Finally our CM Yeddiyurappa managed to survive yet another coup. Is it the gods he bribed that worked, or is it his shrewdness, or is it the money? When the whole episode, which the media blew out, is considered, one has to understand what exactly happened before judging what is right or wrong. Has he done anything wrong, or was it just another fairy tale created by the media for its survival. Here I’m just trying to go through a journey on his political stint.
When the world is growing in a fast pace in terms of economy and technology, we are drawn backward by emotions. It is not a secret that he came to power with large chunk of cash being turned into votes, which even other parties tried, though could never match it. But above that, it was the caste and religion that presided over realities. Long back he had a chance, which was overturned by the betrayal of times by H.D. Kumarasawamy. But that was yet another crucial blessing in disguise that helped him see his flag flutter high. Since then, power mongers had been trying to replace him.
When the Reddy brothers wanted to save their skin, they felt that the only way was to pull him down. They had an impression that they can be on the driver’s seat since they kept money flowing, having the mines under their kitty. But their calculations went wrong when they realized that if they don’t toe the line they’ll be exposed. Yeddy could control the Reddys by the very fact that if the government doesn’t survive it’ll pave way for the end of Reddy brothers’ dynasty.
The next major attack he had to face was when many of the ministers revolted against him. H.D. Kumaraswamy tried his best to fish in troubled waters. Meanwhile the sleeping dynastic party had to take all the beatings, before they could even wake up, as they were falsely accused of pulling the strings. Of course it was a dream of any Congress minister to pull the BJP down so that they can taste the loot. But the high command was wise enough to realize that it’ll only turn the crowd against them, and hence they played it safe. When all these things were happening, governor Bharadwaj too played his part, for which the reason is not sure, whether it’s in terms of the situation, or if it was the congress blood that flows in his veins. Anyway Yeddy’s tears, may it be crocodile or real, melted the governor’s heart.
This time again, the shrewdness of Yeddy was well awake. He moved swiftly to make sure that all those ministers are shown their way out in a matter of no time. The speaker disqualified them in the most mysterious way. But here the court too was right in declaring that the speaker was right in his decision to disqualify the ministers.
Meanwhile crores of rupees were flowing through various channels to keep the chairs from falling. One would wonder where all these cash came from. Well, the answer lies, I guess, in the mining industry and the land dealings. Skeletons started stumbling out day by day. Media tried its best to prove themselves smart, but in the assembly the credits went to the congress and JDS. Of course, JDS did their part too of bringing out facts every other day. And that was about the land dealings that took place over the years under Yeddy in favor of his family, the pace in which the speaker acted on the dissidents to keep the CM’s chair intact.
Now, looking into the matters, on the previous instance, was the speaker wrong in disqualifying the dissidents? No, I don’t think he was wrong. He did it as per the law, and it was rightly upheld by the high court too. What the speaker did was wrong on independents, but he was right on his decisions about ousting the BJP MLAs who petitioned the governor against CM. Anyone from within the party, if submits a letter against the party leader, he attracts disqualification, unless there is enough number of detractors along with him. And though speaker was wrong in disqualifying independents, his decision about the dissidents from the party saved Yeddy’s government. Even if he’s proven wrong about the independents Yeddy’s government won’t shake as he will still enjoy the wafer thin majority. His shrewdness, or maybe any of his advisors’, helped him once again.
Coming to the land deals, almost every day, news came out of lands being de-notified by him to favor his children and aides. A large chunk of Karnataka was de-notified in a blink of an eye. Legally speaking he has done nothing wrong. Just as with the disqualifications, land deals too are not at all done illegally. CM has the power to override any rules which he rightly used. So terming it illegal is totally wrong.
Now, if one has to think, it can be right or it can be wrong based on what weighs more, legal or ethical. Legally speaking whatever has happened is not wrong. But ethically or morally speaking it stands no ground for being termed right. On speaker’s decision, it is not at all ethical to take such a decision within such a short span of time, that too when the whole episode was based on that. No one can ever say what happened is right, unless they are blinded by partiality.
