READ TODAY ON TARUN TEJPAL

READ TODAY ON TARUN TEJPAL

THE STATESMAN

No longer a noble profession by    SEEMA MUSTAFFA

MAIL TODAY

News Special Report (on Tejpal)                   Pages 2 & 3

Lead article : Fall of India's Conscience by Tunku Varadarajan

THE ASIAN AGE

Edit page article: Tejpal: Reaction is to culture of 'entitlement"          

                                 by Swapan Dasgupta

नई दुनिया

लेख: किसी को ग्‍लानि तो किसी का हंसी-खेल  : एम एन बुच

पंजाब केसरी नई दिल्‍ली

प्रथम पृष्‍ठ संपादकीय: तेजपाल का 'तेजहीन' होना

दैनिक जागरण       राष्‍ट्रीय संस्‍करण

सवालों के घेरे में तरूण व तहलका

एक अजूबा ही हो सकता है आप का सत्‍ता में आना

एक अजूबा ही हो सकता है आप का सत्‍ता में आना

--- अम्‍बा चरण वशिष्‍ठ

मीडिया में आम आदमी पार्टी (आप) की बहुत चर्चा है। पर मीडिया किसी भी पार्टी की विजय या हार का प्रतिबिम्‍ब नहीं हो सकता।  दो वर्ष पूर्व पंजाब में हुये चुनाव में भी अकाली दल से विद्रोह कर पंजाब पीपल्‍ज़ पार्टी (पीपीपी) बनाने वाले मनप्रीत बादल का भी यही हाल था। कुछ लोग कहते थे कि यह नया दल ही सरकार बना लेगा। कुछ कहते थे कि इस दल के मैदान में होने के कारण पंजाब में त्रिशंकु विधान सभा उभरेगी और सत्‍ता की कूंजी पीपीपी के हाथ आ जायेगी। पीपीपी जिसके साथ खड़ी हो जायेगी सरकार उसी की बनेगी। लोग कहते थे कि युवा मनप्रीत के पीछे दीवाने हैं और वह उसे ही समर्थन देंगे। पर अन्‍तत: हुआ क्‍या\ मनप्रीत तीन सीटों पर खड़े हुये। तीनों पर हार गये। किसी भी चुनावक्षेत्र में वह दूसरे स्‍थान पर नहीं रहे।

यही हाल आप का होने की सम्‍भावना है। उसके पास जनता को देने के लिये है क्‍या\

अरविन्‍द केजरीवाल अन्‍ना हज़ारे के कंधों पर सवार रहे। उनकी गोदी में खेल कर बड़े हुये। पहले तो केजरीवाल को राजनीति से इतनी नफरत थी कि वह लोकपाल आन्‍दोलन को इस से प्रदूषित नहीं होने देना चाहते थे। यह केजरीवाल व उनके सहयोगी ही थे जिन्‍होंने जन्‍तर-मन्‍तर नई दिल्‍ली में उनके आन्‍दोलन को समर्थन व सहयोग देने पहुंचे राजनेताओं को उल्‍टे पांव वापस कर दिया था। पर बाद में यही केजरीवाल अपना ही दल बनाने के लिये लालायित हो गये हालांकि अन्‍ना इसके विरूद्ध थे।

पार्टी के बारे उनकी परिकल्‍पना कितना पाखण्‍ड था यह तो इस बात से ही पता चल जाता है कि उन्‍होंने घोषणा की कि इस दल का कोई सर्वेसर्वा या अध्‍यक्ष नहीं होगा। नेता जनता तय करेगी। पर स्‍वयं इस पार्टी के संयोजक बन बैठे जिसको वही अधिकार व शक्तियां प्राप्‍त हैं जो किसी अध्‍यक्ष या महामन्‍त्री को होती हैं। साम्‍यवा‍दी दलों आदि में अध्‍यक्ष नहीं होता। वहां महामत्री होता है जिसका स्‍थान वही होता है जो किसी अध्‍यक्ष का होता है। तो फिर इस दल व अन्‍य में फर्क क्‍या है\

केजरीवाल ने कहा कि उसकी नीतियां व योजनायें जनता तय करेगी। यही तो सब दल कहते हैं। कौन कहता है कि उसकी नीतियां या योजनायें जनता द्वारा प्रेरित नहीं होंगी या जनहित में नहीं होंगी और उनका जनता से कोई वास्‍ता नहीं होगा\

केजरीवाल दावा करते हैं कि यदि उन्‍हें पैसा ही इकट्ठा करना होता तो वह आयकर विभाग में अपने बड़े पद को न त्‍यागते। पर इसका मतलब क्‍या यह है कि इस विभाग में सभी भ्रष्‍ट हैं\

इससे बड़ा ढकोंसला और कोई नहीं हो सकता। किसी भी दल या विभाग में न सारे देवता होते हैं और न सारे भ्रष्‍ट। फिर लोग तो यह भी तर्क देते हैं कि ऐसा ही है तो केजरीवाल की पत्नि अभी भी इसी विभाग में अधिकारी क्‍यों बनी बैठी हैं\

