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.
Thursday, September 13, 2007
Monday, September 3, 2007
A Challenge to Arundhatis, Nanditas, MF Hussains, and Chandermohans
By Amba Charan Vashishth
In an exhibition in Ahmedabad recently, an unknown painter Chander Mohan took a cue from renowned painter M F Husain to paint Lord Jesus Christ and some Hindu goddesses in erotic scenes. There was a great furore.
But the like of writer Arundhati Roy, film actress Nandita Dass, many renowned painters, intellectuals, liberals and human rights activists thronged the streets beating their chests for the freedom of expression of Chander Mohan. Earlier, they had made a similar demonstration when some Hindu organisations had risen in opposition to M.F. Hussain's paintings in the nude of some Hindu goddesses.
Everybody, Chander Mohans and M.F. Hussains included, has a right to freedom of expression. But where were the likes of Arundhati Roy, Nandita Dass, and other intellectuals, liberals, human rightists and liberals when there were violent demonstrations in India over some paintings published, not in India, but in Denmark? Why did they not throng the streets in favour of the Danish cartoonist and against those who were there curbing his freedom of expression. Where were they when a UP Minister had announced a reward of Rs. one crore for the head of the Danish cartoonist? Is the concept of freedom of expression not a conviction with them, but only a subjective and not objective matter? Do they support freedom of expression of Hussain but oppose that of Danish cartoonist?
Where was this tribe of liberals and human rightists when journalist Alok Tomar was hauled up and imprisoned for publishing those Danish cartoons in his weekly? Did Tomar not have the elitist freedom of expression? If he had, why did they go dumb and blind over the treatment that was given to Tomar?
M. F. Hussain did avail himself of the freedom of expression to paint in the nude the deities of a religion not his own. He owes an explanation why did he not first look into his own religion and follow the principle: charity begins at home (his own religion). He dared not, because he knew very well that life would then become a hell for him.
Lord Jesus Christ. needless to stress, is like a father to hundreds of billions of people all over the world. Similarly, Hindu goddesses are mothers to crores of people in India and the world. I don't know -- I am may be an ignoramus -- if any great painter has ever painted in the nude his own wife or his own mother. If anybody has, I wish to be enlightened. M.F. Hussain needs to tell the world why did he not try? Had Hussain done it, he would have known how and where it pinches. That is why it is commonly said that only the wearer knows where the shoe pinches.
The likes of Hussain seem to be following the common practice. Everybody likes to cast an amorous eye on other's wife, sister or mother. But when somebody casts an evil eye on their own wife, mother or sister, it hurts them. Maybe, a quarrel and even a murder or attempt to murder.
But before the likes of Arundhati Roys, M. F. Hussains, Chander Mohans, Nandita Dasses jump to beat their chests when somebody's right of expression is curbed, they need to publicly declare that would also respect the freedom of expression of that individual who seeks to avail himself of the right to freedom of expression to paint them, their mother, or their sister, their wife/husbaband in the nude in the same manner as have done the painters like Hussain and Chandermohan. If they don't declare so publicly, they will stand exposed as hypocrites and humbugs who are not in their real life what they pose in public.
In an exhibition in Ahmedabad recently, an unknown painter Chander Mohan took a cue from renowned painter M F Husain to paint Lord Jesus Christ and some Hindu goddesses in erotic scenes. There was a great furore.
But the like of writer Arundhati Roy, film actress Nandita Dass, many renowned painters, intellectuals, liberals and human rights activists thronged the streets beating their chests for the freedom of expression of Chander Mohan. Earlier, they had made a similar demonstration when some Hindu organisations had risen in opposition to M.F. Hussain's paintings in the nude of some Hindu goddesses.
Everybody, Chander Mohans and M.F. Hussains included, has a right to freedom of expression. But where were the likes of Arundhati Roy, Nandita Dass, and other intellectuals, liberals, human rightists and liberals when there were violent demonstrations in India over some paintings published, not in India, but in Denmark? Why did they not throng the streets in favour of the Danish cartoonist and against those who were there curbing his freedom of expression. Where were they when a UP Minister had announced a reward of Rs. one crore for the head of the Danish cartoonist? Is the concept of freedom of expression not a conviction with them, but only a subjective and not objective matter? Do they support freedom of expression of Hussain but oppose that of Danish cartoonist?
Where was this tribe of liberals and human rightists when journalist Alok Tomar was hauled up and imprisoned for publishing those Danish cartoons in his weekly? Did Tomar not have the elitist freedom of expression? If he had, why did they go dumb and blind over the treatment that was given to Tomar?
