Here Charitable Individualism is the key!… nothing less.

Archive for February, 2009

THE UNBRIDLED MARE


lollllllllllllll

This MARE had been groomed in convent school, where morality was laid on so thick, that she was perennially left with a sense of guilt. The easiest way to sense a guilt ridden soul is to check if they, at the start of any activity, indulge in a seemingly innocuous question IF THE ACTIVITY WOULD PLEASE THE ELDERS OF THE FAMILY & SCHOOL. If the answer is a YES, then the morality had seeped into their souls thru constant indoctrination.

The mares raised in a liberal atmosphere are more likely to do whatever they want and if thwarted, would ask WHAT IS WRONG? The liberal ones want to know the PRINCIPLES, but the convent groomed ones constantly require the mental REASSURANCE of their superiors. Herein lies the difference and consequently their behaviour.

This buxom mare, in its youthful exuberance and self-assured morality had launched into an enviable career. She was stately in her posture and brusque in her response, in fact the Stallions which nursed hopes of covering her, were not so confident in making their suit upfront. They were drawn into her moral structure and could not see her needs as any mare would have. Consequently they either stuttered, stammered and fumbled their way out or engaged in inanities, without having the guts to state their cause. Some stallions befriended her with the hope that someday the mare would relent and then they would turn victorious. Their HOPES were kept in perpetual abeyance.

In the sidelines, was a COLT that had sighted this mare and was smitten to the depths of his soul. But our colt was able to see thru the games that the stately mare was indulging in. None was repelled by her but her intimidating stature allowed none to verbalize their cause. Having been raised in a stud farm, the colt had seen the SIRING stallions treating the mares. He learnt early that he had to do three things, firstly, VERBALIZE, secondly SHOOT STRAIGHT and thirdly EXHIBIT NO SIGNS OF DESPAIR IF REJECTED(one can always fight another day).

His language skills broke her silence. The mare was no more able to deploy her silence and flummox the Colt. The stallions that were following her, sensed no threat in the colt. In fact they were happy that the colt was at ease with the mare, which got them tongue-tied. They thought that it was a sign of supreme INNOCENCE. An Innocence that is born of LACK of GUILT. It was only the colt which knew its surging passions. The stallions were not able to get even a whiff of it.

But the Mare was fascinated by the skillful use of the language by the colt and the confidence that betrayed no hidden passion. It is mostly our curiosity that forms the first step of our attraction to the opposite sex. Naturally, the mare from fascination moved into the next gear of mental curiosity. The mare did not mind making herself the neighbour in the grazing pastures. The colt was not only grazing but leading her to activity without the main question IF THE ACTIVITY WOULD PLEASE THE ELDERS OF THE FAMILY & SCHOOL? entering her head. She was beginning to TRUST him. Trust him with her moral principles. No more did the hackneyed morality bother her. It was a liberating force. A force that introduced her to LIFE.

One evening, while grazing with the colt, the sun was setting and anxiety was rising in the Mare’s mind about getting to the stables. The colt pretended that he was unaware of the drawing night. She neighed at him almost nudging him if it wasn’t time to leave. The colt in the flush of passion, shot the question straight- IF U WORRY ABOUT THESE TRIFLES, WHEN ARE WE GOING TO HAVE THE INTIMACY THAT ONLY WE CAN FEEL AND, NONE ELSE CAN FEEL FOR US?

The question was too quick, she thought for a moment. But she sensed the opportunity of the INTIMACY in the darkness, outside the ken of the other stallions and mares. The colt heard that sudden swallow of her saliva that gave him the signal of consent. He moved in a jiffy to her back and she in total reception stood still, but as if she was stunned by his behaviour.

She was stirred as a tremulous petal and she could feel the flow of her reception. A stirring that made her feel like the female of any specie, when surrender was the form to tether the male to her soul. The colt mounted but the distraction of the whistle, from the groom from afar, brought her senses back and she moved out. The movement was so elegant, that it was a message to the colt that HAD THE GROOM NOT INTERFERED, WE COULD HAVE FELT WHAT WE ONLY CAN FEEL, AND NONE ELSE FOR US!

Both were hustled into the stables and separated. But the night was the most eventful, both for the colt and the Mare. The Mare could not forget the line: WHEN ARE WE GOING TO HAVE THE INTIMACY THAT ONLY WE CAN FEEL AND, NONE ELSE CAN FEEL FOR US?

She was ruminating on the poetic content of that bold line. It made her tingle thru the night. She finally felt the LIBERATING power of CONFESSED LOVE.

BLOGGERS BEWARE!


TRUTH IS A GOOD DEFENCE AGAINST SLANDER, BUT IF YOUR BLOGGING IS GOING TO ENRAGE SOMEONE SOMEWHERE IN THIS COUNTRY, FOR ANY REASON, HE COULD GET AN FIR REGISTERED AND THE MAGISTRATE IN-CHARGE OF THE POLICE LIMITS WITHIN WHICH THE FIR WAS REGISTERED COULD PULL YOU UP! SO MUCH FOR YOUR RIGHTS!!!

A writ filed by a person from Kerala, named Ajith D, for quashing the FIR registered against him in Thane, in the state of Maharashtra by a Shiva Sainik, has not been allowed by the Supreme Court. Well, so much is the gist, of what i’ve understood, of what was published in today’s (24/02/2009) TOI (p.10 Bangalore Edition titled BLOG IS NO PRIVATE DOMAIN).

The Writ Petitioner is stated to be a member of the social networking site- ORKUT. In the said site he is said to have published ideas that made the police invoke Sections 295A and 506 (?) of the Indian Penal Code.

The grounds that he had pleaded for quashing the FIR were:-

1. The contents of the blog were for the group and not for outsiders, &

2. that he feared his life, if he were to be compelled to appear in Thane courts.

According to me the first ground is not a valid ground, as in a social networking site anyone could easily have access and stating slanderous things there are equally damaging. Therefore the writer of the blog should be held accountable.

So far as the second reason is concerned, it is a valid ground. The boy, just 19 years, who in the exuberance of his youth, having made statements damaging to someone, should not be thrown into a terrain, where he could become an easy target. Let us recall that , not so long ago, Mr.M.Karunanidhi, the CM of Tamil Nadu made a statement that was CONTRARY TO THE GENERAL BELIEF IN WHICH LORD RAMA, WAS THOUGHT OF. MK WENT SO FAR AS TO SAY THAT RAMA WAS A PERSON GIVEN TO LIQUOR.

It is possible, that a person, in any other part of the country, could have been offended by such statements. They could have filed FIRs against him (the law of precedent states “however incredible the person’s belief might be regarding his God, ridiculing that belief would invite the provisions of 153A of IPC”) and dragged him to the courts in different states. They tried. But he has at his beck and call, the best Lawyers in the country, that he could get an FIR either transferred to another court of convenient location, or get it quashed. But what could a student in indigent circumstances do to counter such a predicament?

Smt. Renuka Choudury, is said to have stated demeaning things against the Mangaloreans and somebody is offended in Mangalore and she is to appear there. She being from a National Party, and also by virtue of having been a person with political standing (any publicity is good!), may not be unduly concerned in facing such court cases even outside her home state. But in the case of Ajith,D it is truly a case of throwing the lamb to the wolves!

I suppose, the Supreme Court should have allayed his fears (having come to the Supreme Court, as an Individual pitted against an organization) by directing the DGP, MH to provide him necessary security while within the state, for attending the court case.

ARE WE TO RESTRAIN OUR INFERENCES AND IMPUTATIONS, SINCE OUR POCKETS ARE either HOLLOW or SHALLOW? MAY BE, THE ANSWER IS YES.

IN INDIA IT IS BETTER TO BE WISE, THAN TO BE TRUTHFUL.

