Salman Khan & Pakistani artistes…

“Ideal situation should have been of peace. But now reaction to an action has happened. It was a proper action because they were terrorists. But in this day and age I think if we lived in peace and harmony it would have been better for everyone especially for the common people.” Thus spoke Salman Khan protesting banning of Pakistani artistes.

For Salman Khan the Uri attack and killing of 19 Indians was merely “an action” – a physical fact to which one can be indifferent and which can carry not attribute of right or wrong!  This is a flawed premise which cannot but doom the conclusion which follows.

India, according to him, did not respond (that is did not act in a thoughtful or reasoned manner) but “reacted” that is acted thoughtlessly and impulsively to the action which brings both countries at par with nothing to distinguish between them. India responded not reacted as it moved mindfully against specified targets to prevent infiltration into the country which Pakistan has no right to permit.

I presume what he called “proper action” actually implied “proper reaction” unless he feels that terrorist infiltration into India is proper with which point of view I cannot have a reasoned discourse. If however the reaction was “proper” then he cannot simultaneously rue the want of “peace and harmony” because a proper reaction is a restore a disturbed equilibrium and impose restraint to curb injuries of excess.

Peace and harmony can be an end in itself only if the intention is shared. It is always the preferred state of existence but in an interactive environment that goal can be achieved only when actions are conducive towards that end. The Pakistani track-record (to which Salman Khan does not allude) needs to take the blame for want of peace and harmony. Pakistan has to be condemned for Pakistani artistes losing work in India. Have any of the Pakistani artistes spoken? If they are not affected whose case is Salman Khan espousing?

Pakistani artistes may not be terrorists but who amongst them have called the terrorists terrorists? And will these artistes not endorse the official Pakistani line both on Kashmir and terrorism on which Pakistan justifies the repeated disturbances in India? How can Pakistan be defeated unless the mindset which drives Pakistan be vanquished? And how can that mindset be vanquished without quelling those who endorse it overtly or covertly? This is not a question of mere politics but survival of India as India and art cannot be the Trojan Horse for India’s defeat in its battle for existence. India wants its position to be accepted as that acceptance gives India the justification to resist Pakistan. If we host those who are not aligned with India’s interests how can we isolate those hostile to it and prove the seriousness of our intent to do it?

Salman Khan may feel sorry for Pakistani artistes friends. But he should also wonder whether his friends feel sorry India.

KAPIL SHARMA’S ACHHE DIN SHOW!

Kapil Sharma before demolition of illegal structures:

Talking to a friend: These are Achhe Din! I am burning trees every night to make extension of my building. I am also making unauthorised construction on the 9th floor of my apartment. One Chaubal has made a complaint and BMC has issued me a Stop Work Notice but I do not care. I am paying Rs 15 crore as tax so forget how much I am declaring and just imagine how much I am making. All celebrities host me in my own show and I just pretend I am hosting them. I will be movie star in my own right soon. Modi ji is great. These are really Achhe Din!

Kapil Sharma after demolition of illegal structures:

Tweet: Yeh hai apke achhe din?? I am paying 15 crore as income tax for the last 5 years and have to pay 5 lakh bribe to BMC officials for making my office!

BMC:

He pays 15 crore as income tax? And bribe just 5 lakhs?? Ab hamare Acche din aaenge

Politicians other than BJP:

He tagged Modi! Good. Now we will target him. Hamare Achhe Din shuru! Congress and BSP join the chorus.

BJP:

These ARE Achhe Din. Why is Kapil Sharma thinking only of himself. All he needed to do was file a complaint. Law would have taken its course. Name the culprit.

Kapil in a spin…Broods. When I said yeh hain AAPKE achhe din I was only complaining about mine not handing OTHERS any opportunity for achhe din. That is Mr Modi’s business!Now everyone is happy aside from ME!!

Mr Modi:

This is bringing a bad name to Achhe Din. Take action immediately.

