The Enigma that is Delimitation
By Amba Charan Vashishth
At the height of controversy over delimitation of constituencies in Himachal Pradesh, the Chairman of the Delimitation Commission in 2002 declared: He will go by the convenience of the public and not by that of the politicians. But actually, with the Government of India now deciding to the accept the report of Delimitation Commission for Himachal along with other States where election process has already been completed, the Election Commission and the Delimitation Commission have in fact achieved exactly the reverse and ignored the "convenience of the public".
In 2002, the Delimitation Commission was trying to run against time to complete the process in time for the HP assembly elections then due in February 2003. But for some reason or the other, this could not be done and the elections were held as per the old delimitation. But it was then thought that the process of delimitation would be completed well before next elections due in February 2008 (though held in December 2007) to hold elections as per the new recommendations.
It is worth mentioning that although the report of the Delimitation Commission was notified by the HP Government as back as January 2007, yet in the elections held after 11 months in December 2007, the Report was totally ignored.
The elections to Gujarat assembly in December 2007 too were held according to the old delimitation. So about the States of Tripura, Nagaland, Meghalaya going to the polls in March this year. In Karnataka elections due in May 2008 the report of the Delimitation Commission is again likely to be ignored.
In all fairness, the elections to every State assembly should be held as per the recommendations of the Delimitation Commission to cater to the "convenience of the public" instead of creating practical problems for them later on.
The elections held as per the old system have created a very anomalous situation, at least for the people who voted in the elections concluded less than a month ago in the States of Himachal and Gujarat, and so will they in the three North-eastern States.
Being more acquainted with the ground realities in Himachal, I would like to concentrate more on the situation that has developed in this State. The situation in other States can be no different.
Not the one they voted
The kanungo circle being the unit for re-drawl of constituencies, the boundaries of almost every constituency stand altered. Consequently, the persons whom people voted in the last elections are no longer their representatives and the one they did not vote are to be their 'elected' representatives. In many cases they may have voted for a person who belongs to some other party and won, but in the newly drawn constituency, the person may belong to a different party. The elected 'representative' too may not give to them that much care and attention because they were not the people instrumental in his victory.
No MLA to represent
A new assembly constituency of Manali has been added to the Kullu district increasing the number of its MLAs to four from the existing three. The voters of the newly created constituency of Manali have now been left high and dry with nobody to represent them in the House because their area falls in the constituency of none of the three individuals who won the election. The latter will now only concentrate on the areas from where they have to seek re-election next time.
No constituency to represent
The number of assembly constituencies in Kangra, the biggest district of the State which sends almost one-fourth of MLAs (16 in a house of 68) has been reduced to 15. The Thural constituency, which the incumbent Irrigation & Public Health Minister Mr. Ravinder Singh Ravi has been representing and won for the fourth time consecutively, has been obliterated and he is left with no area to represent, his present area having been fragmented and merged with other adjoining constituencies.
Nowhere to go
The number of constituencies reserved for Scheduled Castes has been increased by one, from the present 16 to 17 (one-fourth of the House). Unreserved constituencies of Chintpurni (Una), Baijnath (Kangra), Rohroo (Shimla) and Solan have been reserved for scheduled castes and the present reserved constituencies of Gagret (Una), Pragpur (Kangra) and Kasumpati (Shimla) have been de-reserved. Consequently, the MLAs elected only a month back, including former Chief Minister Virbhadra Singh (Rohroo) and Health Minister Dr. Rajeev Bindal (Solan), have been left high dry with no areas to contest next time. Mr Virbhadra Singh may opt from some other constituency in Shimla district, but the fate of the remaining three is doomed.
As a result of this delimitation, the people inhabiting these newly reserved and de-reserved seven constituencies will suffer because the incumbent representatives will lose interest in nursing the areas that voted for them because they have not to seek votes from these constituencies for at least three decades hence when another delimitation of constituencies may take place. The last delimitation took place in 1972.
