|
|
|
|
|
|
PRESIDENT, JUDICIARY AND EXECUTIVE, By Inder Jit, 24 April 2025 |
|
|
REWIND
New Delhi, 24 April 2025
PRESIDENT,
JUDICIARY AND EXECUTIVE
By
Inder Jit
(Released
on 10 December 1985)
New
Delhi and, more especially, Parliament's Central Hall continue to buzz over the
Indian Express vs Jagmohan affair against the backdrop of the grim and timely
warning sounded by the Chief Justice of India, Mr P.N. Bhagwati, in regard to
the country's judicial system and two other developments. First, the debate in
Parliament on the Supreme Court judgment in the Indian Express case which is
increasingly viewed by impartial observers as a deplorable assault on the
country's highest Court. Second, the sharp frontal attack by Mr Ram Nath Goenka
on the Minister of State for Law, Mr H.R. Bhardwaj, in the Indian Express of
November 30 and the subsequent motions of breach of privilege moved by Prof
Madhu Dandavate and Mr K.P. Unnikrishnan in the Lok Sabha on December 2. Also
adding significant grist to the capital's usually well-informed gossip mills is
Giani Zail Singh's reported distress over the unfortunate happenings in
Parliament vis a vis the Supreme Court and the "courtesy call" by Mr
Justice Bhagwati, on the President not long after the latter returned from his
visit to Sikkim and Bihar.
The
Minister of State for Law and the Congress-I benches in Parliament were
manifestly elated on November 28 and 29 when the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha
concluded their debates on the Supreme Court judgment in the Indian Express
case on Opposition motions seeking the ouster of Mr Jagmohan from the office of
Governor of Jammu and Kashmir. The Supreme Court, the Opposition leaders had
argued, had passed severe strictures against Mr Jagmohan. It was, therefore,
only right and proper that he now resigned his high office. But Mr Bhardwaj and
prominent Congress-I members successfully used their massive majority to defeat
the motions after successfully side-tracking the main issue. They spotlighted
the judgment and sought to push both Mr Goenka and the then Minister of Works
and Housing, Mr Sikander Bakht, into the dock instead of dealing with the issue
before the two Houses: the Supreme Court's judgment on Mr Jagmohan's review
petition. But by Monday, December 2, Prof Dandavate had more than settled his
score with the Minister of State and the ruling party, thanks to Mr Goenka's
attack on Mr Bhardwaj and others.
Prof
Dandavate, Janata, and Mr. Unnikrishnan, Congress-S, urged the Speaker to refer
their respective motions to the Privileges Committee on the ground that Mr
Goenka, Chairman of the Indian Express Group and himself a member of the House
once, was guilty of breach of privilege. Said Prof Dandavate: "I am
raising a very important issue connected with the House on which the entire
House would agree. When the debate on Mr Jagmohan took place here, the Minister
made certain observations explaining the Government's position. On 30th,
Mr Ram Nath Goenka has written an article..." The Speaker interrupted:
"I am looking into it." But Prof Dandavate went on: "Sir, in
that article he has called our Minister as delinquent as far as that House is
concerned and juvenile here..." The Speaker again intervened: "I will
look into it." But Prof Dandavate pushed ahead as is his won't and said:
"If our Minister is called juvenile here and delinquent there, that House
will take care of the delinquency but you have to take care of his
juvenileness. Therefore, the matter should be referred to the Privileges
Committee... so that Mr Goenka's allegations may be cleared,"
Ironically
but eloquently, the Treasury benches stayed silent. Prof.Dandavate then
shrewdly moved ahead for his kill like an adept Parliamentarian and said:
"I am surprised that no member of the ruling party is disturbed by this
article". The speaker averred: "You ask them, sir, not me". Mr Unnikrishnan
was now on his feet seeking to raise another related issue: arrival of 55 MLAs
from Kerala in New Delhi in support of the demands of coconut farmers. The Speaker
ruled: "If there is anything, we can again discuss it." Prof.Dandavate
again asked: “What is the response of the Parliamentary Affairs Minister to my
privilege motion”. The speaker replied: "I do not know”. Mr KrupasindhuBhoi,
Congress-I, intervened: "Sir, Prof Dandavate and Mr Unnikrishnan are
bringing in again and again malignant hallucination to this House." Prof
Dandavate was once again on his feet and repeated his earlier question: “we
would like to know from the Parliamentary Affairs Minister as to what is his
response to this privilege motion?" But the Minister, Mr H.Κ.L. Bhagat,
refused to be moved -- and sat in stony silence.
