Tuesday, March 26, 2013

Nayak Nahi(n) Khal Nayak hai yeh

Sanju has sufferred a lot in this 20 years.  He could not get bank loans. People did not make movies with him earlier.  His parents entertained jawans. He acted as Mahatma Gandhi.  So Mr. Governor please pardon him. Thus plead eminent voices.  When asked defend those voices it is pardon procedure that is outside the realm of criminal procedure. Whatever the SC upholded and sentenced is correct.  Quote these eminent voices, articles and sections on why Governor can commute the 5 years sentence (yeah these are not plead to commute death to life imprisonment, but 5 years to 1.5years).  Use of articles, quotation of constituationality versus Criminality etc makes me to feel that otherwise narrow-emotional, not-strongly reasoned plea to get some sort of legitimization.  When confronted with voice by likes of Mahesh Jethmalani that Governor does not have constitutional power but that might probably reside with the President, jumps these eminient voices stating that these are technicalities.  If so even the attempt to give gyaan in first paragraph of plea is also technicality statement, why would a pleader quote whether the addressee has powers or not under some section?

Now lets come to sufferings, no loans, good parents, character play etc.  Many have questioned them.  Can these eminent voices plea for getting extra property from govt, for the civil suit winner, which s/he could not enjoy his/her property for the 30 years during the trial period and justice was delivered excurciatingly 30 years later and all through this period the winner who is legitimate title holder went through all hard ship and could not enjoy his/her property?  So during this 20 years where 18.5 years Sanju bhai was freely roaming where he is indeed the convict but the burden was more on the prosecution, why would these voices raise to his support? May be their heart bleed for those who are culprits/convicts.  This is wrong understanding of what Jesus Christ stood for (when he roamed in this earth with physical body) and stands for eternally.  Jesus's heart bleeds even for wrong doer and not only for wrong doers.  Oh..yeah he had to go to court to get permission to travel abroad...if that is the case, oh! eminient voices, even those who undergo similar criminal cases who finally found not guilty faced more such hardships why we could not hear such eminent voices then is a mystery.  Loans and Movies issues are faced by every actors at all time; if not this criminal case there would have been definitely phases in his career where he would have been waiting for roles.  None were having peak movie counts throughout one's carrier there were ups and downs in everyones carrier in movies.  Is this a reason for sentence commutation?  Bank loans are rejected even to those who want to pursue higher studies are they not higher degree sufferers than a convicted criminal?

So far the pardoning procedures have used only the circumstances of the crime, mentality of the individual etc for pardoning and not their parents' affluence and deeds.  It is pardoning procedures oh eminent voices not half-baked understanding of karma theory of hinduism.

Munnabhai was not charitable cause act.  Shivaji Ganesan and many stars of erstwhile have done acts for our jawans and others, leave alone the pardoning procedure, even the income tax department did not write off their legitimate to-be-paid tax, why should Governors and President has to do it on such film(s)y ground?! 

Also these eminent voices quote sanskrit shlokas that mean "merely application of shastra (procedures/techincalities) without dharma (charitable/equitable) view is incorrect".  But oh! the voices who bear the name of that who won the life from procedure of death by view of charity/equity of almighty, who else knows better that "dharmo rakshati rakshitaha (charity/equitable view saves one who saves it)".  There is no guarantee given in scriptures that dharma will save those who go against it.  Even in such trial situations dharma and almighty commute only death to life and not allow one to go scot free.  I dont think Sanju bhai was trying to save swa dharma/sanatana dharma when he allowed people to use his place for safe-guarding deadly mass killing weapons; when he thought of procurring some of them (contrary to the proportion of stated threat to swa (self) or family), when he would have to go to the same group for getting bullets for such weapons, when he still had contact with the same group 10 years later which indicates that he knew what they did and how henious they are, when he did not even once, till now condemn (leave condemnation, hasn't even distanced himself) from the kingpin of those groups.  So he was going against Dharma (charity/equity/virtuosity) so Dharma will not save him.

