Showing posts with label Salman Khurshid. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Salman Khurshid. Show all posts

Tuesday, April 8, 2014

'Secular' Congress subservient to Muslim fundamentalism

'Secular' Congress subservient to Muslim fundamentalism

By Amba Charan Vashishth

As the election to Parliament draws near, the tone and tenor of election speeches is getting dirtier. The speakers may find it delectable but it certainly is detestable to the common man, the voter. The contestants may lose their cool but the voter remains cool in his head.

One of the reasons for the contestants getting lousy and abusive is because of the electoral atmosphere in the country and in their own constituencies. It is also said that when a person turns bankrupt of arguments and logic, he comes to blows. That exactly looks true in the present electoral situation.
During the last UP assembly elections, the environment looked almost the same as it is present. It was the Congress leaders who were in vociferous defiance of the Election Commission (EC). And who gained? At least not those who were the most vocal.

Union Minister Salman Khurshid who was in his defiance best while campaigning for his wife could not escape the ignominy of her being pushed to the fifth position by the electorate. His equally recalcitrant colleague in Manmohan cabinet Beni Persad Verma had no better luck.

More than a decade back, the elections were marred by an orgy of violence. The EC succeeded, to a great measure, in curbing the violence during electioneering and on the polling day. But now it looks the physical violence has been overtaken by the violence of the tongue.

In the past such instances were only few and far between. But now it looks it is the order of the day and elections.  Sometimes it was slip of the tongue. But now it has now assumed the proportion of being a desperately deliberate act.
This time the situation has been uglier and more indecent than ever before, even coming within the ambit of violation of criminal and election law.
It first started with the old hand in this dubious game, the External Affairs Minister Salman Khurshid calling Modi as Napunsak (impotent).  Congress Vice-President Rahul Gandhi deprecated it saying: “I do not appreciate this kind of comment... the kind of language.” Then came the news of Khurshid venting the ire against the EC and the Supreme Court on the foreign soil of London — a case of a minister who has taken oath to "bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution". He violates his oath and yet remains a minister under the Constitution.

In this war of attrition and abuse jumps the Congress candidate from Saharanpur (UP) parliamentary constituency, Mr. Imran Masood who was caught on camera saying: "If Modi tries to make Uttar Pradesh into Gujarat, then we will chop him into tiny pieces... I am not scared of getting killed or attacking someone. I will fight against Modi. He thinks UP is Gujarat. Only 4% Muslims are there in Gujarat while there are 42% Muslims in UP."  

Later, he refused to tender an apology. A case was registered against him and he was remanded to 14 days' judicial custody. After two days he was granted bail.
Although the Congress said it did not approve such language yet the next day it jumped into his defence saying that the CD was one year old when Masood was in Samajwadi Party (SP). But the media which recorded the speech says it was very much recent while campaigning in his constituency. Let us take for a moment that the speech was made a year back when Masood was in SP. Does that absolve him of the crime he committed? And does his crime in SP turn into an act of piety because he has now joined Congress?

It is interesting to contrast the stand of the Congress and other parties as also the EC on the so-called "hate speech" Mr. Varun Gandhi is alleged to have given. (He has since been acquitted of the charge.) Note that on the day he spoke, the EC had not announced the election schedule for 2009 Lok Sabha elections and the Model Code of Conduct (MCoC) had not yet come into force. Mr. Gandhi had to remain in jail for two-three months. Further, EC immediately took cognizance of the speech and two days before the announcement of the schedule, advised — an unusual and unprecedented action — the BJP not to put up Mr. Varun as its candidate from Pilibhit. BJP did not accede because EC was overstepping its steps. But, surprisingly, this time EC remains unmoved by the Mr. Masood's crime.
Further, the political parties, including Congress, which wanted Mr. Varun Gandhi to be deprived of his right to contest the election for that "hate speech" are silent. Congress, so far, has not been able to dare to withdraw Mr. Masood's candidature obviously for fear of losing Muslim community votes. That lays utterly bare the precept and practice of 'secularism' by Congress. Congress need to explain whether Mr. Masood's speech smacked of secularism?