जनता में अपने आपको ईमानदार प्रदर्शित करने के लिये केजरीवाल का तौर-तरीका है हर अन्‍य पार्टी व नेता पर उंगली उठाना और उसे भ्रष्‍ट बताना। पर यह भी तो सत्‍य है कि व्‍यक्ति अपने विरोधियों को भ्रष्‍ट बता कर स्‍वयं ईमानदार नहीं बन जाता। उसे तो अपने आपको ईमानदार साबित करना होता है। अभी तक केजरीवाल व उनके सहयोगी राजनीति में नये हैं। उन्‍हें न सरकार चलाने का मौका मिला न अपने आपको ईमानदार साबित करने का। सच्‍चाई तो यह है कि जिसे रिश्‍वत खाने का मौका ही नहीं मिला वह भ्रष्‍ट कैसे बन सकता है\ ईमानदारी की कसौटी तो तब होगी जब सत्‍ताप्राप्ति के बाद घूंस मिले और व्‍यक्ति इनकार कर दे।

जब केजरीवाल दूसरे दलों व राजनेताओं पर भ्रष्‍टाचार के आरोप लगाते थे तो वह उन आरोपों को झूठा, बेहूदा, बेबुनियाद व चरित्रहनन को घटिया प्रयास बताकर खारिज कर देते थे। अन्‍याथ मानहानि का मुकद्दमा दायर करने की धमकी दे देते थे या दायर कर देते थे। यही हथकण्‍डा अब आप ने अपनाया है जब उस पर व केजरीवाल पर वैसे ही भ्रष्‍टाचार के आरोप लगे। अभी तो आप सत्‍ता में नहीं आई है। तो आप और अन्‍य दलों में अन्‍तर ही क्‍या रह गया है\

अभी जबकि आप सत्‍ता के समीप भी नहीं है तभी उसे 19 करोड़ रूपये का चन्‍दा प्राप्‍त हो गया है। जब सत्‍ता में आयेगी तब तो इस पार्टी के पास दान देने वाले दानवीरों की तो झड़ी ही लग जायेगी।

केजरीवाल की पार्टी का सत्‍ता में आ जाना तो इस व पिछली बीसवीं सदी का एक अजूबा ही होगा क्‍योंकि कुछ मास का बच्‍चा राजनीतिक दल अभी तक सत्‍ता की वैयस्‍कता प्राप्‍त नहीं कर पाया है। कांग्रेस ने 70-80 वर्ष घोर संघर्ष किया तब कहीं जा कर उसे सत्‍ता का सुख भोगने का अवसर मिला।

1977 में नये दल जनता पार्टी ने कांग्रेस से सत्‍ता छीन कर केन्‍द्र व कई प्रदेशों में सरकार अवश्‍य बनाई थी पर इस में सभी पुराने ही दल व नेता शामिल थे जिन्‍होंने दशकों संघर्ष किया था और कई यातनायें सही थीं। जन आन्‍दोलनों में भाग लिया था। पर केजरीवाली व उसके सहयोगियों ने किस जनसंघर्ष में लाठियां व गोलियां खाई हैं। कौनसे जन आन्‍दोलन द्वारा उसने  जनता की कोई मांग मनवाई है या कोई सुविधा दिलवाई है\

SUNDAY SENTIMENT AAP & Tejpal: Doctor, heal thyself

  

SUNDAY SENTIMENT

AAP & Tejpal: Doctor, heal thyself

In the last week ending November 22 two idols which self-claimed to be crusaders against corruption and wrongdoing crashed to the ground: Tehalka's Tarun Tejpal and AAP's Arvind Kejriwal.

Arvind Kejriwal groomed himself in the lap of social activities and fighter against corruption Anna Hazare. He utilized Anna's movement against corruption to raise an institution called Lokpal to project himself as the number 2 in the movement. Initially, Kejriwal derided intrusion of politics into the campaign for Lokpal to fight corruption. It looked to him, then, that politics and politicians would pollute the campaign to cleanse administration and eradicate corruption. He turned away politicians who came to express their support and solidarity for the cause at Janta Mantar. But, in less than a year, he got so fascinated by the glare and glamour of politics that that he himself decided to have a plunge in the mud of politics. He, perhaps, thought that the mud would not stick to his oily body and clean white the stains on his clothes in the same way as do our detergents claim. He formed a political organization under the name and style of Aam Aadmi Party (AAP). He made a debut in Delhi elections and was the first to project himself as the 'clean' challenger to the 'tainted' Congress chief minister Mrs. Sheila Dixit and to be the chief minister if his party was voted into power. He put stickers on auto-rickshaws and elsewhere to vote out Dixit and vote in 'honest' Kejriwal.

To buttress his image as a relentless and fearless fighter against corruption, he took pride in quick-start his political career by taking pride in coming out with charges of corruption and wrongdoing against various leaders. By targeting top leaders of almost every national political party worth the name, he projected himself and his party as the only clean man and the rest just corrupt and scamsters. He claimed that his allegations were hundred percent true. If anybody challenged his accusations, he tried to give the impression that the leader accused was just trying to save his skin by telling lies.

But last week, a person who was once a member of his close group, gave Kejriwal the taste of what he was serving to other political leaders. Kejriwal adopted the same line of defence which Mrs. Sonia Gandhi and Rahul Gandhi had been practicing — disappearing from the glare of media and television cameras pushing up their henchmen to defend them. It was akin to the commander shielding himself from the enemy strike by taking a position of safety behind his troops.