M. F. Hussain did avail himself of the freedom of expression to paint in the nude the deities of a religion not his own. He owes an explanation why did he not first look into his own religion and follow the principle: charity begins at home (his own religion). He dared not, because he knew very well that life would then become a hell for him.
Lord Jesus Christ. needless to stress, is like a father to hundreds of billions of people all over the world. Similarly, Hindu goddesses are mothers to crores of people in India and the world. I don't know -- I am may be an ignoramus -- if any great painter has ever painted in the nude his own wife or his own mother. If anybody has, I wish to be enlightened. M.F. Hussain needs to tell the world why did he not try? Had Hussain done it, he would have known how and where it pinches. That is why it is commonly said that only the wearer knows where the shoe pinches.
The likes of Hussain seem to be following the common practice. Everybody likes to cast an amorous eye on other's wife, sister or mother. But when somebody casts an evil eye on their own wife, mother or sister, it hurts them. Maybe, a quarrel and even a murder or attempt to murder.
But before the likes of Arundhati Roys, M. F. Hussains, Chander Mohans, Nandita Dasses jump to beat their chests when somebody's right of expression is curbed, they need to publicly declare that would also respect the freedom of expression of that individual who seeks to avail himself of the right to freedom of expression to paint them, their mother, or their sister, their wife/husbaband in the nude in the same manner as have done the painters like Hussain and Chandermohan. If they don't declare so publicly, they will stand exposed as hypocrites and humbugs who are not in their real life what they pose in public.
Tuesday, August 28, 2007
Don't Deny Diana Peace in Her Grave!
By Amba Charan Vashishth
Controversy is the staple food of our media. The latter thrives on arguments for and against. And that is why nothing, at least in western countries, appears to be final. A controversy that looks to be settling today gets raked up again with fresh leads given out by our investigative journalists and the new books that continue to hit the stands on old issues.
US President John F. Kennedy was killed in 1962, yet it appears the conclusions of none of the numerous investigations conducted and commissions of inquiry set up since then are final. Even after about 45 years of his death, we continue to hear of one lead or the other about the circumstances under which he was assassinated. Doubts persist about what actually happened the day he was shot dead.
The legendry actress Marylyn Monroe died a few years earlier. Investigative minds continue to churn out with new theories every other day that it was not a suicide, as is generally believed to be. It was a conspiracy; she was murdered. Numerous articles and books have appeared in the world.
Similar is the story of UK’s Prince Charles’s estranged wife late Princess Diana who died in a car crash in Paris a decade back. What has not appeared about the accident?
“It is a near certainty”, stated the Daily Express (London) quoting Chris Lafaille, the writer of the latest book called “Diana, The Inquiry They Never Published”, that “Diana was nine to 10 weeks pregnant at the time she died, according to papers from the Paris Public Hospitals archives.”
“The document dated August 31 1997 was sent to the then minister of the interior Jean-Pierre Chevenement, with copies to health minister Bernard Kouchner, foreign affairs minister Hubert Vedrine and Paris police chief Martine Monteil,” he said.
Lafaille’s claims address one of the key questions listed by coroner, Lord Justice Scott Baker, who is investigating Diana’s death over allegations that she was murdered in a criminal conspiracy.
The hearings will examine whether Diana feared for her life, whether she was pregnant and whether chauffeur Henri Paul was drunk or on drugs to answer public’s suspicions that she and Fayed were murdered by British agents because they were about to get engaged and she was pregnant.
Dodi Fayed’s dad Mohamed Al Fayed had always claimed that Diana was pregnant at the time of her death, but these reports have been dismissed by former Metropolitan Police Commissioner Lord Stevens in ‘Operation Paget’ after he was officiated to conduct an independent inquiry into Di’s death. The Harrods boss’ spokesman insisted that if there were any such evidences to support the claims, they should be submitted to the coroner.
The new revelations will raise further speculation as to who might have been the father to Diana’s unborn child as she had been holidaying with Dodi Fayed prior to the fatal crash in Paris, and many believe that Diana was 'pregnant' when she died
Princess Diana was "almost certainly" pregnant when she died, reported another London daily, The Daily Mail, but her boyfriend Dodi Al Fayed, killed alongside her in a car crash in Paris ten years ago, was not the father of the baby, the daily reported on August 22. 2007.
Laffaille claimed to have uncovered the evidence of the pregnancy -- a letter which was sent to the then French Interior Minister Jean-Pierre Chevenement -- from the archives of the hospital where the Princess was taken after the car crash on August 31, 1997.
