Sunday, March 30, 2014

SATIRE Chivalrous Kejriwal can fight Corruption and Elections anywhere in the Universe

Satire
Chivalrous Kejriwal can fight Corruption and Elections anywhere in the Universe

Son:            Father.
Father:       Yes, my son.
Son:            I am greatly impressed by Kejriwal's chivalrous daring. I have
 turned a great fan of him.

Father:       I agree, son. He is a great man of the present decade, chivalrous, fearless.
Son:            You know father, he defeated the invincible Mrs. Sheila Dikshit who had scored a hat-trick in last election.
Father:       That was a great feat. That has enhanced his prestige and power. It has made him more daring and dashing.
Son:            That is why he has now declared that he would challenge BJP's prime ministerial candidate Narendra Modi from wherever he contests.
Father:       That is a sign of the confidence he has gained touring different parts of the country.
Son             Father, is Kejriwal in the ruling party or the opposition?
Father:       He is very much an important pillar of the opposition. He has many times declared that he is deadly against the 'corrupt' Congress and is a great warrior against corruption.
Son:            In that case father, we should have seen him fighting against the Congress in the election. Why doesn't he challenge the so far invincible Rahul and Sonia Gandhi? Is he afraid of them?
Father:       No son. That's not like Kejriwal. He is fearful of none.
Son:            Then why?
Father:       Son, Mr. Kejriwal may be a politician, yet he is a human being, a kind hearted man. You know, it is the mother-son duo who made him the Delhi CM. He could never without their support. Son, personal obligations too matter in politics.
Son:            Father, that means he is on the right side of Congress.
Father:       No, son. It is the intricacy of politics which we mortals are unable to understand. In politics, the reality is always not what you see.
Son:            Father, Modi is likely to contest both from Varanasi in UP and one seat in Gujarat.
Father:       He will challenge Modi from wherever he stands.
Son:            But this daring may one day provoke him to challenge the World Wrestling champions we see in electronic channels.
Father        No son, he's not that immature; he knows his own physical strength and prowess.
Son:            Will he win in both constituencies against Modi?
Father:       Son, his self-confidence is on the top of the world. He fought his life's first election and won. Therefore, he is very optimistic. And then he is not fighting the election to lose.
Son:            In that way, he can next challenge President Obama.
Father:       He can, son. USA too is a great democracy like us. And AAP has its followers and sympathizers there also.
Son:            And then, what further? Will he stop at that?
Father:       No son, he is unstoppable. He'll move high and high in pursuit of eradication of corruption through elections all over the world.
Son:            In that case, he can march on to the Moon and the Mars if there are elections?

Father:       This you inquire of him only, my son.                                      ***

हास्‍य-व्‍यंग -- भ्रष्‍टाचार के विरूद्ध संग्राम लड़ते-लड़ते तो बहादुर केजरीवाल चांद व मंगल तक जा सकते हैं

हास्‍य-व्‍यंग
भ्रष्‍टाचार के विरूद्ध संग्राम लड़ते-लड़ते तो बहादुर केजरीवाल चांद व मंगल तक जा सकते हैं