It now looks Kejriwal has moved ahead from his infancy to adulthood in politics. To specific charges against him and his cronies, Kejriwal is using the same shields and using the same techniques, words and arguments his opponents had been employing to face a barrage of attacks by him. His spokespersons are beating about the bush in their zeal to defend him and the party without satisfying the people on the specific allegations made against Kejriwal and other members. They have, so far, not volunteered a fair, free and impartial inquiry into the allegations by any judicial or investigating authority of their choice. Instead they have preferred to issue clean chits to the persons involved. He is threatening his accusers who are daring him to do so.

People are therefore left to draw their own conclusions.

God that failed

The Tarun Tejpal case in which he has been accused to sexual assault on his own journalist-employee has caused another storm. Tarun Tejpal had earned a name for himself as a sober investigative journalist who had exploded some scams. But now he has been caught in his own webb. A journalist on the roles of his paper has accused him of sexual assault on her in Goa. It goes to his credit that he did not go out to out-rightly reject the charges as false, untrue, malicious, aimed at character assassination and motivated by his detractors. As atonement he stepped down from the editorship of Tehalka for six months. He regretted his action too. His managing editor Mrs. Shobha Chaudhary tried to project it as a 'family affair' barred to the piercing eyes of outsiders. The management has also constituted a house committee to look into the incident.

This action on the part of Tehlka management attracted a comment that Tarun Tejpal is trying to be an accused, investigator and a judge — all by himself.

Needless to recall that when Tehlka resorted to sting operations against BJP president Bangaru Laxman or against the Defence Ministry officers, he did not want the matter to be treated as a "family affair", as the magazine now tries to do. Criminal cases were registered against the persons involved and punishment awarded following their being found guilty. But Tejpal wishes that a different yardstick should be employed in his case.

If 'atonement' was the adequate punishment, the self-styled godmen like Asaram Bapu too could take the same recourse and get away with punishment because criminal charges against them are not more heinous than those against Tejpal.

Now that Goa police has come into action registering a case and recording statements of the victim's colleagues and associates, including those of Shobha Verma, Tejpal too is reported to have developed second thoughts on his earlier statements. He is now trying to extricate himself from the involvement. He has even sought pre-arrest bail.

 Congress is making all out noise on the alleged surveillance of a girl in Gujarat and demanding a probe by a Supreme Court judge although no crime was involved as the girl herself and her father have said that all this was done with their knowledge and they have no complaint. But, intriguingly, this very party is keeping a stoic silence on this heinous crime against a woman. There are reports that some senior party and government functionaries are going the whole hog to protect him. Even the Central Women Commission does not seem to be stirred by this incident. Human Rights Commission too continues to keep mum.

There is no gainsaying the fact that the targets of Tejpal's sting operations and the stinging language in his magazines had always been non-Congress leaders and Hindu organizations and individuals connected with it. This fact now seems to have gagged the voice of these sections of society who derived political and social benefit from Tejpal exposures and disclosures.                              ***

आज की फुहार तुम बहुत सुस्‍त हो 21-11-2013

आज की फुहार                             21-11-2013

तुम बहुत सुस्‍त हो

एक बच्‍चा अपनी मां को अस्‍पताल में देखने गया जिसने एक और बच्‍चे को जन्‍म दिया था। थोड़ी देर अपने भाई से खेलने के बाद वह अपनी मां की स्‍पैशल वार्ड के कमरे से बाहर निकला और कूदता-फुदकता साथ वाले कमरे में चला गया। वहां भी एक महिला मरीज़ ही थी। बच्‍चे ने महिला को पूछा, ''आप यहां कब से हैं\

महिला ने बताया कि वह यहां दो सप्‍ताह से है। इस पर बच्‍चे ने पूछा, ''तुम्‍हारा बच्‍चा कहां है\''

महिला ने कहा कि उसका कोई बच्‍चा नहीं है।

इस पर बच्‍चा तुरन्‍त बोला, ''आप बहुत सुस्‍त हैं। मेरी मां कल अस्‍पताल आई थीं और आज उसके पास बच्‍चा है''।

(टाइम्‍स आफ इण्डिया में पढ़ा था)

Tuesday Teaser KEJRIWAL IN HIS TRUE COLOURS

Tuesday Teaser

KEJRIWAL IN HIS TRUE COLOURS

As the date of polling for Delhi assembly elections is drawing near, the bubble of Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leader Arvind Kejriwal seems to be getting burst.

Kejriwal rose on the shoulders of the great social and anti-corruption activist Anna Hazare. He basked in the glory of Anna's anti-corruption campaign for Lokpal. It is he and some of his cronies who are responsible for turning the massive people's movement for Lokpal ultimately flounder.  

It is Arvind Kejriwal and his friends who, initially, smelt foul if politicians jumped on the Anna bandwagon to support the movement. They thought it will pollute it. It was he who had made certain political leaders leave the stage when they came to express their solidarity with the cause. He then claimed that he wanted to keep the campaign non-political.  But soon he staged a smart about-turn.  He decided to launch a political outfit of his own. It was this decision of his which ultimately sounded the death-knell of the movement that had sparked off a spontaneous and unprecedented support for the Anna campaign for which people of their own free will thronged in support; there was no leader to exhort them to do so. Finally, many like Mrs. Kiran Bedi deserted Kejriwal's boat because they smelt political opportunism in him.

