Mandir Hopping of Priyanka : Fake or Genuine

       If somebody wants to go to any temple, why should any objection be raised by anybody? If Priyanka Vadra Gandhi has decided to take a dip in the holy Sangam, pooja at the temple of Baba Vishwanath in Varanasi and darshan of Maa Vindhyavasini at Vindhyachal, it should not be the cause of stomach-ache for anyone. But it is a half-truth. The eyebrows are bound to be raised if anybody goes to the temple only for showing and attracting the attention of others. The motive is not the consolidation of faith but to garner votes of the gullible masses, then these visits to the temples are not only farcical but deserve to be detested and condemned in no uncertain terms.

     This is what we find in the case of Priyanka Gandhi and her brother Rahul Gandhi. Their ideas appear to be frozen in the time warp of their grandmother, Indira Gandhi. People did not have any doubt about the faith of Indira ji. Election or no election she used to go to temples and had all the respects for the religion that she espoused. Brahmins, the so-called custodians of Hindu religion, had all respect for her feelings. But that is totally missing in Rahul and Priyanka and nobody is ready to believe that they have genuine faith in their outwardly religious conducts.

      Having said it one must know that the beauty of Hinduism is that it is all-encompassing. An atheist is as much a Hindu as a theist. One may believe in any God or may not believe at all, he/she is a Hindu till he/she renounces and embraces any other faith or chooses to remain away from it. One will be aghast to know a fact that when Swami Dayanand Saraswati once visited Tehri palace (presently in Uttarakhand), the king took him to his sprawling kitchen and showed him how the buffaloes were being butchered? Swami ji could not stand there for a minute and rebuked the king for converting his kitchen into an abattoir for killing the male buffaloes in the name of satiating any Devi. He was appalled that the king was doing it at the suggestion of Brahmin priests, who were also accustomed to eating the meat.

     So when even the meat-eating Brahmins could become the priests of a religion where Ahimsa is considered to be its fulcrum, then anybody can be a Hindu provided he/she does not claim to be otherwise. Nevertheless, people have now become fully aware that who is a faithful Hindu and who is trying to cheat them by skylarking as a Hindu for the sake of votes.

Will Artificial Intelligence lead to Immortality?

Yuval Noah Harari, who is still in his early forties has taken the world by storm by his three wonderful books- ‘Sapiens-A Brief History of Mankind’, ‘Homo Dues- A Brief History of Tomorrow’ and ‘21 Lessons for the 21st Century’. He is an insightful historian. The way he has analysed and thrown lights on the facts from the beginning of the homo sapiens till today and the things to shape in the future is amazing, to say the least. But there is a section which denigrates him as a writer of ‘liberal elites' because he has established with his unique logic that religion, socialism and many other forms of social structures and governments will be the things of the past.

The Communist Manifesto proclaims that: The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles. Freeman and slave, patrician and plebian, lord and serf, guild master and journeyman, in a word, oppressor and oppressed, stood in constant opposition to one another. Society as a whole is more and more splitting up into two great hostile camps, into two great classes directly facing each other: Bourgeoisie and Proletariat. But when the Artificial Intelligence and Algorithm will replace the workers and managers nobody will exploit anybody. So where is the question of two hostile camps? Even today the communism has largely been rejected across the globe because now it no longer appeals to reason and imagination of the people.

The inexorable march of science will assert the supremacy of the Silicon Valley (Silicon Valley is a symbol), which will force the countries to give up the war and hostility. Artificial Intelligence will help produce the children, who will have immunity from the diseases. Death will be just a technical problem. There will be gadgets, which will forewarn about all the ills and ailments that may inflict any human being but the flip side of it will be that man/ women will always be haunted by some or other illnesses, which may lead to the incurable depression. Thus, the man can either evolve into a superman or will degenerate into subhuman. However, a question always lingers in mind that one can have all the paraphernalia, but can you write about love without human feelings? Terrorism, which has scared the whole world will be defeated only by the technology, which has partially been seen in the recent precision strike by the Indian Airforce in Balakot or the killing of Osama Bin Laden earlier in the Pakistani military haven,

In the days to come the agriculture, which used to provide jobs and foods to almost hundred per cent people at the beginning of the Homo Sapiens will not be pursued even by one per cent population because of the liberal use of the robotic technology developed by Artificial Intelligence. Most of the jobs will become redundant thanks to technology. The so-called debate and passionate discussion on the protection of individual privacy are meaningless because Artificial Intelligence will debunk them. Wars will be the things of the past, however, if it is ever fought, it will reduce the role of the humans to the minimum. He (Harari) has opined that ‘you are more likely to commit suicide than be killed in a conflict’. There will be no famine in the future but’ you are more at risk of dying due to obesity than starvation’.