I am not saying he is not guity but with all these ordeals that he has undergone in the past 20 years he should be pardoned on compasionate ground - say these voices.  Mercy should be showered if you want to have pound of flesh from the heart you act like shylock whereas I want to suggest to have mercy like Portia of Merchant of venice - thus sing like bard (pun intended).  They miss point the ordeal was not that Sanjay was suffering in jail, nor that the quality of mercy has to be showered on an ailing long term served inmate, the mercy seeking is for a convict who purchased AK56 for his family & self defence from those who did deadliest terror act, who served only 1.5 years of the total 5 years, who was roaming free and even continued in contact of those terrorists atleast in one occassion years later, who never condemned the attack or the terrorists.  Is this the person to whom the mercy, oh lord thee seek to bequeath? It does not seem Portia seeking mercy to be showered on Antonio, rather it seems Portia under the influence of some potion seeking mercy for Shylock from Antonio to hand over his heart to Shylock.  Such Portias would be part of merchant of death(maut ka saudagar) and not merchant of venice  (well if you make any connection between venice's country, merchant of death in hindi, i am not here to say anything about it).  Such mercy will not be twice blessed as the 16th century bard said it would be twice cursed, rather.  This quality of mercy would rather be stained and would never be "not strained". Such mercy will droppeth like thunderbolt from hell and not as gentle rain.

Finally tells those voices had you guys given me the cases of other more deserving (such as 70 years woman whose house was used by those very group to keep arms which is not known to her), i would surely talk about them, I dont go with celebrity status, such statements looks OK for a guy like me to say but for a retired supreme court judge, jurists (who talk more about corruption), etc hastingly jumping for a defence of a convict of higher crime, without taking the cases of lesser crime and more deserving candidates and when confronted with such facts candenscendingly saying that will support them as well doesn't hold well with their eminence.

But what to say "paiygaL arasaaLum pozhudhu pinam thinnum saaththirangaL (when ghosts rule the world shastras will eat corpus)".  So anything can happen in our country now.  God Bless India.

Wednesday, February 13, 2013

Guru bin jaoo(n) kahaa(n)

Afzal Guru hanged, atlast.  Some say its at (our) loss.  Omar Abdullah says the hanging alienates Kashmiris, Mehabooba Mufti says hanging creates wedge between Kashmir and rest of the country.  BJP expectedly says 'delayed but welcome'.  Cong says 'law has taken its course and guidlines and procedures were followed'. Many activists say there was no fair trial for Guru.  A few in them go all the way upto writing off the goodwill measures with Kashmiris.  Majority among those say that he was not perpertrator but only a conspirator and this fact was overlooked.

Those who claim there was no fair trial are simply trying to play victim card.  Its like your neighbour comes to your place behead your folks and claim himself as victim with no 'sharam' expecting to 'shake' you with logic.  Well if we all are great economists of the world may be we could understand the strategic, visionary logic and might even agree to it.  But I being one of lesser mortals have some thougts, queries, doubts. 

There was as much as 7 years in between the last upholding judgement of the supreme court to president's pardon rejection.  I am not sure what these 'fair trial' activists were doing in all these 7 years. If needed they could have filed yet another review petition in SC, not sure why it wasn't done, or who knows, they could even have used their friendly neighbourhood spidermen to take it up with UN or even go all the way upto International court of Justice.  Don't they know TN politicians? May be these activists were pegging on their belief that presidential pardon would be granted to him.

