By Abhishek Pandey

Mohamed Ali Jinnah again the reason of division, this time in Bhartiya Janta Party (BJP). Jinnah’s jinx formed factions of different ideologies in the party, which claims to be a party with a difference. Last week, Jaswant Singh was expelled from the party for writing against party’s ‘core ideology’ in his recent book ‘Jinnah – India – Partition – Independence’, which applauded the role of Jinnah and criticises Nehru and Sardar Patel for their role in the partition of the country in 1947.

Jaswant is under fire from with in the party and outside for his comments over his controversial statements on the partition of the country. This is not the first time that Jinnah has created problem for saffron party. In 2005, Advani has suffered a lot for tagging Mohamed Ali Jinnah as a ‘secular’ leader. Mr. Advani had to resign from the post of party president.

Aiming to not upset the vote bank, BJP president Rajnath Singh announced that Jaswant Singh has been expelled from the party for uttering words against Sardar Patel which is against the core belief of the party. The book has been banned in BJP ruled Gujarat. BJP did not mentioned Jinnah as the BJP stalwart Advani had praised him in past and naming him can backfire BJP itself.

Jaswant Singh who is saddened by party’s decision said that he used to be the Hanuman of the saffron party but he has become Ravana now. He urged that the party must read the whole book and then it should come to a decision. According to Singh, Patel was the person who imposed ban on Rastriya Swayma Sevak Sangh, soon after the death of Mahatama Gandhi. Mr. Singh stood by Advani in 2005 but Advani’s comments on the episode – ‘It was painful but mandatory decision’ – shows that he has very short memory.

Jaswant Singh was not given even show cause notice to defend himself. The saffron Party is of the view that his views in his book are against party’s core belief and an immediate stern action was needed. A party with a difference, BJP, forgot that a even a hardcore murderer like Ajmal Amir Kasab, who killed many people in Mumbai attack, is given chance to defend himself in Indian court but party forgot the process of justice in the case. At least, the party leadership must call upon Jaswant for an explanation before punishing him.

Singh raised the Kandahar issue mentioning that all the ministers including Advani were aware of the decision of releasing terrorists with exchange of 166 Air India passengers. He clarified that he spoke a lie in past for defending Advani, who said that he was not aware of the decision, in the time of election because it could have adverse effect on election results for the BJP.

In this drama, Jaswant Singh’s book has become the best seller and is very much in demand. Literary and artistic work should not be banned. Like Jaswant book, BJP government in Chhattisgarh has banned the late Habib Tanveer’s play Charandas Chor. BJP or for that matter any political party must ponder over the lines of former Prime Minister and BJP stalwart Atal Bihari Vajpayee that the answer to a book is a book, not a protest or a ban.

It is the general idea in India that Mohamed Ali Jinnah was the person who proposed two-nation theory and caused partition of the country in 1947 after a blood bath in which millions of people were killed, injured and many more were displaced. Though, there are several known and unknown facades of Jinnah exist in Indian and Pakistan’s history books.

BJP leaders are aware of the core beliefs of the party but the then party president Advani praised Mohammad Ali Jinnah for his ‘secular’ speech after the partition. BJP and Sangh leaders were fumed at Advani and he had to resign from the post of party president. But, this time party can not afford to give lesser punishment because BJP stalwart has not only praised Jinnah but also showed Sardar Patel and Nehru’s role in partition of the country in negative light.

Following incidents after Jaswant episode have created a crisis in the party. Sudhindra Kulkarni reigned from the party for not having freedom of expression with in the party. Kulkarni was questioned for his newspaper articles in which he suggested to revamp party’s ideology. Arun Shourie has also called the shots against the party top brass and said a jhatka (quick) change in the party is needed. He expressed his view that party has lost its direction and called party president Rajnath ‘Alice in blunderland’. He also said that Rastriya Swayam Sevaka Sangha (RSS) should take party’s command in its hand.

Madanlal Khurana, Uma Bharati and Kalyan Singh like leaders have left BJP in last couple of years. In recent days, Former Rajasthan Chief Minister (CM) Vashundhra Raje, Arun Jaiteley, Arun Shourie, Yashwant Sinha, Bhairo Singh Shekhawat and former Uttarakhand CM Bhavan Chandra Khanduri have raised their voice against the party for different reasons. All thses incidents are sprinkling salt on the festering wounds of BJP, who is recuperating after second continuous defeat in parliamentary elections.