Yuval Noah Harari is a Jew, but he regularly practices Vipassana and the Yoga for two hours every day, which gives him enough energy to cope with the challenges for another twenty-two hours. Written in simple and elegant language and in an engaging style, all three parts are unputdownable.

SC Saves Six Innocents from Gallows

 Death penalty or capital punishment is the highest degree of punishment to be awarded to an individual under the penal law of any country. It has been in existence since the inception of the State. There has been an intense debate in India whether capital punishment should be abolished or retained. Article 21 of the constitution guarantees every citizen the fundamental right to life and it expressly states that ‘no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law’. This means that the life of an individual can be taken only through the given process of law and not otherwise.

 The purpose of Indian Penal system is two folds: one is deterrent and the other is reformative. The inherent principle of ‘innocent until proven guilty is followed in the justice delivery system.’ Till now after independence, nearly 1400 people have been hanged to death for committing heinous crimes. The Law Commission and various other committees have expressly stated that the death penalty should be abolished except in terror-related cases. The Supreme Court has laid down the golden principle way back in 1980 in ‘Bachan Singh vs the State of Punjab’ that the death penalty can be awarded only in ‘rarest of rare’ cases.

 The moralists have been insisting that death penalty should be abolished hook, line and sinker because once a person has been executed then there is no possibility of any atonement even if the facts dawn at the later stage that the person who has been hanged to death was really not guilty for the punishment. In the first week of March this year the Supreme Court has acquitted six innocent persons, who were awarded death penalty by the Nashik Sessions Court. The conviction of three of them was confirmed by the Bombay High Court. However, it commuted the sentence of the other three to life imprisonment. Thus, the Supreme Court heard two sets of appeals, one was filed by those whose death penalty was confirmed and other was by the Government of Maharashtra against the commutation of the death penalty of three convicts to life imprisonment. This case, which brought six innocent persons to the brink of execution, has left a deep scar on our criminal justice delivery system.

 The brief facts of the case are as follows: Six persons-Ankush Shinde, Rajiv Shinde, Raju Shinde, Ambadas Shinde, Bapu Shinde and Surya were guilty of murdering Trambak Satote, his daughter Savita, his sons Sandeep and Shrikant and his nephew Bharat More on the intervening night of June 5-6, 2003. Luckily, his wife Vimalabai and her son Manoj survived the attack and went on to identify all these six men in the Test Identification Parade (TIP). The Nashik court sentenced all of them to the death penalty, but the High Court took the view that Ambadas Shinde, Bapu Shinde and Surya did not deserve death because they had not raped Savita. The Supreme Court acquitted all of them. Why? What has happened with eye witness testimonies? Did Vimalabai and Manoj lie to the court? Were they compelled to make false testimonies? These are the questions which are nagging to the minds of the people. It is true that five persons were killed in the attack, then who killed them? Does it mean that real killers got away without any punishment?

The Court has now directed  after the lapse of 16 years to conduct further investigation under Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure qua those four persons ‘who were identified by Vimalabai,  the injured  eye witness from the album of photographs of notorious criminals with their names, i.e., immediately after the incident, whose particulars and names were mentioned in her statement so that real culprits should not go unpunished in a crime in which five persons were killed brutally and one lady was even subjected to rape.’

 With regard to other accused persons, the Supreme Court said, ‘the deposition of Vimalabai was full of contradictions/omissions and improvements and therefore she is not a reliable witness who can be believed. Even otherwise it appears that there was no fair investigation by the investigating agency/prosecution. The prosecution has suppressed the material fact from the Court. Neither the investigating officer nor even the special executive magistrate initially stated anything about the recording of the statement of Vimalabai on 7.6.2003, a day after the multiple murders and she identified four persons from the album of the photographs of the notorious criminals. In fact, it came to the light during the course of hearing of the appeal before the High Court. Her memory was fresh, and it ought to have been given more weight than her identifying the accused persons after a long delay.