So "no fair" trial claim is humbug its more a trial of garnering sympathy vote than with logic.  Coming to the another claim made by these activits "capital punishment for a conspirator is too much". This claim seems to be bereft of valid logic, despite it looks compelling.  If this argument is taken then it would reduce the thought to 'only foot solders are the perpertrators all others are not'.  This defeats the general guidelines of criminal jurisprudence, that the person who actually makes some one to commit a crime is more criminal than the person who commits the crime. Also, if we go by these activists and intelligensia's logic then Idi Amin, Adolf Hitler, Mussoulini (no i will not take Stalin's name here) are all "only conspirators". Hitler is not the perpertrator of Jewish Holocoust, he is merely a "conspirator", nay "co-conspirator".   So if he were alive, per this logic, he should be tried for 7 years imprisonment sentence.  Imagine if Afzal Guru and other masterminds, pardon me, co-conspirators, used 5 robots to breach into parliament house instead of using 5 militants, and remote control these robots to kill people.  Our activists, think tanks, would have got satisfied with just the robots being destroyed and Afzal being given 7 years sentence, ok, ok some may say theek hai baba life till death without parole 'de do' (but allow his family to come and visit him and after 2 years, since he was 'law abiding' allow his family to stay with him) kind of claims would have been made and all our media persons would gleefully give them bytes and spaces to talk about this path breaking suggestion of them.

Another point made by some of these activists, thinkers and strategic analysts, is "Given that it is the first time for Afzal guru and he doesn't have a track record of criminal activities, his mercy petition should have been accepted (nay, even the SC should have commuted it to life) ".  With this claim every one has right to hatch one time conspiracy to sabotage parliament, supreme court, raisina hill, 10 race course road, raj bhavans, secretariats.  You see most of us do not have criminal records.

Finally, yet another logic "why guru, why no beant killers, rajiv killers".  Well all these terrorists have to meet their punishment.  Terrorists or their sympathisers do not have right to question the prioritization.  Agreed Cong tries to score some brownie points here, agreed BJP is equivalently in sticky wicket when comes to Beant's killers, both Cong and BJP beat around the bush on the LTTE terrorists.  But because one is priortized and other are not, leaders of respective states cannot claim it as injustice met to their state and 'race' people.  By saying so what these leaders imply is simple.  Their state people are supporters of terrorists inspire from only terrorists and not from positive achievers of their state.  I do not single out Omar Abdullah here, one would have expected similar statement from 'Tamil Kavalar' leaders if it were LTTEs or 'Punjabiyat' leaders if it were Beant killers.

We the people, who do big fight in left, right, center and all corners of the nation should have basic thought to differentiate normal criminal activities and its treatment, vis-a-vis criminal activities against a state, nation, or a community.  If we start doing that then our nation would soon become the weak that wasn't, otherwise we would be living with only Devils and their advocates.

Sunday, August 19, 2012

No Close ups on Coalgate

Well yet another 1.x LC (lakh Crore) loss to exchequer is being mooted, yet another denials in the form of revelation - zero loss, notional loss statements, allegations and counter allegations.  This time our Narayana swamy instead of 'Geet' upadesh gives 'you are crossing your limit, better not to..' kind of 'hith' upadesh and Gags CAG. Statements like what was followed by NDA/BJP was followed by us, why NDA/BJP did not do anything in those 6 years, why NDA/BJP ruled states were opposed stating federalism when auction mode was suggested etc.

Even the debating channels do not do a close up on this coal gate.

Some nagging questions all around are:

1) If NDA/BJP followed it, and you see that as problem, why you never raised it in public and why you took more time than the whole NDA/BJP regime to bring the bill and notify it?  Had there be a state that NDA/BJP were persecuting minorities during their regime would you be continuing it stating the same?

2) CAG reports are published every year.  Is there any analysis on the CAG report of those times (of NDA/BJP) going on to find out of such malpractice, if not in such scale but even in a smaller scale, was mentioned in those report?  Why no one is talking about it?

3) Why central govt hasn't taking this high stand, which it is taking now, (need not be in public domain but in ministerial/cabinet/official reports) that they could not proceed ahead with (or they are trying to get states' support to) new auction based coal block allocation?

4) Why NDA/BJP and CPI(M) ruled states were opposing the auction mode of coal block initiation method?  Agreed to the fact that it would not have bound the center from passing a law for auction which infact the center tried but seemingly purposefully delayed it for 6 to 7 years in putting into enforcement, but still why in first place these states raised their voice.