And speaking about land deals, though CM acted well within his rights, it was not all right in the real sense to de-notify lands to favor his family. There are many people even without a place to stay. When there are homeless people around he made sure his children get more and more and more. Firms were floated and papers were signed within days. If this happened in case of developments works, Bangalore would have been number one in the world for sure. If they were homeless, then there is nothing wrong in doing so. At the same time the crores that flew to their accounts is mind boggling. When I was a kid every rupee counted. Then it turned to hundreds, and then thousands, and lakhs and crores. Time has come that our politicians look at crores like peanuts. One has to keep in mind that it’s no theirs, but they live on public money.
And to top everything is our CM’s temple hopping. When the state is running short of funds, he keeps donating tax payers money to temples. There is nothing wrong in donating, as far as it’s from his pocket. We pay tax not to build temples, but to develop the state. Religion should be one’s personal belief, not at the cost of someone else’s sweat.
It’s unfortunate to have a CM who doesn’t trust in himself but astrologers. It was better to hand over the CM chair to his astrologers for they do a better job. It was so disgusting to hear that in this era of technology, and Bangalore being the IT hub, the gates of Vidhan Soudha was closed because someone said it was not good for the government.
And at last, his craving for power by hook or crook leaves some doubts over. Is it because he feels that his deeds will come to light and he will have to face it if he loses power, or is it because he needs more and more money before he leaves so that he gets back with interest how much he invested to become CM? A bleak possibility can’t be ruled out of him thinking that he needs time to do something for the state, because if so he would have done something for the state already. But so for all he has done was nothing other than advertising himself with his smiling photos.
To sum it up, he must have been well aware of what he was doing for the very reason why he took off the power of lokayukta to prosecute ministers. He is making sure he is on the safer side.
Wednesday, November 24, 2010
Thursday, September 30, 2010
The Ayodhya Ruling
The landmark judgment, a much awaited one, is out: the disputed holy site in Ayodhya should be split between Hindus and Muslims. The court observations has left many a questions unanswered in my mind. This is a controversial subject and I’m sure it’s gonna turn many of my ‘friends’ to foes, but for those who can think in the right way I guess it makes sense. By posting this I’m only airing MY VIEWS AND DOUBTS, WHICH IS CONFINED TO MY LIMITED KNOWLEDGE, and I don’t claim it to be perfect considering the fact that I can think only out of the framework for which I don’t have any data that I can access. I also advice the one who reads this to think positively and take it in the right sense and also discriminate wisely. If you feel you have the answers to what I cite here, you are welcome to air it instead of taking up a fight with me, so that my blindness will be removed.
I hope and wish that both Hindus and Muslims take the ruling in the right spirit and maintain peace and unity, that is being tried to be destroyed by some anti social elements for their personal and vested interests. We live in a civilized society and it’s through discussions and mutual understanding that things has to be sorted out. Being a non-Hindu and a non-Muslim, I believe I view at it without any prejudice.
I’m writing this since I have lost faith in the judicial system as a whole which is plagued by long procedures, power, corruption, and what not. Once it even said it cannot order an arrest as it might lead to public outrage. If the law is afraid of muscle and money power why should we rely on that?
Well, coming to the point, on the Ayodhya issue the court ruling says:
1. The disputed site is the birth place of Lord Ram
I don’t understand on what basis it was said since there is no evidence to substantiate it.
2. The disputed building was constructed by Babur, the year is not certain but it was built against the tenets of Islam. Thus, it cannot have the character of a mosque.
Here, the judgment was about the ownership of the disputed site, and why is it that - whether it’s based on the tenets of Islam it is built or not - come into picture?
3. The disputed structure was constructed on the site of old structure after demolition of the same. The Archaeological Survey of India has proved that the structure was a massive Hindu religious structure.
It is a well known fact that the media was completely kept out of site at the time of demolishing the Babri Masjid. If they were so sure that there were artifacts they would have let the media in and recorded every evidence. If at all there was something unearthed form the site it surely would have been published and reported with all its pomp and glory. Since that didn’t happen, when we live in the age of technology and have all the scientific methods available, on what basis can one believe in the proof of Archeological Survey of India?
