Follow by Email

Total Pageviews

CURRENT ARTICLES OF V. SUNDARAM (JANUARY 2010 ONWARDS)

Sunday, September 4, 2011


FIRANGI MEMSAHIB SONIA GANDHI---A SUBVERTER OF THE INDIAN CONSTITUTION AND DESTROYER OF THE INDIAN STATE

V.SUNDARAM I.A.S.

Aeschylus in his The Eumenides (458 BC) observed for all time: ‘Nobody has a more sacred obligation to obey the law than those who make the law. Wrong must not win by technicalities’  

The indefatigable and irrepressible champion of Liberty, Freedom, Human Rights, Rule of Law, Principle of Equality before the Law and upholding the overriding Majesty of Law, regardless of the Status of Persons involved, Dr.Subramanian Swamy has given a new backbone to the Nation by filing A Civil Appellate Petition (Review Application No. 215 in the High Court of Delhi) in Writ Petition No.13873 of 2009.

In 2006, Sonia Gandhi, Chairman of the UPA Coordination Committee (with Cabinet Rank to Boot), owing her allegiance to the Pope in Rome and not to the Letter and Spirit of the Indian Constitution, participated in a shamelessly  defiant and treasonable conduct, by receiving a TITLE called ‘ORDER OF LEOPOLD’ from the hands of the King of Belgium. An advocate called Rajan from Cochin had written to the President of India (Abdul Kalam) that Sonia Gandhi should be disqualified from functioning as a Member of Parliament on the following grounds.

a) By receiving a title from the King of Belgium, Sonia Gandhi had violated Article 18 (2) of the Indian Constitution which declares “No citizen of India shall accept any title from any foreign state”.

b) Sonia Gandhi should be disqualified as a Member of Parliament under Article 102 (6) (D) of the Indian Constitution which declares: A person shall be disqualified for being chosen as, and for being, a member of either House of Parliament if he or she is under any acknowledgement of allegiance or adherence to a Foreign State.

Rajan had argued that by accepting and receiving the ‘ORDER OF LEOPOLD’ from the King of Belgium, Sonia Gandhi is guilty of acknowledgement of allegiance or adherence to a foreign state like Belgium.

President Abdul Kalam had forwarded the Petition of Rajan to the Election Commission of India for appropriate action. The Election Commission of India formed a majority opinion, of 2 [the ECs] to 1 [the CEC], without holding an inquiry u/s 146 of the RPA, and rejected the complaint of Rajan as without merit. The said Opinion was however sent with a covering note by the CEC to the President with the observation that an inquiry as contemplated under the Constitution could not be made. The Union Law Ministry issued a Gazette Notification dated May 18, 2009 the said majority Opinion as the President’s Order. This Order of the Government of India was challenged by Dr.Subramanian Swamy in the Delhi High Court and Dr.Swamy’s Petition was rejected by the High Court of Delhi on 16-12-2009.

The Review Petition filed in the High Court of Delhi by Dr.Subramanian Swamy on 2nd September 2011 seeks a Review of the earlier Order of the High Court of Delhi passed on 16-12-2009 (in which the High Court of Delhi had rejected his Petition) on the following grounds:

a) New and Fresh facts have been obtained from the Election Commission of India by Dr.Swamy by Filing Applications Under the Right to Information Act (RTI)

b) These new facts have completely brought out and revealed the most reprehensible conduct of Navin Chawla, First as Election Commissioner and later as Chief Election Commissioner. Navin Chawla was fully aware of the fact that the Chief Election Commissioner N.Gopalaswamy had recommended to the President of India his removal from the Post of Election Commissioner on the ground that he was functioning as a whole-time agent of Sonia Gandhi and her Party and YET HE DID NOT RECUSE HIMSELF when he sat in judgment on the issue of disqualification of Sonia Gandhi to continue as a Member of Parliament under Article 102 of the Indian Constitution.

c) In his Review Petition submitted to the High Court of Delhi, Dr.Swamy has clearly explained that he could not obtain the concerened vital documents earlier through RTI because of the official obstruction and hindrance of Mr. Navin Chawla.

Navin Chawla’s track record for having subverted the Indian Constitution during the days of Emergency declared by Indira Gandhi in 1975-77 and his several acts and deeds of criminal misconduct during that period were documented and highlighted by the Shah Commission in 1978. His disgraceful and criminal acts during those Dark Days of Emergency were viewed as glorious deeds of heroism, patriotism, dog-like-loyalty and selflessness by Indira Gandhi when she became Prime Minister in 1980!!

Dr.Subramanian swamy is absolutely right when he says in his Review Petition that Navin Chawla pactically  functioned as a whole time political agent  of that Imposter from Italy Firangi Memsahib Sonia Gandhi. On 3rd February 2009, I had written an article titled ‘Helpless Electorate’, in which I had stated as follows: Our Law Minister H R Bharadwaj has betrayed this long-cherished, semantic, cultural and spiritual tradition by letting down the common people of India. I am saying this in the light of what he has recently said on the controversy relating to the removal of Navin Chawla, duly recommended by the Chief Election Commissioner Gopalaswamy under clause 5 of Article 324 of the Constitution of India. H R Bharadwaj has declared:Difference of opinion among the Election Commissioner does not mean that they were biased.  Every Government functionary has the right to express his opinion frankly and fearlessly.  The Chief Election Commissioner is only the administrative head of the Election Commission.  He and other Election Commissioners have equal powers. Gopalaswami should do his work in EC and not become a political boss. The Chief Election Commissioner should not speak like a political leader.’ As Union Law Minister, in the due discharge of his duties in accordance with the letter and spirit of the Indian Constitution, he has shown himself to be totally incapable of showing either the wisdom of caution or the insight of statesmanship. Election Commission is the fountainhead and apex authority for the smooth functioning of our democracy.  We cannot depend upon the whims of men like Bhardwaj or Navin Chawla for conducting the ensuing Parliamentary Elections 2009 in a fair, objective, impartial and fearless manner.’ 

In the same article I had also stated ‘A plain reading and interpretation of the proviso suggests that the power and jurisdiction under the Constitution to recommend removal of an Election Commissioner (EC) vests solely and exclusively with the Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) and no other authority — neither the Government nor even the judiciary is empowered to make such a recommendation. The moment information about the bona fides of an EC comes into his possession either from his own observation or from reliable and responsible sources, the CEC is duty bound to activate the process of ascertaining the truth of it and exercise his power to make an appropriate recommendation. It is far-fetched to argue, as some experts have done, that he has to await some reference from an extraneous agency, whether it is the Government or any other, before initiating the process and making his recommendation. Since the CEC is the only person qualified to make the recommendation, by implication, no other authority has the power to second-guess it or sit in judgment over it. The Law Minister has asserted that an EC can be removed only by impeachment like the CEC. Such a stand flies against the letter and spirit of the Constitution as it stands at present and it is disturbing that a Law Minister like Bhardwaj should be making such an obviously untenable statement.’

