Special Parliament Session to debate the path to a poverty free India

Friends, Indians, Countrymen!

This is not another email that asks you to forward it for an ISP, continents away, to give pittance of its mammoth revenue to someone who suffers in US. This is not something that promises you that a cup of staple food would be delivered to some unknown sufferer if you click on some website regularly.

We have a lot of questions and we ask them, when it comes to our money. But we fail to ask those same incisive questions when it comes to spending of public money, and let our fellow citizens suffer and resign our nation to false fate. Some bootlegger somewhere loots our money and lavishes it on extraordinary and inhuman luxuries, while the deserving people suffer without food. This happens in our nation which boasts quite a few of it making to the Forbes list of the world's wealthy people. Yet, around 40% of our fellows are on the negative side of the economic growth.

Haves continue to have more, but have-nots continue have less. We have our politicians, we trusted them with our votes, stall the business of Parliament for their want of 300% hike in pay and perks. But none seems to bother about the sufferers and to discuss their sorry state of affairs and what could be done better to get them a life worth living.

It is a nice initiative by Mr. Rajeev Chandrasekar of an e-campaign for a special session of Parliament to strictly discuss only the poverty and measures to tame that, so that the human basics of food, clothing and shelter don't continue to remain key electoral issues even after 6 decades of independence aka self-rule.

An extract from Mr. Rajeev's web post is given hereunder.

If the Parliament can be convened specially to hear President Obama of America, surely we can also convene a special session to discuss National Priority issues like Poverty.

So, if you agree with this idea of special sessions of Parliament that will focus on ‘National Priority issues’ – write a letter or email to the Vice President vpindia@nic.in and/or Speaker of Lok Sabha speakerloksabha@sansad.nic.in or Prime Minister manmohan@sansad.nic.in and copy me rajeev.c@nic.in on it so I can get a sense as well of how many of us really want this focus to start. I can think of many ways of service to the country – this is one real way of serving by getting all of us to focus on creating a Poverty and destitution less India!

This is the link of Mr. Rajeev's website. 
Special Parliament Session to debate the path to a poverty free India

Please type a mail and help the attempt to change the type of our politics. My special thanks to Mr. Shanthnu of http://Satyameva-Jayate.org for bringing this to many friends' notice.
Vande Maatharam!

Aradhana of H.H.Chandrashekara Bharathi III

On the morning of Thursday the 7th of October 2010, my uncle Mr. Mee.Viswanathan, a Tamil poet and a staunch devotee of the Sringeri Acharya called me to give kudos for the Navarathri Invitation that I had earlier downloaded from Sringeri mutt's website and sent to him. He told me that the Aradhana of H.H.Chandrashekara Bharathi III was on that day. I got curious. My learned friends have told me about the much respected Guru, but I needed more info. So, googled about Him and found a lot of interesting and thought provoking stuff.

Although I'm not qualified either through readings or through followings to lecture about the Acharya lineage, I still prefer to do so. Pardon the adhikaprasangam, please.

Chandrashekhara Bharati Swaminah the saint who was spiritually liberated while being alive (Jeevanmukhtha), was specially remembered on Thursday, the day of Mahalaya Amavasya. A notable feature of his life was that his birth, upanayanam, sannyasa and videha mukti (death), all happened on Sundays the day of the universal enlightener, the provider of light. In 1912, Acharya Sacchidananda Shivabhinava Narasimha Bharati Swaminah decided to name Narasimha Sastri (as he was named by his parents) as his successor to the Sharada Peetham. Before Narasimha could arrive in Sringeri, the Acharya had attained Videha Mukti.


The Swami performed the Mahakumbhabhishekam of the Sri Sharadha Temple in Sringeri in 1916. After returning to Sringeri from his 3 years' dhigvijayam from 1924 - 1927, the Mahaswami assumed the Avadhuta Sthiti.  He was absorbed in the inward bliss of the Atma. To enable himself to spend more time in meditation and contemplation of the Self, he named a successor to the Peetham: a boy named Srinivasa Sastri. On May 22, 1931, he initiated Srinivasa Sastri into Sannyasa and gave him the yoga patta of Abhinava Vidyatirtha.