Waterloo

The Anna movement met its waterloo when Kejriwal and party announced that they will campaign against the Congress and those against the Lokpal during assembly elections in four States of UP, Punjab, Uttarakhand, Goa and Manipur. But, for unexplained reasons, they failed to turn up in those States. That cost the Anna movement credibility, primarily because of him.

When Kejriwal launched the party, he was highly idealist and utopian. The party will not be headed by anyone; it will be the people who will guide its destiny, he said. It would be the people who will decide its course of politics. The money for the party too will come from the people, he declared.

He belied what he stated. A political organization without a leader is like a body without a head. Contrary to his declarations, he became its convener. How did it matter and placed it at a pedestal different than other parties. Every party has its own constitution. Parties like the BJP, Congress, Janata Dal, are headed by their president. Communist parties are headed by their general secretary. For all intents and purposes "convener" who is Arvind Kejriwal himself is the head of Aam Aadmi Party whatever may be his/her designation.

AAP no different

Programmes and policies of this AAP are being framed by Arvind Kejriwal and his group. Where is the aam aadmi in it? What is the difference between the process of evolution and formation of the programmes and policies of AAP and other political parties? Every political party claims its aims and objectives are those which reflect the hopes and aspirations of the people. So what is new in AAP?

Anna Hazare was against the conversion of his movement into a political body. He snapped all his ties and connections with Kejriwal and party. He announced that he will not campaign for AAP and also advised Kejriwal not to exploit his name to further his political ambitions. Deliberately, but indirectly, he did continue to use the Anna name during his electoral campaign. That is why Anna had ultimately to address a Press conference in which he made certain allegations against Kejriwal and AAP.

Congress B team

If Kejriwal thinks that he will dethrone Congress and crown himself with the office of the chief minister, he is not a realist and is living in a fool's paradise, day-dreaming. He is equally vain if he thinks that by jumping into the electoral arena in the Delhi assembly, he is harming Congress and its chief minister Mrs. Shiela Dixit against whom he is contesting. If not hundred percent, 80 percent votes he and his AAP receive will be the anti-Congress one. Thus where Congress was going to lose by a narrow margin of a few thousand, he is going to be instrumental in their win. Then, whom is Kejriwal helping?

Transparency where?

During the Anna movement and after formation of AAP, Kejriwal had been drumming up about transparency in his party. The `19 crores he has been able to collect for his party, including donations from abroad, is beyond comprehension. No political party or individual — not even renowned author Chetan Bhagat who floated a new political party and contested Parliament elections — can make such a boast because no new party in the past had been that lucky. If he wishes to make the people believe that the money he raised is through petty donations from the common people, he is befooling none else but his own self. Nobody is going to take him at his word, not even the aaam aadmi and people of his own party. Ms Mayawati has raised huge dumps of fortune and she too claimed that it was through small donations from people and party men.

To silence his critics, Kejriwal has said that if he was so enamelled of money he would not have quit his lucrative job. But his wife, his critics point out, is still there.

If Kejriwal and his AAP are so lucky to raise those huge dumps of money in their infancy in politics, it looks the trickle of donations may turn into an incessant drizzle once it wins some seats. What will happen, good god, if ever Kejriwal's AAP was voted into power in any State!                                         ***

The Sunday Sentiment NEEDED: THE ZEAL & SPIRIT TO BRING BACK BLACK MONEY FROM SWISS BANKS

 The Sunday Sentiment

NEEDED: THE ZEAL & SPIRIT TO BRING BACK BLACK MONEY FROM SWISS BANKS

There has, as yet, not been any concrete evidence to show how much money is stashed by Indians in Swiss and other foreign banks abroad. Even the Government of India doesn't — or doesn't wish to — come out with exact figures. According to Wikipedia the total exceeds US$1.4 trillion. The latest reports say that India has slipped to the 70^th position in deposits of huge amounts of illicit wealth by Indians in Swiss banks. The latest official data released by Switzerland's central bank shows  that the money they owed to Indian clients at the end of last year was 1.42 billion Swiss francs (about Rs. 9,000 crore). (http://www.ndtv.com/article/india/money-in-swiss-banks-india-slips-to-70th-position-uk-on-top-383065)

Illegal funds

Whatever their size and dimension these remain illegal funds earned, according to reports, through illegal means — drug trade, smuggling and other nefarious activities. Such money is also falling into the hands of terrorists to destabilize the country. Therefore, it is all the more necessary that it should be brought back home to extinguish the fires of want and hunger.

Where there is a will, there is a way. That is an old saying, and true also. And it is here our government has been found wanting. Despite its bold and brave claims, so far nothing concrete has been done. This has sent the tongues wagging that the government has a vested interest in letting this money remain in foreign banks because some of the direct beneficiaries of this government laxity have government and ruling party connections.

In recent years, countries like the US, Germany and France have managed to extract the information they wanted from Swiss banks after threatening to impose stiff penalties on them. On the other hand, the Indian government has been pleading helplessness on this very score. Now that Switzerland is committed to comply with international norms on sharing of information to protect each country’s tax laws, India should be able to get its hands on the hidden wealth of Indians.( http://newindianexpress.com/editorials/Bring-home-black-money-stashed-in-Swiss-banks/2013/10/17/article1839092.ece) As yet, so far, people do not know what has the present government done in this direction. Some prominent names have surfaced in recent years, but government continues to maintain a stoic silence. Laxity and prevarication is only providing fuel to the rumour mills.