In the same article I had also concluded as follows: “All the enlightened and decent common people of India are indebted to Gopalaswami for having heroically and boldly discharged his duties as Chief Election Commissioner and upheld the cause of public interest by sending his recommendations to the President under Article 324 (clause v) of the Indian Constitution for the removal of Navin Chawla.  Neither the Union Law Minister nor for that matter any Judge, including the Chief Justice of India, has a right to take away the Constitutional Right of the CEC to make this recommendation on the removal of any EC working under his overall control.  Union Minister for Lawlessness may feel constrained all the time to look up to Sonia for ‘instructions’ all the time.  Article 324 (v) gives freedom and discretion to the Chief Election Commissioner to sit in Judgment on the administrative suitability/desirability of having a known pro-Congress (24x7) man like Navin Chawla as his Election Commissioner, particularly with Parliamentary Elections 2009 round the corner in April-May 2009.”

The then Union Law Minister (may I say lawless) and now the ungovernable Bharadwaj had spoken in February 2009 like a typical riff-raff muffosil Congress Politician when he said: ”Gopalaswamy should function as a Election Commissioner and not as a Political Leader.” However, this political thug was officially very happy when that known chaprasi of Sonia Gandhi Navin Chawla behaved like a low-grade Congressman in a despicable manner! Gopalaswamy doing his allotted duty under the Constitution in letter and spirit was dismissed as ‘politicking’ by Bharadwaj! Navin Chawla  openly wrecking the Indian Constitution within the Election Commission was viewed as ‘Due Discharge of his Constitutional Duties’ by the Union Law Minister Bharadwaj.

In addition, between 2005 when Navin Chawla was appointed as Election Commissioner for the first time and 2009 when he was elevated as Chief Election Commissioner, I had written the following articles on the totally unwholesome, unconstitutional and other undesirable antecedents of Navin Chawla. I AM PRESENTING BELOW THE FULL TEXT OF THOSE 5 ARTICLES WHICH WILL GO TO TOTALLY VINDICATE THE STAND TAKEN BY DR.SUBRAMANIAN SWAMY AGAINST NAVIN CHAWLA AND HIS UNBECOMING CONDUCT AS BOTH ELECTION COMMISSIONER AND CHIEF ELECTION COMMISSIONER IN THE NEW REVIEW PETITION FILED BY HIM IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI ON 2ND SEPTEMBER 2011.

(I)A BELGIAN CITIZEN IN INDIA’S PARLIAMENT

20 February, 2008

V.SUNDARAM I.A.S.


A year back (exactly in March 2007), I had written in detail about the shady antecedents of a Nepali citizen called M.K SUBBA who had succeeded in becoming a Member of our ludicrously shameful Parliament. Today our de-facto Prime Minister, Sonia Gandhi swears her allegiance to the King of Belgium.


 M K Subba
Sonia-Congress Party has degenerated into Servants of Sonia Society (SOSS). All the Congress men and all the Congress Ministers are in her bonded labour.  Her Indian citizenship is dubious and questionable.  Despite the highly condemnable, partisan and one-sided Judgment given by the Honourable Supreme Court of India (viewing her fraudulent educational qualifications fictitiously obtained from the University of Cambridge as a ‘Stale issue’), the whole country knows the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth about her proudly proclaimed educational and academic background!.  Now by accepting the ‘Order of Leopold’ from the King of Belgium in November 2006, she has clearly shown that she has contempt for India and the Indian people.  She has greater contempt for the Law of Indian Constitution. It is a known public fact that Sonia treats the office of the President of India as a disposable Pawn to be moved about on the Chess Board of Indian Politics at her sweet will and pleasure depending upon political exigencies from time to time.   
Thus her Citizenship, her basic Educational Credentials and above all her loyalty to the Indian Nation are all dubious and questionable.  She is able to survive in India’s political life only because of the underground subterranean support of India’s judiciary at the highest level which has no concern for the Rule of Law, the Rule of Equality before the Law and above all the Rule of Majesty of Law. Perhaps the only inference that I can draw is that according to our Supreme Court, Indian Constitution is ‘Stale’; Indian people are more ‘Stale’ and finally India’s survival as a Nation is most ‘Stale’.  I am basing these observations on the Doctrine of ‘Staleness’ referred to by Supreme Court in the case relating to Sonia Gandhi.

The common people of India have come to the conclusion that they can not expect any justice under the Law from our Honourable Supreme Court on any issue, least of all on the Sonia’s issue.  The people of India felt let down by the Supreme Court of India.  In this context I would like to quote the immortal words of Honourable Justice Felix Frankfurter (1882-1965): “Lawyers, with rare exceptions, have failed to lay bear that the Law of the Supreme Court is


Sonia Gandhi

enmeshed in our country’s history….The vital share of the Supreme Court in the interplay of the country’s political and economic forces has largely escaped the attention of Historians. Not unnaturally the Supreme Court has been outside the permanent focus of the Historian’s eye for the momentum of the Supreme Court’s influence has been achieved un-dramatically and imperceptibly, like the gradual growth of a coral reef, as the cumulative product of hundreds of cases, individually unexciting and seemingly even unimportant, but in their total effect telling in the pulls and pressures of society.”
The history of the Supreme Court of India is not the history of an abstraction, but the analysis of individuals acting as a Court who make decisions and lay down Doctrines, and of other individuals, their successors, who refine, modify, and sometimes even overrule the decisions of their predecessors, re-interpreting and transmuting their doctrines.  Thus in Law men too make a difference.  Viewed in this light Supreme Court of India has only given a death blow to the Law of the Constitution if not Bharat Matha.       
Dr Subramanian Swamy has stated that Sonia Gandhi stands disqualified under the Law of the Constitution to continue as a Member of Parliament.  The Election Commission, by a majority of 2:1, has decided to issue notice to the Congress President, Sonia Gandhi, seeking her response to an allegation that she had incurred disqualification as a Member of Parliament, under Article 102(1) (d) of the Constitution, for accepting the ‘Order of Leopold’ from the King of Belgium in November 2006. Article 102 (e) of the Constitution says that a person shall be disqualified for being chosen as, and for being, (a line missing – see encl) a member…. India, or has voluntarily acquired the citizenship of a foreign state, or is under any acknowledgement of allegiance or adherence to a foreign state. Disqualification of Ms.Gandhi is thus attracted under Article 102 (1) (d) of the Constitution for being ‘under any acknowledgment of allegiance or adherence to a foreign state.’ 

