by increasing its vote share from 4.14 to 16.99% (seats from 4 to 40) and Janta Dal from 27.08 (24 seats) to 33.54% (115 seats). What cost Congress the power was the Bangarappa's Karnataka Congress slicing 7.31% votes (10 seats).

Politicians seem too eager to get one of their legs amputated if it could make their opponent lose two. Mr. Bangarappa had nothing further to lose; he had already lost power. So his limited and narrow objective was -- if not he, then Congress too not. He drew the vicarious pleasure of making that party lose power which had snatched it from him.

If there is anything like bravery or chivalry in politics, it should either be to ensure victory for self or for own party, but not to a third person in any case. Otherwise, it settles down to monkey business in which the gainer is the third person benefitting from the fight between two uncompromising persons.

What has been the end result? The lone political traveller Mr. Bangarappa who had hogged from one party to the other a number of times temporary halts and shelters in a number of political parties, ultimately, faced the ignominy of a defeat for himself and his sons in the assembly elections. Till 2008 Karnataka elections Mr. Bangarappa had been the invincible hero who never lost an election. But this time his vengeance made him lose both power and prestige.

As things stand today. The Bangrappa history seems to be repeating itself in Madhya Pradesh this assembly election. Sushri Uma Bharati's Bharatiya Janashakti Party is going to contest all the 230 assembly seats in the State. There seems to be no dearth of political parties and individuals to fan her ego and arrogance with a design and objective of their own. They know her presence in the elections is going to harm one and benefit the other. She too seems to wish to teach her former party a lesson: "If not me, you too not".

Her real brother has deserted Sushri Bharati. There are dissensions within her clan. It will be too much for a sagacious person, like her, to daydream of coming to power on her own. But she does wish – and all wishes are not always granted! – to 'punish' BJP. It is too early to predict – and psephology these days is no longer that precise a science with correct predictions and no one has so far prophesied with certainty either that BJP will once again romp home to power or Congress will win. But nobody can risk foretelling Sushri Bharati storming to power defeating both BJP and Congress in the current elections.

Whatever may be the outcome of the elections, this much can easily – and safely – be forecast: the only great loser to emerge, like Mr. S. Bangarappa in Karnataka, will only be Sushri Uma Bharati in Madhya Pradesh in the long run. If BJP swings back to power, she stands decimated from the State politics as a force to reckon with. If Congress is crowned with power, Sushri Bharati will lose relevance because having rode to power on the strength of her shoulders, it too would not like to massage these to make them more powerful. Congress would not be beholden to her, as was the Janta Dal not to Mr. Bangarappa for power it could never aspire without Bangarappa slicing Congress cake.

Where is Mr. S. Bangarappa today? Nowhere on the political scene. Nowhere in the political reckoning.

Will assembly elections results on December 8 throw out another Bangarappa in Madhya Pradesh? ***

NEEDLEPOINT: Terrorists at war with India

2008-09-15T23:59:00.000-07:00

NEEDLEPOINT:
Terrorists at war with India
India at peace with terrorists

By A. C. Vasishth

September 13 2008 serial bomb blasts in New Delhi have once again proved that we may be bold in our words but we are as much week in our actions in fighting terror. This has been proved not once, numerous times.

One of the main reasons for our failure to win the war against terror is that we always play politics with terrorism. This fact has paralysed the government as well as the political system. This reality has emboldened the terrorists so much that they feel free to strike any time and any place in the country where they want. When terrorists strike in non-Congress and non-UPA States – the way they did in Gujarat, Rajasthan and Karnataka two months back -- our government at the Centre and the Intelligence Bureau were quick to say that the State governments had been alerted in advance. It, obviously, meant that the State governments had failed to take the necessary precautions, in advance, to thwart the designs of the terrorists. But this time – and last time on the Diwali eve in 2005 – the terrorists struck right under the nose of the Union government. Does it then mean that here both the Union government and the intelligence agencies failed to both to gather information about the activities of the terror outfits and take precautionary measures?

Not only that. With Congress-led UPA at the Centre, in Andhra Pradesh, in Assam, in Maharashtra etc. there are Congress or Congress-led governments. But the State and the Central government failed to prevent the serial blasts in those States even and as a result hundreds of innocent men, women and children were killed and property worth hundreds of crores destroyed.

Each time the terrorists strike, our Prime Minister, Home Minister and others echo a stock reaction: The terrorists will not be able to defeat our resolve to fight terror. Each time the terrorists have given a befitting reply to the Union Government to prove that it does not means business while they do.

In the heat of the nation’s agony at the loss of life and property in Rajasthan and Gujarat when there were demands, even from the intelligence agencies, for enacting a strong anti-terror law, the Prime Minister Dr. Manmohan Singh was again bold to declare that there is no need for revival of POTA and the existing laws were sufficient to deal with them. By striking in the heart of the national capital the terrorists have once again sent out a message that the Prime Minister is not right.

If the existing laws, as the Prime Minister claims, are sufficient, why is it that during the last over four years the present government has failed to take a single criminal case against terrorists to a logical conclusion and got him/them punished? Why is it that during the last three years the UPA government has failed to bring to book those involved in the 2005 Diwali-eve serial bomb blasts in Delhi, Samjhauta Express, Malegaon, Mumbai train serial blasts, blasts in Mecca masjid in Andhra Pradesh? The only inference one can draw is that while the existing laws are sufficient, it is the Government that has been found to be wanting.

USA is the oldest democracy in the world as is India the largest one. UK too is a democracy. But the moment 9/11 happened in USA, the moment 11/7 occurred in UK in the form of serial train blasts, they rose to the occasion to enact stringent laws to fight terror. This has paid dividends. The terrorists failed to strike again in both the countries.

But here in India, obviously, for political, nay electoral, reasons we are fighting shy of enacting any stringent law against terror. We do not gather the courage even to use the existing laws to catch hold of the culprits, lest our constituency of electoral supporters gets annoyed.

Our prime minister loses his sleeping over the wailing of the mother of a person taken into custody for suspected terror links in a foreign country. But, regrettably, he has never lost sleep over the death of hundreds of innocent men, women and children in terrorist strikes since he took over.

At the same time Dr. Manmohan Singh says "no community" should be singled out. Further, according to the Central intelligence agencies too, while the hand of SIMI has been unsuspectingly been proven, two Cabinet Ministers in his Government – Lalu Prasad Yadav and Ramvilas Paswan – have publicly opposed the ban on SIMI. The other important leader SP leader Mulayam Singh on whose support hinges the life of UPA has gone to the extent of saying that it is a social organisation.

In the face of September 13 blasts while the intelligence agencies, according to reports, are now focussing their attention on the three days spent by top SIMI activist Abu Bashir in Delhi in July this year to unravel the mystery of the Delhi serial blasts, Congress and Samajwadi Party leaders went to the extent of visiting Azamgarh home of the Ahmedabad blast mastermind "for expressing their solidarity with the jailed SIMI terror merchant" after he was arrested by Gujarat police.

The most failed Home Minister Shivraj Patil appealing for peace said: "We will continue to deal firmly with such (terrorist) elements. We will find those responsible behind the blasts and harshest punishment would be given..." How laughable from a person during whose performance has throughout been dismal!

In their e-mail the terrorist outfit has threatened Mumbai to be the next target. If past performance is any indication, its threat may prove to be real while the government may be found fumbling for words of explanations for having miserably failed to act.

If the present government closes its eyes to see the reality that the terrorists are at war against India, it alone is to be blamed for this. But it must understand that this war against terrorism cannot be fought with the doves of peace. We need the honestly, zeal and the spirit to turn our words into actions. ***

Interview with Syed Shahnawaz Hussain

2008-09-11T07:52:00.000-07:00

‘Secularists’ dividing Hindus & Muslims: Shahnawaz
Personally I stand for Akhand Bharat

Syed Shahnawaz Hussain is a young two-time BJP MP with a broad, progressive outlook. He was yet to complete 32 when he became first a Minister of State and later elevated to Cabinet rank in NDA government at the Centre. From the start of his political career he is in the BJP. Presently, he is the President of BJP Minority Morcha Cell. Congress-Lalu-Mulayam are politically thriving on by creating divisions between Hindus and Muslims, he says. “If there was no misunderstanding between the two main communities, many leaders and political parties, I realized, would go out of political business”. BJP is practicing an honest secularism and giving equal respect and honour to all communities, including Muslims, he maintains.

Amba Charan Vashishth had a detailed interview with him in Delhi in the last month. Excerpts:

What made you to join politics?

My original dream was to be a doctor or engineer. When I was in third class, I discovered that President and Prime Minister was the highest office in the country. Therefore, I got fascinated towards politics. Even otherwise, I had interest in politics from my school days. When in the eighth class I contested a school election, but lost by just one vote. I did my Matriculation in 1982 getting 87 percent marks. I wanted to join Aligarh Muslim University but we were hard up of money because we had lost our lands to the tillers. My mother said she would sell her ornaments to make me study higher. I revolted. I said I can remain uneducated, but not study with this money. I did my intermediate staying with my maternal uncle where I came in contact with Shri George Fernandes.

Why only BJP even when there is so much propaganda regarding its being anti-minorities?

In 1984 I came to Delhi in Pusa Polytechnic from where I received a diploma. Here I came in contact with Shri Suresh Srivastava who was connected with BJP. He told me in detail about BJP. He took me to BJP leader Shri Arif Beg. I took a dig at him: How is he in BJP being a Muslim? We waited for him. As he heralded I came to know he was coming after namaz. I myself was not used to it at that time. I got impressed.

Shri Arif Beg made me understand that BJP is a big party working for the welfare of Hindus/Muslims and if more and more Muslims associated with it, the Hindu-Muslim unity will get strengthened. The misunderstanding and misconception about BJP in the Muslim mind is because of lack of communication and false propaganda by vested interests who, for their political selfishness, do not wish that Hindus and Muslims should be one. We have to act as a bridge between the two communities, he told me.

From there started my association with BJP and I never looked back. I myself found that there was great false propaganda against BJP. As my association with the party grew deeper and longer, my dedication and commitment to the Party went on increasing. I found BJP was the only party that was truly and honestly secular while others were just paying a lip service just for community’s votes without doing anything for it. BJP, I found, entertained no ill-will against Muslims and all my misgivings were removed. If there was no misunderstanding between the two main communities, many leaders and political parties, I realized, would go out of political business.

How did you scale up the ladder?

Then I came in contact with ABVP national president Shri Raj Kumar Bhatia and Sushri Uma Bharti. I worked in JNU. I became active in BJP Yuva Morcha. On December 4, 1997 I organised a Muslim Youth sammelan in Delhi which impressed both Shri Atal Bihari Vajpayee and Shri Lal Krishna Advani. Atalji said if Shahnawaz could enter Parliament that would be good. I was made to contest against Syed Shahabuddin from Kishanganj whose 70 percent population is Muslim. Only Shri Sushil Modi had come for my election campaign. I was defeated by this stalwart by just six thousand votes. But I did not lose heart. I stuck to the constituency and worked hard. In 1999 Lok Sabha elections I defeated Mr Taslimuddin. My first speech in Lok Sabha was on Ayodhya. Atalji blessed me with an embrace. Advaniji and Georgeji also appreciated it.

Was your work and dedication rewarded?

