Most of the literate people themselves wouldn’t be able to differentiate between these two. If the literate themselves do not know the difference, what kind of an informed ‘choice’ are the balance 30% going to make at the time of voting in a Democracy?
Should they know the difference? If the people knew the difference, would their choice be any different? In case it is different, on what count, would it be different? Yes, I guess.
Firstly, through Article 162 of the Constitution of India, the Executive power of the States is defined. This is merely to carve out the areas in which the State could exclusively act, those areas where it has to act along with the Union, and those areas which are outside its scope.
If we read Article 53 of the Constitution, the Executive Power would not be thus circumscribed as the Parliament has the Residual powers, as such the Executive Power cannot be circumscribed or defined, as the Parliament is empowered to act in areas unenvisaged as yet, but provided for a contingent situation.
Therefore, the True meaning of ‘Executive Power’ has to be discovered from Art 162 only. Which is ‘Executive Power is coextensive with the Legislative power within its competency’.
162. Extent of executive power of State.
Subject to the provisions of this Constitution, the executive power of a State shall extend to the matters with respect to which the Legislature of the State has power to make laws:
53. Executive power of the Union.
(1) The executive power of the Union shall be vested in the President and shall be exercised by him either directly or through officers subordinate to him in accordance with this Constitution.
I’ve reproduced part of the two Articles for reference and it can be noticed that the Executive Power of the Union is not clearly defined, as the wordings of the Article would have become clumsy if one had to detail the residual powers also.
Therefore, for the understanding of a layman like me, the Executive Power of any authority would be circumscribed by the Legislative Power it has been vested with under the Constitution.
So, what is the difference?
Aristotle said this:
‘It is more proper that law should govern than any one of the citizens’ and upon evolution of this idea through Locke and Dicey we have the Rule of Law.
But Laws have to be made by human beings and that body of Human beings are the Legislators. It is they who are required to be elected in our great Indian democracy. We don’t elect Executives, we elect only Legislators. Or to put it even more lucidly, we elect the Law Makers and not the Ministers.
The Ministers are a body of Legislators who enjoy the majority support of the Legislature, whether it be the Parliament or the Assembly. These Ministers are the ones who perform the Executive functions in the name of the President or the Governors.
Therefore, when we elect, we elect people to do the primary function of making laws. These laws cannot be discriminatory and should have universal applicability with reasonable exceptions carved out as mentioned in the Constitution as Directive Principles of State Policy or even as exceptions in some of the Fundamental Rights, otherwise those Laws run the risk of being struck down as offending the Constitutional guarantees or even its Basic Structure.
So the Executive has to be a Legislator FIRST, therefore, it is imperative on the part of the electorate to decide the competency of a person as a Legislator before considering any other aspect.
If a Julius Caesar were to use his techniques he employed with the Gauls against the Romans citizens, there would be order and peace for a while but no true Growth.
True growth means even getting to employ the differently abled and the weak into the machinery of the State or the Nation and providing them the wages not according to their productivity but according to the effort put in by them.
I am very impressed with Bharat Petroleum, as they employ persons with limited understanding to just fill gas and note the reading and collect the amount shown in the meter. The effort those young boys put in, to perform those basic functions are no less contributory than the skilled workers. We, as a society have salvaged, a person from getting ghettoised and marginalised from the dungeons of his own house, where he could be seen as a burden. Having been made an earning member, Bharat Petroleum has fulfilled not CSR obligations but a duty as a member of the Society.
We need Legislators who are capable of distinguishing not on grounds of materialism like Productivity alone but providing ways of livelihood for the deprived and the disabled, without compromising on recognising and fostering Merit and the Meritorious.
When we understand this we will not turn to Legislators who make rabble rousing speeches but to those Legislators who are capable of taking other Legislators along on a sane and fair path to make Laws and find ways to implement the same justly.
Voting is a Right in a Democracy, but to vote rightly is merely an option. Don’t waste it.
Posts tagged ‘india’
When personal Beliefs justify Facts, objectivity gets thrown out.
If a society is bred on Personal Beliefs, it becomes an excellent breeding ground for Lies.
When Lies get packaged as Truth, the Society which entertains and promotes such Truth, becomes unreliable on Facts and consequently unstable in its path.