BMC:

There are many more illegalities both in Goregaon and Versova! We will take action against all of them. Bribes may have kept some of us quiet earlier but we will take stern action now. Achhe Din Modi Style for BMC with respect to Kapil Sharma!

Politicians other than BJP:

Got them on the mat! These are Achhe Din.

BJP:

See action has been taken immediately. Who can deny these are Achhe Din?

Kapil Sharma:

Demolition Notices received. Complaint against me contemplated. Bribes not working anymore. System is functional. Politicians are not obliging by intervening. I cannot complain to Modi anymore. My next tweet: Mujhe apni shakal bilkul achhi nahin lagti.  Yeh hain MERE achhe din?!

LOUD NOISE in the background! Siddhu laughing. He laughs at every Kapil Sharma Show…

 

SCOOP or PARODY?-Nawaz Sharif’s interview on 22 Kashmir Envoys!

Nawaz Sharif talking to a reporter:

Sharif: We will send 22 Special Envoys for Kashmir to different countries

Reporter: There are 196 countries. And you have 342 seats in the National assembly and 104 Senators. Why not send all the Senators and the remaining from the National Assembly to the 196 countries? Will that not show you are serious about the issue?

Sharif: Number 22 in numerology is the number of Spiritual Master Builder and when the number senses its full capacity  it can achieve what is hardly imaginable… Besides someone has to remain in Pakistan lest there is coup!!

Reporter: Considering your choice of the Spiritual Master Number you think Kashmir as you contemplate is not imaginable?

Sharif: (Angrily) No…I mean not imaginable to India!

Reporter: But its Pakistan which is sending the envoys!

Sharif: Yes. But Pakistan wants India to get the message.

Reporter: Why not send the message directly to India?

Sharif: India has got the message from my statement…

Reporter: If India has already got the message why send the envoys?

Sharif: (In a huff) You have another question?

Reporter: You said the measure is to send “prayers of Kashmiri people across Line of Control.” There is Kashmir on both sides of Line of Control. Whose prayers are you sending.

Sharif: Those on the Indian side ofcourse.

Reporter: What about the prayers of those on the Pakistani side?

Sharif: China is agnostic.

Reporter: (Confused)…

Sharif: Its not Pakistan alone but Pakistan and China on the other side. Even Pakistanis cant pray there.

Reporter: Oh! And who conveyed the prayers to you to be sent through the envoys?

Sharif: (Angrily) Convey prayers!!! Though Amanullah Khan of JKLF passed away recently Hafiz Saeed and Zaki ur-Rehman Lakhvi are in Pakistan. All those who sincerely pray for Kashmir are Pakistan only. Their prayers will be conveyed. Even indians prefer to be in Pakistan. Look at Dawood. His prayers will also be sent.

Reporter: What about your Embassies and Ambassadors? Why Special Envoys

Sharif: You see Pakistan Independence day was celebrated as Freedom for Kashmir. That was the first step. Pakistanis becoming Kashmir Envoys is the second. In due course the Embassies of Pakistan will become Kashmir Embassies. We will also rename Pakistan and change the flag too.

Reporter: But there is more to Pakistan than Kashmir. There are eight administrative units in Pakistan.

Sharif: Yes. But you see there is unrest in Balochistan. We are facing problem in Gilgit. There is also problem in Azad Kashmir. The Pashtuns are not integrated in FATA. And there is militancy in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. These together make up majority of the territory of Pakistan. We need a place to rest outside Pakistan as we are always fighting within the Pakistani territory. Kashmir fits the bill.

Reporter: And what about prayers of Pakistanis?

Sharif: Hahaha! We run the government. And we prefer to PREY!

 

Digvijay’s Dream AND “India Occupied Kashmir” remark!

The REAL story behind Digvijay’s retraction of “India Occupied Kashmir” remark. Digvijay “had a dream” of a conversation with a Pakistani. Our sources have the transcript:

Digvijay: I am disappointed with the Prime Minister

Pakistani: Yes Modi is bellicose…

Digvijay: No No!!! I am talking of Nawaz Sharif

Pakistani: Oh? OUR Prime Minster

Digvijay: Yes! He is the only PM I recognize.

Pakistani: But why?

Digvijay: When he talks of Kashmir he uses complicated expressions like “indigenous  freedom struggle” more than “India occupied Kashmir.” You see “Indi” is a town in the State of Karnataka in India. INDIgenous freedom struggle would suggest Sharif supports India’s struggle to rid Kashmir of Pakistani elements.

Pakistani: (Angrily) What do you “Pakistani elements”? Pakistan only supports Kashmiri aspirations.

Digvijay: Kashmiri aspirations? But it is India occupied Kashmir…

Pakistani: Yes! that is why Kashmiri aspirations are suppressed.

Digvijay: But where are the Indians?

Pakistani: In Kashmir ofcourse…

Digvijay: (Confused)If Indians are occupying Kashmir where are the Kashmiris?

Pakistani: (Annoyed)In Kashmir!!!

Digvijay: (Doubly confused) If Kashmiris are in Kashmir where are the Indians??

Pakistani: With Indians…(mulling using the word dim-wit) Dont u DIG it?

Digvijay: But then if Kashmiris are with the Indians how does Sharif talk of Kashmiri aspirations? I thought Kashmir should be with Pakistan.

Pakistani: (Gleefully) Yes!

Digvijay: But now that you have brought Kashmiris in where will they go?

Pakistani: Kashmir!

Digvijay: But are they not already in Kashmir?

Pakistani: Yes.

Digvijay: So why does Pakistan want Kashmiris in Kashmir when they are already in Kashmir with the Indians?

Pakistani: Because Pakistan wants to be with Kashmiris!!!

Digvijay: Oh. But I thought you named the northern part of Kashmir Gilgit-Baltistan??

Pakistani: Yes…Only because India could not cannot call it “Pakistan Occupied Kashmir”

Digvijay: But you just said Pakistan wants to occupy Kashmir. So why the objection?

Pakistani: (Starting to pull his beard) Gilgit is part of Pakistan…

Digvijay: (Hesitantly…not having hair to pull) But Gilgit was part of Kashmir…

Pakistani: (Getting ferocious) There is only Azad Kashmir!!

Digvijay: Azad Kashmir?? If Kashmir is azad how can Kashmiri aspirations not be fulfilled?

Pakistani: (Showing a map) Azad Kashmir is also part of Pakistan. It south of Gilgit…

Digvijay: (Pausing…Brooding)…NOW I GET IT! Gilgit is not Kashmir anymore. Kashmir is azad south of Gilgit. Pakistan wants India occupied Kashmir. Nothing will remain of Kashmir but Pakistan! FANTASTIC! You people are brilliant. We must learn from you.

Pakistani: (Exhausted but relieved) Now you get it?

Digvijay: Yes…But then why did the PM call it “indigenous freedom struggle”?

Pakistani: ENOUGH. Behead him!!

Digvijay got up perspiring and issued the clarification! Lets only talk of “India’s Kashmir” he said.

Some dreams fortunately or unfortunately never come true. Pakistani dream of Kashmir and Digvijay’s dream about Pakistan being cases in point!

GUSTO – My Dalmatian

In a life where existence is defined only by roles and responsibilities there are moments when life takes a pause, time stands still, rationality abates and snapping out of a routine our consciousness dissolves and reality consummates into unbounded happiness. Gusto was those moments of my life.

Giving me selfless love moved by its own passion, Gusto had no pretence about him and no motive behind being with me other than just wanting to be with me.

No one could bribe him away from me whether by a bone or a toy. He looked at me with forlorn eyes whenever I started getting ready to leave imploring me not to go and barked his delight when he smelt me back even before he actually saw me return. If he had his way he would accompany me everywhere and be with me all the time. He did not sleep till

I came back to my room and rested his neck on my foot to sleep.
The office was his in mornings and on holidays and he barked his disapproval should anyone intrude into the space occupied by him with me. A stern warning made him quiet and he then sat quietly breathing softly as I worked, content at just hearing me talk and being beside me occasionally looking up just to see that I remained near him. A slight movement by me made him spring up to attention seeking to pre-empt a perceived attempt to leave him behind and happily ran forward barking happily when I told him “come Gusto lets go.”

A very handsome being, Gusto was often my companion in the convertible and seeing him sit like a responsible adult in the two-seater made everyone look at him more than the car.

Gusto shared tea with me, liked a bite of the food I ate and followed me like a shadow.
The antidote to all the stresses of life Gusto was my companion during all seclusions, confusions and frustrations and remained true to me and to his name till he died.

Always a liberated spirit Gusto is free of all bonds now!

Gusto’s memories will always remain my dearest and most precious possession in life.

COURT, CONSTITUTION,CHAAL-CHALAN & ARUNACHAL

“Status quo ante as on 15.12.2015” was the order passed by the Supreme Court in the Arunachal Pradesh case.

Tuki should have been the Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh.

But Tuki resigned.

Pema Khandu instead shall be the Chief Minister.

Pema Khandu however was sought to be disqualified by the Speaker who was acting in tandem with the Chief Minister Tuki and this was the reason for the Governor to pass his Order of 9.12.2015  which was set aside by the Supreme Court to order status quo. But Khandu not Tuki will take oath as the Chief Minister.

The Supreme Court said the Governor was wrong. But the Supreme Court also said that the Speaker was wrong. So Pema Khandu could not be disqualified. But if Pema Khandu could not be disqualified how could the Governor’s Order against the disqualifying be wrong? And if the Governor’s Order was wrong and the Speaker was right Khandu could not become the Chief Minister!

The Supreme Court felt Governor could not have exercised discretionary powers outside constitutional sanction. However Tuki admittedly (as Khandu’s becoming Chief Minister itself shows) did not enjoy support of the support majority in the Legislative Assembly. It was for this reason that the Speaker locked up the Legislative Assembly itself and did not earlier respond to any communication from the Governor aside from combining with Tuki to threaten the Governor at his residence.  How is the foisting of Tuki who lost confidence of the Assembly which could not be demonstrated in the Assembly because the Assembly itself was locked aside from resorting to extraconstitutional means against a high constitutional functionary constitutionally sanctioned?

Did the Governor act at his whim (which is not constitutionally sanctioned) or “under the Constitution” which is? If those (the Chief Minister and Speaker) who have to comply (by responding to messages of the Governor and holding the Assembly Session as mandated aside from taking law into their own hands) choose to defy is the Constitution is the Governor supposed to acquiesce in the illegality and gross impropriety and not enjoined to act correct a wrong which would otherwise be un-redressed?

Kalikho Phul was the Chief Minister replaced by the Supreme Court and Tuki placed in the saddle. Phul supports Khandu not Tuki and with is support Khandu not Tuki is the Chief Minster and Khandu himself had supported Phul when the latter was Chief Minister. Phul too was sought to be disqualified by the Speaker which was the reason why the Governor passed the Order and sent the Message both of which were set aside by the Supreme Court.

Now both Khandu and Phul are part of the ruling dispensation and Tuki is out abandoning new allies and invoking the old ones.

Is this the case of politics stumping both law and values and has the “whim” of the Governor been vindicated not the “reasoned order” of the Supreme Court?

UNIFORM CIVIL CODE, A PERSPECTIVE

While I do not feel there is any legal bar to the enactment of the Uniform Civil Code I yet think the exercise is undesirable in the manner it is sought to be implemented. The undesirability, however, has nothing to do with the “fears” of any section opposing the Code nor with any inherent illegality in the exercise and is based only on what Karl Popper referred to in The Open Society and Its Enemies as the need to fight the more urgent evils in society than the greatest ultimate good.