The only redeeming feature will be that the next Lok Sabha elections in 2009 will be held as per the newly redrawn parliamentary constituencies. Although the four parliamentary constituencies too stand redrawn, yet the people will have the opportunity to vote for an individual and a political party of their choice under the new set up. ***
Thursday, February 14, 2008
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
Needlepoint: Crackers -- 'Communal' and 'secular'
The crackers – ‘communal’ and ‘secular’
By Amba Charan Vashishth*
After reading what I am writing will make me end up as an orthodox, rank communalist in the eyes of our self-proclaimed secularists, liberal intelligentsia who claim for themselves the exclusive, unchallenged intellectual property right and trademark on ‘secularism’ and think they can sell anything in their brand ‘secular’.
But I, too, do have the freedom of expression on what I see, what I think and what I believe. Others can contradict me, condemn me but only with the force of logic and argument and not by the shrill their words can emit.
Like crores of my brethren all over the country in cities, towns, and villages, I am an orthodox person who does not wish to be deprived of his peaceful sleep even on the New Year eve. I don’t indulge in an orgy of drinking and dancing with other’s wives and women, hug them and touch them in the name of wishing them a very affectionate, a very happy, sweet, loving New Year.
December 31 has come to be celebrated as the New Year Eve, though the fact remains that hardly one percent of our population, mostly in metros and big cities, has come to know of it or celebrate it because they have the money to spare and splurge. If government were to order the bills that night to be paid only through cheques, debit and credit cards, I am sure, it will collect more income tax and other revenues. But there is another side of the story. The celebrations will then lose the lavishness and the sheen. It is the black money that thrives that day and drives the mirth and festivities.
As the zero hour struck on December 31st night, I was startled out of my slumber by the sound and fury of crackers that continued for more than half an hour in full fury and, later, intermittently for about two hours.
It reminded me of the court orders banning bursting of crackers after 10 at night because it created noise and environmental pollution as it also disturbed the peace of mind of many a great gentlemen.
When more than 80 percent of the population in the country – young and old, men and women, rich and poor—are celebrating Diwali, there is a ban on crackers after 10 PM but not when only a minuscule minority of only rich elite is doing.
Does it then mean that crackers spread pollution -- noise and environmental- only when burst on Diwali day and not on December 31st and New Year Day? Are the crackers on Diwali ‘communal’ only because these have something to do with ‘Hindus’ and on December 31st ‘secular’ because the celebration has nothing to do with Hindu ethos?
I noticed signboards at many places, including at the India Gate circle in New Delhi warning us: “Don’t mix drinking with driving.” It is a crime. So tell our police, law enforcing agencies and court. But how many drivers were held up by police on 31st December night? Practically none. Had the police done its duty it could hardly come across a single vehicle driver, whether owner or a chauffer, the occupants included, without a heavy dose of alcohol and intoxication. Why should they not be? They had gone out for merry-making and not to visit a place of worship to seek spiritual blessings.
How could the poor police perform its duty and enforce law? It could do, but only at its own peril. If it did stretch its hand of law, who knows which big-big or his wards were his booty. But the policemen preferred to keep their eyes shut to the infringements of law before their very own eyes, pretending not to have seen it and therefore did not have to act. Their duty ended putting signboard warning the violators. It allowed everyone to have a free for all. Can any sane people even think that on 31st December night not a single person out on merrymaking drove his vehicle without having gulped a few pegs of wine at that late hour?
When there is traffic jam or hazard because of a political or religious procession much is talked and written about. But when vehicular traffic to Connaught Place in New Delhi was totally prohibited on New Year Eve, people coming to Delhi from outside who had to pass nearby Connaught Place were put to great inconvenience. No taxi or auto-rickshaw was willing to go to that area. How many people failed to catch their trains from New Delhi railway station situated adjoining Connaught Place, nobody knows? Nobody wrote; nobody cared. Everybody was high in spirits reporting the merry making going on at Connaught Place. ***
By Amba Charan Vashishth*
After reading what I am writing will make me end up as an orthodox, rank communalist in the eyes of our self-proclaimed secularists, liberal intelligentsia who claim for themselves the exclusive, unchallenged intellectual property right and trademark on ‘secularism’ and think they can sell anything in their brand ‘secular’.
But I, too, do have the freedom of expression on what I see, what I think and what I believe. Others can contradict me, condemn me but only with the force of logic and argument and not by the shrill their words can emit.
