Names of Places are not changed by PILs but by Governments

By Parmanand Pandey 

Supreme Court of India may be final in certain respects, but it is definitely not infallible. It has dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL), which prayed for the constitution of a Renaming Commission for suggesting the change of names of those cities and places which were named after invaders by trampling upon their historical, cultural and religious identities so as to restore their old glory. How it will create a schism among different communities, as the Supreme Court has said while dismissing the PILs, is difficult to understand. There is hardly any bigotry in changing the names.

How can we shut our eyes from the fact that the country and its people had been pillaged and mauled by the invaders? There is no doubt that history cannot be eroded or wiped out but we can certainly remove those wrongs of the past, which continue to scrape the wounds and rub salts on them. Names of countries, cities and roads have been changed all over the world. Not far away Ceylon was changed to Sri Lanka, Burma became Myanmar, and Cambodia became Kampuchea. Turkey is now known as Turkiye.  Similarly, Southwest Africa has been renamed Namibia. There is nothing new in it. Change is part of nature.

Why do our judges get so upset that with the change of the names of some cities, our secularism will be endangered? After all, what is the point of having a city like Bakhtiarpur commemorating the name of Bakhtiar Khilji who had destroyed a world-famous university like Nalanda and its rich library? Names signify not only the history but also the importance attached to it. Why should Prayagraj or Ayodhya be known as Allahabad or Faizabad? There is a wrong perception that a section of society will be annoyed if such changes are made. People welcomed when the name of Leningrad was changed to old Petersburg or Peking as Beijing. In India itself, everybody welcomed when Madras became Chennai or Baroda as Vadodara and Bombay as Mumbai.

 What is more perplexing is why some lawyers think that changes can be brought about only by judicial interventions. After all, many names even in India have been changed by the governments and there have been no directions from the judiciary for those changes. It is the will of the people and the government(s) that are responsible for carrying out such changes. In fact, such PILs are meant more for publicity than for achieving the desired goals. Therefore, it will be better if public opinions are built, and the people’s representatives are made to realise which place should be rechristened or retained.

 

India Needs to be Protected from Snakes in the Ganga

By Parmanand Pandey

‘Snakes in the Ganga- breaking India 2.0’ by Rajeev Malhotra and Vijaya Viswanathan is a highly revealing and eye-opening book. It is a mine of information and it exposes the forces with convincing evidence that have been active in dismantling India, its traditions and cultures etc. These forces are active inside as well as outside India but the main role is played by some of the western universities. The book is a tome of nearly 800 pages containing some 22 chapters but the subject matter and the style is very engrossing. The book explains with copious evidence how these forces have been working to brainwash, manipulate and evangelise the rural poor with the end goal of destroying the civilisation fabric of India. It is very shocking that the premier educational centre of the world, Harvard University is playing the lead role in building a troubling alliance between a few leading Black Americans and ambitious young Dalits encouraging them to map India’s caste system onto the western concept of race. Theories known as Critical Race Theory (CRT) and Critical Dalit Theory are built on this framework and taught at Harvard as established facts in their curriculum.  Most surprisingly no counter position is either presented or entertained at Harvard.

Snakes in the Ganga brings forth the Indian funding of far-Left scholars’ activists that push the tenets of the new moral orthodoxy. Why some Indian capitalists are promoting it is a puzzling question. The book has successfully debunked the western theory of the Aryan/ Dravidian divide. The proponents of Critical Race Theory have no qualms in declaring Sanskrit as an oppressive language. They are of the view that Sanskrit perpetuates Brahmin privilege as a tool for exploiting the lower castes and Dalits. The Critical Race Theory’s application to Indian society comes wrapped in a bundle of lies and exaggerations that nobody is allowed to question.

     Ruse of Wokeism to Dismantle India

A new term ‘Woke’ is the popular equivalent of the more academic term for Critical Race Theory. It started in the Black American Community as a means of spreading awareness and being woken up to the social realities. Snakes in the Ganga is a metaphor for some foreign institutions that are mapping ideas of Wokeism to India, thereby undermining India’s ancient civilisational fabric. A praiseworthy effort has been made through the book to inform Indians who might be supporting Wokeism, often unintentionally, without an understanding of the endgame of these projects.