It is judiciously acknowledged that fair trial includes fair investigation as envisaged by Articles 20 & 21 of the Constitution of India. The role of the police is to be one for protection of life, liberty and property of citizens, that investigation of offences being one of its foremost duties. That the aim of the investigation is ultimately to search for truth and to bring the offender to book. Apart from ensuring that the offences do not go unpunished, it is the duty of the prosecution to ensure fairness in the proceedings and also to ensure that all relevant facts and circumstances are brought to the notice of the court for just determination of the truth so that due justice prevails.

The Court said that ‘it is the responsibility of the investigating agency to ensure that every investigation is fair and does not erode the freedom of an individual, except in accordance with law. One of the established facets of a just, fair and transparent investigation is the right of an accused to ask for all such documents that he may be entitled to under the scheme contemplated by the Cr.PC.  Nothing is allowed by the law which is contrary to the truth. The criminal justice administration system in India places human rights and dignity for human rights at a much higher pedestal. The investigation should be judicious, fair, transparent and expeditious to ensure compliance with the basic rule of law. These are the fundamental canons of our criminal jurisprudence and they are quite in conformity with the Constitutional mandate contained in Articles 20 and 21 of the Constitution of India.  In case of Darya Singh v. the State of Punjab has observed that the prosecution must act fairly and honestly and must never adopt the device of keeping back from the Court only because the evidence is likely to go against the prosecution case. 

Murder and rape are indeed a reprehensive act and every perpetrator should be punished expeditiously, severely and strictly. However, this is only possible when guilt has been proved beyond reasonable doubt. The prosecution/investigating agency is expected to act in an honest and fair manner without hiding anything from the accused as well as the Courts, which may go against the prosecution. Their ultimate aim should not be to get a conviction by hook or crook.  It is to be noted that all the accused persons are nomadic tribes coming from the lower strata of the society and are very poor labourers. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, false implication cannot be ruled out since it is a common occurrence that in serious offences sometimes innocent persons are roped in. We have no other alternative, but to acquit the accused of the offences for which they are convicted.

The Court observed that Ankush Maruti Shinde, who was subsequently found to be a juvenile, he has clearly opined that he has lived under sub-human conditions for several years. He was kept in isolation in solitary confinement with very restricted human contact and under perpetual fear of death. He was only allowed to meet his mother and that too only infrequently. He was not even allowed to mix with other prisoners. All the accused remained under constant stress and in the perpetual fear of death. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, we direct the State of Maharashtra to pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- to each of the accused by way of compensation.

 Our justice delivery system is slower than the tortoise and it takes not years but decades to decide whether a person is guilty or innocent and during this period he or she has to languish in jail. If the person is declared innocent as has happened in the above-mentioned case who should be held responsible for their pains and sufferings?  They have been in jail for more than fifteen years apparently for no fault of theirs because they were found to be falsely implicated. Is it not the time for the higher judiciary and the legislature to take notice of such cases where many times the innocence are implicated and convicted but the real culprits go scot-free because of the shoddy investigation of the cases by the police?

Supreme Court Stays Eviction of Forest Dwellers

 The Supreme Court has stayed its own order of 13^th own order of evicting lakhs of dwellers living on encroached forest land. It has come as a huge relief for the people living in the forests for many generations. Around the world, as communities expand, and natural places are reduced, people and wildlife are increasingly coming into conflict over living space and food. If humans make proper use of space and food, it is possible to have enough for animals also. While key areas should be protected for wildlife, buffer zones need to be created and investing in alternative land uses are some of the solutions to tide over the problem of humans and animals’ conflict. Keeping the goal to avoid such conflicts the Forest Rights Act was passed in 2006, which says that those who are living in jungles would have to stake claims of their rights. Thereafter, it will be verified by the authorities but if they fail to fulfil the criteria as laid down in the Act, they will be evicted. Clutch of Public Interest Petitions were, nevertheless, filed in the Supreme Court for and against the implementation of the Act.

 The aims and objects of justice are that it must have a human face. This has been the reason that even at the cost of health, hygiene and any planning the humans have been given utmost importance in the judicial pronouncements. The underline principle is that all human being is equal in dignity and rights. Equality is one of the fundamental factors, which enables everyone to live a life of dignity and enjoy its full potential. The Supreme Court has been striving hard, right from its inception, to dispensing justice in a manner that upholds the honour and the dignity of every citizen. This has been the reason that it has often come to the rescue and relief of those who are deprived and denied even basic human rights.

            The Apex Court has been reminding and pulling up the authorities, time and again, to ensure that they fulfil obligations to the general public. And whenever the state or its apparatus have failed to fulfil the objectives, the Supreme Court has not hesitated in giving the rap on the knuckles of the concerned authorities. Way back in 1985 in ‘Olga Tellis and others vs Bombay Municipal Corporation’, the Supreme Court had made it mandatory for the authorities to provide alternate accommodation to the slum dwellers if their shantytowns were demolished.

           However, that was the case of rich versus poor, where the poor were being ignored by the authorities but when it comes to the existence of humans and animals, the Court cannot sit idle in order to ensure the very survival of animals. The Court has always ensured that a balance should be struck between the humans and the animal. Needless to underline that due to the increasing conflict between humans and animals, the lives of animals have become very dangerous and difficult. Now in a petition filed by the Wildlife Trust of India, Nature Conservation Society and Tiger Reservation and Conservation Trust the Supreme Court has ordered all the state governments to ensure that the encroachment of forests by human beings should be evicted. This order will impact the lives of millions of people belonging to the Scheduled Tribes (STs) and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (OTFDs) and that is why a large number of organisations have come out demanding review of the Supreme Court order.

             When the Forest Rights Act (FRA) was passed, it required the government to hand back traditional forestlands to tribal and other forest-dwellers even against the laid down criteria. It intended to provide a framework to recognize and vest the rights and occupation in forest land to Scheduled Tribes, who have been residing in such forests for generations but whose rights could not be recorded.

There are over 100 million people who make up India’s tribal population, four million of which reside in protected forest areas of nearly 500 wildlife sanctuaries and 90 national parks. It gave them the legal right to live and work on the land for three generations. According to the Supreme Court order, the claims of 18 Lakh dwellers have been accepted and their titles have been handed over to them and their families. But more than a million claims have been rejected, who face eviction. The Court has now said that the state governments would ‘ensure that where the rejection orders have been passed, the eviction will be carried out on or before 27th July 2019. In case the eviction is not carried out, as aforesaid, the matter would be viewed seriously by this Court.’

The order of the Supreme Court has caused a great deal of panic and anxiety for the state governments. As per the available records, approximately 12.50 lakh hectares of forest land is under encroachment and the Court ruled that ‘all encroachments which are not eligible for regularisation should be summarily evicted in a time-bound manner. The forest dwellers say that authorities have always been hostile towards them mainly due to the right of collecting and selling the Minor Forest Produce (MFP), which the (Adivasis and forest dwellers) get under the Forest Right Act. MFP is a major source of revenue and forest authorities do not want to lose it because states earn more revenue from MFP than they earn from timber.

This order, as expected, has acquired political overtones. Some parties and organisations have even asked the Central Government to bring an ordinance so that lakhs of forest dwellers are saved from eviction.  At least two-thirds of the country's forest lands are tribal lands under the Vth Schedule of the constitution. The implementation of this order will definitely see more unrest in various parts of India, which is being seen to lead to the impoverishment of the tribal and the other forest dwelling communities.

However, the Supreme Court in its main order has tersely asked for its compliance. It said that once the orders of eviction have been passed, the eviction ought to have taken place without any compromise. The Court has asked the Chief Secretaries to the States to file an affidavit as to why the orders of eviction have not been carried out so far in respect of the incumbents whose claims have been rejected. In the case of Assam, the Court found that the total numbers of claims belonging to Scheduled Tribe is 74,364 and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers is 19966. The Court ordered that the Divisional Forest Officers, within their jurisdiction, to submit proposal to the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest & Head of the Forest Force to carry out eviction in respect of claims rejected by the District Level Committee and that steps should be taken for eviction of all the encroachers/claimants whose claims have been rejected. The Chief Secretaries to the States have also been directed to file an affidavit stating whether the incumbents in respect of whom the rejection orders have been passed, have been evicted or not? And if not, the reasons for the same must be recorded. More or less, similar orders for eviction have been passed in respect of other states.  

         In case of the State of Uttar Pradesh, it was found that 31,846 claims have been filed by STs and 50,442 claims have been filed by OTFDs, out of the above, 20494 claims of STs and 38167 claims have been rejected. Therefore, the Chief Secretary to the State of Uttar Pradesh will have to tell as to why after the rejection of the claims, which have attained finality, eviction has not been made. The Chief Secretary shall ensure that where the rejection orders have been passed, the eviction will be carried out on or before July 2019.

The court has also directed to the Forest Survey of India (FSI) to make a satellite survey and place on record the encroachment positions and also state the positions after the eviction as far as possible. The ideal position in any civil society is that there should be no encroachment but in India, it has become a rule rather than an exception.

 Many organisations have welcomed the order of the Supreme Court as it will go a long way for saving wild animals, who have the inherent right to live in jungles, which is being endangered because of the encroachers. On the other hand, some parties are asking that forest dwellers need not be disturbed until a comprehensive rehabilitation policy is put in place. Whenever any orders by the Supreme Court or the High Courts are passed for evicting the encroachers, the politics come into play. As a result of it, the encroachers make the hay while the sun shines and the country, as a whole, suffers. Hopefully, the Court will have a holistic look at it. The humane consideration of justice is laudable, but it should not be stretched too far as to disrupt the ecological balance and cause constant conflict with animals.

ReplyReply allForward

Shameless Supporters of Terrorists

The entire nation is seething with the rage over the dastardly killings of more than 40 CRPF Jawans in Pulwama near Sri Nagar. But the television debates on channels further aggravate the grief and tragedy, when we see that some of the participants hold brief even for enemies. Although this country has been replete with treacherous fifth columnists from time immemorial that have stabbed in the backs of the patriotic forces, yet today we find was unthinkable in the olden days. The intellectual dishonesty is at its peak. These people shamelessly justify their anti-national activities and provide grist to the terrorists. There is hardly any doubt that these homegrown terrorists get full support from outside.
It is an unconcealed fact that Pakistan is a rogue and bankrupt state. It has no money to spend on any developmental projects. Whatever money is received from the people that go to the Army and the people are condemned to live in abject poverty. Feudal lords, corrupt bureaucrats, terrorists and Army have the nexus, which wants to create somehow the disturbances in India. What has happened at Pulwama is a reflection of the frustration of Pakistan.
Pakistan is already a divided country. North-West Frontier Province does not want to live even for a minute with the Punjabis, who actually rule the roost. Baluchistan, for all practical purposes, does not consider itself to be the part of Pakistan. Sindh has a very tenuous link with the rest of Pakistan. Therefore, the Government of India will do well to extend all possible help to the people of these provinces, who are fighting for self-determination. Secondly, the water supply to Pakistan from rivers which originate and pass through India must be stopped. It will not only wither away the crops of Pakistan but also deprive it with fresh drinking water. India must be hit hard, where it hurts more to Pakistan.
Some intellectual harlots in India say that Pakistan cannot be compared with other Muslim countries because it is a nuclear state. They insist on having dialogue but with whom, they do not tell - with Hafiz Saeed or Masood Azahar? Such persons are not only timid and cowards but they are more dangerous than the identified enemies. These internal enemies must be smoked out because it is they who have been providing the base and logistic support to external enemies.
In this hour of grief and anger, the words of Prime Minister Narendra Mondi, that the martyrdom of our Jawans will not go in vain and the Indian Army has been given full freedom to deal with the terrorists and their masters, are quite reassuring.
However, one must also accept the undeniable reality that there has been the monumental failure of intelligence because it could not have been done in one day. It must have taken weeks and months to indoctrinate and train the suicide bomber and collect more than 250 kilograms of RDX used for the purpose. So, why the intelligence could not smell the rat? Secondly. why a huge contingent of nearly 2500 Jawans was not airlifted to the place of their postings instead they were being taken in unarmoured buses to almost 300 kilometres away from Jammu through the terrorist-prone area? The country needs satisfactory answers to these questions

More Jobs, not Reservations, will Help Ease the Tension

 The 124^th Constitution amendment, which has now become a law, is aimed at giving 10% reservation in education and government jobs for people belonging to economically weaker sections of the general category. The Amendment Bill was introduced by the government amid criticism by the opposition, which termed the move as a pre-election gimmick. However, with elections just months away, no major political party dared to oppose the bill directly. It may be noted here that there has been a long-standing demand for adopting the affirmative action in favour of the economically weaker sections of the society regardless of their caste, creed and religion. In fact, some people have been demanding that all types of reservations, except on the economic ground, should be done away with to promote the meritocracy and take the country to new heights.

India as on today has already job and education quotas for Schedule Castes, Schedule Tribes to the tune of 15% and 7.5% respectively and later 27% reservations were provided to Other Backwards Classes (OBCs) in the wake of the report of the Mandal Commission report. Former Prime Minister PV Narasimha Rao had also attempted reservation for the poor belonging to the upper castes, but that Bill could not stand judicial scrutiny because a cap of 49.5 % has been fixed by the Supreme Court in the famous Indra Sawhney vs Union of India ‘s case. As per the Constitution, so far, the State can come up with a special provision for educationally and socially backward people as it has been well defined in Article 15 and 16. This Constitution Amendment has already been challenged in the Supreme Court and it has to be seen whether it will stand or not the judicial scrutiny.

All this is laid out in Article 368, which also lays down conditions when the Constitutional Amendment needs to be passed by the majority of State Assemblies, but these conditions apply only when an amendment involves a federal structure or is of common interest to both the Union and the States. During the Lok Sabha debate on the amendment Bill, K.V Thomas of the Congress Party had stated that the ‘Bill has to be passed by a two-thirds majority, and then, 50% of the states have to approve it. But the Finance Minister Arun Jaitley intervened and said, to amend Part 3 of Article 368 of the Constitution (which describes the Power of Parliament to amend the Constitution and procedure thereof) concerns the fundamental rights and, therefore. there is no need to go to state legislatures. Quintessentially, this is not the matter which will have to go to the state assemblies for ratification. How strange it is that the parties like the DMK, AIADMK, TRS and TDP, which have been brazenly defying the 49.5% cap on the reservation, are now talking about the constitutional propriety when it to giving reservation to the economically backwards is concerned. As a matter of fact, there are already many states like Tamilnadu, Karnataka and Maharashtra etc; which have been providing more reservations to the STs, SCs and OBCs than what has been fixed the outer limit by the Supreme Court.

The validity of reservation on the basis of economic backwardness in the absence of social backwardness will depend on how many of the yardsticks of backwardness as laid down in the Indra Sawhney case for OBC reservation are satisfied in the amendment. The ‘Mandal Commission Report’ and the controversy that followed it, is deeply etched in the memory of every Indian. By upholding the Mandal Commission Report, the Apex Court judgment in the case of Indra Sawhney v. Union of India established a central role for itself in every debate on the sensitive issue of reservations in India.

One of the avowed objectives of the Indian Constitution is the creation of an egalitarian society, including, and especially, by way of the eradication of caste and the caste system. In support of this objective, several successive governments have devised various affirmative action policies to eradicate caste and support the social mobility of backward classes. These measures typically include reserving seats in representative and educational institutions or public employment for members of certain classes that have been traditionally and historically marginalised. However, over time, these measures have become a tool for populism and to appease certain communities. Therefore, every time such a measure is introduced, it has resulted in dividing public opinion and caused widespread controversy. On some occasions, this divide has escalated into public demonstrations and even riots, for or against reservation.

When these hotly contested measures have come up for adjudication, the judiciary’s role has not been easy; it has to account for social realities, while simultaneously grounding its decision within the sacred framework of the Constitution. One recurrent controversy that has arisen on multiple occasions before the Apex Court is the criteria for determining backwardness in order to qualify for reservation. There have been several cases that directly deal with this question and the Indra Sawhney v. Union of India is the most significant one.

The weaker sections, as mentioned in Article 46 are a genus of which the backward class of citizens mentioned in Article 16(4) constitute a species. Thus, only backward classes, and not all the weaker sections, are entitled to reservation. Caste and class are not synonymous. The class is not antithetical to caste, caste is an enclosed class. Dr. Ambedkar, at the time of the first amendment, which inserted Clause 4 in Article 15, told Parliament that backward classes are nothing else but a collection of castes. He said that castes are practically the social class. Thus, economic backwardness must be the result of social backwardness.

The court has all along said that that open competition is the norm and equality of opportunity is the norm. In Indra Sawhney case, the 11-judge bench underlined the constitutional provisions, which provided that the government can give reservation for the economically and socially backwards class people whose population is not represented. And it also added that reservation should be limited to deserving candidates of the aforesaid class and well-off people of the classes i.e. creamy layer should be exempted from getting the reservation.

