President Obama: Yes, still you can!

“Yes, we can!” ; “No, you can’t!”

IT IS a reminder of pathos we face every day. People love to abandon a goal when they face adversity. No one would choose a sinking ship. No one wants to do friendship with a man, who is down with his luck. It doesn’t matter if it is of our own making or circumstances have heaped upon us. The difference between an ordinary man / woman and a statesman is the way we react.

A great statesman would never allow himself to be the victim of circumstances for too long. He would gather up his strengths and turn the direction of winds. President Obama is a victim of his own rhetoric, machinations of Zionists and Right Wingers of the United States politics. Today, Obama is a very lonely man. Though he is yet not shorn of all incumbent powers of a President but his admirers are abandoning his sinking ship in droves. Even his closest admirers are saying: “This president feels flat — and somehow not quite genuine.”

What is happening to this great hero of 21 century? Is he under a spell or caught in a deadly political slumber? What has happened to his electrifying magic?

Today, it brings an instant smirk on everyone’s face at the mention of Obama. His admirers are wondering and feel let down and betrayed.
Republicans, Neocons and recently burgeoned Tea Partiers, who have been going for his skin since he entered the White House from front door are rejoicing at his misfortunes.

They don’t hesitate even to call him dyed-in-the-wool Muslim. In fact, they have put him in the dock for their own sins. The corporations and big banks and vultures of the Wall Street are turning against him - the worst show of rank ingratitude. Today, they are cursing the same man, who had bailed them out with the hundreds of billions of tax payers’ money.

There is no love lost between Obama and the Muslim world either. They are disillusioned with his message of hope and promise of change. Once he had fascinated and endeared himself to the Arabs and Muslims in his inaugural address in Ankara and Cairo with his idea of new relationship. He talked about the permanent stop of illegal Israeli settlement on Palestinian lands. His abject failure to push Israel toward peace despite his ostensibly sincere efforts has brought frustration, cynicism and despair in Muslim masses. He is failing on Iraq and Afghanistan fronts.

He could have stepped back from the mess left behind by Bushes and Republicans to make a fresh start. He can still stand up and fight for the ideals and values he once championed. It is not too late and all is not lost. His ‘health-care reforms’ offering medical insurance to tens of millions of poor Americans has great promise for every optimists. He can ask for a revisit by his countrymen at his stimulus package that has saved the US economy from a total free fall.

Americans would we willing to reconsider that the mess on economic front is a result of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan also. Call back the American Forces from Middle East and save the tax-payers’ money. Oil would be available even from Iran if American Foreign Policy follows a more humanitarian and just approach.

Dear President, we believe your heart is in the right place. Show courage to follow your convictions. There is nothing to fear! A day of honest glory is better than the victory of next election!

Population stability to remain a pipedream for India

IT REFERS to reports that India has to push back target of achieving population-stability from earlier 2045 to now 2070 when total fertility rate (TFR) continues at 2.8 per cent. All existing or demanded cast-based and other ‘reserved’ categories should be replaced with an altogether new category of those with up to two children.

It is unfortunate that tax-payers’ hard-earned money is being swallowed by people, who instead of limiting family-expenses by birth-control, cry for more subsidies and facilities at government-expense. Instead of wasting money on family-planning programmes, government should rather save public-money by inducing disincentives for persons with large families. All government facilities and subsidies like reservation, medical, ration, government jobs or promotions should be withdrawn on having a third child in the family.

Women going for deliveries in private or government hospitals may be compulsorily sterilised on birth of second child. Only persons with up to two children should be allowed to contest elections. Even idea of snatching voting rights from persons with more than two children can be considered after some time of introducing above-mentioned steps.

Practical order by Delhi High Court judge

JUSTICE S N Dhingra of Delhi High Court, known for his several landmark and practical verdicts, added one more such verdict to his credit when he ordered an accused to inflict injuries to his body similar to ones on his wife’s body directing the SHO for video-graphing the complete process, when the accused argued that injuries on his wife’s body were self-inflicted to slap a false dowry-harassment case on him.

If judges become practical also apart from written law, fear-psychology will emerge in wrong-doers who in present system find it easy to bail out from courts through loopholes in legal system twisted in their favour by costly and known faces of legal community.

It is also important that justice is delivered timely and the victims as well as ordinary litigants are able to get decisions quickly to restore the faith of the people in the judicial system.

Remembering the three martyrs: Bhagat Singh, Rajguru, Sukhdev

MAHATMA GANDHi arrived in Karachi in the month of March, 1931 to participate in the annual Congress session. There was a surprise in store for him. He was not a welcome guest to a large section of vocal people assembled there.

