Here Charitable Individualism is the key!… nothing less.

POWER & TRUTH- NIETZSCHE!


movid:

Same citation – different consequences for the same person, in two different fora!

Originally posted on Movid's Weblog:

All things are subject to interpretation whichever interpretation prevails at a given time is a function of power and not truth.
Friedrich Nietzsche
If we ever get to understand this statement of Nietzsche, we would be able to understand the FUNCTION of the Courts.

Let us look at it this way, in the USA the Supreme Court judges are known by their party affiliations, which are well known. So if the bench consists of more Democrats than Republican, their judgments , observed from the point of view of their affiliations would, engender a DEMOCRATIC bent.

If we analyze their “reasoning”, it may sound extremely logical, reasonable and fair.  Are these logicality, reasonableness and fairness, which have been the bed rock of  their “reasoning”, merely the hidden TOOLS in the hands of the “POWERFUL”?

MAY BE NIETZSCHE is, was and will be RIGHT ALWAYS!

View original


Article 161 of the Constitution of India

161. Power of Governor to grant pardons, etc, and to suspend, remit or commute sentences in certain cases:

The Governor of a State shall have the power to grant pardons, reprieves, respites or remissions of punishment or to suspend, remit or commute the sentence of any person convicted of any offence against any law relating to a matter to which the executive power of the State extends.

It is no news that the conviction and the sentence were pronounced by the Sessions Judge in Bangalore on a sitting Chief Minister of one of the major states of the country. The sentence was to have been pronounced by the court earlier on a day which was not followed by a public holiday, however for reasons best known to the Honourable judge the verdict was postponed to a day which was to be followed by a court holiday! This may not have been the intention of the Sessions Judge to pronounce the judgment on a day prior to a court’s CLOSED HOLIDAY , but it has so happened – the effect of which was that an appeal could not be filed before the higher court competent to grant relief to the convict.

My question is very ELEMENTARY – if the offence was committed in the state of Tamil Nadu and the prosecution of the offence was followed by the Tamil Nadu police and their prosecutors, does the GOVERNOR OF KARNATAKA have the right to exercise the powers vested in him in terms of Article 161 of the Constitution of India?

Assuming that the Governor of Karnataka were to be vested with the powers of Art.161, does the Governor of Karnataka have the power to say that the conviction and sentence on the Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu relates to “any law relating to a matter to which the executive power of the State (Karnataka) extends”? I think not. It would be the power of the Governor of Tamil Nadu who would have the power – simply because, if the Governor of Tamil Nadu did not have the power to pardon/commute the sentence of  the convicts in the RAJIV GANDHI MURDER CASE, which was prosecuted by the CBI, merely because the TRIAL PROCEEDINGS were ordered to be conducted in a neighbouring state, the Karnataka state’s Governor would not be able to assume such powers which do not belong to his executive jurisdiction.

The reason for vesting with such powers was to grant the higher power of MERCY to the government  over JUSTICE, as MERCY is a higher jurisdiction, as there is every possibility of miscarriage of justice, “reasons of state”,  and also as a a protection against laws which are strictly imposed for legal reasons which may not be very reasonable, and may affect the very fabric of the state (cf. Nanavati’s case)! It is time we defined “reasons of state”!

I do not for a moment say that there has been a miscarriage of justice, neither am I authorized to say so, but when a person under oath of allegiance to the Constitution and the head of the Government were to be pushed to the predicament of having to face the verdict of her past action, the verdict could put THE COLLECTIVE WILL OF THE PEOPLE OF TAMIL NADU at loggerheads with THE SENTENCE of the VERDICT! Indeed in this case, the CM of Tamil Nadu has been sentenced to imprisonment for 4 years.

In the instant case, the WILL OF THE PEOPLE OF TAMIL NADU has been downgraded unceremoniously without an opportunity of exercising respite from /suspension of the sentence, by the Governor of the state, where the offences were committed. She was straight taken to the gaol!   When a constitutional provision is available for such rare occurrences, is it a must that the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code should be followed  so meticulously? I think not.

The head of the Government of the state of Tamil Nadu was unfortunately tried in a state, which had some serious outstanding issues like the Cauvery Water dispute, in which the then CM of TN (OPS being the present incumbent) had taken a very strident position against the state of Karnataka. That takes one to the next question – If the trial couldn’t have been fair in TN, would the trial in KA been IMPARTIAL, especially in the light of the fact that KA is ruled by a political party which has celebrated the conviction and sentence of the CM of TN?