Clearly,
the silence told its own story. Mr Bhagat and his colleagues chose to face
humiliating embarrassment and even be shown up as "spineless" rather
than walk into Prof Dandavate's trap. Nothing would have suited the Opposition
more than to get the issue referred to the Privileges Committee and have the
matter thrashed out again first in the Lok Sabha and then in the Committee,
wherein the ruling party would have found it difficult to side-track the main
issue and, what is more, to defend Mr Bhardwaj and his conduct in Parliament.
Interestingly, Mr George Ferandez sought in 1975 to get the Pondicherry Licence
scandal discussed by the House through an identical stratagem. He wrote a
brazenly defamatory article against the Lok Sabha in Pratipaksha, a
socialist Party paper, and even likened it to "a brothel House". Prof
Dandavate then brought forward a motion of breach of privilege. The Minister of
Parliamentary Affairs, Mr K. Raghurammiah, was provoked and seemed inclined to
support reference of the issue to the Privileges Committee. But he soon saw the
trap and pulled back.
Meanwhile,
the controversy has been sharpened by the bizarre happenings in the Supreme
Court Bar Association beginning with its meeting on November 28 called
specifically to discuss the issue arising out of the Supreme Court judgment. At
this meeting, Mr S.N. Kacker, who is the President of the Association, strongly
criticised Mr Bhardwaj for his attack on the Supreme Court judges and said:
"We cannot ignore what he has said... The Bar is capable of expelling Mr
Bhardwaj... We must be up against anyone who insults the judiciary."
However, he did not push ahead and agreed to adjourn it until Tuesday so that
the members could have the benefit of the transcript of Mr Bhardwaj's speeches
in Parliament. On Tuesday, supporters of Mr Bhardwaj from all over Delhi packed
the meeting and reportedly adopted a resolution even after Mr Kacker had
adjourned the meeting and left. They put the Attorney-General, Mr K. Parasaran,
in the chair and got him to put the resolution to vote. The resolution not only
condemned Mr Kacker but asked him to render "an unconditional and
unqualified apology" for his remarks against Mr Bhardwaj.
Developments
took a new turn when 120 members of the Supreme Court Bar Association met a day
later -- on Wednesday, under the presidentship of Mr Shanti Bhusan, former Law
Minister and adopted a resolution condemning Mr K. Parasaran, Attorney-General
of India, for having presided over Tuesday's meeting. The resolution read as
follows: "We the members of the Supreme Court Bar Association strongly
condemn the so-called meeting of the Bar held on the 3 December 1985 which the
Attorney-General is supposed to have chaired". The meeting expressed
complete faith in and solidarity with Mr Kacker, the duly-elected President of
the Association. In fact, the meeting further held that the conduct of Mr
Parasaran in presiding over the meeting was unbecoming and worthy of the office
of the Attorney General of India when Kackerhad adjourned the meeting and left.
According to one press report, over 100 advocates who participated in the
Wednesday meeting were seen daily practising in the Supreme Court, whereas
ninety per cent of the advocates present at Tuesday's meeting were not seen in
the Supreme Court daily.
Controversy
continues on two questions. First, whether the judgment would have been
different if the concessions stated to have been made by Mr .LN. Sinha, former
Attorney General and counsel for the Union of India, and Mr. M.C. Bhandare,
counsel for Delhi Municipal Corporation, had not been made. Second, whether Mr
Sinha and Bhandare should have been given a hearing before the Judges passed
adverse remarks against them. First, informed circles maintain that the final
conclusions reached in the judgment do not rest on the concessions. Said one
legal luminary: "Even if these concessions are discarded, the process of
reasoning leads to the same conclusion”. Second, the Supreme Court Bar
Association has taken the stand that Mr Sinha and Mr Bhandare should have been
given a hearing. However, some veterans feel that this was not necessary. At
any rate, there appears to be little question of the two counsels getting a hearing
now unless they make amends. Perhaps, the matter should best rest with the
dismissal of the review. If there is to be a hearing, it can only be had on the
filing of affidavits. This could lead to further complications.
More
of the debate on Parliament's assault on the Supreme Court is bound to be heard
in the days and weeks to come -- unless enlightened and immediateefforts are
made to sort out matters in the best national interest. Thought will also need
to be given to the question of reforming the system and eliminating delays in
the delivery of judgments. But a few things need to be done without delay. One
hopes Mr Justice Bhagwati, who met the President last week, has already taken
up the issue with the Prime Minister. Further, that he will, if necessary, take
an early opportunity to speak on the subject. (Not a few in New Delhi were
disappointed at the absence of any reference to the issue -- even between lines
-- in his address to the Lawyers' Forum in Calcutta on November 30.) Fortunately,
the President has evinced interest in the matter as he is duty-bound by the
oath of his office -- to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution. At a
function to honour Mr Justice Bhagwati, the President said: "The people
expect much from the Supreme Court." I might add the people also expect
much from the President and the Prime Minister. Perhaps, Mr Rajiv Gandhi might
consider the advisability of making a statement in Parliament to put an end to
the controversy.--- INFA
(Copyright, India News and Feature Alliance)
|
|
TRICK ON MUSLIM COMMUNITY, 17 April 2025 |
|
|
REWIND
New Delhi, 17 April 2025
TRICK ON
MUSLIM COMMUNITY
By Syed
Shahabuddin, M.P.
