I want to extend my thanks to fellow Indians in Bihar, who in unequivocal measure voted for NDA government rejecting some formidable forces in the form of Media insinuations, below the belt punches from Rahul Baba, Manmohan, Italian Maatha. Not to be outdone Lalu played his part. Even going to the extent of appealing to public by openly apologizing for his mis-rule, in addition to the usual religious appeasement tactics.
The average Bihari has clearly seen through this charade and has opted for development. This shows that public at large want development and whoever is willing to provide it gets the vote ! Yet this simple logic somehow failed to impress the English media in India.
They were obsessed with the following:
• Biharis are too casteist
• Muslims, will vote against anyone with the BJP
• Rahul Gandhi factor (the most comical one of all)
• Naxals will lock up several constituencies and
not allow the people to vote.
Boy, I hope that all the political pundits in the anglo media are licking heir wounds now! The Bihari has delivered a chappal slap on their faces. Consider this…
• Irrespective of caste combinations NDA has won in
approximately 207 out of 244 seats
• Robbery Devi herself lost in both the seats.
• Rahul Gandhi factor has clearly established the real hold
of the party (or just one family) has in Bihar. When there
are no sycophants it is hard for the fake Gandhi family to
have an aura. It has been proven in UP, Gujarat and now
in Bihar. Congress lost its deposit in many constituencies..
• People came out and boy did they deliver a message to
all the “Intellectuals” who had predicted the momentum
in favor of the naxals how they will dictate terms etc.
Women in particular delivered a pointed message by
outnumbering Men.
It is all very obvious for all to know what factors influenced the vote, development, reduction of crime and general safety for the public. Well, take a guess as to what the media is saying now.
• Realignment of caste forces
• Narendra Modi being kept out of campaigning
• Bihari wanted status quo
• They have totally forgotten that they did day long
specials on “Rahul Gandhi Factor” never even once
calling him in fact to ask him how come it totally failed..
Well, on to the next breaking news….. "How the celebrations are very communal", the video they showed had NDA supporters shouting “Bharat Maata Ke Jai”, for the media this is communal. What do they expect? Shout “Pakistan ki Jai ho” to be secular ?
Thank you my dear Bihari, you have given me hope…
Tuesday, November 23, 2010
Wednesday, November 3, 2010
A Great Day for Indian Women….
If you observe the Indian Media yesterday and today… you will notice that
• Indian women have broken through the glass ceiling
• Scaled greater heights in the society
• Have been elected to the highest political offices in the nation
• Sky is the limit for them
If you wonder as to what happened? Did we not have women PMs and CMs and even Prathibha Patil was elected more than a year ago? We even have a foreign woman as SuperPrimeMinister. Women’s bill was passed in the Rajya Sabha Months ago? What happened now that is *so uplifting for women*?
Anxious? Well all these monumental achievements happened because some “Nikki Haley” was elected as governor of South Carolina in USA! Surprised, tearing your hair out as to how that is uplifting to Indian women? Well become a believer, this NRI/PIO’s accomplishment is a role model for Indian women, how they have broken through barriers etc… blah, blah, blah etc.
It is a shame, that the anglo media in India is shamelessly licking the feet of western societies. What is good for the west must be good for all. Whether it is sex education for kinder gardeners or social service as curriculum, no exams, live ins, break-ups, link-ups, dating – you name it, if it is there in the west It must be good for India to have it too…
Of course, their obsession has secular limitations. E.g. a Nikki Haley or Barack Hussain Obama had to prove their Christian credentials to be successful in their campaigns. Why they had to do that, repeatedly? Would they have been accepted if they had proudly campaigned on their origins? These are not questions that the Indian media slaves, will ask of their masters to introspect and answer. They certainly will not ask Indian Politicos to (re)affirm their religious credentials (except the minority kind) to able to mount a successful campaign, despite all illiteracy etc. how it is not needed in India is an aspect they will happily gloss over….
