Home Blog Page 486

The fallacious arguments of anti-CAA activists

G Indira
-
0
The fallacious arguments of anti-CAA activists

The Anti-CAA agitators are waging their battle against the ruling BJP led NDA government, purely based on their perceptions. The atmosphere of politics has vitiated the Bill. For, the Left parties and the Congress and other opposition parties that rely on Muslim-Vote, created this ruckus, as they have more animosity and less trust towards the BJP. However, by mere speculations and perception, a law cannot be pushed back. Their arguments hold no water. No court can settle the matter on mere conjecture.

Let the CAA law and National Population Register (NPR) be implemented, if there are any grievous violations, then, there is a case for argument/redressal. Since, so and so party has taken up this procedure, we object— is a kind of attitude that would not augur well for a democracy. On one side, the opposing forces of the CAA, have been agitating against it and on the other side, the same forces have been lamenting that the government, has used the law-the CAA, as a diversionary tactic to obfuscate India’s economic slow-down, unemployment and inflation. If the latter, they found as genuine issue(s), the CAA is only a facade, let them agitate for the latter, why on the CAA? Why falling in a trap (as assumed by them)? By the way, as the proof of the pudding, the unemployed youths have not come out, only the anti-CAA activists are raising questions, whose veracity has to ascertained.

Anti-CAA activists and their supporting political parties cite:

That the law goes against the spirit of the Constitution that is secular. As a matter of fact, the Constitutions draws only boundaries within which adjustment could be made. By the way, is ‘Secularism’ a ‘religion’ (i.e. with a fixed framework)? The definition of secularism is nowhere given in the Constitution or what it stands for. There is a Citizenship law in the country by which any person from a foreign country can obtain Citizenship by fulfilling certain criteria specified. The CAA is only an amendment to the Citizenship law of India by which the persecuted minorities of three-neighbouring countries get the benefit.

The three neighbouring countries are obviously Islamic Republics. The minority migrants from those countries have been staying in India for decades in squalor (filth and dirt). Their condition is pathetic. Going by the anti-CAA activists, if the Ahmadiyya, Hazaras and Shias remain victimised in the neighbourhood, it is a problem internal to their religion Islam. In any case, once the process of the CAA and NPR are completed, their cases may be taken into consideration, going by the merit of each. The ambit of the CAA law may be expanded, if needed. Leave it to the wisdom and benevolence of the government. After all, the government is of the people, by the people and for the people in a democracy.

The argument of anti – CAA groups that Indian Muslims have chosen India to live, meaning to say, as it abides by the secular spirit, is a specious argument. Jinnah had created the situation for the Partition. In those days, no doubt, the so-called moderate and nationalist ulema like Mufti Kifayatullah, and an organisation like the Jamiat-ul-Ulema-Hind opposed the Muslim League and their stand for the Partition. The history says, they did so with a selfish purpose. Their hidden agenda to oppose carving out Pakistan was: why confining the spread and hegemony, “the sway and glory” of Islam to one corner of India (i.e. to be formed Pakistan then), when the whole of the sub-continent was open territory for the religion. One good fall out of the Partition is, it has enabled a pluralist, democratic culture to have had the chance to survive (in what is remained of after the Partition) as a nation- India.

The anti-CAA activists raise the fears on NRC/NPR (that follow the CAA)— while the survey is made, many government officials, may declare Muslims, who cannot produce the evidence (by way of documents) to be in ‘doubtful’ category. These activists never objected to local Congress politicians enrolling Bangladeshi migrants into voters list in Assam all these years. The same officials are said to be bribed and managed then. Hence, the argument is a double-edged sword.

The anti-CAA protesters and their leaders felt their stand is vindicated by Satya Nadendla, when he said: ‘he would love to see a Bangladeshi immigrant who comes to India and creates the next unicorn in India, or becomes the CEO of Infosys, that should be the aspiration’. That is a lofty aspiration! Satya Nadendla, instead of going to USA, should have shown himself by example. If a migrant could possibly make a difference, why couldn’t the native?

The anti -CAA activists like Ramchandra Guha follow the lines of Eric Hobsbawm and Benedict Anderson who propose open-borders, free movement of people etc. India’s geography does not permit that. As a Marxist, Hobsbawm underplayed his own ethnic origins. Anderson did not see nationalism as something rooted in ancient history or in ties of blood or soil. Both are internationalists. So, the CAA is also perceived as an ideological battle for the Left.

The anti – CAA groups pointed out billionaire philanthropist George Soros remarks against the CAA (to be the biggest and most frightening setback to the survival of open societies), in the recent World Economic Forum in Davos. The West talks of open societies and porous borders without knowing the historicity of India. They have an obsession with their western-values and try to impose on India, without knowing the geo-political implications. For all this, again the West, the British colonial masters, while leaving India, drew the lines of Indian map arbitrarily in the sand and sowed the seeds of generations long communal strife. India is paying the penalty. The country has a constant threat from neighbouring countries, specially, from Pakistan with its sponsoring of cross-border terrorism.

The anti- CAA lawyers, recently, tried to stall the CAA law in Supreme Court by citing Assam Accord of 1985, which fixes cut-of date for grant of citizenship as March 24, 1971, this extension being pending in the apex court. Rightly the Court has neither postponed the implementation of the CAA nor stayed it. The number of infiltrators in Assam being so enormous, the cultural and ethnic composition of the area has been altered. For several years, they are the deciders in several areas, who shall or who shall not be elected in those areas rather than the actual citizens of India. The Congress has brought to this pass after its long- rule. Now, it is seeking time for extension by saying- if this process (of giving citizenship) not started for 70-years, it can sure wait for another two months! How ridiculous! The Congress did not/could not do what it had to and is not allowing others to do.

The Shaheen Bagh demonstration and carrying of tricolour flag and invoking Gandhi and Ambedkar, is a planned one. However, JNU leader, Sharjeel Imam’s controversial comment about Assam pulled the gas out of the balloon. Reading preamble of the Constitution is easy, can the Shaheen Bagh crowd sing Gandhi ji’s signature-song Eswara-Allah tere naam—–is the big question. That song has been always for Gandhi ji and his innocent Hindu-followers!

Finally, NPR is much needed. For, a nation which does not know even the true size of its population can hardly claim a place among the enlightened and progressive nations. The elementary function of a State is to safeguard itself against foreigners. Once the CAA and NPR exercise is completed, from then onwards, the country could easily detect who are the newly entering foreigners without permission and those with permission but over-staying. This cleansing process, should in no way, be stalled.

Abhijith Banerjee, the shadow of Rahul Gandhi in venting out pessimism and demotivation

S Ranganathan
-
0
Abhijith Banerjee, the shadow of Rahul Gandhi in venting out pessimism and demotivation

In the recent interview Mr. Abhijith Banerjee has stated that had he been in India, he wouldn’t have won the Nobel Prize in Economics although it may be true but his above admission could have been a bit more sophisticated and matured.

He visits India often, makes political statements filled with leftist liberal ideology but does not want to take any responsibility. It means he is interested only showcasing his Nobel Prize, looking for several platforms to either give speeches or interviews with left liberal leaning but does not want to use his ‘so called intelligence and wisdom’ to develop India.

If he is that sincere that had he been in India, he would not have won the Nobel Prize, after winning Nobel Prize he should have requested our Honourable Prime Minister to provide him some niche in our educational institution on honorary basis because he wants to facilitate Indian educational institutions to produce Nobel laureates like how several foreign institutions are.

But he is not willing to take up any such responsibility; instead wants to be liberal and generous to make demotivating interviews to please his cheerleaders in the opposition.

In contrast, Narendra Modi, our Honourable Prime Minister is working overtime to develop India, eliminate poverty, discrimination, corruption, entitlement politics, nepotism, anti-India sloganeering and sab ka vikas. PM Modi is bearing immeasurable amount of criticism and abuses just to develop India like how a fruit bearing tree is when attacked by several creatures for their survival but still the tree would offer only delicious fruits even to those who throw stones at.

As a simple roadside tea seller, Modi dreamt of making a New India, took complete responsibility, made several sacrifices in his personal life, overpower all his financial limitations with high level of personal honesty and integrity, committing his life for the nation and its people, and that is how he rose to the office of Prime Minister of India.

PM Modi is a true KARMA YOGI whereas the so called left liberal Nobel laureate Abhijit Banerjee is a true shadow fighter and seems to be interested only in shadow boxing to demean those who born for and live for India and its development- Modi.

The Nobel laureate shares several characteristics of Rahul Gandhi. Rahul Gandhi is a great dynast, fifth generation dynast, still believes he is the Prime Minister of India because according to him, no one else has the right to become the Prime Minister of India other than the members of Nehru-Gandhi family and speaks a lot of bad things about Hinduism, our tradition etc., in foreign soil but at the same time claim he is carrying Brahmin DNA, a Hindu and Siva Bhakt. The dynast has not taken any responsibility but was always ready to abuse and criticise PM Modi and India without realizing the ground truth that his family was only ruling India for nearly 5 decades.

