Thursday, January 31, 2013

आज की फुहार              31-01-2013
हाय, हाय आप क्‍यों, मैं ही क्‍यों न विधवा हो जाऊं\

एक पति प्रात: नींद से उठे तो बहुत उदास थे। पत्नि ने पूछा, ''आप उदास क्‍यों हैं\''

पति ने उसे टालते हुये उत्‍तर दिया, ''नहीं, कुछ नहीं, यों ही।''

पत्नि ने बहुत स्‍नेह जताते हुये इसरार किया, ''नहीं, कुछ बात तो है। आप मुझ से छुपा रहे हैं।''

पति खुला। बोला, ''मैंने रात एक बुरा सपना देखा।''

पत्नि की उत्‍सुकता बढ़ गई। बोली, ''बताओं क्‍या देखा\''

पति ने फिर टालने की कोशिश की। ''नहीं, कुछ नहीं। यूं ही।''

पत्नि की उत्‍सूकता व चिन्‍ता और भी बढ़ गई। बोली, ''नहीं। तुम्‍हें तो बताना ही होगा। तुम्‍हें मेरी कसम।''

चिन्‍तामग्‍न उसने बेमन से कहा, ''रात सपने में मैंने देखा कि मैं विधुर हो गया।''

पत्नि यह सुनकर बहुत चिन्तित हो उठी और तुरन्‍त बोली, ''हाय-हाय आप क्‍यों हों, मैं ही क्‍यों न विधवा हो जाऊं।''


हास्‍य-व्‍यंग – तैलंगाना पर ''परफौरमैंस डैफीसिट''?

तैलंगाना पर ''परफौरमैंस डैफीसिट''\

बेटा:   पिताजी।
पिता:   हां, बेटा।
बेटा:   कांग्रेस ने अब कहा है कि वह तैलंगाना राज्‍य
बनाने के विरूद्ध नहीं है।
पिता:   यह तो अच्‍छा ही है।
बेटा:   और यह भी कहा है कि इस पर शीघ्र ही
निर्णय ले लिया जायेगा।
पिता:   यह तो और भी अच्‍छी बात है।
बेटा:   पर क्‍या जनता को इस घोषणा पर विश्‍वास
कर लेना चाहिये\
पिता:   क्‍यों नहीं बेटा जब कांग्रेस के उच्‍च व वरिष्‍ठ नेता व सरकार के मन्‍त्री ऐसा कह रहे हों तो\
बेटा:   पर पिताजी लगभग चार वर्ष पूर्व इन्‍हीं पी  चिदम्‍बरम जी ने ही गृह मन्‍त्री के रूप में घोषणा की थी कि तैलंगाना राज्‍य बनाने के लिये आवश्‍यक कार्यवाही का सिलसिला तुरन्‍त चालू करने का निर्णय ले लिया गया है और इस राज्‍य की स्‍थापना तुरन्‍त हो जायेगी। पर हुआ कुछ नहीं।
पिता:   बेटा सरकार के काम में कई अड़चनें खड़ी हो जाती हैं। हमें भी सरकार की मजबूरियों को समझना चाहिये।
बेटा:   पर इस बीच तो बड़ी हिंसा हुई। कई जानें गईं। विकास के कार्य भी रूक गये।
पिता:   बेटा, सरकार में ऐसा तो कुछ चलता ही है।
बेटा:   तो क्‍या सब यही है जिसे चिदम्‍बरम जी खुद ही सरकार का ''परफार्मैंस डैफिसिट'' बताते हैं\
पिता:   बेटा, यह तू उनसे ही पूछ।   

Tuesday, January 29, 2013



India, no doubt, is a great country. It has a great system of criminal jurisprudence in which an individual/group has a right to commit a crime, heinous included, to run away from the scene of crime and, if caught, the right to claim he is innocent. This exactly is what we call "chori aur seenazori".

