A Fallacy is a mistaken belief, especially one based on unsound arguments.
In the movie CASABLANCA, the Protagonist Humphrey Bogart is asked by the German Major, in charge of the then occupied territory of French Morocco: “So what brought you to Casablanca?”
Without hesitation our hero says “For the waters.” (Meaning water springs and spas)
Major Strasser says: “ But there aren’t any spas around here.”
Bogart says, “Oh, I was misinformed.”
Or so the conversation goes. Please don’t pick holes on my recollection of that scene, as that would derail a whole lot of hypotheses I’ve built around it‼️
The point is that Bogart resented the presence of the Germans, and Major Strasser in particular, in Casablanca where Bogart was successfully running his ‘gin joint’ with an adjunct gambling den. The Major had collected, or at least from the tone of Bogart, it appears that Bogart suspected that Strasser had a good idea of Bogart’s colourful unsavoury past and wanted to gain an upper hand over Bogart by either forcing him to tell a lie about his own past and catch him, which Strasser attempted, or admit his past.
Bogart being Bogart, through a line well written by the script writer states: ‘He was misinformed’, thus disengaging our hero from the trap laid by the German Major.
In fact the audience knew that the reply of Bogart was a FALLACY.
Likewise DIRECTIVE PRINCIPLES OF STATE POLICY in the IV part of the Constitution, which starts with Article 36, titled ‘Definition’ raises hopes of a detailed explanation of what Directives of State Policy meant, however it peters to adopting the meaning of ‘State’ as defined in Part III of the CoI.
It is through Article 37 that the larger picture is accepted and the functions of DPs are explained.
37.Application of the principles contained in this Part
The provisions contained in this Part shall not be enforceable by any court, but the principles therein laid down are nevertheless fundamental in the governance of the country and it shall be the duty of the State to apply these principles in making laws.
There are the following prescribed under this Article, which are:
0. That they are not enforceable by ANY COURT.
0. That the principles laid down are FUNDAMENTAL in the governance of the country; and
0. That a duty has been cast in the State to apply these principles in making laws.
What emerges out of these prescriptions is that neither the state (except through legislating on these principles) nor individuals or entities have recourse to the courts for implementing these ‘principles’ .
Secondly, a duty has been cast on the State to carry out their Legislative mandate under the guidance of these principles.
Read together, it means and only means that in the absence of a Law, these principles cannot be invoked by the Government (means the Executive) nor by individuals or entities.
Whereas, I have seen a Harvard Professor say that these principles are meant to be implemented by the Government, implying that even in the absence of a LEGISLATED LAW, the government could invoke desultorily one of those principles and start implementing their likes and dislikes, as if they are duty bound to implement the same.
I suppose the protection from misuse of this Article is that the even if laws are made ostensibly in pursuance of a Directive Principle, the Law enacted would be subject to the touchstone of the Guarantees granted under the Constitution, like the Fundamental Rights and in the event of a conflict between those legislations and fundamental rights, a fine balance has to be struck by the Higher Judiciary and pronounced on accepted doctrines and principles.
Directive Principles, especially relating to the slaughter of Cow, calf, milch & draught cattle; environmental issues; uniform civil code; and separation of powers have become tools in the hands of self proclaimed implementers of the Directive Principles, which is tragic. .
In the process of Nation building all these issues cannot be taken up at one go, as that would be a severe strain on the resources of the State; and issues which need a gestation period cannot be prematurely taken and forced on the populace, therefore it should be left to the wisdom of the Legislators to legislate. And once the enactment passes the legislative sanctions, the Government and the people would be vested with duties, liberties and rights but not before that.
Clutching at Directive Principles to advance their lopsided agenda, with a partisan motive by a lumpen few, is nothing but intellectual terrorism.
Let us become aware to identify and distinguish a motivated deleterious agenda disguised as an enticing fallacious Constitutional mandate.