5) CAG is auditing board they will calculate the 'presumtive' loss figure to the exchequer in way of a policy and implementation of the same.  They have been doing this for years, why the govt feels that such report now is transgressing the 'limit'?  A loss could be absolute only if the transaction has occurred and there is a deficit in what was invested to what came as return.  But how will then a loss of prospect is calculated?  Only in such ways as CAG has arrived. People have to see if the final figures arrived using methods are right or not.  In this case(presumably) and in 2G and Antarix-Devos case, CAG has given different bands of loss and the highest being 1.x LC.  If presumption is wrong how would one say about 'Depreciation' in accounting?  It too is presumptive and not reflecting the actual so all these Kapils and Gavaskars of govt will fight against this accounting principle?  OK even if lets say there was a loss of 1000 Cr to exchequer still isn't it a huge amount?  How come only LCs are considered as scams and not the actual deeds?

6) Finally, in the one of the channel, former Dy CAG was stating unnecessary comment.  He was calling it as croony capitalism etc.  It looks good and right if a politician like D.Raja of CPI talks like this but talking from such political ideological stand look pathetically bad and wrong from an ex-official of a constitutional body.  No amount of trying to hide behind the veil that i am now ordinary citizen helps here as the person is seen as ex deputy head and not like my name (kuppan) or suppan.

Already slight diversionary tactics  "law minister gave the clearance" has been taken by cong official spokes person, because the scandal should not touch their lower holy cow, the then coal minister (MMS; and you know who are higher holy cows).  Some jobless person will file PIL in SC.  The govt will first argue that no one can talk about policy decision (yeah when the policy seems to be scamming no one is expected to talk about), then they will start CBI investigation for proper libation of the case. The then MoS of coal himself will head "empowered" group on investigating the observations made by PAC on the CAG report.  Meanwhile our new finance minister will moot a new cess for 12th standard education on taxpayers, because you see it is the right to education and no one should be left out from paying for the deeds.

Who said India is a poor country when there are possibilities of 'working on' LCs after LCs.

Wednesday, August 08, 2012

S(h)elf Indulgence

Oh yeah! I am baak.  Well the natural place where everyone would have expected is in facebook and/or twitter.  When 84+ year olds and all are doing the same why shouldn't I at the least revive and do a 'blast from the past' a la Brenden Fraser.

Well, being seriously out dated and out of touch (a la Brenden Fraser of Blast from the past) and much water has flown over & under the bridge, definitely I am facing a dilemma or n-lemma on what to write and even if I write who will read (as if during my 'prime' many read).

But despite all these, the blog that has created a mini-storm in Delhi giving puffed-rice-flakes (poha a.k.a aval) to many mouths that too by 84 year young man who revived the TRPs of 24x7s channels, gave the impetus to me to say 'Yes I can' a firm belief of 2008s.  Hope this 'can' of me isn't containing worms leading to a depresssion to me like what 'Yes we can' resulted despite its positive approach, much before Mayan calendar's 21-Dec-12 prediction.

With Pranab finding a great retirement pavilion seat to watch 2014 drama (or is it 2013 or is it 2012 end!) and Ansari, I'm sorry, is back in VP chair, with BJP writing off the future of able bodies like Jaswants but still pampering the fumes of once red hot iron man (Loh purush) who lost his steam but still is being said as 'pitamaha' but has successfully turned himself a dridrastra trying to ring the death knell of a party which he once built, I see gloomy future...nay not about India or my beloved party BJP but about the bad omen that this ill timing of revival has perhaps casted.

Come what may, I hereby dusted and revived my blog.  By a sheer accident of occurrence/coincidence if you have visited then extend it further and do post a reply so that I can get some semblance of solance amidst all the gloom (this time including India, BJP, et al).

Tuesday, September 18, 2007

Na thu Ram God say the governments

ASI denied existence of Ram. They did shallow sea diving, found no bones (no pun here), decided the long stretch of platform between Rameswaram and lankan tip is not a sethu and also denied existence of Ram. Down south, nearer the Sethu, the CM of TN has questioned "Who is this Ram? In which engineering college did he study and become a civil engineer? When did he build this so-called bridge? Is there any evidence for this?"