4. It is established that the property in suit is the site of Janm Bhumi [birthplace] of Ram Chandra Ji and Hindus in general had the right to worship Charan [Lord Ram's slippers], Sita Rasoi [Goddess Sita's kitchen], other idols and other object of worship existed upon the property in suit. It is also established that Hindus have been worshiping the place in dispute as Janm Sthan, ie a birthplace as deity and visiting it as a sacred place of pilgrimage as of right since time immemorial
Again not sure on what basis it is claimed to be the birthplace of Rama. And if it was the birthplace of Rama how did it become Sita’s kitchen? And it says it is established that Hindus had been worshipping and visiting it as a sacred place of pilgrimage since time immemorial then will they dare to climb on the dome and destroy it? If it was Muslims or Christians who did so, we can believe in that, because they don’t promote idol worship and they don’t even mind climbing on it. But for those of VHP, RSS and such organisations to climb on it something that is unimaginable.
5. After the construction of the disputed structure it is proved the deities were installed inside the disputed structure on 22/23 Dec 1949.
If the deities were installed in the disputed structure in 1949, then on what basis can they claim the ownership of the property? If today someone comes and installs a diety in parliament, will it be the property of VHP or RSS tomorrow?
6. It is also proved that the outer courtyard was in exclusive possession of Hindus and they were worshiping throughout and in the inner courtyard (in the disputed structure) they were also worshipping.
As I said on point #4, if that was the case, Hindus worship and respect their idols so much that no one would have even thought of climbing on the structure to demolish it.
7. It is also established that the disputed structure cannot be treated as a mosque as it came into existence against the tenets of Islam.
Again, as of point #2, the case was about ownership, and not about religion.
8. Accordingly, all the three sets of parties - ie Muslims, Hindus and Nirmohi Akhara [a Hindu sect] - are declared joint title holders of the property/premises in dispute... to the extent of one third share each for using and managing the same for worshipping. A preliminary decree to this effect is passed.
It’s a wonderful decision, but has to be seen how it is going to be practical. If they can agree upon each other to handle it with specific time period, or if they can build a temple and mosque side by side as is in many places elsewhere it can be a an exemplary example of communal harmony.
9. However, it is further declared that the portion below the central dome where at present the idol is kept in makeshift temple will be allotted to Hindus in final decree.
It’s something that is not just. Tomorrow if someone forces into my house and keep an idol how can I give my house to them?
10. It is further directed that Nirmohi Akhara will be allotted share including that part which is shown by the words Ram Chabutra [Ram's square] and Sita Rasoi [on a map of the site].
It says: ‘shown by the words ON A MAP OF THE SITE. Here the question is which map and who created the map? If the map was an existing one, then there wouldn’t have been a dispute at all, for then it clearly would have belonged to Rama. It gives a sense that the map was recently made and how can a verdict be based on the newly made map?
11. It is further clarified that even though all the three parties are declared to have one third share each, however if while allotting exact portions some minor adjustment in the share is to be made then the same will be made and the adversely affected party may be compensated by allotting some portion of the adjoining land which has been acquired by the central government.
It sounds funny to fight for the minor deviations of plot, when a large protion is at stake.
12. The parties are at liberty to file their suggestions for actual partition by metes and bounds within three months.
Does it imply that there shall be no more court procedures? Is this the final judgment? What if the case is taken to the Supreme Court?
13. Status quo... shall be maintained for a period of three months unless this order is modified or vacated earlier."
Does it mean that the court can or will modify the order? And what if it is after three months?
1. The disputed site is the birth place of Lord Ram
I don’t understand on what basis it was said since there is no evidence to substantiate it.
2. The disputed building was constructed by Babur, the year is not certain but it was built against the tenets of Islam. Thus, it cannot have the character of a mosque.
Here, the judgment was about the ownership of the disputed site, and why is it that - whether it’s based on the tenets of Islam it is built or not - come into picture?
3. The disputed structure was constructed on the site of old structure after demolition of the same. The Archaeological Survey of India has proved that the structure was a massive Hindu religious structure.