The phrase ‘making of laws’ is wide enough to include their interpretation and therefore the courts must inferpret the laws in the ‘light of the Directive Principles’ (Balwant Raj Vs. the Union of India (Uoi) – Supreme Court Judgment 1966 – Dhawan .J)
This interpretation of the law doesn’t appear to be tenable in the light of the clear words of the provisions of the Article which says ‘the duty of the State in applying …’; and the State doesn’t include the Courts. Secondly, Judicial Pronouncements cannot be called as ‘making of laws’ rather they are meant to be ‘interpreting the provisions of law’.
Posts tagged ‘constitution of india’
The Constitution of India does not prohibit the eating of beef, likewise, the COI doesn’t prohibit committing MURDER, does it mean that it could be done? NO.
But the question to be raised is: can a law be enacted which prohibits the act of individuals doing a particular thing except for moral, health or order as minimum one reason to PROHIBIT him from eating beef?
If it is answered in the AFFIRMATIVE, then LIBERTY has died in this country!
The Supreme Court of India is reported to have dismissed the petition wherein the petitioner had prayed for a declaration that the oath of office taken by the Governor in the name of ALLAH, was to be declared as void. This was an appeal taken by the petitioner from the High Court of Jharkhand. The Supreme Court of India had instead declared the appeal to be MISCHIEVOUS and DIVISIVE.
When the newspapers report such news items- especially the ones relating to sensitive issues like religion- the media should clearly state the JUDICIAL REASONING forwarded by the petitioner and the JUDICIAL REASONING given by the Justices so that such issues are settled forever. Instead the news item in today’s TIMES OF INDIA (13/12/2011) merely states that the petition was dismissed as MISCHIEVOUS & DIVISIVE. No doubt, if one goes for the intention of the petitioner, such a MOTIVE is ascribable. But since the Supreme Court of India is the last resort for our declarations, the media should give the kernel of the judgement and not merely carry the interconnected opinion expressed by the Justices in the case.
A few weeks back my Muslim friend said that his God’s name was ALLAH. I said that ALLAH meant GOD in Arabic and it was also proven from internet resources that the Christians inhabiting the Gulf (predominantly Islamic population) call their God also as ALLAH. Please refer to WIKIPEDIA:-
Allah (English pronunciation: /ˈælə/ or /ˈɑːlə/; Arabic: الله Allāh, IPA: [ʔɑlˈlɑː] ( listen), [ʔalˤˈlˤɑː]) is a word for God used in the context of Islam. In Arabic, the word means simply “God”. It is used primarily by Muslims and Bahá’ís, and often, albeit not exclusively, used by Arabic-speaking Eastern Catholic Christians, Maltese Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox Christians, Mizrahi Jews and Sikhs. It is related to ʼĔlāhā in Aramaic.
So ALLAH means GOD in Arabic. So some Christians in the Arabic speaking areas have not allowed the name ALLAH to be appropriated by Muslims alone to refer to their idea of God.
Coming back to the Constitution of India, the Schedule prescribes the forms for Oath taking by Constitutional functionaries and the oath is taken in the name of God or through solemn affirmation. So when the Governor of Jharkhand takes the oth in the name of ALLAH, he has merely used the Arabic word for God. In fact one should be appreciative of the Governor having taken the oath in the name of ALLAH, in whom he believes, than in the generic English term GOD or the Hindi term PARAMESHWAR. If the media had reported the kernel of the judgement and given the JUDICIAL REASONING behind the dismissal of the Appeal, the readers would have stood edified.
The news item further states that the names of INCARNATIONS could be used- i do not understand that. For example if a person were to use the name Jesus or Krishna or Rama would that be okay? I suppose NOT. The Constitution of India envisages the generic name of GOD (of course in any language) than a specific incarnation. Maybe a Thamizhan might take the oath in the name of KADAVUL or AANDAVAN, which are the generic names of God in Thamizh. Why make a fuss if GOD IS ONE? But as readers of NEWS PAPERS we should prefer the Judicial reasoning that went into that DECISION MAKING.
ALLAH HU AKBAR. GOD IS TRULY GREAT.