Hell, women in India have been liberated lifted to greater heights because of Nikkki Haley; let us leave it at that, shall we?
• Indian women have broken through the glass ceiling
• Scaled greater heights in the society
• Have been elected to the highest political offices in the nation
• Sky is the limit for them
If you wonder as to what happened? Did we not have women PMs and CMs and even Prathibha Patil was elected more than a year ago? We even have a foreign woman as SuperPrimeMinister. Women’s bill was passed in the Rajya Sabha Months ago? What happened now that is *so uplifting for women*?
Anxious? Well all these monumental achievements happened because some “Nikki Haley” was elected as governor of South Carolina in USA! Surprised, tearing your hair out as to how that is uplifting to Indian women? Well become a believer, this NRI/PIO’s accomplishment is a role model for Indian women, how they have broken through barriers etc… blah, blah, blah etc.
It is a shame, that the anglo media in India is shamelessly licking the feet of western societies. What is good for the west must be good for all. Whether it is sex education for kinder gardeners or social service as curriculum, no exams, live ins, break-ups, link-ups, dating – you name it, if it is there in the west It must be good for India to have it too…
Of course, their obsession has secular limitations. E.g. a Nikki Haley or Barack Hussain Obama had to prove their Christian credentials to be successful in their campaigns. Why they had to do that, repeatedly? Would they have been accepted if they had proudly campaigned on their origins? These are not questions that the Indian media slaves, will ask of their masters to introspect and answer. They certainly will not ask Indian Politicos to (re)affirm their religious credentials (except the minority kind) to able to mount a successful campaign, despite all illiteracy etc. how it is not needed in India is an aspect they will happily gloss over….
Hell, women in India have been liberated lifted to greater heights because of Nikkki Haley; let us leave it at that, shall we?
Monday, October 25, 2010
To Live (In) or not to Live (In)…
“How can this not have legal sanction”, “India has moved to medieval times”, “all the progress we have made so far has come to naught” a “huge blow for woman’s liberation” is the common theme of the articles in papers, (ND)TV brigade…
What happened ? Is it a cry against people beating up folks on valentine’s day, or against the church for calling women not to abort (in Kerala) and to breed plentifully, or is it against enforcement of Burqa for a college lecturer in Bengal ? Well, if you attempted to be logical like me about this you are likely to be disappointed. Wait in line. The urgent issue in question is the recent judgment of the supreme court of India establishing the parameters of what is “Common law marriage” and what are the criteria for compensation, if such a “marriage” were to split. Instead of thanking the SC for highlighting the fact that “Rights” come with “Responsibilities” (pseudo) intellectuals are up in arms !!
The specific case relates to a woman who filed for maintenance from the partner he had a live in relationship. The person is already a married man and lived with the litigant for a period of 2 years. The HC ordered him to pay alimony and sustenance. He went to SC which upheld that the woman is not entitled to any compensation. As a bonus, it (re)defined the parameters of what is common law marriage. In India we have “no Live In” relationship, either you are legally married or in “common law marriage”. There is no other union in the legal framework of the country.
The SC held that for all purposes the relationship under common law marriage is pretty much the same as marriage. There is no legal sanction to start or end such relationships. SC upheld that habitual live-ins are not common law marriage. Neither is live in relationship illegal as adults have the right to decide their lives. It held that you should have been living, and perceived by society as such, for all practical purposes a “committed couple in marriage”. That is you should assume the responsibilities of a marriage, which means taking care of elders children/relatives etc. The court clearly distinguished such common law marriages as distinct from habitual live in relationships. In the court’s view what is the additional responsibility in the relationship which is much more than “a service provided by a keep, or a live in maid” is a genuine but poorly worded question. Now the focus is on the wording and not the issue that court has pointed out.
