Sunday Sentiment 'SECULAR-LIBERALS' ARE FASCIST HYPOCRITES

Sunday Sentiment

'SECULAR-LIBERALS' ARE FASCIST HYPOCRITES

Whatever may be the general impression, yet the fact remains that the tribe of self-acclaimed 'secular-liberal' intelligentsia are blatantly partial, one-sided self-righteous fascists who have no respect for the other view and other people's feelings and sentiments.

To quote just a few recent instances. Nobel laureate and Bharat Ratna Amaratya Sen is one.  In July this year in an interview with NDTV he declared: “As an Indian citizen I don’t want Modi as my PM... He has not done enough to make minorities feel safe,” he said. As a citizen he has his right to his opinion and to express it. But he must understand that it is not an individual, however high, who chooses a prime minister. It is the people who select and elect one. No individual has a right to veto people's choice. If he were a democrat in India, he may have his opinion or preference, but he has to respect the people's will and has no right to reject the people's choice. He has to accept it.

Another characteristic of theirs is their refusal to correct their facts and opinion. Amaratya Sen should check his facts and will be startled to know that the Sacchar Committee appointed by the 'secular' UPA government of Dr. Manmohan Singh had reported that the lot of Muslims in Gujarat is much better than that in many of the States ruled by 'secular' parties, even in Sen's home State of West Bengal which had been under 'secular' left rule for about 35 years. This gives a lie to his averment that Modi has "not done enough for the minorities".

Further, Sen declares that Modi lacks the "secular credentials".  Do the likes of Samajwadi Party supremo Mulayam Singh Yadav and Chief Minister Akhilesh Yadav have "secular credentials" where during the last over one year numerous communal riots have taken place and minorities had been the target? Are minorities safe there? Same was true about numerous communal riots under the 'secular' regime of just ousted Rajasthan Congress Chief Minister Gehlot or in 'secular' regime in Maharashtra?

Similarly, in 2008 writing in THE HINDUSTAN TIMES another 'secular-liberal' CPM leader Sitaram Yechury, stated: “Advani’s willingness to be PM poses a serious challenge to the future of our democracy”. Communist ideology has a tinge of fascism because there is no place for the other view in communist regimes. Otherwise, the veteran parliamentarian should have known that in a democracy, like India, every individual has an unquestioned right to express his "willingness to be PM" and that in no way "poses a serious challenge to the future of our democracy" because a prime minister is elected by the people in the sense that his party or alliance gets a majority in parliament. Can a democrat, in the real sense, raise an objection if the people of the country give a majority to the party of a person who is willing to be prime minister?  Can that pose "a serious challenge to the future of our democracy"?

Again, the same 'secular-liberal' Amartya Sen came out with a strange logic in his verdict on December 18 when he said "1984 riots are not like post-Godhra violence". From his opinion it looks as if the 1984 anti-Sikh riots were 'secular' and post-Godhra Gujarat riots 'communal' and, therefore, condemnable. His prejudiced mind and opinion gets exposed when he condemns post-Godhra riots and not the Godhra carnage in which 59 Hindus were burnt alive.

He dismissed "the fact that those responsible for the 1984 riots had not been brought to judgement" by describing it as "absolute shame" but just shied away from condemning the fact. He sought to differentiate between the 1984 anti-Sikh riots and those in Gujarat "that occurred…under the watch of Mr. Modi". Sen should know that the 1984 riots took place under the "watch" of the then Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi and that too just in Delhi and other Congress-ruled States and nowhere else. Sen declares innocent and, therefore, 'secular' the same Rajiv Gandhi's family members, his wife Sonia Gadhi and son Rahul,  saying they "were not responsible for the anti-Sikh riots".  His partial bent of mind gets exposed when he overlooks the fact that Rajiv Gandhi had justified the anti-Sikh pogrom saying when a big tree falls, the earth below was bound to shake. Sen allows the Gandhi family the freedom to seek votes on the Nehru-Gandhi legacy and their role in freedom struggle but not the blame for what wrong they did.

Sen also gloats over the fact that numerous cases relating to Gujarat riots have been "brought to judgement" and many high and low punished.

When Bharat Ratna melody queen Lata Mangeshkar exercised, like Amaratya Sen, 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 this 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 actions 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.   Bhansali's film is facing the ire of several groups for allegedly hurting religious sentiments.