It is a well known fact that the media was completely kept out of site at the time of demolishing the Babri Masjid. If they were so sure that there were artifacts they would have let the media in and recorded every evidence. If at all there was something unearthed form the site it surely would have been published and reported with all its pomp and glory. Since that didn’t happen, when we live in the age of technology and have all the scientific methods available, on what basis can one believe in the proof of Archeological Survey of India?
4. It is established that the property in suit is the site of Janm Bhumi [birthplace] of Ram Chandra Ji and Hindus in general had the right to worship Charan [Lord Ram's slippers], Sita Rasoi [Goddess Sita's kitchen], other idols and other object of worship existed upon the property in suit. It is also established that Hindus have been worshiping the place in dispute as Janm Sthan, ie a birthplace as deity and visiting it as a sacred place of pilgrimage as of right since time immemorial
Again not sure on what basis it is claimed to be the birthplace of Rama. And if it was the birthplace of Rama how did it become Sita’s kitchen? And it says it is established that Hindus had been worshipping and visiting it as a sacred place of pilgrimage since time immemorial then will they dare to climb on the dome and destroy it? If it was Muslims or Christians who did so, we can believe in that, because they don’t promote idol worship and they don’t even mind climbing on it. But for those of VHP, RSS and such organisations to climb on it something that is unimaginable.
5. After the construction of the disputed structure it is proved the deities were installed inside the disputed structure on 22/23 Dec 1949.
If the deities were installed in the disputed structure in 1949, then on what basis can they claim the ownership of the property? If today someone comes and installs a diety in parliament, will it be the property of VHP or RSS tomorrow?
6. It is also proved that the outer courtyard was in exclusive possession of Hindus and they were worshiping throughout and in the inner courtyard (in the disputed structure) they were also worshipping.
As I said on point #4, if that was the case, Hindus worship and respect their idols so much that no one would have even thought of climbing on the structure to demolish it.
7. It is also established that the disputed structure cannot be treated as a mosque as it came into existence against the tenets of Islam.
Again, as of point #2, the case was about ownership, and not about religion.
8. Accordingly, all the three sets of parties - ie Muslims, Hindus and Nirmohi Akhara [a Hindu sect] - are declared joint title holders of the property/premises in dispute... to the extent of one third share each for using and managing the same for worshipping. A preliminary decree to this effect is passed.
It’s a wonderful decision, but has to be seen how it is going to be practical. If they can agree upon each other to handle it with specific time period, or if they can build a temple and mosque side by side as is in many places elsewhere it can be a an exemplary example of communal harmony.
9. However, it is further declared that the portion below the central dome where at present the idol is kept in makeshift temple will be allotted to Hindus in final decree.
It’s something that is not just. Tomorrow if someone forces into my house and keep an idol how can I give my house to them?
10. It is further directed that Nirmohi Akhara will be allotted share including that part which is shown by the words Ram Chabutra [Ram's square] and Sita Rasoi [on a map of the site].
It says: ‘shown by the words ON A MAP OF THE SITE. Here the question is which map and who created the map? If the map was an existing one, then there wouldn’t have been a dispute at all, for then it clearly would have belonged to Rama. It gives a sense that the map was recently made and how can a verdict be based on the newly made map?
11. It is further clarified that even though all the three parties are declared to have one third share each, however if while allotting exact portions some minor adjustment in the share is to be made then the same will be made and the adversely affected party may be compensated by allotting some portion of the adjoining land which has been acquired by the central government.
It sounds funny to fight for the minor deviations of plot, when a large protion is at stake.
12. The parties are at liberty to file their suggestions for actual partition by metes and bounds within three months.
Does it imply that there shall be no more court procedures? Is this the final judgment? What if the case is taken to the Supreme Court?
13. Status quo... shall be maintained for a period of three months unless this order is modified or vacated earlier."
Does it mean that the court can or will modify the order? And what if it is after three months?
Whatever I have written seem to be one sided, but I have given reasons for it. These are just my doubts and views as I have mentioned in the beginning. I hope those who go through this are wise enough not to take it in the wrong sense. I wish that peace reign in, for no God would want to see His children fight each other and die.