After all, we should all remember that a Sessions Judge is under the control of the state government in which he is employed and does not have the IMMUNITIES which are enshrined & reserved in the Constitution for the High Court and Supreme Court Justices only!  If the Hon’ble Supreme Court was convinced that a FAIR TRIAL was not possible in the state of TN, based on a partisan petition filed by a rival politician, was the point as to whether the trial in KA would be IMPARTIAL, also considered? I wonder if the SC considered the point!

A democratically elected CM of a state needn’t have to be cornered on a Saturday with no option for approaching a higher judicial forum where the Justices are vested with immunities against the government of the day! Even Henry VIII, whose major profession was to accuse his queens of treachery, treason and infidelity and have them executed, sent for the Hangman from Calais, who was known to MERCIFULLY use a fine sword instead of an axe, when Anne Boleyn’s time came for her neck to be laid on the block! 

I would like to narrate an episode from the Bible to illustrate my point: the first king of Israel, SAUL was defeated by the Philistines and to circumvent the ignominy of being dragged in the mud and then being killed painfully and ignominiously, Saul planted a spear and leaned on it and he is supposed to have died (I Samuel Ch. 31) but from the account narrated by an Amalekite to David (who became the Second king of Israel), Saul was still alive and that the Amalekite was requested by the moribund Saul, to kill him and the Amalekite claimed to David that he indeed killed Saul and had brought Saul’s Crown and Saul’s bracelet for David. David asks him one withering question at 2 Samuel Ch.1 v. 14 : HOW WAST THOU NOT AFRAID TO STRETCH FORTH THINE HAND TO DESTROY THE LORD’S ANOINTED?

I don’t for a minute say that a Chief Minister of a State is an “anointed”  person, much less when NO POLITICAL CHIEF, (which means the prime minister or any of the Chief Ministers) has been included in Article 361 of the Constitution of India, which expressly provides immunity to the President of India and all Governors of the states against institution or continuation of criminal proceedings during the term of their office! Yet the Chief Minister who had won an election in her own name and might and had very recently mopped up 37 Members of Parliament seat out of the total 39 of the state of Tamil Nadu deserved at least a bleak chance at the judicial and executive remedies available in the Constitution of India!

Therefore, our judicial system should not be following AMBUSH JUSTICE of first instance, where all options for judicial remedy and executive remedy are foreclosed and the convicted CHIEF MINISTER  is forced to languish and labour under the verdict of a court of first instance, located in  a HOSTILE CONTIGUOUS state. 

MERCY is above JUSTICE and let us make NO mistake of it.

Plucking Vs Bowing!


Guitar and Veena are as much stringed & plucked instruments, but human  speed in finger movement cannot bridge the distance between notes as a mandolin did, by shortening the stem. But through shortening, the notes came so closer to each other that the highest level of accuracy was essential to get it right with increase in speed, this was bridged through the SKILL, EFFORT and TALENT of MANDOLIN SRINIVAS!

The first time i participated in his rendition of Carnatic classical songs of Thiyagarajar, Muthusamy Dikshitar and Purandara Dasar was at the cultural festival of IIT , Chennai. First time in my life i had seen a GENIUS face to face, in life and blood. I FELT inferior, it did not trigger aspiration or retaliation of God’s partiality in having endowed a person with so much talent so early! It ‘hierarchified’ me! I felt that i was a part of a system with me somewhere in the middle and many unseen men and women standing with great talent above me and much above me! Mandolin Srinivas restored to me  pristine sanity.

A violin is said to be one of the sweetest instruments, but one has to listen to Mandolin Srinivas to make us realize that the Queen of instruments had met her dominating spouse! All the mellifluousness of the bowing does not measure up to the PLUCKING of a mandolin in the hands of a MANDOLIN SRINIVAS. Bowing is less human as there is no human  ‘touch’ at the time of fibrillating the string.  In a pluck a plectrum could be used primarily for not damaging or callousing one’s index finger , yet mostly the strings are plucked with fingers and makes one directly deal with the instrument, it is that superiority which has been demonstrated by Mandolin Srinivas.