The court has established that if you want the benefits of a legal union, then even if your “union” doesn’t have legal sanction, it should have abided by the rules of the societal marriage/relationship for that entitlement. E.g. if both of you are already married and say that we want to live-in and give us the benefits of a marriage, it can’t happen. It is this simple fact that SC has pointed out.
It is really sad that all the “pseudo intellectuals” who are screaming that this judgment is retrograde are forgetting a simple axiom in life “You can’t have the cake and eat it too….”, i.e. rights and responsibilities come together you can never choose rights alone….
What happened ? Is it a cry against people beating up folks on valentine’s day, or against the church for calling women not to abort (in Kerala) and to breed plentifully, or is it against enforcement of Burqa for a college lecturer in Bengal ? Well, if you attempted to be logical like me about this you are likely to be disappointed. Wait in line. The urgent issue in question is the recent judgment of the supreme court of India establishing the parameters of what is “Common law marriage” and what are the criteria for compensation, if such a “marriage” were to split. Instead of thanking the SC for highlighting the fact that “Rights” come with “Responsibilities” (pseudo) intellectuals are up in arms !!
The specific case relates to a woman who filed for maintenance from the partner he had a live in relationship. The person is already a married man and lived with the litigant for a period of 2 years. The HC ordered him to pay alimony and sustenance. He went to SC which upheld that the woman is not entitled to any compensation. As a bonus, it (re)defined the parameters of what is common law marriage. In India we have “no Live In” relationship, either you are legally married or in “common law marriage”. There is no other union in the legal framework of the country.
The SC held that for all purposes the relationship under common law marriage is pretty much the same as marriage. There is no legal sanction to start or end such relationships. SC upheld that habitual live-ins are not common law marriage. Neither is live in relationship illegal as adults have the right to decide their lives. It held that you should have been living, and perceived by society as such, for all practical purposes a “committed couple in marriage”. That is you should assume the responsibilities of a marriage, which means taking care of elders children/relatives etc. The court clearly distinguished such common law marriages as distinct from habitual live in relationships. In the court’s view what is the additional responsibility in the relationship which is much more than “a service provided by a keep, or a live in maid” is a genuine but poorly worded question. Now the focus is on the wording and not the issue that court has pointed out.
The court has established that if you want the benefits of a legal union, then even if your “union” doesn’t have legal sanction, it should have abided by the rules of the societal marriage/relationship for that entitlement. E.g. if both of you are already married and say that we want to live-in and give us the benefits of a marriage, it can’t happen. It is this simple fact that SC has pointed out.
It is really sad that all the “pseudo intellectuals” who are screaming that this judgment is retrograde are forgetting a simple axiom in life “You can’t have the cake and eat it too….”, i.e. rights and responsibilities come together you can never choose rights alone….
Friday, October 15, 2010
Watch out for the “Civil Society”
This is an appeal to the real civil society to watch against the “Civil Society” of the media now planting opinions and stances against the Allahabad HC’s judgment on the Ayodhya dispute.
Usually this "civil society" consists of a Professor of History from the Jawaharlal Nehru University in Delhi (preferably an atheist), a parsi aunty (at one that looks like one), a SenGupta or some similar intellectual sounding (named) third person, of course a member of the minority community (who will wake up intermittently and say “can we all just get along ?”). This "civil society" will be invited for forums and lectures by several NGOs in various cities. Their presentations are liberally (pun intended) punctuated with “How can we have a new interpretation”, “faith has been made permanent”, “medieval”, “Hinduism is sanctified”, “How can god be a party to legislation”.
There will be stage managed questions, answers nauseatingly predictable and this "civil society" will get its moment of glory in the local media (the Hindu/NDTV kind) often by inviting the editor/owner of the media as the “moderator”.
There is a section of media and several NGOs are upset that now there is legal recognition that “Hinduism was the default religion of India, for some time in the past”. This recognition if you think about is just stating the obvious and has no implications whatsoever on the secular India of today. For some reason this is anathema to the “civil society”. They are concerned that the “English speaking, pseudo intellectuals” have been totally ignored by this judgment, this is something they can’t live with.