PROPAGATED TRUTHS COULD CAUSE RIOTS, THEREFORE LET US KEEP THE OFFENDING TRUTHS FROM THE ARROGANT & IGNORANT MASSES AND MAINTAIN OUTER TRANQUILITY!

THAMIZH HITS ACADEMY AWARDS!


Finally the wait was PLEASANTLY over. The BEST MUSIC DIRECTOR’S ACADEMY AWARD was awarded to A.R.Rahman. It was an expectation of every Indian that A.R.Rahman should win the Oscar, but he won TWO. Also for the BEST SONG category, and that was doulbly pleasing.

A.R.Rahman’s biography had been updated in the Wikipedia within minutes of him having won the OSCARS. I’ve excerpted here below the part that proclaims his feat:

His acclaimed music compositions have led to references to him as the “Mozart of Madras” and several Tamil commentators have given him the title Isai Puyal (Tamil: இசைப் புயல்; English: Music Storm). Rahman also won two Oscar Awards in 2009 (Best Original Score and Best Original Song) for his work in Slumdog Millionaire. He also performed at the ceremony.

While accepting the award for the BEST ORIGINAL SCORE, he thanked everyone whom he had to, but the icing was his utterance in Thamizh (Tamil) thanking God in the International Language of Thamizh: YELLA PUGAZHUM IRAIVANUKKAY, which when translated to English would mean ALL GLORY TO GOD.

As a person having been in TamilNadu, it is no surprise that he chose to thank God in Tamil. It is not politics that he brought the language into focus, it is pure THANKFULNESS. The language, which according to the Nobel Laureate Sir.C.V.Raman,  is mathematical in its structure and precise in its expression. It was his utterance in Tamil that made it exhilarating.

I see it as the homage paid by a Thamizhian to the discipline and the work culture that the language Thamizh promotes. Thamizh is not kitschy or glossy languge that skims over human situations in sentimentalism and defeatism . It grapples with human predicaments and brings it into human consciousness and strives to continually find solutions. It is no wonder that an A.R.Rahman had to be from this hoary CULTURE in India.

Long live THAMIZH. Long live INDIA.

GLOTTALIZING TAMIL -II


There have been some questions raised regarding the singing of songs in Tamil by Udit Narayan Jha w r t my earlier blog. The reasons for my opinion are mentioned below and anyone, who could contribute on this topic is most welcome to join in.

Tamil consonants[2]

Labial Dental
Alveolar
Retroflex Postalveolar
Palatal
Velar Glottal
Nasal m n ɳ (ɲ)
Plosive p  (b) t̪  (d̪) ʈ  (ɖ) k  (g)
Affricate tʃ  (dʒ)
Fricative (f)1 s  (z)1 (ɦ)2
Tap ɾ
Approximant ʋ ɻ j
Lateral approximant l ɭ
  1. /f/ and /z/ are peripheral to the phonology of Tamil, being found only in loanwords and frequently replaced by native sounds.
  2. [ɦ] is a possible allophone of /k/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tamil_phonology

The above is the link, where the consonants of  Thamizh are represented in a tabular form  classifying the HA sound as a fricative glottal sound. The footnote says that Ha is a possible ALLOPHONE of KA.

Once we get into the allophones, then there is no certainty. We bring in usage into play. Most of Carnatic music (except for Purandaradasa), was formulated in the Thanjavur area of  Tamil Nadu and the Sanskritization of the hyms are well known. The sounds were essential in the singing of these hymns. However, to say that HA, was a sound in Tamil is preposterous. A person who is in a Sanskritised atmosphere is likely to pronounce AGAM as AHAM (meaning inner or inside). It is merely an usage and not a necessary sound in Tamil. (I’d consider it hilarious, if someone were to say AHATHIN AZHAHU MUHATHIL THERIYUM!!!)

The more basic question would be WHETHER THE WORD AGAM itself is Tamil or a LOANWORD, which was  SUBSEQUENTLY adopted into Tamil, by usage ?

INDIRA PARTHASARATHY on Iravatham Mahadevan’s Early Tamil Epigraphy, HAS THE FOLLOWING TO SAY:-

“Though Br-ahm-i was the mother of all the scripts in India, Devan-agari and Dravidian, it was adapted in a way to suit the genius of the language of the region. There were five variations of the Br-ahm-i script such as (1) Northern Br-ahm-i. (2) Southern Br-ahm-i, (3) Bhattiprolu script, (4) Sinhala- Br-ahm-i and (5) Tamil- Br-ahm-i.

Tamil- Br-ahm-i evolved after certain changes were made in Br-ahm-i to suit the phonetic system in the Tamil language.

Tamil- Br-ahm-i omitted sounds not present in Tamil viz., voiced consonants, aspirates, sibilants, the anusv-ara (.m) and the visarga (-h). Tamil has certain sounds for which there were no signs in Br-ahm-i, which called for additional letters viz. -l, .l, -r, -n.

By introducing a diacritical mark called pu.l.li (dots) three things were achieved: (a) basic consonants in final position were indicated (b) ligaturing of consonant clusters was avoided (c) the short vowels `e,’ `o’ were differentiated from the respective long vowels.”

In any case, purity of a language is essential to prove the UNIQUENESS and the NON-DEPENDENCE on other languages. However, PURITY can never be at the cost of one’s SURVIVAL. If GOLD has to SURVIVE AS AN ORNAMENT, IT HAS TO ACCOMMODATE COPPER.

Like, Anglicization of Tamil is required for keeping oneself abreast of the Scientific development in the present times, Sanskritisation was essential for MUSIC and RELIGIOUS PURPOSES in the past, and consequently when certain ALIEN SOUNDS CAME INTO USAGE,  SOME  HAVE BEEN LED INTO BELIEVING THAT THOSE SOUNDS ARE NATIVE TO TAMIL, EVEN THOUGH THESE SOUNDS HAVE OUTLIVED THEIR PURPOSES.

NEVERTHELESS, the foreign sounds need not be adopted, but the foreign words could be adopted and used with the available sounds, till a word in Tamil is invented and brought to large-scale usage. For example, till the coinage of KANIPPORI, in Tamil a computer was pronounced as KAMPOOTER. Alternatively,we can wait till people become liberal to accept foreign words and and pronounce it the foreign way, for example,  ENVELOPE (noun), was pronounced in English as “en-ve-lep” till a few years ago, but now it is not uncommon for persons to ask for an “aan-ve-lop”. But to come to a conclusion that “aan” is a sound in English is downright ERRONEOUS.

NOTHING CAN BE PURE, PURITY IS ONLY TO ESTABLISH ITS ABILITY TO HAVE WITHSTOOD THE RAVAGES OF TIME AND ALSO TO PROVE ITS ANCIENTNESS.

IN LANGUAGES ALSO, IT IS THE SAME AND TAMIL IS NO DIFFERENT.

An Artist & his Stradivarius


An ARTIST according to me is a person who has gone beyond the defined terms of logic, established procedures or even principles; and therefrom had  made man conscious of territories beyond the explained. It could be in any field, including science. For example,Max Planck was not merely a Physicist, but an Artist. An Artist had to explain or even if he is not able to explain the phenomenon, he should show to an intelligent mind a phenomenon hitherto unseen, much less explained.

But there is one area of Activity, where the very nature of the activity precludes the possibility of  a third party. That is the relationship between the Artist and his instrument.

The Stradivarius was played by many musicians, but it was this Artist, who was able to draw the sounds that had not yet been imbedded in the critic’s consciousness. The Critic was having a prejudged mind looking for established patterns and when such pre-established sounds were produced in the accepted form, he made himself the judge of that music.

But the Artist who played this Stradivarius, was no ordinary Musician. He was an Artist. He was looking for sounds that were emanating from his Stradivarius that were not noticed, even not noticeable. They were not new sounds, but merely sounds that had escaped notice in the preoccupation of observing  the existing and established sounds.