There are a few instances in which people in the heat of moment have committed crime, even of murder, and then they have voluntarily surrendered before police or courts confessing their crime, even before the police had actually got a whiff of it. At the same time, they have their unchallenged inherent right to resile from their confessional statements in the heat of moment and to claim innocent denying their confession.

Our law also provides alibis and chances to prove themselves juvenile, under the influence of intoxication, depression, provocation or other mitigating circumstances to prove their innocence or seek punishment lesser stringent than the extent of their crime due under the law.

Even when a case of murder is proved against a person, he can be sentenced to capital punishment only, as the Supreme Court has decreed, if the case falls in the category of "rarest of the rare" in the opinion of the concerned learned court.
On the one hand, we all – the executive, the legislature, the judiciary, the media and the people – are one in the need for dispensing quick justice to the victims of the heinous crime of rape and on the other, our courts are showing leniency and consideration to the accused. The latest is the case in which the Supreme Court (SC) on January 29, 2013 ruled that the man who had raped his minor daughter and killed her and his wife and who had been sentenced to death, need not be sent to the gallows "as the crime did not fall under the rarest of rare cases". The SC further said that "his reformation is not foreclosed in this case." 

An SC double bench set aside the death sentence, awarded by trial court and upheld by the Punjab and Haryana High Court, saying that the convict was feeling frustrated because of the attitude of his wife and children. 

The history of the conduct of the convict Mohinder Singh speaks otherwise and does not inspire confidence that "his reformation is not foreclosed". He committed the crime while on parole from jail where he was undergoing a 12-year sentence for raping his 12-year-old daughter. In January 2005, he came out on parole and killed his wife who was a witness to the rape, and the daughter he had raped. ()

A father raping his daughter and killing her and his wife, a witness to the crime, needless to say, is not a daily routine but a rarest of the rare heinous crimes in India. That the convict was "feeling frustrated because of the attitude of his wife and children" does not mitigate the intensity of his crime. On the contrary, it only shows that the father did not appear to be ashamed and repentant for the sin he committed and instead wanted his wife and daughter to be a conspirator in his crime and save him by telling a lie in the court. His conduct during his parole itself belies the hope that "his reformation is not foreclosed in this case".

Juvenile hardcore criminal

No less astonishing is the report that the "most brutal" accused in the gang-rape and killing of a paramedical student Nirbhaya in New Delhi last month has been declared a "minor" by the Juvenile Justice Board on January 29 on the basis of the date of birth on his school certificate and ordered his trial under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act. The Board also rejected the plea of the Police for bone certification test of the accused to determine his age. (

This suspicion got further strengthened by a Times of India story which on February 01 quoted the mother of the accused who claims to be juvenile saying: "I have no idea regarding either the day or date of admission. I just went to the school and told the teacher that this is my child, he is five years of age, write down his name. They started teaching him after that."
 ( And yet our Juvenile Justice Board has blind faith in the school certificate that shows the age of the accused.

The decision based on "school certificate" is open to question because everyone knows that in India, for various reasons, parents of children have been getting birth certificates of their children showing an age less than the actual one. The "bone certification" would have been more scientific and reliable.

It is ironic that a person who allegedly committed one of the most heinous crimes, which even a hardened criminal would have dreaded to perform, should be dispensed Care and Protection reserved for juveniles. We need to distinguish between juvenile delinquency and juvenile crime. Juveniles have been dispensed care and protection because their crime was not heinous but could be considered a delinquency like a child playing with a knife accidentally killing another child or pushing a fellow child without realizing that his act could cost a life or a child playing with fire incidentally causing a great inferno resulting in huge loss of life and property. These may be crimes but seem to have been inadvertently committed with no set motive. But that is not the case of this juvenile accused in Nirbhaya gang-rape and murder. One has to go by the enormity of the heinous crime and not by the age of the culprit.