In fact, the ridiculous extent to which history is presented in the textbooks of the government, where in the fact that ancient Hindu sites were demolished by invaders is ignored meticulously. There is plenty of evidence both material and historical fact, in terms of ruins of somnath, Krishna janmabhoomi, Ram Janmabhoomi, Vijayanagaram (on the material side) and even in Babar Nama glorifying the emperor for destroying and building “Masjid-e-jamnasthan”(historical records). Yet, the real civil society has to move heaven and earth and wait for 63 years of legal proceedings to get recognition.
So more than fundamentalists and politicians this “pseudo civil society” that is doing the lecture circuit in the country is the real threat.
There can be no better security in a society than your own neighbors rallying to protect you in times of trouble. For a person of “Minority” it is a relationship which results in a “Majority” that stands by their side. The real civil society will see reason in this statement, the “pseudo civil society” will see a threat to minority from the majority.
Watch out….
Usually this "civil society" consists of a Professor of History from the Jawaharlal Nehru University in Delhi (preferably an atheist), a parsi aunty (at one that looks like one), a SenGupta or some similar intellectual sounding (named) third person, of course a member of the minority community (who will wake up intermittently and say “can we all just get along ?”). This "civil society" will be invited for forums and lectures by several NGOs in various cities. Their presentations are liberally (pun intended) punctuated with “How can we have a new interpretation”, “faith has been made permanent”, “medieval”, “Hinduism is sanctified”, “How can god be a party to legislation”.
There will be stage managed questions, answers nauseatingly predictable and this "civil society" will get its moment of glory in the local media (the Hindu/NDTV kind) often by inviting the editor/owner of the media as the “moderator”.
There is a section of media and several NGOs are upset that now there is legal recognition that “Hinduism was the default religion of India, for some time in the past”. This recognition if you think about is just stating the obvious and has no implications whatsoever on the secular India of today. For some reason this is anathema to the “civil society”. They are concerned that the “English speaking, pseudo intellectuals” have been totally ignored by this judgment, this is something they can’t live with.
In fact, the ridiculous extent to which history is presented in the textbooks of the government, where in the fact that ancient Hindu sites were demolished by invaders is ignored meticulously. There is plenty of evidence both material and historical fact, in terms of ruins of somnath, Krishna janmabhoomi, Ram Janmabhoomi, Vijayanagaram (on the material side) and even in Babar Nama glorifying the emperor for destroying and building “Masjid-e-jamnasthan”(historical records). Yet, the real civil society has to move heaven and earth and wait for 63 years of legal proceedings to get recognition.
So more than fundamentalists and politicians this “pseudo civil society” that is doing the lecture circuit in the country is the real threat.
There can be no better security in a society than your own neighbors rallying to protect you in times of trouble. For a person of “Minority” it is a relationship which results in a “Majority” that stands by their side. The real civil society will see reason in this statement, the “pseudo civil society” will see a threat to minority from the majority.
Watch out….
Saturday, October 2, 2010
It is time Bollywood started making Hindi Movies….
On the face of it, this looks like an odd statement, but of late if you look at most of the Hindi movies, they all look like dubbed Hollywood ones. My family had the misfortune of watching Anjaana Anjaani. This movie is the latest in a long line of movies, which are typically as follows:
1. Pick troublesome dating scenario in the west
2. Make that happen to Racially Indian people
3. Make them yuppies, dwell a little bit longer on their problems of not having enough of something, love from parents, friends etc.