बेटा:     पिताजी।
पिता:    हां बेटा।
बेटा:     हिम्‍मत हो तो बहादुर केजरीवाल जैसी। मैं तो उनका
कायल हो गया हूं, उनका एक आंखमून्‍द समर्थक।
पिता:    तुम ठीक कह रहे हो बेटा। वह तो इस दशक के महान् व्‍यक्ति हैं अदम्‍य साहसी, निर्भय।
बेटा:     पिताजी, आप तो जानते ही हैं कि उन्‍होंने दिल्‍ली की अजेय मुख्‍य मन्‍त्री शीला दीक्षित को धूल चटा दी थी जिन्‍होंने पिछले चुनाव में हैटट्रिक मारा था।
पिता:    वह तो बेटा सचमुच ही अजूबा था, एक करिश्‍मा। इसने उनकी प्रतिष्‍ठा को चार चांद लगा दिये थे और उनका हौसला सातवें आसमान छू गया था।
बेटा:     और शायद यही कारण लगता है कि उनमें इतनी हिम्‍मत पैदा हो गई कि उन्‍होंने चुनौति दे दी कि भाजपा के प्रधान मन्‍त्री पद के उम्‍मीदवार नरेन्‍द्र मोदी जहां से भी लोक सभा चुनाव लड़ेंगे वह वहीं से उनसे लोहा लेंगे।
पिता:    उन में यह हौसला सारे देश का भ्रमण करने के बाद ही मिला है।
बेटा:     पर पिताजी, मुझे यह समझ नहीं आता कि केजरीवाल
        कांग्रेस में हैं या कि विपक्ष में\
पिता:    बेटा, वह तो निस्‍सन्‍देह ही विपक्ष के एक बहुत बड़े सशक्‍त स्‍तम्‍भ हैं। वह तो अनेकों बार कह चुके हैं, दोहरा चुके हैं कि भ्रष्‍टाचार के विरूद्ध संग्राम में वह सब से बड़े योद्धा हैं और भ्रष्‍ट कांग्रेस के विरूद्ध।
बेटा:     तब तो पिताजी इस चुनाव में हमें उनको कांग्रेस के विरूद्ध देखना चाहिये था। पर ऐसा नहीं दिख रहा। यदि वह सचमुच ही कांग्रेस के विरूद्ध होते तो वह अब तक के अजेय राहुल और सोनियाजी के विरूद्ध चुनाव क्‍यों नहीं लड़ते\ क्‍या वह उनसे डरते हैं\
पिता:    नहीं बेटा, यह केजरीवाल की प्रकृति नहीं है। वह तो किसी से नहीं डरते।
बेटा:     तो फिर\
पिता:    बेटा, समझने की कोशि‍श करो। यह ठीक है कि केजरीवाल एक राजनेता हैं। पर साथ में यह भी सच है कि वह एक इन्‍सान हैं जिनके दिल में दया व धर्म भी है। उन्‍हें पता है कि यह केवल मां-बेटे की जोड़ी ही थी जिसने उन्‍हें दिल्‍ली का मुख्‍य मन्‍त्री बनाया। अन्‍यथा उनके समर्थन के बिना तो यह सम्‍भव ही न था। बेटा, एहसान भी कोई चीज़ होती है और केजरीवाल इतने घटिया इन्‍सान नहीं कि वह किसी का एहसान ही भूल जायें।
बेटा:     पिताजी, इसका तो मतलब यह हुआ कि वह कांग्रेस के ही दाहिना हाथ हैं।
पिता:    नहीं बेटा। राजनीति एक टेढ़ी-मेढ़ी खीर है जो हम जैसे आम आदमी की समझ के बाहर की चीज़ है। राजनीति में सब कुछ वह नहीं होता जैसा कि दिखता है।
बेटा-     पिताजी, मोदी तो उत्‍तर प्रदेश में वाराणसी से व गुजरात में वडोदरा दोनों स्‍थानों से चुनाव लड़ने जा रहे हैं।
पिता:    बेटा, केजरीवाल अपनी बात के पक्‍के हैं। वह मोदी के खिलाफ दोनों ही स्‍थानों से लड़ सकते हैं।
बेटा:     इससे तो ऐसा लगता है कि केजरीवाल में आत्‍मविश्‍वास बहुत बढ़ गया है। ऐसे तो वह कल को दुनिया के उन पहलवानों को भी चुनौति दे सकते हैं जिन्‍हें हम प्रतिदिन इलैक्‍ट्रानिक चैनलों पर रोज़ बुरी तरह भिड़ते देखते हैं।
पिता:    नहीं बेटा, वह इतने नासमझ नहीं हैं। वह अपनी शक्ति व दाव-पेच की क्षमता से अवगत हैं। वह ऐसा कुछ नहीं करेंगे।
बेटा:     क्‍या वह मोदी के विरूद्ध दोनों स्‍थानों से विजयी रहेंगे\
पिता:    बेटा, उनका आत्‍मविश्‍वास तो आस्‍मान छू रहा है। उन्‍होंने अपने जीवन का पहला ही चुनाव एक कांग्रेसी महारथी के विरूद्ध लड़़ा और उसे धराशायी किया। इसलिये उन में विश्‍वास लबालब भरा पड़ा है। और फिर वह चुनाव हारने के लिये थोड़े लड़ेंगे।
बेटा:     इस प्रकार तो वह कल को राष्‍ट्रपति ओबामा को भी चुनौति खड़ी कर सकते हैं।
पिता:    कोई हैरानी की बात नहीं, बेटा। अमरीका भी तो हमारी ही तरह एक बड़ा पुराना जनतन्‍त्र है। फिर उनकी पार्टी तो अमरीका में भी बहुत लोकप्रिय होकर उभर रही है। वहां भी पार्टी के कार्यकर्ता व समर्थक बैठकें व प्रदर्शन कर रहे हैं।
बेटा:     फिर आगे क्‍या होगा\ क्‍या केजरीवाल यहीं रूक जायेंगे\
पिता:    नहीं बेटा। वह तो रूकने वाले व्‍यक्ति नहीं हैं। वह तो आगे से आगे ही जायेंगे। चुनाव के माध्‍यम से भ्रष्‍टाचार को जड़ से उखाड़ फैंकने की अपनी कसम को पूरा करने केलिये दुनिया के किसी भी कोने केलिये कूच कर सकते हैं।
बेटा:     तब तो पिताजी यदि चांद और मंगल पर भी भ्रष्‍टाचार हुआ तो वह वहां भी चुनाव मैदान में उतर सकते हैं\
पिता:    यह तो बेटा तू उनसे ही पूछ।  