"This document has never been claimed or proved to be a fake. If genuine, it would mean that Diana's unborn child wouldn't have been fathered by Dodi as she had not met him nine weeks before her death," he said. Instead, the scribe said, the baby might have been conceived while the Princess of Wales was seeing the United Kingdom-based doctor Hasnat Khan.
Laffaille's claim came despite a categorical statement by John Burton, the former Royal Coroner present at the time of post-mortem examination on Diana, who had said: "She wasn't pregnant. I have seen into her womb." But the former reporter with the magazine 'Paris Match' claimed he had conducted a detailed re-examination of all the evidence surrounding the car crash before coming to the conclusion.
What does all this amount to?
She was earlier reported to be having an affair with her coach who taught her horse-riding, Army Officer James Hewitt.
She was having an affair with Dodi Al Fayed with whom she was reported to be going to announce her engagement, while carrying someone else’s baby in her womb because, as per the report, “she had not met him (Fayed) nine weeks before her death”. Instead, the scribe said, the baby might have been conceived while the Princess of Wales was seeing the United Kingdom-based doctor Hasnat Khan.
Royal romances are not something new, anywhere in the world. But here the story is not of a single romance, but of many.
Even late Princess Margret, the younger sister of the present British Queen Elizabeth II, did have a very hot romance that attracted numerous headlines about half a decade back to feed the insatiable hunger of our journalists for news and scoops. But when she failed to marry the man she loved, the matter ended. Her marriage afterwards made no headlines and sent no tongues gossiping later.
By moral standards of the West, royal romances may not be a crime, but in comparison to the conduct of Prince Charles, who ultimately married his old flame, she is made to look the chic, ever smiling beauty who flung her heart at many people.
Maybe, these investigative journalists and writers are doing so just to mint money out of these labours of theirs by feeding such stories which they try to paint them real and convincing, yet they are not doing justice to the darling of millions in Britain and the world over by presenting her in such a hue. They are making this idol of beauty and the ‘Queen of millions of hearts’ to fall from grace.
Whatever it may be, the quest for truth will, for ever, remain elusive, unending, proving tireless and tiring, at the same time, with reality continuing to remain buried under the debris of these reports and books. Diana did not have peace in about the last decade of her life. These writers will not let her have peace even in her grave. That is too cruel to her. ***
Controversy is the staple food of our media. The latter thrives on arguments for and against. And that is why nothing, at least in western countries, appears to be final. A controversy that looks to be settling today gets raked up again with fresh leads given out by our investigative journalists and the new books that continue to hit the stands on old issues.
US President John F. Kennedy was killed in 1962, yet it appears the conclusions of none of the numerous investigations conducted and commissions of inquiry set up since then are final. Even after about 45 years of his death, we continue to hear of one lead or the other about the circumstances under which he was assassinated. Doubts persist about what actually happened the day he was shot dead.
The legendry actress Marylyn Monroe died a few years earlier. Investigative minds continue to churn out with new theories every other day that it was not a suicide, as is generally believed to be. It was a conspiracy; she was murdered. Numerous articles and books have appeared in the world.
Similar is the story of UK’s Prince Charles’s estranged wife late Princess Diana who died in a car crash in Paris a decade back. What has not appeared about the accident?
“It is a near certainty”, stated the Daily Express (London) quoting Chris Lafaille, the writer of the latest book called “Diana, The Inquiry They Never Published”, that “Diana was nine to 10 weeks pregnant at the time she died, according to papers from the Paris Public Hospitals archives.”
“The document dated August 31 1997 was sent to the then minister of the interior Jean-Pierre Chevenement, with copies to health minister Bernard Kouchner, foreign affairs minister Hubert Vedrine and Paris police chief Martine Monteil,” he said.
Lafaille’s claims address one of the key questions listed by coroner, Lord Justice Scott Baker, who is investigating Diana’s death over allegations that she was murdered in a criminal conspiracy.
The hearings will examine whether Diana feared for her life, whether she was pregnant and whether chauffeur Henri Paul was drunk or on drugs to answer public’s suspicions that she and Fayed were murdered by British agents because they were about to get engaged and she was pregnant.
Dodi Fayed’s dad Mohamed Al Fayed had always claimed that Diana was pregnant at the time of her death, but these reports have been dismissed by former Metropolitan Police Commissioner Lord Stevens in ‘Operation Paget’ after he was officiated to conduct an independent inquiry into Di’s death. The Harrods boss’ spokesman insisted that if there were any such evidences to support the claims, they should be submitted to the coroner.