 King Leopold

It is now a known public fact (excepting for Ashok Singhvi the Bugle-boy of Sonia Gandhi!) that on being granted the ‘title’ of the ‘Order of Leopold’ Mrs.Gandhi had signed the Register as Member of the ‘Association of the Order of Leopold’. Article 1 of the Association states that the Association members will ‘display an eternal devotion to Belgium and the monarchy.”   Mrs.Sonia Gandhi thus fully attracts the disqualification under Article 102 (e) of the Indian Constitution.  
A P J Abdul Kalam, as President had referred to the Election Commission a petition on this matter received from P.Rajan an Advocate of Kochi. It is significant that Election Commission’s Legal Department had recommended ‘Issue of Notice’ to Mrs.Gandhi in September 2007 but it was only on February 14, 2008 that the Election Commission found a prima facie case had been made out by the petitioner for issuing notice.
When Sonia Gandhi, President of the Indian National Congress and Chairperson of the ruling United Progressive Alliance, accepted in person the highest honour given by the King of Belgium, the Order of Leopold, on 15 November, 2006, she should have realized the legal and constitutional implications of a sitting member of the Lok Sabha accepting such foreign titles having learnt the hard way the significance of Article 102 in the office of profit matter earlier.  Section (2) of Article 18 of the Indian Constitution says: “No citizen of India shall accept any title from any foreign state;”, and Section (4) says: “No person holding any office of profit or trust under the state shall, without the consent of the President, accept any present, emolument, or office of any kind from or under any foreign state.”

That Sonia Gandhi had not taken any permission from the President of India is evident from the fact that Dr.Abdul Kalam, who was then the President, had forwarded the representation from Advocate Rajan, seeking her disqualification as member of the Lok Sabha for accepting the award from the King of Belgium.

I fully endorse the view of Dr. Subramanian Swamy in this context: “The Order of Leopold is not an ordinary title given by a foreign power.  IT DEMANDS THE DEVOTION AND LOYALTY OF THE RECIPIENT TO THE KING OF BELGIUM.  Sonia Gandhi attended in person the investiture ceremony in Belgium and signed the register of the Association of the Order of Leopold, signifying her voluntary declaration of allegiance to the King of Belgium, a foreign monarch of a dubious reputation.  The Association of the Order of Leopold was established in 1944 with a view to displaying “eternal devotion to Belgium and to the monarchy.”  Every member of the Association must, under law, take an oath which says: “I swear not to undertake anything that could damage the respectability of the Order of Leopold and to fully observe the regulations and act as a loyal and faithful member.”  Attempt by the Congress to compare Sonia Gandhi accepting the Belgium award to Morarji Desai accepting Nishan-e-Pakistan award or India conferring Bharat Ratna on Nelson Mandela, is stupid.  The recipients in these cases were under no obligation to the country that offered the awards.  That a member of Indian Parliament should express devotion and loyalty to King Leopold who plundered and massacred the people of Belgium Congo, now called Zaire, is nationally demeaning and disgraceful.”
The legality of such split loyalty was settled in 1985 when a Full Bench of the Madras High Court [AIR 1985 Mad.855] disqualified K.S.Haja Sharief, an Indian citizen, from membership of the Tamil Nadu Legislative Council for accepting the title of Honorary Consul of Monaco, a tiny European country.

Dr Subramanian Swamy has rightly concluded that the Election Commission should therefore let Law take its course, and disqualify Ms.Sonia Gandhi.  She should also publicly apologize to the people of all Third World countries for declaring allegiance to a brutal, feudal oppressor of the Zaire people.  [For details of his murderous activities, read Hochschild, Adam: King Leopold’s Ghost-A Story of Greed, Terror, and Murder in Colonial Africa, Macmillan (1998) (ISBN: 0333661265)]. In a recent broadcast, the BBC held King Leopold responsible for 10 million deaths in Zaire, more than Hitler, who is had got killed 6 million Jews.
  
Abhishek Singvi, the Superincumbent Goebbels of the dying Nazi Sonia Congress Party today (who is supposed to be a Senior Lawyer to boot!) has spoken like a political Pawn Broker by saying that the Congress will give a strong and fitting reply to the Election Commission.  The people of India would like to know whether the Election Commission has issued the notice to whom—Sonia Gandhi? Abhishek Singhvi? The Congress Party?  Does Abhishek Singhvi talk in terms of Law of the Indian Constitution or in terms of LAW (LESSNESS!) of the Super-Sonia Constitution (Belgian plus Italian!)

Sonia Gandhi by her known methods of anti-national and anti-Hindu functioning, has created a kind of political public stage in India which can only be described in the beautiful words of T.S. Elliot (1888-1965): Shape without form, shade without colour, paralyzed force, gesture without emotion, men, figures stuffed with straw, gather on stony soil in a valley of dying stars.  They are empty without vision: they learn and act together without thought:  their voices whisper meaninglessly, through a land of stone images and death’s dream kingdom.  Here man cannot die decently.  He approaches his shabby end by way of a Nursery Rhyme—‘Here we go round the prickly pear’—a child’s game turns into an ironic litany of complete frustration.’ 
                                        

(II) IS THIS A ‘STALE’ OR NOT SO ‘STALE’ CASE, PLEASE!
15 -2-2008

V.SUNDARAM I.A.S.

If there is one person in India who is above the Law of the Constitution and who has been endowed and empowered to treat the Criminal Procedure Code, the Indian Penal Code and a Civil Procedure Code with  cavalier contempt it is Sonia Gandhi, the de-facto Prime Minister of India.

   
                                             
                                                           ORDER OF LEOPOLD
GIVEN TO SONIA GANDHI
 
She has a stranglehold on the flabby and fledgling apparatus of the crumbling Indian State. Not only the Hindus of Gujarat, Punjab, Uttaranjal and Himachal Pradesh but all the Hindus of India have come to realize that she owes her allegiance not to the Indian Constitution (either in letter or in spirit!) but to the Pope in Rome. 

This dictatorial de-facto Prime Minister covered herself with everlasting secular Congress  glory (instead of non-secular communal disgrace!) when she filed a false affidavit to the effect that she had studied in Cambridge University in England before the Returning Officer of Rae Barellie Parliamentary  Constituency in UP. She had deliberately concealed the fact that she had studied only in a Teaching Shop connected with teaching Language Courses When Dr Subramanian Swamy moved the Supreme Court of India through a Special Leave Petition in May 2007 to get her disqualified on this solid fact of her having filed a false Affidavit, the Supreme Court dismissed her Petition.  A three Judge Bench comprising Chief Justice K G Balakrishnan and Justices B P Singh and G P Mathur acted like an Oriental Potentate when it asked Dr Subramanian Swamy: “Should the Supreme Court go into all the Affidavits to find out whether they are false or not?  Further investigation is not possible into a stale issue and it should be dropped”.  As a Gentleman, Dr Swamy replied ‘if you take such a large-hearted view then the matter should be dropped.  I have nothing more to say’. 