This gives another indication of the kind of justice and the criminal jurisprudence we have. This stands in the way of justice. It fails to punish the culprit because it itself raises many ifs and buts in the smooth way of handing out punishment to the person guilty of a crime. The loopholes in the justice system only help the accused and not the innocent and the aggrieved in his quest for justice.
Justice should not only be dispensed but also appear to have been dispensed. It is absence of this scenario that is prompting people to take law into their own hands and dispense justice themselves there and then.


Thursday, January 24, 2013

The 'TAINT' and 'CORRUPTION' - The 'TAINT' and 'CORRUPTION' Hypocrisy of Politicians & Media


Hypocrisy of Politicians & Media

That Bharatiya Janata Party National President Nitin Gadkari had to quit on grounds of 'taint' and charges of 'corruption' against him. It is an internal matter of the Party. The common man is not concerned with it. The rightness or otherwise of the decision will be determined in the days and months to come when the Party faces the electorate in the important State assemblies of Delhi, Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh, Chhattisgarh and Karnataka and the like later this year.

But what does the 'taint' and 'corruption' stand for? It cannot be the exclusive monopoly of the media and the politicians to brand anybody they oppose as 'tainted' or 'corrupt'. It is the same situation as is with 'secularism' and 'communalism'.  Every politician and political party claims itself to be 'secular' and, at will, dubs opponent as 'communal'. To a great extent the same is true with 'tainted' and 'corrupt'.

Our media and politicians have adopted different norms and standards to brand people and organizations as 'communal' and 'corrupt'. There is no denying the fact that the late Rajiv Gandhi was, directly or indirectly, intentionally or unintentionally, involved in the Bofors scam. Successive police investigations failed to nail his involvement yet the fact remains that the `64-crore Bofors corruption case was a reality although everybody involved got scot free.

Similarly, the 1984 anti-Sikh riots were communal in all its hue and for all intents and purposes. Sikhs are a minority community. Everybody recognizes this fact. In the aftermath of the unfortunate assassination of late prime minister Indira Gandhi in 1984, more than 5,000 Sikhs – and Sikhs alone – were killed (more than 3,000 in Delhi alone) only in Congress-ruled States all over the country. In States with non-Congress regimes the Sikhs remained safe and protected. Mr. Rajiv Gandhi himself justified the pogrom saying "when a big tree falls the earth shakes".  Yet, he remains the icon of 'secularism'.


There are numerous leaders who are facing criminal charges in various courts – like fodder scam, murder, rape, extortion, assets beyond known sources of income and corruption. RJD supremo Lalu Prasad Yadav is facing criminal charges for his alleged involvement in fodder scam. BSP supremo Ms Mayawati and SP chief Mulayam Singh Yadav are facing criminal cases for allegedly having accumulated assets beyond known sources of income. Aam Aadmi Party's Arvind Kejriwal had leveled charges not only against Mr. Nitin Gadkari but also against present Himachal chief minister Virbhadra Singh, 15 Union ministers including Prime Minister. The latter is involved in Coal scam too. Mr. Kejriwal has also levelled charges, more serious in nature than against Mr.  Gadkari also against Mrs. Sonia Gandhi's son-in-law Robert Vadra. Yet, the media and politicians have reserved the epithet 'tainted' and 'corrupt' only for Gadkari and not against all those similarly placed and involved. Why? Can they explain it? 

The media is no exception. It too is not free from similar allegations. The Election Commission of India has expressed concern over allegations of paid news against certain newspapers and news channels. It has characterized this new phenomenon as a crime and threat to the spirit of  freedom of press. There is a case involving alleged extortion against a news channel. But, surprisingly, nobody uses the words 'tainted' and 'corrupt' against these members of the Fourth Estate. 

When certain Union ministers in Manmohan government were facing serious charges involving heinous crimes, Prime Minister Dr. Manmohan Singh and Congress took the stand that nobody can be held guilty unless he has been declared so by any court of law. But, in the case of leaders in the opposition the Congress stand is quite the opposite. 

Do double standards enhance the credibility of  our politicians and the media and promote country's good?