After 1945, the Mahaswami gradually withdrew from all activities. On September 26, 1954 (the day of the Mahalaya Amavasya festival), the Mahaswami took a bath in the Tunga River, which ran in Sringeri. Afterwards, he sat in padmasana posture and attained Videha Mukti on the banks of the river. His body was discovered floating in the river. The Jagadguru's body was then interred by Sri Abhinava Vidyatirtha, his successor to the Sharada Peetham. His body was buried beside his Guru's samadhi (shrine) and a samadhi was constructed for him. A Shiva Linga was consecrated over it. It is worshipped today and is called Sri Chandrashekhara Bharati Linga.

Chandrashekhara Bharati Swaminah composed a few poems and wrote a famous commentary. His main works are:

• Gururaja Sukti Malika containing 36 compositions in about 400 pages. Printed in Sanskrit and Tamil
• Bhashya (commentary) on Vivekachoodamani of Sri Adi Shankaracharya

Jagadguru advocates that an individual must not merely see a guru often and hear his teachings, but imbibe the good habits the guru suggests and follow in their own life. They are:

• Satvic habits which include vegetarianism, cleanliness, discipline.
• Regular Sandhyavandhanam and development of piety.
• Giving significance to learning and knowledge.
• Good behaviour, honesty, generosity, and adherence to scriptures.
• Love, respect, and responsibility towards family and community.
• Doing away with pride and ego.

I got a chance by His grace to pay homage at the Sringeri Mutt to the much celebrated, most revered Guru H.H.Chandrashekara Bharathi III.
I wanted to boast this in front of the world, but that would suffice only a tweet. So, found and keyed a lot of information, which I would love to but face stiff challenges in following. Yathaartham Vadaami!!

Faith, Belief and Legality

One of  the prime criticisms of the Ram Janma Bhoomi verdict was the basis for the conclusion of the birth place of Lord Ram. The court has decreed that the centuries old belief of the people of India and during the later centuries of the Hindus has to be accepted and upheld. By abstract legal terms, the conclusion of the Ram Janma Bhoomi was not asked for,  so the court has over stepped. But yet to justify the decision on the title suit, the court has to go into details so that the judgment could stand on firm legal grounds, supported by reason.

The argument that any claim based on faith or belief could not become legal unless concrete, solid facts are presented, is legally untenable. Many facts based on faith and belief without solid proofs are accepted by the courts with full legality. When someone is called for as a witness or as a plaintiff/defendant, his/her father's name is asked for. That is a fact everyone in this world believes purely based on faith, and asking for a solid proof of that fact would attract angry response and reaction from the person concerned and also from the bench. Such a query may be considered as insulting, unless the matter under the court's inquiry is that.

Faith is the confident belief or trust in the truth or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing. It is confidence or trust in a person or thing, belief that is not based on proof, belief in god or in the doctrines or teachings of religion, belief in anything, as a code of ethics, standards of merit, etc., a system of religious belief (Hinduism, Christianity, Judaism, Islam etc), the obligation of loyalty or fidelity to a person, promise, engagement, etc., the observance of the obligation, fidelity to one's promise, oath, allegiance, etc.

So, criticizing faith and belief based judgments would question the very existence of humans in the world. We're trusting a certificate given by Government authorities, as we believe that would help us in identifying ourselves. No one questions the identification given by the Government because of the belief in the established system, though we have regular complaints about how the system is violated and failed.

If we keep asking for solid proof for everything in the world, we could not even say the direction the Sun rises is East as we don't have solid proof for that. Ancestors said so, we believe so. Do we have a certificate from any authority that Sun rises only in the East? Then why trust it? As it is a rotating object, what is the proof that it regularly rises in the East and sets in the West?


Well, a legal point now to ponder for a while.

When the issue reaches the Supreme Court, legal eagles opine, the 1940 verdict in Lahore Gurdwara case would play a key role in deciding Ayodhya dispute. The gurdwara case was decided based on the doctrine of adverse possession, which says a rightful owner of a property can lose his title over the property if another person occupies it for a particular period without being challenged. But that too could not be applied to the Ram Janma Bhoomi case as the facts of the two cases differ a lot.