 There is no gainsaying the fact that this crime of swindling of huge amounts of money to foreign countries could not have been possible without the overt or covert connivance of those in power.  They not only failed to nab and nail the culprits through diplomatic channels, but also to enact a stringent law to punish such violations. So far they have only paid a lip service to this crime against the nation.

Halfhearted approach

All attempts to track these illegal funds have only proved futile as these were half-hearted, insincere, lacked sense of purpose and a strong will. All that the government seems to be wanting was to appear to look to the people that it was doing something, while actually it was not. This apprehension is strengthened by the fact that the Indian government only attempted to seek information from the Swiss banks about the money and persons of Indian origin involved in a perfunctory manner and in return it only received retort from the Swiss Bankers' Association which said:. "India can't simply throw its telephone book at Switzerland", curtly said one of its officials, "and ask if any of these people have a bank account here". Obviously, the Indian government had not done its home work.

It is as much puerile to think that government is in the know of everything about Swiss Bank accounts as much it is that it is totally ignorant. The problem is that it does not want to offend those about whom it has information.  That is why it had all along been claiming that it could not disclose to the public the names which are known to it to "protect their honour".  This only shows how much clout the guilty enjoy in the corridors of power. These 'honourable' people are guilty of having violated the laws of the land and are liable for punishment for their 'criminal' acts and not protection of their honour at the hands of the government.   

The half-hearted approach of the government got manifest last year when BJP demanded that all members of both houses of Parliament, including ministers, declare to the respective Presiding Officers that they do not have an account in a Swiss (foreign) bank. While BJP MPs filed their individual declarations, Congress failed to reciprocate. Instead it was stated that no member of Parliament belonging to the Congress had any such account. But that does not satisfy the requirements of law because an individual is accountable only if he/she makes such a declaration individually.

Will & zeal needed

If a government has the zeal and the will it can do numerous things to achieve its objective. One of the steps — the right one expected to give out sure results — could be to enact a law requiring every citizen of the country, including the NRIs who have been granted dual citizenship, to append a declaration on oath with his/her annual income tax return declaring whether he/she has an account (with full details) in a foreign bank. If a citizen is found to have made a false declaration, law should provide for summary termination of his citizenship and the consequential benefits. A similar declaration should be made mandatory for every person wishing to contest an election to a panchayati raj or cooperative institution, municipal body, state legislative assembly, any of the two houses of Parliament, Vice-President and President of India at the time of filing of nomination papers. Individuals when appointed to a public office, including officers in the State and Central government, have to take an oath of allegiance to the Constitution of India. Alongside they should be made to swear by such affidavits regarding foreign accounts before taking office. A false declaration should not only render the election void and disqualify him from fighting a future election, the amount in his account should also be confiscated.

Such a declaration should also be made mandatory for a person seeking any facility from the government, like issue of a ration card, arms/driving licence, passport, sale/purchase of land, house or a vehicle. 

The Government could also direct persons who have visited Switzerland during the last 10 years to file an affidavit whether they have any account in Switzerland or any other country. If they have, they should be made to provide full details.    ***    

GIRISH KARNAD FOR 'RAM LEELA' CHEATING 'IDIOTS'

GIRISH KARNAD FOR 'RAM LEELA'  CHEATING 'IDIOTS'

India is home of a tribe of intellectuals who claim to be 'secular', liberal and fighters for protection of human rights. They are the people responsible for many a strife and unnecessary troubles in the country. To an extent, they are divisive in nature because on account of their stand many a times certain castes, groups and community get bold to entertain fissiparous tendencies. They fish in troubled waters and with their 'intellectually liberal and secular' sermons stoke fires of passions with their opinions. They shield themselves behind the freedom of opinion and expression guaranteed in the Constitution of India.

They are always on the side of the wrong – those who take the law into their hands, act against the interests of the nation (like terrorists and Naxalites) or injure the feelings of the majority community. They beat their chests for the freedom of opinion and expression of the likes of late M. F. Husain and others who paint Hindu deities in the nude, describe Lord Rama and Sita as brother and sister, etc. But instantly turn deaf, dumb and blind when it comes to the people like Salman Rushdie, Taslima Nasreen, writer of Da Vinci Code and others. They seemed to be on a holiday in some remotest corner of the world when terrorists struck at a massive rally addressed by BJP's prime ministerial candidate Narinder Modi at Patna killing about 8 people and injuring more than 80 people. They give us the impression as if Mr. Modi had no right to his opinion and freedom of expression and the innocent people who fell victim to terror had no right to their life. Further, the people had no right to hear any person they like in the kind of democracy we have in India.

When Bharat Ratna melody queen Lata Mangeshkar exercised her constitutional right to her opinion and express it by praising Mr. Narendra Modi, it was the Congress leaders who demanded that the award should be withdrawn from her. But these very illustrious tribe of 'intellectuals boasting of being secular and liberal' lost their tongue to criticize those leaders who wanted Ms Mangeshkar be denied her constitutional right.