If an Indian believes that it is the Parliament elctions which are important and not the ASSEMBLY Elections, then he is greatly mistaken. To put it in perspective, ASSEMBLY ELECTION means, ELECTIONS for the Goverment authorized by the Constitution of India to Legislate on issues mentioned at List 2 and List 3 to the SEVENTH SCHEDULE to the Constitution. But somewhere in the JINGOISM propagated in the name of Nationalism, our Indian folks have been led to believe that the Assembly elections are not of much consequence.
True development of a State (which is the basic building block of the Nation) depends on the Policies formulated, implemented and relentlessly pursued by the State. Each State of India has inherent advantages as well as challenges, for example Kerala as a state has always had a slew of cash crops and copious rains have kept the state fertile, but the challenge is HOW TO MAKE THE PEOPLE OF KERALA A PART OF THE WORKFORCE OF PRIVATE ENTERPRISE and INITIATIVE? Let us contrast Kerala with Rajasthan which has severe shortage of rains and land which is uncultivable 9 months a year. In Rajasthan water is the scarecest and thereby CONSERVATION is in-built in their system. Kerala may fight for water with Thamizh Nadu, but the vegetation which one could see in Kerala gives one a feeling of the Amazon forest. That is Kerala. With 93% literacy and surrounded by plenty, the denizens of Kerala have built an “attitude” of SELF RESPECT. The first question which comes to the mind of a Keralite is WHY SHOULD I DO IT AND WHO BENEFITS MOST FROM ANY PROPOSED ACTIVITY. This leads to a lot of historical questions, like WHERE is he from? WHO is his father? WHAT is his caste? Is he a COMMUNIST? Does he believe in God? etc.. This preliminary screening by the literate leads to prejudoiced conclusions and hence their “attitube” could be downright NEGATIVE. KERALITES love their LAND, naturally as it is fertile and fetches cash even if one doesn’t do anything much with the land. A kind of lazy agrarian attitude.
Rajasthan people’s challenges makew them more hard working. One could find a certain eagerness to make things better for everyone. But the literacy levels are not comparable with Kerala. They keep their habits spartan, which is the beginning of CONSERVATION, which has finally led them to save money and identify hard working people and lend them money and in turn get their returns.
Another typical state is Thamizh Nadu, where people are skilled and hard working, but their challenge is their attitude of being ENTERPRISE AVERSE. They may start a hospital- if he is a physician /surgeon, but they would never ever build an ENTERPRISE without being skilled in that area. There may be business houses like TVS, AMALGAMATIONS GROUP which have huge market share in their line of business, but like ROME those were not BUILT IN A DAY. They have been sustained thru generations of relentless hardwork. As a people, Thamizhans do not want to take risks which COULD GO BAD. They contribute to the blossoming of the MANUFACTURING SECTOR, as they are assured of their INCOME from their skills and a regular life with enough time for family and entertainment. As a State having 69,000 temples, they are fatalistic in the outcome, buit rational in their social intercourse.
So each State government has to build its own set of priorities . And therefore ASSEMBLY elections are the backbone of the NATION. The issues wich are mentioned in LIST 1 of the VII Schedule are regulated, monitored by The Central Goverment, but no IMPETUS is provided the Central Government with relation to the subject matters which fall in List 1. For example there are no melas for becoming research fellows or scientists in Space Technology, there are no advertisements for educating people on patents etc.. Persons of their own initiative reach those areas. A person who manufactures a central excisable product learns it by accident and starts paying Central Excise duty. Such is SERVICE TAX etc etc. The Central Goverment does not have to educate people to enter into areas which fall within List 1. But the State subjects are opportunities which are propagated by the State and people in a state are educated therein. Therefore the State elections have a deeper impact on the day-to-day lives of its people.
With WELFARE STATE being given a different meaning by the political parties, even the freebies form a part of the governance. The Central government may grant loan waivers to farmers etc., but it is the State Government which gives TVs at 0 cost, rice at a rupee a liko, free noon meal to kids at school etc. These actual deliveries which reach the population of a state are palpable. That is why we have the elections for a state which show that power is truly with the states when it comes to the development of the state.
