By Amba Charan Vashishth
Can a slap on my face by one friend be an injurious insult to me and the same given by another is something like an affectionate pampering of a flower on my cheek?
Appears, it is being made to look so by the Congress, the United Progressive Alliance and the Left parties.
Last week, our Minister for External Affairs Pranab Mukherjee was an official visit to Moscow on the invitation of Russian government. On his arrival, he was made to be frisked and searched like any ordinary visitor to that country. But the gravest insult hurled at him was the refusal of Russian foreign minister to see him on the plea that he was too busy with his US counterpart, Secretary of State Miss Condella Rice.
Official visits of high dignitaries are planned well-in-advance to suit the convenience of both the host and the guest countries. If something untoward, extraordinary happens in between, the visit is either politely sought to be postponed or even cancelled, but no offence to any of the two countries is intended.
But the refusal to meet Indian Minister on official visit on the invitation of Russia is a great affront and insult to the guest country at the hands of the host.
Russia is, no doubt, a great friend of India since the day we won our independence. But no country, least of all, a great friend like Russia, has a right to what clearly amounts to be an insult to the Indian nation because in Russia Mr. Pranab Mukherjee did not represent his own self alone but the whole Indian nation. He had gone there as a representative of the Indian people. Whatever innuendoes on the pretext of his being too busy with Miss Rice may have been showered on the Indian Foreign Minister, have not been done to him individually but to the nation as a whole.
The UPA government has silently gloated over this slight from Russia, how shall we feel when any other country does so – big or small, friend or foe? That publicly the Indian government does not seem to have conveyed its displeasure to the Russian government at the treatment meted out to our Foreign Minister is all the more intriguing. In fact, efforts are being made to push the matter under the carpet. Should India do so? Doing so, would only encourage other countries to follow the example set by Russia vis-à-vis India.
And we should also not forget that diplomatic courtesies and niceties are always reciprocal, never one sided. We have to return the compliment or otherwise in the same coin and manner. Otherwise, it looks like India being too soft, too immune to such offence.
It is worth recalling that when the then Defence Minister, Mr. George Fernandes had visited USA and was made to be body frisked and searched, a great hue and cry was made both by the Congress and the Left parties of USA having insulted India. But this time the Left remains silent, understandably because for the Left parties whatever Russia does is always right and whatever USA does is always wrong. And since Manmohan Government is subsisting on the outside support provided by the Left parties, its mouth stands sealed to speak, lest it annoys the Left and puts the government in jeopardy, as had the Indo-US nuclear deal done.
But should we compromise with the nation’s honour on account of this? ***
Thursday, October 25, 2007
Friday, October 12, 2007
NEEDLEPOINT: Himachal election announcement flawed, constitutionally
By Amba Charan Vashishth
It is immaterial whether the Election Commission announcement for holding elections about five months earlier than due has been welcomed or not by the people and political parties in Himachal Pradesh. The point at issue is whether it is as per the word and spirit of the law and the Constitution.
It is true that three tribal assembly constituencies are very vital to the formation of a government with just a 68-member house. Results in these constituencies could make or break a government that generally takes precedence to the poll in these constituencies because for the last over 39 years elections have, perhaps, been held together with the rest of the State only once in 1977, because these constituencies remain snowbound in February-March when polling generally takes place in the rest of the State.
Equally true is the fact that declaration of results in the rest of the State and formation of a government prior to polling in these three tribal seats influences the free will of the voters who later turn to vote, with just a few exceptions, for the party in power. But that is too trivial a ground to prepone elections in the whole State.
The present Himachal Pradesh Vidhan Sabha was constituted on March 6, 2003 and as such a new Vidhan Sabha has to be in position on or before March 5, 2008. Similarly, the elections to these three tribal constituencies were completed in the end of May 2003 and their term was co-terminus with the life of the HP assembly. Now, as a result of EC announcement, the term of these three tribal constituencies will stand further curtailed by five months.
Normally, elections to Parliament or State assemblies can be preponed only on the recommendation of the government in power by dissolving the present House. This is because the house of the people is elected by the electors for a term of five years and no authority other than the President or the State governor is empowered to order elections earlier than due without dissolving the existing house.
It is not understood what interpretation has the Election Commission made of Section 15 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 which provides: (1) A general election shall be held for the purpose of constituting a new Legislative Assembly on the expiration of the duration of the existing Assembly or on its dissolution….
Provided that where a general election is held otherwise than on the dissolution of the existing Legislative Assembly, no such notification shall be issued at any time earlier than six months prior to the date on which the duration of that Assembly would expire under the provisions of clause (1), of article 172 3 …(which provides: Every Legislative Assembly of every State, unless sooner dissolved, shall continue for five years from the date appointed for the first meeting and no longer and the expiration of the said period of five years shall operative as a dissolution of the Assembly”.)
An interpretation of these provisions of the Constitution and Section 15 the Representation of the People Act, 1951 clearly means that although the Commission is within its rights to issue a notification for election at any time not earlier than six months prior to the date on which the duration of that Assembly is to expire, yet completion of election ”before 31.12.2007” will mean that the tenure of the existing Vidhan Sabha which, under the provisions of Article 172, was to” continue for five years from the date appointed for the first meeting” has been curtailed by more than two months. The Election Commission under no authority of law has the power to reduce the tenure of Parliament or a State assembly by even a single day.
That the Commission was aware of its infirmity and that is why it fixed the date of counting of votes as 28.12.07, nine days after the polling was to be over in the State on 19-12-2007. There is no justification for putting off the counting in a State for no justifiable reason, except that the Commission was trying not to further curtail the term of the present Vidhan by another week.
It will be a great travesty of law and the Constitution, if the present Vidhan Sabha was allowed to function beyond 31-12-2007 because once the new Vidhan Sabha is constituted, the old one automatically stands dissolved.