The Artist, did not play his Stradivarius in public. It was a spiritual symphony between his soul and the Stradivarius. He did not design the Stradivarius, nor could he have ever made himself accessible to the Stradivarius. It was the longing of his soul, that led him to the Stradivarius, or so he believed. It was beyond him, to contemplate that he through his own efforts, could have ever brought himself near the Stradivarius. It was placed in his hands.

When he held her between his chin and his palm on the one side and the draw of the bow over her from the other side, he heard sounds that he had never heard. Between those, established notes were variations, when augmented in his consciousness he was feeling, an echo of his reverberating soul. He heard himself in his silence. A skill imaginatively commingled, and drawing the inaccessible echoes of his soul.

She was in his hands, surrendered to his mastery and forgetful of her self. A dreamful  state of peace. A sound stagnanttill now, was being drawn out of her & was  wafting the fragrance of her soul. She was no more hearing herself, she was lost in the ecstasy of the Artist. The Artist was no more playing  his Stradivarius, he was emphasizing the hitherto unemphasized notes. She was reveling herself  in the frenzy of the new sounds that she was producing out of the welling eruption of his skill.

She finally felt that all the hands that had played upon her and the stained music produced, were washed away in the flow of the new notes. She transformed herself into a VIRGIN in his hands. The earlier music had been drowned in the Artist’s consciousness. She could never be the same again.

A VIRGIN, IN AN ARTIST’S CONSCIOUSNESS.

NO AMOUNT OF BOWING OR FINGERING COULD MAKE HER FEEL THE USED-TYPE EVER AGAIN.

SHE COULD NEVER ABANDON HER CONSCIOUSNESS, EXCEPT IN HIS HANDS!!!

MOSES & THE MOUNTAINS!


Moses, the DELIVERER of the Jews from their bondage in Egypt, had a special relationship with the mountains. Moses according to his own confession was the MEEKEST man on the face of the earth, while he was still alive. If one were to go by the Hollywood flick, TEN COMMANDMENTS, it would seem as if he was the underdog with a mission not only to resist the cruel treatment meted out to the Jews, but also to get them the liberty.

But underlying the portrayal,if  one could place oneself in his shoes and imagine, it was all about a man who was raised as a prince in Pharaoh’s palace, & lost his position either due to a discovery of a fact and a consequent choice or to the palace intrigue of Ramses. The discovery was that he did not have the royal blood coursing thru his veins, but was an offspring of a Jew! A dim prospect for a man with that lineage in those times, in Egypt.

Many discoveries of parentage had led to great Tragedies.

Like in the case of Oedipus (king of Thebes). He killed (although inadvertently) his father and married his mother Jocasta. The oracle had decreed that the plague in the land was a consequence of the taboo committed. Oedipus was not able to wash away the guilt  thru his penance or any other means, and the end is truly tragic as it unfolds  man’s helplessness in the light of a discovery, that could not have been imagined when the deeds were committed.

Oedipus is laden with PATRICIDE & INCEST. Both ABSOLUTE SINS, one for not knowing one’s father and yet killing him unknowingly, and the other for having sexual relationship with one’s own lineal ascendant- also unknowingly. The forms in which both the acts were committed were LEGAL. Oedipus’ father was killed in a fight with him and Oedipus got married to Jocasta, as she was the prize for having aided in destroying the Sphinx which was troubling the Thebans. The  TRUTH could have lain hidden and  the plague  regressed, but  his imagined non-involvement in the DEATH OF LAIUS (Oedipus’ real father and husband of Jocasta) emboldens him to search out, even against the opinion of TIRESIAS. But his arrogance led him to the discovery, without recourse.

But in the case of Moses, it was not any of those ABSOLUTE SINS, but a MISTAKEN PEDIGREE! The storyline is the reverse of KARNA in the Mahabharata. Karna (Karan, to the Sanskritized) was thought of to be from the hoi polloi, whereas Moses was imagined to be from the Royal stock. Moses’ discovery leads to his abandoning the comforts of the Pharaoh’s palace and consequently takes him to the ghettos of the Jews.

IT IS FROM THIS POINT THAT THE REVOLUTION WITHIN MOSES STARTS. The conflict was WHETHER TO RECONCILE WITH HIS PEDIGREE & TO ACQUIESCE IN THOSE REALITIES OF SQUALOR, SLAVERY, WHIPLASHES, TOIL & IGNOMINY or TO TAKE UP CUDGELS AGAINST THE SYSTEM THAT TREATED MAN IN SUCH BRUTISH WAYS?

Karna’s conflict was that he had the skill fit to be a king, but without the pedigree to rise there. He could at best be a WARRIOR but never a CONQUEROR. The skills that he had in him was pushing him higher, but his supposed humble origins – like gravity- was pulling him down.

To clarify in Christian terms, the distinction between a WARRIOR & a CONQUEROR is the difference between JOAB and DAVID. Joab, the commander of the Israeli army during King David’s reign, used to subjugate the enemies with the strength of his sword, but when the City was to be taken, David used to be called for, by the same Joab and the city gates were flung open for the CONQUEROR KING to make his TRIUMPHAL ENTRY. A warrior has to DO IT HIMSELF EVERYTIME, but for a CONQUEROR things were DONE FOR HIM IN HIS NAME. History RECOGNIZES the CONQUERORS but the warriors are mere footnotes. A KING is mostly a WARRIOR, but a WARRIOR need not become a KING.

Moses’ conflict had to be resolved. But how can it be?

In the movie TEN COMMANDMENTS, Moses’ wife tells the Queen U LOST MOSES WHEN HE WENT LOOKING FOR HIS GOD, AND I LOST HIM WHEN HE FOUND HIS GOD! (one sane inference that could be drawn is that, God and Woman are not simultaneously compatible!), but the pertinent point is that MOSES DISCOVERED GOD. His first tryst with God was in the Mountains of Sinai (Horeb).

IT WAS ALWAYS IN THE MOUNTAINS THAT MOSES MET JEHOVAH. Moses met his maker also in the Mount Nebo.

I am left wondering, as to why God had to meet Moses in the MOUNT and not in the plains.

The Psalmist says I WILL LIFT UP MINE EYES UNTO THE HILLS FROM WHENCE COMETH MY HELP. (Ps.121).

Is it because that the AIR is RARER and the PRESSURE is DOWN that the mortals start hallucinating better there?,

Or is it because of the geographical elevation that a person’s perception is raised above the occupants of the valleys and plains?

Or is it truly that God’s attention is drawn quicker on the hilltop that the mortals made it a habit to get to the mountain top?

The answer is not certain and whether the question was right at all, is a bigger question!

In any case, the resolution for Moses came from the discovery of his God. A God who believed in what Moses himself believed in, but couldn’t do anything about. He saw that the burden of slavery was so heavy, that thoughts of LIBERTY, FREEDOM & HAPPINESS did not dawn in those embittered hearts, worn down thru slavery and bondage.

It isI here that he invents ways of explaining the GOD, he had discovered. The God who names himself as “I AM WHO I AM“. This God I AM shakes the Pharoah and the Jews alike, from their logic and understanding of their EXTERNALIZED OMNIPOTENT GOD.

This wordings used bu Moses, to define God, brought God to Man. Since the time he was chased out of the garden of Eden, it is for the first time that the first person pronoun  “I” was used to SIGNIFY GOD. The space of “I”, was made DIVINE and men were given a foretaste of the possibility of God becoming Man and also residing in MEN. This definition of God, marks the beginning of the end, to the Externalization and outer experience with God. Even though this tradition continued in the Jewish history. NOW MAN HAD TO MAKE WAY FOR GOD IN HIS “I” CONSCIOUSNESS. The nameless desert God straight made an ENTRY into the JEWISH hearts, through that definition of Moses.

A QUANTUM SPIRITUALISM DAWNED!

MOUNTAINS WERE NO MORE NEEDED TO MEET GOD, ONE HAD TO LOOK WITHIN AND EXPERIENCE GOD.