There is no unity of command in the party. Any leader in top brass, including Advani, does not seem to have stature and qualities like Atal Bihari Vajpayee to unify the party members. Atal Bihari was liberal and secular leader with clean image. He enjoyed confidence among the party leaders and allies during his political career. Party has felt his absence in the last elections and missing his presence in the time pf present crisis. BJP has to find its sailor, who can sail the party in the right direction easily with all the members intact despite differences. Party has to modernise itself by revamping its ideology and character as per the demands of the present time. It is in national interest that Indians should have two national parties otherwise the one national party, whether its Congress or BJP, would become irrepressible by the democratic process.

|

By Abhishek Pandey

India celebrated its 62^nd Independence Day with pride. Is it really a matter of pride? Of course, yes. Many freedom fighters lost their lives to set India free. Their efforts bring fruits in the form of a free and sovereign country for the future generation. It was a great achievement after a long period of colonial era. India has travelled a long distance in last six decades in all the spheres. But, the domain of freedom has extended its reach or not, it is doubtful.

One question always trouble my conscience that who were the people got freedom on 15 August, 1947. Had all the Indians got freedom on that fortunate day? Practically, the answer of this important question is no. All Indians are not free. This was the freedom in true means for few sections of the people. It seems it was the freedom of politicians, Police administration, government officers and the elite class. For others, Master got changed but situation have not changed expectedly.

Politicians are free to play a ‘constructive’ role in corruption and get away easily by their influence. They have all the right to interrupt parliamentary proceedings through their uncivilised ways. They have the right to have disproportionate asset. They are also free to make their won statues at public place on government expenditure. They can make castist, sexist, communal statement to play the vote bank politics. They enjoy their freedom of speech at the cost of other’s freedom.

Police is free to do fake encounters, harass poor people and be inefficient in need. Police officials can also make defamatory remarks and can declare a person criminal without investigation as it happened in Aarushi-Hemraj murder case. Criminal loot and murder in bright day light and move away freely. They are also free to contest elections and enjoy political power until final verdict comes. In the same manner, Government officials are free to settle the matter under the table as it is their fundamental right. They can delay your work if you don’t grease their palms. They enjoy their freedom without any timely and proper supervision.

In contrast, Aam aadmi is still waiting for the true freedom in a 62 years old free country. Aam aadmi keep waiting on the cross roads or in the queue of religious institutions like temples, mosque and Dargah unless the so called elites pass on. Is this is definition of the equality in a largest democratic nation? Every second Indian is affected with the ‘Do you know me’ syndrome. Tenders, jobs and other favours are considered on the validity of this rhetoric. Discrimination of several forms among the different sections, communities, caste, religious groups are evident even after six decades of independence.

Women and girls can not go to bars freely because ‘moral police’ like Sri Ram Sene feel it is against Indian culture and ethos. Girl students and women teachers can not clad themselves in the attire of their choice because college administrations desire to curb their freedom. Couples can not stroll together in the parks or street because our police feel, it offends decency.

Friendship Day and Valentine’s Day are celebrated secretly as if it is illegal to have a good time on special occasion. But, most of the youngsters avoid having fun in public place because Bajrang Dal and Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) don’t like their freedom. The celebrations on such occasions need their approval.

People from North-India can not go to Mumbai for livelihood because it affects the interest of locals. Hindi speaking people are killed in north-eastern states for earning their bread in other state with in their own country. North eastern and Jammu and Kashmir people face alienation in other metropolitan cities. They don’t get accommodation easily.

People with in their own country are outsiders and not free to move freely. Is this is the definition of freedom, which we got six decades ago? I think these people don’t know about the fundamental rights which include freedom of movement in any part of India. It is always believed that India is a country with unity in diversity. But, this believe seems to be shattered in thousand pieces when we hear about above mentioned incidents.

Few people, regional leaders and political parties have forgotten the true meaning of freedom thought of by our freedom fighters. How can a nation celebrate its independence when the freedom has not reached to aam aadmi. Many jingoists would defy these arguments but the situation draw the stark picture of reality. It is important for our government and all the Indian to re-conceive the idea of true India. Otherwise we, Indians, will keep waiting for the true freedom. We have to become mature at 62 to enjoy and celebrate the Independence Day.