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?  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 chose to christen it as "Sanjay Bhansali Leela"?  It is said that the producer once claimed that Leela was 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"?

Recently, a TV serial on the works of exiled Bangladeshi writer Taslima Nasreen was banned following protests by Muslim fundamentalists. The 'secular-liberals' like Sen, Karnad, and others went deaf and dumb on Taslima's right to freedom of expression.

The stories of hypocrisy, partiality and lack of fairness of these self-styled 'secular-liberal' fascists are unending.                                                    ***

SECTION 377 CONTROVERSY Animals Obey Laws of Nature, Humans Not

SECTION 377 CONTROVERSY

Animals Obey Laws of Nature, Humans Defy  

It is a great travesty of reality that man, the social animal, takes pride in violating the laws of nature which animals religiously adhere to. He is paying a heavy prices for exercising this license in various forms — erratic weather conditions and fury, rising global temperatures, melting glaciers, rising sea water level, decreasing forest and green cover together with flora and fauna, havoc causes by floods and the like.

Sex may be the animal instinct yet it is the animal which has never transgressed the contours set by nature. Sex by itself is not enjoyable except with mutual consent. An animal does indulge in natural sex but only with the partner's acquiescence. No animal sex is possible without the nod of the other party and, therefore, rape is something impossible in animal kingdom. Sexual assault has thus become the exclusive domain of mankind. An animal never indulges in unnatural sex. But it is only the human beings some of whom thrive and pride in unnatural sex.

The law of nature prevails even in the realm where law of the jungle is supreme. No police force is there to enforce this law. Every animal by nature — and not by the rod of law — abides by the diktats of nature. It does not indulge in what is against the commandment of Mother Nature. In fact, acting against the spirit of nature is not in the blood of animals. A loin cannot behave like a sheep and vice versa. A jackal may be cunning but it is its nature, not against the law of nature.

During one of my visits to Nandan Kanan, the famous natural forest in Odisha, the forest officer in charge told me that as against the general impression, it is the lioness which hunts its prey. After killing she offers it to the lion to eat it first. It is only after the lion has his belly full that he leaves it for the lioness. After that comes the turn of the pubs, there too the male eats to his heart full first and then the female. This is the law of nature. Nobody has taught it. But can man change it? Perhaps, tomorrow, some animal rights activists may crusade against this gender bias among the royal family of the king of jungle.

At the same time, while an animal may be tamed into obeying man yet it cannot indulge in unnatural sex. But human being is an exception; an urge for sex against the law of nature can get ignited in him/her.

Hypocrisy is a characteristic of human nature, not of animals. That is why on the one hand, we cry hoarse for maintaining ecological balance and environment by not doing anything against nature and, on the other, in the matter of sex, sky is the limit for outrage. We are ready to tear apart the axioms of nature. Sex urges of man have started transgressing the limits of nature and he is seeking pleasure in unnatural things.

Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code provides for punishment for sex "against the order of nature with any man, woman or animal".  Those in favour of gay sex rights are demanding the repeal of Section 377 altogether. In that case, having sex with animal too would be legal. Would humanity degrade to that extent in the name of modernity and human rights?

SUNDAY SENTIMENT AAP trying to wriggle out of its electoral promises by not forming govt TRYING TO PUT CART BEFORE THE HORSE

SUNDAY SENTIMENT

AAP trying to wriggle out of its electoral promises by not forming govt

TRYING TO PUT CART BEFORE THE HORSE

The cat is out. As the new day rises it is now becoming increasingly clear that Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leader Arvind Kejriwal is trying to get out of his responsibility to form a government in Delhi.

BJP has won 32 seats including one by its ally Akali Dal. It is short of at least 4 MLAs to form a government and no other political group — the Congress and AAP) is forthcoming to support it. Therefore, even though BJP emerged as the single largest party after Delhi assembly elections, yet it lacks the requisite numbers for a stable government.

PUTTING CART BEFORE THE HORSE

It was, therefore, but natural that the Delhi Lt. Governor should call the next single party which has the numbers to cobble up a government. He called the AAP leader Arvind Kejriwal for consultation on government formation. In the meantime, Congress wrote to the Lt. Governor that it would extend 'unconditional' support to AAP to form a stable government. With Congress support of 8 MLAs and two others, the AAP support in the assembly swells to 38 to give a stable government. But Mr. Kejriwal sought a 10-day time to decide on government formation.