HOW TRUE, I AM WHAT I AM.

GLOTTALIZING TAMIL


Thamizh ( Tamil for the Anglicized), as a language has shown the maximum resistance towards acceptance of sounds that are foreign to it. Thamizh as a language has prided itself as a language that had not accepted foreign sounds as it was interpreted to mean subjugation of its uniqueness and its status. When Sanskrit entered thru the shlokas into the culture of the Thamizh language, since it was in the name of God, the influx was not palpable to the common man.

The common man accepted the import of all the Ch has, shas, jhas as an essential part of the religious rituals and ACQUIESCED to the religion trotted out by the priests. But with the advent of the RATIONAL MOVEMENT in Thamizh Nadu (formerly Madras State), EV Ramaswamy and subsequently C.N.Anna Durai, identified the import of these sounds alien tothe Thamizh culture and sanitized the language.

IN EFFECT THAMIZH HAD NO GLOTTAL OR GLOTTALIZED SOUNDS.

In Thamizh, one cannot get the sound Ha, Hi, Hu, Hai, Hum or Ho. The H would be substituted by G, K etc..

I am herewith appending the write up on what GLOTTAL STOP means, as mentioned in the Wikipedia.

“The glottal stop, or more fully, the voiceless glottal plosive, is a type of consonantal sound which is used in many spoken languages. The symbol in the International Phonetic Alphabet that represents this sound is ʔ. The glottal stop is the sound made when the vocal cords (vocal folds) are (1) drawn together by muscular action to interrupt the flow of air being expelled from the lungs and then (2) released as pressure builds up below them; for example, the break separating the syllables of the interjection uh-oh. Strictly, the perception that it is a consonantal sound is produced by the release; the closure phase is necessarily silent because during it there is no airflow and the vocal cords are immobilized. It is called the glottal stop because the technical term for the gap between the vocal cords, which is closed up in the production of this sound, is the glottis. The term “glottal stop” is one of rather few technical terms of linguistics which have become well known outside the specialism.”

In Thamizh a new route has started by which the sound H is being imported. It is thru the Cine Songs that this sound is being imported. If one were to listen to the singing of Udit Narayan Jha, one could sense the import of GLOTTALIZATION of THAMIZH. In one of the recent movies named PADDIKATHAVAN (Dhanush playing the lead role), in the song RAANGI RANGAMMA one could sense the glottalization of Thamizh. When Udit Narayan sings SUNGUDI CHALLAI, in the cited song, one could sense the import of those sounds that are alien to Thamizh.

I am a great fan of Udit Narayan, and his singing has ENRICHED THE THAMIZH SOUNDS. Yet, the purists, once they identify that the masses like the glottalization of these sounds, they would ascribe a vile social reason for import of the glottal sound, and may even say that Jha ( a Brahmin community from Bihar/Nepal/Jharkhand) being a person from the Upper Caste, has been made a tool in the hands of the Artistes  for advancing their agenda!!

SOME CONSPIRACY THEORY.

Enjoy the song Raangi rangamma in PADIKAATHAVAN and do not get involved in the conspiracy theory!!

LET  US ENRICH THAMIZH!!

POLICY OPINIONS V. SYSTEMIC FUNCTIONS- CEC ISSUE


There has been considerable opinions generated on the issue, as to whether the Chief Election Commissioner of India could suo motu move the recommendation for the removal of an Election Commissioner of the Election Commission of India.

My opinion on the issue had already been spelt out in my earlier blog, the link for which is produced below for reference:-

https://movid.wordpress.com/2009/02/03/should-the-cecs-recommendation-for-removal-of-ec-accepted/

WE as a nation have not yet completed 6 decades since the adoption of the CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, and are yet to understand fully the meaning of the WORD and the SPIRIT that the CONSTITUTION represents, rather OUGHT TO REPRESENT. It is not merely the PREROGATIVE OF THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA to treat the CONSTITUTION OF INDIA as a DYNAMIC & ORGANIC document that leads the Nation, but also our duty as INDIAN CITIZENS to form opinions and strive to give it a meaning that would be in consonance with the ideals of our founding fathers and the ideals of Democracy.

Maybe, our opinions are not THE LAW DECLARED and MAY NOT HAVE THE BINDING FORCE IN THE COURTS OF LAW, yet it is only when the opinion of the common man crystallizes that the opinion of the political leaders are FORCED, with no recourse to their hidden, devious and self-seeking agenda.

Let us see the extent of the powers granted to the UNION CABINET, under the Constitution of India. Article 73 of the Constitution carves out the EXECUTIVE powers of the union, exercisable thru them. The excerpted portion of the article, shows that it is limited to the extent to which the parliament has the power to make laws.

__________________________________________________________________________

73. Extent of executive power of the Union.-

(1) Subject to the provisions of this Constitution, the executive power of the Union shall extend-

(a) to the matters with respect to which Parliament has power to make laws; and

(b) to the exercise of such rights, authority and jurisdiction as are exercisable by the Government of India by virtue of any treaty or agreement:

Provided that the executive power referred to in sub-clause (a) shall not, save as expressly provided in this Constitution or in any law made by Parliament, extend in any State to matters with respect to which the Legislature of the State has also power to make laws.

(2) Until otherwise provided by Parliament, a State and any officer or authority of a State may, notwithstanding anything in this article, continue to exercise in matters with respect to which Parliament has power to make laws for that State such executive power or functions as the State or officer or authority thereof could exercise immediately before the commencement of this Constitution.

_________________________________________________________________________

Relevant to our discussion is the entry no 72 of List I of Schedule VII of the constitution. One of the powers enlisted is “ELECTION COMMISSION” as could be seen below.

——————————————————————————————————————-

Schedule VII List I.

72. Elections to Parliament, to the Legislatures of States and to the offices
of President and Vice-President; the Election Commission.

——————————————————————————————————————-

Yet the power to make laws are circumscribed vide the provisions of clauses 2 and 5 of Article 324 of the constitution. As already stated in my earlier blog, the power to prescribe the mode of decision making within the Election Commission, cannot be prescribed by the Parliament, as the power is limited to the determination of the number of Election commissioners to be appointed to the commission, their service conditions and the tenure of office of the Commissioners/ Regional Commissioners. The parliament has exceeded its powers and the law relating to the prescription of UNANIMITY and failing which by MAJORITY is ultra vires the constitution.

In any case, the suggestion for UNANIMITY is GRATUITOUS, as the law already envisages non-unanimity and prescribes MAJORITY as the other mode of decision making!

There are, according to me, two distinct functions that the PRESIDENT has to perform. Those decision that are POLICY BASED and those which are SYSTEM BASED.

The Cabinet is a creature of the CONSTITUTION and derives its existence based on a SYSTEM prescribed within the constitution. The Cabinet is responsible to the parliament, and if it has a brute majority, it could steam roll its way through the parliament, yet the constitution has other organs which can limit its reach thru the INSTITUTIONS that derive their existence and their powers from the constitution. One of those institutions is the ELECTION COMMISSION.

Just as the independence of the Judiciary is a guarantee to the Individuals from the tyranny of the other organs of the state, THE ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA is a guarantee to the fairness of the conduct of elections, which forms the corner stone of the rule of democracy – rule of majority. In the determination of the rule of majority, it is essential that the process of ELECTIONS shud not be vitiated by the persons manning the conduct of the elections.