(Released
on 12 February 1982)
Eversince
the passage of the AMU (Amendment) Bill, 1980, it has been repeatedly asserted
that the Bill restores the minority character of the AMU, and that Mrs Gandhi
has fulfilled her electoral promise to the Muslim community. As usual, the
courtiers and the sycophants have been blowing the horn and beating the drums
to announce this.
The fact,
however, is that the Bill, which is a positive development, dose not restore
the minority character of the institution. It does not even unequivocally
answer the fundamental question whether the University was established by the
Muslim community or by an Act of the legislature. Without an unequivocal answer
on this point, no right to administer it accrues to the Muslim community.
Consequently, the Court of the University has no in-built Muslim majority nor
are its decisions final even in the matters of statutes or in the appointment
of the Vice Chancellor.
As a
matter of record, it may be added that not a single amendment suggested by the
All India Muslim University Action Committee was accepted by the Government or
incorporated in the Bill although some of them were introduced in the Lok Sabha
and the Rajya Sabha, despite the surprise manner in which the Bill was taken up
at the last minute.
The text
of the definition clause, which is the heart of the matter, is as follows:
""University' means, the educational institution of their choice
established by the Muslims of India, which organised as the Mohamedan Anglo
Oriental College, Aligarh and which was subsequently incorporated as the
Aligarh Muslim University".
Obviously,
it has been cleverly worded. It speaks of the establishment of an educational
institution' by the Muslim community. It is not clear whether it means the
University or the MAO College. But the next phrase lets the cat out of the bag:
This educational institution originated as the MAD college. Can anyone assert
that 'establish' and 'originate’ refer to different entities, events,
situations, sets of facts or institutions? No, they refer to the same
institution i.e. MAC College. Can anyone explain the need for mentioning the
MAO College at all, except to confuse the issue? The BHU Act does not mention
the Central Hindu College, the percursor of the BHU.
The
Supreme Court in Azeez Pasha case has ruled (one hopes that they soon over-rule
their ruling which has been, in the words of several 'productive of much public
mischief') that the Act of 1920, and not the Muslim community, established the
AMU. That remains the law of the land because that decision has not been
overturned by this Bill. The Bill does not contain any 'no obstante clause e.g.
"notwithstanding any judgement or order of any court of India", as is
normally done in corrective legislation; secondly, the main spokesman of the
Government in the Rajya Sabha, Mr N.K.P. Salve, went on record to support the
Supreme Court view: thirdly, the Minister of Education nowhere advanced the
specific argument or stated that the Bill overrules the judgment of the Supreme
Court.
There is
further circumstantial evidence to the negative. The statement of Object and
Reasons of the Bill does not mention the words 'minority character'; the
Minister in her opening statement referred alternately to 'Minority character'
and 'historical character'. She omitted to explain the elements of 'minority
character' as understood by the Government or how those elements were incorporated
in the Bill.
The legal
import of the Bill is thus that the opinion of the Supreme Court far from being
thrown overboard has been given a new sanction. Thus, the Government have
played a trick on the Muslim community and created an illusion for their
political benefit, instead of taking them into confidence and setting the
political limits of what is practiceable and what is not.
The
Minorities Commission had suggested a simpler definition: "’University',
means the educational institution of their choice established by the Muslims of
India, and which was incorporated and designated as Aligarh Muslim University
in 1920 by this Act." The Commission had specifically suggested that the
reference to the MAO College be cut out. It had also suggested the inclusion of
a 'no obstante' clause. Some Muslim MPs (including some belonging to
Congress-I) had suggested the addition of a 'no obstante' clause and/or
substitution of the words 'educational institution' by the word 'university'.
All these fell upon deaf ears. The illusion-mongers were confident of deceiving
the spectators. So why give an iota more than necessary?
The
question has been asked and no satisfactory reply has been forthcoming as to
why the Bill was taken off the shelf suddenly one year after introduction,
dusted and pushed through Parliament at the fag end of the last session at a
day's notice. The Government had not included it in the business for the last
week, decided at the last meeting of the Business Advisory Committees of the
two Houses. Even the Vice President, the Chairman of the Rajya Sabha, was
informed of the Government intent only on the preceding day on the cricket
ground!