More ironical aspect is that when the congress party went headless, they even imported a leader from Italy but thanks to the efforts and patriotism of Dr Subramaniam Swamy and the then President of India, APJ Abdul Kalam, the imported leader could not become the Prime Minister of India.  As a result the accidental prime minister could rule the country. 

To be responsible, one must move first, shun ego and must be committed to the cause. If Abhijit Banerjee has the above traits in letter and spirit must request our Honourable Prime Minister for a role on honorary basis and must do whatever is possible to facilitate Indian institutions are also capable of doing research that worth Nobel Prize. But unfortunately the left liberal Nobel laureate chose to remain as a ‘Gentle man of leisure’ interested only in giving interviews and speeches to the cheerleaders of the opposition gang.

People of India should be wary of the so called intellectuals because they always play second fiddle to dynastic politics and not to Indian-ness or sab ka vikas centric governance of Modi.

All the so called left liberals are so liberal in supporting Rahul Gandhi because he is the hall of fame entertainer in Indian politics today, unwise, immature even at the age of 50 remain fooling.   Thanks to his innate stupidity, he would require all the so called left liberals to his side. But the same is not with Modi because Modi is honest, popular, people’s leader, very firm and decisive, never promote sycophancy, never get influenced by others, and has clear vision, intelligence and total commitment. Therefore all the so called left liberals cannot influence Modi and hence they have no other option but oppose him. In any case the left liberals do not care for India, all they want is self-importance and self-gratification.

We the Indians must stay together, pledge our unconditional support to Modi and Amit Shah, spread the good initiatives of Modi and tell people around about how various initiatives PM Modi has transformed India and how several poor people have started to enjoy a new life which was denied to them for several decades of dynastic rule. Let us save India by supporting Modi.

Jai Hind.

No, Javed Akhtar, I will not celebrate Faiz Ahmad Faiz

Prasenjeet Kumar
-
0
No, Javed Akhtar, I will not celebrate Faiz Ahmad Faiz

Of all the opinions expressed for and against poet Faiz’s Hum Dekhenge, the one by Javed Akhtar in Hindustan Times on January 5, 2020 stood out for its double-speak. The article was titled ‘Celebrating Faiz Ahmad Faiz and the Spirit of Hum Dekhenge in Today’s Times,’ and can be read here.

It’s interesting the way Javed Akhtar begins his piece. As a noted film lyricist and screenwriter, he appears to be a great fan of sub-text (as am I). But before we proceed any further, let me reproduce his opening paragraph:

‘The ignorance shown by some people, even in a prestigious institution like Indian Institute of Technology (IIT) Kanpur, over Faiz Ahmed Faiz’s poetry surprises me. It’s quite obvious that they don’t know Urdu, the language in which Faiz composed his poetry; they don’t know the tradition of poetry; they don’t know anything about the poet, and they have no idea of the circumstances under which he wrote Hum Dekhenge …’

Shri Akhtar is obviously reacting to Dr Vashi Sharma’s views which are worth a read in any case. But let me focus on the inescapable, condescending, subtext in Shri Akhtar’s para which is: Hindus are fools. They don’t know Urdu. They don’t understand the tradition of Poetry, and they have no idea about Islam. Hence, I can paint a rosy picture of the poetry et al and fool them.

Obviously, and very interestingly, Shri Akhtar is unleashing his secret weapon of Taqiyya, which is a term every Hindu (Kafir or disbeliever) should now get familiar with. Loosely translated, Taqiyya means to lie, and believe it or not, Muslims have the ‘divine sanction’ to lie to unbelievers to defeat them or to protect themselves. Ask any honest Maulvi, and he should admit this.

For a full discussion on taqiyya, you may want to view this article.

Readers may also like to appreciate this quote from ‘Ali:

‘Whenever I tell you a narration from Allah’s Apostle, by Allah, I would rather fall down from the sky than ascribe a false statement to him, but if I tell you something between me and you (not a Hadith) then it was indeed a trick (i.e., I may say things just to cheat my enemy).’ Hadith; Volume 9, Book 84, Number 64.

So, it is clear that a Muslim can lie to cheat his enemy. And who is the enemy, prey? ‘… Verily, the disbelievers are ever unto you open enemies.’ (Quran 4:101)

Alright, but aren’t we deviating? Why should we bother whether a Muslim is permitted to lie about his religion or not? And what has that got to do with Javed Akhtar and Faiz Ahmed Faiz?

So, please see Shri Akhtar’s article, and you will be astounded by the intellectual gymnastics, denial of facts, and distortion of the obvious meaning of sentences. When readers point out the intolerance and the bigotry in Faiz’s poetry-in-question, the response you get is that you’ve misunderstood. The sentences do not mean X (the obvious meaning), but actually Y. Something radically different.

So, let’s look at some controversial portions of the poem.

Jab arz-e-Khuda ke Kaabe se, sab butt uthwaye jayenge.
Bas naam rahega Allah Ka.

Prima facie, these lines don’t prove that Faiz was an atheist/secular/communist especially when you read the last line. Javed Akhtar argues otherwise by quoting these other lines:

Ham jinhen soz-e-mohabbat ke siva
Koi buut koi khuda yaad nahin

So, please study these lines too. First of all, yaad nahin is not the same as something doesn’t exist. It simply means I don’t remember. I may say, ‘My grandfather died years ago. I do not remember him.’ That does not mean my grandfather never existed. It just means I don’t remember. Or yaad nahin. Whereas Bas naam rahega Allah Ka, proves what it is meant to, i.e. that Faiz believed in Allah and his supremacy over other (presumably false) gods.

Let me go back one last time to those ‘objectionable lines’:

Jab arz-e-Khuda ke Kaabe se, sab buut uthwaye jayenge.
Bas naam rahega Allah Ka.

Javed Akhtar claims these lines have been misunderstood. Kaaba does not refer to Kaaba in Saudi Arabia. And Buut does not mean idols (even though that is the obvious meaning), but ‘dictators who are acting like they are gods.’ Interestingly, earlier Javed Akhtar claimed Koi Buut koi khuda yaad nahin as a proof of Faiz’s atheism. So, does it mean you don’t remember dictators because Javed Akhtar sees Buut as a reference to dictators? Then how is this song a protest against dictators (when dictators do not exist)?

That’s why, I can’t understand how Buut can mean dictators and Bas naam rahega Allah ka can become a cry for restoring democracy. Tell me, if any Indian wishes to protest against dictatorial regimes, should he quote any confused Pakistani, or our own really revolutionary and unambiguous Ramdhari Singh Dinkar when he thunders, ‘Singhasan Khali Karo Ki Janta Aati Hai?’

But if you want to understand the historical context of Faiz’s poem, here is a quotation from the Hadith describing how Prophet Muhammad smashed the idols of Kaaba when he entered Mecca.

‘Narrated `Abdullah:

When the Prophet entered Mecca on the day of the Conquest, there were 360 idols around the Ka`ba. The Prophet started striking them with a stick he had in his hand and was saying, “Truth has come and Falsehood will neither start nor will it reappear.‏’’’

Reference: Sahih al-Bukhari 4287; In-book reference: Book 64, Hadith 320; USC-MSA web (English) reference: Vol. 5, Book 59, Hadith 583.

Doesn’t Faiz’s poetry sound similar to this quotation from the Hadith than some vague reference to dictators? Isn’t this what all Muslim bigots have been doing for centuries: from Mahmud of Ghazni, to Tamerlane to Mohammad Ghori, Babur, Aurangzeb, and Tipu Sultan? And in modern times when the Taliban blew up the Bamiyan? Or, when those ISIS goons smashed priceless artefacts from museums and historical sites in Syria and Iraq? And who is the dictator here? The idol-destroyers or the idol-installers?

That’s why Faiz’s use of such Islamic imagery sounds so offensive to any sensitive heritage-loving mind today. Be it the native Americans, aboriginal Australians, or animist tribals of the Indian North-East, we don’t believe anyone has any right to smash anyone’s idols or insult anyone’s gods. But who is listening? And so, the juggernaut of the same religious bigotry continues even today, destroying thousands of temples in Pakistan and in Kashmir, and abducting, raping, killing, and displacing countless Hindus.

So, yes Javed Akhtar, you’re right. We Hindus are ignorant. We can’t appreciate the beautiful Islamic imagery that Faiz’s poem invokes. And of course, his symbolism, which we ignoramuses just can’t understand.

Now, to Shri Akhtar’s second point that the poem also contains expressions like anal-haq which is a Sufi expression borrowed from the Vedic Aham Brahmasmi. My response: Why don’t we read that expression too in the context of annihilation of idolatry (meaning all non-Muslim religions) so that only the religion of Allah remains?

And why not? Did the great Faiz endorse Muhammad Ali Jinnah and his concept of Pakistan, or not? Did he himself, lock stock and barrel, move to Pakistan or not? Did he remain silent on the mass murder of Hindus or not?

Fine. Mabye he didn’t like Zia-ul-Haq. Or, the Pakistan that he helped create. Big deal. But how does that prove he was an atheist? Just because he or Javed saheb say so?

