Gabbitat

my blogs

2008-10-23T10:18:00.000-07:00

I request readers of my blogs to view 'vittalgabbita@blogspot.com'. My blogs henceforth will appear there.

Immunity

2008-10-02T05:29:00.000-07:00

I stopped posting for some time as I was otherwise busy being one of the reasons. However my disappointment was more to do with not getting coments on my blog, perhaps they are not worth comenting or there is not enough substance. However, I would like to continue my effort if only to let my thoughts come out of my mind. Hence the new postings.

Immunity

Thai PM was forced to resign along with his Cabinet for hosting cookery shows while in office - perhaps not a significant crime as compared to our own Netas. Thai SC ruled so since the PM violated the constitution of the country. Thai Netas may be thinking how wonderful would it be if they were to be ruling India instead of Thailand!

The Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in India is now apparently taking a relook at the immunity the judges enjoy in our country. No fears, even if the Supreme Court Bench decides to do away with immunity to judges, our Netas would not allow the Indian Constitution amended as they themselves would probably be the targets the next time around.

Coming to think of the 'immunity' the intentions of the intellectuals who drafted the constitution of India perhaps never dreamt how progressive our Netas would be to do anything to retain their chairs and power for at least five years under the safety of 'immunity'. Does any one really subscribe that immunity is necessary to any one in our country as we expect our Netas to be above board and accountable to every action they take. To my mind it is only the jawans who guard our frontiers and just on orders are prepared to lay down their lives are the ones who should enjoy immunity and none else. Netas in our country win elections with money and mustle power and they continue to use the money and mustle to retain their seats even forgetting the principles with which a Party gets created or started by their elders. Opportunistic alliances, horse trading have become the necessary evils of our Party Chiefs. How I wish some thought will be given to the idea of doing away with immunity to any one in our country as we expect no body shoulod be above law.

The President

2007-02-03T03:28:00.000-08:00

This blog has the references to recent utterances attributed to Balasaheb Thakare, the Siva Sena Chief.

Political utterances of Balasaheb that Mr. President of India was blinded by his hair was condemned in due time and in due haste by the concerned. In Indian politics cricism of people in posititions however big they may be is not uncommon. The Chairperson of UPA called the NDA Prime Minister "gaddar", one of the senior leaders of BJP called Mrs. Sonia Gandhi by names. There were several other jokes which need no highlighting.

Coming to the actions of the Preident, poor President constitutionally is supposed to sign on the dotted lines as per the directives (either directly or indirectly) of the government of the day. At best he can refer back a bill for reconsideration of the Cabinet. If the bill comes back a second time, with or without changes, he has no option but to lump it. It was widely reported the kind of haste exhibited by the government and the President upholding the recommendation of the then Governor of Bihar. Neither the Government nor the President had any sense of shame when the Supreme Court's Constitution Bench declaed that the action of the Governor and that of the Government were unconstitutional.

It boils down to the fact that there is absolutely no need to cry foul to the utterances of the type attributed to Balasaheb. After winning the Bombay Municipal elections, he even said that he would stand by what he said.

Be that as it may, it is increasingly becoming clear that if the Constitution of India is to be protected from misuse, it can only be done by the Constitution Bench(es) of the Supreme Court and for this wisdom should prevail in posting honest and fearless judges to the Bench in question.

To be continued...

Cynical Indian

2006-12-25T09:05:00.000-08:00

What prompted me to post this blog is an article by Mr. Swaminathan Ankaleswar Iyer in his column on Swaminomics in Times of India titled "TV viewers as 21st century juries".

I wonder whether cynicism is in Indians or in the article or somewhere else. I would like to think that Indians are generally a frustrated lot when they see political biggies get away with crime but perhaps not cynical. If one wants to really see cynical faces, one has to go back to the days when the present ministers were in he opposition. There were a bunch of them who could not hide their cynicism. Of course, I hold no brief for any politician. They are all the same - they are good at buying votes, selling principles/policies and above all try to protect their clan even when they know they are with criminical background.

