A world law fortnightly published from Hyderabad, India.
Editor: I. Mallikarjuna Sharma
ADVISORY BOARD: Dr. Lakshmi Sahgal (INA Colonel), V.R. Krishna Iyer (Former Judge, SC), B.P. Jeevan Reddy (Former Judge, SC), P.A. Choudary (Former Judge, APHC), Surendra Mohan (Ex-MP), Prof. R.V.R. Chandrasekhara Rao (Politics), Umesh Chandra (Senior Advocate, Lucknow), Colin Gonsalves (Senior Advocate, Delhi), K. Subba Rao (Senior Advocate, Bangalore), K.G. Kannabiran (Senior Advocate & National President, PUCL), Ms. Chandan Ramamurthi (Advocate, Delhi).
Volume 3: Part 2 31 July 2007 No. 14
C O N T E N T S
1. Whose father’s property… 1
2. John Brown’s Court Statement 2
3. The Other War: Iraq Veterans Narrate 3-10
4. Rowlatt Report 11-12, 57-58
5. CRC Report 13-14, 55-56
6. Parents, Community Schools v. Seattle School Dt. [US-SC] 15-54
7. Human Rights Violations by USA (Human Rights Watch) 59-62
8. The Devil and Daniel Webster, Short story by Benét 63-67
9. John Brown’s Body and other poems 68
Pictures: Bhakta Ramadas being whipped, with Tanisha in the background; Proudhon; Rousseau.
Editorial Office: 6-3-1243/156, M.S. Makta, Opposite Raj Bhavan, Hyderabad - 500 082 (Ph: 23300284)E-mail: malliksharma@yahoo.com ; Film making: VSS Laser Graphics, Hyderabad - 500004 {Ph: 55365979};
Printed at Pragati Offset Pvt. Ltd., Red Hills, Hyderabad-4. (Ph: 23304835)
Annual Subscription: Rs. 700/-{January to December} Abroad: $ 120 (postage extra)
Life Subscription: Rs. 8000/-
Payments to be sent by Cheque/ DD/ MO in favour of LAW ANIMATED WORLD at 6-3-1243/156, M.S. Makta, Opp. Raj Bhavan, Hyderabad-500082.
[Please add Rs. 50/- as bank charges for outstation cheques]
WHOSE FATHER’S PROPERTY
1is it anyway? Legend runs through a melodic keertana (Ikshvaaku kula tilaka) that devotee Ramadas in his exasperation so rebuked Lord Rama himself. And it was the usual refrain of our late superstar-chief minister N.T. Rama Rao whenever he was irked by the arbitrary encroachments of the Central Government. This question needs to be repeated in the current context when lakhs of acres of lands are being bartered away by the governments in our country to private companies/persons for supposed industrial and other development in the name of public purpose, etc. The very concept and kanoon of treating all land not expressly owned by private citizens as government land, which is alien to the tradition and practice of our oriental economies that were abounding with self-governing village communities and a sort of social ownership of means of production, has to be condemned in no uncertain terms and governments have to limit themselves to being mere trustees of public properties. Rajas or Nawabs in our tradition were only entitled to some specific share of the produce of land. Apart from the general critique that “all property is theft,” [Proudhon] which implies the inalienable right to possession and enjoyment in common of land, air, water and all other bounties of nature [Rousseau], it is all the more disgusting to see small owners/possessors divested of their entitlements by various mechanisms of law devolved from colonial times when governments were but usurpers of native possessions. Recently the AP High Court seems to have questioned, rightly at that, the propriety of such alienation of ‘government’ lands to private companies. The Land Acquisition Act, the Urban Land Ceiling Act, etc., which facilitate such loot of private/public properties to promote the fortunes of private industrialists and the more nauseating ‘new class’ of ruler-politician-bureaucrat dacoits, should be radically amended to exclude/bar such alienation/acquisition of public and private properties for the sake of private companies and speculators. §§§
Thursday, August 9, 2007
Editorial LAW 31 July 2007
WHOSE FATHER’S PROPERTY
is it anyway? Legend runs through a melodic keertana (Ikshvaaku kula tilaka) that devotee Ramadas in his exasperation so rebuked Lord Rama himself. And it was the usual refrain of our late superstar-chief minister N.T. Rama Rao whenever he was irked by the arbitrary encroachments of the Central Government. This question needs to be repeated in the current context when lakhs of acres of lands are being bartered away by the governments in our country to private companies/persons for supposed industrial and other development in the name of public purpose, etc. The very concept and kanoon of treating all land not expressly owned by private citizens as government land, which is alien to the tradition and practice of our oriental economies that were abounding with self-governing village communities and a sort of social ownership of means of production, has to be condemned in no uncertain terms and governments have to limit themselves to being mere trustees of public properties. Rajas or Nawabs in our tradition were only entitled to some specific share of the produce of land. Apart from the general critique that "all property is theft," [Proudhon] which implies the inalienable right to possession and enjoyment in common of land, air, water and all other bounties of nature [Rousseau], it is all the more disgusting to see small owners/possessors divested of their entitlements by various mechanisms of law devolved from colonial times when governments were but usurpers of native possessions. Recently the AP High Court seems to have questioned, rightly at that, the propriety of such alienation of ‘government’ lands to private companies. The Land Acquisition Act, the Urban Land Ceiling Act, etc., which facilitate such loot of private/public properties to promote the fortunes of private industrialists and the more nauseating ‘new class’ of ruler-politician-bureaucrat dacoits, should be radically amended to exclude/bar such alienation/acquisition of public and private properties for the sake of private companies and speculators. §§§
is it anyway? Legend runs through a melodic keertana (Ikshvaaku kula tilaka) that devotee Ramadas in his exasperation so rebuked Lord Rama himself. And it was the usual refrain of our late superstar-chief minister N.T. Rama Rao whenever he was irked by the arbitrary encroachments of the Central Government. This question needs to be repeated in the current context when lakhs of acres of lands are being bartered away by the governments in our country to private companies/persons for supposed industrial and other development in the name of public purpose, etc. The very concept and kanoon of treating all land not expressly owned by private citizens as government land, which is alien to the tradition and practice of our oriental economies that were abounding with self-governing village communities and a sort of social ownership of means of production, has to be condemned in no uncertain terms and governments have to limit themselves to being mere trustees of public properties. Rajas or Nawabs in our tradition were only entitled to some specific share of the produce of land. Apart from the general critique that "all property is theft," [Proudhon] which implies the inalienable right to possession and enjoyment in common of land, air, water and all other bounties of nature [Rousseau], it is all the more disgusting to see small owners/possessors divested of their entitlements by various mechanisms of law devolved from colonial times when governments were but usurpers of native possessions. Recently the AP High Court seems to have questioned, rightly at that, the propriety of such alienation of ‘government’ lands to private companies. The Land Acquisition Act, the Urban Land Ceiling Act, etc., which facilitate such loot of private/public properties to promote the fortunes of private industrialists and the more nauseating ‘new class’ of ruler-politician-bureaucrat dacoits, should be radically amended to exclude/bar such alienation/acquisition of public and private properties for the sake of private companies and speculators. §§§
LAW ANIMATED WORLD
I am an advocate and Editor of LAW ANIMATED WORLD, a world law fortnightly published from Hyderabad, India. Hope people on the net would be interested in knowing more about me and the journal.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)