Saturday, November 16, 2013

Editorial, "Why this undue haste to vivisect?", in LAW ANIMATED WORLD, 15 November 2013 issue, Vol. 9, Part 2, No. 21.

WHY THIS UNDUE HASTE TO VIVISECT?

The Group of Ministers set up by the vile, minority UPA government at the centre, surviving on the mercy of two outside parties – BSP and SP, the latter openly opposed to the division of Andhra Pradesh, is running in all speed to somehow achieve its despicable goal of vivisecting a vibrant nationality and à la Radcliffe. I am reminded of this exquisite poem by Auden lampooning the unholy exercise of that British law lord who never visited India but yet vivisected it drawing his line literally even across the middle of remote human habitations: “Shut up in a lonely mansion/ with police night and day / patrolling the gardens to keep / assassins away, He got down to work, to the task / of settling the fate of millions. The maps at his disposal / were out of date / And the Census returns almost certainly incorrect, But there was no time to check / them, no time to inspect / Contested areas. The weather was frightfully hot, And a bout of dysentery kept him constantly on the trot, / BUT IN SEVEN WEEKS IT WAS DONE, the frontiers decided, A CONTINENT FOR BETTER OR WORSE DIVIDED…” Does this sound very familiar in our context? The British imperialists certainly had their stakes in such a hasty ‘divide and rule’ policy to which both Nehru and Patel unashamedly acquiesced thus defying and shaming their leader, Gandhi, who had declared the partition could happen only on his corpse; and he too would compromise later to sail with his disciples. But what need there is for any independent and patriotic rulers of sovereign India to thus divide and rule over a vibrant nationality which has sailed united amidst all troubles and calamities for about six decades? Have they forgotten that India is in essence a multi-national country though its constitution proclaims it a nation-state and any undue impetuous interference with the unity in diversity of the country and the identity and self-respect of its component units, especially of linguistic nationalities, could do utmost damage to the unity and integrity of the entire country itself. Don’t they know that by such post-haste they are only opening up a Pandora’s Box of more complex problems all over the country and striking at the very roots of territorial integrity of the country? No, knowing fully well, they are still moving – for nothing but nefarious electoral benefits – an acute case of open electoral corruption with the next general elections just round the corner. §§§

Saturday, November 9, 2013

256 year-old Herbalist, Li Ching-Yuen



256 year-old Herbalist, Li Ching-Yuen



256 year-old Herbalist, Li Ching-Yuen

http://www.youtube.com/v/T6cbHK8VAV0?version=3&autohide=1&autoplay=1&attribution_tag=Sz2eX9qjAhqFcCt8d0l_Og&autohide=1&showinfo=1&feature=share

Wednesday, November 6, 2013

Editorial in LAW, 31 October 2013 issue - photocopy


Editorial, "Nail the lies: Hail A.P. State Formation Day!" in LAW ANIMATED WORLD, 31 October 2013, Vol. 9, Part 2, No. 20 issue.

NAIL THE LIES,
HAIL A.P. FORMATION DAY!




That the formation of Andhra Pradesh was a dream-come-true for the Telugu people, for an overwhelming majority in Telangana itself at that time, is an indisputable historical fact. The Goebbelsian lies propagated by the separatists that it was a betrayal of Telangana [i.e. Nizam Telangana] and that Telanganites were cheated into merger with Andhra and ever since were/are horribly exploited by Andhras – rulers, capitalists, other ‘settlers’ alike – have no basis in historical or current facts of life and socio-economic conditions. That the Hyderabad State Congress Committee under the leadership of Swami Ramananda Tirtha had, as far back as in 1953, passed a unanimous resolution for the trifurcation of Hyderabad State and merging of its linguistic  regions with the respective linguistic regions in the neighboring provinces, that a Vishalandhra movement raged in all intensity and popularity mainly in Telangana districts during 1949-56, that even the people’s poet of Telangana, Kaloji, now hailed as an icon for separate Telangana, was a fervent integrationist (veera vishalandhravadi) then and welcomed the formation of Andhra Pradesh in his typical poetic style, that the Hyderabad Assembly in its discussions on Fazal Ali Commission Report rejected its proposal to keep Telangana separate for five years before merger with Andhra, in that as many as 103 [59 from Telangana] representatives out of 174 favored immediate creation of Vishalandhra while only 29 [15 from T] favored a Telangana State and the communists of the times were leading a great movement for Vishalandhra and threatened to force a crisis by resigning and causing fresh elections to the Assembly, that after the 5 March 1956 declaration of Nehru at Nizamabad for Vishalandhra there has not been a single voice of protest from Telangana till formation of AP, that formation of AP was jubilantly celebrated all over Telangana and not a voice was raised for separation till 1969-71 and then again most of the Telangana leaders became fervent integrationists and averted separation in 1973 by foregoing Mulki Rules and Regional Committee even, and that there was again no considerable voice of protest thereafter till 2001-02, that the development and cultural intermixing of Telangana people with other Telugus proceeded at a fast pace, much faster than in case of other linguistic regions of the Hyderabad State that merged in Maharashtra and Karnataka, are all enough historical facts to nail the lies of the separatists and celebrate the formation day of Andhra Pradesh as a day of devotion and commitment to the unity and integrity of the Telugu nationality. §§§

Thursday, October 17, 2013

Editorial, MOVING TOWARDS A CONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS? in LAW ANIMATED WORLD, 15 October 2013 issue

MOVING TOWARDS A COSTITUTIONAL CRISIS?