Yes, very much. I was first made a Minister of State for Sports and Youth Affairs. Later, I was given independent charge of Coal. Then, I was elevated to Cabinet rank with the Textile portfolio and later given the charge of Civil Aviation. I was made a member of the Central Election Committee in which I still continue. When Venkaiahji, Advaniji and Rajnathji became Party presidents, they made me the National Secretary. Now I have been made the President of the Minority Morcha. Rajnathji said, “It will send out a positive message and help the party reach out to minority communities”.

When some 'secular' leaders or some of your Muslim brothers call BJP 'communal', what feelings does it ignite in your mind?

I only laugh at their ignorance. They are living on misconceptions and only harming the cause of the community. I can say with confidence that no party is more secular than BJP. In fact, in India we have two kinds of secularism -- honest secularism and dishonest one. BJP is practicing the honest secularism. It is a false propaganda that BJP is opposed to minorities. The so-called secular parties are responsible for the present plight and sufferings of the Muslim community. Post-Godhra riots in Gujarat are an aberration under BJP rule. There have been numerous communal riots in Gujarat under successive Congress governments. During the past seven years, not a single case of communal riots has taken place in Gujarat. If the opposition criticizes Shri Modi for other things, it should also appreciate at least this achievement of his.
We do not make distinction between majority and minority. BJP Minority Morcha Cell shows that there is a place of honour for minorities in the Party.

Did you any time feel that you are a misfit in BJP?

No. Never. I did never feel any time that I am being discriminated against being a Muslim. In spite of my being quite young, I have always received place of honour and invited to every important party meeting, chintan bhaithaks in Goa and Mumbai.

What does religion mean to you?

For me rashtra dharma is supreme. Pitri dharma and matri dharma also come in the same category. Whether somebody recites his namaz or worships a god; it is a matter personal to him.
.
Crores of Muslims because of their love for the motherland decided to stay put in India after Partition and could not be lured into shifting to Pakistan just because of their religious affinity. Do you think they have assimilated themselves into the national mainstream?

Crores of Muslims because of their patriotism and love for India continued to live in their motherland despite partition of the country on communal lines. Those who accepted partition migrated to Pakistan. But our ancestors decided to stick to their soil. They preferred to throw their lot with their Hindu brethren than with others. That is why today we have a galaxy of Muslims who have brought laurels to the country -- Capt. Abdul Hamid, Capt. Hanifuddin, Sania Mirza, Zahir Khan, Irfan Khan, Dr. APJ Abdul Kalam and many others.

How safe, in your view, are minorities in India, particularly in NDA or BJP-ruled States?

Minorities are safer in the BJP and NDA-ruled States than elsewhere. I want an open discussion on this issue. The condition of Muslims is very bad in the States of West Bengal and Assam while they are quite well off in Gujarat where Muslims have a higher per capita income than in other States.

How far, in your view, the abolition of Article 370 in the Constitution and Common Civil Code is going to adversely affect the interests of minorities, particularly Muslims?

If Article 370 had been scrapped, there would have been no Kashmir problem today. It even discriminates between a J&K Muslim and a Muslim in the rest of the country. Today people of Jammu-Kashmir can purchase property in Patna, but the people, including Muslims, of the rest of the country cannot in J&K. If Article 370 is removed, I would wish to have a house in Gulmarg area. Mr. Omar Abdullah says I am an Indian, but he speaks a different language in his State. Article 370 should be scrapped immediately.

I stand for a Common Civil Code. Actually, it involves reforms only in marriage laws. Today Hindus and Muslims wear the same clothes; they have common food habits. India presents a picture of unity in diversity. Actually, some people are misleading the Muslims saying that if this is done, Muslims will have to don dhoti and instead of visiting a graveyard (kabristan) they will have to go to Hindu cremation grounds. This is all non-sense, unfortunate

What place do minorities enjoy in your Party?

A place of respect and honour like any Hindu.

What have you so far done to dispel the misgivings about BJP among minorities?

I have been assigned the duty to connect more and more minorities with the BJP. It is as difficult a matter as it is easy. It is a challenge too. Reason: Since the days of Nehru, a sustained campaign has been continuing to paint Jana Sangh and now BJP as anti-minority. This impression is now getting obliterated. We organized a Muslim Yuva Sammelan in 1997. Advaniji’s speech was very much appreciated there. We wish to turn the injustice that is being perpetrated against Muslims since the days of Congress into justice. Recently, we organized a rally at Kota (Rajasthan) where 20,000 Muslims participated. Morcha organized rallies against terrorism all over the country. Indo-US Deal is an attempt to enslave India. It is against Indians whether they are Hindus, Muslims or others.

Terrorism is a great threat to the country. This must be curbed at all costs. On this account, Muslims of the country, as a whole, should not be seen as suspects. They love the country and are patriots.

What should the majority and minority communities do to obliterate the distinction between the two to make India acquire one identity of Indians and Indians alone?

In the Muslim Yuva Sammelan we passed a resolution that cow-slaughter should be banned. Media ignored it. Darrul Uloom has also demanded its ban. Muslims need to come forward on this issue. Ram Mandir issue too should be solved amicably through understanding between the two communities.

We want that Afzal Guru should be hanged as per the verdict of the Supreme Court. The only problem is that we look at him as a terrorist and Congress-Lalu-Mulayam look at him as a Muslim. They look at terrorism through the prism of religion. It is the Congress and its friends who have put a question mark on the patriotism of Muslims. POTA should be revived. Section 302 IPC too is misused; should it also be abolished?

To what extent has the rise of terrorism, particularly the cross-border terrorism, impacted the life of Muslims in India?

I wish to make it clear that Pakistan is the enemy of Indian Muslims. Muslims in India are thriving unhindered. They have made the country proud with having Presidents, Chief Justices, Vice-Presidents, Governors, and made their name in every sphere including cricket and films. This Pakistan cannot digest. That is why it is conspiring against India. It is Pakistan and not Hindus who are enemies of Muslims. ISI is the mother of all troubles. If Pakistan had not been created, Hindus and Muslims would have progressed shoulder to shoulder. Although I accept the reality of Pakistan, yet as an Indian I stand for the concept of Akhand Bharat. If the Berlin wall can fall leading to unification of East and West Germany, India and Pakistan can also be one day united into one country.

What are the main reasons for the backwardness of the Muslim community, particularly women?

Congress which ruled over the country for about 50 years since independence is responsible for all the ills and problems facing the minorities, particularly Muslims. They have not allowed Muslims to join the national mainstream just to exploit them for votes.

How much weightage would you give to the fatwas of Deoband?

Day-today fatwas have no meaning. These should be issued only when necessary and should be for the benefit and progress of the community

What are your Minority Morcha’s immediate plans, particularly in view of the year-end elections in five State assemblies and then Lok Sabha elections in 2009?

The Muslim community is angry with Congress Party for all the ills facing it. It feels cheated. Muslims are making the country proud in every field. If Israel and Philistine could be at peace; if Sushri Mayawati can have friendship with Brahmins, why can’t BJP earn the faith and confidence of Muslims when it is their real benefactor? It is not something impossible.

We will mobilize the minority community by organizing large demonstrations, rallies and conferences. Three times in the past Shri Rajnath Singh has come to our conferences. Shri Advaniji too blessed our programmes. Shri Atalji is also with us. We plan to organize a massive Muslim rally in Delhi where we expect a congregation of 2 lakh Muslims to show that Muslims in India are with BJP.
Muslims have great faith in the clean and honest image of Advaniji. Under his leadership BJP will form a government at the Centre. This government will usher in all-round prosperity and progress of the minorities. ***

‘Secularists’ dividing Hindus & Muslims: Shahnawaz
Personally I stand for Akhand Bharat

Shri Syed Shahnawaz Hussain is a young two-time BJP MP with a broad, progressive outlook. He was yet to complete 32 when he became first a Minister of State and later elevated to Cabinet rank in NDA government at the Centre. From the start of his political career he is in the BJP. Presently, he is the President of BJP Minority Morcha Cell. Congress-Lalu-Mulayam are politically thriving on by creating divisions between Hindus and Muslims, he says. “If there was no misunderstanding between the two main communities, many leaders and political parties, I realized, would go out of political business”. BJP is practicing an honest secularism and giving equal respect and honour to all communities, including Muslims, he maintains.

Shri Amba Charan Vashishth had a detailed interview with him in Delhi in the last week of July. Excerpts:

What made you to join politics?

My original dream was to be a doctor or engineer. When I was in third class, I discovered that President and Prime Minister was the highest office in the country. Therefore, I got fascinated towards politics. Even otherwise, I had interest in politics from my school days. When in the eighth class I contested a school election, but lost by just one vote. I did my Matriculation in 1982 getting 87 percent marks. I wanted to join Aligarh Muslim University but we were hard up of money because we had lost our lands to the tillers. My mother said she would sell her ornaments to make me study higher. I revolted. I said I can remain uneducated, but not study with this money. I did my intermediate staying with my maternal uncle where I came in contact with Shri George Fernandes.

Why only BJP even when there is so much propaganda regarding its being anti-minorities?

In 1984 I came to Delhi in Pusa Polytechnic from where I received a diploma. Here I came in contact with Shri Suresh Srivastava who was connected with BJP. He told me in detail about BJP. He took me to BJP leader Shri Arif Beg. I took a dig at him: How is he in BJP being a Muslim? We waited for him. As he heralded I came to know he was coming after namaz. I myself was not used to it at that time. I got impressed.

Shri Arif Beg made me understand that BJP is a big party working for the welfare of Hindus/Muslims and if more and more Muslims associated with it, the Hindu-Muslim unity will get strengthened. The misunderstanding and misconception about BJP in the Muslim mind is because of lack of communication and false propaganda by vested interests who, for their political selfishness, do not wish that Hindus and Muslims should be one. We have to act as a bridge between the two communities, he told me.

From there started my association with BJP and I never looked back. I myself found that there was great false propaganda against BJP. As my association with the party grew deeper and longer, my dedication and commitment to the Party went on increasing. I found BJP was the only party that was truly and honestly secular while others were just paying a lip service just for community’s votes without doing anything for it. BJP, I found, entertained no ill-will against Muslims and all my misgivings were removed. If there was no misunderstanding between the two main communities, many leaders and political parties, I realized, would go out of political business.

How did you scale up the ladder?

Then I came in contact with ABVP national president Shri Raj Kumar Bhatia and Sushri Uma Bharti. I worked in JNU. I became active in BJP Yuva Morcha. On December 4, 1997 I organised a Muslim Youth sammelan in Delhi which impressed both Shri Atal Bihari Vajpayee and Shri Lal Krishna Advani. Atalji said if Shahnawaz could enter Parliament that would be good. I was made to contest against Syed Shahabuddin from Kishanganj whose 70 percent population is Muslim. Only Shri Sushil Modi had come for my election campaign. I was defeated by this stalwart by just six thousand votes. But I did not lose heart. I stuck to the constituency and worked hard. In 1999 Lok Sabha elections I defeated Mr Taslimuddin. My first speech in Lok Sabha was on Ayodhya. Atalji blessed me with an embrace. Advaniji and Georgeji also appreciated it.

Was your work and dedication rewarded?

Yes, very much. I was first made a Minister of State for Sports and Youth Affairs. Later, I was given independent charge of Coal. Then, I was elevated to Cabinet rank with the Textile portfolio and later given the charge of Civil Aviation. I was made a member of the Central Election Committee in which I still continue. When Venkaiahji, Advaniji and Rajnathji became Party presidents, they made me the National Secretary. Now I have been made the President of the Minority Morcha. Rajnathji said, “It will send out a positive message and help the party reach out to minority communities”.