What a genius! yet when i read the judgement of the Madras High Court:-

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS 

Dated:26.09.2011

Coram

THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE ELIPE DHARMA RAO
AND
THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE M.VENUGOPAL

C.M.A.Nos.1656 and 1657 of 2010 and
M.P.Nos.1 and 1 of 2010

U.Sree	... Appellant in both CMAs
Vs.

U.Srinivas			... Respondent in both CMAs

Prayer: Appeals filed against the Common Order dated 22.12.2009 made
 in F.C.O.P.No.568 of 1997 and F.C.O.P.No.805 of 1998 on the file of
 the Principal Family Court, Chennai. 


I feel that a genius fell into the hands of a person
 who couldn't appreciate the attitude or 
the mental workings of a genius! What a pity!
One of the errors which an older person falls into, is 
that he is going to depart before the 
younger person does!

Yet MANDOLIN SRINIVAS is no more - 
"WAS" younger to me!

Helmet!


So the motorcycle rider who possessed a helmet more for statutory reasons than belief in protection of his skull, had placed it on his bike’s petrol tank and was cruising at @ 40 kmph. For some reason, the helmet fell off the tank on to the road and rolled to the centre of the road halting the ongoing traffic, while he abruptly stopped his bike on the middle of the road and went chasing his helmet. 

My friend who was seated beside me says,”Look at this moron, who is now protecting his helmet from being run over by a heavy vehicle instead of the helmet protecting him in an eventuality!

Well said, I thought.

But it also triggered a thought not very dissimilar to the actions of that moron. Firstly,  to overcome our anxieties, fears and to fulfill our aspirations we wear RELIGION as our helmet and as time goes by, we fall into ritualistic religion having NO BELIEF in our practices nevertheless following them intermittently. Some day when our religion or our religious beliefs are threatened,  we go around “protecting” our religion from the assaults perceived by us. The functional use is lost and we zealously protect the symbols of our FAITH without any BELIEF! I thought, I was equally a moron!

But remembered Jesus’ statement: The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath!

Shyly obscene!


This phrase did not elicit, in me as a post graduate student, the nuanced expression of a female caught in the expression of  a prohibited thought to which her mind had involuntarily leapt, when my professor was expatiating on one of the poems of e.e.cummings.

The poem was TOUCH WITH MY MIND by e.e.cummings. There were poems of e.e cummings and Alan Ginsberg prescribed, which were more explicit and appealed to our callow sensitivities, but with time and age a certain subtlety is appreciated better. I am impelled to reproduce the poem below for the readers of this blog, as I feel it would be a great injustice to leave the blog tantalizingly poised  without the proof of the poem.

Lady, i will touch you with my mind.
Touch you and touch and touch
until you give
me suddenly a smile,shyly obscene

(lady i will
touch you with my mind.)Touch
you,that is all,

lightly and you utterly will become
with infinite care

the poem which i do not write.”

E.E. Cummings 

Explaining a poem is the most preposterous thing to do! It is not WHAT THE POET MEANT AT THE TIME OF PENNING THE POEM, BUT IT IS WHAT THE POEM MEANS TO ANYONE WHO CARES TO READ IT- AT ANY POINT OF TIME! (If anyone has any doubts about it plz try reading CHILDE ROLAND TO THE DARK TOWER CAME and I am sure, despite myriad interpretations, none would match the mind-set of Browning when he penned it- that is if he had cared to explain it!)

The beauty about this SHYLY OBSCENE expression is that it would be on the face of a person only for a flash and that moment has to be frozen, magnified and prolonged for one to appreciate it. This, e.e cummings elicits in the lady through persistent intrusion with his mind on the lady. An intrusion which is not violative, yet perceptible and the lady “responds” to that ‘mental touch’ with this SHYLY OBSCENE expression. There was this “suddenness” to her expression which had to be “captured” by the poet. 

I am sure that this poem is not only delicately sensitive, but also shows the GENTLEMANLY MANLINESS of the poet. The male instinct to impress and seek intrusion is the law of the nature, but to be cowed down by the unattainable beauty or mental moat built by women, is not uncommon. But here the poet is persistent and breaches her moral barriers and glimpses the momentary gushing womanliness in two words. 

e.e cummings has left behind a disparate combination of words poignantly expressing that expression, which any gentleman would have drawn from his beloved!

