Here Charitable Individualism is the key!… nothing less.

Archive for September, 2011


The title’s latter part is , “WEAR IT” .

This phrase is said to tell someone that if they are guilty of bad behaviour, they should accept criticism. But the implied meaning is that if the cap doesn’t fit, then you don’t have to be flustered about ignoring the criticism which is aimed at the UNKNOWN PERSON who is to be blamed. This is normally said when there is a suspicion that a person who is in the midst of the conversation is the culprit. However the suspicion  lacks certainty, therefore it is let out as a  stray criticism to barb the person suspected upon.

The CM of Gujarat had refused to wear a CAP presented by some Muslim gentleman, who upon refusal by the CM to wear the cap offered by him, has made a statement that he felt “INSULTED”. Some have gone so far as to say that the refusal is tantamount to insulting ISLAM. HOW FACETIOUS! Can a religion which had captured the imagination and had led multiple generations of humans be insulted by a single man who refuses to wear a cap? NAY.

Secondly, MERELY by wearing the cap would anyone consider the CM to be pro Muslims? NAY (here too!). His critics would have said that the CM was merely a wolf in sheep’s clothing, having fixed his eyes on the Prime Minister’s chair. SO the CM of Gujarat was in a catch 22 situation. But what is to be appreciated is that he at least came out as a person who is clear about his priorities. A refusal to wear a cap offered in front of so many needs GUTS and he  seems to have plenty of it.

Next let us come to the offeror of the CAP. Did the gentleman who offered the cap do it with the intention of making Modi wear the cap and thereby dent his strident pro-Hindu image? Could be!

What i do not understand is that,when  i could  give secular gifts to my friends and leaders so that i do not get them portrayed as straying into my faith thru compulsion, why do i give them a CROSS to wear, or VIBHUTHI to smear or a CAP to wear? And when Modi says that he doesn’t wear caps, why do we compare caps with PAGADI? A cap is distinctly different from a PAGADI. A PAGADI is given as an HONOUR. For example when a new Karta is appointed in a Hindu Undivided Family the Karta is given a PAGADI. SO a pagadi or a crown is distinctly different from a cap, it indicates PRIMACY, but a CAP has assumed the symbol of covering one’s head in the presence of the GOD in Islam.

Further, when i do not want to wear something which attaches a different religious significance, how could i offer something which attaches a different religious significance to someone for him to wear? That seems inequitable!

Let us keep our FAITH and the SYMBOLS of FAITH to ourselves and not let them contaminate our interaction with other humans, much less our POLITICS.

Let us get this one straight, if the Gods want to settle the disputes among them, let them do it among themselves and declare the VICTOR to us- the humble MORTALS. Let us not waste our LIVES fighting each other on HUMAN BELIEFS!



The following is the analysis of Philosophy and the evolution thereof according to Nietzsche:-

In every philosophical school, three thinkers succeed one another in the following way: the first produces out of himself the sap and seed, the second draws it out into threads and spins a synthetic web, the third waits in this web for the sacrificial victims that are caught in it- and tries to live off philosophy.

Nothing can be truer than this epigrammatic statement. Let us take the example of the trio Socrates, Plato and Aristotle. Socrates had to consume hemlock before his Philosophy sprouted in the youth of Athens. Plato drew the thread and spun the synthetic web of UTOPIA and Aristotle with his ETHICS waited with hope for the sacrificial victims.

Let us come to Christianity, where Jesus produced out of himself the sap and seed, then Peter spun the web and Paul through his specific advice to the Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Thessalonians, Romans etc. along with his votaries got his sacrificial victims. Not for nothing we have the Idiom ROB PETER TO PAY PAUL!

Even in Politics, the same  holds good. E V Ramasami Periyar had sown the seeds of  Dravidian movement: C N Annadurai drew thread and spun a synthetic web and I do not want to mention the third name, who waited for the sacrificial victims and made a good life for himself.

Nietzsche stands unparalleled in EPIGRAMMATIC TRUTHS. 

Commutation of Death Sentence in India.


 This is the Constitutional provision relating to commutation of sentence by the State Government through the Governor of thye state:


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.

The following Article provides for the powers of the President relating to commutation of the Central Government through the President of India:-


 (1) The President 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—


(a) in all cases where the punishment or sentence is by a Court Martial;

(b) in all cases where the punishment or sentence is for an offence against any law relating to a matter to which the  executive power of the Union extends;

          (c) in all cases where the sentence is a sentence ofdeath.

(2) Nothing in sub-clause (a) of clause (1) shall affect the power conferred by law on any officer of the Armed Forces of the Union to suspend, remit or commute a sentence passed by a Court Martial.

(3) Nothing in sub-clause (c) of clause (1) shall affect the power to suspend, remit or commute a sentence of death exercisable by the Governor of a State under any law for the time being in force.

So there are these 2 Articles in the Constitution of India which clearly show that the President or the Governor of the State could grant reprieves, commute or remit sentences PROVIDED they are ADVISED so by the CENTRAL or STATE Governments in exercise of their (State & Union) respective EXECUTIVE POWERS. But if the sentence were to be capital, then the President of India has the OVER-RIDING powers to go beyond the EXECUTIVE POWERS of the CENTRAL GOVERNMENT and commute capital  sentence-( see Art 72 (1) (c)).

The issue, i have taken up for focus is that the Tamil Nadu State Government has passed a resolution in the TN Assembly to commute the Death Sentence of the Late Rajiv Gandhi killers. Is the Governor of Tamil Nadu competent to commute the sentence.


The reason is that, the killers were charged under Indian Penal Code 1860. IPC is common for both the State and Central Governments as per Schedule VII to the Constitution of India, as CRIMINAL LAWS are included in the CONCURRENT LIST.

But the exercise of the powers under the IPC, in the case of Rajiv killers were exercised by the Special Investigation Team ( which i presume was constituted by the Central Government using its EXECUTIVE POWERS- may be at the request of the then Government of Tamil Nadu). So in effect, the trial and further proceedings were carried forward by the Prosecution of the Central Government. Therefore the POWER TO COMMUTE THE DEATH SENTENCE, AWARDED BY THE COURTS, IN PURSUANCE OF THE EXECUTIVE POWERS OF THE UNION, SOLELY RESTS WITH THE PRESIDENT OF INDIA. Further, a DEATH SENTENCE passed by the courts in pursuance of the Executive powers of the Union Government cannot be commuted by a Governor of the State. This OMNIPOTENCY for commuting a death sentence has been granted only to the President of India.

I see no reason why a State Assembly should take upon itself to pass a resolution. Is the State Assembly trying to force the hand of the Union Government to COMMUTE? After all the State Government could recommend to the Governor even without taking the matter to the Assembly. Is it politics…………even in matters of Life and Death?

Another dimension of the issue is that there has been a lot of talk about HOW A GOVERNOR CAN NOT COMMUTE A DEATH SENTENCE,  AFTER THE PRESIDENT HIMSELF HAD REJECTED THE CONDEMNED PRISONERS’ PLEA? The provisions of Article 72 (2) clearly states that the powers conferred by law on an officer to commute, shall not stand affected by the powers vested on the President. Therefore, if the Rajiv Gandhi killers had been prosecuted by the State officers under the IPC, then the powers of Governor would be similar to that of the President, with regard to Capital Punishment only. Even if the President had rejected the Mercy Plea, the Governor could still commute the sentence based on the advice of the State Government.










Tag Cloud