I had written two articles in May 2007, under the title ‘The Darkest Day in our Legal History’ and ‘Cavalier Dethronement of the Rule of Law’ I had clearly stated how the Supreme Court of India functioned as a fountain head of planned and calculated injustice in giving the above ‘not so stale verdict’ in favour of Sonia Gandhi in gross violation of the letter and spirit of the Indian Constitution.  I had clearly stated that the common people of India would continue to express such feelings of anger and despair indefinitely till the end of time or till the Supreme Court of India functions as a partisan body at the highest level by dismissing all the vital issues affecting our national integrity and national survival as STALE matters.


Sonia Gandhi, lover of Belgium

Now it has come to light that after giving a false Affidavit in a disgraceful manner about her own educational qualifications in 2004, Sonia Gandhi went all the way to Belgium for accepting the ORDER OF LEOPOLD from the King of Belgium in November 2006.  By accepting this ‘Order’, Sonia Gandhi has shown that she not only owes her allegiance to the Pope in Rome, but also to the King of Belgium.  The Election Commission by a majority of 2:1 has decided to issue notice to the Congress President and de-facto Prime Minister Sonia Gandhi asking her as to why she should not be disqualified from acting as a Member of Parliament under Article 102 (1) of the Constitution for her having  accepted the  Order of Leopold from the King of Belgium.

Rajan, a public spirited lawyer from Kochi, being fully aware of the fact that a Member of Parliament in India cannot accept a foreign title that compromises with his or her allegiance or loyalty to India, investigated deeper to find out whether the Order of Leopold was an innocuous gilt-edged paper like the many innocuous Awards which many Social Clubs give to different categories of people. He found to his shock dismay that the Order of Leopold was no ordinary paper but a special title that demanded ‘devotion’ and ‘loyalty’ to the King and the State of Belgium in return from the person honoured with the title. 

Agitated by this shocking discovery, Rajan sent a complaint to the President of India in May 2007 pleading that Sonia Gandhi be removed as Member of Parliament for having acknowledged her allegiance to Belgian King and State by accepting the Order of Leopold. Fortunately for our country, the incumbent of the Rashtrapati Bhavan then was Dr APJ Abdul Kalam, a man of great integrity imbued with a sense of high nationalism founded on his lofty patriotism, in stark contrast with his Sonia-servile successor in that high office with dubious if not criminal credentials, and Dr Kalam promptly sent the complaint of Rajan to the Election Commission for careful consideration. 
When the Election Commission functions as the informal political Agent of Sonia Gandhi on the eve of recent Gujarat Elections, I had written in these columns an article describing our disgraceful Election Commission as a ‘Politically Partisan Election Commission’.  When the politically partisan Navin Chawla, a known and celebrated page boy of Sonia Gandhi to-day and Sanjay Gandhi and Indira Gandhi of yesterday (during Emergency in 1975-77), was appointed as Election Commissioner in April 2007, I had written an Article in these columns under the title ‘For God’s sake, go! Navin Chawla!’ I had clearly stated that as Secretary to the Lt. Governor of Delhi during Emergency in 1975-77, he was guilty of Emergency Excesses when he participated along with Sanjay Gandhi with gusto in the criminal process of subverting the constitution of India with impunity. His several deeds of misconduct were adversely commented upon by the Shaw Commission appointed by the Janatha Government after its sweeping victory in the Elections held in 1977.    Now recently on 31 January, 2008, 180 MPs of the National Democratic alliance have signed a petition addressed to the Chief Election Commissioner of India (CEC) asking him to recommend the “Removal of Navin Chawla as Election Commissioner” 
It is a well-known public fact that both Navin Chawla and S Y Quraishi owe their positions as Election Commissioners to Sonia Gandhi and the Congress Party.  Both of them take special pride in functioning as ‘political agents’ of Sonia Gandhi within the Election Commission.  Though the Former President of India Dr. Abdul Kalam forwarded the petition of Rajan to the Election Commission as early as in June 2007, yet the Chief Election Commissioner could do nothing because Navin Chawla and S Y Quraishi, owing their total allegiance to Sonia Gandhi and her family, checkmated Chief Election Commissioner Gopal Swamy for nearly 7 months. Navin Chawla seems to be under the mistaken impression that he can cleverly mislead the country by standing alongside Gopal Swamy in the matter of issue of notice to Sonia Gandhi on the Order of Leopold issue and alongside S Y Quraishi on the other aspect of reference to the Ministry of External Affairs. Navin Chawla knows full well that if he does not support Gopal Swamy on this aspect of the issue, then by his own abstention he would be forfeiting his claim to succeed Gopal Swamy as Chief Election Commissioner.  On the other aspect of referral to the Ministry of External Affairs, both Navin Chawla and S Y Quraishi are colluding as greyhounds together to hunt down Gopal Swamy.  Both these political hunters know that the Ministry of External Affairs under its ever-effeminate Minister Pranab Mukherjee will be waiting in combat-readiness to give a clean chit to Sonia Gandhi.
I fully endorse the view of N S Rajaram on the issue of Sonia’s acceptance of the Order of Leopold Award: Beyond the legalities and technicalities of accepting an award demanding allegiance and loyalty to a foreign sovereign, there is a moral dimension to it. King Leopold of Belgium was one of the worst mass murderers in history. His rule was the inspiration for Joseph Conrad’s Heart of Darkness and the movie Apocalypse Now.  The stark immorality of Sonia’s acceptance of this monstrous order— synonymous with slavery and genocide - should be highlighted, and not just the technical and legal aspects.  Sonia Gandhi’s acceptance of an award instituted in his name brings dishonor not only to India but also the illustrious name that she uses. Can you imagine a greater contrast between Mahatma Gandhi and King Leopold? It defiles a great name.  This should give an idea of Sonia’s level of culture and education. What next? A Hitler order?” 
Sonia Gandhi is guilty of political treason for having accepted the ‘Order of Leopold’ from the King of Belgium.  She is a known and established subverter of the Law of the Constitution.  She is a known and sworn enemy of the Hindus of India.  Dr Subramanian Swamy, former Union Minister and President of the Janata Party has given the right verdict on behalf of the people of India. I welcome the decision of the Election Commission to issue a notice to Ms Sonia Gandhi to show cause why she should not be disqualified under Article 102(1) of the Constitution to be a Member of Parliament. There should be no doubt in anybody’s mind that Ms Gandhi is indeed disqualified to remain an MP if one goes by the precedent settled by a judgment of the Full Bench of the Madras High Court in 1985 {see AIR 1985 Mad 855} wherein it was held  that an Indian citizen Mr K S Haja Sharief who was an MLC in the then Madras Legislative Council, stood disqualified for his receiving a title of Honorary Consul from a small European country. In Ms Sonia Gandhi’s case, she attended in person in the investiture ceremony in Belgium and signed the register of the Association of the Order of Leopold that clearly meant a voluntary declaration of allegiance to a foreign sovereign King of Leopold of Belgium.  Hence she stands similarly disqualified and unfit to be an MP of a de-colonised India.  Moreover, this award for a MP of a Third World country like India is shameful and degrading because King Leopold reigned over  butchery, plunder and murder of the people of Belgium Congo, an African country, now called Zaire.”


