The definition of State has taken the future of India from the hands of "We the people of India"!
The state is comprised of Judiciary, Executives and Legislatures. The future of India is in the hands of those people who represent these three pillars of State, whether they are serving or retired. Everyone expects and proclaims that there is rampant corruption in these three organs of the state. Still we choose from these organs whenever we need anyone to head the organizations which could be effective for the future prospects of Indian people in general. In most of the cases retired persons are selected for the purpose. The departments who choose these persons are manage by the Government of India or the respective Governments of the various states of India. In the sense the I.A.S. officers are the persons who choose them by using their wisdom whatever is left after induldging in corrupt practices or patronizing the one or the other political masters. Can we expect anything better from these spineless creatures for the betterment of " We the people of India"?
The market economy has eaten the vitals of Indian polity long back. Capitalist has taken the advantages of ignorant Indian People. Political parties have mushroomed in democratice spectrum like a poison in a non responsive body. Everyone of any profession wants to be people representative in Panchayat/municipal/legislative assembly or in parliament. To be law maker has become a buisness and status symbol. Anyone who whether respects the constitution or not wants to become a lawmaker because there is no law left to be legislated. Public Representatives has taken the work of Executives by allocating substaintial funds for their discretion in the name of development of his or her area. They have lost the sense of being a Law Maker. The I.A.S. lobby has taken over the mantle of making laws from the public representatives.
People of India who has gained since Independce are a different class from those who are trying to gain their right of prosperity in the age of over population but in the times of lesser opportunities. The frustration in the minds of those who are striving is not being understood by those who has gained in yester years. The present days period of turbulent is the root cause of ignoring the problems face by the oppressed class of people of India. The people of India for whom the words "We the people of India" was used in the constitution of India and who were born at that period of time has already eaten the future of those who are now comprising the meaning of "We the people of India".
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
Terrorised Secular India
I sent the following letter on 19th October to tell everyone who matters as TERRORISM is being related to BOMB BLAST only whereas Supreme Court of India has defined it in more broader terms long back. I am presenting it before readers to go through it and to understand the organizations who are working against the Secular India and real INDIANESS.
To,
The Hon'ble President of India
The Hon'ble Chief Justice of India
The Hon'ble Prime Minister of India
The Speaker Lok Sabha
The Chairman Rajya Sabha
The Chairperson UPA
The Leader of Opposition in Lok Sabha
The Leaders of various political parties
Respected,
The communal harmony in India is at stake because of ensuing elections in various states and because of near future elections in whole of India for Lok Sabha. Political parties of India have prepared themselves to gain/regain executive powers of the state and at centre. In the backdrop of that every type of discussions and arguments would be sprang up through electronics media and other IT gadgets. Our intelligent services would be on high alerts for any eventuality. Few of the incidents of bomb blast and communal violence has taken the precious life of innocent citizens of this country. Blame game has initiated to accuse one and another. It will reach its pinnacle till the general elections are over.
I want to say something on the issue of "Terrorism" which has become bone of contention for some parties to gain power by generating fear in the masses by projecting failure of the Government and Government agencies. I am writing this in the interest of the preamble of The Constitution of India so far as constituting into a " SOVEREIGN SOCIALIST SECULAR DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC". I am showing my concern to the word" SECULAR" which was inserted by 42nd amendment to the constitution of India.
KILLING INNOCENT PEOPLE IN THE NAME OF RELIGION
Now - a - days a debate has been thrown upon by some political parties on failure of State to enact stringent laws to curb "Terrorism" in India. The partners of National Democratic Alliance (NDA) who formed Government under the leadership of Sh. Atal Biharee Vajpayee are most vocal on the topic. Bhartiya Janta Party in particular and in general who has declare Mr. L. K. Advani as its "Prime Ministerial Candidate" is most vocal on the issue and accusing Government Of India (Union Government) for appeasement of Muslims. Mr. L. K. Advani was the Home Minister of India in NDA regime. NDA legislated POTA for fighting against Terrorism. United Progressive Alliance (UPA) when came into power after the debacle of NDA Government in the election, it repealed POTA as promised to the electorates at the time of Election. Congress which is Chief component of UPA has rejected the accusations and has cited the "Attack on Parliament" and "Attack on Akhshar Dham Temple as few of the examples of terrorist act in the regime of NDA.