But Mr. Kejriwal tried to put the cart before the horse by writing both to Congress and BJP seeking their support on 18 points, many of which were common and within the competence of the State government. Even BJP had said that it will extend constructive support to facilitate AAP government fulfill its election promises to the people.  

So far the history had been that a party with largest numbers sought the support of other smaller parties/groups by forming a post-election alliance or seeking support from outside. It was not the largest party which forced conditions for seeking their support but the smaller groups approached which haggled for more and more pound of flesh. This happened during the NDA rule from 1998-2004 and the UPA-I and UPA-II after 2004. In 1996 the then President invited the single largest party, BJP led by Mr. Atal Bihari Vajpayee to form a government. He did form one but failed to hoggle support from other political parties and groups with the result that he had to resign just after 13 days of the formation of government. It was the price for support from other parties that BJP from 1998-2004 period had to put its important planks of Ram Mandir, repeal of Article 370 and Common Civil Code for all in the cold storage. In the instant case, AAP is seeking support of other parties on its own terms.

Even otherwise, there are many issues in the election manifesto of AAP — 700 litres of water free to every consumer, reduction in the electricity rates, regularization of illegal colonies, creation of Lokpal or Lokayukta, Statehood for Delhi, protection of women — which no political party, be it Congress or BJP, can afford to put hurdles in AAP government implementing these promises. If any party does, it will cost very dearly to it in the eyes of the people.

AAP is making a funny demand. Both BJP and Congress should give, in writing, their support on all the 18 points raised by it. First, both Congress and BJP are going vocal on the electronic channels and in the media about their stand on these issues. They could be confronted any time if they changed stand by seeking the footage of their statements made to the media and electronic channels. Supposing if they give in writing too, are political agreements and statements enforceable through the courts?

The matter does not end with Congress and BJP elaborating their stand on these 18 points in writing. AAP says that after they receive commitment from these parties, they would go to the people to seek their opinion whether they should — or should not — form a government in the given circumstances. The people in whatever number have given their mandate to AAP, even if it falls short of the clear majority, to form a government. Moreover, what is the methodology AAP will exercise to gauge the real mood of the party on government formation? These are all diversionary tactics.

Slowly and steadily, AAP is emerging as a party that is trying to wriggle out of its commitment made to the people by adopting dilly-dallying tactics not to form a government.                                                                                                    ***

TOPICAL ISSUE Vanishing distinction between gay sex and animal sex

TOPICAL ISSUE

Vanishing distinction between gay sex and animal sex

Man, it is said, is a social animal. It is also said that sex is an animal instinct and a natural one too. Even animals do not go beyond the dictates of nature. Mutual consent is a precondition in consummation of a marriage and even among animals. Sex between two individuals of the opposite sex is the law of nature. Animals religiously abide by the law of nature; it is only human being who infringes it.

The reaction of different sections of society and political parties on the Supreme Court (SC) of India upholding the constitutional validity of the section 377 ("Whoever voluntarily has carnal intercourse against the order of nature with any man, woman or animal, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment of either description for term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.") of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) borders on our liberal, permissive bent of mind influenced by western thought and culture. There is hardly any reason for so much hue and cry.

Section 377 was inserted in the IPC because the unnatural sex between individuals of the same sex, even if with consent, was considered to be a crime against the "cultural and religious values of the country". It was introduced just in keeping with the cultural and religious ethos of the Indian society.

While legalizing the gay marriage upsetting the provisions of Section 377, the Delhi High Court had erred in quoting to the speech of the then Prime Minister Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru in the Constituent Assembly in which he had said that equality before the law meant inclusiveness. First, Pandit Nehru is not a member of judiciary whose opinion should be quoted and followed. Political views need not overwhelm judicial judgement. Two, which law — social, religious or cultural — gives sanction to such an unnatural act? Third, there could be no "equality before the law" for the one who violates the law of the land and society and the one who respects it.