#MeToo has set in motion such a possibility. Stale and unverifiable allegations without proofs have started crowding our newsfeed.
The reader is unable to dislodge from his mind, the sympathy the victim deserves, with any certainty of Facts, thus leaving the reader in a Limbo of equivocation.
Yet, videos of Suhel Seth publicly pinching/poking an awardee in the dais, justifies the necessity for such a platform.
I am with the Victims, but who is the Victim?
I fail to understand as a man who has a reasonable understanding of the English language, whether the ‘meaning’ of the words have assumed meanings not conveyed through the words of the statute, and if so, as a common man of normal prudence would my understanding of the law be tenable at all?
Let us read the provisions of Section 497 of the Indian Penal Code:
Whoever has sexual intercourse with a person who is and whom he knows or has reason to believe to be the wife of another man, without the consent or connivance of that man, such sexual intercourse not amounting to the offence of rape, is guilty of the offence of adultery, and shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to five years, or with fine, or with both. In such case the wife shall not be punishable as an abettor.
CLASSIFICATION OF OFFENCE
Punishment—Imprisonment for 5 years, or fine, or both—Non-cognizable—Bailable—Triable by Magistrate of the first class—Non-compoundable.
Upon a plain reading of the provisions of Section 497 it appears to me that the following ingredients are essential for the commission of the offence.
0. The perpetrator of the offence has to be a male;
0. That male has to have had sexual intercourse with a woman who should, at that time of such intercourse, have been married to a man, other than the perpetrating male;
0. The perpetrating male should know for a fact that the woman with whom he had intercourse was married to someone other than himself, or that the perpetrator should have had reasons to believe that she was married to some other man at the time of such intercourse;
0. Such intercourse should have been without the consent or connivance of the man married to that woman, with whom the perpetrator is alleged to have had sexual intercourse;
0. That such intercourse should not be within the ingredients of the offence of rape; &
0. The woman cannot be made an abettor of this offence.
What I understand of these ingredients is that if a man despite knowing that a woman is married to another man though has sexual intercourse with her with the consent of the married woman (not being rape) but without the consent or connivance of the husband, the PERPETRATING MALE has to be punished under the provisions of Section 497 of the IPC for Adultery.
There are multiple issues which flow out of this offence. If during the subsistence of the marriage, the husband had access to the woman during the period when she conceived the child of the perpetrating male, the presumption in law would be that the HUSBAND OF THE MOTHER OF THE CHILD WOULD BE THE FATHER OF THE CHILD under Section 112 of the Evidence Act.
We have been squabbling in the courts over not bastardising children by skirting illegitimacy issues of a child, but what about perpetrating a lie in the mouth of a child who believes that his/her mother’s husband was her biological father?
If for any reason the child after reaching adulthood finds out that facts were not facts and embarks on a quest to find hi/her biological father, we would not only have a nice Bollywood script on our hands at the cost a generation of such adults, but also traumatise those adults irretrievably.
You might ask: What if the woman had sexual intercourse with a man out of consent from her husband and conceived? In such a case, the risk of exposure is less as the couple had ‘agreed’ and it would not be a ‘discovery’ to the husband consequently the husband may not have any sane reason to expose. The risk at least gets minimised to the extent that the child may not be embroiled in taking sides with either of his/her parents. With Time, the fact could become a non-issue.
The unfairness that follows by casting a burden on an unsuspecting husband to maintain not only the cuckoo but also the she-cuckoo revolts against the much bandied ‘polluter pays’ Principle in the Environmental issues.
There are facts which one can let pass, but as a society, though there are bound to be infringements, we need to uphold certain positions which would not encourage lies which could spill over to generations.
The cuckoo nest story is a lot decent as the egg breaks into a cuckoo and flies out in due course, but in these cases, the she-crows egg itself has been fertilised by the cuckoo!
I am inclined to read the provisions of Sec. 497 as a norm of the society to uphold the Brotherhood of Man. The underlying principle is hoary and timeless: No man in the normal course, wants to nurture and lavish his resources on whom he doesn’t believe to be his child. Much less, leave a legacy at his passing away.