Again, Mr. Nahid Hasan SP candidate from Kairana was on March 30 quoted as telling SP workers: “Mayawati sat in the lap of Modi thrice, both are unmarried.”  The police registered a case against him.

The condemnation of such ugly voices by political parties is just a ploy. Had they honestly been against and condemned their act, they would have acted swiftly and cut their umbilical chord with such ignoble sons of which they felt ashamed to be their mother. But it is like haathi ke daant khaane ke aur, dikhaane ke aur.  They wish to have the cake and eat it too. They continue to wish to thrive on the illicit earnings of electoral bounty by such acts of brave braying. But people are not fools. They are much wiser than politicians. The latter must not ignore this fact.                                                                 ***   
Published in the Weekly ORGANISER in its April 13, 2014 issue.

Monday, March 24, 2014



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,” (

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". ( 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 24, 2013


The VVIP accused

If you're an Italian in India, you're a VVIP. It had never been in doubt in the past. The only thing new this time is that if you're an Italian and have committed a heinous crime in India, you continue to be so. Be it Ottavio Quattrocchi or the two Italian marines Salvatore Girone and Massimiliano Latorre facing charges of murder in Kerala, they are treated as VVIPs, as the ordinary Indian accused of similar or lesser crimes rot in jails.

In spite of the fact that law & order is the State subject, the Government of India (GoI) had, from the very beginning, been trying to poke its nose in the criminal case against the Italian sailors. It put pressure on Congress government there but in vain. The reasons are not difficult to fathom.

GoI has proved to be the most condescending and kind to let these accused to visit their homeland Italy for Christmas celebrations. Then, it allowed the two, just after two months, to visit their country once again for a month to exercise their right to franchise. The GoI did not oppose their request.  Even a surety of a sizeable amount was not demanded.  

The Italian Ambassador to India deliberately withheld from the Supreme Court of India (SC) the fact that under the Italian constitution an Italian citizen can exercise his franchise through the Italian embassy in the country wherever he is at the time of polling. 

The two Italian sailors facing murder charges have not been put in any jail but in guest houses, a luxury at the cost of the Indian people.

No mortal of Indian origin charged with murder or any other heinous crime is allowed parole to celebrate Dussehra, Diwali, Holi, Navratras, Ramzan, Christmas or the like. No accused in jail have ever been allowed to visit their native places to exercise their democratic right to franchise even for a day. Even our elected representatives in Central and State legislatures facing similar charges in courts are not extended this privilege.

The Government of Italy, first, refused to honour the undertaking given by the Italian Ambassador to the SC that the duo will return after one month. When the SC took a firm stand and directed the Ambassador not to leave India, it sent waves of panic in Italy. Its Ambassador stood the possibility of being jailed for contempt of court. Ultimately, the Government of Italy did bend but not before the GoI crawled.

Justifying the earlier stand, the Italian foreign minister Giulio Terzia told an Italian publication:"We would not have been able to negotiate the current conditions, which envisage (good) conditions of everyday living and guarantee that the death penalty will not applied."

Good living conditions are being interpreted as a sort of house arrest under the care of the Italian ambassador. The two sailors returned just in time to keep Rome's commitment to the SC.

Italian deputy foreign minister Staffan de Mistura, who accompanied the marines back to India, flashing the GoI undertaking, said the "suspension" of affidavit given in SC was a difficult decision but added that the Italian law against death penalty is so strict that Italy needed a guarantee. Thus Government of Italy extracted from India what it could have got only if there was an extradition treaty between the two countries. In similar circumstances, India had drawn blank in the past.

The solution was triggered by a letter from Indian authorities which was a very comprehensive letter and official letter guaranteeing to the Italian authorities that in this case there is no question that death penalty could even be envisaged and at the same time the marines upon their return will have the same status that they had on their departure," Mistura said.

Though India's foreign minister Salman Khurshid asserted that no deal had been struck, yet he admitted in Parliament that India had assured Italy in writing that there would be no death penalty for marines. He clearly said, "Notwithstanding the pending proceedings, the government has informed the Italian government that the two marines will not be liable for arrest if they return within the time frame laid down by the Supreme Court of India, and shall once again be bound by the conditions contained in the order passed by the court on 18th January, 2013."