The leaders of BJP gave arguments that Congress and other parties are soft on prospective terrorists (because of not legislating stringent laws like POTA) because of vote bank (muslims) politics. It is not hidden that the BJP and the other Hindu organizations like RSS, Vishva Hindu Parishad and Bajrang Dal always create atmosphere in India which insulate fears in Muslims and Christians. Hindu comprises 85% of the population of India. Yet BJP wants the people of India specially Hindus that the Congress is adopting such policies which benefit Muslims comprising 13% of the population of India. Muslim Votes do not cast in favour of Congress. Uttar Pradesh is the example of this phenomena. The policy of BJP to say repeatedly that Congress is soft on Terrorism because of Vote Bank is only to consolidate votes of Hindus (85%) for themselves.
It seems that few in India try to come out with facts and truth because of fear psychosis created by BJP in the minds of general people that they will be painted as anti national or anti Hindu if they protest against BJP propaganda. People of India are being prepared to accept the illogical contention that had there been POTA like provisions in Law there would not have been bomb blast in various parts of the country. "Law and Order is the state subject", whenever Central Government tries to intervene in matters of communal kilings, replies came from the Chief Ministers of the particular state. BJP and its sympathisers parties/organization do not consider communal killings of innocent and helpless citizens as Terrorist activities.
I am reproducing the definition of "TERRORISM" for such parties, journalists, individuals and organizations who do not want to consider such communal killings for reasons best known to them.
"Terrorism" as defined by the Supreme Court of India is as :
The Supreme Court of India adopted Alex P. Schmid's definition of terrorism in a 2003 ruling (Madan Singh vs. State of Bihar), "defin[ing] acts of terrorism veritably as 'peacetime equivalents of war crimes.
"Terrorism is one of the manifestations of increased lawlessness and cult of violence. Violence and crime constitute a threat to an established order and are a revolt against a civilized and orderly society. "Terrorism" though has not been separately defined under TADA there is sufficient indication in Section 3 itself to identify what it is by an all inclusive and comprehensive phraseology adopted in engrafting the said provision, which serves the double purpose as a definition and punishing provision nor is it possible to give a precise definition of "terrorism" or lay down what constitutes "terrorism". It may be possible to describe it as use of violence when its most important result is not merely the physical and mental damage of the victim but the prolonged psychological effect it produces or has the potential of producing on the society as a whole. There may be death, injury, or destruction of property or even deprivation of individual liberty in the process but the extent and reach of the intended terrorist activity travels beyond the effect of an ordinary crime capable of being punished under the ordinary penal law of the land and its main objective is to overawe the Government and disturb the harmony of the society or "terrorise" people and the society and not only those directly assaulted, with a view to disturb the even tempo, peace and tranquillity of the society and create a sense of fear and insecurity."
As per UNO
"from Official website of United Nations Office on Drugs and Crimes"
The question of a definition of terrorism has haunted the debate among states for decades. A first attempt to arrive at an internationally acceptable definition was made under the League of Nations, but the convention drafted in 1937 never came into existence. The UN Member States still have no agreed-upon definition. Terminology consensus would, however, be necessary for a single comprehensive convention on terrorism, which some countries favour in place of the present 12 piecemeal conventions and protocols.
The lack of agreement on a definition of terrorism has been a major obstacle to meaningful international countermeasures. Cynics have often commented that one state's "terrorist" is another state's "freedom fighter".
If terrorism is defined strictly in terms of attacks on non-military targets, a number of attacks on military installations and soldiers' residences could not be included in the statistics.