One may
surmise that the orders came from above and the parliamentary minions rushed to
carry it out, a sad reflection on the dignity of Parliament and the way the
government take Parliament for granted. But what was the reason for the order
from above? A sudden pang of conscience, a sudden itch to fulfil a promise, a
sudden realisation that the delay had alienated Muslim opinion? It may be all
of that.
The delay
had indeed alienated Muslim opinion. And yet perhaps the Supreme Court decision
to review the Azeez Pasha case on its own must have provoked the thought that
if the Supreme Court itself come to the conclusion that the University had
indeed been established by the Muslim community, the Government would be forced
into recognising its minority character, including handing over the
administration and management to the Muslim community, without reaping any
political harvest, without gaining any credit for fulfilling a promise,
assuming that undoing a patent wrong deserved credit. Hence, the headlong rush;
hence the drumbeating and trumpet-blowing to convince the Muslim community of
the mirage of success.
However, the
Muslim community, except for the loyalists, have taken the Bill in their
stride, as a stage in the long battle for the restoration of the University.
The next act of the drama shall reopen in the Supreme Court. Let us see what
the Government case is. Let us hope that Mr Salve is not given the government
brief. If the Supreme Court unequivocally rules that the University was
established by the Muslim community, which, therefore, has the right to
administer it, an entirely new situation will arise. A completely new Act will
be called for and will have to follow.---INFA
(Copyright, India News and Feature Alliance)
|
|
EXPUNCTIONS IN HOUSE A SCANDAL, By Inder Jit, 10 April 2025 |
|
|
REWIND
New
Delhi, 10 April 2025
EXPUNCTIONS IN HOUSE
A SCANDAL
By Inder Jit
(Released on 30 March
1982)
Giani Zail Singh’s
gaffe over Hitler in the Lok Sabha has proved to be a blessing in disguise.
Personally, I missed the hangama and
all the fun and excitement for two days. I was then away from New Delhi –
revisited Arunachal Pradesh, Nagaland, Assam and Meghalaya. However, the
incident has brought to the fore with a bang what many consider an expunction
scandal. Over the past few years, expunction of proceedings in our Parliament
have become the order of the day without raising much of a protest from the
Opposition. Parliamentary procedures do provide for expunction or deletion of
words that are unparliamentarily. But matters have come to such a sorry pass
today that the Speaker or the Deputy Speaker in the Lok Sabha think nothing of
directing that “this shall not go on record.” Not many are aware that the
increasing tendency to expunge at will strikes at the basic structure of our
parliamentary democracy --- and the freedom of speech guaranteed to MPs in the
Constitution.
Parliamentary
democracy, as we all know, is rule by discussion and debate – and through
compromise and consensus. Undoubtedly, there are times when the Government has
to assert its majority and push ahead with its decisions. Nevertheless,
parliamentary democracy basically provides that the Opposition must have its
say even as the Government has it way. This concept is also enshrined in the
principle that there can be no taxation without representation in any democracy
worth its name. Freedom of speech is thus fundamental to Parliament’s
functioning and is accordingly assured by Article 105 of the Constitution which
provides that “subject to the provisions of the Constitution and to the rules
and standing orders regulating the procedure of Parliament, there shall be
freedom of speech in Parliament.” Not only that. The article also provides: “No
member of Parliament shall be liable to any proceedings in any court in respect
of anything said or any vote given by him in Parliament or any committee
thereof.” Remember, this protected MPs from speaking freely in Parliament
following proclamation of the Emergency in June 1975.
The Rules of
Procedures of the Lok Sabha do provide that if the Speaker is of the opinion
that words which have been used in the debate are defamatory, indecent, unparliamentarily
or undignified, he may, in his discretion, order that such words be expunged
from the proceedings of the House. However, what is happening today goes way
beyond the original concept and bears no relationship to the approach in
Britain and elsewhere. The practice in the Commons has been to avoid
expunctions. The Speaker there insists upon objectionable expressions being
withdrawn. If the member refuses to do so, the Speaker either directs him to
withdraw from the House for the day or names him for disregarding the Chair’s
authority in which case a motion for his suspension from the service of the
House is made and the question put forthwith. An expert doubts if anything more
than 30 words have been expunged in the Commons in the past ten years. A Speaker
in Canada was once removed from his office, notwithstanding his personal
popularity, for expunging on his own certain remarks of a member. In sharp
contrast, the Deputy Speaker of the Lok Sabha expunged last week his own
remarks for the second time in the past few months.