The gurdwara was built in the 18th century after razing to ground a mosque. Decades later, the Muslims sought possession of the land on which their mosque once stood, by filing a suit. After getting verdict against their claim in various tribunals, they went to the Lahore High Court. Lahore High Court also, by a majority decision, dismissed their claim over the land. The Privy Council, then apex judicial body of British legal system, finally put its seal on the rights of the Sikhs to have the gurdwara on that land, upholding the decisions based onthe doctrine of adverse possession. 

A blind following of the Privy council's decision would not suit the Janma Bhoomi case, as the historic facts those form the basis of the claim of the Hindu people for the Ram Janma Bhoomi and the claim of the Muslims on the Lahore Gurdwara have vast differences. The said mosque was dazed down during the 1800s and a Gurdwara was built on that. There was a legal system established by the British for contentious issues to be redressed. They would not be averse to hearing both the sides before pronouncing judgments, as long as the case was not about any anti-imperial activity. Even in anti-imperial activity related cases, the arguments of the defendants would be heard and recorded but would not be accepted on the grounds of antiestablishmentarianism.

But when Ram Mandir was demolished to build an Islamic looking structure (legally concluded that the structure was not built as per the Sharia regulations for a mosque) or as by Justice Khan's dictum there were ruins of a temple where the disputed structure was built, or as per the twisted and tainted version of the judgment by Burkha Dutt of NDTV  that the Islamic looking structure was constructed upon some temple, general temple but not Ram temple, there was no established legal system to try the demolishing or building on ruins complaints, since the Hindus were under aggression and their very way of life was thrashed, culture flagellated, religion asphyxiated, whereas the Sharia Law of those invaders would term blasphemy any complaint against building of that Islamic looking structure. This was the situation during the medieval in Hindustan aka India i.e Bharath.

If taken in this undistorted historic context of no proper authority to try the case and deliver justice at the time of the crime, the time limitation cited by the Privy Council would not fit into the fabric of this case. So, the argument that no faith on a faith based judgment is imbecilic and the argument of untimeliness citing the Privy Council verdict is illogical.

Vande Matharam, Hey Ram!

The Ram Janma Bhoomi is legally declared as Ram Janma Bhoomi. The much awaited conclusion on the 60 year old legal tussle has arrived. But there are some points those pave way for a further probably protracted legal battle. The Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad (Prayag) High Court, has given a majority verdict that the land has to be trifurcated and shared between 3 of the parties to the litigation. Incidentally, two of the parties to the litigation are Hindus who support building of temple at the Janma Bhoomi. So, effectively, Hindu people have got 2/3 of the land and the Muslims 1/3.

Going into the verdict from a common man's view, the first question is why the land is divided when none of the parties to the litigation have asked for it? Is it Judicial activism to cool down all concerned? Or has the chronic national ailment of appeasement caught up with the Judiciary also? A simple example would help in understanding the frustration the verdict has created. My grandpa owned a piece of land that was occupied by someone using brute force. I filed a lawsuit and got a verdict that part of my grandpa's land has to be given to the occupier's heirs. I feel ditched by the court although I got a major part of my ancestral property.

The legal question is when the title of the land was awarded to Hindus unanimously, why a part of land has to go to a group which has been pronounced ineligible to claim title of the land. How can a group possess a property to which it has no title? If they possess a part of the land entitled to Hindus what would be their status? What are the terms of possession? Would they be tenants? Interestingly, Justice D V Sharma, registered a dissenting note, saying the entire land belonged to Hindus.


One of the anonymous senior lawyers, not associated with either side on this case, opined in the media, that the High Court has, in fact, forced the contesting parties to reach a compromise or be disappointed after the Supreme Court decides the matter on appeals. This makes one wonder on the job description of the courts of law in India. Hasn't the court delivered a verdict in this issue? Why should that be viewed as a suggestion for both parties to talk further and decide? These kind of insinuatory interpretations would further complicate the already prolonged legal issue.

The issue is set to go to Supreme Court. But the Government of India seems to take the side of the minority community since lump-sum votes matter. Home Minister of GoI P.Chidambaram stated that this verdict doesn't justify the demolition of the Babri Masjid. When the demolition of the disputed structure in 1992 and the title suit of the Janma Bhoomi are two different legal issues, what is the necessity of referring one while commenting upon the verdict of another by a legal luminary? May be political compulsion, may be vote bank politics or may be the long alleged paradigm shift of the political philosophy of the INC from national unity to minority appeasement.