Men leave their women folk behind like Uriah and go to the battlefront to eke out a living, sometimes for honour and mostly impelled by a drive to improve his economic conditions. In his absence, there are bound to be Davids, who might watch, entice, ensnare and subsequently commit adultery, which could end up in conception, as in the case of Bathsheba. But the society has to have some laws in place to assure those menfolk who have to depart in pursuit of business. It is for this reason that this Section was put in place.
Like in any law, it starts with harsh punishments and after achieving a certain threshold of compliance, the law falls into desuetude. Likewise Section 497 had fallen into disuse. But that Damocles’ sword was essential to those Davids, who could go full fledged in sowing their oats on unsuspecting women.
By an amendment to this section in 1992 by the then united Andhra Pradesh Government, this was made into a COGNIZABLE OFFENCE. As in communities, which are quartered by castes, these adulterous issues could end up in spilling of much blood.
To interpret the provisions of Section 497 of the IPC as a triumph of ‘equality of genders’ is ridiculous. If the law had been interpreted by striking down the “abettor” clause as DISCRIMINATORY, in terms of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, I could have conceded, but not when the breach of the bond of brotherhood is not visited with a threat of incarceration.
I see the striking down of Section 497, as the removal of the final societal sanction against breaking the bonds of Brotherhood.
Man has to have some taboos. It is not for nothing that married women in our society were encouraged to wear prominently vermillion on their foreheads as a mark of them being married. Even if one were to get past that, there were rings in the second toes of married women’s feet. The reasons for a man to know that an Indian woman is in a matrimony are plenty, whether he looks her in her eye or looks at her feet. ‘Notice’ can never be wanting, but now that the threat has gone, it is only limited to ‘age’ and ‘consent’.
Yeah! Some direction ‼️
The demand by the Patels of Gujarat, by the Jats of Haryana, Kapus of Andhra, Gujjars of Rajasthan, Ahoms of Assam, the Vanniars of Tamil Nadu, is not merely a demand to enjoy the benefits of the society, but a self-recognition by the youth of each of those communities, that they had lost out in the growth game of India, because of the paradigm shift in the society from the land based to the super-skill based labour.
Kudos! The previous generations which were rigidly of the belief that landownership was better than formal academic credentials, had deprived the members of the present generation of the valuable formal academic credentials, which has become vital for social upward mobility. Free electricity for the tube wells are drying up; minimum support price for food grains etc. are not lucrative, in this scenario, depending on agri holdings or even conversion of the same into one time commercial or residential windfall, isn’t the right source of the wealth to be wangled from the society and therefore the dependence on land does not appear bright.
In the sine curve of existence, certain decisions taken by the previous generations might not have worked out well in the lives of the succeeding generation. So this generation which quickly acknowledges that should be positively discriminated for! Otherwise, these communities would lag behind creating a negative load in the progress of the community.
But how to keep the list of beneficiaries of such Positive Discrimination within the 50% limit – a limit laid down and added to the basic structure of the constitution and thus sanctified into an ineluctable structure?
Those previous generation which had taken decisions and by hind sight have found that their choices had gone right, should be encouraged to review their continued inclusion in the list of those POSITIVELY DISCRIMINATED FOR . Their children should VOLUNTARILY give up those benefits and their caste names ought to be removed . I strongly recommend that those communities should be encourage people to get their caste out of the beneficiary list, so as to accommodate their less fortunate brethren.
Let CHANGE be the norm. Let’s give opportunity to all, on some ground or the other!
Those youngsters who have been deprived of the skills which are useful in today’s dispensation, ought to be granted that status – evolving backward castes!
We’ve gotta go for the underlying structure of an Idea. That would hold good in the future also!
Thankfulness is an integral part of Worship of any Christian. This thankfulness is not for anything in particular received by any Christian, but a GENERAL GRATITUDE firstly for being ALIVE, secondly for being CONSCIOUS enough to recognize our own existence and thirdly for the GOOD THINGS that God had given us. A sense of GRATITUDE, because despite the vicissitudes much of the good status quo had been maintained, not because of one’s efforts or efficiency, but because of God’s GRACE.