Tuesday, January 22, 2013



The greatest tragedy of our political system is that even when politicians come to occupy responsible posts in government, they forget their public duty and responsibility and continue to behave like politicians trying to garner brawny points over their political opponents.

During the last assembly elections in Himachal Pradesh and Gujarat, Prime Minister Dr. Manmohan Singh continued with his oft-repeated allegations that the opposition State governments failed to utilize properly or fully the funds so graciously and generously sanctioned by the UPA government. In Himachal he alleged that BJP government failed to utilize Rs. 10 thousand crores sanctioned by his government. But when Himachal chief minister Prem Kumar Dhumal challenged him to give details of the funds not utilized, the Prime Minister preferred to ignore him.

The Union government always tries to make the people believe that when it sanctions any money it is like a donation and not the right of the State. The fact of the matter is that the ruling party government sanctions money out of public exchequer and not out of party funds. Therefore, where is the generosity or favour? Moreover, these are the funds which have been contributed by the people at large and the States have their constitutional rights to get a share of these funds. Yet, the ruling parties try to earn political mileage by making such claims and allegations.

On January 20, 2013 the Union Home Minister Sushil Kumar Shinde alleged at Jaipur (Rajasthan) where he had gone to attend the Congress chintan shivir that the BJP and the RSS ran training camps to promote ‘Hindu Terrorism’ and cited reports supporting his claim.
He said, ”After investigations, we have found that BJP and RSS training camps are promoting Hindu terrorism.”  
As everybody knows – and so does the home minister – this alleged act of "BJP and RSS training camps promoting Hindu terrorism" is a crime and, therefore, these organizations as also the individuals indulging in these acts should be brought to book. Why is the home minister failing in his duty to do so?
By not acting against these alleged 'criminal' acts of these organizations, the home minister is himself failing to perform his legal duty and discharge his constitutional functions.
Think before you speak. That is the golden principle. But Mr. Shinde ignored that sane advice. That is why his words have now boomeranged on him and the government. The UPA government has all along been asking the Pakistan government to act against Hafiz Mohammad Saeed, the Lakshar-e-Tayyebba chief, whom Congress General Secretary Digvijay Singh addressed as "Saheb", the mastermind behind 26/11 Mumbai attacks and other terrorist crimes in India. Now Saeed has taken the thread out of Shinde's speech and said: "World should take note and declare India a state that is supporting terror on its soil after its home minister Shinde candidly confesses". Saeed went on to say that Indian organizations were "involved in all kinds of terrorism in Pakistan". He claimed: "India tried to involve us in the Mumbai attacks but after a passage of five years, nothing has been established against us in the courts". He went on further to demand  the Pakistan government to take steps to get India declared "a terrorist state" by the UN Security Council. ()
Pushed to the wall, the Congress had ultimately on January 22 evening to  distance itself from Home Minister Sushil Kumar Shinde’s controversial remark on Hindu terrorism, saying: “Terrorism should not be linked with any religion. Congress does not see any connect between terrorism and any religion. The party has earlier also made it clear that terror has no religion or colour. Congress never uses word like saffron terror or Hindu terror,” party general secretary Janardhan Dwivedi told reporters in Delhi
Asked why the Home Minister used the word “Hindu terrorism”, Mr. Dwivedi explained “that must not have been the intention of the Home Minister. No Congress leader can say such thing with intention. Sometimes it happens that some words come out of the mouth of an individual unintentionally.” (
But Dwivedi fails to explain whether a home minister can afford to be irresponsible from whose mouth some words come out "unintentionally".
Shinde also goes on record to be the only home minister for which the Congress had to turn apologetic a number of times.
It is time our governments keep the national interest supreme in their mind instead of trying to run down their opponents with unsubstantiated charges for political and electoral benefits.


Sunday, January 20, 2013

आज की फुहार                21-01-2013

मैं कहता था न कि जनता मेरे पीछे है

एक नेताजी भागे जा रहे थे और उनके पीछे पड़ी थी जनता हाथ में जूते, चप्‍पल, पत्‍थर आदि ले कर। रास्‍ते में इस तमाशे को देख रहे लोगों को नेताजी ने समझाया: ''मैं तो कहता ही था कि जनता मेरे पीछे है''।

UPA foreign policy promotes national interest or business one?

