NAVIN.B.CHAWLA [THE MOST CONTROVERSIAL ELECTION COMMISSIONER]

            Right from the day, he has assumed the office of the election commissioner in 2005, Navin.B.chawla has landed himself in many controversies. Every time, he is caught up in a controversy, the office of the election commission gets defamed. Hardly, three months are there for him to assume the most coveted office of the chief election commissioner [CEC], the present CEC, Gopalswamy, has suo-motu has sent a recommendation for his removal to the president. This has raked up constitutional and institutional controversies. Before moving to the constitutional controversies, let us see the factorsthat has led to the following events.

             First, during the emergency of (1975-1977), Navin chawla was secretary to the Lt.governor of Delhi. The SHAH commission that inquired into the “emergency excesses” has described him to have behaved in an authoritarian manner and misused the power in a way to disregard the welfare of the citizens. The SHAH commission also declared that he is not fit to hold any public office.

             Second, in 2006, the BJP submitted a petition to the president for his removal, along with the consent of about 200 MPs. The reason cited was, chawla’s jaipur based Lala chamanlal education trust has secured MPLADS funds from 4 congress MPs. They accused that chawla was allotted 6 acres of land from the congress government of Rajasthan. So the BJP accused him of having leanings with the congress.

             Third, BJP also filed a petition in the supreme court challenging his integrity and impartiality. As, the litigation headed no way, they ultimately with drew it.

             Now, the present CEC, Mr.Gopalswamy has recommended for his removal (suo motu) to the office of the President of India on the grounds of “partisanship”. Now this has raked up the major constitutional controversy. The election commissioners are treated on par with the chief election commissioner in terms of functions, salaries and allowances. Only difference is the chief election commissioner acts as the chairman of the commission with administrative responsibilities. To protect the independence of the election commission from the arbitrariness of the executive, the constitution of India holds that he shall be removed by the way of impeachment for proved misbehaviour or incapacity. To protect the office of other election commissioners, the constitution of India has laid that, the other election commissioners cannot be removed except on the recommendation of the Chief election commissioner. It does not mean that CEC has his free will for the removal the other election commissioners. The convention is that the objective of the removal of the election commissioners should start from the political government. Only based on that, the CEC can give his recommendation. But in this case, the CEC has himself initiated for the removal of the election commissioner.

             Reading by the lines of the constitution, the CEC has the right to recommend for the removal of the other election commissioners to the president. But according to the democratic convention, the initiation for the removal of the Election commissioner should initiate from the political government. The constitution has rested the “recommendation” power on the CEC only to protect the independence of other election commissioners from the arbitrariness of the executive. So one more testing time for the president, supreme court, constitution and the democratic values. Let us see what stands the test of time?

RAMA SMILES [ONE MORE FEATHER ON THE CAP OF FANATIC HINDUISM AND RABID CULTURALISM]

Two days before, there was a Tv coverage on the brutal incident of the Mangalore pub attack. A group of about  forty young ruffians, in the name of acting for the just cause of protecting Indian culture, marched towards the Mangalore pub, shouted against the so called betrayers of Hindu tradition in obscene words, vandalized the pub, chased and molested the innocent girls, drove out the entire group with the full presence of media and finally, they were satisfied as having participated in the Anti-aparthied movement of Nelson Mandela. Some even go to the extent of defining the combing operation as “RAMA SMILES”. Very well, what can I say about this? INDIA SHINES. There are also other aspects that need to be worried about.

           First, the media is well informed about the attack. Even a group of media persons came to the spot well in advance to shoot the atrocities in live. Not only the media should directly picturise the social realities, it is also their social responsibility to prevent the riot. They should have atleast informed the local police by spending a one-rupee coin in a local Telephone booth. If they are not willing to spend their hard earned money, atleast they can beg for a one rupee-coin from the near by passers and do that. Is this the point where the competitive journalism has landed itself? Are they not ashamed? What happened to their ethics in mass journalism? If you media people do not do anything, and remain as a silent spectator, you are also the perpetrators of mass crime.  Do you view the general public as mere consumers? So, it is the time for the administrative and the police machinery to take stringent actions against these irresponsible media thugs for not sharing the information with the police in advance.