Slavery in Christianity!


Deuteronomy Ch.23, verses 15 & 16

Thou shalt not deliver unto his master the servant which is escaped from his master unto thee:

He shall dwell with thee, even among you, in that place which he shall choose in one of thy gates, where it liketh him best: thou shalt not oppress him.

This is the commandment given by God the father through Moses. Moses had been overruled by Jesus on many such laws and in proof thereof please read Matt: 25 and 26, wherein Jesus says, “…. but I say unto you…” and amended the Mosaic law with DIVINE authority. However, Jesus does not make any statement about SLAVES overruling the Mosaic law relating to escapee slaves . 

Paul has an opinion on anything and everything. Having an opinion is not as bad as having scripted his opinion and such scripted having been found worthy by the compilers of the New Testament to be included in the New Testament. Further, Paul’s opinions were addressed to members, of the fledgling faith of Christianity, who were not rooted in the Judaic tradition. So when he wrote to the new members in Ephesus, he wrote for the edification of those members who were surrounded by a different spiritual ethos. Even when King Solomon, after having surrounded himself with Sidonian, Egyptian, Hittite women, succumbed to their gods and goddesses like Ashtoreth, Milcom, Baal etc. So Ephesians were in a different milieu and when Paul says at Ehesians 6:5-  Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ, he is not recommending SLAVERY, he is merely telling the slaves not to worry about their present plight but “press toward the mark for the prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus.” of Christian salvation and hope! Is such attitude tenable in Christianity? I am certain that Christianity never did nor would have ever recommended SLAVERY.

Let me first re-quote the Mosaic law: 

Thou shalt not deliver unto his master the servant which is escaped from his master unto thee:

He shall dwell with thee, even among you, in that place which he shall choose in one of thy gates, where it liketh him best: thou shalt not oppress him.

1600 years (at least) before Paul had ordained himself an Apostle, Moses had written the above law as having been ordained by God the Father. So, Judaism is very clear on THREE things:

IT IS NOT THE DUTY OF THE PERSON TO WHOM THE SLAVE HAS TAKEN REFUGE, TO DELIVER THE FORMER SLAVE TO HIS ERSTWHILE MASTER.

IN FACT, THE LAW RESTRAINS AND PROHIBITS THE PERSON WITH WHOM THE ESCAPEE SLAVE HAS TAKEN REFUGE  FROM CAPTURING AND SURRENDERING HIM TO HIS ERSTWHILE MASTER.

FURTHER, THE MOSAIC LAW SAYS THAT THE PERSON WITH WHOM THE ESCAPEE HAD TAKEN REFUGE SHALL PROVIDE HIM A PLACE OF THE ESCAPEE’S CHOICE AND THE PEOPLE OF THAT AREA SHALL NOT OPPRESS HIM.

THAT WAS THE LAW! AND THIS LAW HAD NOT BEEN AMENDED BY JESUS, THE AUTHOR AND FINISHER OF CHRISTIAN FAITH.

But Paul was given to much PRESCRIPTIVE CHRISTIANITY, a malaise from which he suffered when he was a Pharisee and later when he altered into a Pharisaical Christian. In any case, none of Paul’s letters show him to be a meek man (Moses was the meekest man Number 12:3), given to boasting but claiming that he wasn’t and in fact that he shouldn’t be! Another instance where SLAVERY finds a reference in Paul’s letter is at Colossians  at 3:22, however, the KJV states as “servants” and hence I am disinclined to accept the other versions, where instead of the word servant ‘slave’ has been used. Paul  was more than kind to Onesimus in recommending him to Philemon, however,  true to his sophistry and chicanery tells Philemon that Paul would pay Onesimus’ debts with a superb piece of verbal calisthenics thus :I will pay it back—not to mention that you owe me your very self. (Philemon v. 19). Why will Paul pay, if Philemon owes his very self to Paul?  

So   why did Jesus use Paul? The answer is in Mark 9:39.

 John said to Him, “Teacher, we saw someone casting out demons in Your name, and we tried to prevent him because he was not following us.”39 But Jesus said, “Do not hinder him, for there is no one who will perform a miracle in My name, and be able soon afterward to speak evil of Me. 40 “For he who is not against us is for us.…

Paul did what none did or could have done immediately after the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus. His was to spread the Gospel, he was the greatest CHRISTIAN EVANGELIST, who used letters and speech to turn people into Christians, rather than turn others into Christians by being a model through his own life! 