The book throws light on many philosophical theories like those of Kant, Hegel, Karl Marx and Herbert Marcuse etc, who explained how capitalism had won over the oppressed masses psychologically. At the same time. Postmodernism has been characterised by its scepticism of any objective reality; the influence of Nietzsche, Immanuel Kant, Hegel and others is evident. Postmodernism is based on the principles like general scepticism about the existence of objective knowledge or universal truth. Boundaries between categories are considered inherently blurry and are merely arbitrary human conventions. It says that power structures and hierarchies exist in all societies, and this is how knowledge gets created. Language itself embeds the power of elites who have developed it. Hence, the use of language is always biased and oppressive.

     Alignment of CRT with Queer Theory

The proponents of Critical Race Theory, which is aligned with Queer Theory make a ridiculous comparison with Vedanta and Buddhism. This theory also takes the liberty of comparing skin colour as the marker for caste. It is assumed, which is highly erroneous, that low caste persons in India are dark-skinned and upper casts are light-skinned. This section conveniently forgets the fact that most Hindu deities like Ram. Krishna, Kali and Durga are dark-skinned. The book quotes Isabel Wilkerson, who in her book ‘Caste is the Grammar of Racism’, says the relationship between caste and race is simple and direct. In a way, she is partially correct when she says that while race is flexible, caste is rigid. Hence, most of the time caste is the real problem, because it is like bones and race is like skin. It is fluid and superficial, subject to periodic redefinition to meet the needs of the dominant class.

She is more influenced by Dr BR Ambedkar, who was also of the view that caste is frozen in social structure. However, a fact can hardly be denied that different regions of India have had different dynamics of caste. The situation in the north is not the same as in the South. Hindus in the Caribbean countries do not have the same caste dynamics as in India. Hindus of all castes were brought to the Caribbean and enslaved under the cover of indentured labour, but Madam Wilkerson is silent on this. She appears to be unaware of the fact that Hinduism has got itself transformed in different countries. It is not uniform and homogenous like other Abrahamic religions. She (Wilkerson) does not realise that the Indian people, even when poor take pride in their specific community. It is an identity with cultural significance: festivals, traditions and specific deities. So, in the West, every attempt is made by some people to find fault with Hinduism and they try to dismantle its belief in Karma theory.

    Attacking the meritocracy

There are some professors at Harvard like Ajanta Subramaniam who in her book the Caste of merit: Engineering education in India has tried to prove that IITs in India are the main centres of the upper castes, what she eventually insinuates is that the lower castes cannot compete on merit when provided equal opportunities so the merit has been confined to the upper castes instead of diligence, discipline and frugality of the other castes, it has been considered to be the tyranny of merit. She has compared the academic qualifications at IITs with a form of cultural capital in which the upper castes are the capitalists and this form of capital is considered as merit because it appears to be the objective, autonomous and genuine type of competence. The leveraging of merit is an upper-caste conspiracy to perpetuate its capitalism. She further says that this is the reason IITians stick together and close rank to prevent the emergence of an egalitarian society because that will wipe out its cultural capital advantages, she has further gone on to stipulate that merit is mainly a male-dominated capital.

Thus, caste in India has been equated with American-style racism. There is one gentleman Sooraj Yengde who claims himself to be a Dalit and he is a professor at Harvard University who spares no stone to be unturned to defame Hinduism and particularly upper caste Hindus, although Baba Sahab Ambedkar staunchly argued against the Indians converting to Christianity and Islam. He adopted Buddhism before his death because he could not find anything better than Buddhism but Sooraj Yengde has only one point agenda to run down Hinduism at any cost. He has hardly gone through the wholesome study of Doctor Ambedkar although he claims to be a Buddhist but has clearly stated that he does not practice Buddhism therefore his claim to be a Buddhist is a mere subterfuge to go hammer and tongs against Hinduism. He is absolutely unaware of the fact that a large number of temples in India have priests other than Brahmins. Most of the temples are in the government's hands and the collection from it is used for the welfare of all communities regardless of religion but it is not the case with mosques and churches. He uses Brahmanism as a stick to beat Hinduism and says that the caste is similar to that of American Supremacy.