Likewise, INDEPENDENCE DAY in India being celebrated all over the country is a day to CHERISH that we, the people of India, exist an an INDEPENDENT NATION. We also recall those days when we were under the rule of foreigners, who could not have had our weal their overwhelming priority, and were liberated through the efforts of our forefathers and foremothers(!) and stabilized a nation which would make the governing process its own, without any interference or directions from outside forces. To put it succinctly, WE FORMULATED OUR OWN CENTRE, the centre was not outside of India and the people who determined our LAWS were all to be INDIANS. This is the IDEA which makes me joyful and thankful.
And we did not achieve it overnight through the efforts of a few leaders, but because the GENERAL RESENTMENT of being ruled by ALIENS, was politically organized by our well known freedom fighters and presented a fait-accompli to the British that to rule India with a Home Secretary for India sitting in London, would not only be viable anymore, but if still persisted with, the consequences could be unproductive for the British!
It is that snowballing of the resentment to a political organization which led, i believe, to the great Gandhian force. Further, the destructive power of the masses were tactfully controlled through the NON-VIOLENCE advocated by the Mahatma. It is the MEANS which were used in obtaining the Independence, which is even more laudable than anything else. It showed to the world that that as a NATION we could abjure violence against even atrocities of a well entrenched political system.
One of the most important aspects of our Independence Day celebrations which is a cause of concern is that the freedom fighters who came from certain areas have not been highlighted at the national level. If we peruse those history text books prescribed in schools, we could see that the POLITICAL LEADERS have been given enormous space, ignoring the PATH BREAKING ATTEMPTS MADE BY SOME OF THE INDIAN FREEDOM FIGHTERS. The one name about whom the Northern India is still ignorant of is Vallinayagam Olaganthan Chidambaram Pillai, (1872-1936) (Tamil: வ. உ. சிதம்பரம் பிள்ளை) popularly known by his initials, V.O.C. (spelt Vaa. Oo.Ce in Tamil), also known as Kappalottiya Tamilan (கப்பலோட்டிய தமிழன்) “The Tamil Helmsman”, was a Tamil political leader.
VOC might be listed as a political leader, but his reach and scale was not in organizing people into a particular political thought. Even though VOC might have been successful in the limited scope of his Madras Presidency and the state, it was the formation of Swadeshi Steam Navigation Companywhich was an activity, which transformed the thinking of the moneyed class of people in India. There were the TATAs and the BIRLAs, who were providing employment to thousands of Indians and thriving in their businesses, but to PUBLICLY STATE THAT THE BRITISH GOVERNMENT WAS MONOPOLIZING SEA TRANSPORT AND FETCHING BACK FINISHED GOODS AND SELLING THEM AT EXORBITANT RATES TO THE DETRIMENT OF THE FARMERS CULTIVATING COTTON, make it COMMON KNOWLEDGE is DIFFERENT!
VOC did not stop with that, he organized a STEAMER COMPANY and competed with the British. VOC was incarcerated on grounds which smacked of nothing but vendetta,and till his Steamer Company was liquidated, the British did not release him from jail. His matter went upto the Privy Coulcil, which gave the British executives enough time to finalize the liquidation process based on the laws, severely skewed in favour of the alien rulers!
Freedom fighters like Vanchinatan, Baghat Singh etc used force against the crushing might of the British, despite knowing their own weaknesses and even though they lost their lives, they did resurrect the COURAGE of the contemporary Indians against the consequences of revolt and violence. But it is the act of VOC, which took the first economic foray into the very ramparts of the British. The RESOURCES which British so easily gained out of the raw material, labour and land of India was brought to challenge. And, i take this day to pay homage to a man who saw the RESOURCE GARNERING of the BRITISH and DID SOMETHING TO RATTLE THE BRITISH!
I see the Independence day as an opportunity to discover what our forebears did to destabilize the ALIEN British and make the notion of FREEDOM a step closer than where it was before they did something!
All the Cigarette packets, sold in India, scream the Governmentally compelled negative advertisement, ” SMOKING KILLS.” How far is this advertisement legally, ethically and medically correct?
Firstly, the seller of the cigarette is compelled to state things against the very product the company/firm is selling.
Secondly, the Central Government levies Excise duty on Tobacco products and thereby benefits REVENUE-WISE from the sale of tobacco products.