Jawaharlal Nehru said on the First Independence day in his speech Tryst with destiny, “At the stroke of the midnight hour, when the world sleeps, India will awake to life and freedom. A moment comes, which comes but rarely in history, when we step out from the old to the new, when an age ends, and when the soul of a nation, long suppressed, finds utterance.

Freedom and power bring responsibility. The responsibility rests upon this Assembly, a sovereign body representing the sovereign people of India. Before the birth of freedom we have endured all the pains of labour and our hearts are heavy with the memory of this sorrow. Some of those pains continue even now. Nevertheless, the past is over and it is the future that beckons to us now. His words are still relevant even after six decades because we are still yawning.

|

By Abhishek Pandey

Indian small screen has taken a giant leap in a new phenomenon of reality shows. Whether, it is an apparent copy cat business of formats used in west or typically new formats of reality shows. It is happening in India.

It is a significant question that we are ready to be receptive of these kinds of reality shows. In the age of commercialization, actress like Jade Goodie showed her sufferings of cancer and death to the world on the small screen. Indian producers of soap operas have decided to opt similar formats for immediate money making. ‘Sach ka Samna’ which is copy of American show ‘Moment of Truth’ has exposed the bed room secrets of the contestants in the starting episodes.

The show came in to controversy from the very first episode when host asked a woman contestant, Smita Mathai, “If your husband never came to know about it. Would you consider sleeping with another man?" She denied to this in her answer but polygraph test refuted her reply and she lost. These kinds of similar personal questions created furor in the Rajya Sabha for violating the program code of Cable Television Network Act, 1995. Members of Parliament opposing the show believe that it is against Indian values and culture. They said that it offends decency on family entertainment channels.

It is the known truth that controversy and success travels together. The TRP (Television Rating Point) of the show raised as news channels highlighted the questions of show’s viability in Indian context. The show continued walking on controversial path when Vinod kambali’s remarks on his and Sachin’s friendship made headlines. Vinod Kambli said that his friendship with Sachin Tendulkar was like Sholey’s Jai and Viru. Kambali revealed that he was the person who always sacrificed in their friendship like Jai did in Sholey. He also said that Sachin could save his career. Did Vinod never get suitable platform to utter this truth?

The contestant is asked more than 50 questions prior to the show and he/she undergoes a polygraph test during the question-answer session. The result of polygraph test is not revealed to the contestant and they are asked 21 selected questions out of 51 questions. The questions peep in to the private life of the contestants. The questions become more difficult and private as show moves further.

Questions in the higher stage of the show are generally very personal and embarrassing. These questions vary from bed room secrets to the thinking of the contestant on the controversial issues. The contestant wins nothing if his/her answer is false as per polygraph test or s/he declines to give the answer. The contestant has to answer the question if it is asked otherwise s/he would get nothing. The format compels the contestants to answer the questions to get the prize money.

Rajiv Khandelwal, who is the anchor of the show, said in an interview that the theme of the program should be appreciated as it inspires people to speak the truth. But the important question is that ‘Do we need to expose our private life in front of camera for the sack of earning few lakhs of rupees. He said that the people who are opposing the format of the show must appreciate that people are speaking the truth. Many questions in the show are hypothetical and have no relevance to the reality.

There are several other questions troubling the conscience of the people. Can’t we speak truth without the greed of getting good amount of money from the producer of these kinds of show? Rajiv replied to one question by saying that the show would give chance to contestants to speak the truth which they might have not reveled to their loved ones in their life time? Do we need reasons and platform to speak the truth to our friends and closed ones?

There are many truth revealed on the show which broke many hearts. It is doubtful that the show will strengthen the family ties or it will shatter the relations. There is one saying which reads that some truth should not be spoken for good reasons. But the biggest truth on earth seems to be ‘Money’.

Producers and few others in the media industry believe that the show does not hurt the sentiments of the people. This lot believes, “if you don’t like it, don’t watch it.’ I fear that these people would demand to broadcast porn movies on the family channels because according to them, one can switch the channel any time. Adults may decide, correctly or incorrectly, to decide their selective channel or programs but what about the children? We must think on this part of the truth.

Minister for Information and Broadcasting Ambika Soni urged that private television channels to evolve self-regulatory mechanism so that their programs do not hurt the people’s sentiments. Government has so far favoured self-regulation over an imposed content code, but the parliament may bring a content code in black and white for electronic media in the wake of this kind of unresolved serious issues. The imposed code has always been protested by the media personnel. Media must ensure to follow the self regulation.