    Harvard and Indian Billionaires

In the second part of the book, the authors demonstrated the role of Oxford University in denigrating or demonising Indian traditions. Harvard has tried to appropriate some of the philosophical theories like Buddhism and yoga to digest them. The book says that ’when Harvard claims it wants to help India’s public health, most assume it would be financing cures for dengue, malaria or other widespread tropical diseases or help champion India’s medical tourism industry that brings in foreign patients for treatment but no such was extended by it. What is most disturbing is that the Hindi courses at Harvard strive to promote Urdu rather than Hindi. The curriculum of Hindi has been prepared in such a manner as women students would bemoan their culture. Hindi content is generally negative, unlike positive Urdu content where interesting and enjoyable issues are discussed.

At Harvard, the Chinese government's point of view is at times projected as the only relevant point of view on China. China’s human rights abuses are seldom studied and have in fact been covered up. But Harvard regularly chides India on such issues. Harvard has continued to educate Chines students and government officials on technology that would help China’s development but it does not lecture China in the humanities and social sciences. Harvard does not portray China in a manner that the worst type of human rights violation is normal in the country. It does not talk about the issue of Tibetan freedom, the democracy movement in Hong Kong, Taiwanese independence China’s crackdown on Mongolian culture and language is the human rights crisis of Uyghur Muslims. Harvard is silent and the Chines government muzzling and suppressing the billionaire founder of the Ali Baba Group for becoming too successful and outspoken. However, no such concession is given to India. The hypocrisy of Harvard’s claim to champion free speech is clear from the fact that it terminated the economics professor Subramaniam Swami because he has been championing the cause of Hindu culture. Take the example of Covid handling by India. While China miserably failed to handle it, the Indian record has been superb yet the Harvard always praised China and criticised India. The prejudice of Harvard against India and bias in favour of China has been all clear to see.

    The perversity of Westerners Against India Knows no Bounds

The perversity of Westerners can be gauged by the way, they look at our age-old Kumbha Mela at Prayagraj which falls every twelve years. Harvard is more interested in exploring uncomfortable issues rather than looking at them as a sacred Hindu event. Harvard asks whether Mela is dominated by males. Do Sadhvis have equal rights as sadhus? Are women being exploited at the event? Are there rapes and harassment? Are there Tantric sex orgies? Are Dalits being oppressed? Do the Hindu groups have equitable representation of LGBTQ? Are people from the south and northeast discriminated against? The fact is that such things never even cross the minds of the people. But the so-called researchers have tried to make it an anthropological hunting ground for exotica and erotica. Some of them even demanded large-scale distribution of condoms at the Kumbha Mela.

The worrying part is that some Indian billionaires like Lakshmi Mittal, Anand Mahindra and Ajay Piramal have given huge amounts of money to perpetuate their names by establishing their seats in the university and those seats work overtime to destabilise India. Some scholars like Homi K Bhabha, and Devdutt Pattnaik play a major role in creating Hindu phobia. Unfortunately, these institutes funded by Indian billionaires support the cause anti -Indian forces like Rohingyas, and Mizos, and decode the Supreme Court verdicts on homosexuality. Harvard University has been able to get a grip and significant control over the media ecosystem., which openly supports the agitations like Shaheen Bagh or the farmers' movement. The book has rightly asked the question that why Harvard never organises any seminar on the spiritual legacy of Kashmir but discusses the separatist issue.  

     The third part deals with the issue; Is India for Sale?

The writers of the book are of the definite opinion that Christian missionaries and Marxists resort to ruse and inculturation to indoctrinate the hapless public. It has also exposed the nexus of Saudis, American and Indian billionaires, who work against the sovereignty and integrity of India although they are strange bedfellows. For example, Saudi Arabia is dead against LGBTQ, yet it supports Americans when it comes to sabotaging the cause of India. Some new Indian Universities are also involved in working against India and the burning example is that of Ashoka University, which is funded by the Indian government yet -plays into the hands of the forces like Harvard and other anti-Indians.

The book deserves not only to be read but to be deeply cogitated by all Indians, who are fired with nationalism, patriotism and the progress of the country with pride intact. The book can be treasured as it is more like a reference book.

