Of Dr. Jai Maharaj and Hindu Criminal Cabal
By Sid Harth
BJP Vice President Madanlal Khurana Scandal |
Of Equal Rights and Ding bat dog-tor Dr. Jai Maharaj Criminality |
Shamsul Islam Bangs Hindu, Brahmin Mafia Buttboys |
Minorities in India are Treated Like Criminals |
Fali S Nariman Talks About Indian Constitution and Fundamental Rights |
Following article is a direct qoute to show that even in India, the law, as defined by the constitution of India does not give terroristic rights to deluded dunces like a goddamned liar and known Hindu terrorist, ding bat dog-tor, Dr. Jai Maharaj, a non Indian citizen, an anti American Indian-American more rights than he already is granted under the US constitution.
Dr. Jai Maharaj's criminal empire is as a result of Hindu, Brahmin Mafia, RSS who as individual citizens of India and as a powerful group of racists, fundamentalists are wrecking an havoc on the principle of equality and free speech.
Fali writes in the Asian Age, dated May 2, 2000.
The government’s resolution of February 22, 2000 gives the wrong impression — that our Constitution is lagging behind the times and requires to respond to changing needs.
On the occasion of the celebration of 50 years of our Constitution the President of India said (on January 27, 2000, in the Central Hall of Parliament), “Today when there is so much talk about revising the Constitution or even writing a new Constitution, we have to consider whether it is the Constitution that has failed us or whether it is we who have failed the Constitution.”
Simple words. Most effective. Most quoted. Yet they do not express any definitive point of view — they were words of caution expressed not by a lawyer or by a judge but by a statesman with rich political experience.
Surely they deserved consideration! But only a few weeks later, without even attempting to examine whether the Constitution had failed us or whether it was constitutional functionaries who had failed to work the Constitution in the manner in which it was conceived and written, the government of the day resolved “to set up a National Commission to review the working of the Constitution”: mark the words “National Commission.”
None of the political parties in Opposition were consulted. Neither of the Houses of Parliament (whose members together have the sole power to amend the Constitution) were taken into confidence nor had its members expressed the need to “review” the Constitution. Both Houses had been summoned to meet on February 23, 2000.
But just a day before, a government resolution dated 22 February 2000, announced the constitution of a Commission to examine, “how best the Constitution can respond to the changing needs of efficient, smooth and effective system of governance and socio-economic development of modern India within the framework of parliamentary democracy and to recommend changes if any that are required to the provisions of the Constitution without interfering with its basic structure or features.”
Obviously the impression given was that our Constitution was lagging behind the times and had to respond to “ changing needs. ” No consideration was given to the fact that to meet “changing needs” the constituent body (consisting of members of both Houses of Parliament) had in fact amended the Constitution over the years on nearly 80 different occasions: all of which is so well-documented in a study on the nature and operation of the amending process published by the Lok Sabha Secretariat (titled Constitution Amendment in India).
In the Preface to the Sixth Edition of this work the Editor (then Secretary-General of the Lok Sabha), had written: (as of the year 1995): “The amending process of the Constitution has been working like a ‘safety-valve’ to reconcile the requisites for progress with the requisites for safety.
It is ample testimony of the vibrance of our Constitution that in a span of 44 years of its adoption as many as 76 amendments have been carried out to bring it in tune with the changing needs and aspirations of society.” No one inside or outside the government has ever contradicted the correctness of this factual assessment.
Our existing Constitution of India makes provision for unity amidst diversity — do not disturb it.We must first try to understand the background to our Constitution before we ask ourselves the question whether we need to review it. We cannot comprehend or even attempt to comprehend this Constitution of ours until we realise the vastness of India and its diversity.
India’s diversity begins with its geography. The entire subcontinent — which today includes Pakistan, Bangladesh, Bhutan, Sri Lanka and of course, India — is a separate geographical entity bounded by high mountains in the North, and great oceans to the West, South and East.
Until about 70 years ago the subcontinent could be approached only by sea or through narrow passes in the North-West. Protected by natural barriers, it formed historically a cul-de-sac; successive migratory waves of invaders were halted and intermingled with the indigenous residents to such an extent that radically distinct racial traits became hard to identify.
Language and religion, rather than ethnic origin, became the primary distinguishing feature of the myriad peoples of India. Writing in the quiet seclusion of a British prison in 1944 (during his night term of imprisonment for revolting against the British), Jawaharlal Nehru contemplated “the variety and unity” of India: “The diversity of India is tremendous; it is obvious: it lies on the surface and anybody can see it.
It concerns itself with physical appearances as well as with certain mental habits and traits. There is little in common, to outward seeming, between the Pathan of the Northwest and the Tamil in the far South.
Their racial stocks are not the same, though there may be common strands running through them; they differ in face and figure, food and clothing, and, of course, language... the Pathan and Tamil are two extreme examples; the others lie somewhere in between. All of them have still more the distinguishing mark of India.