The opinion of the nation is to accept the verdict of the court of law, build the temple at the Janmasthan and go ahead with economic and human development. Apart from those (politicians and accomplices) who benefited from the criminal communalization of national politics, all else are of the same opinion. Politicians who benefited from Muslim votes on the Janmabhoomi issue call this verdict by all names. But people with sane mind from both religions have advocated peace and respect for the verdict. Let us all share the suggestion of those sane minds and take recourse in the legal course for any further clarifications we need.


Let me quote the man who talked to quell Nazi threat, Sir. Winston Churchill. "It is better to jaw-jaw than war-war". It is high time we stand united and move ahead as a nation that articulates the sentiments of one and all, not only some sections those vote as a lump and hence disturb the tranquil civil life in India that is Bharath.

US lamenting about Indian Nuclear Liability Bill

While going through an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal which was titled "India Law Threatens U.S. Energy Deals" where the writers argue that the deal affects business interests of the US, but I felt their argument is not compelling to listen, keeping the thought of considering it aside. Most of the content of the article was cited to people people familiar with the matter, but not even one reference was given to any one person familiar with this matter. 

The article claimed that the U.S. used its global influence to nullify the international community's moratorium on nuclear trade with India after Buddha laughed in 1974. It also claimed that the U.S. expected India to set up a civil nuclear regime in place to get business for companies like GE and Westinghouse. If that is the case how did India successfully tested another nuclear bomb in 1998, given fact that the US influence resulted in India's favor only in early 2000s?


The article also claims that the nuke law threatens the progress in other business interests and further commerce between India and US. People familiar with the issue are looking for ways to circumvent the law, claims the article. Also it goes into detail about circumventing the law by Government to Government agreement pledging indemnity to suppliers foreign or domestic. Other way suggested is to negate the law when it is formally implemented when the executive comes up with a different interpretation challenging the purpose of the law. Another way suggested is for the Nuclear Power Corporation of India Ltd to sign contracts promising to take on all liability with U.S. suppliers. 

When I wanted more information about the nuke law, a part of the nuke cooperation through the 123 agreement, I did quite a bit of research online. I didn't go to any sites those ask to pay to view contents. I relied mostly on contents available for free and from trustworthy sources, like Government of India, Government of South Korea, think tanks of US and related countries, IAEA and opinions from experts who know the intricacies of the nuke job than those just read materials and claim expertise in media.

Well, none of the 28 countries which have nuclear liability laws insist on foreign supplier liability. The Rajiv-Gorbachev nuke pact to setup the Koodankulam Nuclear reactor also doesn't have the supplier liability clause to this stringent effect. The supplier liability ended when the reactor and related materials are handed over to the NPCIL. The argument that the suppliers foreign or domestic, Government or private would find it a risk too costly compared to the benefits from such a business is considerable. The rules of the game has been changed that people feel that India's stand smacks the my way or high way attitude. 


But the international conventions give the operator the right of recourse against a supplier, take up the Vienna Convention and the Paris Convention Articles as examples. The South Korean nuclear liability law gives the operator the right to catch hold of the supplier of any material, service or equipment when damage is done willfully or through negligence. This is normal in all businesses. If you supply me a material or equipment of inferior quality or do me a service of lesser quality than agreed upon, then I have the right to sue you. 

Why is the US whining upon this normal clause of general business practice/mercantile law? US industry has done business with South Korea with this so clamored threatening clause in force. Then why are they whining when India says if you do wrong own up the responsibility. We have history of the US business interests doing serious wrongs and instead of remedying pulling up stakes by pulling some political strings. Our own example is the Bhopal tragedy which the said WSJ article describes as the worst industrial disaster in the world, but considers the reference to it as a deliberate attempt by the opposition for the sake of opposing a lucrative deal, promising bright future, by citing a 26 year old incident.