                                       ***  

Monday, March 24, 2014

Sunday Sentiment TWO-IN-ONE LIFE OF OUR POLITICIANS

SUNDAY SENTIMENT
TWO-IN-ONE LIFE OF OUR POLITICIANS

If one were to go by the logic of our politicians, particularly the ruling ones, they have two lives — political and personal/private. This makes them enjoy the best of the two lives in one birth — a two in one.

Take note of the recent averments. The External Affairs Minister Salman Khurshid criticized two important institutions of the Constitution: the Election Commission (EC) and the Supreme Court (SC) of India on a foreign soil in London. He said: "They are only three (members of EC) and they can decide which word you can use during election campaign. The broad philosophical approach is that you should do and say nothing that wins you an election, you should try your best to lose election," Khurshid was quoted saying.
Commenting on the SC he said: "Judges sit and they say this is not to happen and of course go to the extent of threatening contempt proceedings against officials. Two judges can say anything about parliamentarians that they will be allowed to contest or not, what kind of affidavit they have to file, what they can do and so on," () Later, he also displays the graciousness to deny it altogether, even though every word is there on the audio/video.
On February 26, 2014 the same Minister called Gujarat chief minister and BJP's prime ministerial candidate "impotent"  The next day  Congress vice-president Rahul Gandhi strongly disapproved Khurshid’s remarks dubbing BJP leader Narendra Modi “impotent” saying “I do not appreciate this kind of comment... the kind of language,” (http://www.deccanherald.com/content/388875/rahul-snubs-khurshid-039impotent039-remark.html)

Khurshid is not a novice in this craft of speaking out his mind. He opens his mouth but always with a definite design. He has a great history behind. While campaigning for his Congress candidate wife during the last UP Vidhan Sabha elections, he had defied the EC and violated the Model Code of Conduct (MCoC) by promising religion based reservation. When EC took offence, he regretted and EC treated the matter "as closed".  Hardly had the din died down, another Union Minister Beni Prasad Verma took up the gauntlet to adopt the same rebellious posture promising the same benefit to minorities for which the EC had censured Khurshid. Khurshid defiantly he went on to say that he was too willing to attain martyrdom with a smile emphasising that he will continue his crusade "even if they (EC) hang him". He continued to speak in this tone of a martyr till the polling in his wife's constituency was over. The electorate gave him a boot. His wife was pushed down to the fifth position when the counting was over. A distressed EC complained to the President of India against the conduct of the Minister. When the matter came to a boil and polling in his wife's constituency for which he was doing all this was over, Khurshid turned a sober man. In all humility he apologized to the EC saying he had full respect for it. EC too responded very kindly and graciously pardoned the fallen guy.