Profound statements -- one by a government body giving official affidavit in no less place than the Supreme Court and another by a Chief Minister.

In the former's case the UPA ministers, and the "God woman" herself did the knee jerk retreat and in the later case we will soon see winding denials and convoluted, nevertheless jerked knee statements and abuses clearly covered inside so-called rational and progressive self-esteem.

When it is questionable -- the ASI's method to find out whether or not the platform was man made, is scientific or not -- there was no need for ASI to include existence or non-existence of Ram. By the way how ASI is capable of proving or disproving existence of Ram beats me. With this method the ASI will prove there is no God (be it Jesus, Allah, Vishnu, Shiva etc). Is it a proof that no evidence available now is non-existence? Then until Newton there was no gravity on the earth. While it was pathetic for a govt. body to give unverifyable statements as affidavit it was equally pathetic for the govt. to withdraw it quickly. What does the withdrawal prove - that ASI lied in SC? A clear case of perjury, if so. Mind it, the govt. cannot hide behind the "sensitive issue" veil here because it was not a finding and report of ASI to conceal it as confidiential because of the sensitive nature of the "finding", rather it was an affidavit/proof given in the capacity of a defendant in the supreme court.

Let us come to the revealing statements of non other than the self-righeous CM of TN. Mr. CM did not know that Ram was an aluminus of the same engineering college (OBC quota) where Shahjahan did the BE Civil Engineering before building the Taj Mahal. He also does not know that Ram was the aluminus of the same prestigious group of educational institutions in whose agricultural college Akbar and Ashoka studied before planting trees on the roadsides. Yeah! yeah! Akbar, Ashoka(r), Shahjahan were to struggle to get their places in those institutions because that time there was no social justice done by giving minority quota for them, carving out from the existing quota. What to do they did not live in the time of Karunanidhis. Poor souls, nevertheless they made it to those colleges and that is why built Tajmahal and planted trees.

Hey! Ram.

Wednesday, August 22, 2007

Hyde and seek Act

In the recent past no agreement or a treaty of cooperation or even a socio-political ordinance/law bill was discussed to such an extent as the Indo-US civil nuclear cooperation agreement, which has reached an important milestone last month. A few days ago, amidst in its usual high-decibel chaos, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh read out a written statement in the Parliament to re-affirm his earlier 'commitment statement' that he had given a year earlier in the same parliament about the Indo-US deal.

Aftermath Pokhran II where India gained more confidence on its weapon and deterrence capability, India announced voluntary 'no first use' policy. So it thus falls under a responsible non-declared still a nuclear state outside the NPT purview. Also India's stand and determination in non-proliferation is well known and acknowledged. Thus by reaffirming its principled stand and show of strength, India was giving a very clear signal to the 'haves' and others that India should be considered as a candidate for the abolition of nuclear apartheid against it and should be seriously considered for deals. It is because, due to the ban on India for the equipment and technology India indeed is way behind the 'haves'. This status cannot be allowed to prolong because the world, especially the 'haves' and particularly India's adversary China, would be able to judge the primitive nature of Indian weapon capability and hence putting India into risk. So India is reaching a stage where it has to get rid of the nuclear power ban. These were clearly signalling to show cause the prerequisite for such an understanding/agreement/treaty with 'haves' in general and US in particular.

United States has US Atomic energy act 1954 which has chapters and clauses to have 'cooperation with other nations'. Under this act a cooperating nation specific act may be passed especially if the cooperating nation is a non-NPT signatory and then thereon an agreement can be arrived at with the cooperating nation in conjunction with the section 123 of the Atomic act.