With the Union Government behaving in the typically callous manner as succinctly expressed in the Telugu axiom: “taamboolaalu icceasaam, tannuku caavanDi!” [As for us we have fixed it, now it is for you all to fight over that!] – not caring a bit for the more-than two-month old mammoth mass movement to keep up the unity of Andhra Pradesh raging in Seemandhra, it seems the Telangana Tangle is getting more complicated and difficult to solve. We even apprehend that a constitutional crisis may engulf the country if the Seemandhra MPs and Union Ministers, responding to the popular opinion there, intensify their obstructionist tactics – going even to the extent of withdrawing support to the Central Government which now stands on a slender majority of 3 only and also inciting other UPA partners to do so. But even otherwise, the inexplicable adamance of the Union Government/ UPA Chairperson towards the people’s movement in Seemandhra and their efforts to speed up the much-hated partition of Andhra Pradesh without paying regard to the well-established conventions and the federal spirit of our polity, may create a constitutional crisis and lead to their downfall, confirming the accursed proverbial situation – vinaaSakaalea vipareeta buddhii [perverse designs arise in ruinous times]. To our knowledge, no bill for division of any province has ever been prepared, let alone it being moved, until and unless the concerned State Assembly first passed a resolution in favor of such division or partition. This healthy convention cannot be given a go-by – it would be just like the President of India ignoring the convention of inviting the leader of the largest party/front to form the government and appointing some lackey and giving time and facility to him to later horse-trade and win a vote of confidence. Also, the special provision regarding Andhra Pradesh embodied in Article 371-D cannot be just wished away and no partition can be constitutionally valid without its repeal/amendment; that needs a constitutional amendment requiring a two-thirds majority vote in both Houses of the Parliament which seems impossible now. And we always pointed out that by following the wise recommendations of the Srikrishna Committee, the problem can be solved without any heartrending partition of the State. §§§

Wednesday, October 9, 2013

Constitution of India: Part II

Constitution of India: Part I

PART II 
CITIZENSHIP

5. Citizenship at the commencement of the Constitution.—At the commencement of this Constitution, every person who has his domicile in the territory of India and—
                 (a) who was born in the territory of India; or
                 (b) either of whose parents was born in the territory of India; or
                 (c) who has been ordinarily resident in the territory of India for not less than five years  
                       immediately preceding such commencement, shall be a citizen of India.

6. Rights of citizenship of certain persons who have migrated to India from Pakistan.—Notwithstanding anything in article 5, a person who has migrated to the territory of India from the territory now included in Pakistan shall be deemed to be a citizen of India at the commencement of this
Constitution if—
             (a) he or either of his parents or any of his grand-parents was born in India as defined in the
                  Government of India Act, 1935 (as originally enacted); and
            (b)(i) in the case where such person has so migrated before the nineteenth day of July, 1948, he has
                     been ordinarily resident in the territory of India since the date of his migration, or
                (ii) in the case where such person has so migrated on or after the nineteenth day of July, 1948, he
                     has been registered as a citizen of India by an officer appointed in that behalf by the  
                     Government of the Dominion of India on an application made by him therefore to such officer
                     before the commencement of this Constitution in the form and manner prescribed by that
                     Government:
Provided that no person shall be so registered unless he has been resident in the territory of India for at least six months immediately preceding the date of his application.

7. Rights of citizeship of certain migrants to Pakistan.—
Notwithstanding anything in articles 5 and 6, a person who has after the first day of March, 1947, migrated from the territory of India to the territory now included in Pakistan shall not be deemed to be a citizen of India:
Provided that nothing in this article shall apply to a person who, after having so migrated to the territory now included in Pakistan, has returned to the territory of India under a permit for resettlement or permanent return issued by or under the authority of any law and every such person shall for the purposes of clause (b) of article 6 be deemed to have migrated to the territory of India after the nineteenth day of July, 1948.

8. Rights of citizenship of certain persons of Indian origin residing outside India.—Notwithstanding anything in article 5, any person who or either of whose parents or any of whose grand-parents was born in India as
defined in the Government of India Act, 1935 (as originally enacted), and who is ordinarily residing in any country outside India as so defined shall be deemed to be a citizen of India if he has been registered as a citizen of India by the diplomatic or consular representative of India in the country where he is for the
time being residing on an application made by him therefor to such diplomatic or consular representative, whether before or after the commencement of this Constitution, in the form and manner prescribed by the Government of the Dominion of India or the Government of India.

9. Persons voluntarily acquiring citizenship of a foreign State not to be citizens.— No person shall be a citizen of India by virtue of article 5, or be deemed to be a citizen of India by virtue of article 6 or article 8, if he has voluntarily acquired the citizenship of any foreign State.

10. Continuance of the rights of citizenship.—Every person who is or is deemed to be a citizen of India under any of the foregoing provisions of this Part shall, subject to the provisions of any law that may be made by Parliament, continue to be such citizen.

11. Parliament to regulate the right of citizenship by law.—Nothing in the foregoing provisions of this Part shall derogate from the power of Parliament to make any provision with respect to the acquisition and termination of citizenship and all other matters relating to citizenship.

(to be continued)