The new revelations will raise further speculation as to who might have been the father to Diana’s unborn child as she had been holidaying with Dodi Fayed prior to the fatal crash in Paris, and many believe that Diana was 'pregnant' when she died
Princess Diana was "almost certainly" pregnant when she died, reported another London daily, The Daily Mail, but her boyfriend Dodi Al Fayed, killed alongside her in a car crash in Paris ten years ago, was not the father of the baby, the daily reported on August 22. 2007.
Laffaille claimed to have uncovered the evidence of the pregnancy -- a letter which was sent to the then French Interior Minister Jean-Pierre Chevenement -- from the archives of the hospital where the Princess was taken after the car crash on August 31, 1997.
"This document has never been claimed or proved to be a fake. If genuine, it would mean that Diana's unborn child wouldn't have been fathered by Dodi as she had not met him nine weeks before her death," he said. Instead, the scribe said, the baby might have been conceived while the Princess of Wales was seeing the United Kingdom-based doctor Hasnat Khan.
Laffaille's claim came despite a categorical statement by John Burton, the former Royal Coroner present at the time of post-mortem examination on Diana, who had said: "She wasn't pregnant. I have seen into her womb." But the former reporter with the magazine 'Paris Match' claimed he had conducted a detailed re-examination of all the evidence surrounding the car crash before coming to the conclusion.
What does all this amount to?
She was earlier reported to be having an affair with her coach who taught her horse-riding, Army Officer James Hewitt.
She was having an affair with Dodi Al Fayed with whom she was reported to be going to announce her engagement, while carrying someone else’s baby in her womb because, as per the report, “she had not met him (Fayed) nine weeks before her death”. Instead, the scribe said, the baby might have been conceived while the Princess of Wales was seeing the United Kingdom-based doctor Hasnat Khan.
Royal romances are not something new, anywhere in the world. But here the story is not of a single romance, but of many.
Even late Princess Margret, the younger sister of the present British Queen Elizabeth II, did have a very hot romance that attracted numerous headlines about half a decade back to feed the insatiable hunger of our journalists for news and scoops. But when she failed to marry the man she loved, the matter ended. Her marriage afterwards made no headlines and sent no tongues gossiping later.
By moral standards of the West, royal romances may not be a crime, but in comparison to the conduct of Prince Charles, who ultimately married his old flame, she is made to look the chic, ever smiling beauty who flung her heart at many people.
Maybe, these investigative journalists and writers are doing so just to mint money out of these labours of theirs by feeding such stories which they try to paint them real and convincing, yet they are not doing justice to the darling of millions in Britain and the world over by presenting her in such a hue. They are making this idol of beauty and the ‘Queen of millions of hearts’ to fall from grace.
Whatever it may be, the quest for truth will, for ever, remain elusive, unending, proving tireless and tiring, at the same time, with reality continuing to remain buried under the debris of these reports and books. Diana did not have peace in about the last decade of her life. These writers will not let her have peace even in her grave. That is too cruel to her. ***
Sunday, August 26, 2007
No Comment: Its parliament business
NO COMMENT: It’s parliament business
By Amba Charan Vashishth
It is a case of Parliament making laws, parliamentarians breaking laws and, finally, Parliament taking care, motherly to be precise, of the law-breakers.
The other day, this writer stumbled at the Parliament site of a report presented in parliament by the Committee to Inquire into the Misconduct of Members of the Lok Sabha upholding as true the allegation made against an honorable member by his wife of having taken another woman and personating her as his spouse on a Committee tour. The Committee held him “guilty of misusing his official air journeys for a woman other than his spouse.” It also held him “guilty of undertaking entitled air journeys on 23 March, 2006 and 21 February, 2007 from Delhi to Mumbai, along with a woman personating her as his spouse.” These acts, in the opinion of the Committee, “tantamount to cheating and impersonation which are penal offences as well as a conduct unbecoming of a member”.
On the recommendation of the Committee, the Lok Sabha suspended the erring member from attending Lok Sabha for 30 sittings. It also recommended that the MP be reprimanded as well. ***
By Amba Charan Vashishth
It is a case of Parliament making laws, parliamentarians breaking laws and, finally, Parliament taking care, motherly to be precise, of the law-breakers.