It is in this series of hypocritical words and action that the renowned writer-director-actor Girish Karnad on November 15 described as "nonsensical" the controversy and protests surrounding Sanjay Leela Bhansali's film 'Ram-Leela'  "That is really most upsetting", he pontificated. "It is impossible to be creative if some idiot gets up and says 'I am sad'. Judiciary should also have some sense. The decision is nonsensical," he added. (http://www.indianexpress.com/news/controversy-over--ramleela--most-upsetting-girish-karnad/1195661/) Bhansali's film is facing the ire of several groups for allegedly hurting religious sentiments.

Mr. Karnad relives the saying that those who agree with me are wise and others are fools. That is why he calls those, including courts, who don't agree with him as "nonsensical" and advises judiciary to also "have some sense".

Everybody knows, even non-Hindus know (but perhaps Karnard doesn't) what the word "Ram Leela" stands for. Some of the film producers wish to trade in the sentiments of the people to fill their coffers. They earn dividends by deliberately raising controversies. It is just like serving wine in a bottle with the label "tomato ketchup". Will the liberals, like Karnad, support such a venture? Will our law permit it? The producer is guilty of cheating the viewers by naming his film "Ram Leela" which it is not.

This also raises the question. Instead of naming his film "Ram Leela", why did he not christen it as "Sanjay Bhansali Leela"?  It is said that the producer once claimed that Leela his mother's name. In that case, below the words "Ram Leela" the producer should have added the words that it is the "Leela of his mother" candidly. Would Karnad have no objection had he titled the film as "Girish Karnad Leela"?

Instead of taking his license with the religious sentiments of the majority community, would Mr. Karnad used the same words had Bhansali or, for that  matter, any other producer labeled his  "Leela" adding the name of some non-Hindu religious deities?

Some years ago, late M. F. Husain had painted some Hindi deities in the nude. The likes of Ms Arundhati Roy and her tribe – perhaps Karnad included – had stood solidly behind him for exercising his right to freedom of expression. I wrote in some newspapers and even sent a letter sent at her residence and posted my opinion on her Guest Book, challenging Ms Roy and others to publicly declare whether they would respect the same right of any other artists who painted their mother, sister or any other family member in the nude with the same gusto with which they support Husain? Unfortunately, none had been kind enough to say so publicly.

I would welcome Karnad to respond to my opinion!

No offence, no defence, just jest pure & simple On rape comment, CBI Director caught on the wrong foot

                  

No offence, no defence, just jest pure & simple

On rape comment, CBI Director caught on the wrong foot

Whether it was a slip of tongue or unintentional, CBI Director Ranjit Sinha seemed to have been found on the wrong foot when he stated: "If you can't prevent a rape, enjoy it". That comment may not be deliberate. It could be a slip of tongue even. Whatever it is, he has since apologized and the matter should end.

Not long ago, a cine actor had defined rape as an "accidental sex".

It is life. People will continue to see things in their own way and use different language to describe the same situations.

I am reminded of an incident a friend of mine narrated to me as a joke. And a joke is a joke. It should invite no offence, no protest.

He said that a woman who had charged a person with rape was being cross-examined by the defence lawyer in a court.  Putting a question to the woman, the defence lawyer asked, "Is it not a fact that after putting some resistance in the beginning, you submitted yourself to him?"

The village woman in a crude language retorted, "Vakil Sahb, tell me. If a person puts something sweet in your mouth forcibly, does it taste sour?"                                       ***

TODAY'S CARTOON

TODAY'S CARTOON 

Courtesy: MAIL TODAY  (November 13, 2013)

SUNDAY SENTIMENT Patna Hunkar Rally Modi braved terror & opponents' threat Saved Bihar and nation of a catastrophe

SUNDAY SENTIMENT

Patna Hunkar Rally

Modi braved terror & opponents' threat Saved Bihar and nation of a catastrophe

By Amba Charan Vashishth

Most counties, like USA and UK, have succeeded in eliminating terror from their soil. India with enormous resources of men and material at her command has failed to do so. Terror is a national problem eating into the vitals of this country. It is crying for a national resolution. But our politicians motivated not by considerations of national interest, but lured by narrow political and electoral considerations, do not wish to take a united stand against terror. They do not wish to commit political harakari because if they stop indulging in retailing in politics of opportunism, of 'secularism-communalism' they will, then, have to down their shutters.

Political parties in India, particularly those claiming to be ‘secular’, play the minority card to bloat their vote banks. Congress stands amply exposed on this score. Spurred by communal considerations of vote bank politics JD (U) too did not lag behind. This was amply demonstrated when Nitish Kumar’s JD (U) government in Bihar refused to take custody of the dreaded terrorist and Indian Mujahideen co-founder Yasin Bhatkal. That was the reason, according to press reports, why the National Inquiry Agency (NIA) had to be called in.

PUTTING HURDLES

There is no gainsaying the fact that only two main political parties, JD (U) and Congress, were feeling nervous of the BJP’s 27 September Hunkar Rally in Gandhii Maidan, Patna to be addressed by BJP's prime ministerial candidate and Gujarat chief minister Narendra Modi. Nitish government tried its best to put every obstacle to see that the rally did not materialize. First, it cancelled the permission for the Rally in the historic Gandhi Maidan taking the plea that the President of India would be in town on that day for a two-day visit and it would be difficult to provide adequate security because  Bihar police hands would be tied up with President’s security.  Refusing to be a pawn in this political controversy, President Pranab Mukherjee curtailed his visit to one day. Nitish government was then left with no other alternative but to acquiesce into granting permission for the rally.