4. Throw in some liberalism (either a gay theme, live in relationship etc., top marks if there is a pregnancy outside of marriage)
5. Finally, for a miniscule dose of realism make it a story that happens in the west (New York being the top destination for now)
Now go back and replay the so called “Hindi movies” you have seen in the recent past, that fall into the category above. There is a section in the Indian Society, which feels that life in the west particularly USA is way superior to any other society or country. Worse, all the happenings in the western life are innately normal and worst of all should be the norm for every other society as well. This group of people, is collectively known as “mall multiplex” crowd and a probably one millionth of the Indian society at large. They have a disproportionate share of presence in the media and mindshare in the “pseudo-intellectual” NDTV brigade, a whole system of review/ratings are evolved. The farther , from reality the movies the greater the brownie points given. Worse, movies that have been traditionally Indian are derided as artificial.
Trust me, I live in India and for the Indian society in even amongst the Lutyens crowd in New Delhi a gay theme or live in etc. are as unusual as a hero bashing up 20 people in a masala, so who died and gave these morons the right to decide one as way superior to other. When Arnold Schwarzenegger or james bond pull off incredible stunts it is “awesomely special” when a Salman Khan does a Dabang, it is "simplistically crass"…
In this context, hats off to Southern Cinema which has not been swayed such a slave mentality to the west and is able to churn out moves like Bommarillu in Telugu, Katradhu Tamizh in Tamil etc.
Appeal to the Karan Johar and his wannabes in Bollywood please start making Hindi movies and not the seemingly dubbed pseudo western Trash…
Time to introspect why Endhiran is such a big hit and Anjaana Anjaani is a flop. The fault is certainly not with the movie goers….
1. Pick troublesome dating scenario in the west
2. Make that happen to Racially Indian people
3. Make them yuppies, dwell a little bit longer on their problems of not having enough of something, love from parents, friends etc.
4. Throw in some liberalism (either a gay theme, live in relationship etc., top marks if there is a pregnancy outside of marriage)
5. Finally, for a miniscule dose of realism make it a story that happens in the west (New York being the top destination for now)
Now go back and replay the so called “Hindi movies” you have seen in the recent past, that fall into the category above. There is a section in the Indian Society, which feels that life in the west particularly USA is way superior to any other society or country. Worse, all the happenings in the western life are innately normal and worst of all should be the norm for every other society as well. This group of people, is collectively known as “mall multiplex” crowd and a probably one millionth of the Indian society at large. They have a disproportionate share of presence in the media and mindshare in the “pseudo-intellectual” NDTV brigade, a whole system of review/ratings are evolved. The farther , from reality the movies the greater the brownie points given. Worse, movies that have been traditionally Indian are derided as artificial.
Trust me, I live in India and for the Indian society in even amongst the Lutyens crowd in New Delhi a gay theme or live in etc. are as unusual as a hero bashing up 20 people in a masala, so who died and gave these morons the right to decide one as way superior to other. When Arnold Schwarzenegger or james bond pull off incredible stunts it is “awesomely special” when a Salman Khan does a Dabang, it is "simplistically crass"…
In this context, hats off to Southern Cinema which has not been swayed such a slave mentality to the west and is able to churn out moves like Bommarillu in Telugu, Katradhu Tamizh in Tamil etc.
Appeal to the Karan Johar and his wannabes in Bollywood please start making Hindi movies and not the seemingly dubbed pseudo western Trash…
Time to introspect why Endhiran is such a big hit and Anjaana Anjaani is a flop. The fault is certainly not with the movie goers….
Thursday, September 30, 2010
Real 3 Idiots …
More than anything else, I want to thank the Allahabad HC for helping us identify in crystal clear terms the real 3 idiots in India. Well in case wondering how and who are they read on…
They are
1. Burkha Datt of NDTV
2. Arnab Goswami of Times NOW
3. Rajdeep Sardesai of CNN-IBN
Watching them struggle to report on a verdict that went against their “pseudo secular” credentials was really comic. Even after, several hours enlightening stances articulated by several legal luminaries the shock on their faces is pathetic. After watching them, I am of the firm view that such biased presentation should be investigated by industry watchdogs and if necessary, such channels should be banned altogether.