(III) FOR GOD'S SAKE, LET US HAVE DONE WITH NAVIN CHAWLA!
 (11-4-2007)
V.SUNDARAM I.A.S.


A few days ago, I had written about the fact of 205 MPs having sent a representation against the appointment of Navin Chawla as an Election Commissioner soon after his appointment to that post. I had also referred in detail to the Press Statement issued by L.K.Advani, Official Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha, warning the nation against the avoidable public dangers of Navin Chawla's continuance as an Election Commissioner.
Postings and transfers of senior bureaucrats have a crucial impact on two sectors - law and order including security and the delivery systems in the country. On both these counts we have reached a critical stage in our national history and we will be in a deeper crisis if the government of India under the effete and de jure Prime Ministership of Dr Manmohan Singh and the de facto machinating, manoeuvring, mendacious Prime Ministership of Madame Mother Superior with her epicentre in Italy continues to be afflicted with the Mother Superior Disease Syndrome (MSDS) of apoplexy at the centre and anaemia at the extremities.

Two months before his appointment as Election Commissioner on 16 May 16 using his clout with Mother Superior, Navin Chawla was moving for his appointment as Union Home Secretary. At that time on 16 March 2005 I wrote an article under the headline 'Shame Without Honour':
'The most spectacular Congress Party enforced classical principle in Indian bureaucracy is that whilst all bureaucrats of similar seniority are equal on paper, yet some chosen few are more equal than others. Navin Chawla belongs to the latter category, with a tremendous clout in the UPA government, thanks to his unbroken record of 'loyalty' and 'service' to the Nehru family. He was very close to Sanjay Gandhi and wielded unprecedented power in his official capacity as Secretary to the Lieutenant Governor of the Union Territory of Delhi Kishan Chand during the emergency in 1975-77. He functioned as the de facto Governor of Delhi and several bureaucrats who happened to interact with him during this period have confirmed the fact that he was known for his unabashed authoritarianism. His controversial role as secretary to the Lt. Governor of Delhi was noted by the Shah Commission which went into Emergency Excesses. Navin Chawla did not cover himself with glory when the Constitution of India was subverted with impunity during emergency. As one who occupied a vantage position during that period, he was charged with arbitrary exercise of authority. Any other officer with this kind of background would have been sidelined under the cliché-ridden 'Law will take its own course' umbrella. But there are spectacular exceptions to this general rule in our decadent and perverted democracy. Navin Chawla comes under the category of special exceptions and special exemptions under the law of the land'. For some unknown reasons, our poor nation was spared the ordeal of having a man of such exemplary character as Union Home Secretary!

As a free lance and unknown journalist, after penning the above helpless lines, I continued to remain a worm of the earth, earthy. But this exceptional man of spectacular pseudo-secular fire however soon rose by ascending spirals to dizzy heights. Navin Chawla was appointed as Election Commissioner in May, 2005. His track record of having subverted the Indian Constitution during emergency in 1975-77 and his several acts and deeds of misconduct during that period were buried under the sea and he was considered as suitable and fit for appointment as Election Commissioner of India. Justice Shah had commented on Navin Chawla in his report: 'Navin Chawla became the Lieutenant Governor of Delhi and Kishan Chand the Lieutenant Governor became Navin Chawla's Lieutenant'. Thus this Chawla, the distinguished Daftri (perhaps 'Chaprasi') of the Nehru dynasty and Sanjay Gandhi's Man Friday was illegitimately rewarded by the government of India for his life-long loyalty not to the nation but to a family. Thus the ghosts of the Emergency were finally exorcised by the elevation of Navin Chawla to the post of Election Commissioner!

In his farewell remarks, the then outgoing Chief Election Commissioner T.S.Krishnamurthy rightly commented that he feared the politicization of the Election Commission. Anyone with a clear conscience can reasonably deduce that perhaps Chawla's 'very' 'distinguished' background was very much in his mind when he made this comment.

I too had commented as follows in an evening newspaper in February 2006 that : 'Chawla's appointment as Election Commissioner was against the public interest and all the more objectionable because, by sheer seniority, Chawla would be the Chief Election Commissioner in 2009 when the general election is due. It may not be out of place or out of context to reasonably imagine that Sonia Gandhi has cleverly planted him in this post keeping in view the interest of her son Rahul Gandhi whom she wants to elevate to the post of Prime Minister of India in 2009. In case Navin Chawla performs as per her expectations in 2009, he may as well land up to begin with as the Vice-President of India and later with Sonia willing, may even become the Indian President! Normally when we are helpless we say that 'God only knows!' But unfortunately for India and for all of us, even God does not know. Perhaps 'Sonia only knows' - all the way, now and for ever!!'

One more striking instance of gross misconduct of Navin Chawla that came to light was the fact that he was using his official influence in the Indian Administrative Service, with the full blessings of his Mother Superior, to collect large sums of money for a non-governmental agency being run by his wife Rupika Chawla under the contrived umbrella of 'Social Work and Social Service'. It has been reported that Ambika Soni contributed Rs 15 lakh, Karan Singh Rs 10 lakh, A R Kidwai Rs 45 lakh and God only knows how much money other Congressmen contributed to this great humanitarian effort without parallel in chequered human history! Are they all preparing themselves for 2009 elections? Are they all doing strategic perspective planning?