The same story was repeated in the case of Beni Prasad Verma's defiance.

Another habitual offender is the Congress General Secretary Digvijay Singh. He has the secrets of every organization in the world holed up in his chest. He leaks these 'facts' at will when it suits him.  Not once but in dozens of times the Congress party had to disassociate itself from his bold declarations dubbing it as his "personal opinion". Let us quote only one instance of the Batla House encounter case in which the valiant Delhi Police Inspector M. C. Sharma attained martyrdom while fighting terrorists. The Union government decorated this martyr posthumously. The trial court convicted the culprits. Yet Diggy Raja went on a 'pilgrimage' to Azamgarh to express his sympathies with those hauled up by the Police. He even now continues to maintain that the encounter was 'fake' and demands a judicial inquiry although the Congress Home Minister has repeatedly denied Digvijay's allegations and turned down his demand.

A political leader, a minister or a bureaucrat is the official and only official voice of the organization he belongs. What is this humbug of a "personal" view? If it is, it should remain confined to the four walls of privacy. Why should a "private and personal" opinion need to be aired publicly? When whatever they say and do is in the public domain under public glaze and gaze, how does the voice of the same person become other than official when it comes from a similar or the same public platform? Can a Prime Minister, his ministers or even a bureaucrat afford to say — and should say —something that is at variance and in defiance of the official stand? And if they do, can it be dismissed as "private" opinion of an individual?
Another recent case is that of veteran NCP leader and Union Agriculture Minister Sharad Pawar. At a gathering of NCP workers on March 22, 2014 he said, "Vote for the 'clock' (NCP symbol) there (in Satara) and come back to vote for the clock in Mumbai too". (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/indiahome/indianews/article-2587446/Do-erase-ink-mark-Sharad-Pawar-tells-supporters-vote-twice.html). An alibi is always at hand to the put the blame on the media saying he was "quoted out of context". And he did that. He went further saying that the particular "meeting was not a political meeting or rally". Pawar needs to understand that a political party is a public organization and not a "private or personal" fiefdom. Further, an overwhelming number of crimes are committed only within "private and personal" premises but that does not suck away the sense of criminality out of the offence to turn it into an act of piety.

All said and done, it is a deliberate and intentional act with a definite design to grab political advantage — and, at times, electoral bounty — by dubbing any statement as "personal" opinion.  

When a person comes to occupy an official or political position in any organization he ceases to have  his right to a "personal and private" opinion in matters of public and to air it publicly. People and the media wish to seek only his official as against his "personal" opinion. If they were not holding that exalted position no media person would waste his time to hanker for a "bite" from him. Do people holding official positions in political organizations or governments ever discuss their "private and personal" family matters and opinion in public?

Our politicians know that their "private and personal" opinion has been well taken and well understood by those sections of the people for which it was targeted and intended,  and from whom they anticipated political or electoral favours. Political leaders stand nothing to lose if, later, they have to claim their words having been "quoted out of context" or they altogether deny their statements or are, at the most, censured by any authority. They have realized the objective for which they say or do something. This helps them derive benefit from both the worlds as one stand will please one section and denial the other.                                                                                                                             ***  

Sunday, March 16, 2014

SUNDAY SENTIMENT Sheila appointment as Governor EC privy to violation of Code of Conduct

 SUNDAY SENTIMENT
Sheila appointment as Governor
EC privy to violation of Code of Conduct


The Election Commission (EC) of India is a constitutional institution and Article 324 of the Constitution vests in it the power of "Superintendence, direction and control of elections in India, which include election of the President, Vice-President, the two houses of Parliament (Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha) and the legislative assemblies (and of legislative councils where they exist) in States. It is the duty of the EC to ensure a free, fair, impartial and peaceful election in the country.