Consider this, there was shock and awe for the idiots, the line-up of “experts” they had prepped had all come expecting that the verdict will go against Hindus how they should appeal for “peace and harmony” all were cases of scripts that went horribly wrong. Instead of reacting maturely they and their “experts” cast aspersions in the court and judges, call it as “Panchayati”, “Astonishing” and “Court exceeded its mandate”. Of course, with occasional jibes and punch-lines liberally mentioning “will BJP stop politicizing this at least now ?”. Never calling the Italian Maatha for her opinion on this, whether her party will abide by the court verdict, will not attempt to politicize the issue by doing another “Shao Bhano legislation” ?
I have had my reservations about Indian courts in general and particularly about contempt of court privileges for our judges, what I saw was a really fit case for courts to slam these reports by the channels and lock them up for a really long time.
Thanks to Rohit Sharma for the 3 idiots theme, triggered by one of his comments…
They are
1. Burkha Datt of NDTV
2. Arnab Goswami of Times NOW
3. Rajdeep Sardesai of CNN-IBN
Watching them struggle to report on a verdict that went against their “pseudo secular” credentials was really comic. Even after, several hours enlightening stances articulated by several legal luminaries the shock on their faces is pathetic. After watching them, I am of the firm view that such biased presentation should be investigated by industry watchdogs and if necessary, such channels should be banned altogether.
Consider this, there was shock and awe for the idiots, the line-up of “experts” they had prepped had all come expecting that the verdict will go against Hindus how they should appeal for “peace and harmony” all were cases of scripts that went horribly wrong. Instead of reacting maturely they and their “experts” cast aspersions in the court and judges, call it as “Panchayati”, “Astonishing” and “Court exceeded its mandate”. Of course, with occasional jibes and punch-lines liberally mentioning “will BJP stop politicizing this at least now ?”. Never calling the Italian Maatha for her opinion on this, whether her party will abide by the court verdict, will not attempt to politicize the issue by doing another “Shao Bhano legislation” ?
I have had my reservations about Indian courts in general and particularly about contempt of court privileges for our judges, what I saw was a really fit case for courts to slam these reports by the channels and lock them up for a really long time.
Thanks to Rohit Sharma for the 3 idiots theme, triggered by one of his comments…
Monday, September 27, 2010
Time to do away with contempt of court privileges for judges…. ?
There is a section of law, pertaining to contempt of court which actually means contempt for the due judicial process. Judges of all categories of courts have used this ultimate weapon to threaten errant officers/citizens who do not obey the court’s directives to obey them; all to ensure that due justice is delivered. However, in recent times courts are increasingly using this privilege as a shield against public scrutiny of its affairs.
Recently, Mr. Shanti Bushan who was law minister under Morarji Desai, submitted list of around 10 corrupt judges to the CJI openly daring him to debate the issue and even jail Mr. Bushan for “contempt of court”. Our CJI is not reacting well to that issue, he of course is in a dilemma. Whether to find out the details about the corrupt judges or ignore the issue and swipe the whole thing under the carpet, which is what the court historically has done. Take the case of Justice Dinakaran, the CJI removed him from Karnataka but at the same time, deemed him as acceptable to Sikkim High court. Perhaps, the level of corruption in Sikkim HC is already high, so Dinakaran will fit in perfect is the judgment here ? Curious minds are at a loss to understand why the SC is behaving this way?
Right from issue of judges declaring their assets before they assume the office to when they retire, on each issue the SC has constantly resisted all attempts at sane public disclosure. While at the same time preaching probity in public office, electoral process etc. in one ruling after another. The SC from this angle has consistently has “had the cake and eaten it too”.
Increasingly, at variance form their role of judging legality of the laws, the courts had moved into the realm of policy making and even law making, several instances of this are all over the places to make this very disturbing. E.g. the 15% quota for all India seats is the creation of SC, similarly several decisions as to how an election for speaker should happen in UP, as well as several vote of confidence measures etc., the courts have time and again intervened and created policy/rules/law. The recent ordering of Sharad Pawar to distribute the grains to the poor, however well-intentioned it might be, is just plain wrong -- in the grand scheme of separation of powers envisioned in the constitution.