When some 'secular' leaders or some of your Muslim brothers call BJP 'communal', what feelings does it ignite in your mind?

I only laugh at their ignorance. They are living on misconceptions and only harming the cause of the community. I can say with confidence that no party is more secular than BJP. In fact, in India we have two kinds of secularism -- honest secularism and dishonest one. BJP is practicing the honest secularism. It is a false propaganda that BJP is opposed to minorities. The so-called secular parties are responsible for the present plight and sufferings of the Muslim community. Post-Godhra riots in Gujarat are an aberration under BJP rule. There have been numerous communal riots in Gujarat under successive Congress governments. During the past seven years, not a single case of communal riots has taken place in Gujarat. If the opposition criticizes Shri Modi for other things, it should also appreciate at least this achievement of his.
We do not make distinction between majority and minority. BJP Minority Morcha Cell shows that there is a place of honour for minorities in the Party.

Did you any time feel that you are a misfit in BJP?

No. Never. I did never feel any time that I am being discriminated against being a Muslim. In spite of my being quite young, I have always received place of honour and invited to every important party meeting, chintan bhaithaks in Goa and Mumbai.

What does religion mean to you?

For me rashtra dharma is supreme. Pitri dharma and matri dharma also come in the same category. Whether somebody recites his namaz or worships a god; it is a matter personal to him.
.
Crores of Muslims because of their love for the motherland decided to stay put in India after Partition and could not be lured into shifting to Pakistan just because of their religious affinity. Do you think they have assimilated themselves into the national mainstream?

Crores of Muslims because of their patriotism and love for India continued to live in their motherland despite partition of the country on communal lines. Those who accepted partition migrated to Pakistan. But our ancestors decided to stick to their soil. They preferred to throw their lot with their Hindu brethren than with others. That is why today we have a galaxy of Muslims who have brought laurels to the country -- Capt. Abdul Hamid, Capt. Hanifuddin, Sania Mirza, Zahir Khan, Irfan Khan, Dr. APJ Abdul Kalam and many others.

How safe, in your view, are minorities in India, particularly in NDA or BJP-ruled States?

Minorities are safer in the BJP and NDA-ruled States than elsewhere. I want an open discussion on this issue. The condition of Muslims is very bad in the States of West Bengal and Assam while they are quite well off in Gujarat where Muslims have a higher per capita income than in other States.

How far, in your view, the abolition of Article 370 in the Constitution and Common Civil Code is going to adversely affect the interests of minorities, particularly Muslims?

If Article 370 had been scrapped, there would have been no Kashmir problem today. It even discriminates between a J&K Muslim and a Muslim in the rest of the country. Today people of Jammu-Kashmir can purchase property in Patna, but the people, including Muslims, of the rest of the country cannot in J&K. If Article 370 is removed, I would wish to have a house in Gulmarg area. Mr. Omar Abdullah says I am an Indian, but he speaks a different language in his State. Article 370 should be scrapped immediately.

I stand for a Common Civil Code. Actually, it involves reforms only in marriage laws. Today Hindus and Muslims wear the same clothes; they have common food habits. India presents a picture of unity in diversity. Actually, some people are misleading the Muslims saying that if this is done, Muslims will have to don dhoti and instead of visiting a graveyard (kabristan) they will have to go to Hindu cremation grounds. This is all non-sense, unfortunate

What place do minorities enjoy in your Party?

A place of respect and honour like any Hindu.

What have you so far done to dispel the misgivings about BJP among minorities?

I have been assigned the duty to connect more and more minorities with the BJP. It is as difficult a matter as it is easy. It is a challenge too. Reason: Since the days of Nehru, a sustained campaign has been continuing to paint Jana Sangh and now BJP as anti-minority. This impression is now getting obliterated. We organized a Muslim Yuva Sammelan in 1997. Advaniji’s speech was very much appreciated there. We wish to turn the injustice that is being perpetrated against Muslims since the days of Congress into justice. Recently, we organized a rally at Kota (Rajasthan) where 20,000 Muslims participated. Morcha organized rallies against terrorism all over the country. Indo-US Deal is an attempt to enslave India. It is against Indians whether they are Hindus, Muslims or others.

Terrorism is a great threat to the country. This must be curbed at all costs. On this account, Muslims of the country, as a whole, should not be seen as suspects. They love the country and are patriots.

What should the majority and minority communities do to obliterate the distinction between the two to make India acquire one identity of Indians and Indians alone?

In the Muslim Yuva Sammelan we passed a resolution that cow-slaughter should be banned. Media ignored it. Darrul Uloom has also demanded its ban. Muslims need to come forward on this issue. Ram Mandir issue too should be solved amicably through understanding between the two communities.

We want that Afzal Guru should be hanged as per the verdict of the Supreme Court. The only problem is that we look at him as a terrorist and Congress-Lalu-Mulayam look at him as a Muslim. They look at terrorism through the prism of religion. It is the Congress and its friends who have put a question mark on the patriotism of Muslims. POTA should be revived. Section 302 IPC too is misused; should it also be abolished?

To what extent has the rise of terrorism, particularly the cross-border terrorism, impacted the life of Muslims in India?

I wish to make it clear that Pakistan is the enemy of Indian Muslims. Muslims in India are thriving unhindered. They have made the country proud with having Presidents, Chief Justices, Vice-Presidents, Governors, and made their name in every sphere including cricket and films. This Pakistan cannot digest. That is why it is conspiring against India. It is Pakistan and not Hindus who are enemies of Muslims. ISI is the mother of all troubles. If Pakistan had not been created, Hindus and Muslims would have progressed shoulder to shoulder. Although I accept the reality of Pakistan, yet as an Indian I stand for the concept of Akhand Bharat. If the Berlin wall can fall leading to unification of East and West Germany, India and Pakistan can also be one day united into one country.

What are the main reasons for the backwardness of the Muslim community, particularly women?

Congress which ruled over the country for about 50 years since independence is responsible for all the ills and problems facing the minorities, particularly Muslims. They have not allowed Muslims to join the national mainstream just to exploit them for votes.

How much weightage would you give to the fatwas of Deoband?

Day-today fatwas have no meaning. These should be issued only when necessary and should be for the benefit and progress of the community

What are your Minority Morcha’s immediate plans, particularly in view of the year-end elections in five State assemblies and then Lok Sabha elections in 2009?

The Muslim community is angry with Congress Party for all the ills facing it. It feels cheated. Muslims are making the country proud in every field. If Israel and Philistine could be at peace; if Sushri Mayawati can have friendship with Brahmins, why can’t BJP earn the faith and confidence of Muslims when it is their real benefactor? It is not something impossible.

We will mobilize the minority community by organizing large demonstrations, rallies and conferences. Three times in the past Shri Rajnath Singh has come to our conferences. Shri Advaniji too blessed our programmes. Shri Atalji is also with us. We plan to organize a massive Muslim rally in Delhi where we expect a congregation of 2 lakh Muslims to show that Muslims in India are with BJP.
Muslims have great faith in the clean and honest image of Advaniji. Under his leadership BJP will form a government at the Centre. This government will usher in all-round prosperity and progress of the minorities. ***

Needlepoint

2008-07-31T08:09:00.000-07:00

They killed Rajiv Gandhi again on July 22

By Amba Charan Vashishth

A mother had a son unemployed. Each day he would roam about to earn something and in the evening return empty handed to the dismay of his distraught mother who was yearning for the day when he would put his earnings in her lap.

One day, he returned all smiling with a bag full of money which he presented to his mother. In disbelief, she put the bag aside and asked, “From where did you earn this much money? This cannot be a hard day’s honest earnings. Tell me the truth”

The son was not expecting this response. He had thought his mother would be damn happy. He kept quiet. The mother started shouting, “Have you robbed somebody? Have you murdered someone to snatch this much money? I am not going to touch it”, she said and kicked the bag away.

This exactly would have been the response of Dr. Manmohan Singh’s proud and virtuous mother if she were alive today. When he would have waved the two-finger victory sign with a broad smile to her, she would certainly have questioned, “How did you achieve this miracle, my son?” She could not have so easily swallowed this wonder of marvelous victory.

When explained that he had robbed the opposition of 24 MPs who cross voted for him or absented from voting in defiance of the party whip, the pious, virtuous lady would certainly have, with a deep sigh, reminded her illustrious, victorious son of Michael de Montaigne’s words: "There are some defeats more triumphant than victories."

Of late, we have turned very permissive. We explain away victories gained through underhand means by subverting the law, puncturing the balloon of morality, kicking the standards of ethics and ignoring the qualms of conscience. Everything is fair in love, war and in politics, we say. Whatever the means, we explain, victory is victory, defeat is defeat. . And that mentality is also the mother of all our troubles in politics.

Some may bestow Dr. Manmohan Singh with the honour of now being a “King Singh” or Opposition Killer who “comes into his own to win” Politicians in India may celebrate this victory which is, in effect, a defeat of the parliamentary democracy in the world’s largest democracy. We have made ourselves a laughing stock of the world by having won a vote of confidence through the weapon of horse-trading. With what face can India claim to be a nation which had, in the ancient past, preached high moral values, standards of ethics and ideals of honesty. No wonder, if tomorrow we may have to import these virtues from abroad.

The Manmohan government victory has put to shame the victory late prime minister Mr. P. V. Narasimharao recorded in 1993 by purchasing three JMM MPs. Mr. Rao was convicted of the crime of bribing the MPs but the MPs got scot free because of the provisions of Article 105 (2) in the Constitution: “No member of Parliament shall be liable to any proceedings in any court in respect of anything said or any vote given by him in Parliament or any committee thereof, ….” Its interpretation in the case implied that our honourable MPs had the proud ‘privilege’ to be bribed for voting in the House inspired by hefty monetary considerations.

This ugly, notorious example should have stirred the conscience of our lawmakers to plug the loophole and amend the law so that the country had not once again to feel small in the eyes of the world. But who can do it? The lawmakers and the ruling party alone, nobody else. But why should a ruling party do? Every ruling dispensation, particularly in the present era of coalition governments, has a vested interest to let this situation persist. Who knows when a ruling alliance may need this very Rambaan to save its gaddi?

Ironically, it is the illustrious Nehru-Gandhi dynasty presently represented by the mother-son duo of Mrs. Sonia Gandhi and Mr. Rahul Gandhi taking pride at this great victory through massive defections. The same clan which otherwise feels great at the Nehru-Gandhi legacy. These Gandhis, Dr. Manmohan Singh and the like have humbled late Rajiv Gandhi who raised his head high in having saved the country of the curse of defections.

Is it not ironical that about two dozen MPs, who played the chivalrous act of saving Manmohan government stand to lose their membership of the House sooner or later for their crime of defection by defying the party whip, but the government that survived with these illegal votes would get away with the booty of this crime?

A person is the legal heir to the property of his father or brother in the event of their death, but not when he/she ventures to inherit that property by eliminating them through a crime of murder. But here is a case in which the UPA government will get away with the spoils of the crime committed to save itself by instigating, alluring and motivating persons to throw to the winds the anti-defection law.

It is on record that our victorious Prime Minister telephoned to thank and pat each one of the ‘daring’ MPs to extend a halo of respectability for what is a crime in the eyes of the anti-defection law passed by this very Parliament to whom he is responsible.