Like crores of my brethren all over the country in cities, towns, and villages, I am an orthodox person who does not wish to be deprived of his peaceful sleep even on the New Year eve. I don’t indulge in an orgy of drinking and dancing with other’s wives and women, hug them and touch them in the name of wishing them a very affectionate, a very happy, sweet, loving New Year.
December 31 has come to be celebrated as the New Year Eve, though the fact remains that hardly one percent of our population, mostly in metros and big cities, has come to know of it or celebrate it because they have the money to spare and splurge. If government were to order the bills that night to be paid only through cheques, debit and credit cards, I am sure, it will collect more income tax and other revenues. But there is another side of the story. The celebrations will then lose the lavishness and the sheen. It is the black money that thrives that day and drives the mirth and festivities.
As the zero hour struck on December 31st night, I was startled out of my slumber by the sound and fury of crackers that continued for more than half an hour in full fury and, later, intermittently for about two hours.
It reminded me of the court orders banning bursting of crackers after 10 at night because it created noise and environmental pollution as it also disturbed the peace of mind of many a great gentlemen.
When more than 80 percent of the population in the country – young and old, men and women, rich and poor—are celebrating Diwali, there is a ban on crackers after 10 PM but not when only a minuscule minority of only rich elite is doing.
Does it then mean that crackers spread pollution -- noise and environmental- only when burst on Diwali day and not on December 31st and New Year Day? Are the crackers on Diwali ‘communal’ only because these have something to do with ‘Hindus’ and on December 31st ‘secular’ because the celebration has nothing to do with Hindu ethos?
I noticed signboards at many places, including at the India Gate circle in New Delhi warning us: “Don’t mix drinking with driving.” It is a crime. So tell our police, law enforcing agencies and court. But how many drivers were held up by police on 31st December night? Practically none. Had the police done its duty it could hardly come across a single vehicle driver, whether owner or a chauffer, the occupants included, without a heavy dose of alcohol and intoxication. Why should they not be? They had gone out for merry-making and not to visit a place of worship to seek spiritual blessings.
How could the poor police perform its duty and enforce law? It could do, but only at its own peril. If it did stretch its hand of law, who knows which big-big or his wards were his booty. But the policemen preferred to keep their eyes shut to the infringements of law before their very own eyes, pretending not to have seen it and therefore did not have to act. Their duty ended putting signboard warning the violators. It allowed everyone to have a free for all. Can any sane people even think that on 31st December night not a single person out on merrymaking drove his vehicle without having gulped a few pegs of wine at that late hour?
When there is traffic jam or hazard because of a political or religious procession much is talked and written about. But when vehicular traffic to Connaught Place in New Delhi was totally prohibited on New Year Eve, people coming to Delhi from outside who had to pass nearby Connaught Place were put to great inconvenience. No taxi or auto-rickshaw was willing to go to that area. How many people failed to catch their trains from New Delhi railway station situated adjoining Connaught Place, nobody knows? Nobody wrote; nobody cared. Everybody was high in spirits reporting the merry making going on at Connaught Place. ***
Saturday, January 26, 2008
Himachal Assembly Elections 2007
NEEDLEPOINT: HIMACHAL ASSEMBLY ELECTIONS
Facts more interesting, more enlightening
By Amba Charan Vashishth
The recent assembly elections in Himachal Pradesh have created history in more than one way. The facts that emerge are interesting and enlightening.
For the first time, on its own strength, BJP got absolute majority – 41 seats in a 68-member house (just 2 seats less than required for a 2/3rd majority, with two BJP rebels having already declared their support to Dhumal government).
In 1998 BJP did form government but it was in alliance with Himachal Vikas Congress (HVC).
BJP's percentage of vote share went up from 35.38 in 2003 to 43.78 in 2007 December – a jump of 8.40 percent. BJP this time had no alliance or seat adjustment at any level. Congress vote percentage went down from 41.00 percent in 2003 to 38.89.
In 2003 elections, HVC had contested independently and received 5.87 percent votes. On the eve of 2004 parliamentary elections, HVC merged itself with Congress. This means that Congress share of votes in 2007 went down by another 5.87% as compared to 2003.