           Second, dear victims of the Mangalore attack, consuming alcohol in a pub is a legal activity. There is nothing wrong in it. In this democracy, you have each and every right to live a life the way you like. But, in most cases, the pub going girls are always accompanied by the male counterparts, may be boy friends or something similar like that. What happened to them, when the mob attacked? Why do you have a friendship or company with these coward Romeos when they fly off the incident, not even showing a single form of resistance. Atleast, in this Valentines day, select some one who is really brave and help you in your tight corners. Never ever become a victim once again in your life time.

           And finally, to the activists of  ”SRI RAM SENA”. Do not aim for the cheap publicity like this. There are so many pressing issues in each and ever corners of this country that deserves attention. There are loads of people deprived of  food, shelter, economic, political and social status. Take up their cause. Work for them. Do not indulge in these uncivilised acts any more. Of course, Pramod Muthalik went to the extent of justifying this horrible incident as a measure to save “Mothers, sisters and daughters” [MSDs here after]. You can ensure that your own MSDs are brought up in the tradition as your like. You can grow your MSDs as you like. You can curtail the rights of your MSDs. You can ensure that nothing offensive to the tradition(like alcohol) enter in any of their physical cavities(like mouth). But do not extend this immoral policing to other MSDs.

           The centre piece of the story is the debate of “BUDDHA SMILES VS RAMA SMILES”. Of course, when ever our Indian nuclear experiments succeed Buddha smiles. When ever these erotic savage occurs Rama smiles. Once Rama smiled in Tamilnadu, Sethusamudram project has been putoff. Now Rama smiled in Karnataka, girls have been curtailed of their rights in public places. If Rama continue to smile in other parts of India, what can I say then…?INDIA IS NOT ENOUGH.

THE ROMANTICIST PHILOSOPHER OF ARAB-ISRAELI LOVE STORY [FROM COLONELL QADAFFI TO MAHATMA QADAFFI]

Very recently, I read an article about the one state solution propounded by the Libyan ruler MUAMMMAR QADAFFI for the Arab-Israeli conflict. He has been the greatest thinker of pan-Arabism and pan-Islamism. His ideas always revolved around the unity of the Arab countries, the cause of the Palestinian people and the liberation of Palestine from the imperialist clutches of the Zionist Israel. But I don’t understand his intention behind his recent “ONE-STATE SOLUTION” to the Palestinian-Israel conflict on the following grounds.

 First, why does the Arab world take a moderate and soft (POLITICAL) stand to Israel which has a scant regard for human rights and the future of Palestine. Israeli defence forces go on killing the Palestinian civilians in the name of so called combating terror.

 Second, Israel has not respected the UN mandate or the international public opinion in general and the Arab public opinion in particular.

 Third, Israel does not want the Arab-nationalism to foster on a separate Palestinian state. Even it has succeeded in creating the divide between the HAMAS led by Ismail Haneyah and FATAH led by  Mohammed Abbas with the back up of the western intelligence, money, and the muscle power.

 

Fourth, Israel has never recognized the rights of the refugees who have fled in a mass exodus to resettle there. It does not take responsibility for the mass exodus of Palestinians in 1948 war (AlNaqba) and the aftermath.

 

Fifth, Israel has no intention of ceding Eastern Jerusalem in the hands of Palestine.

 Sixth, Israel has constructed illegal settlements in the region of west bank, and has no intention of evacuating its settlements from the west bank.

 Seventh, its economic blockade of Gaza has resulted in human sufferings.

 Lastly, “operation Castlead” of Israel has killed nearly 1500 Palestinian people starting from December 2008.

 When Israel is brutally attacking the Palestinian civilians, it is not fair on the Libyan ruler to express his idealistic ideas of one-state solution. Any ideas of final settlement should focus towards the practical and pragmatic solution of independent Palestine state with complete Palestinian authority and sovereignty. So, Mr.qadaffiji, your Gandhian ideals will not solve the Arab-Israeli problem