- Reject anti-Hindu education
- Dr. Subramanian Swamy to file PIL against Tamil Nadu DMK Govt’s take over of Chidambaram Temple
- This move of Chidambaram temple take over in the name of 'Tourism' over 'Religious tradition' comes close on the heel of the Nepal experiment
- On Constitution and Secularism
Thanks to B Shantanu for this bringing out this interesting fact.
Most readers may already be aware of this but there continues to be a widespread misconception that the word “secular” was part of the original Constitution drafted during 1947-1950.
The word “secular” (along with “socialist”) was introduced in the preamble to the Constitution by the late PM Smt Indira Gandhi in 1976. As this article by Arvind Lavakare notes:
It is on record that ‘at least twice in the Constituent Assembly efforts were made to make a specific mention of the principle of secularism in the Constitution. For example, an amendment had sought to ensure that no law could be made which discriminates between man and man on the basis of religion, or applies to adherents of any one religion and leaves others untouched. All such amendments were summarily rejected by Dr Ambedkar. Later… he made it clear that he did not believe that our Constitution was secular because it allowed different treatment to various communities.’ (Subhash C Kashyap, a renowned constitutional authority, in Reforming The Constitution, UBS Publishers & Distributors, 1992).
It is a fact of history that despite Ambedkar’s erudite view above, the Indira Gandhi government’s Constitution (42nd Amendment) Act, 1976, thrust the term ’secular’ into the Preamble of the Constitution without defining or explaining the significance of that term. It was, you see, the period of the Emergency, and Madam Gandhi didn’t need to explain anything to anyone.
- Babri was a symbol of disgrace... no regret, no grief (over demolition): Kalyan said in affidavit
"Babri was a symbol of disgrace"... Now that's THE truth, isn't it! But this dhimmi wimp had to flip-flop and unnecessarily say sorry for demolishing this encroachment called Babri, more of a Barbaric Masjid.
For all the adjectives and verbs Kalyan Singh may be using now to describe the demolition of the Babri Masjid — with an eye on the Samajwadi Party and the elections — in his 27-page affidavit dated December 2, 2004, which he submitted to the Liberhan Commission of Inquiry probing the demolition, Singh was forthright.
He claimed that the demolition of the mosque on December 6, 1992, “was an act of God” and “whatever happened on that day, the deponent has no regret, no repentance, no sorrow, and no grief for that.”
Singh, incidentally, was the last witness to be examined by the Liberhan Commission and his deposition, which runs into 400-plus pages, is the longest in the Commission’s record. Spread over 20 sittings, the deposition began on December 3, 2004 and finished on June 3, 2005.
Singh’s views on the Babri Masjid, too, find mention in the affidavit. “The deponent firmly believes that the place at the disputed structure in fact was a Ram Temple, it continues to be Ram Temple and will be a Ram Temple and nothing else but a Ram Temple,” he asserted in their affidavit. Incidentally, sources in the Liberhan Commission say there was no need for Singh to file any affidavit and it was entirely voluntary.
Referring to the demolition, Singh said in his affidavit, “...Historians will write that devotees of Ram and devotees of the nation had demolished this symbol of slavery and disgrace and though this demolition was not expected, it was purely sudden and totally unplanned.”
On March 17, 2005, Kalyan filed another short affidavit, in which he cited portions of the report submitted by the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) in the Allahabad High Court. This report talked of the presence of the Ram Mandir on the site of the Babri Masjid.
- HC tells Maharashtra police chief to go
While I appreciate the court's decision to whip the government for overlooking the administrative norms. But looks like seniority is the only norm for such appointments. And the courts are fine with one of the other officer's appointment even though there are corruption charges against him. You can't be serious!
HC tells Maharashtra police chief to goFor the first time in the state, the court quashed a government order appointing the police chief, saying: “The entire decision-making process and decision were unduly hasty and not in conformity with accepted administrative norms.”