UPA foreign policy promotes
national interest or business one?

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

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

What a contrast!

Our dealings with Pakistan stand in stark contrast.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

आज की फुहार 20-01-2013 मेरी बीवी बहुत अच्‍छी है

आज की फुहार                        20-01-2013

मेरी बीवी बहुत अच्‍छी है।
एक मित्र ने अपने मित्र को बड़े गर्व से बताया: ''मेरी बीवी बहुत अच्‍छी है''।
''कैसे\'' दूसरे ने पूछा।
''मैं चाहे रात को 11 बजे घर पहुंचूं या 12 बजे, वह सदा मुझे पानी गर्म कर के देती है\''
''क्‍योंकि'', मित्र ने समझाया, ''मैं बर्तन ठण्‍डे पानी से नहीं मांज ¼साफ कर½ सकता।''

¼किसी ने सुनाया½

Saturday, January 5, 2013

Constitution and morality


Special Article

2 January 2013

Constitution and morality

Parliamentary Contradictions Over FDI

Amba Charan Vashishth

THE illustrious framers of our Constitution were men of character, morality, intelligence and farsightedness in their own right.  Their singular consideration was the interest and future of the nation, and nothing else. Although more than 80 per cent ~ maybe even more ~ of the members of the Constituent Assembly belonged to the Congress, yet they never even for a while  thought about the interests of their party.  The same can be said of the leaders of other parties and non-political celebrities.
But things are totally different today. Whichever party may be ruling at the Centre or in the States, the uppermost priority and objective of the political rulers are centred on promoting and protecting the interests of the party and catering to the sectoral interests of their constituency of voters who provided them the edge over the opponents to win. The electoral benefit any programme and policy may fetch to the party in power acts as an accelerator. In fact, ‘opposition for opposition’s sake’ is the guiding star of every political party, both ruling and the Opposition. The latter opposes a government policy only because it is likely to swell the vote- bank of the ruling party which, in turn, is not willing to entertain any suggestion  from the Opposition even if it is in the interests of the people or the nation. The party in power wants to prevent the Opposition from deriving any political and electoral mileage in the event of acceptance of a policy emanating from the other side.
Every political party has a right ~ constitutional and moral  ~  to its stand on any issue and to vote accordingly. At the same time, the stand and voting on any issue cannot be contrary to each other. The two cannot be separated, from each other. Otherwise, it turns out to be hypocrisy in all its manifestations.
In its winter session in December 2012 the Lok Sabha presented a unique case-study. While participating in an Opposition motion calling for the withdrawal of the government’s decision to allow 51 per cent Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) in the retail trade, certain parties adopted a stand that was totally at variance with their stated position on the issue. This was reflected in the voting, abstention and the walkout. When it came to voting, some of them supported the government’s decision and others devised a strategy to indirectly bail the government out on an issue they otherwise opposed. Some staged the drama of a walkout in protest against the reply and explanation of the minister concerned. 
They were obviously trying to fool the people with their strident public opposition to FDI; simultaneously they were helping the government in an indirect manner to achieve its objective. Their action was in stark contrast to what they had said in the House.
The conduct of these legislators  may not be against the word of law and the Constitution, but it certainly destroys the spirit of both.  One doesn’t know whether it pricked their collective conscience. Their attitude places the Constitution in direct conflict with the tenets of ethics and morality.
In the discussion in the Lok Sabha with an effective strength of 544 members, a total of 261 MPs representing various political parties were with the Opposition, appealing to the government to withdraw the decision to introduce FDI in the retail sector.
Some of these groups belonged to parties which were either part of the United Progressive Alliance (UPA) or were supporting it from the outside. But when the Opposition motion was put to vote, only 218 stood for it while 253 stood by the government. Some political groups (43 MPs), which had opposed the move tooth and nail in the House, tactically preferred to stage a walkout.
The political groups opposing the government were actually playing politics which has, over the past 65 years, come to be acknowledged as the deft art of fooling the people. On the one hand they were vociferously telling the people that they were against the move but, on the other, they staged a walkout to facilitate the Bill being passed to save the face of the government. 
The Constitution does stipulate a voting pattern on a confidence or no-confidence motion; in the case of a Constitution Amendment Bill, there is a clause of two-third of the members present in the House and voting. Those who had framed the Constitution could not visualize a situation where politics would stoop so low that this provision of “those present in the House and voting” would be exploited to vote for a government or vote it out by taking recourse to a walkout or not voting in violation of their own stand spelt out in the House. This contradictory conduct makes a mockery of both the spirit of the Constitution and the sanctity of the words and views expressed in the House.
A walkout is a mark of protest and a virtual vote against the issue under debate and voting in the House. On moral grounds, it amounts to a vote against. Would it be constitutionally and morally right if a government adopts a strategy to create conditions provoking the Opposition to walk out in protest and, later, in the absence of the Opposition, getting the approval of the House with a near unanimity of those “present and voting” on certain controversial issues?
The Constitution may not have stipulated as much in so many words; yet it would be equally wrong to construe the absence as putting its seal of approval on the duality of the conduct in opposition to the words and opinion expressed on any issue in the House.  