 

 

 

Advocates should not be Apologetic About Virtual Court Hearings

   Virtual hearings in the courts are no less than a boon for the advocates and litigants and the need is to make them more user-friendly and flawless. But as they say, old habits die hard, and therefore some of the advocates still find it difficult to adopt them. It is very strange that some of the advocates become apologetic while appearing before the courts. They apologise to courts for not having appeared physically-this attitude of theirs is hard to explain. This speaks of their unscientific temper and anti-technology bent of mind at a time when Artificial Intelligence (AI) is going to make big headway in court functioning. Later or sooner, AI is bound to play a very important role in judicial work throughout the world. It will revolutionise the system as it will go a long way in eliminating the banes of corruption and delay in the judiciary.

  As a matter of fact, the concept of virtual courts is aimed at considerably reducing the presence of litigants and lawyers in the courtrooms. This method is a great saving of time and money for all stakeholders. In this age of heavy traffic, it takes a lot of time in commuting from the residence to the courts and vice versa. If one goes by car or taxi or any other mode of transport, it costs money and increases pollution. When going from home to court, the advocates or litigants invariably incur expenses on tea/coffee, snacks or meals.

  The biggest advantage for advocates is that they can handle many cases of different courts by working from their offices or home-cum-offices, which is highly difficult during physical hearings. Apart from it, the courtrooms normally get crowded, which can be avoided by adopting the virtual mode of hearings. However, there is not all hunky-dory in the virtual hearings. Sometimes electric and electronic machines create problems The other disadvantage that I feel is that it leaves the advocates isolated and they remain deprived of socialisation, which is very necessary for healthy mental equilibrium.

   But there is no denying that the advantages of virtual hearings far outweigh the physical hearings in the court. Therefore, the advocates should not feel shy about adopting the new method of virtual hearings. At the same time, the government and the courts should come forward to augment the facilities for virtual hearings. Some investments must also be done by the advocates for arranging better gadgets and internet facilities so that they do not have to face glitches during the virtual hearings.

 

 

Opponents of Gowri’s Elevation Forgot Justices VR Krishna Ayer, K S Hegde and Baharul Islam

The Supreme Court has done a great service to the country by dismissing the petition filed by some advocates with vested interests against the elevation of Advocate LC Victoria Gowri (now)the judge of the Madras High Court. They have been so overactive to stop her swearing-in that they first mentioned the case on Monday morning but when it was to be listed on Friday, they became jittery and again mentioned on Tuesday morning to stop her swearing, which was slated at 10.35 am on the same day. As is normally seen that in such matters a group rather than a gang of lawyers, journalist and so-called intellectuals take up the cudgel to ensure that a plan that goes against their interests are frustrated.
The lawyers of the Madras High Court who filed their petition in the Supreme Court against LC Victoria Gowri and those who were ready to lap it up have actually shown disrespect to the decision of the Supreme Court collegium, utter disregard to the constitution, which provides for the liberty of thought and freedom of speech and expression to every citizen and vehemence of their opposition to the government in power at the Centre and particularly to justice Victoria Gowri. Although it is not the occasion to critique her statements and views about Christians and Islamicists, there is hardly anything to disagree with her. In fact, her opinion about the proselyting Christians and Jehadi Muslims is very mild because the reality is more alarming than what she said.
Perhaps these busybody Johnnies are not aware of the fact that famous Justice Dinshaw D Davar before becoming the judge of the Bombay High Court was the Advocate of Tilak Maharaj, but nobody raised an objection that why was he being elevated to the judgeship. So much so, MA Jinnah was appointed By Bal Gangadhar Tilak himself to conduct his case as the defence lawyer in 1897 in the Bombay High Court. This is being stated here to prove the point that a person playing the role of advocate casts off his colour and political ideology when s/he becomes a judge. Therefore, the maligning campaign started against Ms Gowri speaks of the sick mentality of the advocates and their supporters.
Those who were up in arms against Victoria’s appointment only remembered that she subscribed to a political philosophy but conveniently forgot that an eminent judge like VR Krishna Ayer was not only sympathetic to a political party but was a minister in the communist government of Kerala before becoming a judge. Similarly, Justice K S Hegde before being a judge in the Supreme Court was a Member of Parliament. After relinquishing the judgeship, he again swung into politics and became the Speaker of the Lok Sabha. Justice Baharul Islam was an MP before he was made the judge. There are examples galore of such judges who after demitting their offices became the MPs and even Ministers in many governments. Therefore, those who opposed the elevation of Justice Victoria Gowri can be called to be rabidly communal and anarchist otherwise they would not have behaved in such an imbecile manner as they did.