Wednesday, July 28, 2010
A small dream
My childhood dream, it just remains where it is,
Seems lost in the abyss
Hoping for the day in mortswagon when I proudly travel,
Wish if it only unravel
But like any other desires I just cant try,
Yet it just won't make me cry
For it's the wrong ones that always gets me high,
That ne'er could I ever try
Seems lost in the abyss
Hoping for the day in mortswagon when I proudly travel,
Wish if it only unravel
But like any other desires I just cant try,
Yet it just won't make me cry
For it's the wrong ones that always gets me high,
That ne'er could I ever try
Tuesday, April 27, 2010
Freedom love and independence
Of late I realized that freedom and independence is a matter of lack of faith and love. This thought came to me when I started to ponder about my marriage and what went wrong with my relationship with my parents. It was again affirmed when I started thinking about the politics that's happening around for the creation of new states. It was this thought that brought out the lines of the skit 'Freedom' played in Christ College that goes like this: "When we speak about freedom are we really free? We want freedom from our parents, we want freedom of speech, we want to live the way we want. We turn away from God. Maybe we get freedom from God's wonderful love and care. But are we really free?"
Let me begin with what came to my mind when it came to my relationship with my parents. From my perspective I had a strong bondage with my dad which could make me face anything in this world if he's around. His words and gentle touches used to have a healing power and strength to withstand any pain, even physical. But it all died down through the years when I grew up. And where did it go wrong? Well, that is where the concept of freedom and independence played its part.
Freedom, that's what I wanted. My nature was entirely different from anyone in my family. The way I thought and the way I wanted to live was all different. But I was always harnessed in the family values except for forcing my dad to send me for martial arts class by bruising my lips badly and the long hair which I somehow managed so far.
Slowly I was drifting away from him when friends became my priority. But then, by God's grace, even without facing any problems with friends I soon started realizing the realities. But then it was too late before I realized I've gone too far away from him. And to add on to that was his attitude towards me. He was more a businessman than a dad to me for which I hated doing business. And he became more like a banker whom I approach whenever I wanted something.
Above all these was the matter of independence. My parents never wanted to be depended on me or my brother or sister. Mom and dad earned enough for their living and says they dont want to depend on us. They don't say when they are not well. They don't let me help them. And my dad just threw the shirt which I got him with the first salary I got. These things made me realize that I'm the most useless guy in this world. If they don't need me then what am I living for. Anyway I'm thankful to them as it made me brave enough to live a careless life as I need not care even for myself. Otherwise I would have gone into depression when I started realizing I'm all alone in this world.
And for the marriage part of it, when i started thinking about the attitude of girls, it gave me more reasons. I might be termed as '1947 type,' a term I use to call those who are narrow minded and wear dress which is not so modern, but I'm least bothered as I have reasons for what I think. We are living in a world where girls want to be considered equal to guys. (Don't misunderstand me. I do consider them equal and at times above guys for theirs is a blessed life which no man can be compared to). They say they want freedom. They want to be independent. They no longer want to do household duties as they talk about equality. They have ambitions, they think about careers, etc. They say they are not servants to wash clothes and clean house and baby sit kids and questions why guys don't do that. They are well educated and they can lead independent life. So no more they want to be tied with household duties which results on more and more divorces.
I never want to lean on to anyone in my life. I've learned to live all by myself and is well prepared even to die a dog's death on the streets with none to care for. But what if I get married. Well, then the story will be different. I looked out for someone whom I can lean on to. Whom I can ask to do something for me. It's not cus I look down on her or consider as a servant, but it's only cus I love her. Love makes one depend on another cus it's a matter of trust. I often pity on the so called 'modern' girls or feminists who wants to lead an independent life and don't want to be a servant at home cus they often end up being a servant outside. Of course their are very few who make it big, and rule the world, but rest of them end up being servants again. Though at home they rule, they need to do all the job they are entitled to do in office where they have no other choice. What I wonder at is they don't mind doing anything in office, but find it hard to do something for their husband or parents or kids. Well, the point I want to make is independence is a matter of lack of love and trust.