I would also like to pose a question to the reader of the blog. Who really are governing the country? To me it looks like the Left, the RJD of Lalu Prasad Yadav, and the DMK. The biggest gainer is the Left as without UPA at the centre, they have no voice and merely they are left to take care of the trade unionism. They of course have their places in West Bengal and Kerala. But then again, are they sure about West Bengal with a moderate voice of Buddhadev as Chief Minister? Congress is satisfied as they have their Chairs which they have been missing for a number of years.

I would also like to ask another question to my reader. With the criminilisation of politics, the congress party as we see now has any principles/policies about which they can be proud of? My thinking is that the Congress Party of yester years is dead and the present party is a dead branch of a wonderful tree which may break any time.

With these things lingering in my mind, I would again think that judicial activism is a necessity. If anything the judiciary has to be expanded with more judges and more benches with impartial judges holding the positions. I am not saying there are no black sheep in the judicial system, they are there and they may continue to be there but perhaps they are a minority when compared to the politicians with not too clean record.

To be continued...

The Ubiquitous Chair - continued

2006-09-25T06:15:00.000-07:00

JUDICIAL ACTIVISM

Judicial Activism

Recently in the Times of India, Bangalore edition, there was a letter to the editor on the subject. I felt I should react to it since I too have been following the judicial activism in recent times. Of course in a democracy it should be the elected representatives of people that should pass laws needed for the good of the society. But look at our democracy? Who are the people that elect the representatives? How are the political parties winning the elections? Political parties are primarily concerned with how to come to power and RULE (RUIN) the country? They are busy with schemes that fetch returns to their coffers. They are busy in toppling Governments. They are only concerned about protecting their chairs. What right things are going on in the country? Or what right decisions are being taken by the government. Even the privatization of PSUs is put on hold. To save their chairs, the Office of Profit bill was introduced in the re-convened house which was earlier prorogued and got it passed with all parties supporting even after the President sent it back with suggestions. Look at the reservations issue. To garner votes and rule the country with populist measures, the bill was passed. Look at the States, the political parties are spending as if it is their Party fund, they give free power, free television sets, distribute agriculture land and so on. Whose money is it that the government is spending? Per se, judicial activism might seem rather undesirable. However, one should understand why judiciary interferes with the government decisions. On their own the interference is perhaps minimal. However, when there is a PIL or a similar approach to the courts, it is but natural that the courts adjudicate. Here again, they just don’t express their opinion without reason. They do hear the arguments from both sides and then only give their judgment. We all know what happened with the Bihar government in the recent past.

Now let us look at happenings in the country. When the CBI and the Ministry of Law joined together to reactivate the accounts of a suspect (?) the PM’s naïve statement was that the CBI is independent and he had no hand in that. Does one believe that any action by any Department is without the involvement of the Minister concerned or the PM? Look at the murder investigations in the Capital? Courts cannot be content with judging with what is presented before it by the government? Judiciary can’t be silent spectator to botches and cover-ups. Do we have a good government or a party to give good governance to its people? For a very long time it is known that the MPs take money to put questions in the Parliament. However only recently such MPs were suspended. But why such an action was not taken with reference to the OoP? Under the Office of Profit complaints, the Election Commission has taken action against only one MP and when there were several other complaints, which included even the Speaker of the Lok Sabha, the EC seems to have slept over the issue until a revised bill is passed by the Parliament. We have been seeing increased terrorism in the country and no body talks of intelligence failure or failure to take action on the intelligence reports referred to the governments. What are we doing? We only see on the TV channels extensive debates without any conclusive remarks of what is lacking in the country and what the government has to do to protect its people. We certainly know one how kind the government is in giving money to the victims or their families whenever such man-made calamities take place. Money is in no short supply and therefore the State gives and the Center gives – of course whether this reaches the families or the victims is another question.

With such apprehensions, one should think seriously whether judicial interference is needed or not. If the governance is faulty, it surely needs interference from the judiciary and there is no doubt about it.