It is the moral and legal duty of any government to provide security to both the political leaders addressing the rally and people joining it. The Union Home Minister Sushil Kumar Shinde is on record having claimed that his ministry had sent advance inputs about the threat to the rally. In spite of that, the terrorists could strike at the Patna railway station and in and around the Gandhi Maidan itself. There are reports that although the Bihar government claimed to have sanitized the area five times, yet bombs exploded inside the venue of the rally and a few feet from the dais from where the national BJP leaders addressed the meeting.

GOVT CASUAL & CALLOUS

Eulogizing the BJP leaders of ""for their remarkable presence of mind, equanimity and far-sightedness in underplaying the bomb blasts, in his signed editorial in November 2013 issue of the SOUTH ASIA POLITICS  the Editor Dr. Subhash C. Kashyap lamented that "from media reports it is obvious that ….basic security drill was not followed, intelligence inputs were ignored, necessary security measures were not taken, there were no metal detectors or CCTVs installed, anti-bomb squads were missing, and on the whole, the approach seemed to be casual, callous and negligent." Bombs exploded while the rally was on.

Bihar government, for unexplained reasons, failed to discharge its constitutional obligation to provide security to those attending the rally. It was surprising that although 8 innocent people had died and more than 100 persons had been injured, some seriously, yet the Bihar government had no regret and on the contrary, was found finding fault with Mr. Narendra Modi and organizers for the tragedy.

JD (U) government claimed that Mr. Modi was informed of the blasts when he alighted at Patna airport and advised not to proceed to the rally site. Brushing aside the advice and the threat Mr. Modi forged ahead for the rally. So did the other leaders — BJP national President Rajnath Singh, Leader of Opposition in Rajya Sabha Arun Jaitley and other national and State BJP leaders.

ROSE TO THE OCCASION

Mr. Modi rose to the occasion and displayed a rare sense of courage and foresightedness in not abandoning the rally. He knew that his doing so would trigger instant panic and stampede resulting in possible death of not less than a few thousand from the crowd of more than five lakhs. That would also have painted Mr. Modi as a coward too keen for his own safety while  exposing lakhs of his supporters who had come from far and wide to an unfortunate orgy of death and destitution. The NIA charge-sheet against the persons accused, according to Press reports, states that their intention was to trigger a stampede killing thousands. Had the BJP leaders not been that prudent, they would have fallen in the trap laid by the terrorists and had only been instrument in terrorists realising their goal.

The speakers at the rally too did not give the slightest hint of anything being  amiss. They addressed the people as if nothing had happened. They trivialised bomb explosions as sound of cracker and tyre bursts which needed just to be ignored. In the process, they exposed their own life to great risk.

Five low intensity bombs exploded in the Gandhi maidan during the Hoonkar rally of Narendra Modi on October 27, four live bombs were recovered from the same venue later after end of the rally. In subsequent days, five more live bombs were found inside the maidan during search operation by Patna police and CRPF.

Everything else is self-evident, nothing more to elaborate.

PARLIAMENTARY DEMOCRACY IN INDIA NEEDS A PRIME MINISTER OF THE PEOPLE

PARLIAMENTARY DEMOCRACY IN INDIA NEEDS A PRIME MINISTER OF THE PEOPLE

Not a nominee of political dictators

By Amba Charan Vashishth

BJP has announced its prime ministerial candidate for the 2014 Lok Sabha elections. The ruling Congress continues to maintain the suspense as it toys with various options. 

It is a travesty of India's parliamentary democracy that after Mr. P. V. Narasimha Rao (1996) with the exception of NDA (1998-2004), the post of prime minister (PM) has been reduced to an accident of maneuvers and manipulations. For the first time in independent India's history the country is carrying the baggage of a prime minister for over nine years the party has foisted on the people.

The very fact that elections are held only after every five years on the expiry of the term of House of the People, i.e. the Lok Sabha (LS), or earlier on its dissolution, is a clear indication that in the letter and spirit of the Constitution and the tradition formation of a government at the Centre (or in States) depends upon the verdict of the people given out through the exercise of their right to franchise. Since we follow the Westminster model of parliamentary democracy, it clearly means that the person who is duly and democratically elected by the elected LS members as their leader is the Prime Minister of the country and should be one of the LS members. This had been the tradition since the dawn of parliamentary democracy in India till the United Front government of Mr. H. D. Deve Gowda in 1996. He was not a LS member but he maintained the tradition availed himself of the first opportunity to enter Lok Sabha after becoming PM.

There have been only two instances of exception to the rule and tradition – that of Mrs. Indira Gandhi and Mr. Inder Kumar Gujral. Mrs. Gandhi was a RS member when she succeeded Mr. Lal Bahadur Shastri in late January 1966 following his unfortunate death. In between the Election Commission, for reasons best known to it, did not hold by-election to Allahabad Mr. Shastri represented or any other constituency. She did contest the LS elections next year in 1967 and won.