Finally the political games that makes people even sacrifice their life reassures this thought. The Telengana issue is just an example. For few of them when it comes to being under the state it seems like they are deprived of their freedom. They don't want to serve the state but want to be a separate state. But will they enjoy that freedom that they earn? If every one starts thinking in their terms soon every state will be divided. But will it end there? Divisions will never end as far as selfishness prevails aided with lack of trust and sense of dependence. It's service, which everyone term as slavery, though when it cross the limit it surely is. I wish if people understand that serving someone is not slavery, but an act of love. And on the other hand the one who is served shouldn't take it for granted and exploit or misuse the love and care someone shows.
Let me begin with what came to my mind when it came to my relationship with my parents. From my perspective I had a strong bondage with my dad which could make me face anything in this world if he's around. His words and gentle touches used to have a healing power and strength to withstand any pain, even physical. But it all died down through the years when I grew up. And where did it go wrong? Well, that is where the concept of freedom and independence played its part.
Freedom, that's what I wanted. My nature was entirely different from anyone in my family. The way I thought and the way I wanted to live was all different. But I was always harnessed in the family values except for forcing my dad to send me for martial arts class by bruising my lips badly and the long hair which I somehow managed so far.
Slowly I was drifting away from him when friends became my priority. But then, by God's grace, even without facing any problems with friends I soon started realizing the realities. But then it was too late before I realized I've gone too far away from him. And to add on to that was his attitude towards me. He was more a businessman than a dad to me for which I hated doing business. And he became more like a banker whom I approach whenever I wanted something.
Above all these was the matter of independence. My parents never wanted to be depended on me or my brother or sister. Mom and dad earned enough for their living and says they dont want to depend on us. They don't say when they are not well. They don't let me help them. And my dad just threw the shirt which I got him with the first salary I got. These things made me realize that I'm the most useless guy in this world. If they don't need me then what am I living for. Anyway I'm thankful to them as it made me brave enough to live a careless life as I need not care even for myself. Otherwise I would have gone into depression when I started realizing I'm all alone in this world.
And for the marriage part of it, when i started thinking about the attitude of girls, it gave me more reasons. I might be termed as '1947 type,' a term I use to call those who are narrow minded and wear dress which is not so modern, but I'm least bothered as I have reasons for what I think. We are living in a world where girls want to be considered equal to guys. (Don't misunderstand me. I do consider them equal and at times above guys for theirs is a blessed life which no man can be compared to). They say they want freedom. They want to be independent. They no longer want to do household duties as they talk about equality. They have ambitions, they think about careers, etc. They say they are not servants to wash clothes and clean house and baby sit kids and questions why guys don't do that. They are well educated and they can lead independent life. So no more they want to be tied with household duties which results on more and more divorces.
I never want to lean on to anyone in my life. I've learned to live all by myself and is well prepared even to die a dog's death on the streets with none to care for. But what if I get married. Well, then the story will be different. I looked out for someone whom I can lean on to. Whom I can ask to do something for me. It's not cus I look down on her or consider as a servant, but it's only cus I love her. Love makes one depend on another cus it's a matter of trust. I often pity on the so called 'modern' girls or feminists who wants to lead an independent life and don't want to be a servant at home cus they often end up being a servant outside. Of course their are very few who make it big, and rule the world, but rest of them end up being servants again. Though at home they rule, they need to do all the job they are entitled to do in office where they have no other choice. What I wonder at is they don't mind doing anything in office, but find it hard to do something for their husband or parents or kids. Well, the point I want to make is independence is a matter of lack of love and trust.
Finally the political games that makes people even sacrifice their life reassures this thought. The Telengana issue is just an example. For few of them when it comes to being under the state it seems like they are deprived of their freedom. They don't want to serve the state but want to be a separate state. But will they enjoy that freedom that they earn? If every one starts thinking in their terms soon every state will be divided. But will it end there? Divisions will never end as far as selfishness prevails aided with lack of trust and sense of dependence. It's service, which everyone term as slavery, though when it cross the limit it surely is. I wish if people understand that serving someone is not slavery, but an act of love. And on the other hand the one who is served shouldn't take it for granted and exploit or misuse the love and care someone shows.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