THEREFORE THE ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA IS A SYSTEM BASED ORGAN AND NOT A OPINION BASED ORGAN. IN H.L.A.HART’S TERMS THE ELECTION COMMISSION FORMULATES THE SECONDARY RULES AND THEREBY SHOULD NOT BE SUBJECT TO THE OPINION BASED ORGAN LIKE THE CABINET.
It has been mistakenly interpreted that the Cabinet’s (council of Ministers) position to AID AND ADVISE the President extends to even issues to which the EXECUTIVE POWER OF THE UNION DOES NOT EXTEND. Some of the powers to which the EXECUTIVE POWER of the UNION DOES NOT EXTEND are:-

1. Appointment of the Prime minister

2. Regarding the decision on questions of disqualification of members of the houses of the parliament

The above mentioned points are not exhaustive and more could be added. The LEGAL PRINCIPLE that govern the said issues is that the PRESIDENT NEED NOT HAVE TO INCLUDE A PERSON, WHO IS INTERESTED IN EITHER OF THE OUTCOMES OF THE ISSUE, IN THE DECISION MAKING PROCESS OF THAT ISSUE.

ACCORDINGLY as per ARTICLE 103 clause 2, reproduced here below:-

———————————————————————————————————————-

103. Decision on questions as to disqualifications of members.-

(1) If any question arises as to whether a member of either House of Parliament has become subject to any of the disqualifications mentioned in clause (1) of article 102, the question shall be referred for the decision of the President and his decision shall be final.

(2) Before giving any decision on any such question, the President shall obtain the opinion of the Election Commission and shall act according to such opinion.]

———————————————————————————————————————-

it would be ridiculous to include the cabinet in the determination of the disqualification of the member of Parliament, which COULD have an effect on the cabinet.

Further, if the cabinet is not made a party to that decision making process, the Cabinet would not be accused of any biases arising out of the decision. It provides for immunity from such accusations which erode the bonafides of the cabinet.

Hence the framers of the constitution had excluded the CABINET and the reliance is placed on the opinion of the ELECTION COMMISSION and makes the decision of the Commission BINDING on the PRESIDENT.

Even though the principle of Nemo judex in sua causa (none to be judge of his own cause), is extensively applied to Administrative Law, there is an undercurrent of this principle running through all legal principles.

To return to the issue of OPINION V. SYSTEM, the WILL of the day should not be allowed to override the SYSTEM, that is longer lasting and the bedrock to the ideals of DEMOCRACY.

IN CONCLUSION, SINCE THE ELECTION COMMISSION COULD ALSO BE A SINGLE MEMBER COMMISSION, AND CANNOT EXIST WITHOUT THE CHIEF ELECTION COMMISSIONER, THE CHIEF ELECTION COMMISSIONER CAN INITIATE SUO MOTU THE RECOMMENDATION OF REMOVAL OF AN ELECTION COMMISSIONER AND THE PRESIDENT IS BOUND TO APPLY HIS OWN MIND WITHOUT REFERENCE TO THE CABINET AND DECIDE THEREON.

As a footnote i’d like to add that there are umpteen reports stating that Mr.Navin Chawla has a TRUST named CHAWLA TRUST that had received six acres of land from the Rajasthan Govt., and also funds from the MP’s funds ( pl. refer to an article titled FREE & FAIR ELECTION COMMISSIONERS by Sriram Panchu in THE NEW INDIAN EXPRESS dated 13th feb, 2009 Bangalore edition page 9). To get an opinion from the cabinet in this issue would be fraught with ascription of bias. The President’s decision should be seen as one that is free from any bias and based on the material placed by the CEC.

LET US NOT SACRIFICE SYSTEMS, ON THE ALTAR OF THE OPINIONS OF THE POLITICAL PARTIES.


HEROD & DAVID


Consolidating one’s REIGN and passing on the KINGDOM to one’s own children has been one of the greatest pre-occupations of the Emperors, Kings and Satraps.

Anyone who reads THE PRINCE by Niccolo Machiavelli, would be persuaded that the RULERS down the ages have been the most ruthless in pursuing the abovementioned objective. The title of the blog HEROD & DAVID might be, at the first look, seem as if i am likely to contrast their styles in the pursuance of the said objectives, but on the contrary this blog is aimed at comparing the deeds of the the most loved king and one of the most despised rulers of Israel.

Herod was merely a tetrarch of a part of the dominion of Israel (which was under the Roman rule), but David was a king for the whole of Israel for at least 33 years leaving out the 7 odd years he ruled from Hebron. Further, if Herod had not been the Tetrarch coinciding with the birth of Jesus, he would have merely been a footnote to history.

Herod, as per suspicions available in history, got his brother murdered and married his brother’s wife- as was the custom, to raise the seed of the dead bro! Her name was Herodias and she had a daughter Salome (the subject matter of the play by name SALOME, by Oscar Wilde). One day Salome performs a dance before Herod and naturally, Herod is very impressed with his niece’/step-daughter’s performing art,that he promises to give her anything that she desires. Salome, true to her filial duties, asks her mom Herodias to name the prize. In the meanwhile, there is a Prophet by name John the Baptist, who had been condemning Herod & Herodias’ relationship, therefore  Herod had put him in jail.

Salome. as advised by her mom Herodias, asks for the head of John the Baptist. As usual, the ruler cannot go back on his word, so promptly gets John the Baptist executed and serves his head on a platter to Salome.

STRATEGY:Every incident has to be construed as a strategy, especially when the thing sought has no apparent benefit. Herodias must have known how Herod got rid of his brother and was probably afraid that upon the daily insistence of John the Baptist, Herod might repent some day and get rid of Herodias along with his sense of guilt. She did not want the conscience of Herod awakened. Therefore getting John the Baptist killed would, besides stifling the VOICE OF JOHN THE BAPTIST, secure her position in the hierarchy, even after she loses her feminine charms.

The whole Christendom despises Herod and Jesus calls him a FOX.

Let us cut back and see what  David did, to secure the kingdom for his off-springs . It was no less lethal.

Saul, the first King of Israel, dies in the battle and his son Ishbosheth ascends the throne, but not for the whole of Israel, as David rules a part of Israel, from Hebron for 7 years. There was a tribe(?)/people from Gibeon who were not a part of Israel but were in the midst of Israel. These Gibeonites were slain by Saul (II Samuel chap.21 ), and in any case were waiting for settling scores with the house f Saul. There was a famine in Israel for 3 years, and David asks God the reason for the famine. Thankfully for David, God says that it is because of what Saul did to the Gibeonites that the famine was upon Israel. Now the time came for the Fox to give judgement on the chicken. The Gibeonites were asked what David shud do, so that they bless Israel and the famine depart. Predictably, the Gibeonites ask of 7 sons of Saul to be handed over to them for them to kill those sons.

David is the sole authority to decide as to which 7 children of Saul to be handed over. David leaves out Mephiboseth s/o Jonathan (s/o Saul) on the grounds that David had sworn to geal mercifully with Jonathan’s house. In any case Mephiboseth was not a threat to David as he was lame in foot and was kept in David’s palace, so that none could rally around him and stake kingship!

David in a masterstroke hands over the two sons of Rizpah and 5 sons of Michal. Rizpah was the concubine of Saul and was a spunky woman. But Michal was spunkier. Michal had been betrothed to David for 100 foreskins ( that means this item could be had only from an uncircumcised non-abrahamite) but later married off to another man. Like a lion that kills the cubs of the lioness that had littered thru another lion, before fathering its own cubs, David eliminates all the children of Michal. Whether they were her children or not, is not clear from the Bible, as it also says that Michal did not conceive- whether after she was brought to David or before is a conundrum!

STRATEGY: Michal was King’s daughter and David was the king, therefore there was every reason for the Israelites to rally around the doubly ROYAL SEED, if any!!! So eliminate them and pave way for his children thru other women only.

Even today justice is given in the name of God. Aurangzeb eliminated his opponent brothers thru the due process of Justice. Dara Sikoh was executed by Aurangzeb, on legal principles.

Susima, the elder brother of Ashoka the Great, also did to Ashoka, what Dara did to Aurangzeb (instigating the father against the son). In due course both Aurangzeb and Ashoka got their brothers executed. But history highlights the fratricide of Aurangzeb and glosses over the fratricide of Asoka.