With this pre-cursor, the US, which has been negotiating with the Indian government since 2000 has attained a breakthrough, during May 2005 with the current PM Manmohan singh's government. Accordingly a joint declaration was made. Initial indications of India specific agreement was very stringent especially there were no reprocessing allowance to India. Various institutions right from the scientific to political were vociferous against it. Infact the PM used scientists covertly to extract mileage from the US. After that people returned to their desks and then comes this "refined" agreement. The initially vociferous atomic scientist Anil Kakodkar was happy with this new agreement which has "to some extent" set loose the strictly-no-reprocessing earlier stand of the US. The government maintains that it is the best deal India can ever get and here starts the big issue. Is it really a good deal as the government claims? Or is it a bad deal as the opposition party claims?

The govt. of India claims that the Indo-US nuclear cooperation agreement has no references regarding nuclear testing. However this claim glaringly omits to simply cite the very first part of the agreement, paragraph 1 of article 2 -- Scope of cooperation. In that it is clearly stated that "each party shall implement this agreement in accordance with its respective applicable treaties, national laws, regulations, and license requirements concerning the use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes". It then means that this agreement cannot violate the directives and prescriptive provisions of the hyde act. More than that this agreement cannot in any way violate the basic tenants of the US Atomic energy act 1954 whose basic tenant TITLE 42 > CHAPTER 23 > Division A > SUBCHAPTER X > § 2158 "Conduct resulting in termination of nuclear exports" clearly states that "No nuclear materials and equipment or sensitive nuclear technology shall be exported to—
(1) any non-nuclear-weapon state that is found by the President to have, at any time after March 10, 1978,
(A) detonated a nuclear explosive device;

The Henry J. Hyde United States and India Nuclear Cooperation Promotion Act of 2006 does not exempt this section for India. So it means India, which is still considered as a "non-nuclear-weapon state" by IAEA will violate § 2158 and automatically this agreement will cease to exist. Even though paragraph 4 article 2 of the agreement explicity states not to affect the "unsafeguarded nuclear activities of either party". This "unsafeguarded nuclear activity" cannot be interpreted to nuclear bomb testing. Yes, nuclear bomb testing will happen from the unsafeguarded facility but not vice versa. Also, even though the agreement states that the technology, material, components, equipment that are transferred as the part of this agreement and safeguarded facility cannot be used for military purposes (i.e. bomb) still this cannot be interpreted as that the agreement has given a clean chit to use those technology, equipment, components which are not acquired through this Indo-US agreement (say an indegeniously attained way, for instance), because of the Hyde Act and Atomic act's relevant sections. So the Indo-US agreement in no way gives a clean chit for India to conduct nuclear test.

Now that India is not under any obligation to not conduct any nuclear tests. But after operationalising this agreement India brings itself into a contractual obligation and aftermath if it conducts any test then India will not have any credibility. It will then be in the league of Iran which violates its signature in NPT.

Above all when the United states could have enough background 'national laws', acts to safeguard its interest, ironically India, which is in tight spot has not bothered to think of enacting new laws to safeguard its interest. Even though Article 253 of Indian constitution empowers parliament to make any law for implementing any international treaty/agreement, if it wishes.

It is funny to read the affirmation statement of the agreement which reads as "AFFIRMING that cooperation under this Agreement is between two states possessing advanced nuclear technology, both parties having the same benefits and advantages, both committed to preventing WMD proliferation".

So it turns out to be a classic example of a thamizh fools-fable which roughly translated would mean as follows. Two friends wanted to have some snacks one guy tells the other "let you bring handful of the rice flakes and I a handful of husk then lets mix them and blow the husk out of the mix and then share and eat the flake". India here turns out to be the idiot who is going to bring the rice flake and the US the shrewd husk fellow. It seems the govt. of India is in no seek mood of the hi(y)de act while its ambassador to US wrongly places the credibility factor if it asks the US to amend the Hyde act. So it is Hyde and sick act that is being enacted now.