Thirdly, the moment one steps into a hospital for any check-up, the first and invariable question asked is, “ARE YOU A SMOKER?” That makes the Physician’s job simpler. He now knows what to look for! He is taught in his medical school how a smoker’s lungs is clogged, how his arteries are blocked and how the tar and nicotine have spoilt his whole system. So he starts with a PFT (Pulmonary Function Test……) , a scan on all his arteries, especially of his limbs and finally a test to see the functioning of his heart! Lo and Behold! the diagnosis is that the PATIENT (the nomenclature changes the moment a minor deviation is noticed from the referral values!) HAS TO QUIT SMOKING OTHERWISE………that silence can frighten even the stout hearted!
I know that for a non-smoker, it could be quite annoying to have a smoker puffing in the vicinity and being forced to inhale those caustic and toxic fumes emanating from the nostrils of a smoker, but merely because it is annoying, should the LAWS be made so as to MALIGN any smoker? I think not. The laws should be made in such a way, so that the smokers could be provided a place, just like the SULABH washrooms, which would facilitate smokers have a PEACEFUL SMOKE without scowls and having to smoke furtively as if they were thieves!
Every smoker contributes to the CONSOLIDATED FUND OF INDIA. Look at the percentage of excise on tobacco products-
If the excise burden is measured as a percentage of the retail price, the burden on handmade bidis is 8.8% while the burden on cigarettes is 33% or higher.
The money paid by a smoker for a cigarette costing in retail at Rs. 5/- would have been excised to the extent of Rs. 1.70 per cigarette. So smokers are persons who are contributing on a regular basis- assuming that a person smokes 10 cigarettes a day, he contributes Rs. 17/- per day every day as Central Excise. Is there a social obligation on the part of the Government to alleviate the illnesses of smokers from the consequences of smoking? Surely they do, otherwise, there would be NO JUSTIFICATION for keeping the Excise so high. But, how many hospitals have been built for treatment of smokers? I know of none, instead, whenever a smoker goes to a Physician, and the Doctor tells him that his problems are all because of smoking!
There was a research conducted by the University of North Carolina says as follows;-
As per www.reuters.com, the findings of the study revealed that a change in the chromosome 11 from DNA code is responsible for imbibing the habit of smoking while chromosome 9 hinted at an association with the ability to quit smoking. The study also revealed that genes are also responsible for higher chances of lung cancer.
The research study may help develop better treatment for quitting the habit of smoking. “This lends support to the idea that smoking is not just a question of will power alone, but that genetics plays a role in how much a person smokes and their ability to quit smoking,” explained Dr. Helena Furberg, lead researcher, University of North Carolina.
So if the proclivity to get stuck with smoke lies with one’s genes, why not do research on the money gained by the Government through Excise and get smokers to adequately bolster their “chromosome 9” instead of bad-mouthing smokers and seeing smoking as willful behaviour of a smoker?
This witch hunt should end and the Government should spend more on research in India on this aspect and create a healthy nation. The Physicians should also realize that SMOKING is a condition which should be rectified through their sane medical advice and not exploit the lack of knowledge by the medical community to set right the maladies which get aggravated through smoking.
MORALITY SHOULD BE ALIENATED FROM MEDICAL CONDITION.
The government should utilize the money gained through sale of tobacco products for the betterment of the health of the smokers. The non-smokers should not be allowed to enjoy the excise collected through sale of Tobacco products- as that would mean, the non-smoker would bad-mouth a smoker and yet be shameless enough to use the excise duties collected through sale of tobacco products for his/her own benefit.
The issue of COMPELLING A CIGARETTE COMPANY TO PLACE AN ADVERTISEMENT ON THE PRODUCT AGAINST THE COMPANY’S OWN INTEREST IS CHEAP! The government should educate the people through its own spending and not COMPEL on moral grounds.
Coming to the smokers, they should also choose spots not frequented by non-smokers and smoke tobacco so that their habits do not deleteriously affect the “supposed” health of non-smokers.
