Fiji Crisis and Indian Idiots
By Sid Harth
Fiji Crisis and Indian Idiots
Rajeev Dhavan is an honorable man, so I thought. This boy has a way of putting things, a way of denying the truth, sort of a rat living in a sewer afflicted with tunnel vision. I noticed Rajeev Dhavan's yelling and screaming during a mini crisis in America affecting illegally working computer coolies being charged with the crime, handcuffed and paraded to the INS offices.
Like a red neck, blue blodded Hindu hoodlum that Rajeev Dhavan is, the wailing started with blindsiding the whole American justice, Human Rights, pregnant computer coolies and all the good stuff these rascals rustle. knarayanan boy gave moral support to all those whose misfortune it was to be caught comitting crime.
The innocent till proven kind of illogical arguments came flying from saffron conspirators. I slapped K Narayanan and showed that these coolies are in safe place, not dead. My evidence showed a policeman shooting an innocent young couple doing what young people do all the time, escape in their cars, go to secluded palces and grope each other, a sexual thing.
If Indian plice have a right to shoot and kill innocent people on suspision, without even warning them American law requiring an accused to wear handcuffs is the least intrusive. Later, all the computer coolies were released as they were duped by their filthy agents in the first place.
So much for Human Rights violation in America and law of jungle in holy India. As for Rajeev's charge that many constitutions of the world are being ignored, altered or simply violated is a balderdash. This odiotboy, Rajeev Dhavan, perhaps lives in his on dreams.
The saffron rats are wilfully and purposely denying all the constitutional protections to the minorities of India. Christian boy cannot marry non Christian (in other words a Hindu) bride in church. A minority society cannot construct a place of worship without getting permission from the saffron rats at Delhi. A Tribal cannot switch to Christianity even when no proof is presented as to any coersion on the part of Christian missionaries.
A Muslim from Kashmir cannot travel overseas as he is branded terrorist even when no charges are filed against him. A killer of more than nine hundred fifty innocent persons cannot be arrested though charged by special commission and proven guilty, as in case of Bal Thackeray of Marathi Mafia, Shiv Sena. The tragedy is that a chief minister, Manohar Joshi, openly admits that he would violate the constitutional obligation to arrest that shameless thug and put him in jail.
A Hindu hoodlum named Lal Kishen Advani caused a mayhem over Babri mosque demolition and caused more than five thousand deaths. The cases are pending against this criminal Hindu. Guess what, Lal Kishen Advani is India's home minister, in charge of the law, the law he had no problem in breaking.
Several private motions were introduced in the Indian parliament to alter certain articles under saffron riot rule. VHP vandals openly challenge the rule of law, even their own party bosses and push building Rama temple at Ayodhya against specific high court and supreme court orders.
Idiotboy, Rajeev Dhavan, a deluded dunce that he is is not losing sleep over such frantic efforts to usurp the powers of the constitution in India. This bastard, however, cries fowl when the indiginous people of Fiji rebel against a raw deal where foreign coolies are taking over their homelands right under their noses.
White trash Aryans demolished the native religions and societies. Robbed them blind. raped their virgins. Grabbed their lands and habitats. Stole their means of livelihood and honor. This kind of low key usurpation is going on for three thousand five hundred years of Aryan domination. Rajeev Dhavan does not notice fire under his ass. Who does?
Shudras are massacred. Shudra housewives are raped. Shudras are driven from pillar to post. Tribals are called terrorists. Tribal freedom fighters are blown to pieces on suspicion. No charges, no trials, no restitution, no sympathy for their genuine grievances, no nothing. I am talking about India, not Fiji.
Bastardboy, Rajeev Dhavan is playing with his dick while all these atrocities are being committed in India, and he is raising hue and cry over Fiji? When would these shitbuckets learn that India has the worst record over treating their minorities, that does not mean that the minorities are of foreign origin. Native population falling under this definition of minority is whopping three hundred million.
Sid Harth..."Rajeev boy, you better eat some more holy Hindu cow shit, you putrid, pathetic, pugilistic pagan, you."
The Fiji crisis
By Rajeev Dhavan
IS MIGHT right? Or, are contemporary Constitutions unable to meet the challenge of multi-racial, multi-ethnic, or socially differentiated societies? Pakistan's Constitution fell to a usurper in 1999. The fund of `pro-usurper' jurisprudence blessed this usurpation by giving Gen. Pervez Musharraf three years to clear the mess. Sierra Leone burns with upstarts and upsurges. Civil war has caught up with Sri Lanka in ways that question whether a single consensual Constitution can be devised to pledge this multi-ethnic island into peace. Close on the heels of these crisis comes the rebellion of Mr. George Speight in Fiji. The Prime Minister and his Cabinet are marooned. Their authority is undermined. The President, Ratu Kamisese Mara, has succumbed to the coup d'etat while pretending not to do so. The innocent Mahendra Chaudhry Government has been thrown out. The Army has now taken over. Mr. Speight is to get an amnesty. The Indian community, which has worked hard and honestly to support Fijian interests, has suddenly became the scapegoat for things it has not done. The Indian Government has shuffled its feet but little else. The Indian people are relatively unconcerned. They do not know how to look after their own diaspora.