They waved black flags and shouted slogan “ Gandhi Go back”. Unbelievable but true. The vociferous youth were members of the Navajawan Sabha, a forum of the Congress party itself. Lo and behold! The restive youth were led by no less a person than Subhash Bose, a giant among men.

The sad cause they espoused was : non-intervention of Gandhi Ji in getting the death sentence of Bhagat Singh, Rajguru and Sukhdev commuted. The three brave young men who challenged the British Raj and fought for the Independence of their motherland, Bharat, were hanged by the neck by the British Indian government on 23rd March 1931 in the Lahore central jail. Against all rules, the hanging was done in the evening at 7.33 P.M .Their bodies were hurriedly disposed off to avoid peoples’ ire The Three young men became Martyrs for the cause of their motherland.

The Indian nation was in a state of shock on their premature hanging, a day before the appointed date, and after a slipshod funeral on the banks of the Sutluj river at Hussainiwala near Ferozepore. It was a sacrilege and added insult to injury. Instead of condoling their deaths and comforting their families Ghandhi Ji, in his own wisdom, had chosen to proceed to Bombay to see off Lord Irwin, the outgoing Viceroy who had declined to commute the death sentence of the three young freedom fighters. There was general indignation. The black flag demonstration against Gandhi Ji was a manifestation of the pent up anger of the people.

Vedic Influence On Martyrs

An analytical study of the events in the Punjab in the first few decades of the twentieth century points to the influence of the Arya Samaj, founded by Swami Dayanand Saraswati in Bombay in 1875 and in Lahore in 1877. No section of the populace remained untouched by this great historical event, irrespective of the religious faith they subscribed to.

I need not emphasize the obvious historical fact that the foundation of the Arya Samaj in Lahore was laid in the garden of a Muslim gentleman, Doctor Rahim Khan. The Vedic discourses were attended by a cross section of the population comprising Hindus, Muslims and Sikhs. Reverting to our subject of the martyrs, it would be appropriate to mention that Bhagat Singh, a born Sikh, had his sacred thread ceremony, Yajnopavit, done as a child, notwithstanding his caste being a Sandhu Jat, who were not entitled to hold the ceremony.

The Arya Samaj, a reformist movement, had opened the portals of Vedic knowledge and sixteen sanskars to one and all. Bhagat Singh was a beneficiary of the Arya liberalisation, courtesy his grandfather, Arjan Singh and father, Kishen Singh. His one uncle was also hanged as a freedom fighter and another had to leave India for Iran to avoid persecution at the hands of the British overlords.

Sukhdeo, the second martyr, too was from Lyallpur like Bhagat Singh and the family did not remain untouched by the waves of reform powered by the Arya Samaj. Both Sukhdeo and Bhagat Singh had enrolled themselves for studies in the National College, Lahore that had a preponderance of professors, who had received their education and baptism in Nationalism at the Gurukul Kangri, Haridwar, founded by Swami Shraddhanand.

Bhagat Singh was a student of the DAV School, Lahore too for a period of time and the spirit of freedom was indeed instilled in him there too. Vedalankar, Vidyalankar – the two degrees of Gurukul Kangri were in evidence in surfeit among the teaching faculty of both the educational institutions that shaped the personality and instilled patriotism and moral courage among many a greedom fighter, including our national Martyrs, Bhagat Singh and Sukhdeo.

Rajguru’s was a different story. Born in a village near Pune in Maharashtra in a family that comprised Purohits and students of the Vedas, they were appropriately addressed as Rajguru. It was the pursuit of Vedic studies that brought Shivram Rajguru to Varanasi and later to Kanpur to meet revolutionaries of the eminence of Chandra Shekhar Azad.

Bhagat Singh too had made more than one visit to Kanpur with the common intent of freeing the motherland through other ways and means than the one espoused by Gandhi Ji. These young men had no faith and, of course, no patience to follow the path of Ahimsa for achieving independence. Of course, the three had become inseparable comrades-in-arms in the noble cause where bomb – making and killing of foreigners or their lackeys was not a taboo. The revolutionaries from Bengal were a great help and they always came forward unhesitatingly. Many a time Bhagat Singh, Sukhdev and Rajguru had to miss a meal, forego new clothes to save money for the revolutionary cause.