In order to cut through the Gordian definitional knot, terrorism expert A. Schmid suggested in 1992 in a report for the then UN Crime Branch that it might be a good idea to take the existing consensus on what constitutes a "war crime" as a point of departure. If the core of war crimes - deliberate attacks on civilians, hostage taking and the killing of prisoners - is extended to peacetime, we could simply define acts of terrorism as "peacetime equivalents of war crimes".
Proposed Definitions of Terrorism
1. League of Nations Convention (1937):
"All criminal acts directed against a State and intended or calculated to create a state of terror in the minds of particular persons or a group of persons or the general public".
2. UN Resolution language (1999):
"1. Strongly condemns all acts, methods and practices of terrorism as criminal and unjustifiable, wherever and by whomsoever committed;
2. Reiterates that criminal acts intended or calculated to provoke a state of terror in the general public, a group of persons or particular persons for political purposes are in any circumstance unjustifiable, whatever the considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or other nature that may be invoked to justify them". (GA Res. 51/210 Measures to eliminate international terrorism)
3. Short legal definition proposed by A. P. Schmid to United Nations Crime Branch (1992):
Act of Terrorism = Peacetime Equivalent of War Crime
4. Academic Consensus Definition:
"Terrorism is an anxiety-inspiring method of repeated violent action, employed by (semi-) clandestine individual, group or state actors, for idiosyncratic, criminal or political reasons, whereby - in contrast to assassination - the direct targets of violence are not the main targets. The immediate human victims of violence are generally chosen randomly (targets of opportunity) or selectively (representative or symbolic targets) from a target population, and serve as message generators. Threat- and violence-based communication processes between terrorist (organization), (imperilled) victims, and main targets are used to manipulate the main target (audience(s)), turning it into a target of terror, a target of demands, or a target of attention, depending on whether intimidation, coercion, or propaganda is primarily sought" (Schmid, 1988).
By going this definition which has been given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and adopted by the UN, all innocent killings by extremist organisations is "Terrorism". What the political parties which are blaming the Union of India, are accepting from our constitutional protectors to do?
Long live "SOVEREIGN SOCIALIST SECULAR DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC" of INDIA
Pardeep K. Gupta
President "OUTBURST"
An Organisation to Establish Rule of Law in Public Administration
D-I-225, Lajpat Nagar- I, New Delhi - 110024
Date 19th October 2008
outburstindia@yahoo.co.in
To,
The Hon'ble President of India
The Hon'ble Chief Justice of India
The Hon'ble Prime Minister of India
The Speaker Lok Sabha
The Chairman Rajya Sabha
The Chairperson UPA
The Leader of Opposition in Lok Sabha
The Leaders of various political parties
Respected,
The communal harmony in India is at stake because of ensuing elections in various states and because of near future elections in whole of India for Lok Sabha. Political parties of India have prepared themselves to gain/regain executive powers of the state and at centre. In the backdrop of that every type of discussions and arguments would be sprang up through electronics media and other IT gadgets. Our intelligent services would be on high alerts for any eventuality. Few of the incidents of bomb blast and communal violence has taken the precious life of innocent citizens of this country. Blame game has initiated to accuse one and another. It will reach its pinnacle till the general elections are over.
I want to say something on the issue of "Terrorism" which has become bone of contention for some parties to gain power by generating fear in the masses by projecting failure of the Government and Government agencies. I am writing this in the interest of the preamble of The Constitution of India so far as constituting into a " SOVEREIGN SOCIALIST SECULAR DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC". I am showing my concern to the word" SECULAR" which was inserted by 42nd amendment to the constitution of India.