Soon after his notification as Election Commissioner on May 16, 2005 Navin Chawla declared with a magisterial aplomb, that no money had been collected after his assumption of office as Election Commissioner. His response was both irrelevant and irresponsible. The moot question is whether before his appointment as Election Commissioner, he was a private citizen or a member of the IAS. If he was a member of the IAS, then he was very much governed by the All India Services Conduct Rules and as per these rules, any collection of unauthorized money unconnected with one's official duty from any member of the public or any organisation is prohibited. But as I have written several times earlier, right from day one of his entry into the IAS, he was exempted from all rules under the All India Services, first by Indira Gandhi, then by Sanjay Gandhi, again by Indira Gandhi after 1980 and subsequently by Rajiv Gandhi and Sonia Gandhi. I am saying all this only in the light of the fact that senior Congressmen have participated with gusto and enthusiasm with huge sums of money in the collection drive of the NGO controlled by his wife. The whole nation knows that their aim is not to wipe every tear from every eye! Their aim is only to wipe every tear from every eye in Mother Superior's family.

Against this irrefutable background, every law abiding citizen in India expects the Chief Election Commissioner of India to take note of this article and to initiate appropriate action against Navin Chawla as per the law. I would also appeal to the President of India to remove him forthwith from the post of Election Commissioner after following the prescribed procedure for functioning as an informal agent of the Congress party with the panoply of official authority for 30 years and more.

The Election Commission always talks with bravado about the need for a code of conduct amongst political parties and politicians. In this context I would like to make it clear that all the Election Commissioners themselves must have a code of conduct and they should all realize the fact that they too are not above the law of the land.

A legitimate question can be asked as to why I am choosing the words 'For God's sake, go! Navin Chawla!' My answer is this. In May 1940, when Neville Chamberlain was voted out of office as Britain's Prime Minister, one of his senior Cabinet Ministers called L.S.Amery played a key role in that exciting political drama. In a brilliant speech, he requested Neville Chamberlain to resign from his post immediately. On that momentous occasion, L.S.Amery produced an electrifying effect upon the House of Commons by recalling and quoting the historic words of Oliver Cromwell spoken to Long Parliament in 1653: 'You have sat too long here for any good you have been doing. Depart, I say, and let us have done with you. In the name of God, go'.

(IV) FOR GOD'S SAKE, GO! NAVIN CHAWLA !

(9-2-2006)
                                  V SUNDARAM I.A.S.


Navin Chawla

Postings and transfers of senior bureaucrats have a crucial impact on two sectors - law and order including security and the delivery systems in the country. On both these counts we have reached a critical stage in our national history and we will be in a deeper crisis if the government of India under the effete and de jure Prime Ministership of Dr Manmohan Singh and the de facto machinating, maneuvering, mendacious Prime Ministership of Madame Mother Superior with her epicenter in Italy continues to be afflicted with the Mother Superior Disease Syndrome (MSDS) of apoplexy at the centre and anemia at the extremities.

Two months before his appointment as Election Commissioner, using his clout with Mother Superior, he was moving for his appointment as Union Home Secretary. At that time on 16 March 2005 I wrote  under the headline 'Shame Without Honour':
'The most spectacularly classical evidence in Indian bureaucracy is that whilst all bureaucrats of similar seniority are equal on paper, yet some chosen few are more equal than others'. 

Navin Chawla belongs to the latter category, with tremendous clout in the UPA government, thanks to his unbroken record of 'loyalty' and 'service' to the Nehru family. He was very close to Sanjay Gandhi and wielded unprecedented power in his official capacity as Secretary to the Lieutenant Governor of the Union Territory of Delhi Kishan Chand during the emergency in 1975-77. He functioned as the de facto Governor of Delhi and several bureaucrats who happened to interact with him during this period have confirmed the fact that he was known for his unabashed authoritarianism. His controversial role as secretary to the Lt. Governor of Delhi was noted by the Shah Commission which went into Emergency Excesses. Navin Chawla did not cover himself with glory when the Constitution of India was subverted with impunity during emergency. As one who occupied a vantage position during that period, he was charged with arbitrary exercise of authority. Any other officer with this kind of background would have been sidelined under the cliché-ridden 'Law will take its own course' umbrella. But there are spectacular exceptions to this general rule in our decadent and perverted democracy. Navin Chawla comes under the category of special exceptions and special exemptions under the law of the land'. 

As a free lance and unknown journalist, after penning the above helpless lines, I have remained of the earth, earthy. But Navin Chawla has risen by ascending spirals to dizzy heights. He was appointed as Election Commissioner in May, 2005. His track record of having subverted the Indian Constitution during emergency in 1975-77 and his several acts and deeds of misconduct during that period were buried under the sea and he was considered as suitable and fit for appointment as Election Commissioner of India. Justice Shah had commented on Navin Chawla in his report: 'Navin Chawla became the Lieutenant Governor of Delhi and Kishan Chand the Lieutenant Governor became Navin Chawla's lieutenant'. Thus this Chawla, the distinguished Daftri (perhaps 'Chaprasi') of the Nehru dynasty and Sanjay Gandhi's Man Friday was illegitimately rewarded by the government of India for his life-long loyalty not to the nation but to a family. Thus the ghosts of the Emergency were finally exorcised by the elevation of Navin Chawla to the post of Election Commissioner.

In his farewell remarks, the outgoing Chief Election Commissioner Krishnamurthy rightly said that he feared the politicization of the commission. Perhaps Chawla's shady and sordid background was very much in his mind when he made this comment.

Chawla's appointment as Election Commissioner was against the public interest and all the more objectionable because, by sheer seniority, Chawla would be the Chief Election Commissioner in 2009 when the general election is due. It may not be out of place or out of context to reasonably imagine that Sonia Gandhi has cleverly planted him in this post keeping in view the interest of her son Rahul Gandhi whom she wants to elevate to the post of Prime Minister of India in 2009. In case Navin Chawla performs as per her expectations in 2009, he may as well land up to begin with as the Vice-President of India and later with Sonia willing, may even become the Indian President! Normally when we are helpless we say that 'God only knows!' But unfortunately for India and for all of us, even God does not know. Perhaps 'Sonia only knows' - all the way, now and for ever!!

One more striking instance of the reprehensible conduct of Navin Chawla has recently come to light. Using his official influence in the Indian Administrative Service and with the full blessings of his Mother Superior, he has collected large sums of money for a non-governmental agency being run by his wife Rupika Chawla under the contrived umbrella of 'Social Work and Social Service'. Ambika Soni seems to have contributed Rs 15 lakh, Karan Singh Rs 10 lakh, A R Kidwai Rs 45 lakh and God only knows how much money other Congressmen have contributed to this great humanitarian effort without parallel in human history! Are they all preparing themselves for 2009 elections? Are they all doing strategic perspective planning?