The writer is a Delhi-based political analyst and commentator

(Courtesy: The Statesman)

Thursday, January 3, 2013

हास-परिहास: हंसिये न ज़रा - 2013

ugha euk galuk

;kj] dksbZ Hkfo"; gh ugha Fkk

^^HkbZ;k] rqe us ukSdjh D;ksa NksM+ nh\^^ nksLr us iwNkA
^^ml esa dqN Hkfo"; gh ugha FkkA^^ nksLr us [kwyklk fd;kA
^^D;ksa\^^ nwljs us gSjkuh esa iwNkA
^^;kj] ekfyd dh yM+dh rks igys gh fookfgr FkhA^^

¼bls eSaus cgqr igys VkbEl vkQ bf.M;k esa i<+k Fkk½

पताशा कड़वा लगे है क्‍या\

बलात्‍कार के मुकददमें की सुनवाई चल रही थी। बचाव पक्ष का वकील पीडि़ता से जिरह कर रहा था। उसने पीडि़ता को पूछा कि ऐसा लगता है कि शुरू में तो तुमने विरोध किया पर बाद में जैसे तुम शान्‍त हो गई। ऐसा क्‍यों\

गांव की भोली-भाली उस महिला ने अपने ही अन्‍दाज़ में अपने उत्‍तर में उल्‍टे उस वकील से ही सवाल कर दिया, ''जब तुम्‍हारे मुंह में कोई ज़बरदस्‍ती मीठा पताशा डाल दे तो क्‍या वह तुम्‍हें कड़वा लगे है\
¼lquh&alqukbZ ckr½ 

कैसे\ ऐसे।
वचाव पक्ष का एक वकील बलात्‍कार पीडि़त महिला से जिरह कर रहा था यह साबित करने के लिये कि सब कुछ महिला की रज़ामन्‍दी से हुआ। उसका तर्क था कि जब महिला दावा करती है कि वह अन्तिम क्षण तक विरोध करती रही, तब तो यह अपराध समभव ही न था।
पीडि़ता के वकील ने कहा कि मैं बताता हूं कि उस महिला के विरोध के बावजूद भी यह कैसे सम्‍भव हुआ। वह एक सूई और धागा लाया और उसने सूई आरोपी के वकील के हाथ थमा दी और धागा अपने हाथ में रखा। उसने अपने विराधी वकील को कहा कि वह सूई को लगातार हिलाता रहे ताकि वह उसके अन्‍दर धागा न पिरो सके। महिला का वकील प्रयास करता रहा पर वह सूई में धागा न पिरो सके क्‍योंकि विरोधी वकील लगातार अपना हाथ हिलाता जा रहा था। बड़ी देर के बाद विरोधी वकील हाथ हिलाते-हिलाते थक गया और उसने कुछ क्षण के लिये अपना हाथ हिलाना बन्‍द  कर दिया। महिला के वकील ने उसका फायदा उठाते हुये तुरन्‍त धागा सूई में डाल दिया और कहा, ''ऐसे''।
¼सुनी-सूनाई बात½