For achieving this objective, the EC has framed a Model Code of Conduct  (MCoC) for Political Parties to ensure that every candidate and political party, including that in government, fights the election from the same pedestal with no individual or group enjoying a position of advantage or disadvantage.

Therefore, it is the usual practice that the time the EC announces the schedule of elections to Parliament, State assemblies, by-elections to vacant seats in Parliament or State assemblies, the MCoC comes into force from that very moment. Consequently, government is prohibited from making any policy statements, promising new schemes and projects, and other activities which are likely to influence the mind of the voters. During this period the governments are barred from making any fresh recruitment/appointments, from issuing appointment letters to individuals even when the Union or State Public Service Commissions have made their selections and sent their recommendations for issue of appointment letters to such persons.  Appointments/promotions finalized, orders issued but not yet implemented get held in abeyance till the election process as decided by the EC is completed.

Even routine matters like issue of ration cards, driving licences, arms licences, telephone, water and power connections comes to a standstill even if perfectly under the laws and the rules.

On March 4, 2005 invitations were issued to the media for a special Press Conference to be addressed by the full Election Commission for announcing the election schedule for Parliament (Lok Sabha) and three legislative assemblies of Odisha, Andhra Pradesh and Sikkim, besides by-elections to vacant seats in different State assemblies. The electronic channels started highlighting the fact that the EC is going to announce the election schedule next day. To browbeat the enforcement of MCoC the next day, the Manmohan Singh government on March 4 evening approved the appointment of Mrs. Sheila Dikshit, a former Delhi Chief Minister defeated in recent assembly elections, as the Governor of Kerala.

Fingers can be raised on the ethics and morality of making such an important appointment having political repercussions on the eve of elections when Kerala is going to polls for Parliament and when a day after this government was to cease power to take such decisions. In a similar situation if a State government made transfers of its district magistrates, deputy commissioners, superintendents of police, etc. hackles would have been raised by various political parties. Even EC would have sought explanation from the concerned State to justify these transfers. But, surprisingly, EC preferred to take this vital decision as a matter of no consequence.

All government appointments even when made on the strength of merit — and not as a measure of favour on political considerations — based on a competitive examination by Union of State Public Service Commissions are held in abeyance when the MCoC gets in position. On the same analogy the appointment of Mrs. Sheila Dikshit too should have been kept on hold and she should not have been allowed to take oath on March 11, six days after the MCoC having come into force.

There is nothing in the media to show that the Government of India sought the permission of the EC to let Mrs. Dikshit take over in view of the MCoC and the same was granted. Some may take the plea that the Dikshit appointment has been made by the President. It should be kept in mind that all appointments and transfers in the Government of India are made in the name of the President. There is nothing exceptional in the appointment of Mrs. Dikshit except that it is political in nature. Can politics be allowed to have a free play during the time of elections?


At noon on March 10, this writer faxed a request to the Chief Election Commissioner to intervene and withhold the swearing-in of Mrs. Sheila Dikshit as Governor Kerala. Manmohan Singh Government and Mrs. Dikshit are thus both guilty of violating the Model Code of Conduct. The EC suo motto had been taking cognizance of such blatant violations. But in this case it shut its eyes to the reality. Does it not amount to double standards?                                   *** 

Sunday, March 9, 2014

If Shaheed Bhagat Singh is a "terrorist", Great Britain is history's greatest "terrorist"


If Shaheed Bhagat Singh is a "terrorist"
 Great Britain is history's greatest "terrorist"

By Amba Charan Vashishth

A UK-based historian and Warwick University's professor David Hardiman dubbed the great Indian martyrs and freedom fighters — Bhagat Singh and Chandrashekhar Azad — as "terrorists" while delivering the 24th IP Desai Memorial Lecture on 'Nonviolent Resistance In India during 1915-1947' organised by Centre for Social Studies on February 14 in Surat (Gujarat). He said, "Terrorist groups, who predate Mahatma Gandhi, were always there alongside Gandhi's non-violent movement." He added, "Some of these famous figures were Bhagat Singh and Chandrashekhar Azad, who were involved in organisations like Hindustan Republic Association (HRA) and Hindustan Republic Socialist Association (HRSA)," (These illustrious sons of India continue to be shown as "terrorists" in the records of the British Government.)