Interestingly, there
was no specific rule relating to expunction in the Central Legislative Assembly
prior to 1947. Nationalist members of the Assembly were consequently able to
say almost anything against British rule. Normally, when unparliamentary words
of expressions were used, the Speaker intervened either on his own initiative
or on objection raised by a member or a Minister, and called upon the offending
member to make amends. This took one of three forms: withdrawal of words or
expressions or (b) tendering of apology and giving an assurance not to use the
words again or (c) in a relatively few cases, substitution of new words for
those objectionable. The objectionable words and their subsequent withdrawal or
other mode of disposal were, however, allowed to remain on record. In
exceptional cases where such remedies were considered inadequate, expunction
was ordered. On such occasions, the general practice was to obtain the formal
consent of the House on a motion emanating from the Speaker or a member or a
Minister.
Banter, biting
sarcasm and good humour were permitted freely in the Central Assembly and were
taken by the members in their stride as in the Commons. (Many in India may be
interested to learn that a Speaker in Britain once held that
"bastard", a term used by one member against another, was not
unparliamentary as it was also used as an expression of endearment!) Once Mr
Mohammad Ali Jinnah, a great parliamentarian, quipped in the Central Assembly
that half the House consisted of fools. When a member from the Treasury benches
protested, Mr Jinnah promptly retorted: "All right, half the House does
not consist of fools!" The House broke into laughter and all was forgotten
in good fun. Much of this spirit has alas gone out of Parliament and many State
Assemblies. Even good-humoured thrusts have on occasions triggered off trouble.
In Madhya Pradesh, an MLA once said he was glad to get a statement from the
horse's mouth. But the expression horse's mouth was expunged by the Speaker
following a protest that the Minister had been called a horse!
Following
independence, Nehru, together with Mavalankar, armed the Speaker with certain
extraordinary powers to enable him to guide the people's representatives and
the House effectively in its formative years. (No one was sure about the
quality of MPs which a poll on the basis of adult franchise would throw up.)
Among other things, specific provision was made for expunction of words from
the proceedings of the House in the Rules of Procedure. The word
unparliamentary was spelt out in Rule 380 relating to expunction for the
benefit of new entrants to Parliament as "defamatory or indecent or
undignified." Nevertheless, Mavalankar, as free India's first Speaker,
took great care not to act on his own and interpret matters subjectively. He
seldom acted suo moto and was clear that as the Speaker he was there to
regulate the proceedings of the House, not to order them. Consequently, he gave
a ruling on expunction of words only if an objection was raised. Further, only
words were expunged, not whole sentences, paragraphs and more. Rule 380 speaks
only in terms of unparliamentary words.
Mavalankar was
equally clear about certain other fundamentals in accordance with the healthy
tradition of the Commons. He was of the firm opinion that members using
unparliamentary expressions must be duly punished or made to make amends. He
would, therefore, ask the member to withdraw objectionable words. Since
everything went on record and even got published in the Press, the withdrawal
amounted to punishment. If the member refused to do so, Mavalankar would direct
the member to withdraw from the House for the day. In case the member still
refused to carry out the direction, Mavalankar would name him for disregarding
the authority of the Chair. This would be followed up by a motion for the
suspension of the member from the service of the House and the question out
forthwith. In all this, Mavalankar happily received the full support of Nehru
who functioned not only as Prime Minister but as the Leader of the House,
rising above petty political considerations and helping build sound conventions.
Mere expunction was seen as no punishment at all.
Subsequent Speakers,
beginning with Mr Annanthasaynam Ayyangar, did not unfortunately enforce their
authority and soon opted for the line of least resistance. The background of
Rule 380 was ignored and increasing resort taken to suo moto expunctions. In
the bargain, the MP guilty of using unparliamentary words went scot free and
only the public at large was impliedly punished in view of the absence of any
record of withdrawal or, say, of suspension. (The people outside Parliament
have as much a right to know how their representatives are conducting
themselves as those seated in the House -- a principle which is enshrined in
the Feroze Gandhi Act ensuring full freedom to the Press to report the
proceedings of Parliament without attracting the law of defamation and its
like. Mr Sanjiva Reddy, as the Speaker, enforced the Chair's authority and
largely ended the laxity introduced by Mr Hukum Singh. But matters went out of
control once again when Mr G.S. Dhillon took over as the Speaker. He was the
first Speaker to direct that nothing that was being stated by members at a
given time without the Chair's permission would go on record.
The Giani's gaffe has
proved a blessing in disguise even if it has led to an absurdity unrivalled in
the annals of any Parliament: the Giani is now on record having withdrawn
certain remarks which are themselves not on record! The Speaker, Mr Bal Ram
Jakhar, has done well to invite the Opposition leaders to discuss the question
of expunctions and hammer out agreed ground rules. True, members in the Lok
Sabha do occasionally create situations which make things difficult, even
impossible, for the Speaker. But the Speaker's inclination to order expunctions
at will is no answer to the problem. On the other hand, it is introducing a new
and dangerous dimension to the office of the Speaker. Slowly but surely, the
Speaker is emerging as a third force -- an independent entity superior to both
the Government and the Opposition. The Speaker, no doubt, represents the House.