PS: There are opinions that the agreement between China and the US also has similar binding clause to "national laws" and India has got a consent for reprocessing whereas China has not, also China has to consistently prove its non-proliferation record whereas India is not asked for, hence Indian deal is good. The point here is, there is a sea of difference between what China and India's status is in terms of nuclear deal. US is not here to distribute benevolence in the case of China or India. So such a clause would necessarily be there, however what makes difference is the recognised status of the nation and the escape routes that the other party (China or India) has. China is a recognised nuclear weapon state whereas India is not. So the national law of US in this regard (US Atomic law) will apply differently when the president of US "finds" either China or India has violated the aggreement. Moreover the India specific applicable national law, Henry Hyde Act, is a stringent one but one needs to see how stringent is the China specific act. Also India simply does not have any cover or escape route whatsoever when it finds it being "victimised". Where is the "applicable national law" in India side to tackle any eventual fallout? Above all it is a lie to say that any future nuclear testing of India will not impact this "peaceful usage" agreement; the parent US Atomic act and the India specific Hyde act, in no ambiguous words, have putforth this point, and above all time and again, high ranking government officers of "India's best friend president" have taken offical stand to clarify that there are umpteen provisions in the agreement/national-laws of US for the US president to consider the back-off (legally and without losing credibility) from the agreement. India, for whatever reason in future, cannot back-off from this agreement without losing its credibility, as it simply cannot point out concrete ruling in its side for it.

One need to cite another similar treaty/agreement to get the advantages of that agreement for you, and not to get disadvantaged from it. India still needs to go long miles before it gets confidence in its nuclear warfield capabiility. The voluntary moratorium announced soon after 1998 test is to gain confidence of international communities, to show its value/principled stand and above all it is a pragmatic decision given that in such a hostile situation (no cooperation from any other nation) it might need another decade or so for India to go for any subsequent test to see its capability. This announcement does not nullify the possibility of any future tests. What makes one to question is not the steps taken by the present Indian government to have such an agreement (indeed it is really a good step forward), rather it makes one to question the prudence and motive of the government when no signs of ample legal precautions were taken in the way of enacting new laws during this 1 year period (not even a step toward that). Above all, silly lie-webs spun officially by the government makes one to vehmently oppose the agreement. This agreement leaves much in the hands of negotiation capabilities with the foot starting at disadvantageous position, when contentions arise. The behaviour and activities of Indian government officials, right from the PM, shows no sign of clear head thinking and hence does not give an iota of confidence to the people in them for getting better things out of any future negotiations in the contentious situations.

Sunday, June 17, 2007

Magaraasi maNNa vittu pOniyE

Maada viLakkE maharaasi maNNa vittu pOniyE an elegy in the pathos filled voice of 'theni' kunjaramma is what i am reminded of after watching the 'developments' of next presidential candidate selection in the "largest demo(nstration of)'crazy'". On the one hand the principal opposition bloc had a prolonged mental block of showing no gut in announcing Bhiron Singh Shekawat as their next candidate when they found that APJ is not going to be renominated for reasons well known, there is this comedy of errors that has happened in the ruling camp a la 'maine kampf' or should I say maino kamp?

Highly idiotic logic is prounded saying that in the year of 60th independence choosing a woman as the president of India is a revolution by itself. I have no further words and no inclination to describe this act of idiocy. Since the days of Mrs. Indira Gandhi the oldest party of india has shown that it is spineless when it comes to stand a president who cannot be its rubber stamp to the all powerful party president, always. It clearly demonstrates the insecurity feeling in the 10 Janpath.

Karunanidhi wants his daughter to be in union cabinet. Maya wants Taj to be buried...grrr...Taj corridor scandal to be buried. As expected Carrot has his own stick to the loud speaker and if I am not wrong Lakshmi sehegal is already dead or has become living vegetable to be renominated as experienced presidential woman candidate. So the consensus is Prathibha Patil. Thanks to Congress for raising the general knowledge level amongst the Indian mind for otherwise no other soul in India would have known that such a person exists somewhere in the palatial building of government who could be moved to the largest of such buildings.

Rashtrapathi...no...Rashrapathni..sorry its bad word then...how to name it? is the next question for which answer is being contemplated by the "high minds".

Note: I was wrong, Lakshmi sehgal is still alive and was resurrected by non other than The-Hindu. Refer the following article Better Late than never: Sehgal. My apologies for premeditated murder of a living being :)