Mr. Inder Kumar Gujral became United Front's PM after the incumbent Mr. Deve Gowda was eased out on Congress Party's insistence on whose ventilator support from outside the Government was breathing. Before he could think of finding a seat to contest for LS, he was dethroned.

Now it looks as if our great erudite framers of the Constitution failed to visualize that in about fifty years our political parties will turn so bankrupt of mass leaders that though they would like to nominate a person as prime minister yet dare not expose him to the people dreading the vagaries of an uncertain electoral climate. That is why our political parties, particularly those in power, have turned the Constitution into just a wax which can be moulded to give any shape and form to promote their political goals.

They now exploit the absence of any specific provision in the Constitution stipulating in so many unambiguous words that a prime minister shall always be a LS member. They quote Article 75 which provides: (1)" The Prime Minister shall be appointed by the President……", (2) that the "ministers shall hold office during the pleasure of the President" and (3) that the "Council of Ministers shall be collectively responsible to the House of the People" (LS)".  It would be too simplistic and naïve to construe the wording of this Article as if it gives the President dictatorial powers to "appoint" anybody as a PM who need not be an MP at all.

Another shelter they seek behind is the provision in Article 75(5) that a "Minister who for any period of six consecutive months is not a member of either House of Parliament shall, at the expiration of that period, cease to be a Minister". This, again, is an attempt at arm twisting of the Constitution to make it subserve a party's or individual's purpose. This provision was inserted, as the debates in the Constituent Assembly indicate, with the purpose just to utilize the services and talent as ministers in the government of technocrats and specialists in their own fields because they otherwise shy away from the arena of elections. This Article was not meant to induct into the council of ministers, through the back door, persons rejected by the people during elections.

If the intention of the Constitution makers had been to stipulate that a prime minister could be from either House of Parliament, they were free to add the words "Prime Minister" too alongside "Minister" in Article 75(5). To infer that a "Minister" includes the prime minister is stretching a misnomer too far without logic.  Whether a prime minister is considered as "first among equals" or "the moon among the stars", the fact remains that a prime minister is a prime minister and a minister is just a minister. Even our Constitution makes a clear-cut distinction between the two and puts the position of the prime minister superior: "The Prime Minister shall be appointed by the President and the other Ministers shall be appointed by the President on the advice of the Prime Minister". Further, a prime minister is the leader of the majority party elected by its members; ministers are just MPs hand-picked by the prime minister or the party bosses. Therefore, trying to read prime minister in the word "Minister" is nothing short of denying the reality of the day.

There is an unambiguous distinction between a member of Rajya Sabha and that of Lok Sabha. The former is indirectly elected; the latter democratically elected directly by the people through the exercise of their right to franchise. The former has a tenure of six years, the latter's – and that of the council of ministers, even of those who are RS members – is only five years. After every five years, the latter has to go to the people for a fresh bout of elections; the latter has just to seek another round of maneuvers and manipulations of favour from the party bosses.

Further, if the intention of the Constitution had been that a prime minister need not necessarily be a LS member but could also be a RS member, then why is it that the life of the Council of Ministers coincides with that of the tenure of LS and not with that of RS?

It is customary for the incumbent prime minister to resign following the declaration of LS election results even if the party in power has won another mandate to rule the country. This is done because tenure of the Prime Minister and his Council of Ministers is coterminous with that of LS. They have to take oath as MPs afresh. If it is not mandatory that a prime minister should be a LS member, in that case if his party is voted to power again the PM need not resign at all because he continues to be RS member for which he has not to take a fresh oath. He needs just to get himself elected again as leader and reconstitute his ministry.

If PM is not a LS member, how can he and his "Council of Ministers be "collectively responsible" to the LS (Article 75(3)? If one is not a shareholder or stakeholder of a company, how can one be a director or CEO of that company and responsible to it?

In the alternative, one could go on stretching the argument to any length. No Article of the Constitution makes it mandatory that a prime minister must compulsorily be a member of either House of Parliament. As per Article 75(1) he is just "appointed by the President"; it doesn't say he must be an MP at all. While the Constitution stipulates as to who can and who cannot be a member of Parliament, no such condition has been prescribed for a person to be "appointed" as prime minister for six months without being a member of either House of Parliament {Article 75(5)). In that case a person needs only to manipulate to get himself "appointed" as the prime minister and command a majority in the LS to which he as head of the Council of Ministers "is collectively responsible" {Article 75(3)}.

Further, a prime minister could continue indefinitely, with a one or two day's break, to hold his office without being a member of the either House. In that case, a prime minister can resign a day before completion of his six months period without being a member of either House. The President, as per the tradition, will ask him to continue in office till alternative arrangements are made. After two days he can again get himself elected as leader and lay claim to majority in Parliament and seek to be invited to form government again. This exercise he can repeat a number of times and complete his tenure of five years as prime minister without being a member of either House of Parliament and without infringing a single word of the Constitution.  

Now that elections to the Lok Sabha are just about six months away, it is time all those eyeing the post of prime minister after elections respect both the letter and spirit of the Constitution "We, the people of India" gave unto ourselves." We need to make democracy truly a government of the people, by the people and for the people of India.

The writer is a Delhi based political analyst.

(Published in the SOUTH ASIA POLITICS November 2013 issue.