State after State and lately, at the Centre, the present Congress leadership is killing Rajiv Gandhi again and again for what he stood for. ***

Satirically speaking: Ask our honourable public representatives, son!

2008-07-27T07:29:00.001-07:00

Satirically yours
Ask our honourable public representatives, son!
By Amba Charan Vashishth

Son: Father.

Father: Yes, my son.

Son: What is horse-trading?

Father : Quite simple -- trading in horses.

Son: Are our MPs horses?

Father: You fool, what are you saying? Are you crazy? They’re our honourable
MPs.

Son: But why is voting in parliament being referred to have been
influenced by horse-trading?

Father: Because some MPs changed their loyalty and voted against the party
whip.

Son: But then how is it horse-trading?

Father: Because some money was exchanged in changing loyalties.

Son: But a horse is an animal and our MPs are human beings with a head
and a conscience. Can they be traded?

Father: No, son, they can’t be.

Son: Then what does it mean that there was horse-trading in Parliament.

Father: It looks that was said because there were media reports suggesting
that crores of rupees were exchanged in exchange of loyalty of each
MP.

Son: But the horse only changes his master and not loyalty because he
remains loyal to his master who purchases him.

Father: This is exactly what did our MPs. They voted in favour of whoever
paid the highest bid amount ignoring the party whip.

Son: But the horse is an animal very loyal and obedient.

Father: So are the MPs to the person or the Party who pays them.

Son: But no money is paid to the horse. It is exchanged only between the
buyer and the seller.

Father: That’s true, son.

Son: Does that mean a horse is more honest and sincere than our MPs
because he gets no money?

Father: I don’t know son. Ask, our honourable public representatives.
***

Satirically speaking

2008-07-27T07:29:00.000-07:00

Needlepoint: Country's curse -- Ignoramus Union Ministers

2008-07-08T07:26:00.000-07:00

Country's curse – ignoramus Union Ministers

By Amba Charan Vashishth
Words: 1042

"Can Advani be called a Pakistani infiltrator because he's from Sindh? Most chief ministers of West Bengal were from erstwhile East Bengal. Can they be called infiltrators?"

These are the words and arguments not of an ordinary Congress worker in the street but of India's Minister for External Affairs Pranab Mukherjee while addressing a seminar organized by a Muslim NGO on June 15 at Kolkata. His message was obviously and deliberately targeted at the peculiar audience before him.

Such arguments only betray desperate frustration giving credence to an old saying that when a person falls short of arguments, he starts calling names and comes to blows.

By comparing Advani with infiltrators Mr Mukherjee has repeated the same blunder which his veteran colleague Home Minister Shivraj Patil committed by comparing Afzal Guru with Sarabjit Singh. The former is an Indian held guilty of conspiring a terrorist attack in which about 9 innocent securitymen were killed defending the Parliament building where the top leadership of the country was holed up at that time. He was sentenced to death by the Supreme Court (SC). On the contrary Sarabjit Singh is an Indian pronounced guilty of terrorism and espionage by a Pakistani court. The former is a traitor, the latter a hero, a patriot. Our great home minister fails to distinguish between the two.

And contrast what Sarbjit’s wife Mrs. Sukhpreet Kaur says, “I and my daughters would never like Sarabjit freed in exchange for any hardcore Pakistani terrorist lodged in Indian jails. Nothing is above the nation and we can’t go against the interests of the motherland”. Who should feel ashamed is obvious.

And now our venerable Minister for Foreign Affairs fails to distinguish between an Indian citizen and a Bangladeshi infiltrator. He appears ignorant of the law of the land and the Constitution. According to the Oxford Advanced Learners’ Dictionary, an infiltrator is “a person who secretly becomes a member of a group (in our case India) or goes to a place to get information or to influence the group”.

Article 6 of the Constitution, as applicable to the case of Mr. Advani, says “:….a person who has migrated to the territory of India from the territory now included in Pakistan shall be deemed to be a citizen of India at the commencement of this Constitution if (a) he or either of his parents or any of his grandparents was born in India as defined in the Government of India Act, 1935 …”

One can only pity Mr. Mukherjee's understanding. The only saving grace however is that he spared his party and the country by not saying that Pakistan President General Musharraf is more “Indian” than is Prime Minister Dr Manmohan Singh because Musharraf was born in Delhi and Dr. Manmohan Singh in what now forms part of Pakistan.

Lakhs of Indians migrated (and in the process more than 10 lakhs were killed) to this side of the border from those parts which are now in Pakistan and Bangladesh to an uncertain future leaving their ancestral homes and hearths for their love of India. By equating refugees from Pakistan with infiltrators from Bangladesh Mr. Mukherjee has only put salt on the wounds of these Indians and insulted their patriotism.

And he goes on, “…it was not unusual for people from a smaller economy like Bangladesh to move into a bigger economy like India…this happens all over the world”. Here again he fails to make distinction between people of one country moving to the other as per law and those doing it in a clandestine manner, illegally.

If there were no infiltrator, why did the Congress government enact the Illegal Migrants (Detection by Tribunals) Act, 1983? Setting aside this Act as “unconstitutional” the Supreme Court said: "This IMDT Act, 1983 has created the biggest hurdle and is the main impediment or barrier in the identification and deportation of illegal migrants.”

That UPA was playing politics was evident from the fact that instead of acting as per the judicial verdict, on the eve of last assembly elections it clandestinely amended the Foreigners’ Act as applicable to Assam. SC was once again constrained to strike down this amendment too as "unconstitutional" calling it a crude attempt to bring in the IMDT Act from the backdoor.

Mr. Mukherjee's logic only repudiates Congress' supreme leader, late Mrs. Indira Gandhi who, way back in 1971, raised a great hue and cry the world over, over the exodus of about 80-90 lakh people from the then East Pakistan into India.

Mr. Mukherjee is again playing politics when he says “there is no reason to believe that lakhs of Bangladeshi are infiltrating into India”. As a Union Minister he should have the exact figures with him to buttress his argument. He is deliberately indulging in selective memory/amnesia and selective beliefs. The Congress Chief Minister of Assam, late Mr. Hiteshwar Saikia had admitted in the Assembly of more than one crore Bangladeshis having infiltrated into Assam. But under pressure, for obvious political reasons, he was later made to withdraw this statement.

On May 6, 1997 Mr Inderjit Gupta, Union Home Minister in the United Front government supported by Congress from outside, in reply to a question informed the Lok Sabha that the number of illegal infiltrators in the country is estimated to be about one crore.

Mr. Mukherjee does not wish to remember or believe what doesn’t suit his party's political and electoral purposes. The former Assam Governor, General S. K. Sinha, in a report to the President of India, had warned that "the unabated influx of migrants from Bangladesh to Assam and the consequent perceptible change in the demographic pattern of the State….threatens to reduce the Assamese people to a minority in their own State".

Mr. Mukherjee is oblivious of the fact that Indians legally living for generations together in Kenya, Uganda, Thailand, South Africa, Fiji, etc. were mercilessly thrown out although they were not infiltrators, as Bangladeshis are, whom UPA wishes to provide shelter and extend every facility that is available to native Indians.

The problem is that people like Mr. Pranab Mukherjee and Mr. Shivraj Patil are playing politics with the interests of the nation for obvious electoral gains. Does India deserve such ignoramus government leaders? That remains the question. ***

Spidernet: A Satire

2008-07-01T02:51:00.000-07:00

Ask them, my son!

Roadshow as armour in election warfare

By Amba Charan Vashishth

Son: Father.
Father: Yes, my son.
Son: What is a roadshow?
Father: It is a new weapon invented in the armoury for use during election warfare.
Son: Who invented it, father?
Father: Nobody has so far claimed the intellectual rights. But as my knowledge goes, it was first tested-fired in 1998?
Son: By whom, father?
Father: Mrs. Sonia Gandhi and later, rightly inherited by her son, Rahul Gandhi.
Son: How does it work?
Father: It is easier to handle and simpler to use than the conventional technique of speech-making.
Son: How, father?
Father: An election speech is a fling of love for the audience and shot of an arrow of words at the opponents. It earns supporters and smashes the opposition forts.
Son: Is making a speech as simple as throwing a stone at your opponents?
Father: No, my son. Making a speech targeting your opponent is as intricate and difficult a job as going on an aerial sortie for bombardment at enemy targets. It needs expertise and experience.
Son: Does a person making a speech become an effective communicator?
Father: No. Not certainly always and, the least, everybody.
Son: But where is the problem? Today we have professional speechwriters who create great speeches which have great instant impact.
Father: We do have great speechwriters. But writing a speech and making a speech are two different things, equally difficult. If speechwriters could turn every Tom, Dick and Harry into prime ministers and presidents in a democracy, we need no intelligence and experience to make a mark.
Son: But we do have leaders who make great speeches.
Father: Yes, we do have. But many of them are readers, not leaders.
Son: How does the roadshow armour strike?
Father: When you don't wish to speak or have nothing to speak, the armour of roadshow is the best weapon against your opponent. In an election rally, it is the public that comes to see and hear you. In a roadshow it is the leaders who come to show their face to the roadside spectators, wave their hands, shake hands with them and trade their smile for votes.
Son: Our film actors and actresses too gesture to their fans in halls with their arms wide open, smooching their fingers crying wildly: "I love you all." And the hall bursts wild into roars of applause in response. Is this also of the same kind?
Father: I don't know, son. The only similarity seems to be that in both cases the gathering is of fans that may or may not necessarily vote in an election.
Son: Do these actresses love all?
Father: I don't know. I have no personal experience, son. Others may know better.
Son: In which election warfare was the weapon of roadshow used?
Father: In UP, then Gujarat, Himachal Pradesh and lately, in Karnataka.
Son: With what results?
Father: I don't know son. Ask Sonia and Rahul. ***

A satire: Who rules India? Ask them, son!

2008-06-19T00:52:00.000-07:00

A satire
Who rules India?
Ask them, son!

By Amba Charan Vashishth*

Son: Father, there's a great hue and cry over price rise.

Father: That's right, son.

Son: Why's the opposition targeting Government and Congress President?

Father: Because they run the government. People have voted them to power to administer public affairs, manage the economy.

Son: But, father, Dr. Manmohan says prices are rising because of global reasons beyond government control.

Father: Yes, he does say so.

Son: But who runs the government in India?

Father: Obviously, Dr. Manmohan Singh.

Son: Who's the Finance Minister?

Father: Another eminent economist P. Chidambaram.

Son: What are the two doing to manage the economy, control the unbridled prices and runaway inflation?

Father: Obviously watching the global trends.

Son: Will it do the trick?

Father: They know it better. They're wise people.

Son: But who rules the country – Manmohan government or the globe?

Father: Ask them, son. ***

*Amba Charan Vashishth is a freelance political commentator on the editorial board of a political fortnightly in English

SPIDERNET: Congress No. 2

2008-06-17T03:23:00.000-07:00

SPIDERNET: Congress No. 2

By Amba Charan Vashishth*

The veteran CPI (M) leader, Mr. Sitaram Yechury is a veteran of the pen too. In one of his writings recently, he appeared to be hollow, without solid content and strong arguments. He also seems to be ignoring hard facts, obviously deliberately. A review of his writings is both interesting and astonishing, besides being self-contradictory.