Likewise, David’s acts of killing the children/grand-children of the previous king Saul is glossed over, but the act of Herod of killing John the Baptist is highlighted in history.

The reason is simple David and Ashoka repented and showed their contrition towards the latter part of their lives. But Herod was arrogant till the end, and Aurangzeb was glorifying his self-righteousness, instead of showing CONTRITION.

“JUDGE NOT A MAN, TILL HE IS DEAD” , says the Wise One.

ACCORDINGLY, WE JUDGE THE REPENTANT ONES FAVOURABLY, BUT THE SELF-RIGHTEOUS AND THE WICKED WE DESPISE , AND ALSO GIVE NEGATIVE PUBLICITY.

HOLOCAUST & Rev. RICHARD WILLIAMSON


Rev. Williamson calls into question the validity of the Nuremberg Trials (conducted by the Allied powers in Germany to try the NAZI political head after the II World War), which so sweepingly condemned all the so called WAR CRIMINALS, based on the most appealing idea that 6 million Jews were GASSED!

Everyone interested in TRUTH, should go through the following YOUTUBE link, that clearly brings out the position of the Rev. Williamson.

Rev. Williamson may not be right, but that does not mean that we shud not hear him. If at all the world is interested in the TRUTH,  the best impartial scientific brains should come out and disprove scientifically the reverend’s averments.

It is not so simple. It is not the Jews whom he is attacking, but the very basis of the trials and the media stories that justified the execution of the war criminals thru the Nuremberg Trials. The NAZI heads were hunted down. Martin Bormann, Adolf Eichmann and a whole host of others were vilified to such an extent, that it even became a justification for some private Jews to hunt them down, wherever the nazis had settled down in disguise, and eliminate them.

The belief, as the Rev. rightly put it, has made  the Germans themselves to be ashamed their own history.

Should the falsehood, of a generation of Victors, triumph over the TRUTH of the reality, that existed then?

Antisemitism is nothing new, neither was it a creation of Hitler and his cohorts.

Shylock (in THE MERCHANT OF VENICE), the Jew, was portrayed by Shakespeare as an exacting rascal. It must have been the public sentiment that was prevalent then which must have led Shakespeare to project a Jew thus. But, no public sentiment is achieved overnight. There must have been some basis for such sentiments to prevail or in any case the Jews must not have bothered about such negative perceptions & sentiments! Such UNFEELING and ARROGANT temperament is quite in-keeping with the portrayals of the rabble that says LET THE BLOOD OF THIS MAN (JESUS) BE UPON US AND OUR CHILDREN, before Pontius Pilate.

Martin Luther, the originator of Protestantism had written a treatise called “On the Jews and Their Lies”, which is designated by some as an antisemitic document. Wikipedia has the following to say:-

The treatise is a polemic condemning the Jewish religion from a Christian viewpoint, in furtherance of this Luther writes that those who continue to adhere to this religion are a “base, whoring people, that is, no people of God, and their boast of lineage, circumcision, and law must be accounted as filth.”[1] Luther wrote that they are “full of the devil’s feces … which they wallow in like swine,”[2] and the synagogue is an “incorrigible whore and an evil slut …”[3] He argues that their synagogues and schools be set on fire, their prayer books destroyed, rabbis[4] afforded no legal protection,[5] and these “poisonous envenomed worms” should be drafted into forced labor or expelled for all time.[6] He also seems to advocate their murder, writing “[w]e are at fault in not slaying them.”[7] forbidden to preach, homes razed, and property and money confiscated. They should be shown no mercy or kindness.

So antisemitism was nothing new and if one were to read the book of ESTHER in the Bible, there was everything made ready for killing, plundering and pillaging the Jews by one Haman, during the rule of XERXES, the king of Persia. However this lady Esther, having become a part of the harem of the emperor Xerxes, gets the policy changed by implicating Haman and gets protection for the Jews.

So through the ages they have either for what they did, or for whatever they were perceived to have done, they have been at the receiving end of tribulations, as a community. I like to say something which was predicted to Shah Jahan, the Mughal Emperor of India, at the time of the birth of Aurangzeb: “he will trouble others and would be troubled by others throughout his life.” Likewise, the Jews have been troubling and have been troubled thru the ages. But it is God’s grace that they had survived as a RACE these tribulations down the ages.

Therefore antisemitism is not a new phenomenon, but that the THEORY THAT HAD SUSTAINED THE SYMPATHY FOR THE JEWS since the WW II is being questioned. If the theory of GASSING 6 MILLION JEWS IS FOUND TO BE FALSE, the perception of the world,towards Jews might change. It is that possible change which is troubling the Jews.

Further, the HORROR STORIES put forward by Steven Spielbergs and his ilk, would be turned into FALSE HISTORIES.

IT IS FOR THESE REASONS, THAT THE CATHOLIC CHURCH IS UNABLE TO STOMACH THE CHALLENGE SET FORTH BY THE BISHOP RICHARD WILLIAMSON.

MAY THE TRUTH BE REVEALED.


WHEN DO OWLS MAKE LOVE?


OWLS are not creatures that a man encounters during the day.They are seldom seen in flight, at least in towns and cities. There are very many types of owls, like the barn owl, the snowy owl, the eagle owl, the hawk owl, the great horned owl, the little owl, the burrowing owl etc..

What captured my imagination was that the OWL is the only bird that keeps to the skies at night and their sight is poor during the day leaving them vulnerable to attacks from the other birds during the day.

Since they are handicapped during the day, do they settle scores with other birds during the nights- when they have an advantage or do the other birds treat them kindly during the day showing solidarity with another winged creature?

Secondly, do owls indulge in sex during the day or in the night when their visibility improves?

In the mythology of ancient Greece, Athene, the Goddess of Wisdom, was so impressed by the great eyes and solemn appearance of the Owl that, having banished the mischievous crow, she honoured the night bird by making him her favourite among feathered creatures. Athene’s bird was a Little Owl, (Athene noctua). This Owl was protected and inhabited the Acropolis in great numbers. It was believed that a magical “inner light” gave Owls night vision. As the symbol of Athene, the Owl was a protector, accompanying Greek armies to war, and providing ornamental inspiration for their daily lives. If an Owl flew over Greek Soldiers before a battle, they took it as a sign of victory. The Little Owl also kept a watchful eye on Athenian trade and commerce from the reverse side of their coins.

But as per the belief of Odo of Cheriton, a Kentish preacher of the 12th Century has this explanation of why the Owl is nocturnal: The Owl had stolen the rose, which was a prize awarded for beauty, and the other birds punished it by allowing it to come out only at night.

Consequently the belief system of the English was not favourable towards the owls. The following line from Shakespeare’s JULIUS CAESAR would bear me out:…yesterday, the bird of night did sit Even at noonday, upon the market place, Hooting and shrieking

Different beliefs abound in respect of the bird, but the most amazing belief is that the owl meat is an aphrodisiac!!The following news item which appeared in the Times Of India in 2006 is fascinating:-

Sex maniacs kill owls for aphrodisiac

19 Apr 2006, 1634 hrs IST, IANS

DHAKA: Owls in Bangladesh have come under attack from hunters for their brains and eyes, which are rumoured to cure sexual deficiencies. The unfounded rumours have caused so many owls to be killed in the southern Bangladesh district of Bagerhat in the past few months that concerns are being raised over the future of the bird, wildlife experts said. “The coastal district, which borders the mangroves of the Sunderban forest, has been the natural habitat of more than one owl species,” said Sharif Kian, adviser to the Bangladesh wildlife protection society. “The senseless killing of owls over false publicity of its healing powers has threatened the existence of these birds and the biodiversity in the region,” Khan said. The report said six adult owls netted alive fetched about 25,000 Bangladeshi taka ($357). The rumour of the owls’ imagined power to heal male impotency crossed the border into India’s neighbouring West Bengal state, where it has already created a group of clients.