On the analogy of this logic, sex between a prostitute and her client in a kotha is as much with mutual consent as much in a hotel or some other place. Both involve some kind and element of consideration. Then how is prostitution a crime and other not? Is it not hypocrisy to call one a prostitute and the other a 'sex worker'?

Our courts have given consent to live-in relationship. Even this relationship is not free from the element of consideration whatever it may be.

In fact, our legal system and law of the land amount, in some form or the other, to an infringement or curtailment of human rights. If we give license to gay rights, one must, then, have the uninhibited license to freedom of speech, thought, action and reaction. But which society or government can afford to allow this unlimited freedom?

Gay rights can in no way be called human rights because gay sex transcends the contours of humanity to delve into the realm of animals. How can one distinguish between the sex rights of gays and those of animals?

Section 377 also prohibits "carnal intercourse against the order of nature with any man, woman or animal". Would the government extend the freedom to have sex with animals if a person feels natural or unnatural sex with human beings is, to him or her, not satisfying and does not lead to ultimate bliss?

It is for political and electoral considerations that our political class can go to any extent. Gay rights are one. It is an instance where the will of a miniscule minority is going to overrule the majority opinion.

Secularism does not mean irreligiosity. It is on the unanimous petition of all the faiths in the country that the SC has upheld the constitutional validity of Section 377 of IPC on the grounds of "cultural and religious values of the country". Nothing can be secularly more sacrosanct than this instance. If our government, political parties and society is secular in the real sense of the term, it should stand by the SC verdict.

                                                 ***

LESSONS FROM 2010 KARNATAKA DEFECTION DRAMA

LESSONS FROM

 2010 KARNATAKA DEFECTION DRAMA

By Amba Charan Vashishth

Three years ago the then BJP government of Mr. B. S. Yeddyurappa was rocked by defection by 16 MLAs. The rebels brought the fact of withdrawal of support to the government to the notice of the Governor H. R. Bhardwaj.

Realising that he cannot expect Mr. Bhardwaj to be "friend and guide" of his government, Mr. Yedyurappa voluntarily fixed the date for trial of strength in the house at the earliest opportunity. A day before the House was to vote on the confidence motion Mr. Bhardwaj went out of his way to write a letter to the Assembly Speaker: “In the interest of a free and fair floor test, it is required that no attempt should be made to change the character/configuration of the House after the House has been summoned for this purpose.” In a veiled warning to the Speaker he went out: “Any attempt to change the character/configuration of the House in the run up to the vote of confidence motion “is bound to vitiate the proceedings” and further that any result “obtained by such vitiated proceedings will not be acceptable”.  Clearly, Mr. Bhardwaj wanted the government to fall under the weight of defections and Speaker take action against defectors only after that.

Till the MLAs gave to the governor their letter of withdrawal of support, the Yeddyurappa government was in majority. Doubts arose with the change of loyalty by MLAs. So what is the first — the act of defection? The government losing or not losing the majority in the house is secondary and consequential. Therefore, in all fairness the first thing should come first and addressed first. The moment the governor took cognizance of the act of defection and notified the same to the chief minister to seek a vote of confidence on the floor of the house, he threw the ball in speaker's court. The Supreme Court has repeatedly stressed that the test of majority of any government is on the floor of the house and nowhere else. It, therefore, becomes incumbent on the part of the Speaker to first determine and decide whether it is an act of split in the ruling party or an act of defection punishable with disqualification from the house as per the provisions of what now is known as the Anti-defection law. It is only after this issue is settled that everything else can follow.

The intention of law and objective of a governor is to ensure stability and continuity of a government and not to destabilize it. While it is all right if a government falls on the floor of the house because of a split in the ruling party but, at the same time, it is equally incumbent on the part of a speaker and a governor to frustrate all attempts at destabilizing a government with the back stab of defections as per the spirit of the anti-defection law. The law has been enacted with the noble objective of defeating the designs of defectors and not be aid and abet their crime. We need to distinguish between a split and defection — first, a normal process and the other, a curse in a parliamentary democracy.

In the instant case the Karnataka High Court upheld the disqualification of the 16 MLAs but later, on appeal, the Supreme Court set aside the Karnataka Speaker's action of disqualifying them  on the eve of the floor test as "illegal" as the Speaker's action on the chief minister's complaint failed to adhere to principles of natural justice and constitutional provisions.