In 1990 too, BJP had a majority but it was in alliance with Janta Dal then. BJP got 46 out of 51 contested. Out of 17 JD fought, it won 11. BJP percentage of votes then was 41.78.
Three times in the past Prem Kumar Dhumal was projected as chief ministerial candidate. Party won twice in 1998 and 2007.
Popularity, among voters, of Prem Kumar Dhumal is continuously on the rise since he first contested the assembly election from Bamson constituency while that of the Congress chief ministerial candidate Virbhadra Singh is on the downslide:
Lead with vote percentage
1998 2003 2007
P. K. Dhumal 8,828 15,698 26,007
(60.34%) (66.71%) (76.29%)
Virbhadra Singh 26,148 16,289 14,137
(80.92%) (67.94%) (60.00%)
On the contrary, BJP candidate, Khushi Ram Balnatah maintains his gain each election at the cost of Virbhadra Singh
Khushi Ram Balnatah 18.02% 31.93% 32.13%
If it was a BJP candidate P.K. Dhumal who won by the highest margin, it again was the BJP candidate Tulsi Ram, who won the Pangi-Bharmaur seat with the lowest margin of 16 votes.
Sonia-Rahul flop
Mrs. Sonia Gandhi addressed election rallies at Palampur and Hamirpur and Congress lost at both the places.
Rahul Gandhi had his much hyped road show only in Kullu district and Congress lost all the three assembly seats for the first time.
Sonia protégé loses
Being a Sonia protégé failed to fetch victory for her special nominee, Parkash Chand, son of a person working in her household. Congress suffered the ignominy of losing the security deposit even. She had denied the ticket to sitting Congress MLA and Deputy Speaker Dharampal.
Five Congress nominees forfeited their security deposit as against 3 of BJP.
It is for the first time that BJP has won all the five seats in Solan district and all the three seats in Kullu district.
Both BJP and Congress had fielded six women each. Four women from BJP and only one from Congress could make it to the State assembly.
BJP creates history
BJP captured the so-far-invincible Congress forts in Jubbal-Kotkhai (Shimla), Kotkehloor (Bilaspur) and Kassauli (Solan). Jubbal-Kotkhai had throughout been a pocket borough of Congress veteran late Thakur Ram Lal who won it throughout. After his death, in 2003 elections his grandson romped home successful. As a Janta Dal candidate supported by BJP Thakur Ram Lal had even humbled Chief Minister Virbhadra Singh in 1990 from this constituency.
It was another Ram Lal Thakur of Congress who was this time defeated by BJP's Randhir Sharma for the first time in Kotkehloor.
Except for the lone instance of Janata Party in 1977, BJP has won, for the first time, the Dharampur constituency in Mandi district when Mohinder Singh won it contesting as a BJP candidate this time
Myth smashed
In the election two myths were smashed: One, division between the 'old' and the 'new' areas that had bogged the State since Punjab areas merged with Himachal in 1966; two, that BJP was a party of the 'new' areas alone. BJP won more or less an equal victory in both regions. Out of 34 seats in 'old' areas, BJP won 17 (50 percent) and 24 out of the rest of 34.
Parliamentary constituency-wise too, there was more of uniformity and less of diversity. In Kangra parliamentary constituency BJP bagged 10 assembly seats, in Hamirpur 11, in Mandi 12 and in Shimla 8.
Veterans of battle
It is Congress candidate, Shri Gangu Ram Musafir who created history by winning his Pachhad assembly constituency consecutively for the 7th time.
I. D. Dhiman and Capt. Atma Ram, both of BJP and Harshvardhan Chauhan of Congress, have won their seats consecutively for the fifth time.
Shri Ravinder Singh Ravi (BJP) and Shri Kaul Singh Thakur (Congress) have scored their fourth consecutive victory.
Present State BJP President Jairam Thakur (Chachiot), Baldev Sharma (Nadaunta), Dr. Rajiv Bindal (Solan), Ramesh Dhwala (Jawalamukhi), Hari Narain Singh (Nalagarh) – all BJP -- and Smt. Vidya Stokes, Shri G. S. Bali, and Dr. Prem Singh (Renuka) – all Congress, have recorded their third victory in a row.