The country in the present circumstances needs judicial activism is perhaps one opinion that I would share. By this I do not hold that Judiciary is god sent and what it says is always sacrosanct.

The Ubiquitous Chair - OoP Chairs - continued

2006-08-23T10:19:00.000-07:00

I did discuss in one of my previous publications the Office of Profit chairs which some of our Parliamentarians hold. As expected, there seem to be a deal between the Prime Minister and the President resulting in his signing on the dotted lines in the Bill to suit the Parliamentarians on the one hand and on the other constitution of a Joint Parliamentary Committee to discuss the suggestions made by the President. The purpose is served. The MPs can continue to enjoy the OoP as before and there will be more than enough time before the JPC submits its report. In any case what is JPC? It is again the same type of gentlemen – you scratch my back and I will scratch your back. The result of the JPC may be to include even more number of Offices so that every MP can have another OoP chair. Instead of all this fun, it is best if the Constitution of India is amended to indicate that every MP can occupy as many chairs as he pleases. Nothing wrong. In any case they do not seem to draw enough salary and perks as MPs which has resulted in the recent Cabinet approval to increase their salaries and perks. To stretch the argument further, it is perhaps better that every Political Party writes a Constitution of India afresh, put it before the public, and let the public choose. Better still we do not have a well written Constitution but have a one line constitution “government of the party, by the party and for the party” so that whichever party that comes to power can handle the affairs without arguments and counter arguments. It is perhaps increasingly becoming clear that the Supreme Court and the Chief Justice of India are the only two who can control the alarming decisions of our Parliament and its occupants.

More to follow....

The Ubiquitous Chair - continued

2006-08-20T07:16:00.000-07:00

A friend of mine to whom I referred the blog and with whom I discuss occasionally, has the following to offer:

Public opinion is supreme for democracy. Democracy is organization of opinion as against other forms of government, which are organizations of power. Public opinion should not be confused with popular opinion. Public opinion most often is not unique or single. Often these opinions reflect interests of the groups that express them. Media takes the responsibility of giving publicity to various opinions. Debates must be organized on various opinions, either by media or by government involving experts (impolitic) in the appropriate disciplines.

Will try to add....

the ubiquitous chair - continued

2006-08-17T01:48:00.000-07:00

Chair Superior – Here, I am trying to find out who sits in this chair? The law enforcement authority? The lawmakers? Who is it, with reference to the Constitution of India, that can and should sit in this chair? Or is there no such Chair? I am not trying to interpret the Constitution of India but only trying to highlight the debate as reported by the media quite frequently – in the name of constitutional crisis.

Parliamentarians say that Parliament is supreme and the courts should not interfere, to amply confirm that it is their prerogative to amend the constitution at their will. It may be a fact that since they are the elected representatives of the people, they are bestowed with the powers to amend the Constitution. But did they tell the people when they seek votes that they are going to do so many things to protect the people by bringing in amendments to the Constitution in Parliament when they come to power? If they have not put before the people their thinking or their ideas and their wish list and when such amendments are not debated openly before the public or through the media, how can they amend the constitution? Who has given them the right? Obviously they assume such rights once they come to power. It is true that the opposition party can raise questions in the Parliament when any amendments are discussed but then they are all birds of the same feather, aren’t they? Also when the ruling party or parties command the required numbers to pass an amendment, where is the question of dissent?

Secondly, Parliamentarians say that they are the lawmakers, or so describe the media. For argument, if the lawmakers themselves are lawbreakers, who can sit judgment? Assuming a problem is posed to the Supreme Court to obtain clarity with reference to a constitutional crisis, such matters go before a constitution bench to give judgment. Does this mean, the judgment pronounced by the learned bench is sacrosanct? If such a judgment is not to the liking of the ruling party, another amendment will be passed by the Parliament?

What is the role of the President? Has he to simply sign any papers sent to him, if not the first time, the second time? If that is so why there should be a President? Why not such matters be referred to the Supreme Court instead of to the President. President has no way of showing his dissent?