Authoring the twin judgments, Justice Kabir said the MLAs were disqualified without giving them adequate opportunity to defend themselves as Yeddyurappa's affidavit setting out charges against them was served minutes before the hearing before the Speaker.

Criticising the Speaker for not respecting the cardinal principles for a fair trial, the bench said, "Extraneous consideration is writ large in the face of the Speaker's order disqualifying the MLAs. In the result, we dismiss Yeddyurappa's complaint against the MLAs, set aside the Speaker's order as well as the Karnataka High Court order upholding disqualification of the MLAs."

The bench said a Speaker must rise above party affiliations while adjudicating applications seeking disqualification of MLAs. The HC had upheld the Speaker's order disqualifying MLAs and said, "We are of the view that the impugned order passed by the Speaker (on October 29, 2010) is not in violation of constitutional mandate nor is there any infirmity based on malafides or perversity." (http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2011-05-14/india/29542872_1_m-p-narendraswamy-karnataka-mlas-order-disqualifying)

Setting aside of the speaker's order "for not adhering to te principle of natural justice" was understandable but how could Mr. Yeddyurappa's complaint against MLAs be "dismissed" as their act under the law was sheer defection and nothing else as they lacked to command the support of one-third of the membership of BJP legislature party.

Despite the court decision, the cradle of Yeddyurappa government could not be shaken.  

Regrettably, during the last 28 years since the Anti-defection law was enacted in 1985, our government and the presiding officers in the State assemblies and Central legislatures have failed to iron out a uniform code that should be adopted in such situations like the one that erupted in Karnataka. Some speakers have taken instant and summary decisions while others have dragged the consideration of action against recalcitrant legislators for years together. Sometimes the motions have lapsed with the tenure of the legislature coming to an end.

On technical grounds of non-adherence to the "principles of natural justice" the Supreme Court may be right in setting aside the Speaker's order yet it does not absolve the defectors of the charge committed by them.

What amounts to a split in a party and what constitutes the abominable act of defection is clearly spelt out in the statute. A split is caused when at least one-third of the party's membership part company on any excuse or ground. Similarly defection takes place when less than one-third of the members commit murder — and in this case, of parliamentary democracy — which cannot be condoned for any noble or ignoble cause whatsoever under any circumstances. All that a speaker has to consider is whether it is a split or defection as defined in the law. Explanation of the individual or a group is of no consequence in such a situation.

Unfortunately, during the last 61 years of the functioning of parliamentary democracy in the country, we have failed to evolve a healthy and ethical tradition to be followed whenever the majority of an incumbent government is challenged. Different governors have adopted different yardsticks. Some have demanded the chief minister to go in for a vote of confidence in the house within 48 hours and others as long as three weeks.

In all fairness, to meet the ends of justice in keeping with the spirit of the Anti-defection law, whenever a split or defection takes place the Speaker should take a decision pretty soon and any vote of confidence should be taken up only after that. First allowing the recalcitrant defectors to bring down a government and then taking action against them is just putting horse before the cart.                                                                           ***

This article was published in SOUTH ASIA POLITICS monthly in its December 2013 issue.

SUNDAY SENTIMENT Tejpals and Gangulys spurt Crisis of Faith & Confidence

SUNDAY SENTIMENT

Tejpals and Gangulys spurt

Crisis of Faith & Confidence

Yesterday, a friend narrated that when he reached home he found he wife escorting our daughter home from school. My daughter after her school went to our friend's home everyday, he told, and my wife went to fetch her from his home at her leisure. When my friend asked his wife why had she gone to school to bring the daughter straight from school, she replied, "It's no longer safe to have blind faith in anyone".

That is the reply which should raise an alarm in everybody's mind. The new environment had been created by people whom people trust — their close relations, friends and intimate acquaintance. They had punctured other's faith and trust in them.  Today, no woman, no girl and no child is safe even within family. There is a spurt in the instances of fathers, brothers, uncles, maternal uncles, other close blood relations and godly gurus behaving like beastly man-eaters on the prowl not sparing their innocent female relations from their wolfish sexual pounces.  Whatever may be the truth behind the Tarun Tejpal, Justice A. K. Ganguly or Asaram Bapu episodes, these have certainly shaken the faith and confidence of the people in their acquaintances be they their friends, relations or disciples. That such ugly incidents could happen with women who are of their daughters' age may be unthinkable yet true in the present times.

