Sunday, 19 April 2015

Who ordered Incitatus to turn a Nelson's eye ?
During the UPA government there were numerous scams of not crores but lacs of crores of rupees ( not millions but billions of dollars ). Manmohan Singh was the Prime Minister then. If he was not misappropriating these huge sums ( because he was said to be an honest man ) then he  was obviously deliberately turning a Nelson's eye to the scams. It was only because of PILs and orders of the Supreme Court that the Indian public came to know of this massive fraud and corruption.
The legitimate question then arises : on whose instructions was this human Incitatus deliberately turning a blind eye to these scams ? And who was pocketing all this money ( obviously stacked in some secret foreign bank accounts ) ? The Indian public has a right to know the answers  to these questions
The human Incitatus
It is said that the Roman Emperor Caligula ( who ruled from 37 to 41 A.D.) made his favourite horse Incitatus a consul ( the highest office in the Roman Empire, after the Emperor ), and that this horse was 'attended' to by servants, and it invited 'dignitaries' to dinner.
 Similarly, Sonia Gandhi made Manmohan Singh, a man who had never won a Lok Sabha election in his life, the Prime Minister of India, and this human Incitatus loyally obeyed whatever instructions he got from 10 Janpath

Saturday, 18 April 2015

Following the Gita


From Columbus, Ohio, where I am presently, I yesterday telephoned a lawyer friend of mine in Allahabad, my home town. He told me that most people in Allahabad were against me because of my statements about eating beef, Gandhi, etc

 I told him I am not a popularity seeker. I have often been isolated and viciously attacked and abused in the past, but that does not bother me.

 Lord Krishna's adjuration to Arjuna in the Gita has been my guiding principle in life. One should do his duty irrespective of the consequences.

 So I will do my duty to my country even if I am all alone, and even if I am abused and villified.
And at this critical juncture of India's history my duty is to tell Indians that if they wish to progress and prosper they must give up backward, feudal and unscientific ideas and take to the path of reason and science---the path shown by our great ancestors, Aryabhatta and Brahmagupta, Sushrut and Charak, Panini and Patanjali, Ramanujan and Raman.

Friday, 17 April 2015

Kashmiris


Kashmiris will have to keep suffering because many of them foolishly kept demanding separation from India, which will never be granted, instead of demanding reunification of India and Pakistan under a secular government which does not tolerate religious extremism of any kind, whether Hindu or Muslim, as I repeatedly advised.
 Since good advice has not worked, now only bitter experience will work. Sad, but true

Gandhi

I have called Gandhi objectively a British agent and a cunning hypocrite who did great harm to India. If that amounts to a criminal offence I am prepared to go to jail, but I will not apologize.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Artist-cannot-use-abusive-language-for-icons-like-Gandhi-Supreme-Court/articleshow/46951509.cms

Chamars


Chamar is a large caste among the Scheduled Castes in North India.
The word ' chamar ' comes from the word ' chamda ' ( चमड़ा ) i,e, leather. Chamars were those who did leather work i.e. making shoes, leather bags,etc in feudal society.

 As i mentioned in my blog 'Caste System' ( see justicekatju.blogspot.in ), though caste in India appears to have originally had a racial origin ( the word 'varna' literally means colour ), subsequently caste system developed into the feudal, occupational division of labour in feudal society. In other .words, every vocation,e.g. potter ( kumhar ), carpenter ( badhai ), iron smith ( lohar ), barber ( nai ), etc became a caste.. So leather workers also became a caste called 'chamar'.

  Upto the coming of the British in the 18th century, chamars were a respectable caste because chamars earned their livelihood, and in fact were indispensable, in feudal society.

 It was after the British conquered India in the 18th and early 19th centuries and destroyed the massive handicraft industry in India, thus making tens of millions of Indians unemployed and driven to destitution, beggary, crime and starvation, ( see my blog ' Dinner at the German Embassy' ) that chamars, along with many other castes, were driven down the social ladder, because they lost their livelihood as their hand made products were  driven out of the market. by factory products e.g. Bata shoes. When a person becomes unemployed and cannot earn his livelihood he becomes indigent and goes down the social ladder, and is looked down upon. And this is what happened to chamars.

 In my decision in the Supreme Court ( in a bench along with Justice Alatamas Kabir ) in Swaran Singh vs. State through Standing Counsel ( 2008 ) I traced the history of chamars and observed :

  "  The question in this case is whether calling a person `Chamar' amounts to intentionally insulting with intent to humiliate a member of the Scheduled Caste.

 It is true that Chamar is the name of a caste among Hindus who were traditionally persons who made leather goods by handicraft [vide the People of India by Watson Kaye, the Tribes & Castes of the North-Western Provinces and Oudh by W.Crooke, The Chamars of Uttar Pradesh by A.B Mukerji, The Chamar Artisans by Satish Kumar Sharma, The Tribes and Castes of the North-Western India by W. Crooke etc.]. The word `chamar' is derived from the Hindi word `chamda' which means leather.
Before the coming of the British into India, the Chamars were a stable socio-economic group who were engaged in manufacturing leather goods by handicraft. As is well-known, feudal society was characterized by the feudal occupational division of labour in society. In other words, every vocation or occupation in India became a caste e.g. Dhobi (washerman), Badhai (carpenter), Lohar (blacksmith), Kumbhar (potter) etc. The same was the position in other countries also during feudal times. Thus, even now many Britishers have the surname Baker, Butcher, Taylor, Smith, Carpenter, Gardener, Mason, Turner, etc. which shows that their ancestors belonged to these professions.

It is estimated that before the coming of the British into India about 40% of the population of India was engaged in industry while the rest of the population was engaged in agriculture. This industry was no doubt handicraft industry, and not mill industry. Nevertheless, there was a very high level production of goods in India by these handicraft industries before the coming of the British, and many of these goods were exported often up to Europe, the Middle East, China, etc. e.g. Dacca Muslin, Murshidabad silk, and other kind of textiles, etc.

A rough and ready test of the level of economic development of a country is to find out how much percentage of the population is engaged in industry, and how much in agriculture. The greater the percentage of population in industry and lesser in agriculture the more prosperous the country. Thus, the U.S.A., the most prosperous country in the world today has only about 2 or 3% of its population in agriculture, while the rest is in industry or services.

India was a relatively prosperous country before the coming of the British because a high percentage of the people (which could be up to 40%) was engaged at that time in industry (though no doubt this was handicraft industry, not mill industry). Thus, Lord Clive around 1757 (when the battle of Plassey was fought) described Murshidabad (which was then the capital of Bengal) as a city more prosperous than London, vide `Glimpses of World History' by Jawaharlal Nehru (Third Impression p.416, chapter entitled `The Indian Artisan goes to the wall').

When the British conquered India they introduced the products of their mill industry into India, and exorbitantly raised the export duties on the Indian handicraft products. Thereby they practically destroyed the handicraft industry in India. The result was that by the end of the British rule hardly 10% or even less of the population of India was still in the handicraft industry, and the rest of those who were earlier engaged in the handicraft industry were made unemployed. In this way about 30% of the population of India who were employed in handicraft industry became unemployed, and were driven to starvation, destitution, beggary or crime (the thugs and `criminal' tribes were really these unemployed sections of society). As an English Governor General wrote in 1834, `the bones of the cotton weavers are bleaching the plains of India'

 In this connection it may be noted that in the revenue records in many states in our country one often finds recorded : `A son of B, caste lohar (smith), vocation agriculture'; or `C son of D, caste badhai (carpenter), vocation agriculture', or `E son of H, caste kumhar (potter), vocation agriculture', etc. This indicates that the ancestors of these persons were in those professions, but later they became unemployed as British mill industry destroyed their handicraft. Some people think that if the British had not come into India an indigenous mill industry would have developed in India, and India would have become an Industrial State by the 19th Century, like North America or Europe, but it is not necessary to go into this here.

 The Chamars also suffered terribly during this period. The British industries e.g. Bata almost completely destroyed the vocation of the Chamars, with the result that while they were a relatively respectable section of society before the coming of British rule (because they could earn their livelihood through manufacture of leather goods) subsequently they sank in the social ladder and went down to the lowest strata in society, because they lost their livelihood and became unemployed.
Today the word `Chamar' is often used by people belonging to the so-called upper castes or even by OBCs as a word of insult, abuse and derision. Calling a person `Chamar' today is nowadays an abusive language and is highly offensive. In fact, the word `Chamar' when used today is not normally used to denote a caste but to intentionally insult and humiliate someone.

 It may be mentioned that when we interpret section 3(1)(x) of the Act we have to see the purpose for which the Act was enacted. It was obviously made to prevent indignities, humiliation and harassment to the members of SC/ST community, as is evident from the Statement of Objects & Reasons of the Act. Hence, while interpreting section 3(1)(x) of the Act, we have to take into account the popular meaning of the word `Chamar' which it has acquired by usage, and not the etymological meaning. If we go by the etymological meaning, we may frustrate the very object of the Act, and hence that would not be a correct manner of interpretation.

 This is the age of democracy and equality. No people or community should be today insulted or looked down upon, and nobody's feelings should be hurt. This is also the spirit of our Constitution and is part of its basic features. Hence, in our opinion, the so-called upper castes and OBCs should not use the word `Chamar' when addressing a member of the Scheduled Caste, even if that person in fact belongs to the `Chamar' caste, because use of such a word will hurt his feelings. In such a country like ours with so much diversity - so many religions, castes, ethnic and lingual groups, etc. - all communities and groups must be treated with respect, and no one should be looked down upon as an inferior. That is the only way we can keep our country united.

 In our opinion, calling a member of the Scheduled Caste `Chamar' with intent to insult or humiliate him in a place within public view is certainly an offence under section 3(1)(x) of the Act. Whether there was intent to insult or humiliate by using the word `Chamar' will of course depend on the context in which it was used."

 This judgment was followed in Arumugam Serrvai vs. State of Tamilnadu, 2011 by a bench of the Supreme Court consisting of myself and Justice Gyansudha Misra, vide para 13 of the judgment ( see online ).

Thursday, 16 April 2015

Spreading Rationalism


Our national aim must be to make India a highly prosperous country in which our people enjoy a high standard of living, nobody is discriminated against, and everybody is given equal opportunity to develop his or her talents. This is possible only when India gets highly industrialized, and this is possible only when rational and scientific thinking is spread among our masses.

 My effort through my posts is therefore to spread rational and scientific thinking among Indians, who are presently steeped in casteism, communalism, and superstitions. But look at my uphill task. I will give a few examples.

Very few Indians eat beef, because most Hindus regard cow as sacred or as a mother. Most of my own family members do not eat beef and are conservative Hindus. I am surrounded by an ocean of people in India who would be horrified at the very thought of eating beef. For centuries Hindus have been  brainwashed into thinking that cows should not be slaughtered.

 But I have made it a principle that I will never accept anything just because millions or even billions of people believe in it. Unless something appeals to my reason I will never accept it, even if the rest of humanity accepts it. At one time almost everyone believed in witches and ghosts, but is that a good reason to believe in them ? So unless I am convinced by sound reasoning I will not accept anything said by anyone.

 I coolly reasoned with myself, and saw nothing wrong in eating beef. A cow is only an animal. How can it be regarded as the mother of human beings ?  And how can an animal be regarded as sacred ? Human beings are superior to animals because they are more evolved. How can human beings worship as a god a creature which is lower in evolution ?

Also, most of the world eats beef. Are Americans, Europeans, Russians, Chinese, Africans, etc and even some people in India all wicked people, and Hindus alone good ? It would be silly to say so.
 Being rationally convinced that there was nothing wrong in eating beef, and therefore ban on beef is irrational, and therefore anti-Indian, I spoke out against it.

 In fact I have eaten beef a few times, but usually do not eat it out of respect for my wife and other relatives and friends, but if the occasion arises I will again eat beef. I see nothing wrong in doing so.
 I knew that I would be widely condemned and abused for saying this, but what of that ? If rational ideas were not propagated there would be no progress in the world. At one time almost everyone in Europe believed that the sun revolved around the earth as the Bible said, and the contrary view of Copernicus was condemned. But today the view, initially of one man as against the rest, is accepted as true. It follows that the minority, sometimes of only one man, is correct, and sometimes the view of the overwhelming majority is wrong.

 I am therefore never bothered that the majority, or even vast majority holds a view contrary to mine. The real question is : which view is rational and scientific ?

  Similarly, I expressed my view about Gandhi, calling him objectively a British agent, for which I was condemned by both Houses of Parliament. But while I gave my reasons for my opinion, the members of Parliament who spoke against me, gave no reasons to refute my reasoning. I believe that the Indian people have been brainwashed for long about Gandhi, but now the time has come when they must know the truth.

Ave Rahul Imperator !


The boy with nothing in his upper storey is back. He is the last nail in the Congress coffin, but Sonia is determined to hammer it in, even if that destroys the Congress Party After all, she is a good mother, who must protect her cub, even if that means shoving him down the throats of Indians.
Sonia's life mission is to see her son installed as the Emperor of India ( i.e. Prime Minister ). After all, the Nehru-Gandhi family is the royal dynasty of India, and in a dynasty, the son of the King ( or Queen ) becomes the next king, no matter that he is an idiot or an imbecile.

Kayasthas


Kayasthas are a prominent caste among Hindus in north India,  having surnames like Shrivastava, Saxena, Sahai, Prasad, Verma, Sinha, Khare, Bose, Sen, Kotnis, Mathur, Bhatnagar, etc
 Kayasthas are usually an educated class who are, and have been judges, lawyers, professors, doctors, bureaucrats, politicians, etc

 In feudal society .Kayasthas were the scribes and record keepers, e.g. patwaris, kanungos, etc. Some of them rose to high positions in the Mughal Empire e.g. Raja Todar Mal.

In modern times they have distinguished themselves in various fields e.g. Swami Vivekanand, Dr. Rajendra Prasad, who was the first President of India, Lal Bahadur Shastri, who was a Prime Minister, Justice J.S. Verma, who was a Chief Justice of India, Firaq Gorakhpuri and Munshi Premchand in literature, Dr. Kotnis who heroically sacrificed his life serving the Chinese people in their fight against the Japanese invaders, etc.

 They have been very proficient in Persian and Urdu. Firaq Gorakhpuri ( whose real name was Raghupati Sahai ) was a foremost Urdu poet. Munshi Premchand, Neeraj and Mahadevi Verma are well known in Hindi literature.

  Kayasthas are known to be very intelligent and clever, and the following story illustrates this :
 In the reign of  Wajid Ali Shah, the Nawab of Avadh, in the mid 19th century, there was an  elderly Kayastha ( let us call him Shrivastava ) who was a clerk in charge of disbursing salaries to the Avadh state officials.

  One day Shrivastava was walking on a road in Lucknow when from the other side came galloping on his horse an officer in the Nawab's army ( let us call him Sardar Mohammed Ali Khan ). On seeing the old clerk on his way the army officer took out his whip and gave the clerk one lash, which made the clerk fall down.

 The clerk had noted the countenance of the army officer, and the next day when the army officer came to collect his monthly salary he saw that it was the same person who had given him a lash the previous day. So Shrivastava took out his record book and quickly made some alterations therein.

 When the army officer came to the clerk's counter to collect his salary, Shrivastava asked him who he was. The officer replied that he was Sardar Mohammed Ali Khan. The clerk gazed at him, looked at his record,and then nodded his head,and said that he was not Sardar Mohammed Ali Khan. This made the army officer angry, and he insisted that he was indeed that person. The clerk then showed the army officer the record, where Sardar Mohammed Ali Khan was described as a person with one eye, one ear, his nose cut off, and 4 front teeth missing. He said that he will make payment only to the person with that description.

 The result was that that the army officer had to go and get  one eye plucked out, one ear and the nose cut off, and 4 front teeth extracted before he could get his salary !

 The moral of the story is : don't mess with Kayasthas. If you do,they can do you enormous damage in retaliation without wielding a weapon.

P.S.
There is another story of the Kayastha who was sentenced to count the waves, but I will not relate that for fear that some Kayastha may file a defamation case against me !

Tuesday, 14 April 2015

Ethics in the Transitional Era


I am informed by some people that most mediapersons and media houses, both print and T.V., have decided to boycott me and not to publish my views or anything about me.
Probably that is because I largely supported Gen. V.K. Singh who called mediapersons ' presstitutes ', on my facebook post and blog.

Of course I had.also said that there were also many upright journalists, and I had mentioned the name of P.Sainath, whom I greatly respect. I also include the late Vinod Mehta, Karan Thapar, N. Ram, Vinod Sharma, Madhu Trehan, Krishna Prasad, Rahul Kanwal, Bhupendra Chaubey and some others whom I respect. But yes, the vast majority of Indian journalists are indeed 'presstitutes', as my experience in the Press Council showed me.

If my information is correct, and indeed these 'presstitutes' have decided to boycott me, they are welcome.

I have repeatedly said that I am not a publicity or popularity seeker, and so I am totally unaffected by such stupid 'boycotts'.

Yes, I want publicity of my ideas, not for any personal benefit but because I believe they are in the interest of the nation. However, even if my views are not publicized in the print or T.V. media, I have the social media available to me i.e. facebook, blog and Twitter. That would of course not give as much publicity to my views as the other media, but it is sufficient for my needs.

 It is also possible that some political authorities have told the mediapersons to boycott me, since I have often expressed my low opinion of most of the present Indian politicians, and the 'free media' may have loyally obeyed the diktat, but this is in the realm of speculation.

However, I am not blaming mediapersons alone. After all, they have lifestyles to maintain and families to look after. So they cannot afford to displease their owners ( and the owners cannot afford to displease the political authorities ). And so like Dr.Faust, these 'presstitutes' have sold their souls to some Mephistopheles.

However, it is the general decline in ethics in India which I would like to comment upon.

  As I have pointed out in some of my earlier posts, India is presently passing through a transitional period in its history, transition from feudal, agricultural society to a modern industrial one. At present we are neither totally feudal, nor totally modern, but somewhere in between.

 A feudal society had an ethical system, but that has largely been destroyed. On the other hand, the ethical system of industrial society has not yet been put in its place ( because industrial society has not yet been fully created ). So presently there is no ethical system existing in India, and there is an ethical vacuum. So what we have in India is a free-for-all.

  Indian society has become largely commercialized, and money has become its God. There is a Hindi film song which accurately summarises the situation " Na bibi na maiyya, the whole thing is that ki bhaiyya, sab se bada rupaiyya ". So for making money most Indians can do anything, by hook or crook.

 I remember over 20 years ago, perhaps in 1992 or 1993, when my daughter was in class 10 or so ( she would have been about 15 then ) she gave a birthday party to which she invited about a dozen school friends. I was then a Judge in the Allahabad High Court. I went and sat for about 15-20 minutes with my daughter's friends and started talking with them. I asked one girl, who was a bright student regularly getting about 90% in her exams, what she wanted to do in later life. She said seriously " Uncle I will join the I.A.S. and make a lot of money ". I was shocked ! A 15 year old bright girl was frankly saying that she would take bribes in later life  I could not even imagine such thoughts in my youth.I told her it was wrong to make money by improper means, but she replied " Uncle when I work hard to get into I.A.S. I deserve to get the good things in life "

 I do not mean to say that there are no upright people in Indian society today, but their proportion has certainly gone down drastically.

 If one's parents have instilled good values in one in one's childhood, the chances are that one will be upright in later life. But if one's parents are themselves corrupt or crooks, as more and more adults are becoming, what can be expected in society ?

So I do not blame mediapersons alone. Most of Indian society has become amoral.