All the above may be apprehensions not necessarily to be answered or debated. May be the matters are not as serious as they appear to be. However, doubts remain as doubts unless clarity is available.

More to follow....

Prestige Chairs

2006-08-13T07:25:00.000-07:00

There are several prestigeous chairs, some real, some imaginary, some just for satisfying one's ego. A few of them are attempted here. All the same they too are Chairs.

Autonomy Vs Autocracy has been a subject of the current media highlight, the parties involved being the Health Ministry and AIIMS. The ignition for the fight having been provided by the HRD Ministry bringing in Mandal-2 for the have-nots(?) in higher educational institutions. Egos seem to rule the roost keeping aside the principles, natural justice, commitment by the government in the form of social justice, and commitment of the one of the highest health institutions which provides everything from research, education and practice in health sciences. When the justice intervenes and provides judgement in favour of the government, that will yield votes for the ruling party. On the other hand, if the judgement is in favour of the autonomy of the institution, the government will push down the throats of the institution all such policies which are dear to the vote catching formulae (whether they are right or wrong) through legislation, amendments to the constitution and so on. In any case the victor is the ruling party of the day - the rulling chair.

The Corporate Chairs: Dhirubhai Ambani built the Reliance empire from scratch. He died and the Chair became vacant. Then started the misunderstanding or what have you that resulted in slicing the Chair through the middle vertically. The chair which had four legs is now with eight legs, the inevitable two Chairs, each of the brothers satisfied with the division of properties brokered by another industrialist. The investors too did not lose faith in the industry irrespective of who heads which wing and kept the banner flying high. Here, perhaps there is no loser other than a bit of entertainment for the media. Here too the reason for the Chair seems to be simple – ego and/or one-upmanship.

Chair of the Champions: The Wimbledon Championship Chair is one which I very passionately adore. I have been either listening to the radio when TV was not everybody’s living room item in India or subsequently viewing the play on TV. I simply love John McEnroe for his play, tantrums on the court and his competitive spirit. I liked to watch several others too like Pete Sampras who is by far the best player in those days. Earlier to his period, Ivan Lendl was another whose endurance was great but never won a Wimbledon while he won all the other grand slam matches. When the end of his time with tennis was on the horizon, he seems to have said “grass is for girls”. There is only one Indian among the tennis players whom I respect most – Vijay Amrithraj, a gentleman to the core on and off the court. My personal view for what it is worth is that there is no parallel to Vijay Amrithraj in Indian tennis. There was a hint in recent times that there was a match-fixing in Wimbledon tennis which I don’t believe and if it is conclusively proved, I would be one among those who would be very disappointed. As of now, the Wimbledon Championship Chair is the one I love most.

More to follow....

Rocking chairs - continued

2006-08-12T05:17:00.000-07:00

An attempt has been made here to briefly analyse the problem in a different perspective as quite frequently some of these luminaries mention that the salaries provided to the research scientists in government institutions are inadequate and not comparable to the salaries offered by private bodies such as IT industry. Did some one really try to find out the kind of security enjoyed by the government employees? Does the government have a policy of hire and fire? What has been the government doing with non-productive scientists/researchers other than giving them periodic promotions, sending them abroad for attending seminars/conferences. Is there really a difference in their promotional policies to differentiate good from bad/indifferent scientists/researchers. These are perhaps debatable. How can they compare themselves with the IT industry which is earning billions of dollars and creating wealth both for themselves as well as to the personnel employed by them. Their success is measured, their quality of work is tested by their clients, efficiency is appreciated and inefficiency is shown the door. One thing may be certain, but for the establishment of research laboratories, unemployment may have been even higher. At the same time one has to agree that a fair amount of infrastructure has been provided for the really good scientists to do research who made a name for themselves. It is true that the government pays little in terms of salaries to their employees in the research laboratories, however one has to deeply ponder but for these research laboratories what would have been the fate of the student body coming out of academic institutions. These views could easily be disagreed but they are views all the same.