But, as I stated earlier, he is the servant of the House, not its master. The
expunction issue needs to be resolved at the earliest and the people restored
their inalienable right to know and be fully informed. ---INFA
(Copyright, India News & Feature Alliance)
|
|
Of Riots & Refugee Camps: WB GOV-CMPLAYPOLITICS!, By Insaf, 19 April 2025 |
|
|
Round The States
New Delhi, 19 April
2025
Of Riots
& Refugee Camps
WB GOV-CMPLAYPOLITICS!
By Insaf
Politics in West
Bengal over riots and displaced citizens continues to persist. Governor C V
Ananda Bose is quoted as having said on Thursday “I am going to the field”!According
to Raj Bhavan after his visit to Malda (where hundreds fled to), Bose may visitMurshidabad,
where three people died and over 200 people were arrested, to review the
situation. This despite Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee appealing: “We are
giving 10 lakhs to family of each victim. Shall reconstruct damaged houses, will
help owners whose shops have been vandalised…Supreme Court has said that till
next hearing, existing situation is to be maintained without changes. I would
appeal to the Governor to wait for a few more days before visiting Murshidabad.
Let the confidence be built first.”Sadly, no confidence between the two state
authorities! Bose reached Malda on Friday to meet people living in makeshift
refugee camps, after sectarian violence erupted following protests by Muslim
community against the Waqf Amendment Act.
Meanwhile, Calcutta High
Court has ordered setting up of a 3-member panel for identification and
rehabilitation of people displaced by the violence. What leaves many aghast is Mamata
again passing on the buck and terming the communal violence ‘pre-planned’,
accusing a section of BSF, central agencies under Ministry of Home Affairs, and
BJP of orchestrating tension by allegedly facilitating outsiders and enabling
cross-border influx from Bangladesh! Absurd, to say the least. At a function,she
said that ‘despite volatile situation in Bangladesh, the Centre rushed through
the Act and allowed cross-border infiltration, both of which contribute to the
unrest in Bengal.’ She asked her chief secretary to initiate an inquiry into
the BSF’s actions!Moreso, ‘Why BJP goons from outside were allowed to come and
create chaos before fleeing the scene? Accountability must be fixed…’ Indeed. Hers
too. Training guns at others, including the INDIA bloc partner, Congress, is
appalling. She claimed the areas affected fall under Congress MLA and that ‘it should
have been more proactive in those areas. If TMC was behind the violence, why
were homes of three of our MLAs attacked? Why was our party office vandalised?”Insufficient
justification for avoiding responsibility. When will it end?
* *
Bihar CM
Face?
Battleground Bihar is
warming up. With elections for the 243-seat Assembly scheduled for
October-November, alliances remain, but the big question regarding chief
ministerial candidate from either party is unresolved. The Mahagathbandhan
(grand alliance) of RJD, Congress, left parties and VikassheelInsaan
Party met in Patna on Wednesday and announced a coordination panel under
Tejasvi Yadav, but whether the young RJD firebrand would be its CM facegoes unanswered.
As for NDAalliance, it’s awkwardly active. With BJP’s Haryana CM Nayab Singh
Saini saying party will win polls “under Samrat Choudhary’s leadership (Nitish’s
deputy CM), the JD(U) has promptly put up posters across the city: ‘25 se 30, phir
se Nitish' (Nitish again from 2025 to 2030)! Nitish’s son Nishant too says
“There’s no doubt about my father continuing as CM after NDA’s win in the
polls. Amit Shah uncle(Union Home Minister) said so when he recently came here
and so has Samrat Choudhary.”Amidst all this, PrashantKishor’s Jan Suraaj party
will also participate in the elections for the first time, contesting on all
seats. The outcome of their efforts remains to be seen. It will be nowhere
close to the hot seat but could dent prospects of claimants.