क्‍यों वह मेरा पति नहीं है\

एक महिला ने अपने पति के खिलाफ तलाक लेने का मुकददमा दायर कर रखा था। मुकददमें की सुनवाई के दौरान जज ने महिला से पूछा कि तुम तलाक क्‍यों लेना चाहती हो\

अपना पूरा हक जमाने हुये महिला ने फटाक से कहा, ''क्‍यों, वह मेरा पति नहीं है\''

¼कहीं पढ़ा या सुना है½

मैं मेज़ नहीं उठा सकती थी

    पति की शिकायत पर अदालत में पत्नि पर मुकददमा चल रहा था। जज ने पत्नि से पूछा कि तुमने पति पर कुर्सी क्‍यों मारी।

पत्नि ने सहज भाव से उत्‍तर दिया, ''जज साहब, मैं मेज़ नहीं उठा सकती थी।''
¼वर्षों पहले धर्मयुग में पढ़ा था½

भाबी घर पर है\

एक व्‍यक्ति दान्‍त दर्द से कराह रहा था। गाल पर हाथ रख कर जा रहा था कि उसे उसका दोस्‍त मिल गया। दोस्‍त ने पूछा, ''भाई, क्‍या हुआ\''
उसने बताया कि वह दान्‍त दर्द से मर रहा है।

''बस\'' दोस्‍त ने सहज भाव से कहा। ''दो दिन पूर्व मेरी भी यही हालत थी।''
''तो तुमने क्‍या किया\'' उसने उत्‍सुकता से पूछा।
दोस्‍त ने बताया कि उसने कुछ नहीं किया। घर गया और जब उसने अपनी पत्नि को बताया तो उसने उसे बड़े प्‍यार से चूमा। बस दर्द ग़ायब।
''अच्‍छा\'' उसने भी बड़े भोलेपन से कहा और पूछा, ''यार बता। भाबी इस समय घर पर ही है\''

¼बहुत साल पहले टाम्‍स आफ इण्डिया में पढ़ा था½

मैं आज 25 की नहीं हूं क्‍या\

एक पत्नि अपने पति को बड़े प्‍यार से खाना खिला रही थी। उसने पति को लकड़ी के चूल्‍हे के पास चौके में ही बिठा लिया था। चूल्‍हे से निकाल कर वह गर्म-गर्म रोटी पति को परोसती जा रही थी। पति ने खुश होकर उसकी प्रशंसा शुरू कर दी। कहा कि जब वह 25 साल की थी तो वह बहुत सुन्‍दर लगती थी।
यह सुनते ही वह भड़क उठी। जलते चूल्‍हे से एक लकड़ी निकाल कर उस को मार दी और पूछा, ''क्‍यों, मैं आज 25 की नहीं हूं क्‍या\''

¼सुनी-सुनाई बात½

बीवी होगी तेरी
लटठमार वह होते हैं जो ऐसे लगता है कि बात करते भी लाठी ही मारते हैं। ऐसे ही एक लटठमार एक महिला को साईकल पर पीछे बिठर कर चले जा रहे थे। राह में जाते एक युवक ने उसे  कहा, ''भाई साहब, आपकी बीवी की चुन्‍नी साईकल के पहिये में फंस रही है''।
सुनते ही लटठमार को गुस्‍सा आ गया। साईकल रोक कर कहा, ''ओये, यह बीवी होगी तेरी, मेरी तो बहन है''।
(Read in Dainik Bhaskar)