It is fascinating to find how the Bengalis, the Marathas, the Gujaratis, the Tamils, the Andhras, the Oriyas, the Assamese, the Canarese, the Malayalis, the Sindhis, the Punjabis, the Pathans, the Kashmiris, the Rajputs, and the great central block comprising the Hindustani-speaking people, have retained their peculiar characteristics for hundreds of years, have still more or less the same virtues and failings of which old tradition or record tells us, and yet have been throughout these ages distinctively Indian, with the same national heritage and the same set of moral and mental qualities.
There was something living and dynamic about this heritage which showed itself in ways of living and a philosophical attitude to life and its problems. Ancient India, like ancient China, was a world in itself, a culture and a civilisation, which gave shape to all things.
Foreign influences poured in and often influenced that culture and were absorbed. Disruptive tendencies gave rise immediately to an attempt to find a synthesis. Some kind of a dream of unity has occupied the mind of India since the dawn of civilisation.
That unity was not conceived as something imposed from outside, a standardisation of externals or even of beliefs. It was something deeper and, within its fold, the widest tolerance of beliefs and customs was practised and every variety acknowledged and even encouraged...
“In ancient and medieval times, the idea of the modern nation was non-existent, and feudal, religious, racial, and cultural bonds had more importance. Yet I think that at almost any time in recorded history an Indian would have felt more or less at home in any part of India, and would have felt as a stranger and alien in any other country.
He would certainly have felt less of a stranger in countries, which had partly adopted his culture or religion. Those, such as Christians, Jews, Parsees, or Moslems, who professed a religion of non-Indian origin on, coming to India, settled down there, became distinctively Indian in the course of a few generations.
Indian converts to some of these religions never ceased to be Indians on account of a change of their faith. They were looked upon in other countries as Indians and foreigners. even though there might have been a community of faith between them.” I like to believe that it is this eloquent passage (written in 1946) that inspired the drafting of India’s Constitution.
The Constitution of India, 1950 as enacted, contained 395 Articles (with a Bill of Rights) and an Appendix of eight Schedules, occupying in the Official Edition, 251 pages.
Its length was due, not merely to the size of the country, but to the problems of accommodating, in a Parliamentary-cum-Cabinet-style Constitution, divergent points of views of representatives of peoples speaking different languages and observing varied faiths, striving at the same time to transform a rigid hierarchical social order into an egalitarian society.
The Constitution enshrines a social covenant and is neutral to what economic model is chosen except that it should approximate to a socialist ideal. The Chapter on the Directive Principles of State Policy makes this clear.
The Constitution accommodates all religions but does not give recognition to any single one. Religion in India means not only the profession of faith; as you know it encompasses, places of worship; (temples, mosques, gurudwaras, churches, synagogues); it includes idols, deities and offerings to them, bathing places, graves, tombs, properties attached to and owned by religious institutions.
All this — faith, worship, ritual and the secular activities of religious groups — had to be and are provided for by the Constitution — in the Chapter on Fundamental Rights. Their essentials are put beyond the reach of interference by the executive or by fleeting majorities in Parliament and in State Assemblies.
Pluralism and an indigenous federalism thus became the delicate balance in the framework of India’s Constitution. Pluralism has been India’s great strength. It is also India’s great weakness — and this incongruity is nowhere more apparent than in our Basic Law.
In a land of conflicting ideas and ideals, the basic document of governance has been forged in a spirit of tolerance accommodating diverse interests and values:
n With more than 30 principal indigenous languages and dialects from which to choose, the Constitution has recognised English as one of the two official languages of the Union — at the same time it has affirmed the fundamental right of sections of citizens having a distinct language and script, to conserve the same.
In a professedly secular republic, the Chapter on Fundamental Rights has recognised and protected India’s six main religions (and more than 200 “religious persuasions”); and by a compact with India’s minorities it has also insulated from legislative and executive incursions the cultural and educational rights of sections of citizens and minorities (whether based on religion or language).
The Right to Equality is guaranteed, and the State is prohibited from discriminating against any citizen on grounds only of race, religion, caste, or place of birth, and yet discrimination in favour of socially and educationally backward classes is recognised and encouraged.
The textual juxtaposition of guarantees of equality and the authorisation of compensatory discrimination reflects the deep conflict between divergent views on Equality, and varied notions as to the scope of protective discrimination.
Whilst adopting adult suffrage as the basis for periodic elections to Parliament and to State Assemblies, and abolishing special electoral rolls based on race, religion, caste, or sex, the Constitution has provided for reservations of seats in the House of the People and in the Legislative Assembly of every State for the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (for centuries, the outcastes of Hindu society — reckoned as the world’s largest minority).
These seemingly disparate and contradictory provisions were necessitated not only by social, historical and political considerations, but to help preserve that “dream of unity ”about which Panditji wrote (in his Discovery of India) a dream that “has occupied the mind of India since the dawn of civilisation.”
It is unity amidst diversity that is the touchstone of our Constitution’s philosophy: the provision for a federal structure, with a strong centrist bias gives added emphasis to this philosophy.
Tomorrow:Wherever the Constitution has not worked properly it has been because the Constitutional functionaries have failed to perform the functions entrusted to them
Sid Harth..."Brahmin bigots, racists, feces fascists, religious fundamentalists. and terrorists must leave the United States of America, failing which I shall rip their asses so wide that semi traffic could pass thru."
FastCounter by LinkExchange