Roy’s appointment had been challenged by Suprakash Chakravarty, director-general (DG), Anti-Corruption Bureau. Chakravarty argued that Roy had superseded three officers senior to him, which made his appointment illegal. The three officers in question were DG (Housing) S.S. Virk, DG (Home Guards) JD Virkar and Chakravarty himself.
However, Roy may well be reappointed DGP. The court made it clear that the appointment, made in March 2008, was being set aside only because the procedure followed was flawed. The flaw was that all eligible officers were not considered. Virk was the one overlooked because he was embroiled in a corruption case in Punjab.
Caution: Following video contains news report from a known Anti-Hindu biased news channel, viewer discretion is advised.
- History turns full circle for Advani
- Vajpayee showing signs of improvement
Get well soon Vajpayee ji, the best Prime Minister of Bharat after 1947.
- H-1B hiring ban sought for US cos getting bailout
Is US going the closed door protectionist route?
- Yes, snooping’s allowed
Under Congress, what do you expect? Days of Indira Nehru's emergency are back.
Some recent commentary on the amendments to the Information Technology Act has claimed that the amendments are little different from powers already with the state in the Indian Telegraph Act of 1885, and thus civil-liberties concerns are mistaken. This is not correct. Section 69 of the Information Technology (Amendment) Act 2008, passed by Parliament on December 23, 2008, is far more intrusive than the Indian Telegraph Act of 1885, which was drafted to protect the interests of the British Raj. Under the new IT Act, any Government official or policeman will be able to listen in to all your phone calls, read your SMSs and emails, and monitor the websites you visit. And he will not require any warrant from a magistrate to do so.
Until the passage of the amended IT Act, phone tapping was governed by Clause 5(2) of the Indian Telegraph Act of 1885, which said that “On the occurrence of any public emergency, or in the interest of the public safety, the Government may, if satisfied that it is necessary or expedient so to do in the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State,...
And what of the safeguards in the act? Well, when the government has not formulated any safeguards to Section 5 of the Telegraph Act since Independence, it is unrealistic to expect it to formulate any safeguards under Section 69 (2) of the amended IT Act — especially in view of the prevailing terrorism situation.
Until suitable safeguards are in place, Section 69 of the Information Technology (Amendment) Act of 2008 appears to be in violation of Article 21 of the Constitution — “no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.” It is unfortunate that a democratic and independent India has passed a law which is far more detrimental to personal liberty than the British Raj did.
- Students have right to see answerbooks: Calcutta HC
- Criminal justice system has collapsed: SC
- Centre gives its tacit approval to Salwa Judum
Of course when the government is busy playing favoritism by distributing the exchequers money for Haj and Bethlehem tours and travels and filling their Swiss bank accounts there will not be any money left for strengthening the internal security system. So people would have no choice but to do Salwa Judum against the Anti-Bharat forces like Naxal Maoist and Islamic terrorists. It is illegal to take law in their own hands but what can they do? Government is also playing to the gallery. Vote bhi to chahiye!
- Govt's plan to clamp down on Naxals coming unstuck
- Sorry Mr Chavan, you are not Maharashtra CM
- Impetuous and foolhardy Renuka Chowdhury's outlandish diktat to Youngsters: 'Pub bharo to beat moral police'
Wow, instead of asking the youth, the future of Bharat to give up such drug addictions and choice of inebriating which is nothing but a waste of money and may cause deaths and injuries. And rather focus on nation building and their careers. She diktats young crowd to spoil their habits by going Pubs and Bars regularly, which may consequently cause an increase in crime against women and children like in Indraprasth (misnomer: Nayi Dilli/New Delhi) under Shiela Dikshit's liberal liquor policy. What kind of an irresponsible person is she? She is a Minister and that too for Women and Child Development for God Shri Ram's sake. And such irresponsible comments. What a shame!
Thursday, February 5, 2009
Spread The Word
Following are interesting articles of the day (February 5, 2009) which affect Hindus and their rights directly or indirectly. Also, some general articles. All the articles with my views on some of them.