FIGHT TO FINISH

AIM – that indeed is the first principle of war. Our revolutionaries knew this and indeed practised this. They had Independence of India as their sole aim. They did not allow any other thing to come in between that could make them deviate from the AIM. Not even the girls. Delving deep into their contemporary history, a researcher will have no option but to pronounce that celibacy was their creed. They could not but cling to creed unflinchingly. They had great disdain for the institution of marriage until independence was achieved. A mere mention of marriage was to them like a red rag to a bull.

Bhagat Singh, Sukhdev and Rajguru had left their homes and near and dear ones for the cause celebre and would not le marriage derail their noble mission. Notwithstanding their young age, the period when the urge for sex is at its zenith, they never thought of women, leave aside craving for company. This character quality is indeed laudable. It is a beacon light for the youth of the twenty first century where sex is taken as a dynamo to energise all activities. The three Martyrs show us light at the end of the tunnel. Even a blind person will not miss it.

Bhagat Singh and Rajguru came from different ethnic backgrounds but their aim was the same. Bharat Mata Ki Jai – that was their creed and that was their slogan. They had unflinching faith in their mission and knew that they would achieve the AIM – living or dead. In any case, the Vedic philosophy of life had it ingrained in them that the soul never dies, it only changes the bodies. Believers in the Vedic Trinity know it well that Parmatma, jeevatma and Prakriti have separate existences, never born and never die. Why grieve for a change in outer appearance.

This Vedic belief buttressed their determination to fight to finish; fight to win. Bhagat Singh, Sukhdeo and Rajguru had seen the barbarity of the British police officers when they cane charged the Indian procession at the Lahore railway station where they had assembled to show black flag to the Simon Commission as it was anti-Indian.

An old and venerable leader like Lala Lajpat Rai, a doyen among Aryas and Congressmen alike, was not spared the baton. Saunders, a police officer, himself beat Lala Ji resulting in his premature demise within a month. It was then and there that Bhagat Singh, Sukhdeo and Rajguru had vowed to avenge the insult and injury to venerable Lala Lajpat Rai, a great disciple of Swami Dayanand Saraswati. Our revlutionaries fought to finish and achieved their aim.

Chandra Shekhar Azad too had joined them when they made a plan to kill the Superintendent of Police, Scott, who had ordered the lathi charge. He was present at the time of execution of the plan too. Well, under a mistaken identity, Saunders, who was equally guilty of humiliating Indians, was killed by their bullets near the police station in Lahore. It shook the British administration not only in Punjab but in the rest of India too.

Bhagat Singh and Batukeshwar Dutt had the moral and physical courage to bomb the Central Assembly in New Delhi on 8th April 1029 and fire a few shots from the visitors’ gallery when the Public Safety Act was being passed as an ordinance after it was voted out by the Indian members. Our Duo had not intended to kill or injure anyone. By a loud explosion and smoke they wished the deaf government in Delhi to heed to the voice of the Indian masses. Their mission was a success, notwithstanding the sentence of life imprisonment awarded to them. Of course, the case of shooting the police officer in Lahore and trial of the three freedom fighters in Lahore gave a new turn to events as mentioned heretofore.

MEMORIES OF MARTYRS

Bhagat Singh was in the hot seat after Sunders, the British police officer, who was shot dead by the revolutionaries to avenge the death of Punjab Kesari, Lala Lajpat Rai. Lahore was not a safe place for him and his comrades-in-arms. To avoid detection by the British government sleuths, Bhagat Singh had shorn off his long hair and beard. He dressed like a European, was accompanied by a lady, Durga bhabhi (wife of another revolutionary) with a babe in her arms to give the impression of a family leaving Lahore and travelled first class in the train.

They left Lahore undetected. A great escape indeed like that of Neta Ji subhash Chandra Bose later from Calcutta. Rajguru left Lahore like a labourer and Sukhdeo like a daily wage earner. Chandra Shekhar Azad was clever by half and even his friends were amazed how he got away from the prying eyes of the alert spies and police personnel. He too died a Martyr’s death later in Allahabad Alfred park fighting the police like a possessed man.

The three Martyrs were almost of the same age group.Great bonhomie prevailed among them. Notwithstanding heated discussions on political and economic matters they remained bosom friends till they breathed their last at the gallows with a broad grin and smile on their faces. Bhagat Singh was merely 23 years old and so was Sukhdev Thapar; Shivaram Rajguru was only 22 years old when they kissed the noose at the gallows and attained martyrdom.

Every year on 23rd March we remember them for their patriotism and courage. Many men and women go to their Samadhi – the place where they were cremated on the banks of the Sutluj river in Ferozepore to offer flowers. Their lives thrill our youth till today. No wonder more than half a dozen movies have been made and screened by Bollywood handing down their sacred memory to posterity so that the boys and girls of today are prepared to defend the hard won freedom and keep our Bharat mata free from shackles of all kinds.