KILLING INNOCENT PEOPLE IN THE NAME OF RELIGION
Now - a - days a debate has been thrown upon by some political parties on failure of State to enact stringent laws to curb "Terrorism" in India. The partners of National Democratic Alliance (NDA) who formed Government under the leadership of Sh. Atal Biharee Vajpayee are most vocal on the topic. Bhartiya Janta Party in particular and in general who has declare Mr. L. K. Advani as its "Prime Ministerial Candidate" is most vocal on the issue and accusing Government Of India (Union Government) for appeasement of Muslims. Mr. L. K. Advani was the Home Minister of India in NDA regime. NDA legislated POTA for fighting against Terrorism. United Progressive Alliance (UPA) when came into power after the debacle of NDA Government in the election, it repealed POTA as promised to the electorates at the time of Election. Congress which is Chief component of UPA has rejected the accusations and has cited the "Attack on Parliament" and "Attack on Akhshar Dham Temple as few of the examples of terrorist act in the regime of NDA.
The leaders of BJP gave arguments that Congress and other parties are soft on prospective terrorists (because of not legislating stringent laws like POTA) because of vote bank (muslims) politics. It is not hidden that the BJP and the other Hindu organizations like RSS, Vishva Hindu Parishad and Bajrang Dal always create atmosphere in India which insulate fears in Muslims and Christians. Hindu comprises 85% of the population of India. Yet BJP wants the people of India specially Hindus that the Congress is adopting such policies which benefit Muslims comprising 13% of the population of India. Muslim Votes do not cast in favour of Congress. Uttar Pradesh is the example of this phenomena. The policy of BJP to say repeatedly that Congress is soft on Terrorism because of Vote Bank is only to consolidate votes of Hindus (85%) for themselves.
It seems that few in India try to come out with facts and truth because of fear psychosis created by BJP in the minds of general people that they will be painted as anti national or anti Hindu if they protest against BJP propaganda. People of India are being prepared to accept the illogical contention that had there been POTA like provisions in Law there would not have been bomb blast in various parts of the country. "Law and Order is the state subject", whenever Central Government tries to intervene in matters of communal kilings, replies came from the Chief Ministers of the particular state. BJP and its sympathisers parties/organization do not consider communal killings of innocent and helpless citizens as Terrorist activities.
I am reproducing the definition of "TERRORISM" for such parties, journalists, individuals and organizations who do not want to consider such communal killings for reasons best known to them.
"Terrorism" as defined by the Supreme Court of India is as :
The Supreme Court of India adopted Alex P. Schmid's definition of terrorism in a 2003 ruling (Madan Singh vs. State of Bihar), "defin[ing] acts of terrorism veritably as 'peacetime equivalents of war crimes.
"Terrorism is one of the manifestations of increased lawlessness and cult of violence. Violence and crime constitute a threat to an established order and are a revolt against a civilized and orderly society. "Terrorism" though has not been separately defined under TADA there is sufficient indication in Section 3 itself to identify what it is by an all inclusive and comprehensive phraseology adopted in engrafting the said provision, which serves the double purpose as a definition and punishing provision nor is it possible to give a precise definition of "terrorism" or lay down what constitutes "terrorism". It may be possible to describe it as use of violence when its most important result is not merely the physical and mental damage of the victim but the prolonged psychological effect it produces or has the potential of producing on the society as a whole. There may be death, injury, or destruction of property or even deprivation of individual liberty in the process but the extent and reach of the intended terrorist activity travels beyond the effect of an ordinary crime capable of being punished under the ordinary penal law of the land and its main objective is to overawe the Government and disturb the harmony of the society or "terrorise" people and the society and not only those directly assaulted, with a view to disturb the even tempo, peace and tranquillity of the society and create a sense of fear and insecurity."
As per UNO
"from Official website of United Nations Office on Drugs and Crimes"
The question of a definition of terrorism has haunted the debate among states for decades. A first attempt to arrive at an internationally acceptable definition was made under the League of Nations, but the convention drafted in 1937 never came into existence. The UN Member States still have no agreed-upon definition. Terminology consensus would, however, be necessary for a single comprehensive convention on terrorism, which some countries favour in place of the present 12 piecemeal conventions and protocols.