This remark infuriated the audience and one among them Major Unmesh Pandya, member of executive council of Veer Narmad South Gujarat University, stood up to protest saying: "The UK-based scholar used word terrorists seven to eight times for the revolutionaries. There is a unanimous understanding between the academicians of the entire world not to use the word terrorist for the people who had not killed innocent civilians. One can use words like extremist or revolutionary," Pandya added. He retorted, "A terrorist means who terrorises people. But freedom fighters like Bhagat Singh or Chandrashekhar Azad initiated armed movement against imperialism. If one considers any violent or armed movement as a terror activity, then under that definition British Raj or Queen Victoria's activities can also be defined as terrorism," he argued.

The protesting professor did have a point and logic on his side. When the British started sneaking clandestinely into the Indian territory then under Mughals and others, they were only destabilizing a government in power and position through illegal and terrorist techniques. They entered India in the garb of traders. The predecessor of the British crown was the East India Company which applied every tool of the game — treachery, deceit, allurement, threat — to terrorise people and the rulers into submitting to their whims and caprice.

In fact, first the rule of the East India Company and later, of the British Crown was an illegitimate one. They could, at the most, be termed as occupation forces, not a legal government. So fighting against an invader or an occupying force is not a crime but right and moral duty of every patriot.

What implies terrorism? The Oxford Dictionary defines it as the "unofficial or unauthorized use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims". The Cambridge dictionary describes it as (threat of) violent action for political purposes". The Merriam-Webster dictionary has almost the same definition: "The use of violent acts to frighten the people in an area  as a way of trying to achieve a political goal".

The Indian Penal Code (IPC) enacted in 1860 by the British Government stipulates severe punishment for crimes of treason, sedition and waging war against the State: " Whoever wages war against the  Government of India, or attempts to wage such war, or abets the waging of such war ´(Section 121); Whoever collects men, arms or ammunition or otherwise prepares to wage war with the intention of either waging or being prepared to wage war against the Government of India´Section 122); Whoever, by any act, or by any illegal omission, conceals the existence of a design to wage war against the  Government of India, intending by such concealment to facilitate, or knowing it to be likely that such concealment will facilitate, the waging of such war (Section 123); Whoever by words, either spoken or written, or by signs, or by visible representation, or otherwise, brings or attempts to bring into hatred or contempt, or excites or attempts to excite disaffection towards the Government established by law in India (Section 124A); and Whoever wages war against the Government of any Asiatic Power in alliance or at peace with the Government of India or attempts to wage such war, or abets the waging of such war.  In fact, these are the very crimes and acts of terror the British government and its earlier avtar, the East India Company indulged in to establish their hegemony over the then kingdoms in India. These are the very crimes the British committed to spread their wings of dominance by every fair or foul means — cheating, deceit, allurement, promises, terror and what not. And these exactly are the crimes the British prohibited by law to be committed by any Indian and provided for severest punishment.

The crime of "treason, sedition and waging war against the State" as enunciated in various sections of the IPC were actually committed and perpetrated by the British government. Therefore, by the yardstick set by the British themselves, they themselves are, perhaps, the greatest "terrorists" of all times in history.