And finally, even if we accept that Faiz’s poem was in the context of a protest against a Pakistani dictator, why sing it in India against a democratically elected government and a democratically passed law (CAA)?

Now Javed Akhtar can say, ‘Why berate me, because I too am an atheist. And you dare not accuse me of taqiyya.’ Ah well, I forgot. Shri Akhtar may indeed be an atheist. But then why does his defence sound like that coming from a typical Muslim apologist? His defence of Buut hatwaye jayenge as a call to remove dictators sounds exactly like the defence Muslim apologists put out for the controversial ‘beat your wife’ verse (Quran 4:34). They (apologists) claim that beating your wife shouldn’t be taken literally but as a symbolic gesture. Huh???

And the word Qatl, in the context of apostates and unbelievers, does not mean to kill, but to show the wrongdoers the correct path or … whatever. Just as Buut does not mean idols but dictators. And Kaaba does not mean Kaaba. And … perhaps Allah does not mean the Islamic God but the rule of democracy.

Am I challenging that Javed Akhtar is an atheist? No, not all. That only Allah knows best.

Let’s not be Gandharis in this new Mahabharat!

bapiraju3
-
0
Let’s not be Gandharis in this new Mahabharat!

Over the past one month, we have come across news describing the vandalism and chaos in the guise of protests from a couple of Universities. Not only that, we have even heard about the Shaheenbagh protests, which are being sponsored and nurtured by political parties, celebrities and the liberal media. We have heard of instances of doctors being fired, citizens being denied water and many instances of communal threats. All of this over a bill which seeks to provide Citizenship to persecuted minorities.

We have also heard about the protests over the remarks made by a Superstar from Tamilnadu, how Kerala is fast becoming a rabidly Islamic state and various shouts for Azaadi and Jinnah wali Azaadi echoing from Universities, which have become political hotbeds rather than a place of learning. We have heard from the leaders of some Islamic fundamentalists parties provoking their brethren to unleash violence. Heck, we have even heard one former University president threatening to destroy this country. All of this being fueled by those, whose entire power structure is on the brink of collapse and the liberal media along with some of the biggies from Bollywood.

I even had one Tamilian friend of mine, who shared a post on FB questioning the necessity for CAA/NRC, while trying to brush aside the blatant disregard for my Gods by the father of the Dravidian movement. I tried to reason with him over various posts but to no avail. It is at this point I have realised that some of us have been so used to the divisive politics that has plagued this country and the utter chaos we were under that suddenly they are uncomfortable with the very idea of peaceful coexistence and the concept of oneness.

Let me clarify my point here. Through the 80’s till the last decade, in India we were divided by our caste systems, the North India and South India feelings, the Dravidian and Aryan one upmanship and the basic degradation of law and order, where the elite and those with the elite were held up on a pedestal as the common man suffered. The situation might not have been much different before the 80’s as well but I wouldn’t want to comment on it as I wasn’t yet born. Suddenly, we have a government, which has over the past six years, slowly and with absolute clarity righting the many wrongs that have infested our country over the past 70 years.

Be it the Abrogation of Article 370, the Triple Talaq Bill, the 10% reservations to the economically backward, the Uri Surgical Strike or the Balakot Airstrikes, the strict adherence to law in bringing the politicians, who have sold and looted this country, to answer for their crimes in courts, elimination of middlemen in implementing government schemes, the Jandhan accounts, the Ayushman Bharat scheme, the Supreme Court verdict on the contentious issue of Ram Janmabhoomi, this Government has ensured that the law rules supreme and has firmly adhered by the Constitutional principles envisaged by our founding fathers. I haven’t mentioned the many other achievements of this present government as it would be an article by itself.

Therefore the political parties run by dynasties have had a serious meltdown and have been indulging in fear mongering and trying to rake up non-existent issues whether it was with the Rafale deal or the Triple Talaq bill, which was termed as communal and have opposed tooth and nail all the aforementioned reforms undertaken by the democratically elected government of this country. They were helped by the liberal media along with some of the intellectuals from various fields, who have benefitted from the magnanamity of these parties. I can understand their reluctance to alter the status quo. They have been dependant on it and over the past 6 years the building that they have so painstakingly built over the past 70 years is being uprooted from its base.

My question is not to them. My deepest anguish is against those intellectuals like my Tamilian friend, who are well educated but refuse to acknowledge the chaos these self serving people are unleashing with their false propaganda and are blind to the development that is happening around them due to their inability to let go of their prejudices. Be it their unmitigated hatred towards Modi or the BJP, these people are letting the liberal media hold sway over them by refusing to open their eyes and blatantly ignoring the good that is happening. Now even students and small children are being used to create an environment of chaos and unrest. This is what the parties and those who have benefited from them want. They don’t want the status quo to be altered. But it does beg the question, why are some of us still blind to it? Can’t we for once not be blinded by our prejudices for the welfare of this country?

Should we be a Banana republic like Pakistan where the Military holds sway over the Government? Should we still be in the Developing countries list? Don’t we want our people to be brothers living in harmony instead of constantly dividing ourselves on the basis of caste, gender, religous beliefs and Aryan or Dravidian superiority? How much longer are we going to serve those self serving monsters? The more pertinent question is how much longer are we going to be blind to it?

We have as a majority elected a government for the second consecutive time with an even bigger mandate. The eco-system, which bred on divisive politics is slowly being uprooted from its very roots. Its time now to also uproot those who have harmed this country and hence, they are now using the pretext of CAA and NRC to further their communal agenda in order to create a state of lawlessness. It is time to open our eyes to the truth and not allow them to create unnecessary hurdles for the development of our country.

We are our country and its development is our development. I no longer want to be a part of a developing India as I believe that we are going to be the most developed and advanced nation in the coming decade. Lets not be blind to the shenanigans of these liberals as Bharat needs to be even more vigilant from these internal threats to the very structure of our democracy. Lets all answer the clarion call of development that is ahead of us instead of being sucked into the vicious and toxic bile that is being spewed by the liberal intellegentia, media and the academia. Let us all for once look through their lies without being blinded by our prejudices and personal agendas. As Bharat is ready for take off, we shouldn’t be the one’s hindering the flight to newer and game changing destinations.

The dynastic and self serving political parties and its coterie of misfits would not want that and are using all their dirty tricks to lure the gullible amongst us to protest and create an emvironment of chaos. My sincere appeal to my brethren is to let go of the prejudices that have been plaguing our country for the past 70 years and move together in Unity towards the path of development and achievements rather than the age old custom of self serving agendas. Because this is the time more than ever to serve a Notice to the so called liberal intellectuals that their days are numbered and they better accept this new Bharat! A Bharat, which is on the verge of unprecedented growth will not tolerate anymore the blind prejudices and selfish motives. This Bharat has decided to take the leap of faith for a better and wonderful tomorrow and those whose wilful blindness is stopping them from seeing that will only be left behind.

I sincerely hope that all my Indian brethren will join the ride to a greater tomorrow with none left behind. As this Bharat enters the new decade with a determination to improve and succeed, the chains of sychophancy and the shackles of greed need to be shattered if we are to achieve our dreams. Lets all look at the protests that are happening across the country and its universities with a magnifying glass and identify those who are indulging in efforts to break up this country and not be swayed by their rhetoric. Lets not support those whose intentions are dubious at best and selfish to the core.

Lets not make people into Gods while they trample and desecrate our Gods. This is what has led to the subjugation of our country in the first place. Lets not repeat the same mistakes twice. And finally, I pray that everyone including my Tamilian friend take off the cloth that’s covering their eyes and look at the change that is visible to most of us. Lets not be Gandharis in this new Mahabharat!

Jai Hind!

God, spiritual politics and Rajinikanth alone can save Tamil Nadu

S Ranganathan
-
0
God, spiritual politics and Rajinikanth alone can save Tamil Nadu

Every world spoken and every meeting or event attended/participated by the Super Star Rajinikanth is rattling the atheist gang and the corrupt dynastic political forces in the state.

The statement of the Super Star about how Late Mr. Cho rose from the onslaught and attack by DMK for his article on EV Ramasamy Naicker’s protest in Salen way back in 1971 ridiculing Hindu Gods Lord Ram and Sita and also the fearless voice of Cho against emergency etc., Super Star has rattled the base of the atheist gang and they are now up the ante to attack Super Star for speaking certain historical truth to the present generation.

Tamil Nadu is yawning for a change and people are desperately longing for the Super Star to enter the electoral politics to save the state from the corrupt dynastic force.  The loud and repeated denial of any such abuses to Lord Ram idol or his pictures had happened by none other than the Drawidar Kazhagam sounds nothing but how the DK has changed over time and how groundless DK has gone in front of Super Star.  Instead of accepting the incident gracefully and apologize for the same, DK has gone in for terrible denial and is asking the Super Star to apologise for speaking truth.

It looks like, DK and DMK alone have the right to speak, they alone speak truth and they alone have the privilege of democracy and not the Super Star. What the Super Star has said was nothing but truth, loud truth, ambient truth and absolute truth.

The point of debate is not whether EV Ramasamy Naicker himself has done the heinous act of beating the idol or picture of Lord Ram with slippers or was it done by some of the protesters from his group but whether such disgraceful, condemnable and punishable act has happened during the protest led by EV Ramasamy Naicker or not alone should be issue India should debate and learn.  It is so funny that DK is protecting EV Ramasamy Naicker by denying that EVR has not done it but it was done by some of his follower.

Tamil Nadu is a land of spirituality, great Hindu tradition, devotion and land of Siddhars.  But the anti-God rhetoric and atheism in the name of installing rationalism and equality, social justice etc., the Drawidian politics has reduced the state to dynastic politics and family worship; where only the son of Karunanidhi and then his son Udhayanidhi alone have the right to rule the state.

The socio-political culture of the state is in utter confusion. More than in any state in India, people of Tamil Nadu are the most God worshipping people; stand in long queue for hours and even days to give their offering in temples. But at the same time, the same people also elect those who abuse God, ridicule God, mock all those who worship God is a big ‘psychological paradox’ even the world famous psychologist Sigmund Freud may not able to explain.

Why the divine worship of people have not persuaded them to eliminate all those corrupt, dynastic political party that promote nothing but hate Hindu culture, abuse God and mock the God believers is difficult to explain.

Perhaps people of the state would not have found a true spiritual leader, who is honest, incorruptible, hard-working and simple, have great vision and passion and hence have gone option less. But the in the recent time, people are highly charged up, enthusiastic and are hopeful because Super Star Rajinikanth is likely to enter Tamil Nadu politics to save the state and people from family worship to God worship and development.

In the name of social justice, the corrupt dynastic political force has reduced the state to mere caste re-grouping and purchase of votes for payment. The spiritual feelings people follow in their personal life needs to be translated to the state as well and only then the state can be saved. People of the state appear to have understood the importance of eliminating all negative and hate politics and abuse Hindu culture.

By venting hatred over Brahmins, the non-Brahmin upper caste people in Tamil Nadu are doing nothing but securing all favours for own caste group and pushing the really deserving backward communities to further backward by denying their rights and opportunities.

Further, the communities that enjoy reservation, the economically stronger ones are exploiting the weaker ones in the same caste block and that is why Sattanathan commission has recommended for exclusion of creamy layer from reservation which the then Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu has denied may be due to the possible political backlash and loss of DMK’s vote base.

For social, educational, economic and political empowerment, people of the state must not only elect Rajinikanth but more importantly, must defeat DMK and only then the state can be saved.

It is not just God and divine worship in temples alone is enough, spiritual politics and Super Star is also essential to save the state from corrupt dynastic politics. Everyone those who lived and grown though the politics of abuse God, abuse Hindu culture over the last 60 years must realize that the future of their children and grandchildren can be insured only through goodness and Godliness and fortunately Super Star Rajinikanth has boundless goodness and Godliness to save the state from corrupt dynastic force.

Let us work tirelessly to ensure the victory of Rajinikanth as the victory of Rajinikath is more needed for the people of Tamil Nadu than for Rajinikanth.

Congress can shatter the dream of AAP in Delhi, advantage BJP

Ashutosh Rabindra
-
0
Congress can shatter the dream of AAP in Delhi, advantage BJP

Delhi elections are scheduled to be held on the 8th of February and AAP looks confident about coming back to power.

Most of the people are looking at this election as AAP vs BJP and after comparing these 2 parties people are coming with their conclusion but what most of them are missing is the crucial role of INC in this election.

It will be INC who will decide that who will form the government in Delhi, though currently, INC has 0 seats in the assembly of 70 seats but if we observe the data of the elections held in Delhi between 2013 Delhi assembly election to 2019 Lok sabha election then we will get a clear picture of its crucial role in Delhi elections.

In the 2013 Delhi assembly election when Kejriwal formed its government for the first time, at that time, AAP managed to get 29.5% (28seats) vote while INC and BJP got 24.6% (9 seats)and 33% (31 seats) respectively. There was a dip of 15.7% votes in INC’s share.

After that 2014 Lok Sabha elections took place and AAP managed to get 32.90% vote though it could not win any seat but came second on all the 7 seats while INC not only lost all it’s 7 seats which it won in the previous election but also managed to secure only 15% vote and ranked third on all the seats.

Then came the historical Delhi election of 2015 when AAP got 67/70 seats with a vote share of 54.3% while INC came to 0 figure in Delhi assembly too after Delhi Lok sabha results with vote percentage of 9.7 only, while BJP managed to secure only 3 seats with vote share of 32.3% with a dip in vote share not even of 1%.

During the 2017 MCD election, BJP retained MCD with 181 seats and 37% vote share, while first-timer AAP secured only 49 seats with 26% vote share only, one must remember that it was the first election for AAP in Delhi after roaring mandate in 2015 Delhi assembly elections, while INC secured 31 seats with 21% of vote share.

After that in 2019 Lok Sabha elections BJP again won all the 7 seats with a vote percentage of 56.58 but this time AAP secured the third position on 5 out of 7 seats with a vote share of only 18% which means a dip of 14.9% vote from 2014 LS elections while INC’s vote share increased to 22.46% with a swing of 7.36% and also this time though it lost all the seats but secured second place on 5 seats.

Though it can be said that voters vote differently in assembly elections, MCD elections, and Lok Sabha elections but if we observe these data closely then we will see that BJP has the most reliable base vote, because on both the occasion when BJP secured 31 seats and when it secured 03 seats only in Delhi then also it’s vote share was around 32%.

The voter who floats is the voter of INC and AAP, if INC manages even around 20% vote this time then AAP can lose or at-least will be at great risk.

So, the game-changer can be INC who will decide the future of AAP in Delhi. Since recent trends are showing that INC is gaining back its voter’s faith, it poses a serious threat to AAP.

BJP’s base vote percentage is more and it seems that BJP will manage to secure around 30% in all the scenarios, though this time some voters who always vote for BJP and also voted for BJP in 2019 Lok Sabha election can vote for AAP in the assembly elections because of the freebie and other lucrative schemes of AAP government. Now a new but very small section of voters has also evolved who wants BJP is center and AAP in Delhi.

The fight is between AAP and INC to retain the floating common voters. As we can see AAP came down to 18% (base vote) in it’s worst performance while INC came under 10% (base vote) so, the fight is regarding the shift of voters from AAP to INC and if AAP retains the floating vote then it will win comfortably.

And because of all these reasons, BJP wants INC to perform good and that is why BJP is not attacking INC the way it is attacking AAP. Though it seems that this time AAP will get the floating votes but if it floats to INC then it will create trouble for AAP, not to forget that after Lok Sabha how Kejriwal said that at the last moment Muslim votes got shifted to INC.

The latest statement by Dy. CM Manish Sisodia that he stands with the people of Shaheen Bagh, and that the opening of the Kalindikunj road does not fall under his jurisdiction can be seen as a very tactical statement to lure Muslim voters who could vote Congress. However, this statement can go either way and a quite risky statement. Till now it seemed that AAP is only opposing CAA and NRC and silent on Shaheen Bagh and recent JNU issues because of the liberal Hindu vote bank but now after this statement of Mr. Sisodia, a new controversy has started.

So, we can expect that on those seats where candidates of AAP and INC are in a direct fight, there BJP can have more probability of winning the election.

Marital rape scenario in India

virendamadyan11
-
0
Marital rape scenario in India

India is one of the fastest developing nations of the world.The pace at which our country is developing is commendable and a lot of factors are responsible for it.But as India is progressing towards development its still lagging behind in a number of social evils. Its has been 70 years since independence but the women of our society still feel unsafe to step out of their homes. Our moral policing done by some of the sections of society feel that going out of home is an invitation by women to the perpetrators but what about the cases where women are unsafe even in their own homes.

The rape cases have increased manifold in the country including marital rapes. The rape victims feel ashamed to talk about their suffering and the scenario of marital rapes is much worse. According to NCRB, only 5%-6% rape cases are reported in India and only 0.6% of rapes by the husband were reported in 2015. Crimes against women have increased manifold the worst being rape where the victim has to compromise with their dignity as well. Delhi is considered the Rape Capital of India due to the number of crimes against women increasing haphazardly. The victims of rape have a far difficult life as compared to the perpetrators as they lose out not just their dignity but family, friends as well. The issue of rapes is not just regarding safety but much more than that and the ever increasing incidents of rape is an issue of concern. The common notion of our society that marriage is a sacred knot and whatever the husband does the women has to bear with it is deeply saddening.

Equality & empowerment has always been a talking point in our country but the society can never become egalitarian or empowered until and unless the individuals feel strongly about it from within. The societal pressure on women is far greater than men. The women are supposed to keep the family intact so, when the same women reach out to the police to report the crimes against them are not accepted by the family, friends or society. Marital rapes are committed in a lot of parts of our country but the women are not ready to report them due to the taboo attached to it. They are not even allowed to talk ill about their husband then how would anyone accept them going against their husband and fighting for their own rights.

There is always a fear of retaliation attached to marital rapes where the victim feel that if we go against our husband then he will retaliate in a much more brutal manner so, they accept it as their fate. Even when a victim tries to take a stand then there is no family support. Their own parents refuse to support them or ask them to return to their husband as they feel breaking off marriage will ruin their lives. But what they fail to understand is living with the perpetrator everyday is already ruining their lives. The women live in constant fear of being rejected by the society or being left alone. When the question arises to choose between dignity and survival they often end up choosing survival over their own dignity and self-respect. The stigma attached to being a rape victim creates a sense of terror in the minds of the victim due to which they never try to fight for what is right.Lack of education and moral education in particular leads to objectification of women. When the husband will think of his wife just as a source to fulfill his physical needs then he won’t ever realise that she is equal to him in terms of being an individual and deserves respect.

We need to teach our children to respect everyone and that will culminate in respecting women and being sensitive towards them. In marriage both husband and wife are considered to be equal but when the male counterpart starts thinking that he needs to control his wife and her actions or that he is far better than her then instead of being caring and supportive of her he starts being cruel or rude to her. Marriage is a sacred bond but it should never transform into a scared bond where the wife always feel unsafe because of her husband.

Marital rape is not a criminal offence in Indian legal framework, except during the period of judicial separation of the partners. In 1980s, women’s rights group campaigned for marital rape to be declared unlawful. Initially it was presumed that the marriage gives authority to husband and consent to sex and that criminalising marital rape in turn would weaken family values in India. The Section 375 of the Indian Penal Code considers forced sex in marriages as a crime only when the wife is below 15 years of age.Thus, marital rape is nit a criminal offence under IPC.The marital rape victims have the option of seeking help through the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (PWDVA) which came into force in 2006, outlaws marital rape as well as other form of domestic violence. However, it offers only a civil remedy for the offence.

Due to a case which occurred in May, 2014 where the culprit allegedly got a girl intoxicated, raped her and fled. The Indian court ruled that marital rape was illegal in India which led to a number of protests and the citizens argued that the ruling “highlighted the failure of Indian law to protect the majority in the country”. The culprit hid behind the outdated legislation to get away with a crime.
Before 3rd February 2013, Section 375 of IPC defined rape as:

A man is said to commit “rape” who, except case hereinafter excepted, has sexual intercourse with a woman in circumstances falling under any of the six following descriptions:-

Firstly- Against her will
Secondly- Without her consent
Thirdly- With her consent, when her consent has been obtained by putting her or any person in whom she is interested, in fear of death or of hurt.
Fourthly- With her consent, when the man knows that he his not her husband, and that her consent us given because she believes that he is another man to whom she is or believes herself to be lawfully married.
Fifthly- With her consent, when at the time of giving such consent, by reason of unsoundness of mind or intoxication administered by him personally or through another of any stupefying or unwholesome substance, she is unable to understand the nature and consequences of that to which she gives consent.
Sixthly- With or without her consent, when she is under 16years of age.

Exception- Sexual intercourse by a man with his own wife not being under fifteen years of age, is NOT rape.

The above definition excluded marital rape. [Due to Delhi Rape Case] After 2nd April 2013, the definition was revised through the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act 2013, which also raised the legal age of minor to 18.

Section 375. A man is said to commit “rape” if he:
a) Penetrates his penis, to any extent, into the vagina, mouth, urethra or anus of a woman or makes her to do so with him or any other person;
b) Inserts, to any extent, any object or a part of the body, not being the penis, into the vagina, the urethra or anus of a woman or makes her to do so with him or any other person;
c) Manipulates any part of the body of a woman so as to cause penetration into the vagina, urethra, anus or any part of body of such woman or makes her to do so with him or any other person
d) Applies his mouth to the vagina, anus, urethra of a woman or makes her to do so with him or any other person, under the circumstances falling under any of the following seven descriptions:

Firstly- Against her will
Secondly- Without her consent
Thirdly- With her consent, when her consent has been obtained by putting her or any person in whom she is interested, in fear of death or of hurt.
Fourthly- With her consent, when the man knows that he his not her husband, and that her consent us given because she believes that he is another man to whom she is or believes herself to be lawfully married.
Fifthly- With her consent, when at the time of giving such consent, by reason of unsoundness of mind or intoxication administered by him personally or through another of any stupefying or unwholesome substance, she is unable to understand the nature and consequences of that to which she gives consent.
Sixthly- With or without her consent, when she is under 18years of age.
Seventhly- When she is unable to communicate consent.

Exception- Sexual intercourse or sexual acts by a man with his own wife, the wife not being under fifteen years of age, is NOT rape.

Even after the 2013, reform marital rape when the husband and wife live together continued not to be a crime in India. Article 376B of the 2013 law made forced sexual intercourse by a man with his wife- if she is living separately- a crime, whether under a decree of separation or otherwise, punishable at least a 2year prison term. Forces sex by a man on his wife may also be considered a prosecutable domestic violence under other sections of IPC such as Section 498(A) as well as the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. Progress in legislative terms has been made but still a lot needs to be done.

The grounds for “marital immunity” for rape prosecution were laid by Chief Justice Sir Matthew Hale in the History of the Pleas of the crown, published in 1736. He wrote, “The husband cannot be guilty of a rape committed by himself upon his lawful wife, for by their mutual matrimonial consent and contract the wife hath given up herself in this kind unto her husband, which she cannot retract.” This “Implied Consent Theory” of Sir Hale found its way into the legal system of all former British colonies that adopted common law system and that’s why we are still following an outdated law in India.

In marital rape the victim being the wife suffers all kinds of hardships and husband being the perpetrator doesn’t feel he his doing anything wrong as he believes its his right to have sexual relations with his wife whether she gives consent or not. Women due to pressure of society and relatives feel that they have to tolerate all this as marriage is a sacred knot which binds them to their husband even though the husband is violent or commits crime against her. So, perpetrators have no fear. The keep on committing the same crime again and again and still go unnoticed because the victim is ready to bear all the wrongdoings.

Lack of awareness among women regarding their rights is a big contributing factor in the ever increasing crimes against them. The society is divided on the basis of class and it is found that the people who belong to higher status are much more against the reporting of crimes as they feel that their respect in society will be at stake. Thus, these societal norms leads to unreported crimes and women living in constant fear of rejection by their families due to which they never think of taking a stand for their own. Even when crimes are reported victims complain of being harassed by the police or public servants.

In most cases, reported from emergency wards the police delayed collecting medical evidences from these hospitals and also did not wish to record an FIR.This creates mistrust or lack of trust in the justice system in the eyes of victim.

The immediate family members or friends to whom the women turn for support are actually the ones who instead of supporting them pressurise them to return to their husband. They make the victim feel that its ideally wrong to go against their husband which might wreck their household. The victims go through not just physical but emotional, mental, social stress as well. This mindset proves that reporting of marital rape is still considered a taboo in our society. The victims need to survive on their own after the reporting of crime or divorce however, the case may be which is really difficult because of women not being self- reliable in most scenarios.

The victims suffer due to social discrimination or being outcast by their community.

Educating individuals from an early age can be helpful in raising the standard of women in society. We should make women realise their individuality rather than preaching them to be an ideal wife who should never speak ill about her husband. There must be focus on rehabilitation programs as well for the victims as they suffer mental, emotional, physical abuse which might lead to breakdown. They must be given opportunity to interact with NGOs and other organisations working for the welfare of women. Instead of creating a controversy on this topic it should be discussed and awareness measures must be taken. Proper efforts should be made in the direction of developing a provision regarding marital rape in IPC. We can even take measures to adopt steps to have proper laws regarding marital rape.

We should learn from other countries of the world which have criminalised marital rape Poland being the first to do so in 1932 and have a law explicitly making it a criminal offence. Australia was the first common law country (which was initially a British colony like India) to pass reforms in 1976 that made rape in marriage a criminal offence. Since the 1980s many common law countries have legislatively abolished the marital rape immunity like South Africa, Ireland, Canada, The United States, New Zealand, Malaysia, Ghana and Israel. The biggest example to learn from can be of Nepal which got rid of the marital rape exception in 2002 after its Supreme Court held that it went against the constitutional right of equal protection and the right to privace. It said, “The classification of the law that an act committed against an unmarried girl to become an offence and the same act committed against a married woman not to become an offence is not a reasonable classification.”

According to UN Women’s 2011 report, out of 179 countries for which data was available, 52 had amended their legislation to explicitly make marital rape a criminal offence. The remaining countries include those that make an exception for marital rape in their rape laws, as well as those were no such exception exists and where, therefore the spouse can be prosecuted under the general rape laws.Our judicial system must be fast, effective and reliable. Firstly, we need to teach women to take a stand for their identity and well being and secondly, to fight for their own rights without any fear any inhibition and thirdly, making them self reliable. This might be a long process but we should never stop fighting for what is right. Instead of being looked down the victims should be respected for their bravery. The public servants dealing with such cases need to be helpful and patient during the whole process.

Victims should not be victimised but helped to get rid of the fear and accept themselves instead of being ridiculed. We as a society should acknowledge the individuality of a woman as a human being instead of discriminating only then some change might occur & for change to occur consistent efforts must be made.

Constitutionally speaking: Why states can’t deny implementation of CAA

indlawyer
-
0
Constitutionally speaking: Why states can’t deny implementation of CAA

2019 was full of Constitutional challenges before the Supreme Court. Kerela’s Legislative Assembly by passing Anti-CAA-NRC-NPR resolution on the last day of 2019 ensured that there won’t be a dearth of Constitutional challenges before the Supreme Court in 2020. The resolution has resulted in an original suit filed by the State of Kerela against the Union Government under Article 131 of the Constitution of India. In this short piece, I’ll be focusing on the Constitutional provisions regarding:

1. Whether a State Assembly can pass a resolution against the implementation of Central Law? And if yes to what extent.
2. What is the scope of the term “dispute” under Article 131?
3. Whose “legal rights” can be implemented?

Article 1(1) of the Constitution provides that,
“1. (1) India, that is Bharat, shall be a Union of States”
In this background, Kerela is one of the constituent states of India. Part XI of the Constitution deals with RELATIONS BETWEEN THE UNION AND THE STATES. Article 246 gives distribution of legislative powers and provides for the subject-matter of laws made by the Parliament and by the State Legislatures. These subject matters are scheduled in the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution. In case of subject enumerated under List I it’s the exclusive domain of Parliament, List II is the exclusive domain of State Legislatures and List III is the concurrent list. On the subject in the concurrent list both state and centre can enact a law, however, in case of repugnancy- the centre law will prevail.

The recently amended Motor vehicles Act is a subject matter of List III or concurrent list. Many states have yet not implemented the higher penalties fixed by the Union Government. The penalties fixed by the Union Government is the maximum penalty and as the subject matter is of List III, the State Government can fix their own penalties for violations. Once the Presidential accent is received the modified state law is a valid constitutional law. This distinction is important to bring out as many are confusing implementation of the Citizenship issue with the Motor Vehicles Act. This is like comparing cheese with chalk. Now, coming on the subject matter of Citizenship, under the Constitutional Scheme, it’s the exclusive domain of the Union. Entry 17 List I clearly provides for it following terms:

“17. Citizenship, naturalisation and aliens.”
No such right is accorded to State Government under List II or List III. The subject matter of Citizenship, naturalisation and aliens is an exclusive domain of the Union.
It’s also important to note Article 11 of the Constitution which expressly provides that only the Parliament has the power to make any provision with respect to the acquisition and termination of citizenship and all other matters relating to citizenship.

Thus, one clarity is there that only and only the Parliament of India can legislate on the issues relating to Citizenship.

This leads to the next question, whether the State Government can refuse to implement a Central law? The answer is provided within the Constitutional Scheme itself. Chapter II of Part XI of the Constitution deals with the Administrative Relations between Union and States. Article 256, casts an obligation on every State Government to ensure compliance with the laws made by Parliament. It further empowers the Union Government to give directions to a State as it deems necessary for compliance of Central Law. Further in this piece, I shall discuss implications for State for not implementing Central legislations.

Coming to the context of this piece, this leads to a question whether the Kerela Legislative Assembly could pass such a resolution? Now, passing a resolution after following the Procedure of the Legislative Assembly is core functioning of a legislature- centre as well as State. The Constitutional Scheme puts an embargo on the issue on which resolution cannot be passed. Article 211 provides that no discussion can take place in the legislature of State regarding the conduct of a High Court or Supreme Court Judge. Rules of Procedure of Kerela Legislative Assembly deals in detail about resolution. Now, this particular resolution against CAA-NRC-NPR was moved by the Chief Minister and seconded by Leader of the opposition. It was passed by the assembly with a lone dissenter. Rule 118 of the Rules of Procedure of Kerela Legislative Assembly provides that,”….a Member or a Minister may move a resolution relating to a matter of general public interest.” Thus, if the issue is perceived of general public interest, a resolution can be moved. However, it’s a different ball game if the resolution can be admitted or not. However, Rule 119(c) provides that:
119.. In order that a resolution may be admissible, it shall satisfy the following conditions, namely:—
(a)….
(b)…..
(c) it shall not relate to a matter which is under adjudication by a court of law, and
(d) it shall not relate to any matter which is not the concern of the State Government.

Admittedly, it’s a known fact that CAA-NRC-NPR issue is pending before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the Supreme Court has issued a notice on the same. Further, some High Courts have also taken cognizance of the issue. Thus, the subject matter of the resolution is pending adjudication by a court of law. Thus, under Rule 119(c) the resolution should not be admitted.
This leads us to examine the language deployed in the resolution passed. The resolution merely states that it request the Union Government, not to implement Citizenship Amendment Act and re-consider its implementation.

Thus, the resolution is only a request to the union government to consider the resolution. There’s no obligation on the Union Government to consider or even give its opinion on the same. It’s completely within its power to simply ignore such resolution or if it chooses it can conduct sessions to educate the members of the legislative assembly on the merits of the legislation.

It’s critical to note that the resolution passed by the Kerela Legislative Assembly nowhere states that it will not implement the Citizenship Amendment Act. It only makes requests to re-consider the implementation of CAA. If it has said that it will not implement it then it will be a completely different issue. In the Co-operative Federalism, that India follows, the States and the Union have to co-operate. Thus, if there’s a union law on which only Parliament has the power to legislate than States cannot say they will not implement it. It’s the Constitutional obligation of the State to implement the Union Act. If it does not do so then the consequences will follow.

The Constitutional Scheme itself provides for the consequences. Article 365 of the Constitution deals with such situations. Article 365 provides that where State fails to comply with or to give effect to, directions given by the Union in the exercise of its executive power under any of the provisions of this Constitution then it shall be lawful for the President to hold that a situation has arisen in which the Government of the State cannot be carried on in accordance with the provisions of this Constitution. This effectively means that there is a breakdown of Constitutional machinery in the State and this will pave way President’s Rule under Article 356. It’s interesting to note that Article 365 was introduced just 11 days before the adoption of the Constitution.

Now, the argument of the Kerela Government can be that the directions given to implement CAA is not under any of the provisions of the Constitution as it fails to adhere to the basic structure of the Constitution and hence the CAA is unconstitutional. Now, to declare an Act unconstitutional it should infringe upon Fundamental Rights. This leads to the next question, whose Fundamental Rights can be infringed. Or to re-phrase it, who can claim breach of Fundamental Rights? The Constitution of India grants certain Fundamental Rights to the citizens and certain Fundamental Rights to all persons. Now, all persons include non-citizens and even artificial legal persons like companies. But is a State Government a person under the Constitutional Scheme?

To the best of my knowledge and understanding, a state government is not a person under the constitutional scheme. Since the state government is not a person- it cannot have Fundamental Rights. The grievances are always against the government for violation of Fundamental Rights but can a state government pleads that’s its Fundamental Rights are breached? Does it have a Fundamental Rights? Considering that the State or State Government is not even a person. This ousts it to make a case under Article 32 or 226 of the Constitution.

This leads to issue of what remedies does a State or State Government as? Does it have a remedy to challenge the central legislation by way of filing Original Suit before the Supreme Court of India under Article 131 of the Constitution as done by the State of Kerela? Before proceeding further, Art. 131-A was inserted by the 42nd Amendment by which only the Supreme Court had the authority to adjudicate on the constitutionality of Central legislation. This Art 131A was repealed by the 43rd Amendment. Thus, the constitutionality of central legislation can be challenged by a person before High Courts also. With this background, let’s come back to the filing of Original Suit by the State of Kerela against the Union of India under Art 131.

Article 131 provides that to the exclusion of all courts only Supreme Court shall have the original jurisdiction to adjudicate on the dispute between State(s) and State(s); State and Union, States v Union. The disputes can involve any question of law or question of fact. on which the existence or extent of a legal right depends.

This leads us to analyse two terms dispute and “legal right”. However, the first hurdle that the State of Kerela has to cross in this anti-CAA suit is maintainability. To do so it has to justify the existence of its “legal right”. Now, the dispute must be one which affects the existence or extent of a legal right. It must not merely be a dispute on the political plane not involving a legal aspect. Justice YV Chandrachud in State of Rajasthan v Union of India[1] eloquently put it as:”‘Mere wrangles between Governments have no place under the scheme of that article….’

Justice Ruma Pal echoed the same view in State of Haryana v State of Punjab[2]
“It is only when a legal, as distinguished from a mere political, issue arises touching upon the existence or extent of a legal right that the article is attracted..”

The Supreme Court in State of M.P. v. Union of India[3],was faced with the situation if the validity of a central law can be challenged by way of suit under Article 131 of the Constitution. Supreme Court speaking through Justice P. Sathasivam held that validity of a central law normally can be challenged under writ jurisdiction under Article 32 or 226. It went to hold that, ”normally, no recourse can be permitted to challenge the validity of a Central law under the exclusive original jurisdiction of this Court provided under Article 131.”

However, a co-ordinate bench of the Supreme Court in its 2015 decision in State of Jharkhand v. State of Bihar[4], doubted the proposition laid down in 2011 decision in State of MP v Union of India and referred the matter to a larger bench. The matter is pending adjudication.

It’s equally important to look at Judgement of YV Chandrachud in State of Karnataka v. Union of India[5]. Justice Chandrachud Sr went on first principles and examined the scope and amplitude of Article 131. Justice Chandrachud Sr on scope and amplitude of Art 131 held:

  1. Article 131 undoubtedly confers ‘original jurisdiction’ on the Supreme Court.
  2. Article 131 does not use the term “suit”, doesn’t talk of “cause of action”. Though, the commonest form of a legal proceeding which is tried by a Court in the exercise of its original jurisdiction is a suit.
  3. Article 131 is a complete code for matters enumerated thereunder.
  4. The sole condition which is required to be satisfied for invoking the Original Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court that between the parties mentioned in Art 131 there exist a dispute which involves a question on which the existence or extent of a legal right depends.

Thus, there must a dispute on which legal right depends. This is the crux that is to be determined.

Now, the Article 131 doesn’t speak of “suit” under original jurisdiction. So, from where has the nomenclature “suit” has crept in? The answer lies in Part III of the Supreme Court Rules which provides for the Original Jurisdiction. Part A of Part III of the Supreme Court Rules deals with suit and provides the procedure for the same and here in the banality of Civil Procedure Code starts to creep in with terms like disclosure of “cause of action”. However, there is no express mention of Article 131 in Part A of Part III of the Supreme Court Rules. Other parts of Part III of the Supreme Court Rules deals with Writ Petition u/A32, Transfer Petitions, References and Election Petitions.

Coming back to the judgment in State of Karnataka, Justice PN Bhagawati[6] eloquently explained limitation regarding “dispute” under Art 131. His Lordship explained that the limitation is twofold. One regards parties to the proceedings and others regarding the subject matter. As far as parties are concerned there’s no issue. However, what can be a subject matter of the proceedings under Art 131 is debatable and it flows from the words: ‘if and insofar as the dispute involves any question (whether of law or fact) on which the existence or extent of a legal right depends’.
Justice Bhagwati held that these words clearly indicate that the dispute must be one affecting the existence or extent of a legal right and not a dispute on the political plane not involving a legal aspect.

Justice Bhagwati went on to hold that it’s not necessary that the plaintiff should have some legal right of its own to enforce before it can institute a suit under that article. He further held that it’s not a sine qua non of the applicability of Article 131 that there should be an infringement of some legal right of the plaintiff. What Article 131 requires is that the dispute must be one which involves a question “on which the existence or extent of legal right depends”.

In the present case, the resolution passed by the Kerela Assembly is merely a request to the Union Government to re-consider enforcement of the CAA. It nowhere states it’s not going to implement it. Art 365 mandates States to carry out the implementation of central legislation and if not Consequences will follow. Whether Courts will interfere under Article 131 or not will be interesting to see. Remember Justice Bhagwati in Minerva Mills[7] and as upheld in SR Bommai held that, “merely because a question has a political colour, the court cannot fold its hands in despair and declare ‘judicial hands off’ “. Certainly, interesting times ahead.

[1] (1977) 3 SCC 592
[2] (2004) 12 SCC 673 @692
[3] (2011) 12 SCC 268
[4] (2015) 2 SCC 431
[5] (1977) 4 SCC 608 @ 690-691
[6] (1977) 4 SCC 608] , SCC p. 706
[7] (1980) 3 SCC 625

Dr Charu Mathur, Advocate Supreme Court of India

फेक इतिहास का फैक्ट चेकर कब?

piyushrightvoice
-
0
फेक इतिहास का फैक्ट चेकर कब?

सैफ अली खान ने इंटरव्यू में कहा कि अंग्रेजों के आने से पहले इंडिया नहीं था। ज्यादातर लोगों ने ये मान लिया कि नवाब पटौदी के वारिस सैफ को इतिहास की जानकारी नहीं है। सही भी है पढ़ाई लिखाई का समय नहीं मिला। लेकिन सैफ को इतिहास की जानकारी नहीं है ये हम तब मानते जब वो कहते कि मुझे नहीं पता कि कब से भारत है। भारत नहीं था कहने का मतलब साफ है कि वो इतिहास को जानते हैं। कहीं ना कहीं से उन्होंने इतिहास को पढ़ा है। या किसी ना किसी ने उन्हें ये बताया है कि भारत का कंसेप्ट तो अंग्रेजों ने लाया।

सैफ की तरह मानने वाले और भी लोग हैं। उन्होंने भी कहीं से ये बातें पढ़ी या सुनी है। यहां गुनहगार सैफ अली खान से ज्याद वो इतिहासकार हैं जिन्होंने अपने वैचारिक आतंक के लिए दशकों इस तरह कि फेक हिस्ट्री और फेक नैरेटिव तैयार किए। देश के हजारों साल के नाम और इतिहास को बेहद शातिर ढंग से 300 साल पुराना बताकर यहां के इतिहास के साथ ही संस्कृति से भी जमकर खिलवाड़ किया। आज फेक न्यूज की बाढ़ आने के बाद दर्जनों फैक्ट चेकर पैदा हो गए। लेकिन फेक हिस्ट्री जब लिखी जा रही थी तब ना गुगल था ना यू ट्यूब। फैक्ट चेक करने के सारे पारंपरिक संसाधनों को फेक क्रिएट करने में लगा दिया गया। इतिहास लेखन को एजेंडा से सीधे-सीधे जोड़ दिया गया।

ये सिर्फ भारत में नहीं हुआ। दुनियाभर में ऐसे फेक नैरेटिव गढ़े गए। वामपंथ की फासीवादी विचारधारा को दक्षिण खिसका दिया गया। जिस हिटलर ने सोशलिस्ट पार्टी बनाई उसे दक्षिणपंथी बताया जाने लगा। वामपंथी मुसोलिनी ने जब रोम में मार्च किया तो लेनिन ने शाबाशी की चिट्ठी लिखी। वामपंथ की इस हिटलर, मुसोलिन और लेनिन वाली विचारधारा ने दुनिया में 10 करोड़ से ज्यादा लोगों की बलि ले ली। दुनिया जब हिटलर और मुसोलिनी के साथ ही वामपंथी विचारधारा से घृणा करने लगी तो धीरे से इतिहास गढ़ने वालों ने हमें बता दिया कि फासीवाद दक्षिण से आया है। तर्क ये दिया गया कि इन विचारधाराओं ने आपस में लड़ाईयां लड़ी इसलिए ये एक नहीं हो सकती। दूसरे विश्व युद्ध में हमने देखा कि एक तरफ वामपंथी थे और दूसरी तरफ फासीवादी थे। तब कई लोगों को लगा कि ये एक दूसरे के विरोधी हैं। लेकिन ऐसा नहीं था।

एक तरह की आइडियोलॉजी जो ‘किसिंग कजिंस’ हैं, उनमें भी लड़ाई होती आई है। कैथोलिक और प्रोटेस्टेंट लड़े। शिया और सुन्नी लड़ते हैं। ऐसी लड़ाई सत्ता और शक्ति कि लड़ाई होती है। फासीवाद, वामपंथ, समाजवाद के बीच आपस में लड़ाईयां हुई लेकिन इसका मतलब ये नहीं है कि वो एक जैसे नहीं थे। दुनिया में जब वामपंथ के खिलाफ लहर शुरू हुई तो वामपंथी दलों को पहले लगा कि भारत में किसी को फासीवाद के बारे में पता नहीं है। लेकिन यहां भी फासीवाद की आलोचना होने लगी और लोग गाली देने लगे। उसके बाद वामपंथी इतिहासकारों ने ‘प्रोग्रेसिव रिवीजनिज्म’ किया। कॉलेज, मीडिया और फिल्मों के सहारे फासीवाद की नई परिभाषा तैयार की गई। इसके निर्माण का आधार भी पुराने फासीवादी ही थे। हिटलर ने कहा था कि छोटे झूठ पकड़े जा सकते हैं, लेकिन बड़े झूठ इतने बड़े होते हैं कि आपका दिमाग वहां तक नहीं पहुंच पाता। उन्हें आसानी से पकड़ा नहीं जा सकता। छोटे झूठ की अपेक्षा बड़े झूठ को बेचना ज्यादा आसान होता है।

इस नए झूठे फासीवाद को धीरे-धीरे लेफ्ट से राइट की ओर शिफ्ट किया गया। जातिवाद, धर्मनिरपेक्षता, फासीवाद के खांचे बनाकर उसमें दक्षिणपंथ को फिट कर दिया गया। राष्ट्रवादी को फासीवादी बताया जाने लगा। मोदी फासीवादी हैं क्योंकि हिटलर की तरह वो भी राष्ट्रवादी हैं। मोदी संविधान को खत्म कर देगा क्योंकि वो राष्ट्रवादी है। मोदी लोकतंत्र को खत्म कर देगा क्योंकि वो राष्ट्रवादी है। ये सारे विचार तथाकथित बुद्धिजीवियों ने तैयार किया। राष्ट्रवाद की इस परिभाषा के आधार पर तो महात्मा गांधी, नेल्सन मंडेला, विंस्टन चर्चिल, अब्राहम लिंकन सभी फासीवादी हो जाएंगे। अगर कभी फासीवादी और नाजीवादी से पाला पड़ गया तो ये दिन रात जहर उगलने वाले शायद 5 मिनट भी ना बोल पाएं।

मोदी की जगह मुसोलिनी होता तो दिल्ली के प्रदर्शनकारियों को राजपथ पर गिरा कर मारता और रोने भी नहीं देता।

फासीवाद के दो रूप होते हैं।आइडियोलॉजिकल और टैक्टिकल। वामपंथ का फासीवादी विचार वाला तरीका फेल हो चुका है। अब वो टैक्टिकल तरीका अपना रहे हैं। इसमें पहले अल्पसंख्यक समूह बनाए गए। इसमें जाति, धर्म, लिंग और क्षेत्र के साथ ही अब फेमिनिस्ट, गे, लेस्बियन, थर्ड जेंडर के आधार पर भी बांटा गया। फिर प्रोपेगैंडा मशीनरी ये बताएगी कि तुम शोसित हो और वामपंथ ही तुम्हारे लिए बचने और बदला लेने की जगह है। वामपंथी विचारकों ने अखबार में लेख छापना शुरू किया कि- क्यों वामपंथी महिलाएं बेहतर सेक्स का अनुभव करती हैं? दूसरी तरफ फेमिनिस्ट के लिए लिखेंगे कि- क्यों उन्हें पुरुषों की जरूरत नहीं है? अलग अलग जातियों के लिए लिखेंगे कि- कैसे जातिवाद की असली वजह राष्ट्रवाद है? क्यों लोगों के लिए वामपंथी, समाजवादी देश राष्ट्रवादी देश से बेहतर है? इस तरह से बंट जाने के बाद अब उन्हें एक दूसरे का डर दिखाकर और सामाजिक अधिकार की बातें कर अपनी ओर जोड़ते हैं। झूठ-फरेब पर आधारित वामपंथी विचार उसके बाद पूंजीवादी तकनीक का सहारा लेकर अपने झूठ को फैलाता है।

फेक न्यूज से ज्यादा खतरनाक है फेक इतिहास और फेक विचार। सैकड़ों साल की गुलामी की वजह से भारत में फेक इतिहास की जड़ें बेहद गहरी हैं। पहले तो आक्रमणकारियों ने सभ्यता, संस्कृति के पूरे कालखंड को तहस-नहस किया। उसके बाद एक खास तरह की विचारधारा ने बचे-खुचे हिस्से को पहले तो खत्म किया और फिर नया गढ़ कर लोगों को वैचारिक आतंक का शिकार बनाया। वर्ना कोई फिल्म वाला पहले तो इस तरह से बोलता नहीं। अगर बोल भी दिया तो उसी समय सामने वाला टोकता और कहता कि जो इतिहास तुमने पढ़ा या सुना है वो दरअसल फासीवादी आधार पर तैयार किया गया वामपंथी प्रोपगैंडा है।

दिल्ली में भाजपा की बम्पर जीत लगभग तय

RAJEEV GUPTA
-
0
दिल्ली में भाजपा की बम्पर जीत लगभग तय

देश की राजधानी दिल्ली एक बार फिर से अपनी सरकार चुनने जा रही है. चुनाव मैदान में भाजपा के अलावा आम आदमी पार्टी और कांग्रेस पार्टी भी हैं. केजरीवाल की आम आदमी पार्टी को पिछले चुनावों में दिल्ली की जनता ने छप्पर फाड़ कर बहुमत दिया था और उसने 70 सीटों वाली विधान सभा में 67 सीटें जीतकर ऐतिहासिक जीत दर्ज़ की थी. केजरीवाल की इस बम्पर जीत के दो मुख्य कारण थे. पहला कारण तो यह था कि दिल्ली में पिछले लम्बे समय से कांग्रेस की सरकार थी और उसके घोटालों से दिल्ली की जनता पूरी तरह से त्रस्त हो गयी थी. दूसरा प्रमुख कारण यह था कि अन्ना आंदोलन की वजह से केजरीवाल से लोग यह उम्मीद लगाए बैठे थे कि यह शख्स शायद दिल्ली को भ्रष्टाचार से मुक्त कराएगा. जनता को केजरीवाल कांग्रेस की भ्रष्ट सरकार के लिए एकदम सटीक जबाब लग रहे थे,लिहाज़ा जनता ने अपना बम्पर बहुमत केजरीवाल को दे दिया.

लेकिन इस बार के चुनावों में चुनावी हालात एकदम उलट हैं. जिस जनता ने कांग्रेस से तंग आकर केजरीवाल को दिल्ली क़ी सत्ता सौंपी थी, उसे केजरीवाल ने पूरी तरह से निराश किया है और भ्रष्टाचार के जिन आरोपों क़ी वजह से जनता ने कांग्रेस को नकारा था, केजरीवाल क़ी पार्टी उन सभी आरोपों में कांग्रेस को भी बहुत पीछे छोड़ चुकी है. हालत यह हो गयी है कि अगर भाजपा चुनाव मैदान से हट जाए और जनता को सिर्फ केजरीवाल और कांग्रेस में से किसी एक को चुनना हो तो वह केजरीवाल को नहीं कांग्रेस को ही चुनना पसंद करेगी.

केजरीवाल की पार्टी किस तरह से एकदम हाशिये पर पहुँच चुकी है, उसका अंदाज़ा दिल्ली में पिछले 5 सालों में हुए नगर निगम और लोकसभा चुनावों की परिणामों को देखकर आसानी से लगाया जा सकता है, जहां आम आदमी पार्टी को न सिर्फ करारी हार का सामना करना पड़ा था, बल्कि ज्यादातर सीटों पर उसे अपनी जमानत भी जब्त करानी पडी थी.

सवाल यह है कि जनता का आम आदमी पार्टी से इतनी जल्दी मोहभंग कैसे हो गया? दरअसल आम आदमी पार्टी ने जनता के दिए हुए अपार बहुमत का अपमान करते हुए अपने कार्यकाल  के शुरुआती साढ़े चार सालों तक कोई काम नहीं किया और हर जगह – हर मंच पर, यह पार्टी इसी बात को दोहराती रही कि हमें तो मोदी जी काम ही नहीं करने दे रहे हैं. जब चुनावों का बिगुल बजने की बारी आयी तो केजरीवाल की नींद खुली और उन्होंने देखा कि अब तो सिर्फ 6 महीने बचे हैं और काम करने का समय भी नहीं बचा है, लिहाज़ा उन्होंने अपनी पुरानी तरकीब अपनाने का फैसला किया. पिछले चुनावों में उन्होंने बिजली-और पानी को मुफ्त बांटने का लालच देकर सत्ता हथियाई थी, इसबार उन्होंने बसों में मुफ्त यात्रा की अलावा और भी कई मुफ्त चीज़ें बांटने का एलान कर दिया. जाहिर सी बात है कि जनता जो पहले से ही केजरीवाल की सरकार की निकम्मेपन से जली-भुनी बैठी हुईं है (जिसका इज़हार वह नगर निगम और लोकसभा चुनावों में कर भी चुकी है), वह इस बार केजरीवाल की इस मुफ्तखोरी के झांसे में आएगी , ऐसा लगता तो नहीं है. हाल की लोकसभा चुनावों में कांग्रेस अध्यक्ष राहुल गाँधी ने तो 72000 रुपये सालाना जनता को मुफ्त देने की घोषणा की थी, लेकिन अगर जनता ने वह नकद प्रलोभन स्वीकार नहीं किया तो भला वह केजरीवाल की इस मुफ्तखोरी में कैसे फिर से फंस जाएगी, यह लाख टके का सवाल है.

ऊपर लिखी हुईं सारी बातें और विश्लेषण को अगर एक बार के लिए साइड पर भी रख दिया जाए तो केजरीवाल और कांग्रेस दोनों पार्टियों का जो रवैया राष्ट्रीय मुद्द्दों पर रहा है, वह बेहद निराशाजनक रहा है. दोनों पार्टियों ने नोट बंदी का विरोध किया, दोनों पार्टियों ने सेना द्वारा की गयी सर्जिकल स्ट्राइक पर संदेह करके उसके सबूत मांगे. दोनों पार्टियों ने कश्मीर से धारा 370 हटाए जाने का विरोध किया और दोनों पार्टियां संसद से पास किये गए नागरिकता कानून का न सिर्फ विरोध कर रही हैं, लोगों को भड़काकर देश में दंगे फैलाने की कोशिश भी कर रही हैं. ऐसे हालातों में दिल्ली की जनता की सामने भाजपा को छोड़कर दूर-दूर तक कोई विकल्प नज़र नहीं आ रहा है और दिल्ली चुनावों में भाजपा की बम्पर जीत लगभग तय मानी जा रही है.

1...485486487...889Page 486 of 889