More to follow.....

Rocking chairs - continued

2006-08-12T04:20:00.000-07:00

Rocking Chair draws my attention to the recent lamenting by the Chairman of the SAC-PM. I wonder if some one was trying to rock his Chair? I have been hearing for decades now the inability or insensitiveness of successive governments for providing enough funds for academic and research institutions. The last nail in the coffin by the Chairman of SAC-PM is of course his statement as reported in the media - “science is dying”, “I am really worried”, “I am saddened that the best of us in government and public affairs may only consider science as a budget item, possibly as a non-productive expenditure”. Be that as it may, has SAC-PM or any other sacred body assessed what has been the output of the academic institutions or research laboratories? Has it been commensurate with the inputs so far made? Yes, the academic institutions are churning out student body year after year thereby the country has become very rich in producing high caliber scientists and research professional but what is the product development commensurate with the inputs provided to the research institutions or research laboratories of the government? How many of the so called patents that have been filed have really been utilized by the industries and how many of the so called scientific/technical papers that the research institutions are producing are referred to by the academic/researchers elsewhere in the world. Is the number of such papers commensurate with the number of scientists/researchers employed by the government. Incidentally how many of the research papers have been published in reputed journals say Nature, Scientific American or similar well referred journals from Britain? What is perhaps important is quality and just not just quantity. If the answers are negative, there is a problem with the governance of the institutions or policies, or if positive, what are the results in terms of products and what is the value. Some statistical data in terms of input versus output may be worthwhile lookiing at. But for the fact that a large number of students have found placement with the information technology industry, what would have been the fate of the large number of professionals coming out of the academic institutions? These are some questions that need to be looked into as well.

the ubiquitous chair - continued

2006-08-09T05:40:00.000-07:00

The rocking chairs

For politicians, the Chairs keep rocking every time elections are announced. The causes of rocking keeps changing from time to time, some times it is ‘onions’, some other time it is ‘farmers suicide’, India shining, and so on but never on mundane things like better education, better infrastructure, better quality of life, control of corruption, etc. Heavier subjects like ‘mandal, ‘masjid’, minorities, etc. bring in handful dividends in the form of number of seats won in elections. Once elections are over and a government is put in place, every politician tries to rock every other politician’s chair, some times same-side goal. To keep their chairs in tact, the phrases such as ‘law will take its own course’ and when the legal luminaries in the courts find fault with any government functioning or any outwitting of law of the land, they conveniently express ‘regret’ ‘unfortunate’ and so on but never really regret. Presidential references too some times pushed down his throat in the name of collective wisdom – again to keep their Chairs in tact.

More to follow

the ubiquitour chair - continued

2006-08-09T05:35:00.000-07:00

One very important chair associated with only one name:

Here is another Chair. The Congress Chair proudly owned by the Gandhis' minus the father of the nation who probably never had a chair to call his own. But, for the rest of them, the name ‘Gandhi’ launches a thousand chairs in Congress which are perhaps the strongest, unbreakable, and uncompromising chairs in the world. There is a slight difference of course, the earlier occupants of the chair more often said “foreign hand” for any and every man-made calamity. This phrase has stopped now. I wonder what happens if the Gandhis’ migrate to another country? May be no Gandhi, no Congress!

Still to come..

the ubiquitour chair - continued

2006-08-09T05:28:00.000-07:00

To continue with the chair saga further:

Let us look at some of the very senior Scientists of the country. Some of these gentlemen have brought glory to the country with their research work or by managing some of the very important research institutions. It is but natural that such people too should retire from service when they attain the age stipulated for retirement. However, some of these very important people, instead of pursuing research without occupying any specific chair, normally tend to convince the government into creating newer institutions so that these institutions have the necessary chairs for these senior scientists to occupy and continue to be important people in their own sphere of activity. Should we then say that these gentlemen too are politicians with a difference? Government of India is always starved of funds when it comes to funding the existing research institutions and academic institutions. However to keep these set of gentlemen in reckoning funds are provided to build institutions of their choice with the choice of researchers left to them. The Chairs are retained and their names continue to ring bells in learned circles lest they might be forgotten. There are other Chairs that keep popping up every time a retired scientist who has made a name for himself needs to be accommodated after retirement. Some of these are the positions of Vice Chancellors or some Chairs named after some eminent persons. Yet another avenue for these gentlemen is nomination as Members in the Upper House of Parliament. Thereby they become Parliamentarians but cannot play politics as other mortals elected or nominated do. Like these, there may be a number of achievers who keep looking for chairs of their choice. It is not that eminent scientists should not do research after their retirement, the irony is that they can not do so in the absence of a Chair. Is there a system deficiency in such matters?

My own chair – I enjoy occupancy

Incidentally, I too have retired from service but have no Chair. So I too occupy a Chair in my own home in front of a computer whenever I feel like and at other times relax quietly in one of the other convenient chairs mulling politics and amused at the way the news papers keep reporting some of the events that are described above. I like my Chair next only to the Chair I occupied for a number of years in the government. I am not a scientist and I do not envy those who are occupying the other Chairs.

Still to come....

the ubiquitour chair - continued

2006-08-09T05:19:00.000-07:00

Double trouble – Office of Profit, Member of Parliament

Let us look at the recent happenings. Constitutionally in India, elected representatives are not supposed to occupy any other office of profit when they become Parliamentarians. However, many of our elected representatives be they from the Lok Sabha or Rajya Sabha have been occupying such offices of profit illegally. The current Congress President Mrs. Sonia Gandhi had to resign from the post of office of profit as well as she vacated the seat she won in elections. She re-contested and won the election as an MP is another matter. Both Houses of Parliament have tried to amend the constitution by bringing in a Bill which included quite a few institutions as exempt institutions in order to accommodate the current elected representatives to occupy both the positions, one as a Member of the Parliament and the other to hold on to the Chair which is described hitherto as Office of Profit. The President of India in his wisdom did create some ripples among the elected representatives by referring back the bill to the Cabinet for reconsideration with a few remarks, more importantly with reference to the clause of “amended clause to become retrospective” which only will enable the Members of Parliament to retain the seat as well as the Chairs they are occupying. The Cabinet however decided to place the bill before both the houses of Parliament without any changes, and with the majority it commands, with the interests of the MPs being not to lose their seats and the Chairs. If the Bill is defeated and if the Election Commission takes action as per the Constitutional provision, it is likely that the present UPA government will lose power and the elections may be round the corner. However as expected the Bill was not defeated. But the Chairs that the present team is occupying are so important for them, the bill in all probability will be sent back to the President for his assent without any changes. It remains to be seen how the President would prefer to deal with the situation. If he sits on the bill for considerable time, the Election Commission will have no choice but to take action on the complaints and the result will be reelections.

More to come.........

The Ubiquitous Chair

2006-08-05T23:51:00.000-07:00

The chair is a very important item in one’s life. History has it that the kings fought to occupy neighbouring countries chairs (thrones) with large armies at their command and with the zeal to concur and rule. This fact remained history. In modern world annexation of neighbouring provinces (Iraq trying to annex Kuwait) has been attempted but timely intervention of the powers that be spoiled the attempt. There could be many such incidents in the history that precede the current writing.

The attempt now is confined to Indian Chairs. India’s own iron lady, the late Mrs. Indira Gandhi, did manage to continue in her chair as the Prime Minister of India at a time when the rest of the country was trying to overthrow her government. This she achieved by declaring emergency in the country. This unprecedented action resulted in discussions across the country and, subsequently, she had to declare elections where she lost her hold on the chair, although briefly. She came to occupy the coveted Chair once again is a different matter altogether. All the same it shows the importance of the Chair.

This blog will first attempt to understand the Indian penchant for chairs and our own politicians’ keen deathgrip upon this simplest of all furnishings.

Still to come, some opinions of how many chairs one can occupy at the same time.