Out of the two fold doubts, the second doubt got cleared when i googled. It is stated therein that the mating of the owls is rare during the days. The link to the youtube watch that shows the mating is pasted below.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J1xdMDzR-Dg

The first question is yet to be answered.

The fascinating thing i found was that man is perversely vacillating  in his beliefs. He could swing from attributing WISDOM at one point and treat the meat of the owls as APHRODISIAC at another point.

But the owls are the winged guardians of the night and had it not been for them, the rats and bandicoots would have been scampering all over the place and even a Pied Piper of Hamelin could not have gotten rid of those rodent vermin.

LONG LIVE THE OWL! (but in Hindi kyun boltha hai- ullu ke pattey?)

VALENTINE’S DAY!


The valentine’s day has gathered many meanings that were not ascribed, nor ascribable in the past. In any case, what is the point in having a mundane story attached to the story of ROMANCE. So many spiced up versions are available. As we go in life, we could also make it bizarrely beautiful by creating myths and salacious stories. The following theory of Valentine’s Day beats me hollow- St. Valentine sends his beating heart to declare his UNDYING love for his mistress!

theory from Belarus states that the holiday originates from the story of Saint Valentine, who upon rejection by his mistress was so heartbroken that he took a knife to his chest and sent her his still-beating heart as a token of his undying love for her. Hence, heart-shaped cards are now sent as a tribute to his overwhelming passion and suffering. [1]

We are also familiar with Vincent van Gogh’s story of having chopped off his ear in a distraught moment with Paul Gauguin and is supposed to have sent that chopped ear to his mistress. This story is all the more sexy as Van Gogh had painted himself with a bandaged ear, and there are more people who know him for that bandaged ear than for Expressionism!

Why Van Gogh did whatever he did shall be mired in the many versions that are in circulation, but I for one shall BELIEVE that the hard stroking expressionist, had cut off his ear to declare that he’s had enough of her saying NO to him!

Ultimately one has to be crazy enough to do an act that shows himself/ herself to be SELF-DENYING & SUICIDAL to evince feminine interest. Not that all women are impressed by such mutilating deeds, but some who love IDEAS, more than REAL LIVING, relish in such deeds.

In Bangalore not more than 3 months back (today being 04.02.2009) a female dentist had invited her ex-boyfriend (who was also a dentist & by then married to another woman), to her clinic and after administering him with some soporific had chopped off his penis (she wanted the filling removed and make a cavity!!).The kind soul that she was, she even got him admitted to a nearby hospital so that he doesn’t go down to the grave without going down on his haunches for peeing! The simplistic reason could be that she didn’t want him to put his member, to secondary use with another woman!!! Some possessiveness!!

In any case such chopping of others’ organs is revolting, as that does not have the SELF-DENIAL formula embedded in it. But when done voluntarily, it has a secret appeal to the human consciousness. In the Indian movies there have been lots of instances where lovers write letters with their own blood, go to the nearest tallest building and threaten suicide etc..

When such declarations of LOVE are all seen thru the prism of EMPATHY by the public, why does a section of the demi-political organization look upon the commercialization and display of affection that culminate on VALENTINE’S DAY, as a threat to their culture?

MAN’S LIBERTY TO INDULGE IN MYTH MAKING, SHOULD NOT BE TRODDEN UPON BY THE BRUTES OF THE SOCIETY- ESPECIALLY WHEN IT DOES NOT AFFECT THEIR LIVES OR THEIR PROPERTY!

HOPE THAT VALENTINES DAY WOULD GROW TO BECKON MORE & MORE PLEASANT MYTHS.

SHOULD THE CEC’S RECOMMENDATION FOR REMOVAL OF EC ACCEPTED?


There has been a lot of debate as to whether the recommendation of the Chief Election Commissioner for the removal of one of the Election Commissioners of the ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA should be ACCEPTED by the PRESIDENT of India, without reference to the Cabinet of the day.

The constitutional provisions that relate to the question cited above is Article 324 of the Constitution of India. The relevant clauses are 2 and 5 which are reproduced here below.

article 324 of the constitution of India, clauses 2 and 5 read as under:-

(2) The Election Commission shall consist of the Chief Election
Commissioner and such number of other Election Commissioners, if any,
as the President may from time to time fix and the appointment of the
Chief Election Commissioner and other Election Commissioners shall,
subject to the provisions of any law made in that behalf by
Parliament, be made by the President.

(5) Subject to the provisions of any law made by Parliament, the conditions of service and tenure of office of the Election Commissioners and the Regional Commissioners shall be such as the President may by rule determine:

Provided that the Chief Election Commissioner shall not be removed from his office except in like manner and on the like grounds as a Judge of the Supreme Court and the conditions of service of the Chief Election Commissioner shall not be varied to his disadvantage after his appointment:

Provided further that any other Election Commissioner or a Regional Commissioner shall not be removed from office except on the recommendation of the Chief Election Commissioner.

The above provisions of clause 5 mentions, “Subject to the provisions of any law made by Parliament..” in respect of TWO things viz:-

1)the conditions of service

2) tenure of office.

the president may act.

However in respect of  “..fixing the number of other Election Commissioners & appointment of the CEC”, the provision says,

subject to the provisions of any law made in that behalf by Parliament“(ref: clause 2),

which clearly shows that the parliament is not expected to make any laws outside the scope defined. There is surely a difference between …”any law made by the parliament” and “.. any law made in that behalf by the Parliament”.

However the parliament made a law RELATING TO THE TRANSACTIONS OF THE BUSINESS and prescribed a mode of UNANIMITY failing which BY MAJORITY.

Accordingly, after issuance of an Ordinance, an Act was passed by the parliament, which inter-alia included sections 9 and 10 determining the Disposal of Business by the Commission besides enumerating the conditions of service, tenure of office etc.

What is relevant to our consideration is section 10 which is reproduced below:-

CHIEF ELECTION COMMISSIONER AND OTHER ELECTION COMMISSIONERS(CONDITIONS OF SERVICE) ACT 1991

10. Disposal of business by Election Commission

(1) The Election Commission may, by unanimous decision, regulate the procedure for transaction of its business as also allocation of its business amongst the Chief Election Commissioner and other Election Commissioners.

(2) Save as provided In sub-section (1), all business of the Election Commission shall, as far as possible, be transacted unanimously.

(3) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (2), if the Chief Election Commissioner and other Election Commissioners differ in opinion on any matter, such matter shall be decided according to the opinion of the majority.

In the matter of T.N.Seshan, CEC of India vs. Union of India & ors (1995(4) SCC 611, two issues were to be decided, which were

1. whether the appointment of the other election commissioners was intra-vires the constitution of India and

2. constitutional validity of the Ordinance and thereafter the Act, and the orders thereto.

The issues were decided in  favour of the Union of India, but inter-alia many obiter dicta which are relevant for answering the topic of discussion were made.

In my opinion, the CEC is different in status and rank and thereby has primacy over the other ECs for the following reasons:-

1. The Commission presupposes the existence of the Chief Election Commissioner but it need not have other election commissioners.

2. The CEC has the status of a judge of the Supreme Court of India and therefore is of a rank higher than that of the Commissioners who are only of the rank of a High Court Judge minus the constitutional protection of removal only thru Impeachment.

3. the EC cannot be removed except on the recommendation of the CEC  (if the legislative intent has been merely to protect the independence of the commission, they wud have  given the  protection of  removal thru impeachment and not placed them at the mercy of the recommendation of the CEC)

4. the Article 324 and the clauses do not empower the Parliament to make any law prescribing the mode of deciding the issues thru Unanimity and failing which thru Majority. Further a person of the rank of a Supreme court Justice cannot be considered to be at par with a High Court justice (without the protection of removal thru impeachment proceedings), that the opinion of the CEC is to be given the same weightage as that of an EC! Let us remind ourselves that people similarly placed can be treated equally and not otherwise.