The very fact that such an allegation is made against such people in society who, otherwise, claim — or are expected — to be the custodians of morality and truth, is a matter for alarm. Tejpal made his name as a person who fearlessly exposed the misdeeds of high-ups in politics and government, though there are also allegations of his being partial in having singled out a certain political wing for his target. That such an allegation should even — and ever — be made against them is a matter of shame and sufficient to make them bow their heads in shame. On the contrary, they seem to be trying to appear brave and daring.  Tejpal was chatting and laughing, according to media reports, in the plane on his way to Goa where he was to be interrogated and, later arrested for the heinous charge by the police. So was Asaram Bapu's son Narain Sain when ultimately he was apprehended by police after having dodged police for over a month. He too is facing very shameful sexual charges like his father. When police was pushing him to a police van he was chivalrously waving to the crowd as if he had returned home after a great victory.

Tejpal is not remorseful of what he did or happened. Initially he did regret his sin and tried to present himself as a great moralist by quitting, as a penance, the editorship of Tehelka for six months. But now he is brandishing his innocence claiming that all happened with the girl's consent — the girl who was reportedly his daughter's age. Nothing can be  more sinful — if no crime in the eye of our law singed with western ideology and norms  — if a father were to claim that he committed the crime — and the sin — with his daughter's consent!

We do claim that our civilization has advanced in recent times. Is it really so? A century or  more people would not lock their houses. Today, not only homes, even the pocket is not safe. You keep something unattended and in a moment it disappears like an essential commodity from the market. People used to respect age and position. An elderly person received universal respect even from a stranger. Today, even parents have to beg for care and respect. Relationship has lost sanctity.

If a girl called any boy her brother, they became brother and sister in reality even if he had, before that, entertained a wish to marry her. A friend narrated that when he received a proposal for his son's marriage from a girl's parents, both he and his father refused because the girl in question had been addressing him her brother. Even the alien Moghul ruler Humayun protected the woman from his enemy's family who tied tied rakhi on his wrist.

A girl of the village was always treated like a daughter and sister with all the love and affection. Safety of the girl and woman was then considered to be the sacred duty of the villagers, young and old. But today nobody has faith in a person of his own village. In their eyes, all have turned sex-hungry sharks.

There was always a respectable distance between the teacher and the taught. The student gave his/her teacher the respect like that given to parents. Students felt more scared of their teachers than their parents. To maim their unruly children parents used to dread their wards by threatening to report their bad habits to their teacher. It had an instant impact. The children then fell in line. But not so today. Students have started taking teachers as their equals or, at the most, first among the equals, as we call the council of ministers. Teachers cannot scold their students if they did not behave. Teachers and students have entered into wedlock.

Actually, we seem to be led by the thought (of Shakespeare) that nothing is good or bad but thinking makes it so. Our permissive society is the mother of all our ills and woes .  A modern liberal magazine a few years back published an interview in which a young man brags boldly and proudly, "What if I wish to marry my sister?"

Under our law in matters of marriage sky is the limit; there are no restraints and taboos. There is an old saying: jab miaan beevee raazee to kya karegaa kaazee? If a man and woman consent, who can question — not even the husband and wife.

Our parents do have a duty to give us a nice bringing up — feed us well, fulfill our needs and demands, give us the education we want and provide us everything to realize our dreams. But when they grow up, they have no duty to look after their aged, sometime infirm parents. In marriage, the parents and family are a non-entity. Family traditions and taboos crumble before the stubborn attitude of children. But later, if the marriage turns sour, it is parents who come to their rescue and stand by them.

One's liberalism survives so long, so far as it does not pinch and prick one himself. Everybody wishes to see the other person's wife in the nude, but if somebody is caught peeping into one's wife's bed room one is furious enough to smash the head of that rascal.   

It is not that every person, young or old, has turned into a Tejpal, a Ganguly or Asaram. But the solitary instances have shaken the faith and confidence of people in every honest and truthful person around. Everyone has now turned a suspect — suspect of his character, honesty and integrity. A single individual turns hundreds and thousands of others as objects not worthy of their faith. Is it not the time for the society to ponder and do something?