The pain and suffering of the toxic gas leak victims and the impact the incident had on their lives and the psyche of their kinsmen could not be understood, because the real pain was told but largely went unreported for lack of follow ups by the media. They had their own priorities and preferences. Belittling one of the worst industrial disasters of the world and its pathetically handled remedial measures reveal a callous attitude towards the basics of journalism. It is one of the industrial disasters when it happens miles away and thousand lose their lives and future, but it is pain and cry when it happens to you. In words familiar to the US, "It's a recession when your neighbor loses his job; it's a depression when you lose yours."


Well, what is the way out with US working out of its way to pressurize us to water down the safety clauses? They work so hard to circumvent this law neither for the sake of the victims of any nuke disaster, nor to reduce insurance cost for the insurer (in business sense), but only to safeguard their business interests. The US nuke industry has always been averse to legal tangles in foreign soil, but wishes to get business without any risks to its profits. This is like wishing to get an apple a day without planting and growing a tree or spending a penny to buy one. There is no free lunch, is the answer to this attitude.
 
The better option is to do nuke business with South Korea. UAE has been working with South Korea on its nuke power plants. Seoul has its own stringent laws and is not party to any external conventions. So, they would understand our concern for safety. The UAE deal brings some interesting facts to light. The Korean have technology comparable to Japanese and arguably advanced than the US/EU giants. Koreans have a strong record for safety which was one of the prime reason the UAE Government awarded the $ 40 bn contract to Koreans.  
The Koreans do better quality job for a competitive price while the US or EU companies charge more but take less responsibilities for any contingency.

The US/EU argument supporting their businesses are mostly depending on political clout they have (or had?) in the region, but Koreans talk business and could be trusted to walk the talk, given their business history. 

Segregation of topics

Vande Maatharam!

I've decided to segregate my blog into two.One for topics on politics, public administration, law and related issues while another on business, economy, management and related subjects. Here under the blog titled
"yathaarthaM vadaami" I would be speaking (writing rather) on politics, public administration, law and related issues. My old posts are also here to stay though. Would keep thinking aloud here, hopefully from tomorrow.

Times of India insults Hinduism

There was an article in Times of India stating that incest is rampant in Haryana and predominantly the Hindu community is involved in it. They have even quoted some examples from Mahabharatha and Rig Veda that incest was traditional in Hindu culture. Here is the link. http://t.co/U45bz0X  The tenor of the article was of that only Haryana is infested with incest and some comments from some 'cultured' people say that North Indian men are sex maniacs. 

I seriously doubt the credentials of those 'cultured' commentators. Any perversion would take place and grow only when the mind is left idle to fend with any kind of thought. No community fosters perversion, nor they encourage such ideas. Stray incidents are given a boost and a bad picture is pasted about the Hindu community.

Careful checks through the net by Hindu people revealed that parts of article were just a carbon copy of a Pakistani forum (http://www.paklinks.com/gs/religion-and-scripture/40836-incest-hinduism-exposed.html). The 'author' of this article Sukhbir Siwach has picked up paragraphs from the said pakistani forum which insinuates about incest in Hindu culture. 

The copier (not worth addressed to as a writer/author) Sukhbir Siwach in his zeal to say something sensational has insulted the culture of the nation, misinterpreted the epics and vedas of the Hindu culture. This too has not come from his 'education' nor 'knowledge', but from just copying and pasting from an enemy nation's cyber forum. 

This is a blatant transgression of the basic norms of journalism. ToI editors should have checked the veracity of the claims in the article before publishing it, but they have not done that which is a result of either irresponsibility on their part or deliberate designs of the media house to insult the cultural face of the nation, Hinduism. ToI should apologize to the nation for subscribing to enemy views and insulting the Hindus. Legal action should also be taken if they still try to getaway with the crime committed. 

I do have couple of questions regarding this article. If this is part of the much lamented and detested paid journalism, who is paying for such insinuations? Since it is picked up from pakistani forum we have strong reasons to believe that ISI may have the copier in it's payroll. But going by the basic rule of any criminal investigation and disbelieving the obvious we have enough reasons to trust that it is the design of secular lobby which has a never quenchable hungry of insulting the Hindu people to uphold their designs and policies.

Be it the design of ISI or the secular lobby, it has to be nipped off with putting pressure by all legal and moral means on such evil minded journalists and secular-veiled media houses.