“Advani’s willingness to be PM", according to Mr Yechury, "poses a serious challenge to the future of our democracy”. Only a fascist with no respect for people's mandate can say that. In democracy, everybody has a right to be "willing" to be prime minister. And it is not mere "willing" that does the trick; it is the people who will or will not turn it into a reality. Therefore, if tomorrow Advani is PM, it will not be courtesy CPM, Left parties or the Congress, but on the strength of people's mandate.

Mr. does recount the “solid drubbings” BJP received in last year’s UP Vidhan Sabha elections forgetting that his own party’s record was much worse, nothing to feel proud of. While BJP did win 51 seats, the Left front and other leftists who contested about 100 seats drew a glorious blank from the electorate.

It was in 2005 that CPM decided to come out of its nest in the three States of Tripura, West Bengal and Kerala to spread its wings to the Hindi heartland. During the last three years all it has achieved is just total rejection at the hands of the electorate in the North. In Punjab and Uttarakhand elections it failed to open its account. Only in December 2007 the Left parties, including CPM, were given a worst “drubbing” by the electorate both in Gujarat and Himachal Pradesh, where all their candidates lost security deposits.

Just last month CPI (M) itself confessed that because of its acts of omission and commission the Party was losing popularity and support of the people both in Left ruled States and the country.

To Mr. Rajnath Singh’s words “minority (which Mr. Yechury reads Muslim) appeasement”. But if it is not "minority appeasement" what else is it to extend reservation to Muslims on the basis of religion, and religion alone, in employment and education, ordering no power cuts in Muslim dominated areas, reserve 15% loans for Muslims in Bank loans and the like, at the cost of all others?

According to Sachar Committee statistics, while Muslims command a 25% share in population in West Bengal, their representation in services is only 4%. Who is to be blamed for this?

It looks, championing the cause of minorities and Muslims is a sacred act of ‘secularism’ for the pseudo-secularists and doing so for the cause of the majority community of Hindus is an abominable ‘crime of communalism’. This gives substance to the feeling in some quarters that in the ‘secular’ India of their conception it is a ‘crime’ to be a Hindu or Hindu supporter or sympathizer.

CPI (M) can champion the cause of Babri masjid to be ‘secular’ but BJP and other parties become ‘communal’ when they speak of Ram temple in Ayodhya.

CPI (M)'s WB Minister Subhash Chakravarty was made to apologise when he visited a temple and said he is a Hindu first and CPI (M) member afterwards. But it is the same 'secular' CPI (M) which in Kochi (Kerala) allowed its Muslim members to leave the party meeting in between to say their namaz. It gave an iftar party in Regent Hotel to its Muslim members. Is it the CPI (M) brand of ‘secularism’?

Let us, for a minute for the sake of argument, accept CPI (M)'s unsubstantiated charge that the current “agrarian crisis” and “distress” is because of the NDA. But what have the UPA and Left parties done to stem the rot during the last over three-and-a-half years? Do they need centuries to help the farmers? But it is also a hard fact that when NDA left, the food grain godowns in the country were full to the brim and the agricultural production was at its peak. Who is responsible for emptying the stocks and for the fall in the food production which, according to the latest reports, has come down to 2.5% from last year’s 3.8%?

It is unimaginative to blame the “food for work” programme for depletion in food stocks. If food, instead of money, was distributed the food grains went to the stomach of the poor Indians and not to foreign countries. Even otherwise, they would have had to purchase food grains at exorbitant rates from the market with the low wages they would have received.

Till 1998 and now since 2004 it was the Congress or Congress and Left supported governments which had been in power at the Centre and the States. Can they absolve themselves of the responsibility for the present “agrarian crisis” and “distress” the farming community is experiencing?

CPM’s pro-farmer and pro-minority boast was exposed by what it did to the Singur and Nandigram farmers. It only revived the memories of Stalin in Soviet Russia. Leftist litterateur Mrs. Mahasweta Devi has written that women were raped and bullets were made to pierce through their private parts. Governor, Human Rights Commission, and High Court -- all condemned what the West Bengal Government did in Singur.

It goes to the credit of excellent administration that food riots broke out in CPI (M) ruled West Bengal, perhaps for the first time in the history of Independent India. According to the figures released by the Central Statistical Organisation, the highest number (10.6%) of those going to bed without food for a number of days in the country belong to West Bengal.

CPI (M) belongs to that tribe of politicians who must condemn BJP for all its acts of omission and commission at all times and in whatever situations for no rhyme or reason. They condemn BJP if it champions for a Uniform Civil Code, repeal of Article 370 and promises to construct a magnificent Ram temple at Ayodhya. But it equally gives them stomachache if BJP puts these issues to the back burner till its gets full people's mandate for the purpose. Enactment of Uniform Civil Code forms part of the Directive Principles of State Policy in the Constitution and the Supreme Court has reminded the Union government at least thrice of its responsibility to enact it. The Constitution itself says that Article 370 is a temporary measure.

It also exposes the hypocrisy of both the Congress-led UPA and the Left parties supporting it from outside when they argue that Article 370 cannot be revoked till the minority community consents to it. But it is the same very 'secular democrats' who wish to thwart the attempt of the majority to construct a Ram temple at Ayodhya.

It is a misstatement of facts that BJP MPs ever “sabotaged its adoption demanding reservation for OBC women within this reservation” when the women’s reservation Bill was “first introduced in Parliament”.

CPM leader has kept a count of NDA allies who left it, but not of those who left UPA. He is insomniac about the rift within the CPI (M) and the Left allies in West Bengal and Kerala. As recently as the first week of February, 2008 the ‘people’s’ government of West Bengal gunned down five activists of its own ally, the Forward Block.

Recently, in West Bengal local bodies' elections, Forward Block contested against its big ally CPM. In the current Tripura assembly elections, Forward Block is fighting against the ruling CPM.

Principles had never been the moral forte of left parties, particularly the CPI (M). Their commitment to nationalist causes has always been questionable. They have recently taken an about-turn on socialism and capitalism. Only recently Shri Jyoti Basu supported West Bengal Chief Minister Buddhadeb Bhattacharjee's stand on capitalism saying that there is a need to industrialise the state. "Socialism is not achievable at this point of time”, he said.
How ironic is Mr Yechury’s boast that “out of the 61 Left MPs in the Lok Sabha, 54 of them reached there by defeating Congress candidates”. And yet the Left parties had the cheek – and the high 'democratic' principles -- to support that very Party in Parliament speaking and fighting against whose programmes, policies and individuals had it won people’s mandate for these 54 parliamentary seats. Does it not amount to cheating the electorate? Why should the people have voted for CPI (M) if they knew that Left MPs were, ultimately, to support Congress?
It remains a fact that the Left parties are speaking in two tongues – one in New Delhi and quite the opposite in Kerala, West Bengal and Tripura.
This also substantiates the charge the Left parties are “sleeping with the enemy” and have entered into a marriage of convenience, devoid of principles, in their lust for power without responsibility.
It again is a hard fact that the moment the Left parties make a bold declaration not to support an anti-people policy of the UPA government, like hike in prices of petroleum products, increase in EPF interest rates, Indo-US Deal, disinvestment and the like, they receive invitation to lunch or dinner either by the Prime Minister or UPA chairperson. After having the sumptuous meals they forget their opposition to UPA policies and come out smiling. It is this behaviour of theirs that has given strength to the charge that the Left parties wave the red flag on the streets for public consumption and wave the green flag at private meetings with Government. The fact remains that the UPA had its way at all the times and it was the Left parties which had to compromise and submit each time. Remember their famous words on Indo-US Deal, “Congress has to choose between us and US”. Where do they stand today?
Needless to remind Shri Yechury of his own famous remark that Left not only barks; it can bite too. CPI (M) and Left have yet to come true to their words.
On February 14 the UPA government announced a hike of Rs. 2 per litre in petrol prices and Re. 1 in diesel. According to official announcement, the decision was taken after taking all the UPA allies and the Left parties in confidence. But the Left parties are opposing the decision publicly. Is it not cheating the people?
The least said the better about the Left. In fact the Left Parties, particularly CPI (M), may pose whatever they may, in reality they are only proving themselves as Congress No. 2 in the current political scenario.

*Amba Charan Vashishth is a political commentator on the editorial board of a political fortnightly.

SPIDERNET: Lest he marries the other woman

2008-06-17T03:17:00.000-07:00

SPIDERNET; Lest he weds the other woman

By Amba Charan Vashishth

It is no exaggeration to say that the stand of Left parties supporting the UPA from outside is nothing short of hypocrisy and double standards.
They claim that supporting the UPA is "their helplessness" because the alternative is the rise to power of 'communal' forces which, they say, are represented by BJP and its allies.
Before 1989, Congress was the enemy No. 1 for the Left Parties. They deplored the division of anti-Congress votes that made Congress to continue in power. For the purpose of defeating it they had joined hands with the Jana Sangh, whom today the Left parties call 'communal'. They even shared power with this communal outfit in the northern States of India when united front governments became a phenomenon in post-1967 electoral scenario.
In 1989 they had no qualms of conscience not to join hands with 'communal' BJP to support V. P. Singh government. But BJP became 'communal' the moment it withdrew support to VP Singh government.
Now they support the Congress-led UPA government from outside. But hardly has there been any time during the last four years when they have not condemned and threatened this government on various issues like rise in prices of petroleum products, Indo-US deal, disinvestment and what not. We have heard their now famous byte through the mouth of CPM veteran Sita Ram Yechury: "We don't only bark. We can bite too". Everybody in the country knows what they have done so far.
Getting hurt at the recent rise in prices, they called for a four-day bandh in Left ruled States. They continue threatening but at the same time assuring that they don't wish to make this government collapse. Actually, the fact is that they don't want to lose the luxury of being in power without the mandate and without accountability. Their argument: they cannot help ushering the BJP-led NDA.
Their response is similar to the woman who quarrels with her husband and cannot stand him even for a moment. When the couple face each other, they only quarrel and shout. She doesn't share a room with him. But she is not willing to divorce him only because that would facilitate her husband marry the other woman which she cannot digest under no circumstances. ***

*Amba Charan Vashishth is a political commentator on the editorial board of a political fortnightly.

Spidernet: The Myth & Reality of Parliamentary Privileges

2008-06-04T02:32:00.001-07:00

SPIDERNET:

The Myth and Reality of
PARLIAMENTARY PRIVILEGES

By A. C. Vashishtha
Words: 1506

Not-so- far-codified parliamentary privileges of our elected representatives have always been in the news and a matter of controversy. Like the mother who every other moment hurls the "I'll slap you" threat to his errant child, we also hear our parliamentarians threaten a privilege motion against every Tom, Dick and Harry. The latest has been the case of Indian Muslim League Member of Rajya Sabha, Mr. Abdul Wahab from Kerala who was made to leave the Air India aircraft before takeoff from Kozhikode on April 7 after a tiff with the pilot. The MP is reported to have threatened to move a privilege motion against the erring airline staff.

Whether the incident involves breach of privilege is a question that is the unchallenged discretion of the Rajya Sabha Chairman or Lok Sabha Speaker. But for academic interest, it is useful to understand what, in effect, can amount to a breach of parliamentary/legislative privilege although during the last sixty years no effort – and perhaps deliberately! – has been made to define it.

Our public representatives, honourable as they are, are yet human beings. And to err is human. An error whether of words or actions, can invite criticism and reproach from the people who bestow the aura of 'honour' on our public representatives on the strength of their vote. It is the people who make and unmake our elected representatives; the latter derive all their power and privileges from the people.