The Government advt, at the cost of the company, SMOKING KILLS, seems as if the non-smokers are exempt from premature death or even death itself. I can give enough examples of persons who had smoked their way to glory well into their late eighties. We make generalizations with the hope that such generalizations would have a salubrious effect on humans, but these bold type SMOKING KILLS looks like a big joke……. with no purpose…and to boot at someone’s cost!
AS RESPONSIBLE INDIANS, LET US TELL THAT THE EXCISE COLLECTED ON TOBACCO PRODUCTS BE EXCLUSIVELY USED FOR THE WEAL OF TOBACCO USERS ONLY- LET US DEVELOP SOME SELF-RESPECT.
In Chennai, on the East Coast Road running from Chennai to Mahabalipuram and thereafter, the Motor Vehicles officials of Tamil Nadu have been on a drive to harass passenger car owners who ply premium cars which have Pondycherry registration. The grounds for such harassment is the presumption that permanent residents of Tamil Nadu are getting their cars registered in Pndycherry, with a view towards taking advantage of the lower rate of ROAD TAX payable!
Under the Motor Vehicles Act, the jurisdiction for collection of ROAD TAX has been vested with the respective states where the vehicles are registered. Consequently, if the vehicles are registered in Tamil Nadu, for allotment of TN number, ROAD TAX would be payable as per the rates fixed by the Tamil Nadu government and notified under the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicle Rules. The rates of ROAD TAX varies from state to state and is the highest in the state of Karnataka, where depending on the cost of the car, the rate of Road Tax is fixed. In Tamil Nadu the rate is 10% of the invoice value of the car, whereas in Pondicherry the Road Tax is around 1% of the Invoice value of the car. The interesting part is that almost uniformly, all the states of India collect LIFE TIME TAX, which is for 15 years, assumed to be the life of the vehicle. ROAD TAX is appropriated as an ADVANCE TAX and used up by the state in that year’s budget itself, leaving no scope for refund, if any vehicle were to meet its end before its “life” determined under the ROAD TAX.
Why do the Motor Vehicle officials target the ECR? Because, the Information Technology employees who commute using the OMR or ECR are easy target to the threats of “seizure” of the car by the officials. Further, no “local” backlash would not be felt if transferable IT engineers are caught and made to pay the ROAD TAX as per Tamil Nadu rates. Further, the IT officials/ engineers are likely to pay the tax without demur. The PROBLEM WITH SUCH PAYMENT IS THAT IF THAT PERSON WERE TO GET TRANSFERRED TO ANOTHER STATE, THEN FOR NOT USING THE TAMIL NADU ROADS FOR THE REMAINDER YEARS OF THE 15 YEARS, TAX WOULD NOT BE REFUNDABLE! ABSOLUTELY ILLOGICAL. The Motor Vehicle officials while registering cases on such persons for plying other state registered cars in Tamil Nadu, insert a line saying that the OWNER OF THE CAR, CAME FORWARD ON HIS OWN VOLITION AND PAID TAMIL NADU ROAD TAX! Further, NO REBATE IS GIVEN for the Road Tax already paid in another state of INDIA.
Our CONSTITUTION, which GUARANTEES free movement of persons in India is comatosed by these RULES made by each State to garner revenue. This garnering of REVENUE becomes worse at the beginning of every year, as the budget estimates of the current year is drawing to a close, much below the projection!
ROAD TAX, thus if paid to each state, a person will end up paying for all the 28 states and 7 Union Territories. That is the only time when he will ACQUIRE A RIGHT TO PLY ON ALL THE ROADS OF OUR COUNTRY WITHOUT BEING HARASSED BY THE MOTOR VEHICLE OFFICIALS! No doubt, that no re-registration is required if the vehicle is in the same state for less than a month, but if a person is likely to commute between 2 or 3 states often, should he pay the ROAD TAX for each of the states?
It is time the PARLIAMENT makes a law and allows NATIONAL PERMITS for Passenger cars too, so that persons in transferable jobs and also persons who suffer from wanderlust could apply for it and escape from the nuisance of the state Motor Vehicle authorities. But who cares? Everyone is busy CHAMPIONING THE CAUSE OF THE “POOR”, LEAVING THE SYSTEM TO THE VAGARIES OF OUR IRRATIONAL TAX COLLECTION SYSTEMS.