 Therefore his office was over and in legal parlance, his evangelism is FUNCTUS OFFICIO and to follow his prescriptive Christianity only helps the Pentecostals to build a brand of Christianity which emphasizes on tithes (revenue model for Pentecostal churches), preparatory Eucharist (denying administration of Eucharist if the priest feels that the communicant is unworthy, and thereby exercise authority!) and Exclusivity! 

 I hope Christians would abandon Paulian Christianity and return to Jesus and read the Gospels of John and Matthew, without allowing themselves to be tainted by such PRESCRIPTIVE CHRISTIANITY!

To come back to the topic, Christianity is the REPEALED version of the Mosaic law, where no amendments were made, or Moses’ provisions were not abrogated, the old is to be blended with Jesus’ statements. In the light of such an assertion, Christianity always gave LIBERTY to flee from SLAVERY and cast a duty on others to accommodate a runaway and provide opportunity for pursuit of happiness through FREEDOM. 

So this leads to the next question as to whether, the slave owner has any RIGHT to own a slave and does that IMPOSE any DUTY on others, excluding the slave so owned? Yes, there was a RIGHT  in-personam between the owner and the slave, it was not the slave owner’s right in-rem, where the whole society was to respect the ownership of the master!

 Further, there are different categories of slaves mentioned in the Bible viz. those who have been abducted/kidnapped and sold as slaves;  those Jews who had fallen into debts and have sold themselves as slaves being unable to repay their debts; Jewish slaves who have renounced their freedom and bound themselves with their masters, and non-Jews taken captive and freely traded.

If one were to go by Paul’s recommendation of attitude of the slaves in EPHESIANS, we freeze history to the Roman institution of slavery. But the instructions in the BIBLE, being an eternal book, cannot be limited to a set milieu or political order or even time. Joseph was sold by his brothers before Moses gave the commandment in Deuteronomy, therefore, merely because there was no law can we say that slavery was RIGHT? No, it was permitted by default, because the evil nature of man wanted to subjugate fellow humans and extract labour or other compliance from those fellowmen and women!

When THE BIBLE gives the LIBERTY to a slave to run away and the slave owner denied  any protection through other persons, how can one assume that slavery was a matter of RIGHT? A RIGHT is NO RIGHT, if it does not cast a DUTY on others. In fact the Mosaic law casts a duty on the person, to whom the erstwhile slave takes refuge, to provide him space and liberty. 

It gained the status of a RIGHT only under the ROMAN law, and since Paul was a Roman (which he invoked whenever it suited him!), he had preposterously made the Roman law the benchmark for advising salves to obey their masters as if they were obeying Christ! This verse in THE BIBLE cannot be taken to support SLAVERY in THE BIBLE. Even Kevin Rudd, fell a victim to such Paulian prescription which has unfortunately been embedded in the BIBLE. 

Christianity is the religion of LIBERTY and FREEDOM, let us not choose passages to support our evil  inclination, but be humble and read the Gospels of John and Matthew (simply because, a first hand recounting of Jesus’ life and teachings ought to be more reliable than hear say narration!) and LIBERATE ourselves from such self-demeaning practices. 

Murder for Love!


Originally posted on Movid's Weblog:

The murder is 7 years old, but the verdict is fresh. It has taken 7 years for the judiciary of the first instance to convict and sentence for life the fiancee Shubha,  her paramour Arun Verma and their 2 accomplices. This delay is despite the trial being held in the FAST TRACK Courts! We Indians, love epics, in fact, we do not want to conclude matters. If it is prolonged there is a false notion that there has been “THOROUGHNESS” to the proceedings.

Getting back to our story, Shubha was in love with a guy called Arun Verma (TOI, Bangalore dt. 15th July, 2010 puts him to be from the state of Bihar, whereas the other Newspapers have been cagey about mentioning the statehood of the perpetrator of the crime!) but in the meanwhile, Shubha’s father gets her engaged, against her wishes, to her neighbour and friend for 15…

View original 499 more words

Tag Cloud

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 92 other followers