Many people view that the reservation is associated only with castes. It is actually associated with opportunities but unfortunately, in our society 'opportunities are associated with castes’. Reservation system can be discontinued completely for all sections of the Indian society once we reach ‘social equality’. There is no gainsaying that the benefits of reservations have not percolated to the really backward castes. It has been cornered by the dominant castes like Yadavas, Kurmis, Reddys, Kapus, Kammas and Kurbas etc; which have been very assertive in politics also. They also have got the large chunk in the power-sharing. It is very strange that the leaders of these castes have been the vociferous opponents of even the women’s reservation bill. This speaks of their duplicity as that they do not want the holistic development of the society. This also betrays their feudal mentality, which they want to get perpetuated instead of getting rid of this malaise.

Needless to say, that reservation is no solution because no society can stand strengthened on the crutches of reservation. Therefore, the need of the hour is to promote the spirit of entrepreneurship among men and women so that they can get themselves gainfully employed and also help others in getting employment. The duplicity of the political parties has got no explanation because when they are out of power, they will support the cause of reservation for the upper caste but when any other political party talks about, they will come down with hammer and tongs and will accuse with violation of the constitutional propriety.

It is also to be noted that the reservation was contemplated only among Hindus and not in any other communities because the disease of the caste system is theoretically found only among Hindus and not in any other communities or religions. The Supreme Court in Indra Sawhney case observed that the idiotic practice in Hindu society is that the moment a child comes in the womb of mother, even before its umbilical cord is cut off, the innocent child is branded, stigmatised and put in a separate slot according to the caste of its parents despite the fact that the birth of the child in the particular slot is not by choice but by chance. The concept of inequality is not known in the kingdom of God (if one believes in the existence of God at all), who creates all beings equally, but some people have created the artificial inequality in the name of casteism with a selfish motive and vested interest. The caste is undoubtedly devilish, and it must be obliterated but one cannot expect it from the present breed of the politicians, who promote the caste system because that helps them in garnering the votes. The fact is that if there are enough jobs, there will be no tension on the Reservation count.

Sabarimala Must be Opened for Women of all Ages

      For the last few days, Sabarimala is again in the thick of news as two women- Bindu Ammini (42) and Kanakdurga (44) of menstruating age sneaked into the sanctum sanctorum of the Lord Ayyappa Temple. Entry of a third woman of almost the same age from Sri Lanka, although she showed a certificate of her removed uterus, has also been reported very prominently in the media. Those who are opposing the entry of the women of the particular age group have become the laughing stock for their retrogressive mindset. They are bringing a bad name to the Hinduism, which is considered to be the most unregimented, flexible and accommodative religion of the world.
      It is difficult to say whether these women are the true devotees of Lord Ayyappa or they simply played hide and seek game to dodge the temple administration. If these women are really the true devotees of Lord Ayyappa then their courage and conviction to defy the stupid convention must be appreciated. Traditions are changed to suit the new ideas and the necessities. A frozen faith is very dangerous to the development of any society. The temple administration must, therefore, eschew the idiotic and superstitious tradition of discriminating against the women between 10-50.
Lord Hanuman has been the all-time greatest celibate, but no woman of any age is prevented from entering the Hanuman Temple and praying before Him. So how come Lord Ayappa’s celibacy is endangered by the mere entry of the women of 10-50 in His temple? If He is weak and vulnerable, then how can He help and protect other devotees?
      In Hindu religion, the female deities are revered and worshipped for their boon giving magnanimities. People pray before Goddess Lakshmi for wealth, Durga for power and energy and Saraswati for learning and wisdom. It may be noted here that all female deities are always depicted in their young age and in the best of attires. Women are the bedrock of the Hindu religion. Without their participation in any festival or any pilgrimage is considered to be incomplete. Then why this anachronism in the temple of Lord Ayyappa?
       Instead of going into the technicalities of the constitution and the ruling of the Supreme Court, it will be in the best interests of the Hindu society that the conservative temple administration eschews the illogical tradition and allow the women to enter the temple. Hindu society must sincerely work to change the obnoxious tradition. It is very intriguing that it is happening at the place, which is known for being the matriarchal society and where Shankarachaya was born, who declared Eko aham dwitiyo nasti. Hence, the sooner this practice is abandoned, the better it is for the larger Hindu society.