Since the Ian Smith rebellion in the then Southern Rhodhesia in 1965, usurper jurisprudence has become fashionable. The white judges of Rhodesia and, at least one member of the Privy Council in England, used this usurper jurisprudence to defend Mr. Smith's illegal regime in 1969. Ghana's courts in 1966 and Nigerian judges in 1969 justified coup d'etat. From Dosso's case (1958) - through the entanglement of many refinements - Pakistan judges have, willy nilly, acceded to military takeover whilst pretending that they have also retained and imposed Constitutional limitations when blessing military takeover and dictatorial rule. In the first coup in Fiji by Mr. Sitiveni Rabuka, the judiciary of Fiji, in part, buckled under. At least, one Fijian judge told me that they did so because they would have been replaced by bad judges with no respect for the rule of law. So, good judges had to become bad, because bad judges can never be good! At the root of `usurper' jurisprudence lies the positivist theory of law which recognises that politics in an institutionalised form lies at the root, and forms the basis, of all Constitutions. If an alternative politics (like the armed gunmanship of Mr. Speight) sets aside the basis of a Constitution (variously described in juristic literature as a grundnorm or `rule of recognition') the Constitution itself breaks down. Amidst self-gratifying, but relatively meaningless, moral reservations by judges, the intuitions that inspire the positivist theory of law surrender the dharma of the law to provide support for and sustain usurpers. While the courage of Indian courts was found wanting during the Emergency (1975-77), the craft of its judges suggests that the `basic structure' of India's Constitution cannot be altered even by legal means. However, Indian judges failed to check or control usurpation when it mattered most. Neither courts nor jurists have been able to find an answer to the general helpless drift into usurper jurisprudence. Once the political rot starts the `law' cannot stop it. We are not dealing with `independence' movements or anti-racist takeovers, but simple audacious subversions of reasonable democratic Constitutions. Might is right. Judges and jurists throughout the world have not been able to stand firm against such audacity which insults both law and democratic governance.
Fiji is an important case. If we do not wish to endlessly re-draw the map of the world, we have to create Constitutions for multi- social societies. The imperial solution was to encourage and politicise differences and create a `divide and rule' governance. The Indian Constitution of 1950 started a new experiment to deal with the demands of group life. With a creative use of federalism, human rights for groups, affirmative action and special representation, India succeeded in pulling a subcontinent together under adverse circumstances. The third generation Constitution in this lineal progression is the Constitution of South Africa of the 1990s which dealt with complex social issues through innovative frameworks. The Fiji Constitution of 1997-98 was an amalgam of all three approaches, in addition to being an insightful expression of Fiji's genius. It is difficult for a Constitution to capture the genius of any society. Fiji's attempts to do so under its July 27, 1998, Constitution remain impressive. In an effort to find not just one but several right answers, Fiji's Constitution of 1998 found interesting balances. English, Fijian and Hindustani have equal status in the State (Art. 4(1)). Ownership of Fijian land according to Fijian custom, the rights of Fijian and Rotuman people to their right to governance through their separate administrative systems and the protection and upholding of the interest of Fijian communities are specific articles of faith in the Constitution (Art. 6 (c), (d), (j)).
There are special provisions for affirmative action which `must' be implemented in virtually every sphere of life (Art. 44) which are far more extensive and elaborate than those of casteist India or race- ridden South Africa. Citizenship by birth is recognised but only if one parent is a Fijian citizen (Art. 10) - an interesting and fair solution. The House of Representatives has proportionate electoral representation for Fijians, Indians and Rotumans (Art. 51) and the Senate has people appointed by the Great Council of Chiefs (Bose Levu Vakaturga), the Council of Rotuma, the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition (Art. 64). The Great Council of Chiefs has constitutional status (Art. 116).The civil service reflects ethnic composition (Art. 140 (d)). What we have is an amalgam of ideas which brings diverse people together in an in terestingly just manner. It is a unique experiment in a complex situation.
Fiji's President was wrong to dismiss the Prime Minister and his Cabinet; and make rash promises of replacement regimes. Under Fiji's Constitution, a Prime Minister must resign or be defeated (Art. 109). The Emergency Powers can only be mobilised under a law - and, in any case eventually not without reference to Parliament (Art. 187). It is pointless to argue that the crisis in Fiji represents a breakdown of the rule of law and constitutional governance. That is self-evident. More significantly, Fiji's Constitution of 1998 embodied a great constitutional experiment - no less significant than that of India in 1950 or South Africa from 1990. It was an example to the world. Strife-torn countries with ethnic divisions had much to learn from the Fiji solution - especially those with Indian and other migrants. There is something in the solution which has answers for Sri Lanka. Even if Fiji were now to create a new Constitution, it cannot do better - if it wants to be fair to Fijians, Indians and Rotumans alike. The coup is a blow to multi- ethnic living in the world.
Neither India nor the Indian people can remain aloof. India has a duty to support all and any just constitutional experiments which confront and deal with plural diversity - especially those concerning the Indian diaspora. Indians abroad are not just `NRIs', but social ambassadors who are wrongly maligned for their hard work. Both morally and politically India buckled under during the Kenyan (1968), Ugandan (1972) and other crisis (including human rights violation by Americans) to convey the impression that Indians can be badly treated anywhere by anyone in the world with impunity and without remorse. India should support the 1997-98 Constitution which Fiji should not abandon. If the Fiji experiment fails, the world is the loser - not just Fiji or the Indian diaspora.
FastCounter by LinkExchange