The fight between the DMK Alliance and the AIDMK Alliance has reached a feverish pitch and the Election Commision is finding the goings on in the State of Thamizh Nadu curiouser and curiouser!
Telangana issue has not really created a spate of requests by political parties, as we are being made to believe. K.Chandrashekara Rao went on a fast and the only way that was seen feasible to break his fast was to make a declaration about grant of a separate state. Now that the fast is broken and the only way to break the benefits of Telengana to be taken lock stock and barrel by KCR, is to create a cacophony of demand by Gorkhas, Bundelkhandis, United Andhra, Mithilanchal, Poorvanchal!
The political parties in India are creating a situation where the Conductor of the Orchestra seldom comes out with the wand, till the crown is out for presentation. The Conductor like a Zubin Mehta doesn’t have the guts to be recognized as the Conductor, as the negative fall out cannot be taken. It is easy to sway the illiterate masses and therefore if any other party highlights the negative impact of the decision of a leader, then the masses who do not have THE sophisticated language skills to distinguish between REALITY and IMAGINATION would end up buying the stories. Therefore the conductor is doubly wary and remains in the background. Maybe the conductor is WISE!
When the din is done and a “CONSENSUS” had evolved, then the conductor of the Orchestra would come out waving the wand as a sign of victory. A true FEUDAL TECHNIQUE. In the Bible, if one refers to the later day victories of King David, one could find that the Commander Joab would defeat the cities and towns in battles, but KING DAVID would be invited to TAKE the towns and cities! This kind of pseudo- democracy survives in a predominantly illiterate and un-understanding electorate filled space.
The very idea that our founding fathers did not make it imperative for the Parliament to go by the opinion of the state legislature concerned (Article 3 of the Constitution), in bifurcation of states, is on the sound principle, that NO MAN CAN BE A JUDGE OF HIS OWN CAUSE. When the people of Telangana have come out in the open and have demanded a separate state, it has become a NATIONAL ISSUE and a subject matter of the Parliament of India. Only an opinion of the state legislature is required for factoring the opinion in the debates of the parliament. The demand cannot be left in the hands of the MLAs who are divided based on their region.
Telangana was a area that had been recognized by the CONSTITUTION of India. One has to merely refer to the IX Schedule of the Constitution where, entry nos. 22 & 23 relate to 2 Acts passed by the Andhra Pradesh Legislature. Further in the Report of the Reorganization Committee, there was a clear opinion expressed by towering personalities like Sh.K.M.Panniker that Telangana had a distinct culture and therefore should NOT be amalgamated with the state of Andhra Pradesh merely on LINGUISTIC grounds! Yet political expediency, our own resource crunch and the fear that the Nizam might exert his influence on political matters, the then Telangana was merged with the state of AP.
By hindsight, based on the claims of the pro-Telangana protesters, it seems that the Money power of the Coastal Andhra and the Muscle power of Rayalseema have stunted the growth of the Dhakni speaking Telangana. When the people of Telangana are represented by 17 Members of Parliament it cannot be argued that as a state Telangana would not be sustainable. 3 more MPs and it would be as big as the state of Kerala and would definitely be bigger than Jharkhand which is represented by 14 MPs, three less!
IN ALL THIS DIN, MR.NITISH KUMAR, THE CHIEF MINISTER OF BIHAR HAS ONE AGENDA OF ONE-UP-MANSHIP WITH LALU PRASAD YADAV AND PROPOSES reorganization of states and “MERGE JHARKHAND WITH BIHAR”!(NITISH PROBABLY DOESN’T WANT KODA TO DO IT ALONE AND WANTS TO BE A PART OF ALL THE PLUNDERING ,THAT THE NEWSPAPERS HAVE REPORTED!)
GIVE OR TAKE THREE! DO NOT MAKE PEOPLE WHO CANNOT STAY TOGETHER, TO STICK TOGETHER.