Let us take a leaf out of the prison diary of Shaheed Bhagat Singh and share his thoughts. He wrote :
“ Social progress depends not upon the ennoblement of the few but on the enrichment of democracy ; universal brotherhood can be achieved only when there is an equality of opportunity – of opportunity in the social, political and individual life.”

Politicians suffering from foot-in mouth disease

IT SEEMS that Indian politicians are suffering from foot-in-mouth disease. They need to realize that using abusive remarks are embarrassing not only to their party, also government and countryman. Our political class has never had it so awful; they have made it worse for themselves. Surprisingly, their respective parties are giving exemption to them while these hasty comments are now being subjected to public question.

There comments reflect their mindset. It is all due to the deterioration of political principles in this country. How can they expect people to respect them when they are making irresponsible and immature comments? It is the media, which is exposing their wrongdoings. There are three things to aim at in public speaking: first, to get into your subject, then to get your subject into yourself, and lastly, to get your subject into the heart of your audience.

It is unfortunate that a senior BJP leader courted a major controversy by making abusive remarks against Samajwadi Party chief Mulayam Singh Yadav and RJD Lalu Prasad in a public meeting without any second thoughts and in the very next moment he decided to take his words back.

This is not a single instance, even during the parliament session our so called representatives of people are using unparliamentary language and later refuting the same when confronted by party and the media ? Or this is only way to abuse opposition leaders?

In my views, politician who indulges in irresponsible remarks should be punished. Before entering the parliament, our politician must attend ‘One Week Workshop for Effective Public Speaking’. It may be boring for them or they may find strange here politicians subjecting to the week long of Public Speaking training but Politicians in west always went through this kind of programme.

‘I have a right to speak’

The latest judgment of the Supreme Court of India quashing the criminal proceedings against actor Kushboo for her remarks on pre-marital sex will go down in legal history for the high values it protects.

“We can never be sure that the opinion we are endeavouring to stifle is a false opinion; and if we were sure, stifling it would be an evil still.”

John Stuart Mill





A century-and-a-half ago, John Stuart Mill voiced his concern for free speech. The Supreme Court in Kushboo’s case has endorsed these ideals. Ms Kushboo’s case is a tribute to one of the most sacrosanct rights of a democracy and to a vibrant dynamic society. The Supreme Court judgment reaffirms our faith in liberty: liberty of ideas; liberty of speech and expression; liberty of opinion; liberty of divergence; liberty of dissension, and liberty of circulation. Benjamin Franklin said: “When men differ in opinion, both sides ought equally to have the advantage of being heard by the public.” It gives a blow to the power-hungry, aggressive sections of society who claim to be the defenders of faith. Are we a closeted society where even the mention of the word sex raises eyebrows? Sex is not synonymous with obscenity or indecency. In Udeshi’s case in 1965, Justice Hidayatullah held: “Sex and obscenity are not always synonymous and it is wrong to classify sex as essentially obscene or even indecent or immoral.” Oddly enough, although many may think the judgment is an endorsement of deviant behaviour, it is not. Ms Kushboo did not advocate premarital sex or live in relationship. She only advocated that society should not be hypocritical and pretend that this does not happen. She advocated health safety measures where it did happen and voiced her concern.

What the Supreme Court of India’s latest judgment does uphold is:

1. Obscenity should be gauged with respect to contemporary community standards that reflect the sensibilities as well as the tolerance levels of an average reasonable person.

2. Although the survey on which Ms Kushboo was invited to comment, was not a literary work, it was published in a news magazine, thereby serving the purpose of communicating certain ideas and opinions on the above-mentioned subject. The survey touched numerous aspects relating to sexual habits of people in big cities.

3. The statements were not defamatory. Ms Kushboo’s statement published in India Today (in September 2005) is “a rather general endorsement of premarital sex and her remarks are not directed at any individual or even at a ‘company or an association or collection of persons’.” It is difficult to fathom how her views can be construed as an attack on the reputation of anyone in particular.

4. There was no intention on Ms Kushboo’s part to hurt anyone’s sentiments. There was neither any intent to cause harm to the reputation of people nor any actual harm done to their reputation.

5. The impugned complaints were made by complainants associated with a political party being PMK, which is active in the State of Tamil Nadu. This adds weight to the suggestion that complaints were made to gain undue political mileage.

6. There was no specific legal injury caused to any of the complainants since the appellant’s remarks were not directed at any individual or a readily identifiable group of people.