The minister added: "... and that, according to well settled Indian jurisprudence, this case would not fall in the category of matters which attract the death penalty, that is to say the rarest of rare cases." The assurance that the marines will not face death penalty was touted by Italy as a major concession as the sentence violates European Union law but it put the Indian government in a fix for pre-judging the likely charges that can be brought to bear against the marines.

The VVIP treatment meted out – and assured – to the Italian accused violates the provisions in Article 14 of the Constitution of India which provides that the "State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth" (emphasis added). Article 15 prohibits discrimination on the same grounds.
Whether a person is guilty or innocent of the charge brought against him or her should or should not face death penalty or whether the crime is "the rarest of the rare cases" is the exclusive jurisdiction of the judiciary and not of the executive, i.e. GoI. Once our Prime Minister Dr. Manmohan Singh had decried the judicial "overreach" of the courts. Does Khurshid's assurance not amount to executive "overreach"?

The surrender story does not end here. The GoI on March 23  asked the Delhi High Court to set up a special court to try the two Italian marines accused of killing two fishermen off the Kerala coast last year.  Earlier in the day, Kerala Chief Minister Oommen Chandy urged Prime Minister Manmohan Singh that the Kollam district sessions court should be designated as the special court for the trial of the case. In a letter to the PM, Chandy said that the Kollam sessions court was originally scheduled for the trial and if the special court is constituted in Delhi, as directed by the Supreme Court, witnesses in the case will have to frequently travel to Delhi. Besides, documents in the chargesheet which are in Malayalam have to be translated into other languages. That would delay the trial, said the Chief Minister. ( But, for obvious reasons, GoI has chosen to brush aside the objections of its own Congress government.
Numerous persons of foreign origin, including those involved in the Purulia arms dropping case, have been arrested and tried for various crimes in India. But never has the government treated them differently from the persons of Indian origin. No person, however high or low, accused of any crime has been accorded "good living conditions" being interpreted as a sort of house arrest under the care of the … ambassador" of the country they belong to. Why this exception in the case of Italians? That remains unexplained.

The only saving grace is that Manmohan government has succeeded in preventing a major diplomatic blast that would have harmed India more than Italy. But all this happened only after UPA government crawled to make Italy bend.

Sunday, January 20, 2013

UPA foreign policy promotes national interest or business one?

UPA foreign policy promotes
national interest or business one?

What is the driving force behind our foreign policy – the national interest or the business interests of individuals or companies?
If today's (January 20) Indian Express report is to be believed, it looks the interests of individual companies motivate our foreign policy and not the interests of the nation.

A front page Express story headlined "Upset India snubs Maldives, refuses to host foreign minister" makes a startling revelation of the way our foreign policy under the present dispensation is being framed and pursued. In the opening remarks the story states: "Sending a strong signal to Maldives that India is not willing to engage with its current leadership after the GMR controversy, the government has turned down an official request from the Maldivian foreign minister to visit India to set up a visit by the Maldivian president."

What a contrast!

Our dealings with Pakistan stand in stark contrast.

In its story headlined "Peace process with Pakistan back on track 'considerably', Khurshid says" the Times of India today states: "Asserting that it will not be influenced by "jingoistic conversations" in sections of the media, the government said on Sunday peace process with Pakistan was back on track "considerably" but made it clear that "atmospherics" have to be right to move forward. Speaking at a CNN IBN's Devil's Advocate programme, the External affairs minister Salman Khurshid, while underlying that it is sensible not to hasten and rush into things, also denied that the government has been boxed into a corner over the ceasefire violations at the line of control and the beheading of an Indian soldier by Pakistani troops.

This clearly implies that tempers of the present government do not boil up at the dastardly killing and severing of the head of one of our brave soldiers at the Line of Control (LoC) and repeated violations of ceasefire and blatant intrusion into our territory by a belligerent and unrepentant Pakistan, but feels so much terrified and angered at the treatment meted out by the Maldivian government to GMR that it curtly tells Maldives that "India is not willing to engage with its (Maldivian) current leadership after the GMR controversy".