Yet, our public representatives seem to be growing more and more zealous and protective of their rights and privileges. They overlook their duties. The thin attendance at the time of important debates in our legislatures, at times having to be adjourned a number of times for want of quorum because the members had more important business other than legislative to take care of – the legislative business for which they are paid hefty pay, perks, allowances and, above all, the privileges. Any criticism of theirs, exposure of their activities these days invariably inviting motions of breach of privilege guaranteed.

The privileges are, no doubt, necessary for the proper exercise of the functions entrusted to Parliament by the Constitution "to safeguard the freedom, the authority and the dignity of Parliament", according to famous authority on parliamentary business Mr. M. N. Kaul,. These are enjoyed by individual members because the House cannot perform its functions without unimpeded use of the services of its members and the vindication of its authority and dignity. The privileges have been granted to members so that "they may be able to perform their duties in Parliament without let or hindrance". (Report of Committee of Privileges in Captain Ramsay case House of Commons (H.C. 164(1939-40) p vi, para 19)

Yet, privileges "do not discharge the member from the obligations to society which apply to him as much and perhaps more closely in that capacity, as they apply to other subjects" (H. C. 1951 Lewis case). These "do not place a member of Parliament on a footing different from that of an ordinary citizen in the matter of laws." (Committee of Speakers 1956).

Even after winning an election, a public representative does not lose his individual identity and personal existence – a person with his own profession, vocation and a circle of his own relations, friends and acquaintances. The one facet of his personality as a private individual engrossed in his personal affairs and business promotion cannot be made a part and parcel of his other facet of a public representative. Nor can – and should – both these aspects come into clash with each other. A respectable distance and dichotomy between the two has to be maintained for a harmonious functioning. The powers, functions and duties of the one should not transgress into the field of the other.

A public representative may come to have a clash of interests and, in the process, there could be some infringement of civil or criminal law even. But that does not provide a privilege to him against his spouse, brothers, parents and other relatives because these have nothing to do with his duties, functions and powers as a public representative. There may, at times, be a hot exchange of words or a brawl between two individuals without the other knowing even that the other is a public representative. That is why no person can – and should – claim privilege or immunity in anything said or done in his personal capacity as a private individual, whether in matters concerning himself, his family or profession. And that is why the Constitution gives the members of Parliament and of State legislatures the privilege and immunity only from "any proceedings in any court in respect of anything said or vote given by him in Parliament or any committee thereof" and not in any of their other functions or speeches delivered outside the House. Protected by the security ring of "proceedings in Parliament" and in State legislatures) these privileges do not extend beyond the legislative building, except when they are prevented from attending the session of Parliament or Assembly.

The concept of parliamentary privileges has been adopted by us in India on the pattern of the one prevailing in the British Parliament and is, more or less, governed and guided by the famous treatise May's Parliamentary Practice. The contempt of the House, according to May, is "any act or omission which obstructs or impedes either House of Parliament in the performance of its functions, or which obstructs or impedes any member or officer of such House, in the discharge of his duty or which has a tendency directly or indirectly, to produce such results…"

Breach of privilege means a disregard of any of the rights, privileges and immunities either of members of Parliament individually, or of the House in its collective capacity. Referring to various debates in the House of Commons and the Lok Sabha in Procedure and Practice of Parliament M. N. Kaul and S. L. Shakdhar state that "in order to constitute a breach of privilege, a libel upon a member of Parliament must concern his character or conduct in his capacity as a member of the House and must be based on matters arising in the actual transaction of the business of the House. Reflections upon members otherwise than in their capacity as members do not, therefore, involve a breach or privilege or contempt of the House. Similarly, speeches or writings containing vague charges against members or criticizing their parliamentary conduct in a strong language particularly in the heat of a public controversy without, however, imputing any malafides are not treated by the House as a contempt or breach of privilege".

Every activity of a member of Parliament does not attract the privilege. The House of Commons in 1958 rejected the opinion of the Committee of Privileges "that a particular letter written by a member to a Minister relating to a Nationalised Industry was a proceeding in Parliament".

Privilege of freedom from arrest "cannot extend or be contended to operate, where the member of Parliament is charged with an indictable offence". (Case of Venkateswarlyu, AIR 1951, Madras 272). Further, "the House will not allow even the sanctuary of its walls to protect a member from the process of criminal law" (May, p. 101)

The Constitution, the law and the parliamentary practice in India and the United Kingdom, therefore, clearly draw a distinct dividing line between the duties and functions of a public representative as a parliamentarian in the House and those outside, the latter bereft of the element of privilege.

In the Import Licence Case that surfaced about 15 years back, allegations of bribery and forgery of signatures of other MPs for promoting the cause of certain applicants were made. But the question of privilege was disallowed since the conduct of the member, although improper, was not related to the business of the House. At the same time it was held that as the allegations of bribery and forgery were serious and unbecoming of a member of Parliament, he could be held guilty of lowering the dignity of the House (Kaul and Shakdhar, ibid p. 231)

On the contrary, on the conduct of certain JMM MPs who voted for the Narasimharao Government during a vote of confidence in the House after allegedly receiving money, the Supreme Court held that trial must proceed against the alleged ``bribe-givers'' but not against the alleged ``bribe-takers'' since they enjoy immunity under Article 105(2) of the Constitution which states that ``no MP shall be liable to any proceedings in any court in respect of anything said or any vote given by him in Parliament or any committee thereof.''

There is a very thin line dividing the two facets of an individual's personality – personal and the one as a representative elected by the people. During the course of one's life one has to come face to face with the realities of life. One must be ready to face such situation. What is important is not whether it involves parliamentary privilege or not, but the truth and the truth alone. A public representative should fight for truth, for the unearthing of it. And the truth prevails; it must always prevail.

NEEDLEPOINT: They need honour & Education, not alms of reservation

2008-06-04T02:27:00.000-07:00

Spidernet

They deserve honour and education
Not the alms of reservation

By Amba Charan Vashishth

Reservation was certainly a necessity – legal, social and economic -- when such a provision was made in the Constitution. The framers of the Constitution were men of wisdom and foresight. They knew that making such a provision permanent would make it have an adverse effect on the Indian society and may ultimately divide it on the basis of caste. They actually had a vision of India as a nation not divided on caste lines, as it was in the past till India won freedom. That was why the provision for reservation was made for just 10 years. In the Constituent Assembly, Dr. Ambedkar had with a sense of pride declared that the scheduled castes would not beg for it after that.

But that is a history now. There was a time when claiming to belong to a scheduled caste/tribe family looked embarrassing. Reservation too looked upon like a gracious favour. But today it has become a matter of pride, a sign of status, and something one should fight and even sacrifice for.

Without going into the justification or otherwise of their demand, the recent agitation by Gurjars for grant of scheduled tribes (and not the Other Backward Class status, as the Government has granted), has to be seen in this very light. Of late, in Rajasthan some sections among the forward castes of Brahmins and Rajputs too have come out with a demand for granting them backward/scheduled caste status. Even the non-Hindu religions, which hitherto prided themselves in being casteless creeds in denunciation of Hindu society, are now condescending to demand reservation on the basis of castes – a fact which their religion doesn't recognize. Such demands will continue to be on the increase as long as there is reservation.

This situation has ignited the spark of a class/caste conflict in the society. Rajasthan's Meena community, already enjoying a scheduled tribe status, is equally vehement in opposing the Gurjars.

Malady lies not in the demand, but in the politics behind in the name of votes. The reservation provision that was temporary for a decade has now become a permanent feature of the Constitution. No political party can dare to do otherwise

There was no narrow electoral politics at play when the Constitution in one of its Directive Principles provided for enactment of a uniform civil code in the country, a provision about which the Supreme Court has also reminded the Union government not once, but at least thrice. But now the electoral considerations have made our leaders deaf, blind and dumb on the issue.

Similar is the story about the Article 370 which, again, was a temporary one. Now it has virtually turned into a permanent feature, as against the spirit of the Constitution, lest it costs the ruling party votes of a particular community.

No serious effort has been made, for obvious reasons, to assess the extent of amelioration the reservation provision has ushered in the condition of the scheduled castes/tribes. In the absence of the creamy layer provision, now enforced because of Supreme Court verdict, the benefit of reservation has been usurped by only a very few families. We can count on our tips the families whose four generations are in the IAS, IPS and other prestigious Central services. Others continue to indulge in the age-old professions as before, living in slums in pecuniary.
Reality is that those who got into power and prestige because of reservation no longer wish to be identified with the castes to which they belonged. They snapped their relations with the community and married off themselves in higher castes, instead of doing so to uplift someone in their own community. For them the value of the caste certificate was reduced to just claiming benefit. Inter-caste and inter-community marriages should always be welcome. But, unfortunately, doing so in these cases has only resulted in the neglect of the rest in their own community. And that was not what our Constitution visualized.

In fact, reservation is a curse on the merit of the mankind. What we should have done was to extend the benefit of a good education and multiplicity of opportunities the higher castes enjoyed more because of their economic condition and less because of their social upbringing. We should have empowered the scheduled tribes/castes and backward classes by providing them with a good environment for higher education and coaching to compete with the higher castes on the platform of equality on the strength of their merit. It is a folly to think that the reserve classes lack merit or intelligence and that they can survive or march forward only if there is reservation to the exclusion of merit. Given the opportunity that have excelled in fields nobody could earlier think even.

Thousands of crores has been wasted during the past sixty years without any significant and tangible improvement in the life and condition of our neglected and dalit sections of society. Why were they not provided the type of education and extent of opportunities other castes enjoyed?

The present agitations by more and more castes for their inclusion in the scheduled castes/scheduled tribe category is because of the impression ingrained in their mind that the very act of their inclusion in these proud categories will overnight make their wards grab prized posts without earning the merit. A sense of inferiority complex has been generated in the minds of these neglected sections that they can never earn merit and reservation is the only panacea. The neglected castes have been made to beg for the alms of reservation and not to agitate for their right to education and merit. That is the crux of the problem. Empowering the downtrodden doesn't fetch votes; our politicians know it very well.

Our rulers will have to change their mindset to barter favours with electoral benefits from certain castes and communities. Unless this is done, the kind of situation that developed in Rajasthan may erupt in other parts of the country with similar demands from other castes/communities. Let our politicians ponder in a cool manner. ***

Needlepoint: Right to Information; Arrogance to Deny it

2008-05-04T05:59:00.000-07:00

Needlepoint
The Right to information
The Arrogance to deny it

By Amba Charan Vashishth
Words: 910

On April 24 in all his wisdom and authority Rajya Sabha Chairman Mr. Hamid Ansari invoked, for the first time after 1989, Rule 255 and named Mr. V. Maitreyan of the AIADMK for disorderly behaviour and asked him to leave the House.
The provocation for the Chairman’s order was the member’s persistent demand for a response from Prime Minister Dr. Manmohan Singh, who was present in the House, to the charge that Union Surface Transport Minister Mr T.R. Baalu sought a favour for his sons’ firms in allocation of gas and that the Prime Minister had recommended his case.
The Chairman disallowed his plea and asked him not to disrupt the proceedings. However, Mr. Maitreyan continued to press for a “clarification” by the Prime Minister. At this stage, Mr. Ansari warned him that he would invoke Rule 255, observing that “this disorderly behaviour was unbecoming of a parliamentarian.” When an agitated Mr. Maitreyan remained adamant, Mr. Ansari said he was invoking the rule.
There are no two opinions on the righteousness of the Hon’ble Chairman’s directions. An MP is expected to behave and submit to the directions of the chair in all humility in the interest of decorum in a house.
It is none of anybody’s business to comment upon what happens within the precincts of a house. Yet, as a free citizen – above all, a responsible voter – of this great country and democracy, it is equally his inalienable right to keep a close watch on what right or wrong is going on in the two houses of Parliament and to ponder over dispassionately, when, what, why and how did it happen.
Two basic questions do arise in the mind. Does an honourable MP not have a right to seek clarification or reaction of a minister or prime minister on any matter of public importance in which the name of a minister or PM may have been rightly or wrongly been dragged? Is it not the duty and responsibility of a minister concerned to satisfy the curiosity of the member – and through him and Parliament, of the general public – of the facts of the case?
It is right that no member can expect – and force – a minister or government into instantly and there and then making a statement without first referring to records and verifying facts. But in this age of fast means of communications promising to do so next day or day after should not be construed as meaning something like asking for the moon. That would only have soothed the frayed tempers and sent out a clear message that there is no intention to hide facts.
The greatest tragedy of our system of democracy is that rights and duties don’t go hand in hand; these are neither inter-linked nor inter-dependent. In the Westminster style of parliamentary system of government, an honourable MP or minister does have the right to reply immediately if his name is referred to by any other member in the house. But, it is not the duty – and, on the contrary, it is his sole discretion -- to respond or not if any allegation, howsoever serious it may be, against a member or minister.
In democracy, no person/minister, howsoever high, has the right – and don't forget the Right to Information Act – to withhold facts – unless, of course, it involves the security of the country, which is not true in the instant case – from the house because he/she is answerable, accountable and responsible to Parliament and the people.
Till the time this piece has been sent, neither the right of the House – and through it, of the people – to know the reality has been respected nor has the government discharged its duty to lay the facts bare. The Minister for Parliamentary Affairs does have given an assurance that government will look into it and respond but, at the same time, without specifying when.
When the matter was raised in the Rajya Sabha on April 25, saying that the members expected some understanding from the Chair of their intentions and feelings, and that there were many situations which could be resolved without invoking any penal provisions of the rules of the House, the Chairman Mr. Ansari said, “In fact none was punished or castigated. All that had happened was that in pursuant to the rule of the House, the attention of the member was drawn to that and he complied”.
Rule 255: “The Chairman may direct any member, whose conduct is in his opinion grossly disorderly, to withdraw immediately from the Council, and any member so ordered to withdraw shall do so forthwith and shall absent himself during the remainder of the day’s meeting.”
It clearly means that the Hon’ble Chairman invoked this Rule only after “in his opinion, Mr. Maitreyan’s conduct was “grossly disorderly" and, therefore, ordered him "to withdraw immediately from the Council". The concerned MP "so ordered to withdraw" did so forthwith and did "absent himself during the remainder of (that) today's meeting".
Earlier the Rule was invoked in 1989 in a slightly different context and situation. A member had physically prevented another member from asking a supplementary question. When the chair asked the recalcitrant MP to tender an apology to the House for this "grossly disorderly" conduct and the latter refused to comply, the provisions of the Rule were applied.
The people of the country do have the right – and the duty – to draw their own conclusion, right or wrong. They certainly will. ***

M F Hussain: Myth of his Innocence; Truth of his wrongs

2008-05-04T05:52:00.000-07:00

MF Hussain
Myth of his innocence
Reality of his wrongs

By Amba Charan Vashishth*
Words: 700

On April 7 the Indian Express published an interview with famous artist Satish Gujaral in which he said that Mr. M. F. Hussain's exile "makes me ashamed of my own culture…the mob culture" and that" we have made such a great man live abroad."

Such utterances just confuse the people evading the real issue. These deprive the people from having a comprehensive and indepth look at the issues involved from every angle. We do drum about "our culture" but ignore that it also that teaches us to introspect on our own conduct before raising an accusing finger on the other. It is the same very "culture" that teaches us only to respect and not to offend others' sentiments. Mr. Gujaral seems to be ignoring "our culture" when he calls Mr Hussain "a great man" who has the audacity to injure, without provocation, the sentiments of crores of his countrymen.

If Mr. Hussain, as he and his supporters claim, has not done anything wrong then why is he afraid of returning to his country? Never has any government declined to provide him adequate security. But it will be expecting to much if they expect the government to grant him blanket immunity from any criminal offence he may or may not have committed. No government worth its name can do that in a democracy. He seems to be afraid to return because of a sense of guilt created by his own deeds and not because of "our culture". Everybody knows that to hurt somebody’s or some section of society’s faith and religious sentiments is an offence -- criminal, social and ethical. If one poses to be brave to stand by his commitments and principles, he should equally be bold to face the consequences.

Neither Mr. Hussain himself nor his protagonists explain why has he availed himself of his democratic right to freedom of expression only with Hindu goddesses and not taken the same liberty with holy men of his own creed?

If “he is a prime target precisely because he is a Muslim”, as some allege, then it can, inversely, also mean that he exercised his license with Hindu gods and goddesses “precisely because he is a Muslim”. Had the liberal and ‘secular’ Mr. Hussain painted in the same fashion somebody belonging to his own religion, or put the caption as “My Mother Durga”, or “My Mother Saraswati” or “My Mother Bharatmata” on the nude photographs, perhaps, he would have blunt the sharpness of the tongue and logic of his critics and detractors.

Mr. Hussain is, no doubt, a great painter but, at the same time, we have yet to know of a great painter, like him, who has painted his mother in the nude.

It is great human weakness and reality that everybody wishes to flirt with or throw amorous glances over someone else’s wife, sister and mother. One wishes to draw vicarious pleasure by seeing them in the nude. But when it comes to our own wife, mother or sister, we would wish to gouge the eyes of the culprit; it could lead to a scuffle and a murder even.

Arundhati Roys, Nandita Dasses, and a horde of well-known writers and artists/artistes throng the streets in support of Mr. Hussain's freedom. Yet, they have never publicly declared that they would appreciate with the same sense of glee and pride their own or of any member of their own family's nude paintings by a ‘great’ artist like Mr. Hussain. They need to do that, otherwise they will only stand exposed as hypocrites who have one standard for others and quite the opposite for themselves.

Do we need to remind what "our culture….mob culture" has done to the likes of Taslima Nasreen, Salman Rushdie? Or the orgy of violence let loose causing loss of innocent lives and to private/public property in various parts of the country following publication of some Danish cartoonist outside India or hanging of Saddam Hussain in Iraq – an act in which "our culture" had no direct or indirect role to play?

It is a virtue to be liberal and condescending; it is a sin to be one-eyed and partial to deliberately gloat over the other side of reality! ***

Needlepoint: The Enigma that is Delimitation

2008-02-14T23:03:00.000-08:00

The Enigma that is Delimitation

By Amba Charan Vashishth

At the height of controversy over delimitation of constituencies in Himachal Pradesh, the Chairman of the Delimitation Commission in 2002 declared: He will go by the convenience of the public and not by that of the politicians. But actually, with the Government of India now deciding to the accept the report of Delimitation Commission for Himachal along with other States where election process has already been completed, the Election Commission and the Delimitation Commission have in fact achieved exactly the reverse and ignored the "convenience of the public".

In 2002, the Delimitation Commission was trying to run against time to complete the process in time for the HP assembly elections then due in February 2003. But for some reason or the other, this could not be done and the elections were held as per the old delimitation. But it was then thought that the process of delimitation would be completed well before next elections due in February 2008 (though held in December 2007) to hold elections as per the new recommendations.

It is worth mentioning that although the report of the Delimitation Commission was notified by the HP Government as back as January 2007, yet in the elections held after 11 months in December 2007, the Report was totally ignored.

The elections to Gujarat assembly in December 2007 too were held according to the old delimitation. So about the States of Tripura, Nagaland, Meghalaya going to the polls in March this year. In Karnataka elections due in May 2008 the report of the Delimitation Commission is again likely to be ignored.

In all fairness, the elections to every State assembly should be held as per the recommendations of the Delimitation Commission to cater to the "convenience of the public" instead of creating practical problems for them later on.

The elections held as per the old system have created a very anomalous situation, at least for the people who voted in the elections concluded less than a month ago in the States of Himachal and Gujarat, and so will they in the three North-eastern States.

Being more acquainted with the ground realities in Himachal, I would like to concentrate more on the situation that has developed in this State. The situation in other States can be no different.

Not the one they voted

The kanungo circle being the unit for re-drawl of constituencies, the boundaries of almost every constituency stand altered. Consequently, the persons whom people voted in the last elections are no longer their representatives and the one they did not vote are to be their 'elected' representatives. In many cases they may have voted for a person who belongs to some other party and won, but in the newly drawn constituency, the person may belong to a different party. The elected 'representative' too may not give to them that much care and attention because they were not the people instrumental in his victory.

No MLA to represent

A new assembly constituency of Manali has been added to the Kullu district increasing the number of its MLAs to four from the existing three. The voters of the newly created constituency of Manali have now been left high and dry with nobody to represent them in the House because their area falls in the constituency of none of the three individuals who won the election. The latter will now only concentrate on the areas from where they have to seek re-election next time.

No constituency to represent

The number of assembly constituencies in Kangra, the biggest district of the State which sends almost one-fourth of MLAs (16 in a house of 68) has been reduced to 15. The Thural constituency, which the incumbent Irrigation & Public Health Minister Mr. Ravinder Singh Ravi has been representing and won for the fourth time consecutively, has been obliterated and he is left with no area to represent, his present area having been fragmented and merged with other adjoining constituencies.

Nowhere to go

The number of constituencies reserved for Scheduled Castes has been increased by one, from the present 16 to 17 (one-fourth of the House). Unreserved constituencies of Chintpurni (Una), Baijnath (Kangra), Rohroo (Shimla) and Solan have been reserved for scheduled castes and the present reserved constituencies of Gagret (Una), Pragpur (Kangra) and Kasumpati (Shimla) have been de-reserved. Consequently, the MLAs elected only a month back, including former Chief Minister Virbhadra Singh (Rohroo) and Health Minister Dr. Rajeev Bindal (Solan), have been left high dry with no areas to contest next time. Mr Virbhadra Singh may opt from some other constituency in Shimla district, but the fate of the remaining three is doomed.

As a result of this delimitation, the people inhabiting these newly reserved and de-reserved seven constituencies will suffer because the incumbent representatives will lose interest in nursing the areas that voted for them because they have not to seek votes from these constituencies for at least three decades hence when another delimitation of constituencies may take place. The last delimitation took place in 1972.

The only redeeming feature will be that the next Lok Sabha elections in 2009 will be held as per the newly redrawn parliamentary constituencies. Although the four parliamentary constituencies too stand redrawn, yet the people will have the opportunity to vote for an individual and a political party of their choice under the new set up. ***

Needlepoint: Crackers -- 'Communal' and 'secular'

2008-02-13T23:25:00.000-08:00

The crackers – ‘communal’ and ‘secular’

By Amba Charan Vashishth*

After reading what I am writing will make me end up as an orthodox, rank communalist in the eyes of our self-proclaimed secularists, liberal intelligentsia who claim for themselves the exclusive, unchallenged intellectual property right and trademark on ‘secularism’ and think they can sell anything in their brand ‘secular’.

But I, too, do have the freedom of expression on what I see, what I think and what I believe. Others can contradict me, condemn me but only with the force of logic and argument and not by the shrill their words can emit.

Like crores of my brethren all over the country in cities, towns, and villages, I am an orthodox person who does not wish to be deprived of his peaceful sleep even on the New Year eve. I don’t indulge in an orgy of drinking and dancing with other’s wives and women, hug them and touch them in the name of wishing them a very affectionate, a very happy, sweet, loving New Year.

December 31 has come to be celebrated as the New Year Eve, though the fact remains that hardly one percent of our population, mostly in metros and big cities, has come to know of it or celebrate it because they have the money to spare and splurge. If government were to order the bills that night to be paid only through cheques, debit and credit cards, I am sure, it will collect more income tax and other revenues. But there is another side of the story. The celebrations will then lose the lavishness and the sheen. It is the black money that thrives that day and drives the mirth and festivities.

As the zero hour struck on December 31st night, I was startled out of my slumber by the sound and fury of crackers that continued for more than half an hour in full fury and, later, intermittently for about two hours.

It reminded me of the court orders banning bursting of crackers after 10 at night because it created noise and environmental pollution as it also disturbed the peace of mind of many a great gentlemen.

When more than 80 percent of the population in the country – young and old, men and women, rich and poor—are celebrating Diwali, there is a ban on crackers after 10 PM but not when only a minuscule minority of only rich elite is doing.

Does it then mean that crackers spread pollution -- noise and environmental- only when burst on Diwali day and not on December 31st and New Year Day? Are the crackers on Diwali ‘communal’ only because these have something to do with ‘Hindus’ and on December 31st ‘secular’ because the celebration has nothing to do with Hindu ethos?

I noticed signboards at many places, including at the India Gate circle in New Delhi warning us: “Don’t mix drinking with driving.” It is a crime. So tell our police, law enforcing agencies and court. But how many drivers were held up by police on 31st December night? Practically none. Had the police done its duty it could hardly come across a single vehicle driver, whether owner or a chauffer, the occupants included, without a heavy dose of alcohol and intoxication. Why should they not be? They had gone out for merry-making and not to visit a place of worship to seek spiritual blessings.

How could the poor police perform its duty and enforce law? It could do, but only at its own peril. If it did stretch its hand of law, who knows which big-big or his wards were his booty. But the policemen preferred to keep their eyes shut to the infringements of law before their very own eyes, pretending not to have seen it and therefore did not have to act. Their duty ended putting signboard warning the violators. It allowed everyone to have a free for all. Can any sane people even think that on 31st December night not a single person out on merrymaking drove his vehicle without having gulped a few pegs of wine at that late hour?

When there is traffic jam or hazard because of a political or religious procession much is talked and written about. But when vehicular traffic to Connaught Place in New Delhi was totally prohibited on New Year Eve, people coming to Delhi from outside who had to pass nearby Connaught Place were put to great inconvenience. No taxi or auto-rickshaw was willing to go to that area. How many people failed to catch their trains from New Delhi railway station situated adjoining Connaught Place, nobody knows? Nobody wrote; nobody cared. Everybody was high in spirits reporting the merry making going on at Connaught Place. ***

Himachal Assembly Elections 2007

2008-01-26T23:08:00.000-08:00

NEEDLEPOINT: HIMACHAL ASSEMBLY ELECTIONS

Facts more interesting, more enlightening

By Amba Charan Vashishth

The recent assembly elections in Himachal Pradesh have created history in more than one way. The facts that emerge are interesting and enlightening.

For the first time, on its own strength, BJP got absolute majority – 41 seats in a 68-member house (just 2 seats less than required for a 2/3rd majority, with two BJP rebels having already declared their support to Dhumal government).

In 1998 BJP did form government but it was in alliance with Himachal Vikas Congress (HVC).

BJP's percentage of vote share went up from 35.38 in 2003 to 43.78 in 2007 December – a jump of 8.40 percent. BJP this time had no alliance or seat adjustment at any level. Congress vote percentage went down from 41.00 percent in 2003 to 38.89.

In 2003 elections, HVC had contested independently and received 5.87 percent votes. On the eve of 2004 parliamentary elections, HVC merged itself with Congress. This means that Congress share of votes in 2007 went down by another 5.87% as compared to 2003.

In 1990 too, BJP had a majority but it was in alliance with Janta Dal then. BJP got 46 out of 51 contested. Out of 17 JD fought, it won 11. BJP percentage of votes then was 41.78.

Three times in the past Prem Kumar Dhumal was projected as chief ministerial candidate. Party won twice in 1998 and 2007.

Popularity, among voters, of Prem Kumar Dhumal is continuously on the rise since he first contested the assembly election from Bamson constituency while that of the Congress chief ministerial candidate Virbhadra Singh is on the downslide:

Lead with vote percentage
1998 2003 2007

P. K. Dhumal 8,828 15,698 26,007
(60.34%) (66.71%) (76.29%)

Virbhadra Singh 26,148 16,289 14,137
(80.92%) (67.94%) (60.00%)

On the contrary, BJP candidate, Khushi Ram Balnatah maintains his gain each election at the cost of Virbhadra Singh

Khushi Ram Balnatah 18.02% 31.93% 32.13%

If it was a BJP candidate P.K. Dhumal who won by the highest margin, it again was the BJP candidate Tulsi Ram, who won the Pangi-Bharmaur seat with the lowest margin of 16 votes.

Sonia-Rahul flop

Mrs. Sonia Gandhi addressed election rallies at Palampur and Hamirpur and Congress lost at both the places.

Rahul Gandhi had his much hyped road show only in Kullu district and Congress lost all the three assembly seats for the first time.

Sonia protégé loses

Being a Sonia protégé failed to fetch victory for her special nominee, Parkash Chand, son of a person working in her household. Congress suffered the ignominy of losing the security deposit even. She had denied the ticket to sitting Congress MLA and Deputy Speaker Dharampal.

Five Congress nominees forfeited their security deposit as against 3 of BJP.

It is for the first time that BJP has won all the five seats in Solan district and all the three seats in Kullu district.

Both BJP and Congress had fielded six women each. Four women from BJP and only one from Congress could make it to the State assembly.

BJP creates history

BJP captured the so-far-invincible Congress forts in Jubbal-Kotkhai (Shimla), Kotkehloor (Bilaspur) and Kassauli (Solan). Jubbal-Kotkhai had throughout been a pocket borough of Congress veteran late Thakur Ram Lal who won it throughout. After his death, in 2003 elections his grandson romped home successful. As a Janta Dal candidate supported by BJP Thakur Ram Lal had even humbled Chief Minister Virbhadra Singh in 1990 from this constituency.

It was another Ram Lal Thakur of Congress who was this time defeated by BJP's Randhir Sharma for the first time in Kotkehloor.

Except for the lone instance of Janata Party in 1977, BJP has won, for the first time, the Dharampur constituency in Mandi district when Mohinder Singh won it contesting as a BJP candidate this time

Myth smashed

In the election two myths were smashed: One, division between the 'old' and the 'new' areas that had bogged the State since Punjab areas merged with Himachal in 1966; two, that BJP was a party of the 'new' areas alone. BJP won more or less an equal victory in both regions. Out of 34 seats in 'old' areas, BJP won 17 (50 percent) and 24 out of the rest of 34.

Parliamentary constituency-wise too, there was more of uniformity and less of diversity. In Kangra parliamentary constituency BJP bagged 10 assembly seats, in Hamirpur 11, in Mandi 12 and in Shimla 8.

Veterans of battle

It is Congress candidate, Shri Gangu Ram Musafir who created history by winning his Pachhad assembly constituency consecutively for the 7th time.

I. D. Dhiman and Capt. Atma Ram, both of BJP and Harshvardhan Chauhan of Congress, have won their seats consecutively for the fifth time.

Shri Ravinder Singh Ravi (BJP) and Shri Kaul Singh Thakur (Congress) have scored their fourth consecutive victory.

Present State BJP President Jairam Thakur (Chachiot), Baldev Sharma (Nadaunta), Dr. Rajiv Bindal (Solan), Ramesh Dhwala (Jawalamukhi), Hari Narain Singh (Nalagarh) – all BJP -- and Smt. Vidya Stokes, Shri G. S. Bali, and Dr. Prem Singh (Renuka) – all Congress, have recorded their third victory in a row.

Ministers lick defeat

More than half of the Congress cabinet lost. 5 out of 10 ministers were defeated. One did not fight, but his son contested and lost. One resigned about one month before the announcement of election schedule. One minister was denied nomination. Two senior ministers, Mrs. Vidya Stokes (Kumarsain) and Thakur Kaul Singh (Darang) somehow managed to escape the BJP onslaught retaining their seats by very narrow margins of 1250 and 1809 votes, respectively.

Four other Congress ministers, who were dropped from Cabinet for one reason or the other, were dumped by the electorate – Shri Brij Bihari Lal Butail (Palampur), Mrs. Asha Kumari (Banikhet), Mrs. Chandresh Kumari (Dharmsala) and the last of all, Major Vijai Singh Mankotia who two months back left Congress and contested as BSP's chief ministerial candidate.

BSP opens account

BSP did succeed in opening its account first time in Himachal from Kangra, but 59 of its candidates lost security deposit.

Rest of the national parties failed to make their presence felt. CPM was runner-up only in Shimla constituency. In rest of the State CPM, CPI, NCP, Lok Janshakti Party and Samajwadi Party did contest some seats but only to lose their security deposit.

Leader in Distress
Whenever Congress wins majority, the leader of the Congress Legislature Party has been Shri Virbhadra Singh, but whenever it loses majority as it did in 1990 and now in 2007, it is Smt. Vidya Stokes who is elected the leader.

***

NEEDLE POINT: Insult is an insult whether by Russia or America

2007-10-25T05:34:00.000-07:00

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? ***

NEEDLEPOINT: Himachal election announcement flawed, constitutionally

2007-10-12T05:55:00.000-07:00

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. ***

Me secular, you communal

2007-10-09T04:41:00.000-07:00

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. ***

RAM - FACT OR FABLE?

2007-09-13T04:45:00.000-07:00

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.

A Challenge to Arundhatis, Nanditas, MF Hussains, and Chandermohans

2007-09-03T01:16:00.000-07:00

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.

Don't Deny Diana Peace in Her Grave!

2007-08-28T05:55:00.000-07:00

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. ***

No Comment: Its parliament business

2007-08-26T07:30:00.000-07:00

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. ***

My Memoria Miscellany

2007-08-25T06:20:00.000-07:00

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?

My Memoria Miscellany - Times have changed

2007-08-21T00:27:00.000-07:00

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.
***

Parliament, not Cabinet, supreme and sovereign

2007-08-19T07:46:00.000-07:00

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. ***

Indo-US Deal -- Parliamentary Nod Must, Constitutionally

2007-08-18T00:37:00.000-07:00

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. ***

Pride and Glamour of Politics

2007-08-16T23:59:00.000-07:00

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.

The Pride and Glamour of Crime in Politics

2007-08-14T07:54:00.000-07:00

We've Sonia at Rajiv's 'request'!

2007-08-11T06:19:00.000-07:00

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!
***

Public representatives superior to public?

2007-08-10T06:55:00.000-07:00

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. ***