* *
Maha Bais
Checked
Growing prejudice against
the Muslim community and Urdu in Maharashtra is mercifully being addressed by
judicial intervention.One, Nagpur municipal commissioner offered an
unconditional apology in Bombay high court for demolition of houses of accused
in the March riots casefollowing VHP’sattempts to remove Aurangzeb’s tomb in
ChhatrapatiSambhajinagar district.He claimed neither officials were aware of
Supreme Court’s guidelines on razing of properties,(mandates prior procedural
safeguards), nor did Mahayutigovernment send
any such circular!Lame
but a perfect excuse.The Fadnavis government has two weeks to respond. Whether
it will feign ignorance or be held accountable for its actions remains to be
seen. Separately, the Supreme Court dismissed a petition against using Urdu on
a municipality signboard in Akola district. The court stated that Urdu is a ‘language’
representing culture, ‘not religion’, highlighting the importance of respecting
linguistic diversity as part of our civilisational heritage.Urdu, it said, ‘is
the finest specimen of Ganga-Jamunitahzeeb, or the Hindustani tahzeeb…’Touché.
The government must rethink its anti-minority stance.
* *
Now To State Autonomy
Fight
Buoyed by Supreme
Court’s ruling against Governor Ravi as a big victory for his and other state governments,
Tamil Nadu Chief Minister M K Stalin is getti8ng set for another big fight. On
Tuesday last, he announced a panel on state autonomy to be headed by retired
Supreme Court judge Kurian Joseph. Clearly, a sharp pitch to empower states against
the Centre’s increasing tendency to grab their rights. This followed the
Aseembly observing 50 years of DMK government’s ‘historic’ state autonomy
resolution moved by then chief minister M Karunanidhi and aimed at ‘re-asserting’
principles in today’s context. With cooperative federalism now a mantra for
Opposition-ruled States, Stalin said quoting Ambedkar: ‘Both Union and States
are created by Constitution...the one is not subordinate to the other in its
own field and authority of one is to co-ordinate with that of the other…Yet,
steady encroachment of the Union into rightful domains of States has disrupted
the delicate constitutional balance...a strong Union is not built by weakening
States. It’s built by empowering them…” Reminding rival AIADMKthat despite
differences with DMK, its late CMs Ramachandran and Jayalalithaa never
compromised on state rights, he questioned the new leadership’s principles, referring
to cozying up to BJP. Obviously, AIADMK hit back questioning what DMK did all
these years while sharing power with Congress-led UPA? Stalin’s move it claims
is aimed at ‘diverting’ public attention, ahead of 2026 polls. Perhaps, as the interim
report is slated for January 2026 and the final to be submitted in two years.Campaign
and settling in period!
* *
Controversial Caste
Census
The Karnataka Cabinetis
caught in a piquant situation. It’s special meeting called on Thursday to decide
on the controversial Social and Educational Survey report,known as ‘caste
census’ was inconclusive. Parameters used for the survey, which has peeved various
communities, especially the two dominant ones -- Vokkaligas and
Veershaiva-Lingayats, were discussed and ‘more information and technical
details’sought from officials.The report, prepared by the State Backward
Classes Commission, has the influential VokkaligaraSanghaofficially registering
its protest, sending a stern message to Chief Minister Siddaramaiah that his
government will ‘collapse if it’s implemented.’ The Vokkaligashave warned to unite
with other communities like Veerashaiva-Lingayats, Brahmins against the ‘injustice’done
to its numerical strength and plan agitation. On the other hand, Dalits and
OBCs’ leaders and outfits are demanding government proceed with the report. Caught
in a bind, Siddaramaiah obviously needs time and has asked ministers to give
their opinion in writing or verbally before the next cabinet meeting, to good fortnight
later, May 2. Will he be able to ride the tide? ---INFA
(Copyright, India
News & Feature Alliance)
|
|
End of Indo-Pak Conflict: NEED TO CONTAIN TERRORISM, By Dhurjati Mukherjee, 14 May 2025 |
|
|
Open Forum
New Delhi,14 May 2025
End of Indo-Pak Conflict
NEED TO CONTAIN TERRORISM
By Dhurjati Mukherjee
The continuing
hostilities between India and Pakistan do not augur well for either of the two
countries. Destruction and violence affect the common man and affect normalcy
in both countries. As such, the decision to stop all hostilities and military
action from the evening of May 10 is a positive action, more so as the proposal
came from Pakistan and India readily agreed to it.
It is a well-known
fact that Pakistan has been facing a severe financial crisis and the war-like
situation leads to severe strain in its economy as precious resources are lost.
Similarly, It had approached the IMF several times for a bail-out of its
economic situation. In fact, India opposed the last tranche of $1 billion from
the IMF to Pakistan. India is also affected, as any emerging economy like ours
needsnumerous resources for developmental purposes. In all probability it paid
of price for supporting terrorists.
The need for tackling
terrorism and violence is no doubt imperative. But unfortunately, terrorism has
been on the increase in various parts of the world and specially in the
Indo-Pak region. It is indeed surprising that the killing of Hindu terrorists
speaks very badly of Pakistan’s intentions, and it is clear sign that the
country has been directly supporting Islamic fundamentalism. But the question
arises whether that helps the country, in any way. India is too big with strong
economic fundamentals for Pakistan to do any harm to this country. In fact,
after the killings, it is quite natural that animosity and hatred towards
Muslims may increase in this country, which is not desirable in a healthy
society.