The daring and cowardly 26/11 attack by Pakistan sponsored terrorists that killed about 200 people, injuring and maiming another a few hundred. Yet, the UPA government could not gather the courage to cancel the secretary-level meeting with Pakistan. Numerous terrorist crimes have taken place in the country killing a few hundred with the connivance, financial support, logistic help, and training to terrorists, yet our Prime Minister repeats with great force: "The peace process will go on".

Even after the cruel killing of our two brave soldiers, the UPA government was not willing to terminate the India-Pakistan cricket matches. Under great pressure of public opinion it had 'reluctantly' to send Pak hockey players back. Pak women cricketers are still in the country.

No words are needed to explain where do the UPA government's priorities in its determination of national interest lie.

One may just say: It is g…..r…..e…..a….t!

One may just say: It is g…..r…..e…..a….t! 

Thursday, February 16, 2012

सामायिकी --: मनमोहन सिंह का मुखर मौन == नैतिकता के नए मानदंड

मनमोहन सिंह का मुखर मौन
नैतिकता के नए मानदंड

हमारे प्रधान मंत्री डॉ मनमोहन सिंह राजनीतिक आवश्यकतानुसार मौन धारण कर लेते हैं। वह बहुत समझदार महान व्यक्ति हैं।  भारत की मौलिक समझ-सूझबूझ उनकी रग-रग में  समाई पड़ी है। वह भारतीय ज्ञान के ज्ञाता हैं। देश की लोकोक्तियों का अनुसरण करते हैं और उन पर खरे उतरते हैं। पंजाबी कहावत है कि बूढ़ा सठिया गया है और लोगों के बर्तन उठा कर अपने घर ले आता है (पर इतना समझदार अवश्य है कि वह अपने घर के बर्तन दूसरों के घर नहीं छोड़ आता।) वह मुड़-मुड़ कर खैरात अपनों को ही बांटते हैं, दूसरों को नहीं।
वह यह मानते हैं कि एक चुप और सौ सुख। पंजाबी में कहते हैं कि वह गुजझी (पीछे से छुपी) मार करता है।
पुराने जमाने कि बात सुनाते हैं कि एक व्यक्ति अपने गाँव के मौलवी के पास गया और पूछा कि उसकी गाय यदि मौलवी का खेत चर जाए और बर्बाद कर दे तो? मौलवी तुरंत बोले यह तो बड़ा अपराध है और तुम्हें तो इस पर कड़ी सज़ा मिलनी चाहिए। व्यक्ति ने आगे पूछा कि यदि आपकी गाय मेरे खेत का नुक्सान कर दे तो? अपना न्याय सुनाते हुये मौलवी बोले, तब और बात है। ऐसा ही न्याय हमारे प्रधान मंत्री और कांग्रेस अध्यक्ष श्रीमति सोनिया गांधी करते हैं।
जब तो किसी ग़ैर-कांग्रेसी नेता पर लोकायुक्त कोई अपना फतवा सुनाता है तो हमारे प्रधान मंत्री व उनकी प्रणेता श्रीमति सोनिया गांधी नैतिकता की दुहाई देकर कहती हैं कि उसे तुरंत त्यागपत्र दे देना चाहिए और उसे जेल भेज देना चाहिए। कर्नाटक मैं तत्कालीन मुख्य मंत्री येदुईरप्पा के लिए उन्होंने यही नैतिक मानदंड रखा। पर जब कर्नाटक के उसी लोकायुक्त ने उनके विदेश मंत्री एस एम कृष्णा के विरुद्ध उसी प्रकार का मुक़द्दमा दायर कर देने का आदेश दिया तो डॉक्टर मनमोहन सिंह और श्रीमति गांधी अपनी नैतिकता कि ऊंचाई भूल गए। तब उनके त्यागपत्र की मांग पर मौन हो गये। उन्हों ने समझ लिया कि एक चुप और सौ सुख।