Uniform Civil Code will not violate any law nor transgress any bar on its enactment. Under Article 372 “existing laws” can be “altered” or “amended” by competent legislatures. I am aware of some judgments to the contrary but Personal Law cannot but be “existing law” as term “law”cannot be confined to statutory enactments and will encompass “everything acceptable as law to modern jurisprudence.” As existing laws, Personal Laws would not only be “subject to the Constitution” (even if Article 13 does not apply although I feel it does) but both the central and state legislatures would be competent to legislate on them in terms of Entry 5 of List III of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution. Such legislation can effectuate the mandate of Article 44 of the Constitution. This exercise will achieve the objectives both of cohesion and equality which are the basic attributes of constitutional polity and are also concepts underpinning to every religion. In fact the Supreme Court itself (even while holding Part III does not touch upon Personal Laws – an observation which passed sub-silentio) recognized that Personal Law could be “altered or modified” by statute. Article 26 will not be a bar because Article 44 is as much an integral part of the Constitution and enacted along with the former. In any event freedom of religion under Article 25 itself contemplates the State “making law providing for social welfare and reform” – the professed objective behind Uniform Civil Code. In fact there is historical precedent for such enactments even under the British Rule with statutes enforcing reform applied to different religious communities. While admittedly no religion can be reformed out of existence, its practices are “subject to public order and morality”. No religion can sanction anything inherently unjust and that which is unjust is not immune from scrutiny and modification. This will conform to the mandate of Part III (Article 15(3) of the Constitution requires the State to make special provision for women and children ) and also fulfil the objectives of Part IV of the Constitution which requires the creation of a just social order. The substance of such action would have nothing to do with religion even if it may be incidentally affected. Any step to alleviate and improve their condition will only create a just social order with which no religion can have any objection.

I, however, do not feel Uniform Civil Code is necessary to enhance unity. This argument itself will disenchant a sizeable section of the population against the Code for reasons having nothing to do with the Code itself. Differences coexisting in a society is a more mature sign of unity of the society than uniformity in it. An enforced uniformity will be dangerous to unity as rejection of volition (which such enforcement will entail) will generate aversion not cohesion moving towards rejection of the compact itself. A mosaic of people can be as cohesive as a melting-pot and a vibrant pluralism of a multi-cultural society  will enhance the resilience of unity not diminish it. In any event we have uniform penal laws. Matters concerning contract, securities, banking, labour, electricity, acquisition, intellectual property, environment, consumers and transfer of property are also uniform. The procedural laws are uniform too. Almost every aspect of inter-personal relationship in the country is governed by uniform laws. In fact there is an option for uniform law even for marriage, divorce and maintenance under the Special Marriage Act, 1954. The use of this Act can be popularised and the recommendation of the Law Commission that “Special” be deleted from its title to read “Marriage Act” and all inter-religious marriages be mandatorily performed under the said Act will facilitate national integration even without a Uniform Civil Code. We definitely do not need Uniform Civil Code for our unity.

But unity is not the only objective of Uniform Civil Code. It deals also with liberty and with equality. I am surprised objection is being taken to the enactment of Uniform Civil Code as there is already much uniformity in the enforcement of laws across all religious communities. Dowry, a social evil and prevalent across communities, is punishable under a statute which applies to all. The Supreme Court has granted maintenance even to a divorced Muslim woman under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Domestic violence, a problem across all religious communities, is again governed by a statute which makes no distinction on the basis of religion. And recently the Gujarat High Court applied the Child Marriage Restraint Act to a Muslim. Building on the consensus around that which prevails we can move incrementally in this direction by supplementing them on subjects of pressing importance like adoption and succession. The Adoption Bill was opposed by Muslims but adoption is a voluntary act of the parents and as child can only be benefited from the care and affection any law facilitating the same cannot be condemned by any reasonable individual recognising as it does freedom of choice and compassion for life. Similarly succession to property is more a means of gender empowerment than a mere religious edict. Once consensus is built on such issues the laws can be consolidated into a Code.

It will be prudent to keep in mind what Karl Popper said was “the difference between a method which can be applied at any moment, and a method whose advocacy may easily become a means of continually postponing action until a later date.” We have to ensure that insistence on Uniform Civil Code does not lead to the abandonment of such a Code altogether.