Ministers lick defeat
More than half of the Congress cabinet lost. 5 out of 10 ministers were defeated. One did not fight, but his son contested and lost. One resigned about one month before the announcement of election schedule. One minister was denied nomination. Two senior ministers, Mrs. Vidya Stokes (Kumarsain) and Thakur Kaul Singh (Darang) somehow managed to escape the BJP onslaught retaining their seats by very narrow margins of 1250 and 1809 votes, respectively.
Four other Congress ministers, who were dropped from Cabinet for one reason or the other, were dumped by the electorate – Shri Brij Bihari Lal Butail (Palampur), Mrs. Asha Kumari (Banikhet), Mrs. Chandresh Kumari (Dharmsala) and the last of all, Major Vijai Singh Mankotia who two months back left Congress and contested as BSP's chief ministerial candidate.
BSP opens account
BSP did succeed in opening its account first time in Himachal from Kangra, but 59 of its candidates lost security deposit.
Rest of the national parties failed to make their presence felt. CPM was runner-up only in Shimla constituency. In rest of the State CPM, CPI, NCP, Lok Janshakti Party and Samajwadi Party did contest some seats but only to lose their security deposit.
Leader in Distress
Whenever Congress wins majority, the leader of the Congress Legislature Party has been Shri Virbhadra Singh, but whenever it loses majority as it did in 1990 and now in 2007, it is Smt. Vidya Stokes who is elected the leader.
***
Facts more interesting, more enlightening
By Amba Charan Vashishth
The recent assembly elections in Himachal Pradesh have created history in more than one way. The facts that emerge are interesting and enlightening.
For the first time, on its own strength, BJP got absolute majority – 41 seats in a 68-member house (just 2 seats less than required for a 2/3rd majority, with two BJP rebels having already declared their support to Dhumal government).
In 1998 BJP did form government but it was in alliance with Himachal Vikas Congress (HVC).
BJP's percentage of vote share went up from 35.38 in 2003 to 43.78 in 2007 December – a jump of 8.40 percent. BJP this time had no alliance or seat adjustment at any level. Congress vote percentage went down from 41.00 percent in 2003 to 38.89.
In 2003 elections, HVC had contested independently and received 5.87 percent votes. On the eve of 2004 parliamentary elections, HVC merged itself with Congress. This means that Congress share of votes in 2007 went down by another 5.87% as compared to 2003.
In 1990 too, BJP had a majority but it was in alliance with Janta Dal then. BJP got 46 out of 51 contested. Out of 17 JD fought, it won 11. BJP percentage of votes then was 41.78.
Three times in the past Prem Kumar Dhumal was projected as chief ministerial candidate. Party won twice in 1998 and 2007.
Popularity, among voters, of Prem Kumar Dhumal is continuously on the rise since he first contested the assembly election from Bamson constituency while that of the Congress chief ministerial candidate Virbhadra Singh is on the downslide:
Lead with vote percentage
1998 2003 2007
P. K. Dhumal 8,828 15,698 26,007
(60.34%) (66.71%) (76.29%)
Virbhadra Singh 26,148 16,289 14,137
(80.92%) (67.94%) (60.00%)
On the contrary, BJP candidate, Khushi Ram Balnatah maintains his gain each election at the cost of Virbhadra Singh
Khushi Ram Balnatah 18.02% 31.93% 32.13%
If it was a BJP candidate P.K. Dhumal who won by the highest margin, it again was the BJP candidate Tulsi Ram, who won the Pangi-Bharmaur seat with the lowest margin of 16 votes.
Sonia-Rahul flop
Mrs. Sonia Gandhi addressed election rallies at Palampur and Hamirpur and Congress lost at both the places.
Rahul Gandhi had his much hyped road show only in Kullu district and Congress lost all the three assembly seats for the first time.
Sonia protégé loses
Being a Sonia protégé failed to fetch victory for her special nominee, Parkash Chand, son of a person working in her household. Congress suffered the ignominy of losing the security deposit even. She had denied the ticket to sitting Congress MLA and Deputy Speaker Dharampal.