जब दिल्ली के लोकायुक्त ने दिल्ली के एक मंत्री चौहान को दोषी पाया और उसे पदच्युत कर देने के लिए कहा तो ये दोनो महानुभाव लोकायुक्त की ही उस सिफ़ारिश पर बड़े जज बन बैठे और उसके निर्णय पर अपना महान नैतिक निर्णय सुना दिया कि चौहान निर्दोष हैं और उन्हें ससम्मान अपने गौरवशाली पद को सुशोभित करते रहना चाहिए।
जम्मू-कश्मीर के एक कांग्रेसी शिक्षा मंत्री हैं जो प्रदेश में शिक्षार्थियों को शिक्षा के साथ-साथ नैतिकता का पाठ भी पढाते है। हाल ही में उनके विरुद्ध यह साबित हो गया कि उन्हों ने अपने बच्चे को पास करवाने के लिए अपने पद का दुरुपयोग किया। मंत्री महोदय ने अपनी नैतिक ज़िम्मेदारी कबूल करते हुये पद से त्यागपत्र दे दिया। पर कांग्रेस ने उससे भी ऊंची नैतिकता का परिचय देते हुये उन मंत्री महोदेय का त्यागपत्र ठुकरा दिया और अपने पद पर बने रह कर बच्चों को बराबर नैतिकता का पाठ पढ़ाते रहने का निर्देश दिया। एक मर्यादित-अनुशासित महानुभाव के नाते उन्हों ने भी पार्टी हाई कमान का फरमान सिरमाथे लेते हुये पद पर बने रह कर पहले से भी अधिक ज़ोर-शोर से अपने व पार्टी के महान आदर्शों पर चलते हुये प्रदेश और जनता की निरंतर सेवा करते रहने का पुनः प्रण ले लिया।
उधर केन्द्रीय कानून मंत्री सलमान खुर्शीद ने मुसलमानों को आरक्षण का प्रलोभन देकर चुनाव आचार संहिता का उल्लंघन कर कानून की धज्जियां उड़ाते हुये संविधान की एक सममाननीय संस्था चुनाव आयोग की खूब खिल्ली उड़ाई। उसके अधिकारों चुनौती भी दी। यहाँ तक कह दिया कि यदि चुनाव आयोग उन्हें सूली पर भी लटका दे तो भी वह यह करते हुये खुशी-खुशी शहीदी प्राप्त करने से पीछे नहीं हटेंगे। चुनाव आयोग ने खुर्शीद की शिकायत राष्ट्रपति महोदया से कर दी जिसे उन्हों ने प्रधान मंत्री जी को कार्यवाही के लिए भेज दिया। सलमान खुर्शीद के आचरण पर सारे देश में हो-हँगामा हुआ पर हमारे प्रधान मंत्री थे कि उनके कान पर जूं तक न रींगी। कानून बनाने वाले उनके ही एक वरिष्ठ मंत्री द्वारा कानून की पीठ में छुरा घोंप देने की घटना भी उनकी ज़ुबान का ताला न तोड़ सकी। अंततः चुपचाप उन्हों ने मंत्री महोदय से अपने आचरण पर चुनाव आयोग से क्षमा मँगवा दी। चुनाव आयोग ने भी मामला यहीं समाप्त कर दिया। वैसे भी बात को आगे बढ़ाने का कोई तुक अब बचा नहीं था। सलमान ने और पार्टी ने मुसलमानों तक अपना संदेश पहुंचाना था वह पहुंचा दिया था। उसका उद्देश्य भी पूरा हो चुका था। इस प्रकार कांग्रेस व सरकार ने अपनी खाल बचा ली।  
पर प्रश्न तो फिर भी रह गया? क्या इस प्रकार कांग्रेस व मनमोहन सरकार ने न्याय का यह नया मानदंड स्थापित कर दिया है? क्या भविष्य में कोई कितना भी बड़ा अपराध क्यों न कर दे, उसे भी क्षमा मांग लेने पर सलमान खुर्शीद की तरह ही सूली पर लटकने से बचा  लिया जाएगा और उसे मुआफ कर दिया जाया करेगा?