Same-sex Marriages and Their Acceptability in Society

  My Odia Advocate friend Shri Purshottam Misra has requested the Supreme Court Collegium to recommend the name of a gay advocate Saurabh Kripal for the appointment as the judge in the SC itself instead of recommending his (for want of any better pronoun I have to use) name for the appointment as the judge of the Delhi High Court. This will send a strong message across the world that Indian Supreme Court is a great respecter of human beings irrespective of their sexual orientations. It must be mentioned here that Saurabh is a self-proclaimed same-sex married person to a Swiss gay, where same-sex marriages are valid. The aims of marriage in our culture are Dharma (Duty), Santanotpatti (Procreation), and Rati (Pleasure). All are intertwined, but in same-sex marriages, only the pleasure is the summum bonum. Among the Hindus, marriage is regarded as a socio-cultural duty. Marriage is solemnised not so much for sex or progeny as for obtaining a partner for the fulfilment of one’s religious duties.

The votaries and the supporters of same-sex marriage (gay and lesbian marriages) say that what is more important than Santontpatti and Rati is economic security, exclusive rights, benefits, protections, and responsibilities. Marriage is a stabilising source in society. It is very difficult for those believing in men-women traditional marriages to even think of any stability in same-sex marriages. For traditional marriages, same-sex marriages are anathema, which are perversions of the minds of two adults.

Same-sex marriages may be legalised by the Parliament and Judiciary but there is hardly any doubt that society is still not ready to make it a legit marriage. Marriage put the burden on men and women with responsibilities to the family and society which are totally new and unexpected in same-sex marriage. It is alright to lead a same-sex marital life but after a certain age, both will have the tinge and desire for the family, for which they have to recourse of adoption because they can never be biological father or mother of the child unless, of course, some scientific miracles happen. There is a difference between sex and carnality and that has been the reason that carnality has been made a criminal offence in India, which has now been decriminalised by the court.

Although some same-sex marriages have been regularised in some countries still they are vehemently opposed by religious and moral groups. All religions- Christians, Muslims, Buddhists or Hindus - disallow such marriages. Whatever one may say but there are no doubts that same-sex marriages are against nature and therefore they must be discouraged and deprecated. It is very difficult to imagine the mindset of those, who have entered into same-sex marriages. Lampooning, ridiculing and criticising apart, the momentum for same-sex marriage has been gaining ground at breakneck speed. The day is not far away when the supporters of heterosexual marriages will become the butt of jokes as opposed to gay and lesbian marriages.

If self-proclaimed gays and lesbians adorn the seats in the constitutional courts, nobody knows how much havoc they will cause in society. Therefore, it will be in the fitness of the occasion, that same-sex marriages should not be legitimised. Emotions and so-called progressiveness should not dim nature’s brilliance for heterosexual marriages that have stood the test for millions of years.

Petitions have been filed in many High Courts like; Delhi, Kerala, and Gujrat to bring same-sex marriages under the special marriage act. Now the Supreme Court has decided to transfer all petitions to itself and hear them to give finality. The court has appointed two advocates as nodal counsel. One of them Arundhati Katju claims to be a lesbian and is married to a senior advocate Menaka Guruswamy, who is also one of the arguing counsel for the petitioners. Their contention is that the non-recognition of same-sex marriage is discriminatory. These petitions are a sequel to the judgment in the Navtej Jauhar case, which decriminalised homosexuality.

The main demand of the petitioners is to make the Special Marriage Act gender-neutral and such marriages should get the same protection as are available to inter-caste and interfaith marriages. Let the people wait with bated breath whether the Supreme Court will issue a mandamus to the government to expand the ambit of the Special Marriage Act or would prefer to make a law under article 142 of the Constitution of India. Once it is legitimised then those who have been ridiculing and looking down on same-sex affairs will be silenced for always, regardless of its immorality and social disapproval.

Like

Comment

Share