Therefore the prescription of the parliament of UNANIMOUS/MAJORITY decision is ultra-vires the constitution.

Further the equating of the opinion of the CEC with that of the other ECs is not tenable in our system based on Rank. The CEC is not PRIMUS INTER PARES as there is NO  comparison between the status of the CEC with that of the ordinary ECs. The CEC is the RECOMMENDATORY AUTHORITY FOR THE REMOVAL OF THE ECs, therefore he CANNOT be treated as an equal to the other ECs.

This takes us to the next question as to whether the PRESIDENT of India has to get a Cabinet decision on the recommendation of the CEC for the removal of the ECs?

It is ridiculous that a cabinet that is partisan shud be allowed to decide on the issue when most of the constituent parties in the cabinet have been dragged into the controversy relating to Mr.Gopalswami and Mr. Chawla.

Further  the method if initiation of impeachment proceedings for removal of a SC judge is clearly mentioned in the Constitution, whereas in respect of the removal of the EC either the President could move it and obtain the recommendation of the CEC and remove the ECs or the Cabinet could abolish the post of the ECs, even without the recommendation of the CEC. In this case, the CEC has mentioned loss of confidence in his EC and therefore it is only in the fitness of things that the PRESIDENT of INDIA without the reference to the Cabinet should remove the Election Commissioner.

I HOPE THAT THE PRESIDENT REMOVES THE EC AND UPHOLD THE INTEGRITY OF THE ELECTION COMMISSION.




OUT-SOURCE VIOLENCE!


Political parties cannot be seen sponsoring violence otherwise they run the risk of being DE-RECOGNIZED. In the olden times, the votaries of political parties used to indulge in violence, arson and vandalism, whenever they were upset with either the death/arrest of their leaders or in response to a policy decision. Many a time, the political parties were pulled up alongwith the persons who indulged in such violence, arson and vandalism.

The 21st century has brought a newer method. The method is not apparent but has taken shape and for the relentless seeker of facts, it would be clear. When Pakistan says that Kasab, is not a Pakistani it is difficult for us to believe, as there is every possibility for him to be a Pakistani loose cannon ball who had aligned with the wrong ideology and took upto arms and perpetrated the carnage in Mumbai alongwith his associates. The trouble is when they(Pakistanis) go to great lengths to show that he is NOT A PAKISTANI. That is when the doubts arise of the collusion(a silent one) between the terrorists and the establishment.

Likewise, the POLITICAL PARTIES in India have forged units containing hot-headed youths, who are fed with dubious ideology and when they indulge in VIOLENCE, ARSON & VANDALISM, the first reaction from the recognized political parties is DENIAL of the out-fit to be from the parent political party. When Ram Sena indulged in violence against young girls in Mangalore, the BJP was quick to deny their association with the Ram Sena outfit. But the congruence of the ideology between the BJP and the Ram Sena has given rise to the suspicion that they may merely be an arm of the BJP.

Ram Sena is disowned, but the very next day the IDEOLOGY for which they perpetrated the violence was APPLAUDED by the CM and the Home Minister of Karnataka by making a policy change in respect of the PUBS in KARNATAKA.

The Pakistani’s reaction of disowning Kasab was very similar.

It seems to be a global phenomenon that none wants to be seen as being VIOLENT, TERRORIST etc.. Therefore, connive with the outfits -that could be controlled by the Political parties- and use them as and when required to spread terror and violence. These  murderous outfits are nothing but OUT-SOURCED UNITS THAT SPRING TO VIOLENT ACTION WHEN NON-VIOLENT DEMOCRATIC METHODS ARE INEFFECTIVE TO FURTHER THEIR AGENDA.

Earlier, the students of various colleges especially the Law Colleges were used, now the education quotient of these vandals seem to have fallen to such an extent, that it suits their masters as that would aid better compliance- without any interference of education or intellect.

INDIA HAS BECOME AN OUT-SOURCED CENTRE EVEN IN POLITICAL VIOLENCE.

PUB CULTURE


The Mangalore battery of the young women and the subsequent arrest of Shri. Mutalik has prompted the Chief Minister Shri. Yediurappa to denounce the PUB CULTURE and has stated that he is going to do away with PUBS in Karnataka.

What is interesting is the TIMING. Had the CM made this statement before the incident, i could have given credence to his belief in  such a policy on health/moral grounds.

Is this announcement to APPEASE THE SECTION OF THE PEOPLE who have made this an issue or is it genuinely a LAW & ORDER concern? I am inclined to believe that the first one is the REASON and the second is the ACCEPTABLE PRETEXT!

HYPOCRISY is unavoidable in a large DEMOCRACY like India. As the spectrum of people who belong to the band between the RICH and the POOR is huge. IMPOSING MORALITY is the best way in a democracy to add respectability to oneself and controlling the public. In Gujarat LIQUOR HAS BEEN BANNED EXCEPT FOR FOREIGNERS AND MEDICINAL PURPOSES. But if one wants a bottle of any brand/variety of liquor, it is just round the corner. We as a nation like to pontificate, even without asking a question if it INFRINGES ON SOMEONE ELSE’ RIGHTS or ARE WE TO MEDDLE WITH SOMEONE ELSE’ MORALITY WHEN IT DOES NOT AFFECT US! We love to make laws, rules and ordinances that do not factor in the individual’s liberty!

WHY DO WE PRESCRIBE SUCH MORALITY?

WHY DO WE MAKE LAWS THAT INFRINGE ON OTHERS’ LIBERTY?

According to me we are a young nation, just out of the clutches of the Imperialism of the British. Yet our Laws have two prime objectives, viz.

1. Hierarchify the population, so that they are brought under the pyramid of the power structure, so that they could be muzzled and controlled.

2. Restrict their liberty so that the productivity might increase, thereby increase the state revenues.

These laws ,which form the cornerstone of our nation, are basically with the above mentioned objectives. For the sake of continuity these objectives have not been scrapped completely, instead they have become the tools in the hands of the DELEGATES of the people to use them as instruments for enrichment and baits for obtaining votes that would perpetuate them in the exalted place where they find themselves.

For example let us look into article 47 of the Constitution of India.

Article 47 of the Constitution of India directs the state as follows:-

The State shall regard the raising of the level of nutrition and the standard of living of its people and the improvement of public health as among its primary duties and, in particular, the State shall endeavour to bring about prohibition of the consumption except for medicinal purpose of intoxicating drinks and of drugs which are injurious to health.

The first part obligates  the state to RAISE THE LEVEL OF NUTRITION, STANDARD OF LIVING, IMPROVEMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH. The first part is a positive COMMAND. But the state has always defaulted on this count. For example, the total expenditure on Public Health is @ 1% of the GDP, whereas the global norm is 5%.

The standard of living , if at all it has increased, it is because of the toil and sweat of the citizens and not because of the effort of the state. In any case  the state’s enthusiasm has been towards the IMPOSITION OF PROHIBITION, than RAISING THE STANDARD OF LIVING. Almost all the states in India have cited this ARTICLE 47 for imposition of Prohibition.

Prohibition has brought corruption and nepotism to the fore.

This PROHIBITION has EMPOWERED the Legislators, Bureaucrats and the Officials.

From the above it is clear that the empowering sections are prolifically put to use for oblique reasons, and the POSITIVE COMMANDS  that require them to DO SOMETHING get diluted in its implementation, and thus fall flat.

So in INDIA, we are still supporting  HIERARCHIFICATION and MINDLESS LABOUR EXTRACTION, which make us still SLAVES.

Our LIBERTIES are gnawed away progressively and we become ZOMBIES scrounging for a living WITHOUT THE CAREFREE-NESS THAT THE OTHER DEVELOPED NATIONS’ CITIZENS EXUDE!

GOD SAVE INDIA FROM OURSELVES!

Tag Cloud