These are exactly the techniques adopted by the present day terrorists be it the Maoists, Naxalites, Talibans, Indian Muhajideen, SIMI or  by whatever name they may be known. It is by employing these dubious means that these ultras have come to command and expand their area of influence and establish their parallel administration, collecting taxes and punishing people for acts they brand as crimes by generating a sense of terror in the minds of the innocent people.                                                                                         ***

Sunday Sentiment "REVISITING" HINDUTVA/HINDUISM VERDICT Perils & Pitfalls


 Sunday Sentiment
 "REVISITING" HINDUTVA/HINDUISM VERDICT
Perils & Pitfalls

By Amba Charan Vashishth

The Supreme Court (SC) of India, according to media reports, is to revisit its 3-member Bench 1995 verdict in the Manohar Joshi versus N B Patil case authored by Justice J. S. Verma  declaring Joshi's statement that “First Hindu State will be established in Maharashtra, did not amount to appeal on ground of religion”. Dealing with the scope of corrupt practices mentioned in sub-section (3) of Section 123 of the 1951 Representation of People Act. SC had held that vote in the name of “Hindutva/Hinduism” did not prejudicially affect any candidate and that “Hindutva/Hinduism is a way of life of the people in the sub-continent” and “is a state of mind”. But the self-righteous self-styled 'secularists' have so far not been able to reconcile with it and digest it. They feel they have an intellect superior to that of the impartial and unbiased SC to continue to drum up their illogical logic.

Inadvertently, the decision does raise eyebrows at a time when elections to Parliament are round the corner. It is reportedly motivated by the fact that since the 1995 judgement three election petitions on the subject are pending before the apex court. Normally, these should have been disposed of as per the prevalent law. A delay amounts to denial of justice to either of the parties. It allows a person to get away with the perks and privileges he doesn't deserve and denies to the person who rightfully deserves. Such can never be the SC intention.

 It may also be an accident of coincidence that the SC wishes to "revisit" the judgement just a few months after its author Justice J. S. Verma is no more.

It is erroneous to presume that SC decision foretells a reversing of the 1995 judgement. However, let us, for a moment, assume that SC takes a divergent view. In that case, while the latest may be the delivery of justice, the 1995 judgement and consequential other lower court judgements based on it would automatically amount to upstaging of justice.

CONSEQUENCES

                    The Supreme Court and the Parliament, no doubt, have every right to review and amend the laws enacted earlier on cogent reasons. Yet consistency remains the very life of a law. That is why the precedents of other court judgements are invariably cited and followed in other courts too first, to ensure that there is continuity and uniformity in the dispensation of justice and, second, to prevent confusion where a court takes one decision and another quite the opposite in identical matters causing chaos and confusion.  

The enactments by parliament and pronouncements by the SC cannot afford to be transitory and temporary that could be fiddled with at any time.  If the SC were to "revisit" its judgements so often, there would only be anarchy in dispensation of justice. An earlier judgement delivered by a court based on the SC verdict would, in a way, get vitiated if the same judgement were "revisited" some years later. This would amount to miscarriage of justice either in the earlier case/cases or later ones. What will happen if in the same manner and for the same reasons high courts too start exercising the same right to "revisit" or "revisit" their own earlier judgements?

In Punjab a joke goes round that 'government' means gourmint which reviews its decisions every minute. Our judicial system cannot afford to conform to that satirical definition.

It is true that change is the law of nature but it is not the nature of law to change so often, like the change of seasons. The law has to be constant and static with some sense of permanency. Laws need to be framed not in haste but with farsightedness after due consideration and thought. The lawmaking process cannot be – and should not be – so half-hearted and fragile as to need to be reviewed so often.

EMERGENCY

During the 19 months of the internal emergency imposed by the late Mrs. Indira Gandhi, the Supreme Court at that time had played a second fiddle to her dictatorial designs at the cost of the nation's interests. In contrast, the Pakistan Supreme Court under its chief justice Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhry stood by the law of the land and refused to lay prostrate before the military dictator Pervez Musharraf. In fact, the collective will and determination of Pak judiciary played a pivotal role in the restoration of democracy in Pakistan.

One of the judges has, after his retirement, regretted the SC role and some of the judgements delivered at that time. These judgements continue to be the proud possessions of the Supreme Court. None has, surprisingly, so far felt the need to "revisit" those judgements and erase that black chapter in judicial history.