After the killing of
Hindu tourists, the UN Security Council had underlined the need to bring
perpetrators of the Pahalgam attack, which was undoubtedly barbaric, to justice
to deter more such attacks on Indian soil by Pakistan terrorists. Thus, the
Indian government carried out ‘Operation Sindoor’ to defang Pakistan’s terror
factory with military strikes on LeT and Jaish-e-Mohammad (JeM) headquarters in
PoK. It is understood that the nine targets selected initially were in PoK and
in the Punjab region were terror holding, and training facilities and launchpads
exist. Over the years and even after the Pahalgam incident, there was no
demonstrable step by the Pakistan government to dismantle the terrorist
infrastructure in the country.
Pakistan de facto
ruler, Gen. AsimMunir had sometime back invoked the two-nation theory that
Hindus and Muslims constitute separate civilisations but, unlike Jinnah who
used it as a political tool within a specific historical context, Munir
reignited ideological hostility and re-embraced proxy warfare. His doctrine
serves a clear political purpose – it shores up military dominance amid a
deepening polycrisis. Confronted with a failing economy, multiple insurgencies
and a jailed yet widely popular Imran Khan, Munir has chosen military theatrics
over reform.
It goes without
saying that the Munir doctrine is shortsighted and has no logic other than
creating tensions between India and Pakistan. Philosophers all over the world
have contended that no religion talks of animosity, not to speak of
annihilation and killing, of those belonging to other religions. Thus,
what Pakistan has been doing in the name of Islam is totally unfounded.
Some political
analysts have contended that by calling the retaliation ‘Operation Sindoor’,
India may have reinforced Gen. Munir’s view of a cultural-communal divide. If
the Pahalgam killers abused the Kalima to butcher Hindu men, ‘sindoor’, the
exclusive auspicious symbol for married Hindu women is also abused.
It may be pertinent
to mention here that the Indian situation resembles that of Israel which also
battles terror from Gaza, the West Bank and the northern border with Iran
backing Hamas, Islamic Jihad and Hezbollah. In both cases, the terror groups
serve the tentacles of a broader enemy – Iran in Israel’s case and Pakistan in
India’s. The shared experience of religious hatred has brought the two
countries together based on a shared truth that is, the confrontation is between free societies and murderous
fanatics.
Though hostilities
have stopped, which is a positive achievement for both countries, the next step
would be to persuade Pakistan to stop terrorism. Too much bitterness lies
between India and Pakistan and it is good to bring them to the negotiating
table and reach a settlement towards sustained normalcy.
While on the one hand,
this would help develop close neighbourly relations and this would translate to
increased trade and commerce, beneficial for both countries. Also it is an
established fact that no religion in the world talks of violence and animosity
and thus in either country, their respective religions may be respected but no
propaganda initiated to prove that their religion is the best, In fact, Swami
Vivekananda’s message of religious unity, propounded way back at the Chicago
conference, should be disseminated widely.
Another important
point that needs to be stated is the rather unfortunate state of affairs in
Pakistan with the army having complete stranglehold on the polity and an
institutional interest in sustaining an adversarial posture against India. If
the political leadership had not given the military an upper hand, possibly the
relations between the two countries would not have reached such a low ebb. How
and when the political leadership in Pakistan would be in full control remains
to be seen as this would be the key to better relations between the two
countries.
Leaders associated
with several voluntary organizations have been harping the need for an amicable
and early solution and restoring mutual trust between the two countries. These
leaders demanded that common people should not be punished for inhumane acts of
terrorists. “It is very important for the governments to treat common people
differently from terrorists. Politicians and media in both the countries should
also refrain from inciting hatred,” stated Ramesh Yadav, president, Folklore
Research Academy, Amritsar.
Similarly, another
important suggestion that emerged has been that both the countries should sign
another new agreement regarding not allowing any terrorist organization to use
their respective lands and resolve all bilateral issues through peaceful
negotiations,” by Satnam Singh Manak, general secretary, Hindu-Pakistan
Friendship Forum.
Though there were
reports of firing along the LoC even after the deadline of May 10, it is
expected that all this will come to an end and Pakistan will not violate its
own initiative to end all sorts of military action. It needs to be reiterated
that peace and friendly relations between the two countries is imperative for
the prosperity of the South Asian region as a whole. ---INFA
(Copyright, India
News & Feature Alliance)
|
|
| | << Start < Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next > End >>
| Results 55 - 63 of 6260 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|