Entertainment channels should restraint themselves from broadcasting vulgar and obscene content on family entertainment channels. Prakash Jawedkar of BJP and Kamal Akhtar of Samajwadi Party demanded that the show must be banned. But, many people are of the view that banning the show is not the permanent solution to stop this kind of broadcasting. Self regulation is the panacea for this critical problem. Media regulation by the government would be disaster for a free media but media should not forget its ‘Laxman Rekha’ while racing for the TRP.

|

By Abhishek Pandey

The politics over rape in Uttar Pradesh has ignited the fire which gutted the house of Dr Rita Bahuguna Joshi. Ms Joshi was upset over the distribution of money to the rape victims instead of justice. During her rally at Moradabad, She forgot all the ‘Laxman Rekhas’ of politics and made an objectionable and inflammatory statement against Uttar Pradesh chief minister Mayawati. Her statements ignited the fire which burn down her own house at Lucknow. Her house and four vehicles were set afire by unidentified persons, who were allegedly escorted by a BSP MLA and other party members.

It is very contradictory that both the women are the leader of women empowerment in Uttar Pradesh and now, both are standing against each other. Mayawati is Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh and Bahuguna is president of UP Congress committee. Both are on important posts in the largest populated Indian state. It is the matter of proud and shame at the same time because two women are on important posts but both can’t work together for the welfare of the state or for women empowerment.

Politics is all about statements whether they are logical or illogical. In election time, the statements become more important but creating conducive ambience after the election cause damage to ideal politics. Earlier, these kind of abusive remarks were limited to election period. But, timing has no significance in present context.

It is the fact that girls and women were raped in different districts of Uttar Pradesh and compensation was given indiscriminately. It does not mean that Ms Bahuguna would be given right to bring disgrace to a woman by offering one crore rupees for illegal and indecent act. Mayawati said that Ms Bahuguna’s remarks were not pardonable but she forgot her statements when she said the same for Mulayam’s kith and kin. It seems that politicians have short memory.

Congress party disassociated itself from the controversy. Rahul Gandhi said that the language used was unfortunate but the sentiment was right. Congress President Sonia Gandhi had also uttered the same. Politics has become a cesspool because of this kind of dirty politics. Politicians have to think above their vested interest for the development of the nation. Maya does not buy Congress ideology but supporting it at center. Even, Congress party does not agree with Maya’s statue politics and on other issues. Both the parties blame each other for lack of development in the state. But, their political knot is tight at center. This is hypocrisy in their attitude and they must change it.

CB-CID enquiry has been ordered in arson case at Ms Bahuguna’s home. And, many cases are filed against Bahuguna for her inflammatory speech. Both the leaders can gratify their ego but there are many cases in the state where no FIR is filed, forget about the enquiry. Leaders should come down to the ground, from where they started, to sense the reality. Whatever, Bahugana’s remarks are unacceptable but following incidents after remarks are also of serious concern. Indian leaders should avoid these tracks of politics.

|

By Abhishek Pandey

Gays, lesbians, transgender and bisexuals are cheering over the Delhi High court decision to decriminalise homosexual relations. Delhi high court judge AP Shah and S Murlidhar have decriminialsied consensual homosexuals acts between two adults in private place in their 105 pages verdict in Na Foundation Vs. Union of India case. This verdict not only ensure the equality before the law on the ground of ‘what we are’ but also keep the privacy of an individual. Lesbians, Gays, Bisexuals, Transgender (LGBT)

Gays, lesbians and relations with transgender are not acceptable in the Indian society. But, no one can be punished from today for having sex with same gender. Vikram Seth has rightly pointed out that this verdict would made them feel that they were not unarrested criminals.

Delhi High court has given a historic judgment. According to this decision, consensual homosexual relations between two adult men or two adult women or with transgender in private place are not illegal. Earlier, these relations were categorized as unnatural offences and person indulging in it could be booked under section 377 of Indian Penal code. The punishment for the offence is 10 years rigorous imprisonment. Police men can not humiliate or harrass the men or women with different sexual orientation. This is the apparent truth that in many cases peole have been tortured by cops and police men have made their pocket money out of these persons’ sexual prefrence.

It has started a fresh debate over homosexual relations in the country. All the religious institutions and right wing parties have came forward to oppose the scrapping of Section 377 of Indian penal code for homosexuals. Section 377 of Indian penal code prohibits any citizen of India indulging in ‘unnatural sex’, whether it is with children, men, women or animals. The person booked under this act could be punished for 10 years of imprisonment.