7. The complaints made were frivolous in nature since the comments did not injure anyone in particular.

8. The institution of the numerous complaints against Ms Kushboo was done in a malafide manner. In order to prevent the abuse of the criminal law machinery the complaints were quashed. In such cases, the proper course for magistrates is to use their statutory powers to direct an investigation into the allegations before taking cognizance of the offences alleged. It is not the task of the criminal law to punish individuals merely for expressing unpopular views. The threshold for placing reasonable restrictions on the “freedom of speech and expression” is indeed a very high one and there should be a presumption in favour of the accused in such cases. It is only when the complainants produce materials that support a prima facie case for a statutory offence that magistrates can proceed to take cognisance of the same.

9. One must be mindful that the initiation of a criminal trial is a process that carries an implicit degree of coercion and it should not be triggered by false and frivolous complaints, amounting to harassment and humiliation to the accused.

When we will turn the pages of history, this judgment of Justice B.S. Chauhan for the three Judge Bench will stand out for the high values it protects, which are integral to democracy and civil society.

Pre-marital sex not a statutory offence: SC

The Supreme Court has held that pre-marital sex is not a statutory offence and criminal law cannot punish individuals merely for expressing "unpopular views" justifying such acts as it would violate freedom of speech and expression."While it is true that the mainstream view in our society is that sexual contact should take place only between marital partners, there is no statutory offence that takes place when adults willingly engage in sexual relations outside the maritial setting, with the exception of 'adultery' as defined under Section 497 IPC," the apex court said in a judgement.A three judge bench of Chief Justice K G Balakrishna and justices Deepak Verma and B S Chauhan passed the judgement while quashing the criminal cases filed against popular south Indian actress Khushboo for her views on "pre-maritial sex"."It is not the task of the criminal law to punish individual merely for expressing unpopular views. The threshold for placing reasonable restrictions on the 'freedom of speech and expression' is indeed a very high one and there should be a presumption in favour of the accused in such cases."It is only when the complainants produce materials that support a prima facie case for statutory offence that magistrates can proceed to take cognizance of the same. We must be mindful that the initiation of a criminal trial is a process which carries an implicit degree of coercion and it should not be triggered by false and frivolous complaints amounting to harassment and humiliation to the accused," the court said.

Writing the judgement, Justice Chauhan said the complaints against the actress were instituted with a malafide by office bearers of PMK party and "in order to prevent the abuse of the criminal law machinery", the same has to be quashed.Asserting that Khushboo's statement was not obscene or harmed the reputation, the bench said, "the appellant's statement published in 'India Today' is a rather general endorsement of pre-marital sex and her remarks are not directed at any individual or event at a 'company' or an association or collection of persons."It said the statements did not invite any case for defamation as defined under Section 499 of IPC."The appellant's statement published in 'India Today' (in September 2005) is a rather general endorsement of pre-marital sex and her remarks are not directed at any individual or even at a company or an association or collection of person," the apex court observed.The apex court said that though Khushboo's remarks provoked a controversy, there must be a culture of open dialogue when it comes to societal attitudes on issues like pre-marital sex and live-in relationship.

"While there can be no doubt that in India, marriage is an important social institution. We must also keep our minds open to the fact that there are certain individuals or groups who do not hold the same view."To be sure, there are some indigenous groups within our society wherein sexual relations outside the marital setting are accepted as a normal occurrence. Even in the societal mainstream, there are a significant number of people who see nothing wrong in engaging in pre-marital sex," it said.The court observed that notions of social morality are inherently subjective and the criminal law cannot be used as means to unduly interfere with the domain of personal autonomy."Morality and criminality are not co-extensive. In the present case, the substance of the controversy does not really touch on whether pre-marital sex socially acceptable, instead the real issue of concern is the disproportionate response to the appellant's remarks," it said.

If the complainants had any grievances against the actress, they should have contested the same through the media and not by filing criminal complaints, the court said.Rejecting the argument that her views endorsing pre-marital sex misguided young people, Justice Chauhan said, "All that the appellant did was to urge the societal acceptance of the increasing instances of pre-marital sex when both partners are committed to each other. This cannot be construed as an open endorsement of sexual activities of all kinds."If it were to be considered so, the criminal law machinery would have to take on the unenforceable task of punishing all writers, journalists or other such persons for merely referring to any matter connected with sex in published materials."The court further said that for the sake of argument, even if it were to be assumed that the appellant's statements could encourage some people to engage in pre-marital sex, no legal injury has been shown since the latter is not an offence.