The perception of justice is always subjective differing with each individual or group. What is a model justice for one party is a gross injustice for the opponent one. Everybody, no doubt, has a right to demand a “revisit” on any verdict but only on the strength of any drastic change in the situation and circumstances under which it was then delivered.

The controversy over Hinduism or Hindutva flows from those who treat religion as synonymous with dharma. This is a wrong interpretation both of dharma and religion. The English dictionaries define dharma not a religion but a way of life. In fact, religion and its equivalent in Hindi and other regional languages is panth and not dharma. Even our constitution calls secularism as panthnirpekshta and notdharmanirpekshta. No wonder if tomorrow somebody wants to challenge even the dictionary meaning of a word.

Merriam-Webster dictionary defines Hinduism as "an individual's duty fulfilled by observance of custom or law
2
Hinduism & Buddhism
a :  the basic principles of cosmic or individual existence :  divine law
b :  conformity to one's duty and nature

This Dictionary defines Hindu: "an adherent of Hinduism" and "a native or inhabitant of India"


Oxford Dictionary: "In Hinduism, dharma is seen as the cosmic law both upheld by the gods and expressed in right behaviour by humans, including adherence to the social order. In Buddhism (termed dhamma), it is interpreted as universal truth or law, especially as proclaimed by the Buddha. In Jainism, it is conceived both as virtue and as a kind of fundamental substance, the medium of motion"
This dictionary defines a Hindu "a follower of Hinduism". .


But in another context, dharma is not religion for our 'secularists' when they refer togathbandhan (coalition) dharma quite often. At that time, they are not alluding to any religion but to dharma as a way of life in politics. If dharma in this context is not religion but a way of life, then how come that dharma turns religion when used with the word Hindu?

It is common for Indian people to declare that it is not their dharma to behave or not in a particular manner. It is individual and such a conduct has nothing to do with one's faith as a Hindu, Muslim, or Christian.

In the Hindu way of life a father may be the worshipper of Lord Shiva, mother of Lord Rama, son of Goddess Durga, his wife of Lord Krishna and so on. Yet, there is no conflict, no lack of cohesion in the family. It remains a collective, congenial whole. In Hinduism way of worship does not divide the people. Even an atheist continues to be a Hindu. Charvak who every day spoke ill of the Vedas was acknowledged as a rishiby Hindu ideologues.

Hindu dharma has resilience, tolerance and adaptability. Lord Buddha and Lord Mahavira rose in revolt against some of the ills plaguing the Hindu society. Yet, they were not discarded, stoned or crucified. On the contrary, they were accepted as gods incarnate by Hindu dharma and recognised as a way of worship, a faith of a section of the followers of Hindu dharma.  

Before the Muslims and Christian invasions of India this country was one nation of Hindus practising different forms of worship. Hindusthan was known and accepted as the land of Hindus all over the world. The word Hindu, therefore, signified the people who lived in this part of the world and not by the religion they practiced. No country in the world derives its name from the religion it practices, not even Pakistan.  

Any person irrespective of his creed becomes an American when he/she migrates to USA. His faith is secondary. The name of our country is Bharat or Hindusthan and, therefore, everybody without distinction of creed becomes a Hindusthani.  Tensions have cropped up only in those countries where the migrating minority does not wish to identify itself with the sentiments of the country they live. Australia is one such instance.

Religion has never proved to be a unifying force for the people; the way of life has. What unites India and keeps its countrymen united is the Indian way of life whether you give it a Hindu or different nomenclature. If religion had been the uniting force, Pakistan and Bangladesh would never have separated. Numerous Muslim and Christian countries enjoy separate and distinct identity, some even at loggerheads with each other, killing people of their own faith.

The precept and practice of Hindu dharma or Hindutva continue to be the same today as they were in 1995 or earlier. What has changed since then that cries for a "revisit" on the 1995 judgement — that has to be reckoned. The SC has to ponder over all these aspects.                       ***    PS: This article has also been published in the monthly SOUTH ASIA POLITICS in its March 2014 issue.                                                     
satta king chart