Many religious gurus, Maulavi and Bishops opined that it is unnatural and against the will of the mighty God. It is against religion and society. Few members of this lot think that the court decision would increase adultery and other family problems.

Yog Guru Ramdev said in a television debate that it is against Indian ethos and Indian culture. It is unnatural and shameful act. He added that gays and lesbians are mentally retarded people and they need treatment not encouragement. In the similar fashion Darul Uloom has said that it is a kind of disease and averse to all the religions in India. Siromani Gurudwara Prabhandak Samiti (SGPC) have also voiced against gay, lesbians and bisexuals.

National Aids Control Organisation have mentioned that crinalisation of homosexuals act have hampered their efforts to eradicate the desease from the country. Homosexuals don’t come forward for medical care because of legal barriers. Religious leaders forget about the society while raising their voice for pseudo ‘moral values’.

Bollywood have also made many films on homosexual relations. Fire was the first movie to showcase the lesbain relations. Girlfriend, My broher Nilhil, Page3 and Dostana followed the trend by higlighting the grim reality of homosexual relations in our society.

It is the reality that homosexuakls exist in our society. It is silly that we keep our eyes closed from the realityand it is more irresposnsibel on the part of a civilised society that we prohibit any person to live their life with his/her own prefrences in life. Those are opposing have forgotten that if it would remain illegal then there would be more problems. For example, If person is forced to live with opposite gender then family related problems would increase. There would be mess in the family and the life of two individual will be at risk. On the oher hand, there would be no problem in homosexual relation of consensual adults. It is the reality and we must accept it.

|

xyz

|

By Abhishek Pandey

Council of Degree College principles have decided to ban mobile phones for all students and wearing jeans for girl students in the colleges in Kanpur. The latter decision taken by principles have created furor among the girl students and women organization. In the wake of unconstitutional decisions taken by the university professors, Uttar Pradesh government has warned universities and colleges to stay away from theses kinds of unconstitutional norms in the colleges.

Earlier, the similar decision taken by the Principle of Dayanand Girls Degree College was criticized by the feminist groups. The principal of the college said in an interview, which was published in the newspaper, that the body hugging jeans invite sexually coloured remarks to girl students and it might tempt eve teasers. The reason of ban given by the principal was not justifiable. It is like that ‘Don’t earn money because it might invite thieves to rob you.’ The victims of eve teasing were given punishment rather to put a stop on eve teasing and other molestation cases in the city, which happen with the girls without any discrimination on the ground of attires. The council wants to clad girl students in ‘modest’ dresses like salwar suits to protect girls from the uncontrollable activities of bad elements.

Most of the women organizations are of the view that it is total infringement of women’s fundamental rights which are enshrined in the constitution of India. Article 15 of the constitution prohibits any one to discriminate any citizen of India on the ground of sex, caste or religion. Article 21 of the constitution gives the rights to everyone to move freely and live life with dignity. The decision of the council does not give a damn to it. It seems that Principles of degree colleges are ignoramus about the constitutional rights of women.

The council has not given any special instruction to boys on dress code. This discrimination is against the constitution. Though, Article 39 of Indian constitution enables the state institutions to take affirmative actions for women empowerment but the institution seems to work against it. Indian government and other non government institutions are fighting for the rights of women because the progress of the nation can not speed up without including the female population, which amount to 48% of the total population. Even after the independence the female literacy ration could not cross 50% though government has implemented special educational schemes for the girls. These discriminatory decisions would discourage girls morally and made them feel second class citizens.

Recently, France President Nicholas Sarkozy has decided that veiling, which is prevalent in Islamic culture, was not welcome in the country because it was no a symbol of religion but sign of subservience for women. Indian intelligencia like professors of Chatrapati Shahu Ji Maharaj University (Kanpur) should learn lessons from the France.

Police administration of the city must ensure the safety of the girls from the bad elements of the society. Banning jeans is not an appropriate solution to put a stop on these wrongdoings. It will rather boost the morale of hooligans. Either college administration should make similar rules for both genders or they should restrain themselves from taking unfair norms. Modesty in college dress is needed. As for as the dress code in the colleges is concerned, not only girls but also boys should follow the self made regulations to maintain the decorum of the educational institutes.

|