Five Congress nominees forfeited their security deposit as against 3 of BJP.
It is for the first time that BJP has won all the five seats in Solan district and all the three seats in Kullu district.
Both BJP and Congress had fielded six women each. Four women from BJP and only one from Congress could make it to the State assembly.
BJP creates history
BJP captured the so-far-invincible Congress forts in Jubbal-Kotkhai (Shimla), Kotkehloor (Bilaspur) and Kassauli (Solan). Jubbal-Kotkhai had throughout been a pocket borough of Congress veteran late Thakur Ram Lal who won it throughout. After his death, in 2003 elections his grandson romped home successful. As a Janta Dal candidate supported by BJP Thakur Ram Lal had even humbled Chief Minister Virbhadra Singh in 1990 from this constituency.
It was another Ram Lal Thakur of Congress who was this time defeated by BJP's Randhir Sharma for the first time in Kotkehloor.
Except for the lone instance of Janata Party in 1977, BJP has won, for the first time, the Dharampur constituency in Mandi district when Mohinder Singh won it contesting as a BJP candidate this time
Myth smashed
In the election two myths were smashed: One, division between the 'old' and the 'new' areas that had bogged the State since Punjab areas merged with Himachal in 1966; two, that BJP was a party of the 'new' areas alone. BJP won more or less an equal victory in both regions. Out of 34 seats in 'old' areas, BJP won 17 (50 percent) and 24 out of the rest of 34.
Parliamentary constituency-wise too, there was more of uniformity and less of diversity. In Kangra parliamentary constituency BJP bagged 10 assembly seats, in Hamirpur 11, in Mandi 12 and in Shimla 8.
Veterans of battle
It is Congress candidate, Shri Gangu Ram Musafir who created history by winning his Pachhad assembly constituency consecutively for the 7th time.
I. D. Dhiman and Capt. Atma Ram, both of BJP and Harshvardhan Chauhan of Congress, have won their seats consecutively for the fifth time.
Shri Ravinder Singh Ravi (BJP) and Shri Kaul Singh Thakur (Congress) have scored their fourth consecutive victory.
Present State BJP President Jairam Thakur (Chachiot), Baldev Sharma (Nadaunta), Dr. Rajiv Bindal (Solan), Ramesh Dhwala (Jawalamukhi), Hari Narain Singh (Nalagarh) – all BJP -- and Smt. Vidya Stokes, Shri G. S. Bali, and Dr. Prem Singh (Renuka) – all Congress, have recorded their third victory in a row.
Ministers lick defeat
More than half of the Congress cabinet lost. 5 out of 10 ministers were defeated. One did not fight, but his son contested and lost. One resigned about one month before the announcement of election schedule. One minister was denied nomination. Two senior ministers, Mrs. Vidya Stokes (Kumarsain) and Thakur Kaul Singh (Darang) somehow managed to escape the BJP onslaught retaining their seats by very narrow margins of 1250 and 1809 votes, respectively.
Four other Congress ministers, who were dropped from Cabinet for one reason or the other, were dumped by the electorate – Shri Brij Bihari Lal Butail (Palampur), Mrs. Asha Kumari (Banikhet), Mrs. Chandresh Kumari (Dharmsala) and the last of all, Major Vijai Singh Mankotia who two months back left Congress and contested as BSP's chief ministerial candidate.
BSP opens account
BSP did succeed in opening its account first time in Himachal from Kangra, but 59 of its candidates lost security deposit.
Rest of the national parties failed to make their presence felt. CPM was runner-up only in Shimla constituency. In rest of the State CPM, CPI, NCP, Lok Janshakti Party and Samajwadi Party did contest some seats but only to lose their security deposit.
Leader in Distress
Whenever Congress wins majority, the leader of the Congress Legislature Party has been Shri Virbhadra Singh, but whenever it loses majority as it did in 1990 and now in 2007, it is Smt. Vidya Stokes who is elected the leader.
***
Thursday, October 25, 2007
NEEDLE POINT: Insult is an insult whether by Russia or America
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? ***
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? ***
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
