Black money in foreign banks has become a queer issue, setting off an equally queer debate. We are hearing arguments, for and against, which are more or less parrot-like. The whole nation appears arrayed into two contesting parties, the ruling party seeming to be on the back foot, if not in the dock. Especially, Media appears to be exceptionally prompt, not in discharging its primary obligation, but in fishing in the troubled waters, having eye on the TRP.
What actually is true or fake, is hardly a question for the victims among the viewers and the readers to exhibit promptness in fruitlessly discovering at this stage, for Apex Court is already there on the job. Any public anxiety in the matter is thus uncalled for.
Then what is called for? For those who are the victims at the receiving end, the viewers and the readers, whom the media and the two contesting parties in seisin have mischievously engaged, keeping them glued to the idiot box or the news dailies which seem no better than sophisticated and improvised politically charged cinema posters.
Please think, consider, and make out. It is time to take a stand and form a mind set in this regard. The present post is dedicated to this point.
Be it media or a politician or a political party or group, the victims are their audience, the listeners or viewers. What is delivered at the receiving end is essentially laconic, hiding more than revealing.
It is time to understand, why?
To fully grasp this aspect, one has to go into the mindset of a litigant. If there is absence of personal experience in litigation, whether as a litigant directly involved or as a steward, as are legal, para legal professionals or aides associated with their conduct. Tricks, twists and turns are bare words that are hollow, meaning-wise , if one falls outside the above bracket of experiential component of litigation.
As such, those having ever worn shoes that pinched, courtesy pending litigation of any kind, would appreciate this. Others may find this idea passing off, like a tangent. The latter category constitute a majority, for whom non-formal learning.
It is here that Media may be seen as a party obligated. Others under reference above are obviously condemned to play tricks, as litigants do. What litigants practice in law court, in circumvention of law but hiding circumventions by chicanery , is exactly that which the above said parties , arrayed in litigation in the people's court, are under obvious compulsion to practice. But the Media too steps in the fray, outwitting one another in hoodwinking its audience, by its laconic approach. This is detested.
Coming to the example in the present scenario, what media has been designedly holding back? In the black money matter, of course. Please guess and comment, if indeed figured out. But if not, let us try to explore, in subsequent posts.
(Please visit, www.rajeshsahai.blogspot.in)
विदेश में कला धन . इस विषय पर हमें इंसानी आवाज़ कम तोते की तान अधिक सुनाई पड़ रही है . ना सिर्फ दो पक्ष , पूरा देश लगता है दो पक्ष में बट गया है . सत्ताधारी पार्टी लगता है जैसे कटघरे में खड़ी है और विपक्ष गोले बाज़ी के तर्ज़ पर सवाल दाग रहा है .
ऐसे में मीडिया भुट्टे सेक रही है .
सच क्या ऐ झूठ क्या, यह प्रश्न अभी विचार का विषय नहीं होना चाहिए . इस बिंदु पर विचार करने के लिए सर्वोच्च न्यायलय जब तत्पर है ही तो किसी और को तत्परता दिखाने का उपक्रम करने की कोई आवश्यकता नहीं है.
(आग्रह है कि आगे का अनुवाद करने में मदद करें , अन्यथा मेरी टूटी फूटी हिंदी का इंतज़ार करें , visit, www.rajeshsahai.blogspot.in)

Law, fundamental vis a vis interpretative

Fundamental law as contained in any specific provision is an invariable thing until otherwise upset, either by legislation or by a judicial virdict. So, that is the most reliable plank to stand on.
The other plank is interpretation. Interpretations are of two kinds, broadly speaking. One is that which citations contain. The other is that which citations do not cover, at least directly. The latter kind are only potential concepts which ultimately get approved or disapproved by courts. 
The former kind supported by citations carry force to carry a case to its logical target.
The latter is always susceptible. It is here that litigant's own fortune works either way, especially because such interpretations are not handled single handedly. In district court it is handled by one who would be unavailable in the higher courts. Mere peripheral presence is not enough. To know how, and why, you have to further endure me, as i may cite my personal experiences that lead me to opine despairingly with regard to serious depravities that the legal segment unfortunately accosts at every level.
I write these details, because these lines are mere preludes to the exhaustive one from me , still in a formative stage.
I am also testing, whether these lines are fathomable or repugnant to a smooth reading of a discerning reader in some serious search.

Mridula Sinha, a native of Bihar, now the Hon'ble Governor of Goa, has taken pains in writing a very good article on Chchutt, carried by Hindustan daily dt.29 Oct.

Media, trading in confusion?

Thank media for trading in confusion. Is there some one around to lay bare a complete picture, free from any concealment of fact? 

What is that treaty that is under reference, constituting impediment in name disclosures? Arun Jaitley has pointed it out, but media has failed to elicit its full elaboration. Even in discussions on the TV Channels, peripheral references, either in commendation or condemnation , are made, hiding this pivotal issue. 

Another thing, the entire list is going to be placed in sealed cover before the listed bench of the Apex Court. We may hear further in this regard today onwards, but one more fear lurks.

That fear stems from the lack of confidence which media has generated in recent times. Court proceedings are not reported the way it should. Court proceedings run on two levels, one being that which the order sheet registers, the other being that which is/are transacted verbally without finding space in the order sheet. Mediamen are either unaware, non-cognisant and untrained as regards these two distinct categories or are enlightened enough to twist and turn the reporting , founded on the latter category. If one accesses the court proceedings, now on the website, it might appear that media often feeds rubbish which readers , they presume, would relish more than un-spiced , straight forward, and un-adulterated reporting. What is more, the legal segment amazingly countenances this kind of flirting, oblivious that it ultimately impairs public psyche, especially those of the literates whom the media thus steeps into a status worse  than unlettered masses.

Let us now wait, how the matter proceeds, at which level.   

Y

The clippings under reference in the previous post are attached below:-

Media, a bane-infested boon.
We have many boons that are bane infested. Media is one.
Just to drive home this point, I attach two articles, published in the Hindustan Daily dated 27th October.
One is authored by Harsh Mander, Director, Centre For Equity Studies; and the other by Rob Leech, a documentary film producer. The two articles are respectively captioned , "Pahle Mun Saaf Kijiye, Phir Sadak" , and "Yeh Naujawan Jehadi Kaise Ban Gaye". The former is obliquely critical about Modi's Swachch Bharat Abhiyan; wheteas the latter purports to analyse an issue which led author's cousin into straying away from the social mainstream and joining Al Quida.
These two contemporary issues, like several such others, are like fast food, ready to move out of the store and get consumed. Getting space in news paper columns is not like a walk in interview. Fast food-like stuff makes it efficacious for getting a ready entry, irrespective of its content value, for the desk that is supposed to examine contents happens to be like a bus stop that ill affords delay by the boarding passengers, else 'miss the bus'.
In this kind of haste, junk food gets consumed, yielding consequences that are well understood, rather broadly decried.
What is more, the intellectual rubbish that gets continually dished out has readers who might not have the requisite discerning sense. The idea conveyed thus infects. The result remains un-manifest, brewing , that which a term in Hindi would be most appropriate, of which an exact equivalent in English might require a dedicated search, as opposed to that which is in usage. The said apt term is, 'Avidya', which is an antonym of the term 'Enlightenment'. Avidya is intellectual darkness. To dispel Avidya, peripheral learning or literacy is not adequate, unless experiential supplements accompany. This is not an easy task. To appreciate this, one may adopt an easy exercise. Just take up any modern gadget. Be that a smart phone, or an internet device or a computer system or any system with advanced technology in general use but alien to the user who is a first timer. The system would put up firewalls, rendering it unusable, despite volumes of user manuals or oral guidance that are bereft of experiential aid.
Human kind is already under countless sets of complexities inundated in the above said antonym of the term 'Enlightenment', to dispel which scores of institutional and non-institutional efforts are afoot , the world over. Any contribution from any source, that augments this dark area in the human psyche, is best to avoid. To deplore is to begin to avoid. The present effort is, accordingly, a humble effort, but what is worth noticing is the fact that the deprecation is addressed against the Media which is misconceived by many to be an instrument for dispelling darkness, rather than sizing it up rightly as a junk food dispenser, doing less good than harm at the psychic level.
It is in this premise that the above said two articles are under test herein, which test would be pursued in respect of other materials that ate dished out in a junk food style.
(To be continued ...)

Dr. Jagannath Mishra by obliquely equating Modi with Nehru, for political vision which Modi has begun to reflect, castes a small duty on this former Bihar CM . 

Dr. Mishra will do well to advise Modi to emulate Nehru on the broader side of the vision Nehru displayed, which we are still bearing with. 

Broadly speaking, it was Nehru's vision that carried Kashmir issue to the UN, instead of sensing the repugnance of external or international interventions in domestic issues like Kashmir. 

It was also Nehru's long range vision, that refuses to abate till this day, that is contained in the promise India gave to the people of Kashmir for self determination. It is this promise which Pakistan keeps agitating, calling for international attention and intervention, by the use of numerous tricks, including unprovoked shellings on the border. 

As a lawyer, Nehru ought to know the basic dos and donts, but being accountable to none, not to the people at least which segment was ruled either by the unlettered illiterates as also unlettered literates, Nehru enjoyed admiration. That admiration still lasts. 

Rather than digressing from the point at issue, it would serve a better cause to suggest the likes of Dr. Mishras, not to stop at that, lauding Modi as comparable to Nehru. They, if not they, at least he, may as well register an advice, addressed to Modi, to follow in the foot steps of Nehru, by helping Pakistan in its endeavour to internationalise the issue; in enforcing Nehru's imbecile promise of self determination (sidelining India's back-foot arguments that the said promise lost force by efflux of time and overwritten by the Lahore Agreement).

Nehru's vision which India is painfully enduring till this day would fill volumes, akin to un-skinning an onion. If one admires Nehru and lauds Modi on a Nehruvian platform, the admirer is obligated also to tell Modi to excell Nehru in creating more unendurable ordeals for the posterity that those which Nehru left behind, on the premise that Indians are more appreciative about political imbecilities than political wisdom.

Media is manned by fools? Or it is catering to the fools among its viewers?

I don't find a single news story, telecast, broadcast or published, displaying intelligence or that it is meant for intelligent viewers.

Let me cite example.

Zee News telecast a news story, showing ISIS flag waving. The channel continued with a lot of sermon thereafter, but did not case to answer ,

Why or whether arrests were made, if yrs, whether the offenders were interrogated, but if not, why, and like things.

(To be continued)

GANDHI

It may not be a right time, much less day, to discuss the lapses that mar the history in which Mahatma Gandhi is considered an icon. But things have begun to manifest, to be realised without any specific mention. 
It is one thing to be a saint, but there is another human quality, characterised by another nomenclature, 'seer', Rishi being its hindi equivalent .
A saint may not be a seer, so also a seer may not be a saint.
It is a seer, a visionary , whom history would recognise as an epoch making personality, Yug Purush. Sri Krishna was, bhismpitamah was not despite all the attributes which a Yug Purush would qualify. 
The idea of reading a literature or history or mythology should be to develop discerning power, to objectively judge who is what. Rating a Gandhi or a Nehru or a .....  might seem a berating act, but even then it is expedient, so that the present generation and the one in the offing is not in confusion, that confusion which our and the preceding generation has been, on a variety of issues.  

Meditation is not Dhyana, like religion is not Dharma. To distinguish religion from dharma.
Let me address the distinction between meditation and dhyana, in a separate write up. It follows, sooner than later.
However, I may reproduce the portion below with reference to religion vis vis dharma.


Religion vis-a-vis Dharma

The term Religion may substantially be defined as a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
The term religion assumes significance in Indian context especially and more particularly in the present phase of the post independence era. The indian constitution is often cited as a double edged weapon, on the one hand professing secularism while,on the other, guaranteeing freedom of religion as a fundamental right. Secularism implies state's non-attachment towards any religion, akin to what communism patronises. On the other hand the freedom of religion guaranteed as fundamental right underlines the very same spirit though its context is expressed in the manner of a constitutional right for which remedy is also provided under Article 32.
The above discussion tends to focus on the absolutely indifferent plank in respect of religion on which the state (i.e India as a nation) is constitutionally liable to stand, treating religions as something unworthy of being reckoned.
What prompted the framers of the constitution to distance itself from the term religion is not of any relevance. What is relevant is the simple logic that may be construed from what might have been the said promptings. State and governance is supposed to be founded on a logic system, the rationale whereof may be interpreted and deciphered. A state action which fails to disclose its object and which object, even though reasoned out, fails to conform to the objectives that the constitution ratifies, falls through as ultra vires. So what would be the consequence of a state action that would have been inspired by mere faith or belief or something like that , using religious dictum of any denomination as its justification.
Nevertheless, while detesting and thus discarding the role of religion in any state action, an unwelcome confusion is generally entertained, confusing the term Dharma with Religion, the former wrongly deemed as latter's vernacular translation. Scholars of sanskrit and hindi literature would, however, testify to the fact that the term Dharma means righteous Karma (deed). Mulla, the authority on Hindu Law, in his treatise has taken great pains to codify the law as found in the Hindu Community, citing even vrihaspati , the sage (seer) as its source. The set of ideal human conduct which constituted righteous human conduct, is/was the law which ruled the society. Its disobedience would cause a defaulting subject to fall from grace and thus receive punishment. In that sense , the term Dharma stood defined as an abiding principle which were not any codified set of code of conduct in the ancient society, but were just a way of life. Its codification was facilitated in the present times due to the loss of the core concept as to what exactly Dharma means, inasmuch as this sacred term, called dharma got misunderstood as being the same as religion.


Sent from my iPhone