The Election Commission needs to ponder. ***
It is immaterial whether the Election Commission announcement for holding elections about five months earlier than due has been welcomed or not by the people and political parties in Himachal Pradesh. The point at issue is whether it is as per the word and spirit of the law and the Constitution.
It is true that three tribal assembly constituencies are very vital to the formation of a government with just a 68-member house. Results in these constituencies could make or break a government that generally takes precedence to the poll in these constituencies because for the last over 39 years elections have, perhaps, been held together with the rest of the State only once in 1977, because these constituencies remain snowbound in February-March when polling generally takes place in the rest of the State.
Equally true is the fact that declaration of results in the rest of the State and formation of a government prior to polling in these three tribal seats influences the free will of the voters who later turn to vote, with just a few exceptions, for the party in power. But that is too trivial a ground to prepone elections in the whole State.
The present Himachal Pradesh Vidhan Sabha was constituted on March 6, 2003 and as such a new Vidhan Sabha has to be in position on or before March 5, 2008. Similarly, the elections to these three tribal constituencies were completed in the end of May 2003 and their term was co-terminus with the life of the HP assembly. Now, as a result of EC announcement, the term of these three tribal constituencies will stand further curtailed by five months.
Normally, elections to Parliament or State assemblies can be preponed only on the recommendation of the government in power by dissolving the present House. This is because the house of the people is elected by the electors for a term of five years and no authority other than the President or the State governor is empowered to order elections earlier than due without dissolving the existing house.
It is not understood what interpretation has the Election Commission made of Section 15 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 which provides: (1) A general election shall be held for the purpose of constituting a new Legislative Assembly on the expiration of the duration of the existing Assembly or on its dissolution….
Provided that where a general election is held otherwise than on the dissolution of the existing Legislative Assembly, no such notification shall be issued at any time earlier than six months prior to the date on which the duration of that Assembly would expire under the provisions of clause (1), of article 172 3 …(which provides: Every Legislative Assembly of every State, unless sooner dissolved, shall continue for five years from the date appointed for the first meeting and no longer and the expiration of the said period of five years shall operative as a dissolution of the Assembly”.)
An interpretation of these provisions of the Constitution and Section 15 the Representation of the People Act, 1951 clearly means that although the Commission is within its rights to issue a notification for election at any time not earlier than six months prior to the date on which the duration of that Assembly is to expire, yet completion of election ”before 31.12.2007” will mean that the tenure of the existing Vidhan Sabha which, under the provisions of Article 172, was to” continue for five years from the date appointed for the first meeting” has been curtailed by more than two months. The Election Commission under no authority of law has the power to reduce the tenure of Parliament or a State assembly by even a single day.
That the Commission was aware of its infirmity and that is why it fixed the date of counting of votes as 28.12.07, nine days after the polling was to be over in the State on 19-12-2007. There is no justification for putting off the counting in a State for no justifiable reason, except that the Commission was trying not to further curtail the term of the present Vidhan by another week.
It will be a great travesty of law and the Constitution, if the present Vidhan Sabha was allowed to function beyond 31-12-2007 because once the new Vidhan Sabha is constituted, the old one automatically stands dissolved.
The Election Commission needs to ponder. ***
Tuesday, October 9, 2007
Me secular, you communal
By Amba Charan Vashishth
In India actually, nobody knows what ‘secularism’ exactly means. The word ‘secular’, inserted in the Constitution in 1976, was never defined, deliberately perhaps. This has provided every political party and politician the right and freedom to accuse the other of defying secularism and indulging in communalism. In common parlance and practice it is ‘secularism’ what a political party claims itself to be doing while it is ‘communalism’ what its opponents indulge in. It is like every person finding fault with the other man’s looks, obviously because one cannot see one’s own face. In the looking glass, everybody appears pretty smiling seeing one’s own reflection.
In this country, the ‘secularism-communalism’ syndrome is as mysterious and unpredictable as are the ways of god. So look the ways of secularism-communalism. What one political party claims to be secularism, is communalism pure and simple to the opponent.
Take the case of Congress and the Left. They brand RSS, its sister organisations and even Bharatiya Janata Party as ‘communal’ only because they plead the cause of the majority community in general though, at the same time, they claim they stand for “appeasement of none and justice to all”. On its part, RSS and BJP charge the Congress and other political parties of indulging in “appeasement of minority/minorities”. This charge is also not entirely unfounded; something does stick on the parties charged against.
It is no exaggeration to say that ‘secularism’ has come to be linked to anything against the majority community of Hindus and Hinduism. If you are for the Ram temple at Ayodhya, you are ‘communal’; if you are for the mosque, you are secular. If you criticize the stand taken by UPA on the myth of Lord Ram and Ramsethu, you are a communal. All ‘seculars’ have taken the stand that Ram and Ramsethu are just myths. And so on.
If you champion the right to freedom of expression of the India-born writer, Salman Rushdie, or of Tasleema Nasreen, whose books have been banned in the country because these “hurt” the religious faith and sentiments of minority community, you are a ‘communal’ one and those denouncing these writers are ‘secular’.
But the situation is in the reverse gear when it comes to the paintings in the nude of Bharatmata and Hindu goddesses by M. F. Hussain. The ‘secular’ liberals beat their chests for safeguarding the constitutional right to freedom of expression for the latter. They think that the publication of Danish cartoons “hurts” the religious susceptibilities of Muslims but the Hussain’s nude paintings of Bharatmata and Hindu goddesses do not injure the sentiments of Hindus and Indian nationals.
Going by the argument of ‘secularists’, if championing the cause dear to the majority community is communalism, how is doing the same for the cause of minority community not communalism? That goes beyond logic. The only distinction one can make is that one is ‘majority’ communalism and the other is ‘minority’ communalism. The majority communalism cannot be an abominable act of sin and minority communalism something pious and sacred. Theft is a theft whether of Rs. one hundred or Rs. one crore. Murder is a murder whether of one man or of ten people. Either both the acts are crimes or pardonable acts. There could be no discrimination between the two acts.
The secularism of the Left parties too has gone through a metamorphosis and got infected with communal virus of being anti-Hindu. It has also joined the race for “minority appeasement”, another name to practise communalism in the garb of secularism. The Communist Party of India (Marxist) has now launched upon its campaign for assiduously wooing the Muslim community. Till now, the faithful followers of communism, CP(M) included, had religiously followed the Karl Marx dictum: “Religion is the opium of the people”. But, for the first time, discarding atheism the CPI(M) unit in Kochi (Kerala) allowed its Muslim members to leave a party meeting for namaaz. On October 1, 2007 the Lanthaparambu branch committee of the party also served refreshments to its Muslim members to break their Ramzan fast.
The Marxist leadership has already started campaigning on issues dear to Muslims such as implementation of the Sachar Committee and Sri Krishna Commission recommendations. It also adopted a similar stand on Danish cartoons.
The Left supports the anti-Hindu stand of DMK and the Congress on Ram and Ramsethu issue. When Congress under pressure of public opinion, diluted its stand, the Left parties criticized it.
While Left is now looking to be condescending to followers of Muslim faith, it is not so with its members who are Hindus. Last year, hell broke out for West Bengal Minister Subhash Chankraborty who being a Hindu committed the “crime” of visiting a temple and offered prayers. There were demands for his dismissal from the Cabinet and expulsion from the party for violating party discipline and defying party ideology which decries religious beliefs.
So under the Left brand of secularism if a Hindu visits a temple and prays, it is an unpardonable crime, but a leftist Muslim has the unbridled freedom to leave his party function to offer namaz (prayer).
Indian Union Muslim League (IUML) is the proud successor to the pre-partition Muslim League which propounded the theory that Hindus and Muslims belonged to two different nations and could not live together. This led to the partition of the country. The membership of IUML is restricted to Muslims only and it espouses the cause of this community alone. Yet, it claims itself to be a ’secular’ political organisation.
Going by the practice and precept of secularism and communalism, every political party in the country seems to be communal with the only difference that each claims itself to be secular and calls the other as communal.
This war between ‘communalism’ and ‘secularism’ has become perpetual and unending, with nobody winning, nobody losing. ***
In India actually, nobody knows what ‘secularism’ exactly means. The word ‘secular’, inserted in the Constitution in 1976, was never defined, deliberately perhaps. This has provided every political party and politician the right and freedom to accuse the other of defying secularism and indulging in communalism. In common parlance and practice it is ‘secularism’ what a political party claims itself to be doing while it is ‘communalism’ what its opponents indulge in. It is like every person finding fault with the other man’s looks, obviously because one cannot see one’s own face. In the looking glass, everybody appears pretty smiling seeing one’s own reflection.
In this country, the ‘secularism-communalism’ syndrome is as mysterious and unpredictable as are the ways of god. So look the ways of secularism-communalism. What one political party claims to be secularism, is communalism pure and simple to the opponent.
Take the case of Congress and the Left. They brand RSS, its sister organisations and even Bharatiya Janata Party as ‘communal’ only because they plead the cause of the majority community in general though, at the same time, they claim they stand for “appeasement of none and justice to all”. On its part, RSS and BJP charge the Congress and other political parties of indulging in “appeasement of minority/minorities”. This charge is also not entirely unfounded; something does stick on the parties charged against.
It is no exaggeration to say that ‘secularism’ has come to be linked to anything against the majority community of Hindus and Hinduism. If you are for the Ram temple at Ayodhya, you are ‘communal’; if you are for the mosque, you are secular. If you criticize the stand taken by UPA on the myth of Lord Ram and Ramsethu, you are a communal. All ‘seculars’ have taken the stand that Ram and Ramsethu are just myths. And so on.
If you champion the right to freedom of expression of the India-born writer, Salman Rushdie, or of Tasleema Nasreen, whose books have been banned in the country because these “hurt” the religious faith and sentiments of minority community, you are a ‘communal’ one and those denouncing these writers are ‘secular’.
But the situation is in the reverse gear when it comes to the paintings in the nude of Bharatmata and Hindu goddesses by M. F. Hussain. The ‘secular’ liberals beat their chests for safeguarding the constitutional right to freedom of expression for the latter. They think that the publication of Danish cartoons “hurts” the religious susceptibilities of Muslims but the Hussain’s nude paintings of Bharatmata and Hindu goddesses do not injure the sentiments of Hindus and Indian nationals.
Going by the argument of ‘secularists’, if championing the cause dear to the majority community is communalism, how is doing the same for the cause of minority community not communalism? That goes beyond logic. The only distinction one can make is that one is ‘majority’ communalism and the other is ‘minority’ communalism. The majority communalism cannot be an abominable act of sin and minority communalism something pious and sacred. Theft is a theft whether of Rs. one hundred or Rs. one crore. Murder is a murder whether of one man or of ten people. Either both the acts are crimes or pardonable acts. There could be no discrimination between the two acts.
The secularism of the Left parties too has gone through a metamorphosis and got infected with communal virus of being anti-Hindu. It has also joined the race for “minority appeasement”, another name to practise communalism in the garb of secularism. The Communist Party of India (Marxist) has now launched upon its campaign for assiduously wooing the Muslim community. Till now, the faithful followers of communism, CP(M) included, had religiously followed the Karl Marx dictum: “Religion is the opium of the people”. But, for the first time, discarding atheism the CPI(M) unit in Kochi (Kerala) allowed its Muslim members to leave a party meeting for namaaz. On October 1, 2007 the Lanthaparambu branch committee of the party also served refreshments to its Muslim members to break their Ramzan fast.
The Marxist leadership has already started campaigning on issues dear to Muslims such as implementation of the Sachar Committee and Sri Krishna Commission recommendations. It also adopted a similar stand on Danish cartoons.
The Left supports the anti-Hindu stand of DMK and the Congress on Ram and Ramsethu issue. When Congress under pressure of public opinion, diluted its stand, the Left parties criticized it.
While Left is now looking to be condescending to followers of Muslim faith, it is not so with its members who are Hindus. Last year, hell broke out for West Bengal Minister Subhash Chankraborty who being a Hindu committed the “crime” of visiting a temple and offered prayers. There were demands for his dismissal from the Cabinet and expulsion from the party for violating party discipline and defying party ideology which decries religious beliefs.
So under the Left brand of secularism if a Hindu visits a temple and prays, it is an unpardonable crime, but a leftist Muslim has the unbridled freedom to leave his party function to offer namaz (prayer).
Indian Union Muslim League (IUML) is the proud successor to the pre-partition Muslim League which propounded the theory that Hindus and Muslims belonged to two different nations and could not live together. This led to the partition of the country. The membership of IUML is restricted to Muslims only and it espouses the cause of this community alone. Yet, it claims itself to be a ’secular’ political organisation.
Going by the practice and precept of secularism and communalism, every political party in the country seems to be communal with the only difference that each claims itself to be secular and calls the other as communal.
This war between ‘communalism’ and ‘secularism’ has become perpetual and unending, with nobody winning, nobody losing. ***
Thursday, September 13, 2007
RAM - FACT OR FABLE?
By Amba Charan Vashishth
In an affidavit filed before the Supreme Court of India, Director (Monuments) of the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI), Mr. C. Dorjee, has stated that although the mythological texts of Ramayana formed an important part of ancient Indian literature, “but which (it) cannot be said to be historical record to incontrovertibly prove the existence of the characters, or the occurrence of the events, depicted therein”.
The ASI admitted that “it had not conducted any deep study about the underwater formation known as “Adam’s Bridge” believed to be “Ram Sethu” by the Hindus and the evidence available so far, “reasonably concluded that the formation …is not a man-made structure, rather a natural formation made up of shoals/sand bars, which possessed their particular shape and form due to several millennia of wave action and sedimentation.”
This authorized and authentic statement by a senior officer reiterates the official stand of the present Congress-led UPA government to doubt the very veracity of Ramayana and of the existence of Lord Rama and other characters in His life, in the words of Government of India, in the absence of “historical record to incontrovertibly prove the existence of the characters, or the occurrence of the events, depicted therein” But equally true is also the fact that it has with it no “historical record to incontrovertibly” disprove or doubt “the existence of the characters, or the occurrence of the events”. It has produced none.
That the mind of the present government is prejudiced and subjective to the issue can be gauged from its utter and total disregard to the scientific evidence available from a reputed scientific organisation like NASA saying that the bridge is the result of human endeavour. The NASA document at the Internet (http://www.rense.com/general30/nasa.htm and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam%27s_Bridge), says that the Ram Sethu or the Adam’s Bridge is a manmade structure 1.75 million years old. It states further that NASA has come to the first conclusion by examining the base of the bridge. The large chunks of stones with which the base is made could not have been placed in that position by a natural process and hence humans had to carry them from somewhere else.
It further states that the type of the stone, a special kind of sandstone with high percentage of calcium carbonate, called calcareous sandstone, with which the base is made, is not available locally. These led one to conclude that they were carried by humans from elsewhere.
Early this year, the Centre sent a team of scientists to examine the bridge and verify NASA’s conclusions. On 28 July, the team submitted its report that echoed exactly what the scientists of NASA had said. In addition to that, our scientists examined the coral formation on the bridge and found that it is quite different from naturally formed coral, which suggests that the bridge is the result of human activity. The present government needs to explain on what ““historical (and scientific) record” has the Government come to “incontrovertibly” disprove or refute the NASA conclusions.
Actually, at the moment under the present political scenario it has become a fad and fashion of our liberal-secular clan to denigrate Hindu gods and goddesses. M. F. Hussain has his inalienable right to freedom of expression to paint Bharatmata and Hindu gods and goddesses in the nude obviously only because he is a ‘secular’. If he were not ‘secular’, he would certainly not have painted the way he did. But, for unexplained reasons, he did not avail himself of the same right and freedom to paint something concerning his own religion. There is hardly a painter in the world who has painted his/her own mother in the nude – I am sure Hussain too has not – although he knew that all these deities were mothers to crores of Hindus in India and abroad.
God forbid, if tomorrow some naïve and base person were to doubt the veracity of the faith of some non-Hindu religions by raising some controversy or by filing public interest litigation, what stand would it take then? It has neither the proof nor the evidence to take a definite stand on the claim of any faith.
But can the present Government afford to make a similar statement about Lord Christ or Prophet Mohammad that “historical record to incontrovertibly prove the existence of the characters or the occurrence of the events, depicted therein” does not prove their claim? Or does the Union Government have the “historical records” in its possession to say that what our Muslim or Christian brothers believe and have faith in is “incontrovertibly” true.
It must be admitted that faith sustains life. It is because of faith that the world continues as it is today. Otherwise, it would have been perished long, long back. Mary Mcleod Bethune said: Without faith, nothing is possible. With it, nothing is impossible. And Oliver Wendell Holmes added: It's faith in something and enthusiasm for something that makes a life worth living.
There has been peace all around in the world because people respected each other’s faith. The moment they hurt it, there was strife; there were wars.
Our Christian brothers have faith that Lord Christ was born to Vigin Mary. No doubt about it. No conflict about it. It is their faith. Everybody respects it.
According to Muslim faith, in the Hazratbal mosque in Kashmir, lies the “mooaye mukaddas” (holy hair) of Prophet Mohammad. It is the faith of the Muslims; it is the faith of us all. Nobody can question it; nobody should doubt it.
All this has neither to be disputed nor is there need for any infidel to ask somebody to prove it scientifically with “historical record to incontrovertibly prove the existence of the characters, or the occurrence of the events, depicted” in the epics of any faith.
In an affidavit filed before the Supreme Court of India, Director (Monuments) of the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI), Mr. C. Dorjee, has stated that although the mythological texts of Ramayana formed an important part of ancient Indian literature, “but which (it) cannot be said to be historical record to incontrovertibly prove the existence of the characters, or the occurrence of the events, depicted therein”.
The ASI admitted that “it had not conducted any deep study about the underwater formation known as “Adam’s Bridge” believed to be “Ram Sethu” by the Hindus and the evidence available so far, “reasonably concluded that the formation …is not a man-made structure, rather a natural formation made up of shoals/sand bars, which possessed their particular shape and form due to several millennia of wave action and sedimentation.”
This authorized and authentic statement by a senior officer reiterates the official stand of the present Congress-led UPA government to doubt the very veracity of Ramayana and of the existence of Lord Rama and other characters in His life, in the words of Government of India, in the absence of “historical record to incontrovertibly prove the existence of the characters, or the occurrence of the events, depicted therein” But equally true is also the fact that it has with it no “historical record to incontrovertibly” disprove or doubt “the existence of the characters, or the occurrence of the events”. It has produced none.
That the mind of the present government is prejudiced and subjective to the issue can be gauged from its utter and total disregard to the scientific evidence available from a reputed scientific organisation like NASA saying that the bridge is the result of human endeavour. The NASA document at the Internet (http://www.rense.com/general30/nasa.htm and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam%27s_Bridge), says that the Ram Sethu or the Adam’s Bridge is a manmade structure 1.75 million years old. It states further that NASA has come to the first conclusion by examining the base of the bridge. The large chunks of stones with which the base is made could not have been placed in that position by a natural process and hence humans had to carry them from somewhere else.
It further states that the type of the stone, a special kind of sandstone with high percentage of calcium carbonate, called calcareous sandstone, with which the base is made, is not available locally. These led one to conclude that they were carried by humans from elsewhere.
Early this year, the Centre sent a team of scientists to examine the bridge and verify NASA’s conclusions. On 28 July, the team submitted its report that echoed exactly what the scientists of NASA had said. In addition to that, our scientists examined the coral formation on the bridge and found that it is quite different from naturally formed coral, which suggests that the bridge is the result of human activity. The present government needs to explain on what ““historical (and scientific) record” has the Government come to “incontrovertibly” disprove or refute the NASA conclusions.
Actually, at the moment under the present political scenario it has become a fad and fashion of our liberal-secular clan to denigrate Hindu gods and goddesses. M. F. Hussain has his inalienable right to freedom of expression to paint Bharatmata and Hindu gods and goddesses in the nude obviously only because he is a ‘secular’. If he were not ‘secular’, he would certainly not have painted the way he did. But, for unexplained reasons, he did not avail himself of the same right and freedom to paint something concerning his own religion. There is hardly a painter in the world who has painted his/her own mother in the nude – I am sure Hussain too has not – although he knew that all these deities were mothers to crores of Hindus in India and abroad.
God forbid, if tomorrow some naïve and base person were to doubt the veracity of the faith of some non-Hindu religions by raising some controversy or by filing public interest litigation, what stand would it take then? It has neither the proof nor the evidence to take a definite stand on the claim of any faith.
But can the present Government afford to make a similar statement about Lord Christ or Prophet Mohammad that “historical record to incontrovertibly prove the existence of the characters or the occurrence of the events, depicted therein” does not prove their claim? Or does the Union Government have the “historical records” in its possession to say that what our Muslim or Christian brothers believe and have faith in is “incontrovertibly” true.
It must be admitted that faith sustains life. It is because of faith that the world continues as it is today. Otherwise, it would have been perished long, long back. Mary Mcleod Bethune said: Without faith, nothing is possible. With it, nothing is impossible. And Oliver Wendell Holmes added: It's faith in something and enthusiasm for something that makes a life worth living.
There has been peace all around in the world because people respected each other’s faith. The moment they hurt it, there was strife; there were wars.
Our Christian brothers have faith that Lord Christ was born to Vigin Mary. No doubt about it. No conflict about it. It is their faith. Everybody respects it.
According to Muslim faith, in the Hazratbal mosque in Kashmir, lies the “mooaye mukaddas” (holy hair) of Prophet Mohammad. It is the faith of the Muslims; it is the faith of us all. Nobody can question it; nobody should doubt it.
All this has neither to be disputed nor is there need for any infidel to ask somebody to prove it scientifically with “historical record to incontrovertibly prove the existence of the characters, or the occurrence of the events, depicted” in the epics of any faith.
Monday, September 3, 2007
A Challenge to Arundhatis, Nanditas, MF Hussains, and Chandermohans
By Amba Charan Vashishth
In an exhibition in Ahmedabad recently, an unknown painter Chander Mohan took a cue from renowned painter M F Husain to paint Lord Jesus Christ and some Hindu goddesses in erotic scenes. There was a great furore.
But the like of writer Arundhati Roy, film actress Nandita Dass, many renowned painters, intellectuals, liberals and human rights activists thronged the streets beating their chests for the freedom of expression of Chander Mohan. Earlier, they had made a similar demonstration when some Hindu organisations had risen in opposition to M.F. Hussain's paintings in the nude of some Hindu goddesses.
Everybody, Chander Mohans and M.F. Hussains included, has a right to freedom of expression. But where were the likes of Arundhati Roy, Nandita Dass, and other intellectuals, liberals, human rightists and liberals when there were violent demonstrations in India over some paintings published, not in India, but in Denmark? Why did they not throng the streets in favour of the Danish cartoonist and against those who were there curbing his freedom of expression. Where were they when a UP Minister had announced a reward of Rs. one crore for the head of the Danish cartoonist? Is the concept of freedom of expression not a conviction with them, but only a subjective and not objective matter? Do they support freedom of expression of Hussain but oppose that of Danish cartoonist?
Where was this tribe of liberals and human rightists when journalist Alok Tomar was hauled up and imprisoned for publishing those Danish cartoons in his weekly? Did Tomar not have the elitist freedom of expression? If he had, why did they go dumb and blind over the treatment that was given to Tomar?
M. F. Hussain did avail himself of the freedom of expression to paint in the nude the deities of a religion not his own. He owes an explanation why did he not first look into his own religion and follow the principle: charity begins at home (his own religion). He dared not, because he knew very well that life would then become a hell for him.
Lord Jesus Christ. needless to stress, is like a father to hundreds of billions of people all over the world. Similarly, Hindu goddesses are mothers to crores of people in India and the world. I don't know -- I am may be an ignoramus -- if any great painter has ever painted in the nude his own wife or his own mother. If anybody has, I wish to be enlightened. M.F. Hussain needs to tell the world why did he not try? Had Hussain done it, he would have known how and where it pinches. That is why it is commonly said that only the wearer knows where the shoe pinches.
The likes of Hussain seem to be following the common practice. Everybody likes to cast an amorous eye on other's wife, sister or mother. But when somebody casts an evil eye on their own wife, mother or sister, it hurts them. Maybe, a quarrel and even a murder or attempt to murder.
But before the likes of Arundhati Roys, M. F. Hussains, Chander Mohans, Nandita Dasses jump to beat their chests when somebody's right of expression is curbed, they need to publicly declare that would also respect the freedom of expression of that individual who seeks to avail himself of the right to freedom of expression to paint them, their mother, or their sister, their wife/husbaband in the nude in the same manner as have done the painters like Hussain and Chandermohan. If they don't declare so publicly, they will stand exposed as hypocrites and humbugs who are not in their real life what they pose in public.
In an exhibition in Ahmedabad recently, an unknown painter Chander Mohan took a cue from renowned painter M F Husain to paint Lord Jesus Christ and some Hindu goddesses in erotic scenes. There was a great furore.
But the like of writer Arundhati Roy, film actress Nandita Dass, many renowned painters, intellectuals, liberals and human rights activists thronged the streets beating their chests for the freedom of expression of Chander Mohan. Earlier, they had made a similar demonstration when some Hindu organisations had risen in opposition to M.F. Hussain's paintings in the nude of some Hindu goddesses.
Everybody, Chander Mohans and M.F. Hussains included, has a right to freedom of expression. But where were the likes of Arundhati Roy, Nandita Dass, and other intellectuals, liberals, human rightists and liberals when there were violent demonstrations in India over some paintings published, not in India, but in Denmark? Why did they not throng the streets in favour of the Danish cartoonist and against those who were there curbing his freedom of expression. Where were they when a UP Minister had announced a reward of Rs. one crore for the head of the Danish cartoonist? Is the concept of freedom of expression not a conviction with them, but only a subjective and not objective matter? Do they support freedom of expression of Hussain but oppose that of Danish cartoonist?
Where was this tribe of liberals and human rightists when journalist Alok Tomar was hauled up and imprisoned for publishing those Danish cartoons in his weekly? Did Tomar not have the elitist freedom of expression? If he had, why did they go dumb and blind over the treatment that was given to Tomar?
M. F. Hussain did avail himself of the freedom of expression to paint in the nude the deities of a religion not his own. He owes an explanation why did he not first look into his own religion and follow the principle: charity begins at home (his own religion). He dared not, because he knew very well that life would then become a hell for him.
Lord Jesus Christ. needless to stress, is like a father to hundreds of billions of people all over the world. Similarly, Hindu goddesses are mothers to crores of people in India and the world. I don't know -- I am may be an ignoramus -- if any great painter has ever painted in the nude his own wife or his own mother. If anybody has, I wish to be enlightened. M.F. Hussain needs to tell the world why did he not try? Had Hussain done it, he would have known how and where it pinches. That is why it is commonly said that only the wearer knows where the shoe pinches.
The likes of Hussain seem to be following the common practice. Everybody likes to cast an amorous eye on other's wife, sister or mother. But when somebody casts an evil eye on their own wife, mother or sister, it hurts them. Maybe, a quarrel and even a murder or attempt to murder.
But before the likes of Arundhati Roys, M. F. Hussains, Chander Mohans, Nandita Dasses jump to beat their chests when somebody's right of expression is curbed, they need to publicly declare that would also respect the freedom of expression of that individual who seeks to avail himself of the right to freedom of expression to paint them, their mother, or their sister, their wife/husbaband in the nude in the same manner as have done the painters like Hussain and Chandermohan. If they don't declare so publicly, they will stand exposed as hypocrites and humbugs who are not in their real life what they pose in public.
Tuesday, August 28, 2007
Don't Deny Diana Peace in Her Grave!
By Amba Charan Vashishth
Controversy is the staple food of our media. The latter thrives on arguments for and against. And that is why nothing, at least in western countries, appears to be final. A controversy that looks to be settling today gets raked up again with fresh leads given out by our investigative journalists and the new books that continue to hit the stands on old issues.
US President John F. Kennedy was killed in 1962, yet it appears the conclusions of none of the numerous investigations conducted and commissions of inquiry set up since then are final. Even after about 45 years of his death, we continue to hear of one lead or the other about the circumstances under which he was assassinated. Doubts persist about what actually happened the day he was shot dead.
The legendry actress Marylyn Monroe died a few years earlier. Investigative minds continue to churn out with new theories every other day that it was not a suicide, as is generally believed to be. It was a conspiracy; she was murdered. Numerous articles and books have appeared in the world.
Similar is the story of UK’s Prince Charles’s estranged wife late Princess Diana who died in a car crash in Paris a decade back. What has not appeared about the accident?
“It is a near certainty”, stated the Daily Express (London) quoting Chris Lafaille, the writer of the latest book called “Diana, The Inquiry They Never Published”, that “Diana was nine to 10 weeks pregnant at the time she died, according to papers from the Paris Public Hospitals archives.”
“The document dated August 31 1997 was sent to the then minister of the interior Jean-Pierre Chevenement, with copies to health minister Bernard Kouchner, foreign affairs minister Hubert Vedrine and Paris police chief Martine Monteil,” he said.
Lafaille’s claims address one of the key questions listed by coroner, Lord Justice Scott Baker, who is investigating Diana’s death over allegations that she was murdered in a criminal conspiracy.
The hearings will examine whether Diana feared for her life, whether she was pregnant and whether chauffeur Henri Paul was drunk or on drugs to answer public’s suspicions that she and Fayed were murdered by British agents because they were about to get engaged and she was pregnant.
Dodi Fayed’s dad Mohamed Al Fayed had always claimed that Diana was pregnant at the time of her death, but these reports have been dismissed by former Metropolitan Police Commissioner Lord Stevens in ‘Operation Paget’ after he was officiated to conduct an independent inquiry into Di’s death. The Harrods boss’ spokesman insisted that if there were any such evidences to support the claims, they should be submitted to the coroner.
The new revelations will raise further speculation as to who might have been the father to Diana’s unborn child as she had been holidaying with Dodi Fayed prior to the fatal crash in Paris, and many believe that Diana was 'pregnant' when she died
Princess Diana was "almost certainly" pregnant when she died, reported another London daily, The Daily Mail, but her boyfriend Dodi Al Fayed, killed alongside her in a car crash in Paris ten years ago, was not the father of the baby, the daily reported on August 22. 2007.
Laffaille claimed to have uncovered the evidence of the pregnancy -- a letter which was sent to the then French Interior Minister Jean-Pierre Chevenement -- from the archives of the hospital where the Princess was taken after the car crash on August 31, 1997.
"This document has never been claimed or proved to be a fake. If genuine, it would mean that Diana's unborn child wouldn't have been fathered by Dodi as she had not met him nine weeks before her death," he said. Instead, the scribe said, the baby might have been conceived while the Princess of Wales was seeing the United Kingdom-based doctor Hasnat Khan.
Laffaille's claim came despite a categorical statement by John Burton, the former Royal Coroner present at the time of post-mortem examination on Diana, who had said: "She wasn't pregnant. I have seen into her womb." But the former reporter with the magazine 'Paris Match' claimed he had conducted a detailed re-examination of all the evidence surrounding the car crash before coming to the conclusion.
What does all this amount to?
She was earlier reported to be having an affair with her coach who taught her horse-riding, Army Officer James Hewitt.
She was having an affair with Dodi Al Fayed with whom she was reported to be going to announce her engagement, while carrying someone else’s baby in her womb because, as per the report, “she had not met him (Fayed) nine weeks before her death”. Instead, the scribe said, the baby might have been conceived while the Princess of Wales was seeing the United Kingdom-based doctor Hasnat Khan.
Royal romances are not something new, anywhere in the world. But here the story is not of a single romance, but of many.
Even late Princess Margret, the younger sister of the present British Queen Elizabeth II, did have a very hot romance that attracted numerous headlines about half a decade back to feed the insatiable hunger of our journalists for news and scoops. But when she failed to marry the man she loved, the matter ended. Her marriage afterwards made no headlines and sent no tongues gossiping later.
By moral standards of the West, royal romances may not be a crime, but in comparison to the conduct of Prince Charles, who ultimately married his old flame, she is made to look the chic, ever smiling beauty who flung her heart at many people.
Maybe, these investigative journalists and writers are doing so just to mint money out of these labours of theirs by feeding such stories which they try to paint them real and convincing, yet they are not doing justice to the darling of millions in Britain and the world over by presenting her in such a hue. They are making this idol of beauty and the ‘Queen of millions of hearts’ to fall from grace.
Whatever it may be, the quest for truth will, for ever, remain elusive, unending, proving tireless and tiring, at the same time, with reality continuing to remain buried under the debris of these reports and books. Diana did not have peace in about the last decade of her life. These writers will not let her have peace even in her grave. That is too cruel to her. ***
Controversy is the staple food of our media. The latter thrives on arguments for and against. And that is why nothing, at least in western countries, appears to be final. A controversy that looks to be settling today gets raked up again with fresh leads given out by our investigative journalists and the new books that continue to hit the stands on old issues.
US President John F. Kennedy was killed in 1962, yet it appears the conclusions of none of the numerous investigations conducted and commissions of inquiry set up since then are final. Even after about 45 years of his death, we continue to hear of one lead or the other about the circumstances under which he was assassinated. Doubts persist about what actually happened the day he was shot dead.
The legendry actress Marylyn Monroe died a few years earlier. Investigative minds continue to churn out with new theories every other day that it was not a suicide, as is generally believed to be. It was a conspiracy; she was murdered. Numerous articles and books have appeared in the world.
Similar is the story of UK’s Prince Charles’s estranged wife late Princess Diana who died in a car crash in Paris a decade back. What has not appeared about the accident?
“It is a near certainty”, stated the Daily Express (London) quoting Chris Lafaille, the writer of the latest book called “Diana, The Inquiry They Never Published”, that “Diana was nine to 10 weeks pregnant at the time she died, according to papers from the Paris Public Hospitals archives.”
“The document dated August 31 1997 was sent to the then minister of the interior Jean-Pierre Chevenement, with copies to health minister Bernard Kouchner, foreign affairs minister Hubert Vedrine and Paris police chief Martine Monteil,” he said.
Lafaille’s claims address one of the key questions listed by coroner, Lord Justice Scott Baker, who is investigating Diana’s death over allegations that she was murdered in a criminal conspiracy.
The hearings will examine whether Diana feared for her life, whether she was pregnant and whether chauffeur Henri Paul was drunk or on drugs to answer public’s suspicions that she and Fayed were murdered by British agents because they were about to get engaged and she was pregnant.
Dodi Fayed’s dad Mohamed Al Fayed had always claimed that Diana was pregnant at the time of her death, but these reports have been dismissed by former Metropolitan Police Commissioner Lord Stevens in ‘Operation Paget’ after he was officiated to conduct an independent inquiry into Di’s death. The Harrods boss’ spokesman insisted that if there were any such evidences to support the claims, they should be submitted to the coroner.
The new revelations will raise further speculation as to who might have been the father to Diana’s unborn child as she had been holidaying with Dodi Fayed prior to the fatal crash in Paris, and many believe that Diana was 'pregnant' when she died
Princess Diana was "almost certainly" pregnant when she died, reported another London daily, The Daily Mail, but her boyfriend Dodi Al Fayed, killed alongside her in a car crash in Paris ten years ago, was not the father of the baby, the daily reported on August 22. 2007.
Laffaille claimed to have uncovered the evidence of the pregnancy -- a letter which was sent to the then French Interior Minister Jean-Pierre Chevenement -- from the archives of the hospital where the Princess was taken after the car crash on August 31, 1997.
"This document has never been claimed or proved to be a fake. If genuine, it would mean that Diana's unborn child wouldn't have been fathered by Dodi as she had not met him nine weeks before her death," he said. Instead, the scribe said, the baby might have been conceived while the Princess of Wales was seeing the United Kingdom-based doctor Hasnat Khan.
Laffaille's claim came despite a categorical statement by John Burton, the former Royal Coroner present at the time of post-mortem examination on Diana, who had said: "She wasn't pregnant. I have seen into her womb." But the former reporter with the magazine 'Paris Match' claimed he had conducted a detailed re-examination of all the evidence surrounding the car crash before coming to the conclusion.
What does all this amount to?
She was earlier reported to be having an affair with her coach who taught her horse-riding, Army Officer James Hewitt.
She was having an affair with Dodi Al Fayed with whom she was reported to be going to announce her engagement, while carrying someone else’s baby in her womb because, as per the report, “she had not met him (Fayed) nine weeks before her death”. Instead, the scribe said, the baby might have been conceived while the Princess of Wales was seeing the United Kingdom-based doctor Hasnat Khan.
Royal romances are not something new, anywhere in the world. But here the story is not of a single romance, but of many.
Even late Princess Margret, the younger sister of the present British Queen Elizabeth II, did have a very hot romance that attracted numerous headlines about half a decade back to feed the insatiable hunger of our journalists for news and scoops. But when she failed to marry the man she loved, the matter ended. Her marriage afterwards made no headlines and sent no tongues gossiping later.
By moral standards of the West, royal romances may not be a crime, but in comparison to the conduct of Prince Charles, who ultimately married his old flame, she is made to look the chic, ever smiling beauty who flung her heart at many people.
Maybe, these investigative journalists and writers are doing so just to mint money out of these labours of theirs by feeding such stories which they try to paint them real and convincing, yet they are not doing justice to the darling of millions in Britain and the world over by presenting her in such a hue. They are making this idol of beauty and the ‘Queen of millions of hearts’ to fall from grace.
Whatever it may be, the quest for truth will, for ever, remain elusive, unending, proving tireless and tiring, at the same time, with reality continuing to remain buried under the debris of these reports and books. Diana did not have peace in about the last decade of her life. These writers will not let her have peace even in her grave. That is too cruel to her. ***
Sunday, August 26, 2007
No Comment: Its parliament business
NO COMMENT: It’s parliament business
By Amba Charan Vashishth
It is a case of Parliament making laws, parliamentarians breaking laws and, finally, Parliament taking care, motherly to be precise, of the law-breakers.
The other day, this writer stumbled at the Parliament site of a report presented in parliament by the Committee to Inquire into the Misconduct of Members of the Lok Sabha upholding as true the allegation made against an honorable member by his wife of having taken another woman and personating her as his spouse on a Committee tour. The Committee held him “guilty of misusing his official air journeys for a woman other than his spouse.” It also held him “guilty of undertaking entitled air journeys on 23 March, 2006 and 21 February, 2007 from Delhi to Mumbai, along with a woman personating her as his spouse.” These acts, in the opinion of the Committee, “tantamount to cheating and impersonation which are penal offences as well as a conduct unbecoming of a member”.
On the recommendation of the Committee, the Lok Sabha suspended the erring member from attending Lok Sabha for 30 sittings. It also recommended that the MP be reprimanded as well. ***
By Amba Charan Vashishth
It is a case of Parliament making laws, parliamentarians breaking laws and, finally, Parliament taking care, motherly to be precise, of the law-breakers.
The other day, this writer stumbled at the Parliament site of a report presented in parliament by the Committee to Inquire into the Misconduct of Members of the Lok Sabha upholding as true the allegation made against an honorable member by his wife of having taken another woman and personating her as his spouse on a Committee tour. The Committee held him “guilty of misusing his official air journeys for a woman other than his spouse.” It also held him “guilty of undertaking entitled air journeys on 23 March, 2006 and 21 February, 2007 from Delhi to Mumbai, along with a woman personating her as his spouse.” These acts, in the opinion of the Committee, “tantamount to cheating and impersonation which are penal offences as well as a conduct unbecoming of a member”.
On the recommendation of the Committee, the Lok Sabha suspended the erring member from attending Lok Sabha for 30 sittings. It also recommended that the MP be reprimanded as well. ***
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