Even in matters regarding selection of judges the collegium is behaving like a country club, with a we have told you so attitude that flies in the face of its own judgments handed down decrying the government’s discretionary and arbitrary processes in various selections/promotions.
It is high time, the judges started living under their own pronouncements. They can start with by giving up contempt of court privileges, or limiting them to ensuring due process and enforcement of laws. E.g. if a judgment is not enforced then by all means throw the bastards behind bars. When somebody points a needle of corruption/suspicion, then win them over with details and data – don’t fall into the gimmick of contempt of court. Similarly, when media reports on a case which is sub-judice then don’t hide behind the contempt of court law, banning all discussions. Maybe the court knows a thing or two about fallibility of judges that we do not….
This disease of arrogance and a resultant arrogation of power is epidemic in other arms of the government too. E.g. the EC bans all exit polls, if I make a good faith decision, in the interest of a stable government to vote for a party that is leading in exit polls or prior phases, why should the EC be concerned ? Colonials, did all this as they didn't trust our intelligence, our brown Sahebs in Indian Arrogant Service are intent on bettering them.
Recently, Mr. Shanti Bushan who was law minister under Morarji Desai, submitted list of around 10 corrupt judges to the CJI openly daring him to debate the issue and even jail Mr. Bushan for “contempt of court”. Our CJI is not reacting well to that issue, he of course is in a dilemma. Whether to find out the details about the corrupt judges or ignore the issue and swipe the whole thing under the carpet, which is what the court historically has done. Take the case of Justice Dinakaran, the CJI removed him from Karnataka but at the same time, deemed him as acceptable to Sikkim High court. Perhaps, the level of corruption in Sikkim HC is already high, so Dinakaran will fit in perfect is the judgment here ? Curious minds are at a loss to understand why the SC is behaving this way?
Right from issue of judges declaring their assets before they assume the office to when they retire, on each issue the SC has constantly resisted all attempts at sane public disclosure. While at the same time preaching probity in public office, electoral process etc. in one ruling after another. The SC from this angle has consistently has “had the cake and eaten it too”.
Increasingly, at variance form their role of judging legality of the laws, the courts had moved into the realm of policy making and even law making, several instances of this are all over the places to make this very disturbing. E.g. the 15% quota for all India seats is the creation of SC, similarly several decisions as to how an election for speaker should happen in UP, as well as several vote of confidence measures etc., the courts have time and again intervened and created policy/rules/law. The recent ordering of Sharad Pawar to distribute the grains to the poor, however well-intentioned it might be, is just plain wrong -- in the grand scheme of separation of powers envisioned in the constitution.
Even in matters regarding selection of judges the collegium is behaving like a country club, with a we have told you so attitude that flies in the face of its own judgments handed down decrying the government’s discretionary and arbitrary processes in various selections/promotions.
It is high time, the judges started living under their own pronouncements. They can start with by giving up contempt of court privileges, or limiting them to ensuring due process and enforcement of laws. E.g. if a judgment is not enforced then by all means throw the bastards behind bars. When somebody points a needle of corruption/suspicion, then win them over with details and data – don’t fall into the gimmick of contempt of court. Similarly, when media reports on a case which is sub-judice then don’t hide behind the contempt of court law, banning all discussions. Maybe the court knows a thing or two about fallibility of judges that we do not….
This disease of arrogance and a resultant arrogation of power is epidemic in other arms of the government too. E.g. the EC bans all exit polls, if I make a good faith decision, in the interest of a stable government to vote for a party that is leading in exit polls or prior phases, why should the EC be concerned ? Colonials, did all this as they didn't trust our intelligence, our brown Sahebs in Indian Arrogant Service are intent on bettering them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)