The lack of agreement on a definition of terrorism has been a major obstacle to meaningful international countermeasures. Cynics have often commented that one state's "terrorist" is another state's "freedom fighter".
If terrorism is defined strictly in terms of attacks on non-military targets, a number of attacks on military installations and soldiers' residences could not be included in the statistics.
In order to cut through the Gordian definitional knot, terrorism expert A. Schmid suggested in 1992 in a report for the then UN Crime Branch that it might be a good idea to take the existing consensus on what constitutes a "war crime" as a point of departure. If the core of war crimes - deliberate attacks on civilians, hostage taking and the killing of prisoners - is extended to peacetime, we could simply define acts of terrorism as "peacetime equivalents of war crimes".
Proposed Definitions of Terrorism
1. League of Nations Convention (1937):
"All criminal acts directed against a State and intended or calculated to create a state of terror in the minds of particular persons or a group of persons or the general public".
2. UN Resolution language (1999):
"1. Strongly condemns all acts, methods and practices of terrorism as criminal and unjustifiable, wherever and by whomsoever committed;
2. Reiterates that criminal acts intended or calculated to provoke a state of terror in the general public, a group of persons or particular persons for political purposes are in any circumstance unjustifiable, whatever the considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or other nature that may be invoked to justify them". (GA Res. 51/210 Measures to eliminate international terrorism)
3. Short legal definition proposed by A. P. Schmid to United Nations Crime Branch (1992):
Act of Terrorism = Peacetime Equivalent of War Crime
4. Academic Consensus Definition:
"Terrorism is an anxiety-inspiring method of repeated violent action, employed by (semi-) clandestine individual, group or state actors, for idiosyncratic, criminal or political reasons, whereby - in contrast to assassination - the direct targets of violence are not the main targets. The immediate human victims of violence are generally chosen randomly (targets of opportunity) or selectively (representative or symbolic targets) from a target population, and serve as message generators. Threat- and violence-based communication processes between terrorist (organization), (imperilled) victims, and main targets are used to manipulate the main target (audience(s)), turning it into a target of terror, a target of demands, or a target of attention, depending on whether intimidation, coercion, or propaganda is primarily sought" (Schmid, 1988).
By going this definition which has been given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and adopted by the UN, all innocent killings by extremist organisations is "Terrorism". What the political parties which are blaming the Union of India, are accepting from our constitutional protectors to do?
Long live "SOVEREIGN SOCIALIST SECULAR DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC" of INDIA
Pardeep K. Gupta
President "OUTBURST"
An Organisation to Establish Rule of Law in Public Administration
D-I-225, Lajpat Nagar- I, New Delhi - 110024
Date 19th October 2008
outburstindia@yahoo.co.in
Sunday, March 9, 2008
Non Enforcement of Environment Laws in India.
In India Environment Laws are not enforced in true spirit by the regulators namely Ministry of Environmetn and Forests Government of India, Central Pollution Control Board or State Pollution Control Boards constituted in various states of India. First of all the state pollution cotrol boards are not constituted as per Water Act or Air Act. The respective state governments did not issue the notification constituting the state pollution control (a statutory authority) in a rightful manner. The member constituting the board are in most of the cases are the higher officials of the state. The powerful post of the Chairman of the board is held up by the senior officers of the state government to have a direct control on the statutory authority. Secondly the other board members did not take real interst in the functioning of the board being not well versant with the environment laws. Thirdly the officials of the board are not properly qualified and strength of the employees are lesser than required. Fourthly the state pollution control board's are more busy in issuing consents to the industrialist rather than to monitor the industries on the standards issued by the Ministry of Environment and Forests or Central Pollution Control Board. Fifthly the touts of the vested interested industrialists have a nexus with the officers and employees of the board. Penal action against the erring industries is farce. Public at large is ignorant. The public is not educated against the ill effects of water or air pollution. Money matters in enforcement of environment laws rather than preservation of the environment or protection of the environment.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