Navin Chawla has stated that after his appointment as Election Commissioner, no money has been collected. His response is both irrelevant and irresponsible. The moot question is whether before his appointment as Election Commissioner, he was a private citizen or a member of the IAS. If he was a member of the IAS, then he was very much governed by the All India Services Conduct Rules and as per these rules, any collection of unauthorised money unconnected with one's official duty from any member of the public or any organisation is prohibited. But as I have stated earlier, right from day one of his entry into the IAS, he was exempted from all rules under the All India Services, first by Indira Gandhi, then by Sanjay Gandhi, again by Indira Gandhi after 1980 and subsequently by Rajiv Gandhi and Sonia Gandhi. I am saying all this only in the light of the fact that senior Congressmen have participated with gusto and enthusiasm with huge sums of money in the collection drive of the NGO controlled by his wife. The whole nation knows that their aim is not to wipe every tear from every eye! Their aim is only to wipe every tear from every eye in Mother Superior's family.

Soli Sorabji, the former Solicitor General of India, has rightly suggested that Navin Chawla should step down. But as one who has voluntarily chosen the path of shame without honour, it is not unlikely to expect Navin Chawla to treat the observation of Soli Sorabji with indivisible contempt. I expect the Chief Election Commissioner of India to take note of this article and to initiate appropriate action against Navin Chawla as per the law. I would request the President of India to remove him forthwith from the post of Election Commissioner for functioning as an informal agent of the Congress party with the panoply of official authority for 30 years and more.

The Election Commission always talks with bravado about the need for a code of conduct amongst political parties and politicians. In this context I would like to make it clear that all the Election Commissioners themselves must have a code of conduct and they should all realise the fact that they too are not above the law of the land.


(V)SHAME WITHOUT HONOUR
(16-3-2005)

V.SUNDARAM I.A.S.


Mr. B G Deshmukh former Union Cabinet Secre­tary has appositely observed: 'Transfers of bureaucrats have a crucial impact on two sectors - law and order and security and the delivery systems the country. On both these counts we have reached a critical stage and we will be in deep trouble very soon if we do not control/tackle this now .

People who are worried about good governance in India are quite shocked by the recent news item that the present Union Information and Broadcast­ing Secretary Mr Navin Chawla is being tipped for the post of Union Home Secretary which is now being held by Mr Dhirendar Singh. Mr Dhirendar Singh is retiring on 31 March, 2005. Mr. Navin Chawla is due for retirement on 31 July, 2005.

The most spectacularly classical element in Ind­ian bureaucracy is that whilst all bureaucrats of similar seniority are equal on paper, yet some cho­sen few are more equal than others. Mr Navin Chawla belongs to the latter category with tremen­dous clout in the UPA government thanks to his unbroken record of loyalty and 'service' to the Nehru family. He was very close to Sanjay Gandhi and wielded unprecedented power in his official capacity as Secretary to the Lt. Governor of the Union Territory of Delhi Mr Kishan Chand during Emergency in 1975-77. He functioned as the de­-facto Governor of Delhi and several bureaucrats who happened to interact with him during this period have confirmed the fact that he was known for his unabashed authoritarianism. His controver­sial role as Secretary to the Lt Governor of Delhi as noted by the Shah Commission which went into emergency excesses. Mr Nayin Chawla did not cover himself with glory when the Constitution India was subverted with impunity during emer­gency. As one who occupied a vantage position during that period, he was charged with arbitrary exercise of authority. Any other officer with this kind of background would have been sidelined under the cliche-ridden 'Law will take its own course' umbrella. But there are spectacular exce­ptions to this general rule in our decadent and
Perverted democracy.

It is here that I have to say with sadness that the politicisation of the bureaucracy in India has been carried to absurd lengths and heights. Under the existing rules, the Union Cabinet Secretary can go on up to 62 years, unlike the other Union Secretaries who retire at 60 years. I understand that a proposal is being put up before the Union Cabinet for raising the age of retirement of Union Home Secretary and Union Defence Secretary to 62 years on par with Union Cabinet  Secretary. The politicisation of this loaded proposal is being cleve­rly and surreptitiously sneaked into the frame-work of rules by the UPA  government proposition that the benefit of this upward revision will not be available to the existing incumbent in the post of Union Home Secretary who is retiring on 31 March, 2005.

It is understood that Mr.Navin Chawla will replace Mr.Dhirendra Singh as Union Home Secretary on 1st April, 2005. He is likely to be the first beneficiary of the new rule raising the age of retirement of Union Home Secretary from 60 to 62 years. Thus the UPA government is endeavouring to stealthily operate under the umbrella of the so-called Rule of Law by bringing in an amendment to existing rules and regulations in order to provide special advantage exclusively to one individual, to the particular exclusion of not only the existing incumbent in the post of Union Home Secretary but also general exclusion of several who are equally qualified if not more for the post. There are several officers belonging to the 1968 batch and 1969 batch very much senior to Mr.Navin Chawla with a track record of outstanding and unblemished service and who would get side-lined in their last years of service for want of political patronage.

The concern for upholding the cause of so-called public interest cannot be so easily invoked in the case of Mr Navin Chawla because if that is the objective basis for raising the age limit of retirement for Union Home Secretary from 60 years to 62 years, then Mr.Dhirendra Singh, the present Home Secretary, would be the first to qualify for the benefit of the revised rule. No responsible government committed to the enforcement of the rule of law under the constitution can afford to have shifting and personalised approach to the enforcement of common rules. It cannot be argued that the factor of upholding the cause of public interest under the new rule can take effect only from 1st April 2005. We cannot have arbitrarily chosen cutoff dates in the matter of primacy of public interest. Justice is truth in action and not blatant untruth in snappy action. The UPA government should not forget that there is a justice, but we do not always see it. Discreet, smiling, it is there, at one side, a little behind injustice, which makes a big noise.

Aeschylus in his The Eumenides (458 BC) observed for all time: Nobody has a more sacred obligation to obey the law than those who make the law. Wrong must not win by technicalities.

The only consolation we have today is that such decisions do not 'bureaucratically' emanate from the ivory towers of the Prime Minister's Office but 'democratically' arise from a Private Residence on a road dedicated to the common people ap­propriately called JANPATH-the path of the people.

The morale of the bureaucracy in Now Delhi has been shattered by the UPA government's approach to postings and transfers. After the death of Nehru in 1964, all political parties in India have used bureaucrats as their private handles or, if I may say so, as disposable condoms. No bureaucrat can survive in any sensitive post if he is unwilling to carry out the illegal or immoral or irregular dic­tates of his political masters, some of whom have functioned as boisterous thugs with full legal and constitutional protection in post-independent In­dia. And if there is a bureaucrat who wilt heed his political master, he will be given a prime posting. In his individual case, rules would be so applied or interpreted or changed or modified as to suit the political convenience of the moment both ---­for the Master and the Servant, Lord and Serf, Guild-master and Journeyman, Freeman and Slave, in a word the Oppressor and the Oppressed. BUREAUCRATS OF INDIA UNITE YOU HAVE NOTHING TO LOSE BUT YOUR CHAINS!!