The other day, this writer stumbled at the Parliament site of a report presented in parliament by the Committee to Inquire into the Misconduct of Members of the Lok Sabha upholding as true the allegation made against an honorable member by his wife of having taken another woman and personating her as his spouse on a Committee tour. The Committee held him “guilty of misusing his official air journeys for a woman other than his spouse.” It also held him “guilty of undertaking entitled air journeys on 23 March, 2006 and 21 February, 2007 from Delhi to Mumbai, along with a woman personating her as his spouse.” These acts, in the opinion of the Committee, “tantamount to cheating and impersonation which are penal offences as well as a conduct unbecoming of a member”.
On the recommendation of the Committee, the Lok Sabha suspended the erring member from attending Lok Sabha for 30 sittings. It also recommended that the MP be reprimanded as well. ***
Saturday, August 25, 2007
My Memoria Miscellany
My Memoria Miscellany
What would you call it?
A natural reaction or human rights violation?
By Amba Charan Vashishth
It was some time in 1966 that a pickpocket ran away with money after piercing his victim’s pocket from Main Bus Stand in Sector 17, Chandigarh. The policeman on duty ran after him. In the meantime he saw a fellow policeman coming from the opposite direction towards which the pickpocket was running.
“Hey!” shouted the policeman following the pickpocket to his counterpart. “Catch hold of him. He is a pickpocket”.
Now the pickpocket was left with no escape route. He had a policeman both sides – in front and on the back. The policeman coming from the other side overpowered him holding him tight in both his hands. The pickpocket took out a knife from his pocket and pierced it through the policeman’s stomach. The latter fell on the ground and died instantly.
The constable following him and other people overpowered the culprit. In the meantime more policemen came. Seeing the condition of their colleague bleeding and dying on the road, they went out with rage. They beat him mercilessly with everything they could catch hold – their sticks, their booted foot and what not. His face swelled. It looked as if his eyes would come out.
The accused was arrested, medically examined and presented before the court.
But what would you call it -- A natural human reaction or a human right violation?
What would you call it?
A natural reaction or human rights violation?
By Amba Charan Vashishth
It was some time in 1966 that a pickpocket ran away with money after piercing his victim’s pocket from Main Bus Stand in Sector 17, Chandigarh. The policeman on duty ran after him. In the meantime he saw a fellow policeman coming from the opposite direction towards which the pickpocket was running.
“Hey!” shouted the policeman following the pickpocket to his counterpart. “Catch hold of him. He is a pickpocket”.
Now the pickpocket was left with no escape route. He had a policeman both sides – in front and on the back. The policeman coming from the other side overpowered him holding him tight in both his hands. The pickpocket took out a knife from his pocket and pierced it through the policeman’s stomach. The latter fell on the ground and died instantly.
The constable following him and other people overpowered the culprit. In the meantime more policemen came. Seeing the condition of their colleague bleeding and dying on the road, they went out with rage. They beat him mercilessly with everything they could catch hold – their sticks, their booted foot and what not. His face swelled. It looked as if his eyes would come out.
The accused was arrested, medically examined and presented before the court.
But what would you call it -- A natural human reaction or a human right violation?
Tuesday, August 21, 2007
My Memoria Miscellany - Times have changed
This time, time off from politics and other dreary subjects. A glimpse from personal memory
My memoria miscellany
Times have changed
Amba Charan Vashishth
Times have changed. Certainly and very much.
I remember vividly when I was studying in a college, about sixty kilometres away from my town, if I had to carry with me a bedding and a tin trunk (attaché cases and modern bags had not yet arrived on the scene) and hired a coolie, it was all right. If I had only one of the two items and I had with me a coolie carrying it, my acquaintances and relatives would chide me, “What’s wrong with you, young man? Don’t you take food?” Meaning that if I was having full meals, why did I have not the energy to carry my baggage myself?
But now, if I carry a 10-kilogram load in my hands, people don’t say it in my face but pointing towards me do murder to their friends, “A silly miser, doesn’t hire a coolie or an automobile to carry this heavy weight home!”
When in school, after examination in March every year, together we all friends visited the Jawalamukhi temple during Navratras, just 11 Kilometer away or Baisakhi fair a few days afterwards celebrated at a distance of about 12 kilometers. Own vehicles or taxis were almost unknown then. We would not even board a bus. We all preferred to walk on foot – resting wherever we liked, exchanging our anecdotes, impressions of our teachers and sharing the food each of us carried with him from home at any place looked nice to us and where we could get clean, potable water.
But when I narrate these experiences to the present generation of our teens, they take it as a tale, interesting to narrate but difficult to believe. They may not say so on our face, but I am sure, they do take us as fools, who had no other source of enjoyment or entertainment, except whiling away our time like that, besides putting ourselves to tire ourselves that much.
To an extent, they are right also. There was no other source of enjoyment in those times. Radio was there, but a rare luxury only, not many could afford or thought it necessary to ‘waste’ money for it. It was not a necessity then.
For sports, we had only the native, rustic games. Of these, at present you can see only the old-timers kabaddi and gulli-dandaa, at times in the village.
Walking preferred
Those days if one had to travel a distance of 4-5 kilometers; one would prefer to walk on foot. “I would have covered more than a kilometer by the time the bus would arrive”, people would say to another if he asked him to wait for the bus expected any time. And even if the bus arrived, many would still not board it. “I would prefer to save the fare and with it drink half a kilogram of milk. That would give me strength and stamina”, he would say.
Those days’ baarats (marriage processions to the bride’s place) would only be on foot. Our beddings and bags were carried to the place on mules. We enjoyed the travel, dressed in our very best according to the standards of that time. We would rest at some places. Tea was not common then. We only had a glass of milk at some place. We reached the bride’s place fresh and cheerful, without the slightest sign of fatigue. We would stay at the bride’s place next day also – and in still earlier times, for one day more – and return the next day. It was an enjoyable experience. We would continue to recall the journey and experience for many days and months to come.
These are now just matters of memory, looking unbelievable and unrealistic in the present times.
***
My memoria miscellany
Times have changed
Amba Charan Vashishth
Times have changed. Certainly and very much.
I remember vividly when I was studying in a college, about sixty kilometres away from my town, if I had to carry with me a bedding and a tin trunk (attaché cases and modern bags had not yet arrived on the scene) and hired a coolie, it was all right. If I had only one of the two items and I had with me a coolie carrying it, my acquaintances and relatives would chide me, “What’s wrong with you, young man? Don’t you take food?” Meaning that if I was having full meals, why did I have not the energy to carry my baggage myself?
But now, if I carry a 10-kilogram load in my hands, people don’t say it in my face but pointing towards me do murder to their friends, “A silly miser, doesn’t hire a coolie or an automobile to carry this heavy weight home!”
When in school, after examination in March every year, together we all friends visited the Jawalamukhi temple during Navratras, just 11 Kilometer away or Baisakhi fair a few days afterwards celebrated at a distance of about 12 kilometers. Own vehicles or taxis were almost unknown then. We would not even board a bus. We all preferred to walk on foot – resting wherever we liked, exchanging our anecdotes, impressions of our teachers and sharing the food each of us carried with him from home at any place looked nice to us and where we could get clean, potable water.
But when I narrate these experiences to the present generation of our teens, they take it as a tale, interesting to narrate but difficult to believe. They may not say so on our face, but I am sure, they do take us as fools, who had no other source of enjoyment or entertainment, except whiling away our time like that, besides putting ourselves to tire ourselves that much.
To an extent, they are right also. There was no other source of enjoyment in those times. Radio was there, but a rare luxury only, not many could afford or thought it necessary to ‘waste’ money for it. It was not a necessity then.
For sports, we had only the native, rustic games. Of these, at present you can see only the old-timers kabaddi and gulli-dandaa, at times in the village.
Walking preferred
Those days if one had to travel a distance of 4-5 kilometers; one would prefer to walk on foot. “I would have covered more than a kilometer by the time the bus would arrive”, people would say to another if he asked him to wait for the bus expected any time. And even if the bus arrived, many would still not board it. “I would prefer to save the fare and with it drink half a kilogram of milk. That would give me strength and stamina”, he would say.
Those days’ baarats (marriage processions to the bride’s place) would only be on foot. Our beddings and bags were carried to the place on mules. We enjoyed the travel, dressed in our very best according to the standards of that time. We would rest at some places. Tea was not common then. We only had a glass of milk at some place. We reached the bride’s place fresh and cheerful, without the slightest sign of fatigue. We would stay at the bride’s place next day also – and in still earlier times, for one day more – and return the next day. It was an enjoyable experience. We would continue to recall the journey and experience for many days and months to come.
These are now just matters of memory, looking unbelievable and unrealistic in the present times.
***
Sunday, August 19, 2007
Parliament, not Cabinet, supreme and sovereign
Parliament, not Cabinet supreme and sovereign
By Amba Charan Vashishth
Not once, numerous times has the present Lok Sabha Speaker, Mr. Somnath Chatterjee, emphatically declared that Parliament is “sovereign and supreme”. And, ironically, it is the same Speaker – no disrespect intended – who while rejecting the Opposition demand for a discussion on the Indo-US civil nuclear deal in the Lok Sabha under Rule 184 in which voting is mandatory, on August 17 said that Parliament “had no competence” to decide on operationalisation of an international agreement or treaty.
Quoting the Constitution Mr Chatterjee said that in the absence of appropriate laws made by Parliament, the right of the Central Government to enter into treaties and agreements with foreign countries in its sovereign power, is unrestricted and becomes effective without any intervention by Parliament.
“It is also well-established”, he went on to say, “that there is no requirement to obtain ratification from Parliament of any treaty or agreement for its operation or enforcement. Thus, Parliament can only discuss any treaty or agreement entered into by the Government, without affecting its finality or enforceability”.
If we accept the fact of “the absence of appropriate laws made by Parliament” and of any specific provision in the Constitution to restrict the “sovereign power” and “the right of the Central Government to enter into treaties and agreements with foreign countries” and these become “effective without any intervention by Parliament”, equally we can also not deny the fact that there is also no such specific provision which deprives this right to Parliament. It cannot be reduced to a paralysed institution, handicapped by the absence of any specific provision in the Constitution and development of any healthy precedent.
That also raises the question: who is sovereign – the Central government, defined as the “Executive” in the Constitution or Parliament? Both cannot be sovereign to the exclusion or independent of the other. In the face of current controversy over the allegations – and denials -- of the Indo-US Deal compromising on the sovereignty of the nation, who is to be the arbiter – the Council of Ministers or the Parliament?
The Constitution-makers appear to have failed to visualize a situation in which a Parliament may wish to vote on a particular agreement or deal and the ruling government may stubbornly refuse – a demand a government may reject only when either there is no transparency in its dealings or when it is not sure of majority in the House.
Successive governments at the Centre have tried to be autocratic in striking agreements and deals with other countries that bind -- and have bound in the past -- the nation in perpetuity, or for a specified period of time, in the matter of economy, defence, and security of the nation. They never sought approval of Parliament -- a negation of the spirit of democracy.
Unhealthy precedent
India’s first Prime Minister, Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru, is responsible for evolving this wrong practice and unhealthy precedent. By his very nature, he assumed unto himself to be the embodiment of the will of the people and custodian of the interests of the nation. He was never condescending to put before the House of the People for approval of agreements he entered into with foreign powers. Nobody, then, had the courage and stature to challenge his stand.
In contrast, the oldest democracy, the United States of America, does have such a provision and the President is constitutionally bound to seek Congress and Senate approval for all such agreements with other countries.
The nation has had to pay very heavily with this autocratic usurpation of Parliament’s authority in the matter of contracting agreements and deals with foreign powers. Pandit Nehru entering into agreements with China on Tibet and on Kashmir, to quote a few instances, has cost the nation heavily.
By not seeking Parliament’s approval on such matters, successive governments may not have violated the letter of the Constitution, but did certainly hurt the spirit.
No individual Prime Minister, or his Council of Ministers, however well-meaning and patriotic they may be, can usurp unto themselves to be the repository of the will of the House without expressly getting it expressed in a formal session.
The Constitution
Let’s go by the provisions in the Constitution. In Chapter I of the Constitution dealing with “The Executive”, Article 53 (1) says: “The executive power of the Union shall be vested in the President…”
Article 74(1) states: There shall be a Council of Ministers with the Prime Minister at the head to aid and advise the President who shall, in the exercise of his functions, act in accordance with such advice”.
Further, Article 75(3) stipulates that “The Council of Ministers shall be collectively responsible to the House of the People”.
A government enters into an agreement with a foreign power only in exercise of the “executive power of the Union….vested in the President” for which there is “a Council of Ministers with the Prime Minister at the head to aid and advise the President…” Nowhere does the Constitution make the Prime Minister or his Council of Ministers autocratic in the exercise of the “executive power”. On the other hand, it makes the Council of Ministers subservient to the will of the people by providing that it “shall be collectively responsible to the House of the people”.
Therefore, from which letter and spirit of the Constitution can the Parliament be denied the right to approve or disapprove an agreement with a foreign government, like the Indo-US nuclear deal?
If the Constitution could be amended at the drop of a hot a little less than hundred times in the last sixty years, why can’t it be amended to provide for parliamentary approval of the agreements a government enters into with foreign governments? Such a step will not infringe the letter and spirit neither of the Constitution nor of democracy. ***
By Amba Charan Vashishth
Not once, numerous times has the present Lok Sabha Speaker, Mr. Somnath Chatterjee, emphatically declared that Parliament is “sovereign and supreme”. And, ironically, it is the same Speaker – no disrespect intended – who while rejecting the Opposition demand for a discussion on the Indo-US civil nuclear deal in the Lok Sabha under Rule 184 in which voting is mandatory, on August 17 said that Parliament “had no competence” to decide on operationalisation of an international agreement or treaty.
Quoting the Constitution Mr Chatterjee said that in the absence of appropriate laws made by Parliament, the right of the Central Government to enter into treaties and agreements with foreign countries in its sovereign power, is unrestricted and becomes effective without any intervention by Parliament.
“It is also well-established”, he went on to say, “that there is no requirement to obtain ratification from Parliament of any treaty or agreement for its operation or enforcement. Thus, Parliament can only discuss any treaty or agreement entered into by the Government, without affecting its finality or enforceability”.
If we accept the fact of “the absence of appropriate laws made by Parliament” and of any specific provision in the Constitution to restrict the “sovereign power” and “the right of the Central Government to enter into treaties and agreements with foreign countries” and these become “effective without any intervention by Parliament”, equally we can also not deny the fact that there is also no such specific provision which deprives this right to Parliament. It cannot be reduced to a paralysed institution, handicapped by the absence of any specific provision in the Constitution and development of any healthy precedent.
That also raises the question: who is sovereign – the Central government, defined as the “Executive” in the Constitution or Parliament? Both cannot be sovereign to the exclusion or independent of the other. In the face of current controversy over the allegations – and denials -- of the Indo-US Deal compromising on the sovereignty of the nation, who is to be the arbiter – the Council of Ministers or the Parliament?
The Constitution-makers appear to have failed to visualize a situation in which a Parliament may wish to vote on a particular agreement or deal and the ruling government may stubbornly refuse – a demand a government may reject only when either there is no transparency in its dealings or when it is not sure of majority in the House.
Successive governments at the Centre have tried to be autocratic in striking agreements and deals with other countries that bind -- and have bound in the past -- the nation in perpetuity, or for a specified period of time, in the matter of economy, defence, and security of the nation. They never sought approval of Parliament -- a negation of the spirit of democracy.
Unhealthy precedent
India’s first Prime Minister, Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru, is responsible for evolving this wrong practice and unhealthy precedent. By his very nature, he assumed unto himself to be the embodiment of the will of the people and custodian of the interests of the nation. He was never condescending to put before the House of the People for approval of agreements he entered into with foreign powers. Nobody, then, had the courage and stature to challenge his stand.
In contrast, the oldest democracy, the United States of America, does have such a provision and the President is constitutionally bound to seek Congress and Senate approval for all such agreements with other countries.
The nation has had to pay very heavily with this autocratic usurpation of Parliament’s authority in the matter of contracting agreements and deals with foreign powers. Pandit Nehru entering into agreements with China on Tibet and on Kashmir, to quote a few instances, has cost the nation heavily.
By not seeking Parliament’s approval on such matters, successive governments may not have violated the letter of the Constitution, but did certainly hurt the spirit.
No individual Prime Minister, or his Council of Ministers, however well-meaning and patriotic they may be, can usurp unto themselves to be the repository of the will of the House without expressly getting it expressed in a formal session.
The Constitution
Let’s go by the provisions in the Constitution. In Chapter I of the Constitution dealing with “The Executive”, Article 53 (1) says: “The executive power of the Union shall be vested in the President…”
Article 74(1) states: There shall be a Council of Ministers with the Prime Minister at the head to aid and advise the President who shall, in the exercise of his functions, act in accordance with such advice”.
Further, Article 75(3) stipulates that “The Council of Ministers shall be collectively responsible to the House of the People”.
A government enters into an agreement with a foreign power only in exercise of the “executive power of the Union….vested in the President” for which there is “a Council of Ministers with the Prime Minister at the head to aid and advise the President…” Nowhere does the Constitution make the Prime Minister or his Council of Ministers autocratic in the exercise of the “executive power”. On the other hand, it makes the Council of Ministers subservient to the will of the people by providing that it “shall be collectively responsible to the House of the people”.
Therefore, from which letter and spirit of the Constitution can the Parliament be denied the right to approve or disapprove an agreement with a foreign government, like the Indo-US nuclear deal?
If the Constitution could be amended at the drop of a hot a little less than hundred times in the last sixty years, why can’t it be amended to provide for parliamentary approval of the agreements a government enters into with foreign governments? Such a step will not infringe the letter and spirit neither of the Constitution nor of democracy. ***
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