In the Western context, according to Black's Dic­tionary of Law: The Rule of Law refers to a legal principle, of general application, sanctioned by the recognition of authorities, and usually expressed in the form of a maxim or logical proposi­tion. The rule of law, sometimes called the su­premacy of law, provides that decisions should be made by the application of known principles or laws without the intervention of discretion in their application.

The notion of the rule of law, however, does not merely imply the existence of law and its applica­tion. It was developed in the context of Western liberalism as a means of restraining arbitrary actions by those in power.

According to Friedrich A Hayek, rule of law means that: government in all its actions is bound by rules fixed and announced beforehand; rules which make it possible to foresee with fair cer­tainty how the authority will use its coercive pow­ers in given circumstances and to plan one's indi­vidual affairs on the basis of this knowledge: More concretely, rule of law means, first, that laws must be applicable to every individual in a given soci­ety; second, the rulers must follow the laws as the ruled do; and third, the ruler's behaviour is pre­dictable. Rule of law is the very foundation of hu­man rights. In the Western legal tradition, law is applied equally to all; it is binding on the lawgiver and is meant to prevent arbitrary action by the ruler. Because the rule of law means that government must never coerce an individual except in the enforcement of a known rule, it constitutes a limitation on the powers of all government.

Viewed against this background, I can assert in the light of my own experience in the Indian Ad­ministrative Service for 29 years that all the politi­cal parties in India after independence have uni­formly voted for the RULE OF MEN in replace­ment of the RULE OF LAW. The Congress Party has done this on Secular principles; the BJP has done it on Hindutva principles; the DMK party on Rational(!) Periyar end Anna principles; the AIADMK party on MGR principles(?) and the Com­munist Party on Leninist and Marxist principles!! All of them have enslaved all the bureaucrats of India, and through the bureaucrats, the dumb mil­lions of India In the name of so-called democracy (sham!) and social (in!)justice.

The rule of law is a recognition of the government's obligation to the citizenry. In arbi­trary governments, like the present UPA govern­ment all are equally slaves. A vague and indefi­nite obedience, to the fluctuating and arbitrary will of any superior, is the most abject and complete form of slavery.

Most unfortunately, the UPA government's mod­ern interpretation of the term 'law' is an invitation to the abuse of power. The English jurist Sir Will­iam Blackstone declared in 1765 that 'law is not a transient order from a superior to or concerning a particular person or thing, but something permanent, uniform, and universal'.

The US Supreme Court declared in 1907, 'Law is a statement of the circumstances in which the public force will be brought to bear upon men through the courts.'


But nowadays In India taws are being increasingly introduced to bind ordinary citizens in arbi­trary ways. Laws are often getting carved in the political fluctuations of expediency. In the Indian context, a law is simply a reflection of the momen­tary perception of set-interest by a majority of Members In a legislative body. It is binding only until enough Members of that body find it in their self-interest to repeal or revise it. Thus Law is increasingly something that Government does to helpless private citizens until further notice from time to time.

The flood of laws and revision of laws in India amounts to perpetually changing the rules of so­ciety all the time. Laws are always on the eve of the next sweeping revision, creating an atmo­sphere of Iegal  instability and uncertainty. Neither the legislators nor the bureaucrats in our country now have any sense of the sanctity of law---of the idea that law should not be changed simply for momentary political convenience. The more often government officials change the rules by which individuals will be judged, the more those individuals will be left to the Government's mercy, since most citizens do not know and cannot possibly understand the law and regulations they mot obey.

In our country during the last 30 years; support for the classical concept of the Rule of Law has evaporated. Instead, competing bands of self seeking intellectuals have been championing either the Executive Branch or Legislative Branch or Judicial Activism or some other fleeting fad from time to time. Rather than focus on the actual operations of Government Agencies, political thinking is often characterised by a `Do it now!’ philosophy. Discretionary power has been granted to bureaucrats in India by many laws because Ministers and political leaders in India don't have the courage to say openly what they want the bureaucracy to do, leading to government by stealth.

Arbitrary power is thus the mirror image of the Indian Rule of Law. Arbitrary power destroys morality, for there can be no morality without security. Arbitrariness is incompatible with the existence of any government considered as a set of institutions. For political institutions are simply contracts; and it is in the nature of contracts to establish fixed limits. Hence arbitrariness, being precisely op­posed to what constitutes a contract, undermining the foundation of all political institutions. The essence of arbitrary power in India is government’s refusal to issue clear rules limiting its prerogative to punish or reward its servants and citizens. .

If the posts of Union Home Secretary and Union Defense Secretary are to be treated on par with Union Cabinet Secretary in terms of their public importance, then I would appeal for the intervention of the Supreme Court of India to declare that these posts can also be filled up only by going through a Constitutional Committee headed by the Vigilance Commissioner as has already been done in the case of appointment of Director of the CBI.

I have one more suggestion to make. There should be an Act of Parliament to prevent politicians from interfering in the transfers and postings of senior bureaucrats from the level of Joint Secretary and above. This Act must ensure that every posting must have a minimum tenure of two or three years; it does not matter which, though three years is better. With statutory backing; three year, should be enough to do justice to any job. If the public servant is shifted before his tenure is complete, the reasons should be recorded in writing and these should be communicated to him. So, if necessary, he can go to the administrative tribunals and have the decisions overturned: But even if the government feels that the reasons for his transfer cannot be given in the larger public interest, these should be so told to the officer being transferred out.

What is justice? Socrates asked that question at the beginning of Plato's Republic, and we have all been asking ever since. It was, perhaps, the first great philosophical question, and it is still the most important and unavoidable philosophical question, embracing as it does not only those essential questions about what we deserve in life and same disturbing questions about how we should punish those who hurt us but also all of those basic questions about the good life - what it is, how to find it, how to live it.

Moral of the story: You have to be singularly un­scrupulous in order to be magnificently successful (Not only for the post of Union Home/Defence/Cabinet Secretary)

Jo kuch ho! JAI HIND.

CONCLUSION:

Daily Prayer of Navin Chawla

May we be united in Sonia heart
May we be united in Sonia speech
May we be united in Sonia feelings
May we be united in Sonia thoughts
May we perform our Sonia duties
May we be united in our Sonia prayer
May the Goddess of Sonia Day Grant us Peace and Prosperity
May the Goddess of Sonia might grant us Ministerial Offices
May the Goddess of Sonia space grant us all Power.

No comments: