Usurpation of Jurisdiction is dishonesty of Hon'ble Justice?

Complaint in respect of functioning of Justice Dr. B.S. Chauhan in respect of his functioning as Allahabad High Court Judge, Now elevated as Chief Justice of another High Court
To,
My lord The Chief Justice Of India,
Hon’ble Supreme Court Of India,
New Delhi
Reference:- The Division Bench presided over by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dr. B.S. Chauhan and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dilip Gupta has decided the special appeal No. 1369 of 1999 wholly without Jurisdiction , as the jurisdiction to hear and decide the same on 26.10.2006, the listed special appeals for the year of 1999 for hearing including the bunch cases was conferred by the authority of Hon’ble Chief Justice to the division bench presided over by their lordships Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.K. Agrawal and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vikram Nath in Court no.2 Gupta under the prerogative and the authority of the Hon’ble chief justice in consonance with the requirement of Chapter V Rule 1 of Allahabad High Court Rules. It is submitted that the Special appeal no. 1369 of 1999 was not even listed in court no. 34, but since the record of the said special appeal no. 1369 of 1999 was summoned in furtherance of recall application filed in dismissed special appeal no 840 of 1999 by the bench presided over by Hon’ble Justice Dr. B.S. Chauhan and Hon’ble Justice Dilip Gupta. There is a complete procedure prescribed for having the jurisdiction being conferred by Hon’ble the Chief Justice for deciding the special appeal and without any nomination being conferred to the particular Hon’ble Division Bench by the specific order of Hon’ble Chief Justice, the jurisdiction conferred and allotted to them by the order of Hon’ble Chief Justice or in accordance with his lordship’s direction under Rule 1 of Chapter V of Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 The judgement dated 26.10.2006 passed in Special Appeal 1369 of 1999 is contradiction to the order passed in special appeal No. 860 of 1999(Dismissed on 2.4.2004), special appeal No. 907of 1999 (Dismissed on 14.9.1999 and special appeal No. 840 of 1999 (Dismissed on 23.11.2004). All the Appellants filed their appeals against the same judgement, and the appellants of special appeal No. 907of 1999 (Dismissed on 14.9.1999 and special appeal No. 840 of 1999 (Dismissed on 23.11.2004)were also impleaded as respondents in present special appeal no. 1369 of 1999 and thus the judgement passed ex-parte in special appeal no. 1369 of 1999 on 26.10.2006 is passed against the principle of natural justice causing prejudice and barred by constructive Res- judicata
Subject:- Direction may be issued for deciding the matter pertaining to recall of order and judgement dated 26.10.2006 passed in Special Appeal 1369 of 1999 passed wholly without Jurisdiction by Hon’ble Justice Dr. B.S. Chauhan and Hon’ble Justice Dilip Gupta as the record of the said special appeal no. 1369 of 1999 was summoned in furtherance of recall application filed in dismissed special appeal no 840 of 1999 by the bench presided over by Hon’ble Justice Dr. B.S. Chauhan and Hon’ble Justice Dilip Gupta, when the Special appeal no. 1369 of 1999 was not even listed in court no. 34 as the listed special appeals for the year of 1999 for hearing including the bunch cases was conferred by the authority of Hon’ble Chief Justice to the division bench presided over by their lordships Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.K. Agrawal and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vikram Nath in Court no.2
The submission of the petitioner Prem Shankar Sharma, aged about 64 years, son of Sri Ram Bhajan Lal Sharma, , Lecture in English (Retired) in Ambika Prasad Intermediate College, Near Police station, Moradabad resident of Mohalla- Shuklan (Near Chaurasi Ghante of Mandir) Moradabad, District Moradabad in this regards are as under.
That the Petitioner was appointed as Lecturer in English in the institution on 9.8.1968. He was confirmed after completion of probation period on 9.8.1969. He was the member of Rashtriya Swamsevak Sangh and as such he was detained under the maintenance of Internal Security Act from 14.8.1975 to 30.3.1977. He was again detained under National Security Act (N.S.A.) on 1.11.1980 upto 10.12.1980 and despite the aforesaid preventive detention; the respondents paid the petitioner salary. That third time when on 11.7.1987 the petitioner went to Govt. Inter College, Moradabad to take training under the new education policy, he was detained under the provisions of Internal Security Act. That the petitioner was taking the training alongwith the principal of institution and one Khajan Giri and as such he told the Principal to inform the Manager about his arrest, but still the Manager wrote a letter on 24.7.1987 stating therein that the petitioner did not attend the college and was not present in the institution on 21.7.1987.That on 27.7.1987 the petitioner wrote a letter that he was arrested by the Police at the gate of Govt. Inter College, and had been lodged in district Jail Moradabad from 11.7.1987. This letter was sent through district Jail Moradabad and the same was communicated to the Manager, who sent the aforesaid letter to the D.I.O.S. Moradabad on 31.7.1987.That the members of Bhartiya Janta Party shown its resentment against the illegal detention of the petitioner and the news to this effect was published in Amar Ujala on 16.7.1987. Thus the management knew the fact regarding the absence of petitioner on account of unavoidable circumstances of his illegal detention, but still the allegation of absent from leave was leveled against the petitioner.That Sri Kameshwar Nath Mishra, Senior Lawyer of District Court Moradabad and the Vice-President of Committee of Management of Institution passed resolution on 15.7.1987 seeking bye cot of all the courts Moradabad on account of illegal arrest of petitioner. That still the resolution was passed on 4.9.1987 to give a notice to the petitioner as to why he remained absent from 11.7.1987 and sought for his explanation. The notice was sent to the petitioner in jail on 10.9.1987 stating therein that why his services should not be terminated. The explanation of petitioner regarding his absence being beyond his control as had been detained under the National Security Act and the earlier information sent to the manager on 27.7.1987 was not taken into consideration by the management. That the charges were in respect of previous detention for which the petitioner was paid his salary was also leveled as the first charge, while the second charge was falsely concocted, as the petitioner did not give any information regarding his detention, nor gave any leave application. The petitioner explained every thing in his letter dated 21.1.1988 and said that he is district Jail due to illegal detention and as such the absence of petitioner was beyond his control. The sole reason for the detention of the petitioner was that he was the District Secretary of Bhartiya Janta Party. That the petitioner was suspended, but the suspension order was revoked after 60 days. It is submitted that after being released from the preventive detention on 11.7.1988, the petitioner was directed to put his signature in the office of D.I.O.S. Moradabad, as the Management did not allow the petitioner to resume his duties. The petitioner was paid salary by the D.I.O.S. even after the preventive detention. That despite all such facts the matter was referred to the U.P. Secondary Education service Commission, Allahabad to whom petitioner sent a letter on 24.2.1989 seeking setting aside the proposal of the Committee of Management, but the one member committee who was not even authorized to conduct the enquiry recommended for termination of services of the petitioner and thereafter the U.P. Secondary Education service Commission, Allahabad on 28.7.1989 granted approval to the proposal for termination.That one member committee of O.N. Shah who remained Assistant Manager of the Committee of Management of the Institution on 17.5.1987 and was the Principal of S.S.K. Inter College could not be appointed as one member committee and his recommendation to dispense with the services to the commission were void-ab- initio and as such the subsequent order of termination dated 1.9.1989 on the baseless, misconceived and frivolous charges was liable to be set aside, which was done by the reasoned judgement passed on 11.8.1999 in writ petition no. 24443 of 1989.
The said judgement was challenged by the Committee of Management in Special Appeal no. 840 of 1999.That after the dismissal of special appeal no. 840 of 1999 when the recall application was filed without serving the copy of said application to the counsel for the petitioner, then the division bench presided over by Hon’ble Justice Dr. B.S. Chauhan and Hon’ble Justice Dilip Gupta after going through the contents of the counter affidavit filed in the said application seeking recall of the order dated 23.11.2003, summoned the file of the special appeal no. 860 of 1999 (filed by Sudhir Kumar dismissed on 2.4.2004), the Special Appeal no. 907 of 1999 (filed by U.P. Secondary Education Service Commission dismissed on 14.9.1999) and also the record of pending present Special appeal no. 1369 of 1999, simply to ascertain the matter in consonance with the requirement as to whether the recall application filed on behalf of the committee of management may be allowed or the same may be dismissed in absence of any rejoinder affidavit to the allegations made in the counter affidavit filed by the petitioner. That the special appeal no. 840 of 1999 was dismissed as not pressed on 23.11.2003 by the Division Bench presided over by the Hon’ble Dr. B.S. Chauhan and Hon’ble Dilip Gupta, JJ. The aforesaid appeal was filed by the Committee of Management of Ambika Prasad Intermediate College, Moradabad challenging the judgement and order dated 11.8.1999 passed by Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.M. Sahai J in writ petition no. 24443 of 1989 (Prem Shankar Sharma Vs. State of U.P. and others). Thereafter an application for recall of the order dated 23.11.2003 purported to have been passed in the Special Appeal no. 840 of 1999 without annexing the judgement dated 23.11.2004 dismissing the aforesaid Special Appeal no. 840 of 1999 was filed without serving the copy of said application to the counsel for the Petitioner. That the Petitioner filed the counter affidavit in reply to the affidavit filed in support of the recall application. It was stated that the judgment can not be recalled by moving an application at belated stage and the copy of the same is not given to the counsel appearing on behalf of answering respondent. That it was further stated that the said application is filed without having any explanation regarding non-filing of application seeking condonation of delay. Thus the same is not maintainable and liable to be rejected. That it was further stated that the Special Appeal no. 860 of 1999 filed by Sudhir Kumar against the same judgement dated 11.8.1999 passed by Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.M. Sahai, J has been dismissed on 2.4.2004. This person Sudhir Kumar was inducted as the Lecturer in English after dispensing the services of the petitioner. However, when the writ petition no. 24443 of 1989 was allowed on 11.8.1999, then the services of Sudhir Kumar were terminated and as such he filed the Special appeal no. 860 of 1999, which was also dismissed and thereby reaffirming the judgement dated 11.8.1999. That the special appeal no. 907 of 1999 was filed against the same judgement passed on 11.8.1999 by Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.M. Sahai in writ petition no. 24443 of 1989, but that special appeal was also dismissed as misconceived and also being filed without any locus-standi by the judgment dated 14.9.1999.
That on 26.10.2006 the jurisdiction to here the listed special appeals for the year of 1999 for hearing including the bunch cases was conferred by the authority of Hon’ble Chief Justice to the division bench presided over by their lordships Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.K. Agrawal and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vikram Nath in Court no.2. It is submitted that the present Special appeal no. 1369 of 1999 was not even listed in court no. 34, but since the record of the said special appeal no. 1369 of 1999 was summoned in furtherance of recall application filed in special appeal no 840 of 1999 by the bench presided over by Hon’ble Justice Dr. B.S. Chauhan and Hon’ble Justice Dilip Gupta and as such only to ascertain the facts stated in the counter affidavit and in the affidavit filed in support of the alleged recall application, the records of three aforesaid special appeal was summoned, wherein the name of the counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner/respondent namely Sri Ashok Khare, Advocate was the only name mentioned in special appeal no. 1369 of 1999. That the Standing counsel was not prepared to argue the matter pertaining to the special appeal no. 1369 of 1999 filed by the State of U.P. in absence of the same not being listed in court no. 34 and in absence of Sri Ashok Khare, senior Counsel appearing in the said appeal on behalf of petitioner. This fact has been brought to the notice of the deponent by his counsel appearing in Special appeal no. 840 of 1999, which was dismissed on 23.11.2004.That the division bench presided over by Hon’ble Justice Dr. B.S. Chauhan enquired about the matter from Sri V.K. Singh Advocate appearing in special appeal no. 840 of 1999 and also enquired from the counsel for the respondent only about the controversy involved in all such special appeal out of which three special appeals were already dismissed while the special appeal no. 1369 of 1999 filed by State of U.P. was surviving. The counsel informed that the question as to whether a teacher while detained under Preventive detention could have been said to be voluntarily absenting from duty on the basis of which without affording any opportunity, the services of such teacher may be dispensed with in gross violation of the principle of natural justice and the case law relied upon in the judgement dated 11.8.1999 (state of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Rama Shankar Raghuvanshui A.I.R. 1983 S.C. 374), (M.H. Devendrappa Vs. Karnataka State in Small Industries Development Corporation. A.I.R. 1988 S.C. 1064), Sarnam Singh Vs. Smt Pushpa Devi 1986 (1) U.P.L.B.E.C. page 348 and Anukool Chandra Pradhan Vs. Union of India A.I.R. 1997 S.C. 2814, State of Orissa Vs. Dr. Miss. Bina Pani Dei and others 1967 (2) S.C.R. 625 (Para-9), Mohinder Singh Gill VS. Chief Election Commissioner 1978 (2) S.C.R. 272 (Para-9), State of West Bengal Vs. Anwar Ali Sarkar 1952 S.C.R. 284 followed in D.K. Yadav Vs. M/S J.M.A. Industry J.T. 1993 (3) S.C. 617 as well as the provisions of Regulation 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 44 and 45 read with section 16 (G) (3-A) as provided under Chapter III of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 and rule 6 of rules framed under Act no. 5 of 1982 referred in the judgement dated 11.8.1999 were indicated as the controversy involved regarding unavoidable incident relating to the arrest under preventive detention, which is not pertaining to any criminal activity, but simply on account of participating into association under Article 19 (1) ( C) of the Constitution of India. The matter was not argued by the standing counsel, but in the judgment allegedly delivered on 26.10.2006, it has been falsely mentioned that the case was argued by the learned standing counsel appearing for the State Appellant. The counsel for the petitioner in Special Appeal No. 840/1999 Sri Yogesh Kumar saxena, Advocate informed the deponent that it was only Sri V.K. Singh, Advocate appearing in Special appeal No. 840/1999, who placed the controversy involved in his special appeal no. 840 of 1999.That on 1.11.2006, when the matter was shown to be listed in the cause list of court no. 34 regarding the delivery of the order in the recall application filed in special appeal no. 840 of 1999 then counsel for the petitioner was informed that since the special appeal no. 1369 of 1999 filed by the State of U.P. was also liable to be dismissed and as such it has been shown to be decided on 26.10.2006 in the cause list of 1.11.2006. That upto this time i.e. 1.11.2006 there was no existence of the order alleged to have been passed on 26.10.2006 in the special appeal no. 1369 of 1999 on the basis of which the recall application was decided as no order is required to be passed on this application, but subsequently thereafter when the message of dismissal of special appeal no. 1369 of 1999 was communicated to the petitioner, then counsel for the petitioner came to know about the existence of the order. He applied for the order in anticipation that the special appeal bearing special appeal no. 1369 of 1999, which was earlier filed as (defective) appeal no. 630 of 1999 might have been dismissed as there may not be the inconsistent order in the said appeal after dismissal of three special appeals filed against the same judgement, in which the committee of Management and Secretary U.P. Secondary Commission remained at the array of respondents and were duly represented by their respective counsels. That, although the order passed on 23.11.2004 dismissing the Special Appeal No. 840 of 1999 has been affirmed by the order dated 26. 10. 2006 passed on Recall application, as it has been noted that in view of the judgement passed in special appeal No. 1369 of 1999, no order is required to pass on the recall application. Thus it appears that even by this order passed on 26.10.2006, the Hon’ble Division Bench dealing with the recall application in special Appeal No. 840 of 1999 did not find any merit in the said appeal. The Hon’ble division bench Presided by Hon’ble Dr. justice B. S. Chauhan adopted a unique manner in deciding the present Special Appeal wholly without jurisdiction purported to have decided on the same day, to which no person could have decided in the open court on 26.10.2006, otherwise their was no occasion for listing of the case on 1.11.2006 in the cause list for appropriate order on the recall application filed in Special Appeal no. 840 of 1999. Thus the judgement passed in special Appeal is bad in the light of the legal fiction that what not be done directly in absence of jurisdiction, the can not be done indirectly by the Hon’ble Division Bench presided over by Hon’ble Dr. B.S. Chauhan and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dilip Gupta in passing the judgement on 26.10.2006 passed in special Appeal No. 1369 of 1999.
That in this manner since the judgement passed in the special appeal no. 1369 of 1999 by the bench presided over the Hon’ble Justice Dr. B.S. Chauhan and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dilip Gupta is the judgment passed in absentia of the counsel of the petitioner/respondent appearing in the said appeal namely Senior Counsel Sri Ashok Khare, Advocate for the petitioner in writ petition no. 24443 of 1989, which was the only name printed as the sole name of the opposite party; and the same special appeal no. 1369 of 1999 was neither listed for hearing under the caption of the jurisdiction, nor there had been any serial number mentioned against the said listing of the special appeal, regarding which, the communication could have been made to the senior counsel Sri Ashok Khare, Advocate appearing on behalf of petitioner by the other counsel appearing in special appeal no. 840 of 1999 at the time of its dismissal on 23.11.2004. There was no jurisdiction conferred with the division bench presided over by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dr. B.S. Chauhan and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dilip Gupta to decide the special appeal of the year of 1999 as the jurisdiction of the same was conferred before court no. 2 under the prerogative and the authority of the Hon’ble chief justice in consonance with the requirement of Chapter V Rule 1 of Allahabad High Court Rules. The judgement dated 26.10.2006 passed in Special Appeal 1369 of 1999 is contradiction to the order passed in special appeal No. 860 of 1999(Dismissed on 2.4.2004), special appeal No. 907of 1999 (Dismissed on 14.9.1999 and special appeal No. 840 of 1999 (Dismissed on 23.11.2004). All the Appellants filed their appeals against the same judgement, and the appellants of special appeal No. 907of 1999 (Dismissed on 14.9.1999 and special appeal No. 840 of 1999 (Dismissed on 23.11.2004)were also impleaded as respondents in present special appeal no. 1369 of 1999 and thus the judgement passed ex-parte in special appeal no. 1369 of 1999 on 26.10.2006 is passed against the principle of natural justice causing prejudice and barred by constructive Res- judicata as held in Sarguja Transport Service versus State Transport appellate Tribunal (1987)1 S. C. C. 5.( paragraph 7)

That it is submitted that there is the complete procedure prescribed for having the jurisdiction being conferred by Hon’ble the Chief Justice for deciding the special appeal and without any nomination being conferred to the particular Hon’ble Division Bench by the specific order of Hon’ble Chief Justice, the matter may not be decided by another coordinated Hon’ble Division Bench, except the Hon’ble Division Bench having the jurisdiction conferred to the different benches as per the circulation of cause list circulated to the Hon’ble benches and members of the Bar.
That the constitution of the benches as per the jurisdiction conferred and allotted to them by the order of Hon’ble Chief Justice or in accordance with his lordship’s direction under Rule 1 of Chapter V of Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952. The Registrar shall subject to such direction as Hon’ble Chief Justice may give from time to time caused to be prepare a cause list for each day on which the court sits containing the list of cases, which may be heard by different benches of court under Rule 6 of Chapter VI of High Court Rules, 1952.
That an application for expediting of hearing of case or for listing a case out of term or for removal of case to be tried and determined by the court under Rule 4 or for withdrawal of a case under Article 228 of the Constitution of India shall be laid before Hon’ble Chief Justice (or any other judge of a bench nominated by Chief Justice in respect of any case or class of cases) for orders. Thus for having an out of term hearing of a case, the application is required to be moved before the Hon’ble the Chief Justice.
That in this manner, it is crystal clear that if the case is not listed in the cause list after determination of heading for what purposes aforesaid matter is being listed, the other coordinate Division Bench dealing with other jurisdiction shall not be empowered to decide such case except by getting the nomination of the matter by the order of Hon’ble Chief Justice.
That the other aspect of the matter is pertaining to the determination of the reason for which a particular case is being listed in the cause list circulated to the bench and the members of Bar, the case may not be decided by any other coordinated Division Bench without it being posted for hearing.
That the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 have been promulgated in exercise of the power conferred under Article 225 of the Constitution of India and all other powers enabling it on that behalf. Thus the strict observation and compliance of mandatory provisions is required to be observed by the Hon’ble Court in consonance with requirement of Principle of equity, fairness and in such circumstances if the practice and procedure prescribed in this regard is not followed then the deviations from the rules of court may violate Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
That in the light of the aforesaid legal propositions advanced by the deponent / writ petitioner, it is submitted that the present special appeal without being listed in the daily cause list either under the separate serial number in the cause list, nor it remain listed with the appropriate heading ‘For Hearing’, but the same has been decided without giving notice to the counsel appearing for respondent.
That under the provisions of Chapter V Rule 1 of High Court Rules, 1952, the sole prerogative of the Hon’ble Chief Justice to decide the particular subject matter conferred on particular bench for particular period. If the decision of the subject matter by some other bench is taken up without being listed at the serial number under the heading of the hearing or without the case being Part-heard or tide-up, if the decision is given by the other bench without nominating by the Hon’ble Chief Justice the judgement will be without jurisdiction and nullity.
That, it is in the interest of justice that the order dated 26.10.2006 passed in Special Appeal no. 1369 of 1999 may be set aside and the Hon’ble Chief Justice refer the matter to Hon’ble Three Judges, as justice may be done with the rights of the applicant/petitioner.
Prem Shankar Sharma, aged about 64 years, son of Sri Ram Bhajan Lal Sharma, , Lecture in English (Retired) in Ambika Prasad Intermediate College, Near Police station, Moradabad resident of Mohalla- Shuklan (Near Chaurasi Ghante of Mandir) Moradabad, District Moradabad

Is India worth saving in present Political system?

Is India worth saving? Is democracy worth saving? These are the two fundamental questions we must address now - before it is too late. Indians values are disappearing rapidly as we lose our independence and our sovereignty. Every Indian is having the debt upon him at the time of his birth of 140 dollars, which is equivalent to Rs. 6000/- each. According to the calculation of World Bank in 2005 , India was ranked as debt ridden countries list at Seventh place. It was undergoing through the debt of 165.4 dollar upon each Indians. The continuation of dynastic rule by Gandhi era has become consciously or unconsciously the foreign Rule. No one Single handedly may elect the representative of the voter to the electoral college. The concept of spirit inherently personal choice of the voter to get their representatives in electoral college has been completely vanished. Exercise of liberty vote is overburdened with !) to evaluate expression less action performance at the behest of the people in power2)to select the candidate as representatives from the limited choice imposed upon the voters by party system 3) to express their adult franchises like a illiterate voters amongst the limited choice between the rascals nominated by party as god fathers mainly on the basis of money power or by choosing an idiot, who may be ruled with remote control even on the post of President and Prime Minister 4) Criminals may be given free hand to take a political decision under the garb of appeasement 5) Nehru- Gandhi nexus which remain responsible for creation of Pakistan has again risen their heads to divide India , Pakistan and Bangla Desh in many Segmentations. This is virtually the Concept of Rule of majority vote. The country is being dismantled after more than a half century of nation building. On 26th January, 1950, Dr. Bhim Rao Ambedkar said that India will become Independent Country. India has been lost by it’s infidelity and treachery by some of our own people. The invasion of Sind by Invader Momd. Bin Kasim as the Military commanders of King Dahar accepted the Bribes and they refused to fight. It was Jai Chandra “Arjun”, who invited Mohammad Ghori to invade Sri Prithivi Raj Chauhan and promised help of himself and of the King Solanki. History has been repeated in case of Afzal again. Their will be another hijacking of Plane to get him release. The attackers on the Court premises are well protected by these traitors living in our country and killing the so called infidels under the banner of Jihad?. Our independence , after creation of Pakistan is again in jeopardize and probably we may loose it forever On 23rd Feb. 2000 , Sri K.R. Narayanan, President of India promulgated “ The National Commission to Review the Working of the Constitution by a message:- Right of vote under universal adult Franchise gives Right and opportunity to participate Every men in Democratic process and select a Govt. However we all know that the election system in India may not get the rid to the system of Corruption, Crimilisation , money, nepotism , favoritism and Muscle power. Home Minister of India accepts in 2002: - There are the defect in election system, but it is difficult to blame for it to the Government, it’s officers, and to the Political Parties. Sri Bimal Jalan said that Common Citizen is concerned about Administrative apathy, Corruption and failure to provide Promised benefit to the poor Farmers. India is ranking Highest in the Global corruption level of World. Here is dismal Ranking in Human Development. We may see poverty as the caste to the people is placed above for elimination of poverty, alleviation, hunger, Illiteracy and health. This problem is Systemic and never projected like Episodic to the people. We are losing control of our most important industries. As we give up domestic ownership of our assets, we lose the most exciting and challenging jobs, which too often move to the new corporate headquarters outside India- and young people who want those jobs must follow. It's part of the brain drain. In effect, India has become a victim of "Globalization". We are told this process is both inevitable and good. It is only inevitable if we let it happen. It is only good for twenty percent of the world's richest and most powerful people. It is bad for the vast majority. We need debate for participation of 1000 people for electoral college candidates in future election process to come forward and eliminate the monopoly of limited Choice for selecting the representatives by the voters. There must be the implementation of systematic Solution , even at the cost of absurdity and obsessive- ness in the defective system. We have to search the effect- cause and relationship in reformative trends. There may be some strategy to represent majority of farmers for making a proposal to provide them the cost of International Market. There may be tortuous liability and lesser faire policy of functioning be made accountable. Let criminals may know that Crime is a bad Bargain to them. The license Quota System be abolished and Religious activities be prohibited on public Premises as secularity of nation in Multifarious religious country be Maintained

Taj Mahal and All Indian Monuments are Hindu Distorted Temple?- Late P.N.Oak Research

A TRIBUTE TO SRI P.N. OAK

This Letter was written before he passed away on 4th December, 2007.
Mr. P.N. Oak. Austere by nature, a journalist by profession, a historian by hobby a researcher by accident and a freedom fighter by design Mr. Oak is one of his kind.
Born on March 2, 1917 at Indore (Cntral India) in a Maharashtrian Brahmin family he obtained his M.A. LLB Degrees from Mumbai University worked as a tutor in English at Fergussan College, Pune for a year and later joined the army got posted to Singapore at the age of 24.
He was one of the organizers of Indian national Army (INA) and a co-worker of Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose. After the end of world war II Oak walked back and hitch niped from Singapore to Dimapur in Assam.
From 1947 to 1974 his profession has been mainly journalism having worked on the editorial staff of Hindustan Times and The Statesman, as a class I officer in the Ministry of Information an Broadcasting (Govt. of India) and as Editor in American Embassy’s information service (USIS), all in New Delhi.
From 1963 onwards Mr. Oak has been putting out copious evidence through his research papers articles lectures slide chans and books proving that the historic mansions gardens, mosques, towers mansoleums and town ships ascribed to Moslems in India are in reality pre-moslem property belonging to and built by Hindu rulers.
Because of his hobby of visiting historic edifices it struck him as very odd that though muslims ruled India for over a thousand years ( 712 to 1857 A.D.) they are said to have raised mostly tombs and mosques, but no palaces. The other oddity in current history is that even native Indian ( Hindu) rulers for 7000 years from Pandavas to Prithviraj Chauhan are not known to have had many palaces of their own.
After years of concentrated thinking on those two enigmas it suddenly struck him that historic edifices throughout India tamtommed as tambs and mosques, could be captured, misused and misadvertised palaces and temples raised by Hindu rulers.
That inducd him to investigate further collect evidence and take a second harder look at historic edifices through out India which convinced him that his hypothesis was correct.
Thus, since he had discovered a great blunder in Indian history he wondered whether world history was faultless. And to his shock and surprise he discovered that world history too has numerous drawbacks.
For instance though there was no Islam before 622 A.D. none of the muslim countries throughout the world teaches any pre Islamic history of its region. Likewise no Christian country throughout the world teaches any pre-christian history.
These discoveries nudged him to found an organization which would teach the world of its (Pre-islamic and pre-christian) vedic Sanskrit heritage which held full sway throughout the world. He wrote several books braving the displeasure of his employers and the ruling Govt.
Charges of being communal were hurled at him. His books were banned from the library of parliament persecuted and prosecuted OAK faught his own case and was pronounced ‘not gulty’ by the court of law.
Supported by his family and friends he went ahead and founded the Institute for Rewriting Indian History which further grew to be The Institute for Rewriting world history.
Mr. OAK was invited for felicitation and lectures by various (N.G.O.) institutions and individuals. He traveled all over India and abroad and evoked great care from his readers and followers.
All his discoveries have so far remained unchallenged.

The Public Interest Petition/ Social Action litigation bearing Writ Petition No. 36818 of 2004 pending before Hon’ble Allahabad High court is sought to be transferred to the Hon’ble Supreme Court Of India in exercise of the powers Conferred with the Apex Court Under Article 139A of Constitution of India. This Writ Petition is filed in Public Interest on behalf of the Institute of re-writing Indian History through its Founder President, Shri P. N. Oak S/o Late Shri Nagesh Krishna Oak R/o- Plot No. 10, Goodwill Society, Aundh, Pune-411007 challenging the virus of The Ancient Monuments Preservation Act, 1904 read with The Ancient and Historical Monuments and Archeological Sites and Remains (Declaration of National Importance) Act, 1951, replaced by The Ancient Monuments and Archeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958. This writ petition is further seeking the relief for appointing a facts finding committee for exposing the falsehood of the Archeological Department regarding the historical blunder by recognising Taj Mahal as built by Shahjahan. This Writ Petition has not even dealt with by then Hon’ble Acting Chief Justice Mr. M. Katju and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sunil Ambwani , but referred to another Co-ordinate Division Bench comprising of Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dr. B. S. Chauhan and Hon’ble Justice Mr. Dilip Gupta . Shri P. N. Oak, the Founder President, the Institute of re-writing Indian History was born on 2nd March 1917 at Indore and fought a battle of independence in associations with Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose. He has got his faith report in our judicial institution for the protection of National Monuments of Taj Mahal, Agra Red Fort, Etmauddaula, Fatehpur Sikri from further destruction by adopting the device to hide Hindu religious symbols hidden inside two or three storey Red Stone Building Covered with the Earthly gardens from front side ;but fully exposed from its back side of Jamuna River side of this monument of great National Importance. This is now lying within the control of the Wakf Act,1995 by claiming the existence of Mosque inside these buildings. This is a glimpse of the picture coupled with preposition based on the evidence on the basis of the research work conducted by Sri P. N. Oak, Prof. R. Nath of Rajasthan University, Jaipur and further supported by Prof. Agam Prasad Mathur and Smt. Pratima Asthana, both of them are great historians and they are also former Vice- Chancellor of Agra University and Gorakhpur University respectively.
This is an endeavor by the great Indians, as history may not be thought to the children by deceptive mode of appeasement policy in favour of our so called Muslim Minority, which has resultant in division of the country and creating an insurgencies in Jammu and Kashmir and by inciting an attack on Parliament.
Advocates have to perform three fold duties at a time; i.e. duty to protect the legal interests of his Clients, to behave like the officers of the courts and also to protect the society from the atrocities committed in any form by the custodian of public Interest. The protection of the Fundamental Rights of Expression, Freedom Of Conscience, Faith and Religion of the Children undertaken their education in the subject of History with false identifications and ruthless invasions to their culture vedic heritage are one of the utmost importance to protect by Advocates by filing the Public Interest Litigation. Article 49 envisaged a duty to protect Ancient Monuments, which are repository to our tradition, culture, and architecture achievements. In this regard Shri P. N. Oak, through his research work conducted on the basis of historical evidences has proved that the glorious, marvelous seventh wonder of the world namely “ Taj Mahal” is a Hindu Temple/Palace constructed by Raja Parmarde Dev a Jat Ruler in 1155 to 1158 AD on behalf of Minister Salakahan, which remain in occupation of Raja Man Singh and thereafter taken over by Emperor Shahajahan from the possession of Raja Jai Singh in exchange of Government gratis on the death of Arjumanbano, Mumtaj Zeelani died on 17th June 1631 AD. The historical evidences in support of his research work are the admission of Mughal Emperor Shahajahan himself in his Badshahnama written by Shahjahan’s own court chronicler, Maula Abdul Hamid Lahori. The relevant description at Page no. 403 Vol.-1 of Badshanama admit the aforesaid revelation. The said document is now kept in National Archives, New Delhi. The second contemporary document is prince Aurangzabe’s letter written to his father in Persian language reporting the tomb-complex (Taj Mahal) being very old and ancient structure with cracks and leakage from it as early as in 1652 A.D. Which has been noticed by Archeological Survey of India. The third documentary evidences are Ex-Maharaja Jaipur Kapad Dwara collection bearing two Farmans written by Shahjahan on December 18, 1633 having modern exhibition no.R-176 and R-177 demanding Makrana Marble for Koranic grafts and the stone cutter for scaffolding Koranic scripts (after removing the Sanskrit verse disclosing the creation of the Shiva Temple). The entire structure is having octagonal chamber with spiritual meant for its tuning by beating Drums, blowing Crunch (Shanks), playing on Golden Thaal, Roaming the Bells , while worshiping in dedicated manner infront of 3 metre long Shivlingi. The remains of which have been discovered at Bateshwar Mela locality situated nearby to the location of Taj Mahal, which is described at Ingraphia Indica Vol-1 at Lucknow Museum. This crystal white Marvel Stone Shiva Temple was so alluring that Lord Shiva once enshrined in it has decided never to return to mount Khailash Parwat, which is considered Lord Shiva’s usual abode. The central circle surrounded by another circle depicting 16 Cobra snakes carvings, 32 Tridents and 62 Lotus buds and all these motifs multiple of 8( Eaight) are of Vedic significance. The great square, black basaltic pillar with the base and the capital of another similar pillar found in the deep crack of Dome found by Shri S. R. Roa, the Superintendent Archeological Department at Agra having report of Archeological Survey of India Vol- IV page 216 to 217 are the proof in respect of its identity as Shiva Temple. The symbol of Swastik, OM, Lotus, Snake, Peacock, Trident, Coconut, Pitcher, Mango Leafs, Banana Tree and recital of Sanskrit Stanzas now removed clandestinely by Mughal Ruler and carving of Koranic scripts in tiles pasted with Black cement filled up over Koranic script may further fortified the existence of the temple prior to its conversion. It so happened that one Aamlak (Used at the top of the golden coverage to the deity) has been recently discovered by the Superintendent of Archeological Department at Agra Near Cow Protection shelter, but the matter was subsided by the Government under pressure of appeasement policy, which was adopted from the time of Lord Auckland and his young Lieutenant Alexander Cunninghum by conceived indigenous scheme of misusing the provision of The Ancient Monuments Preservation Act,1904 read with The Ancient and Historical Monuments and Archeological Sites and Remains (Declaration of National Importance) Act, 1951, further replaced by The Ancient Monuments and Archeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958.
The hidden Red Stone chamber below the Marble Stone Building of Taj Mahal
( formally the Shiva temple) now converted into Muslim Monuments by scaffolding 4 grave yards inside there on 3rd and 4th floor of the Marvel Stone Building, two of alleged Arjuman Bano Mumtaz Zilani and two of Shahjahan’s. The construction of these grave-yards on third and fourth chambers are themselves the perpetuation of the fraud committed by foreign Invaders but inspite the wooden doors were found 800 years old through Carbon Dating tests conducted in America in 1965, none of the intellectual, scholar, historian has risen to the occasion to teach correct history to children under their valuable rights of expression and speeches , which includes rights of information and being protected under Article 19 (1) (a), which is now having the statutory force under the provisions of Freedom of Information Act, 2002 coupled with their Rights of Conscience and Faith. The missing chapter of the world history, the misuse and destruction’s of our Vedic literature and creating the rift between Hindu and Muslims as a deep conspiracy committed by Lord Auckland in connivance with Lieutenant Alexander Cunninghum in 1842-1847 under the policy of “Divide and Rule” may not be allowed to be perpetuated after the dawn of our independence. The truth will not make us rich; but it will certainly make us free from false foundation of the slavery. This aspect of matter requires dedications towards Nation, sincerity in action and protection of Integrity of our country; for which Chatrapati Shivaji Maharaj, our Great Guru Govind Singh and Maharaja Maharana Pratap, Maharani Rani Laxmi Bai have sacrificed their life. It is said that the democracy can not survive and our Constitution can not work unless Indian citizens are not allowed to live beyond the bondage of slavery in order to built their moral character and inherent virtue by developing a scientific temper to strike towards excellence by exposing to falsehood beyond truth.

This is a massage communicated through the advocates, who have joined the profession not for doing any trade, business and as a moralistic professional but their consciences are pricked by visualising the injustices suffered by the children undertaking the historical teaching based on falsehood and deceptiveness, who are representing to the petitioner and also to those intervener namely Maha-Mandaleshwar Swami Vedvyasanand Saraswati Geeta Ashram International Charitable Trust having its registered office at Geeta Ashram, Post Swargashram, Rishikesh, Tehsil Kotdwar, District-Pauri Garhwal through its Sanchalak/manager Swami Sudharmanand Saraswati ji Maharaj and also to some registered society PURWAI, on whose behalf this appeal to save the monuments of Indian historical importance form further distrection by mismanagement may not be structure and the incident like Godhra Carnage and attack on Indian Parliament may not be attempted by the terrorist activities propagating on the basis of falsehood. The propriety of the Judicial institution in due discharge of its responsibility is dependent upon the factor that any party to the litigation may not be subjected to suffer adversely either directly or indirectly by any order passed by the court of law. There is a difference in passing a wrong judgement and in subservient the cause sponsor before the judicial institution after affiliation in the matter. The modus operandi may not be explicit by the same is always hidden inside the veracity of such order. For unjust cause, the court may not divest its extra ordinary jurisdiction to provide such individual striving for perpetuation of an unjust cause by the court of law.
The question arises that since the law cannot afford any relationship other than the truth, there is no favorite, which may be blunted by legal jugglery. It is said that the reason varies in its conclusions according to the idiosyncrasy of the individual personality by the reasoning should be built up for which an old scholastic logic stands for. This is like jingling of a child's toy. Thus a decision of a Judge usually determines, hat is reasonable belonging to the knowledge of law, which is likely to be decided rationally within the parameter of reason, which substitutes subjectivity by objectivity. The question arises as to whether the Hon’ble Courts are merely to act by overlooking the object to arrive at the truth is obliviously the role of the Hon’ble Court by ensuring that any material facts, which are brought on record may not resultant in the judgement by miscarriage of justice. The dignity of the ocean lies not in its furry capable of causing destruction but in the expansion of the gratitude by vast expansion of the receptivity.
The question arises as to whether a wrong decision rendered in absence of established norms of judicial parameter by adequate acceptance of the logic advanced by the party may not be tantamount the obliteration from the prescribed standards adhered with the judicial evaluation. There may be the error committed by the Judges in passing the order and judgement but if the provisions of the law itself are providing the impediment for the grant of relief claimed, even after recording such Ryder providing obstacle in carving out a judgement, the judgement shall be deemed to have been passed with extraneous consideration behind which, may also be the corruption. The Hon’ble Court while dealing may always keep the paradox of demonstrative style for imparting justice to fulfill the three ingredients of the elementary principles of natural justice in the mind. It has been held if the charges are levelled by imputation of character assassination, in such circumstances the Hon’ble Court while exercising the power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India must always be susceptible for grant of the relief.
Fraud and justice never dealt together as fraud neither defends nor excuses any man. It is bound to expose by the afflux of time which is apparently visible in the given instance of passing the Judgement in the same matter, in such cases the consensus of the public is pricked by divulging to the process of recapturing the allegation levelled having impunity in exercise of our justice delivery system by the Constitutional Court.
Yogesh Kumar Saxena
Advocate, High Court
H.I.G.203, Preetam Nagar, Sulem sarai, Allahabad-211001
yogrekha@gmail.com, yogrekha@rediffmail.com, yogrekha@yahoo.co.in
Founder President- World Citizenship Group Foundation, Swami vevekanand world ethical foundation,
Executive Member- World Parliament Experiment conference 2008 at Bonn (germany),
Vice President- Geeta Asharam International Cheritable Trust, Rishikesh, Pauri Garhwal
Ex Vice President- Advocate’s Association, High Court, Allahabad

The Real Threat to Indian Democracy

The real threat to Indian democracy is from the new breed of politicians who are taking advantage of the institution of democracy to create dynasties, a form of demonarchy such as that perpetuated by the Nehru Dynasty. There was an interesting editorial in Wall street Journal prior to UPA’s election to power in India.
The editorial starts with a quote from Jawaharlal Nehru: “HISTORY TELLS US THAT HEREDITY BREEDS FOOLS IN POLITICS AND EMPIRES.” What a profound quotation! The editorial was in reference to Sonia Gandhi of India who claims entitlement to power, because her mother-in-law, Prime Minister Indira, died in her lap!
The editorial cites others as well, Sukarno Putri of Indonesia for one who has a similar hold on the literate and semiliterate citizenry of Indonesia. She claims that her father shows up in her dreams to advise her. Then, of course, we have Sirimavo Bandaranaike, Benazir Bhutto, all from fledgling democracies. Little did poor Jawaharlal Nehru dream that heredity breeding fools would apply to his family too after his demise! It is unthinkable that Jacqueline Kennedy would even remotely be proposed to succeed her fallen husband or Itzak Rabin’s wife to succeed her assassinated husband. Indian politics so deteriorated after Nehru’s death that Socialist Party leader Ram Manohar Lohia called Indian Democracy “A Brahmin-Baniya Oligarchy.” We will explore whether he was correct or hyperbolic. There are four conditions that are required for demonarchy: 1. Government control of media 2. Dictatorial laws, and/or non-enforcement of law and order, 3. Control of economy (centralized), and 4. Manipulation of electoral process. For example, by first appointing candidates from top to bottom by party hierarchy at the apex and then electing them. All these conditions prevail in Indian democracy which makes it demonarchy.
GANDHI’S(Nehru) FAMILY TREE
At the very beginning of his book, “The Nehru Dynasty”, astrologer K. N. Rao mentions the names of Jawahar Lal’s father and grandfather. Jawahar Lal’s father was believed to be Moti Lal and Moti Lal’s father was one Gangadhar Nehru. And we all know that Jawahar Lal’s only daughter was Indira Priyadarshini Nehru, Kamala Nehru was her mother, who died in Switzerland of tuberculosis. She was totally against Indira’s proposed marriage with Feroze. Why? No one tells us that Now, who is this Feroze? We are told by many he was the son of the family grocer. The grocer supplied wines etc. to Anand Bhavan, preciously known as Ishrat Manzil, which once belonged to a Muslim lawyer named Mobarak Ali. Moti Lal was earlier an employee of Mobarak Ali. What was the family grocer’s name? One frequently hears that Rajiv Gandhi’s grandfather was Pandit Nehru. But then we all know that everyone has two grandfathers, the paternal and the material grandfather. In fact, the paternal grandfather is deemed to be the more important grandfather in most societies. Why is it then nowhere we find Rajiv Gandhi’s paternal grandfather’s name? It appears that the reason is simply this Rajiv Gandhi’s paternal grandfather was a Muslim gentleman from the Junagadh area of Gujrat. This Muslim grocer by the name of Nawab Khan, had married a Parsi woman after converting her to Islam. This is the source where from the myth of Rajiv being a Parsi was derived. Rajiv’s father Feroze was Feroze Khan before he married Indira, against Kamala Nehru’s wishes. Feroze mother’s family name was Ghandy, often associated with Parsis and this was changed to Gandhi, sometime before his wedding with Indira by an affidavit. The fact of the matter is that (and this fact can be found in many writings) Indira was very lonely. Chased out of the Shantiniketan University by Guru Dev Rabindranath himself for misdemeanor, the lonely girl was an by herself while father Jawahar was busy with polities pretty women and illicit sex; the mother was in hospital. Feroze Khan, the grocer’s son was then in England and he was quite sympathetic to Indira and soon enough she changed her religion, became a Muslim women and married Feroze Khan in a London mosque. Nehru was not happy; Kamala was dead already or dying. The news of this married eventually reached Mohandas Karan Chand Gandhi. Gandhi urgently called Nehru and practically ordered him to ask the young man to change his name from Khan to Gandhi. It had nothing to do with change of religion, from Islam to Hindustan for instance. It was just a case of a change of name by an affidavit. And so Feroze Khan became Feroze Gandhi. The surprising thing is that the apostle of truth, the old man soon to be declared India’s Mahatma and the ‘Father of the Nation’ didn’t mention this game of his in the famous book. ‘My Experiments with Truth’ Why? When they returned to India, a mock ‘Vedic marriage’ was instituted for public consumption. On the subject, writes M. O. Mathai (a longtime private secretary of Nehru) in his renowned (but now suppressed by the GOI) ‘Reminiscences of the Nehru Age’ on page no. 94, second paragraph: “For some inexplicable reason, Nehru allowed the marriage to be performed according to Vedic rited in 1942. An inter-religious and inter-caste marriage Vedic rites at that time was not valid in law. To be legal, it had to be a civil marriage. It’s a known fact that after Rajiv’s birth Indira and Feroze lived separately, but they were not divorced. Feroze used to harass Nehru frequently for money and also interfere in Nehru’s political activities. Nehru got fed up and left instructions not to allow him into the Prime Minister’s residence Trimurthi Bhavan. Mathai writes that the death of Feroze came as a relief to Nehru and Indira. The death of Feroze in 1960 before he could consolidate his own political force, is itself a mystery. Feroze had even planned to remarry. Those who try to keep tabs on our lenders in spite of all the suppressions and deliberate misinformation are aware of the fact that the second son Indira (or Mrs. Feroze Khan) known as Sanjay Gandhi was not the son of Feroze. He was the son of another Moslem gentleman, Mohammad Yunus. Here in passing, we might that the second son was originally named Sanjeev. It rhymed with Rajiv, the elder brother’s name. It was claimed to Sanjeev when he was arrested by the British police in England and his passport impounded, for having stolen a car. Krishna Menon was then India’s High Commissioner in London. He offered to issue another passport to the felon who changed his name to Sanjay. Incidentally, Sanjay’s marriage with the Sikh girl Menaka (now they call her Maneka for Indira Gandhi found the name of Lord Indra’s court dancer rather offensivet) took place quite surprisingly in Mohammad Yunus house in New Delhi. And the marriage with Manaka who was a model (She had modeled for Bombay Dyeing wearing just a towel) was not so ordinary either. Sanjay was notorious in getting unwed young women pregnant. Menaka too was rendered pregnant by Sanjay. It was then that her father. Colonel Anand threatened Sanjay with dire consequences if he did not marry her daughter. And that did the trick. Sanjay married Menaka. It was widely reported in Delhi at the time that Mohammad Yunus was unhappy at the marriage of Sanjay with Menaka; apparently he had wanted to get him married with a Muslim girl of his choice. It was Mohammad Yunus who carried the most when Sanjay died in the plane accident. In Yunus book, ‘Persons, Passions & Polities’ one discovers that baby Sanjay had been circumcised following Islamic custom, although the reason stated was phimosis. It was always believed that Sanjay used to blackmail Indira Gandhi and due to this she used to turn a blind eye when Sanjay Gandhi started to run the country as though if were his personal fiefdom. Was he black mailing her with the secret of who his real father was? When the news of Sanjay’s death reaches Indira Gandhi, the first thing she wanted to know was about the bunch of keys which Sanjay had with him. Nehru was no less a player in producing bastards. At least one case is very graphically described by M. O. Mathai in his “Reminiscences of the Nehru Age” page 206. Muthai writes: “In the antumn of 1948 ( India became free in 1947 and a great deal of work needed to be done) a young woman from Benares arrived in New Delhi as a sanyasin named Shraddha Mata ( an assumed and not a real name). She was a Sanskrit Scholar well versed in the ancient Indian scriptures and mythology .People including MPs, thronged to her to hear her discourses. One day S. D. Upadhyaya, Nehru’s old employee, brought a letter in Hindi from Shraddha Mata. Nehru gave her an interview in the PM’s House. As her departed, I noticed ( Mathai is speaking here) that she was young, shapely and beautiful. Meetings with her became rather frequent , mostly after Nehru finished his work at night. During one of Nehru’s visits to Lucknow, Shraddha Mata turned up there, and Upadhyaya brought a letter from her as usual . Nehru sent her the reply, and she visited Nehru at midnight…. Suddenly Shraddha Mata disappeared. In November 1949 a convent in Bangalore sent a decent looking person to Delhi with a bundle of letters. He said that a young woman from northern India arrived at the convent a few months ago and gave birth to a baby boy. She refused to divulge her name or give any particulars about herself. She left the convent as soon as she was well enough to move out but left the child behind. She however forgot to take with her a small cloth bundle in which, among other things, several letters in Hindi were found. The Mother superior, who was a foreigner , had the letters examined and was told they were from the Prime Minister. The person, who brought the letters surrendered them,. “I ( Mathai) made discreet inquiries repeatedly about the boy but failed to get a clue about his whereabouts. Convents in such matters are extremely tightlipped and secretive. Had I succeeded in locating the boy. I would have adopted him. He must have grown up as a Catholic Christian blissfully ignorant of who his father was.” Coming back to Rajiv Gandhi, we all know now that he changed his so called Paris religion to become a Catholic to marry Sania Maino of Turin, Italy. Rajiv become Roberto. His daughter’s name is Bianca and son’s name is Raul. Quite cleverly the same names are presented to the people of India as Priyanka and Rahul. What is amazing is the extent of our people’s ignorance in such matters. The press conference that Rajiv Gandhi gave in London after taking over as prime minister of India was very informative. In this press conference , Rajiv boasted that he was NOT a Hindu but a Paris Mind you, speaking of the Paris religion, he had no Paris ancestor at all. His grandmother (father’s mother) has turned Muslim after having abandoned the Paris religion to marry Nawab Khan. It is the western press that waged a blitz of misinformation on behalf of Rajiv. From the New York Times to the Los Angles Times and the Washington Post the big guns raised Rajiv to heaven. The children’s encyclopedias recorded that Rajiv was a qualified Mechanical Engineer from the revered University of Cambridge. No doubt US kids are among the most misinformed in the world today. The reality is that in all three years of his tenure at that University Rajiv had not passed a single examination. He had therefore to leave Cambridge without a certificate. Sonia too had the same benevolent treatment. She was stated to be student in Cambridge. Such a description is calculated to mis lead Indian. She was a student in Cambridge all right but not of the University of Cambridge but of one of those fly by night language schools where foreign student come to leave English. Sonia was working as an ‘an pair’ girl in Cambridge and trying to learn English at the same time. And surprise of surprises, Rajiv was even cremated as per vedic rites in full view of India’s public. This is the Nehru dynasty that India worships and now an Italian leads a prestigious national party because of just one qualification – being married into the Nehru family. Maneka Gandhi itself is being accepted by the non-Congress parties not because she was a former model or an animal lover, Let us examine demonarchy of Nehru/Gandhi dynasty first. Kuldip Nayar outlines the events surrounding Nehru’s terminal days and the succession to the prime minister’s position. One of his loyalists, Kamaraja Nadar, approaches Nehru and asks whether he should install his daughter as the Prime Minister (P.M.). Nehru was supposed to have said “not now” which implied “later.” Nehru could not degrade himself to ask that his daughter be chosen to succeed him. He had the dignity and cognizance of his place in Indian History and reputation in the world. Then the Congress party operatives elected Lal Bahadur Shastry to Prime-minister-ship as a stop-gap. After his untimely death in a short time Nehru’s daughter Indira Gandhi was elected as the P.M. with the help of party operatives. She had no legislative experience. The socialist leader Ram Manohar Lohia called her a sugar doll – gudia ki daal (it would melt away if he licked it!). She was not a natural democratic leader by popular assent, although she mastered political intrigue under the tutelage of her father for 17 years. The very first time she encountered a threat to her power, she resorted to tyranny by declaring the state of Emergency, the only emergency being nothing but a threat to her power. Nehruvian Democracy Vs Jeffersonian Democracy Jeffersonian constitutional democracy sets the constitution as supreme law of the land, which is pledged to be protected and defended by the president, legislature and judiciary severally. It is a sacred document that embodies civil liberties and basic human rights that protects the minority, even a single man, in the land against the tyranny of majority rule and against the might of the overbearing Government. The US constitution had been amended only 27 times in 200 years history. (The amendment on child labor is still not ratified after 82 years!). The founding fathers of the U.S could envision such a constitutional democracy because of inherence in their culture of tolerance for -in fact, respects for - minority positions. People who lightly talk of spreading the democracy all over the world forget that it should be ingrained in the culture and be defended by patriotic people with eternal vigilance; America is still in the process of achieving the ideal set by the founding fathers. Indian constitution has the same lofty ideals as the American written by Thomas Jefferson including its preamble and the fundamental rights. But Nehru, as unchallenged leader of his Congress party, and the leader of modern India wielding enormous power since Emperor Ashok and commanding enormous adulation of his countrymen, never established democratic traditions; it is not that he did not know how to construct a democracy but he was impelled to secure unchallenged power. His generation of leadership, though was educated in the West, was weak and helpless to stand up to him. He was so drunk with power after suffering a stroke in 1963 and having ruled for 17 years, he would not give up his power. TIME magazine reported once that Lohia “gracelessly” remarked whether India needed an invalid as its P.M., when the P.M. did not gain his gait after a stroke. While Gandhiji was an example of complete self-sacrifice, none emulated him amongst his followers, alas, except ironically Nelson Mandela of South Africa who abdicated power after one term. Leaders of India had a different story. Media were controlled by the state with only one government owned radio station. Every day the news papers carried photo opportunity of the P.M. creating a myth that only he could carry out the foreign affairs, for he alone knew the world. His sister was appointed ambassador to the Soviet Union. The Ministry of External affairs under the single-handed and tight-fisted control of Jawaharlal Nehru was not subject to audit nor the treaties with other countries subject to ratification by the parliament, precisely the root cause for the problem India is facing today with Manmohan Singh’s agreements with the U.S regarding the nuclear treaty.Travel to outside world under Nehru regime was a privilege for a few and not a right. Passport could be denied with no explanation! The senior author waited four months to get a passport in 1962 to study abroad. It is not that Nehru did not know the rights enjoyed by the free world that he had to be forced by the decision of Supreme Court to admit that Citizens of India are entitled to the freedom to travel abroad. His Government tried to restrict study abroad on need basis, with exception made for two of his grandsons who were privileged to study as under-graduates in England with no special distinction, as though India then could not provide quality undergraduate training in India.All other “commoners” were to prove their merit to pursue only post-graduate training before being “licensed” by the Nehru-Gandhi “democratic” government to qualify for the passport. Such double standards are the order of the day in implementing lofty “equality” establishing policies of the UPA government even today and are not considered a form of nepotism even by the Nehru-Gandhi dynasty when it comes to judging the privileges extended to their own family members. Of course, the concept of “conflict of interest” is absent even on the ethical scene of Indian politics. Dictatorial laws of India Nehru ruled the country by the same arbitrary laws by which British controlled India, including the notorious preventive detention act, by which anyone could be arrested. It is under this act that he arrested and kept Sheik Abdullah of Kashmir, his friend whom he called “Lion of Kashmir,” in jail for years. Of course, Abdullah could not be defeated after his release. It is the same law used indiscriminately by his daughter Indira in arresting and throwing Jaya-Prakash Narayan in Jail, a man regarded as one of the founding fathers of Indian democracy, venerable leader respected by her own father as his equal. Indira Gandhi arrested student leaders from the college classes without revealing their hidden locations or their fate to their parents. Nehru dared not go that far as it would tarnish his image as a Great democratic leader in the world. But he was very close. He surreptitiously let the dirty job be done by state governments without ever criticizing them publicly. Chief Minister of Bombay, ignoble Morarji Desai, opened fire on unarmed protesters during Nehru regime and was later rewarded with the Ministerial post by the Congress High Command and later as a P.M. by Janata Government! Communist party was banned in several States (not by central government, though!). The members and affiliates were arrested and in extreme cases released and shot in forests as terrorists (in encounters). This continued for years during Nehru’s and the subsequent Nehru-Gandhi regime. Consequently, the communists won the election contesting from jails in Andhra! An event rarely heard of in the history of any democratic country! The political immaturity of the Indian leadership is evident in that not a single voice was raised by the other opposition parties not subjected momentarily to such treatment.
After Gandhiji’s assassination several RSS leaders and intellectuals were arrested, many lost their jobs, and the rest were released after prolonged incarceration. Guruji Golwalkar wrote to Nehru that he was unfairly, illegally, and without due process kept in Jail even without any charges being filed or affording any trial. Nehru simply referred him to the Home Ministry as though he had nothing to say about the incarceration of a leader of one million followers.
The communists and socialists regaled in the pleasure this man was sinking in jail, not knowing that when the bells toll they toll for them too and their time would come. When their day came nobody was there to raise voice.Indira Gandhi used a very rare legal provision, never used before her time in Independent India, “the law of sedition,” violation of which is a very serious offense. It was enacted by the British. Lokamanya Tilak was punished by the British charging him under this law although Tilak protested that “Swarajya” did not have the connotation of sedition. When Bindranwala, who was indeed a true seditionist, was killed along with other terrorists in Amritsar, an Indian correspondent of a foreign paper reported that some of the victims were shot in an assassination style while their hands were tied behind their backs. The law of sedition ridiculously states that such a serious allegation can only be leveled after verifying facts with the Government officials (“Collector”!). No other modern democracy would accept such a law. Provisions of search and seize in this law justified by Indira included ransacking the Indian Express office and Printing Press in Delhi during the emergency. The leaders of Janata who succeeded Indira Gandhi found all this “no big deal.” The reason perhaps is that they had a similar mind-set.
Such practices in Communist China caught international attention but in the democratic Republic of India these atrocities went unnoticed without any ado. The word democracy can thus be seen to provide a cover for many injustices. Such state of affairs tempts one reconsider democracy in India as a masquerading form of demonarchy. Indian Socialism: While Indian political leadership was not allowed to develop, flourish, and to be perpetuated by using the tactic of controlling the media and all means of communication, and also by exercising arbitrary laws, there was more pernicious factor in setting back Indian democracy and paving the way for dynastic succession. That was the tactic of controlling the economy without facilitating free enterprise.
Nehru was an ideologue but not necessarily an idealist. He was excellent in creating slogans. His most powerful slogan was “socialism.” Later many African countries used this slogan. His practice of socialism can be summarized from his own observation of Sir Stafford Cripps, who according to Nehru enunciated a strategy, “tell the poor that they will get wealth distributed from rich and tell the rich they would be protected from the poor.”
The poor never got anything of substance in 60 years from the government of India, no effective land reforms, welfare, any advancement, or betterment until recently when the economy was liberalized. However, monopolistic capitalism was encouraged, with only one car manufacturer for a long time and later second one headed by the members of the Nehru-Gandhi family, licensed to produce cars, and only one major drug company was licensed to package the drugs produced in the West. Still with all liberalization and propaganda, government tight control of the economy is transparently evident even today.
During Nehru’s rule, one had to register a purchased radio and get a license to use it! Even today, Government permit is needed to open a gas station (“petrol pump”) in India. One of the grand schemes of Nehru to socialize the farmland was by bringing the farms under cooperatives, which would have eliminated any free enterprise remaining. This initiative failed because of wide spread opposition. Still the entire production and distribution, and all entrepreneurial activity were tightly controlled by the Indian Government leading to wide-spread corruption.
This set India decades behind China economically. It will continue to cause India to lose its race with China in the competitive world economy. Only recently is a beginning made to minimally use private initiatives in building infrastructure in India which is in a dismal state in comparison to China, leave alone the evening entertainment for the hard working foreign born business executives. Solid good infrastructure and quality of life for its employees are two main factors attracting multinational manufacturing industries and other multinational corporate headquarters or business establishments to India. Nehru-Gandhi dynasty has failed terribly in these two areas namely the building of infrastructure, improving the standard of living for all citizens and not just a few (one third), to compete with non English speaking China that can easily learn English. With the rise of Janata Party and the agitation for separation of Punjab, Indira Gandhi bemoaned the rise of the middle class as responsible for the growing strength of Janata Party and its viable opposition. Early on Nehru was very much aware of the overall social and economic structure of India. On a visit to Mongolia, a reporter asked him whether India would become Communist. His answer was that it was not possible, because India was essentially a feudalistic country. The ruling class was thus the landed aristocracy with no interest in democratic reform but only loyalty to the idolized leader. India had no Jefferson or Jeffersonian concepts of democracy. With centralized economy and with Government as major employer, press depended on the favors from the Government as a major source of revenue and thus lost its freedom to report unbiased. Together with the state controlled radio, all means of communication were so monopolized that the only way public dissent was frequently expressed was by massive demonstrations, at times violent, leading to burning of buses and trains, naturally, joined by antisocial elements confusing the issue of meaningful dissent. Even today every party organizes bundhs (forcibly closing shops and disrupting traffic) in India. There are instances in which the ruling Congress party organized such demonstration in the states ruled by opposition party and removed the government by presidential decree claiming the breakdown in law and order! The main media in India, especially English language ones, are seen as the stooges of the ruling Congress Party, and the Government, behaving so for the entire period of Congress rule, indicating a sign of lachari even in the press. Congress High Command Structure: The structure of the one and only one organization, the Indian National Congress, under whose banner diverse groups fought the British, had only one controlling command center called “High Command” which was totally undemocratic not unlike the Soviet inner cabinet. The leaders at the top in Delhi including, Gandhiji, Nehru, Patel and a few others controlled the party. There was no grass roots democracy. The party commanded from top to bottom. While the High Command was justified to fight the enemy, the British, it was never intended or justifiable as a model for democracy. The continuation of this structure led to idolatry of the then freedom fighting self-sacrificing leaders evolving in the current dynastic rule. Later the high command was replaced by the Congress Working Committee. There were no organizational elections in the congress party for the last 25 years. The Working Committee acting as High Command virtually rules the party and the Country. The power is so concentrated in a few hands that from one State, U.P., 9 of the 13 Prime Ministers were elected. To contest for an election either at the level of State legislature or at the Center (parliament), candidates are selected at state level and approved at the center which retains the tight-fisted overall control. The selected candidates are given “tickets”, a process unheard of in the U.S. or other democracies. There were charges that these tickets were sold and the state congress party leader in Andhra Pradesh made millions in 1995. By this practice, if one party is in overwhelming majority it can control the entire leadership of the country. There are no primaries to select or elect the candidates freely nor re-runs when multiple candidates contest. Democracy is “just in name” and if not a “farce” in the Democratic Republic of India. Political system creating Desperate Destitution at every level: The so called Socialist Government of India by planned economy is almost a sole monopolistic employer commanding the power to distribute jobs as political patronage with very little free enterprise as an alternative. What little free enterprise was there had to submit to the control of the State and thus the politician in power directly and indirectly controlled all private enterprises for they had to obtain licenses to start and operate a business. Even after liberalization, one cannot open a gas station without a Government license.
Early on, the political patronage controlled and interfered with all employments as well as business permits and even college admissions. Once employment is obtained, the person was still subject to the control of the state since he could be at will, without any reason, be transferred from place to place, a process reversed by begging his benefactor for whom he and his family is expected in gratitude to vote his/her way or bribe in cash or kind. Such large-scale transfers were started during British days, un-heard-of in any free country, which affect every employee top to bottom, teachers, doctors, clerks, and bankers, except mailmen. The consequences of “dislocation” are that the affected person can never establish lasting social or even family relationships or own investments or a home in any community. Children of such transferable job-holders developed only superficial relations with their peers, which is unhealthy psychologically during the formative period of their personality. In the U.S people forgo a job promotion in order to avoid moving for their school-age children.
This kind of control on a citizen breeds desperate destitution (“laachari” alluded to in Part I of this article on www.sookta-sumana.com) and sense of servility (“dasyu vritti”) stripping man’s dignity, leaving the helpless feeling in him/her that the only way to survive is to beg on ones knees. Such laachari or desperate destitution is so endemic and ubiquitous in the British and post-colonial India that it has become an inherent ego-syntonic feature of the Indian National Character to the point that it is confused with humility (Namrata). Obsequiousness is thus seen as a virtue while it is a symptom of a toxic political system afflicting every individual in India in some measure, through unconscious cultural internalization, whether he/she knows it or not. Such “Dasyu vritti” seen in the blood and bones of majority of Indians stemming from “laachari” must not be confused with “Vinaya” or “Namrata.” Sons of Indira Gandhi as Successors: When Indira Gandhi was defeated after the emergency, Sen. Patrick Moynihan exulted in praise of Indian Democracy. That excitement was short-lived because of an inept Government that succeeded her. She came back to power and got an amendment to the constitution altering the preamble to the constitution stating that “Republic of India shall have a Socialist Government with a purpose to distribute wealth.” In actuality no sane Indian would be opposed to the slogan of “Gareebi Hatao” or “eradicate poverty.” By implication she created an illusion for her psychological warfare with her political rivals to make them look like they obstinately preferred to keep India poor. Indian constitution was thus on a course to be amended 94 times by the Congress government in 58 years after the birth of the Republic. Her earlier amendment exempting her election to the office to judicial review was rejected by a landmark decision by the Supreme Court of India which stated that a right to amend did not include destruction of the constitution and the amendments should conform to the preamble! So she cleverly decided to change the preamble itself to make “socialism” as the over-riding governing principle of the constitution and subject to interpretation to suit the ruling congress party.
“Socialism” a buzz word slogan, used by her father, was thus included in the Constitution without defining it just as the buzz word “Secular” was used in the Indian Constitution without defining it, subject to being interpreted variously and indeed entirely idiosyncratically on the Indian political scene.
Harold Laski, the author of the “Grammar of Politics,” will not recognize any true “socialism” in the Indian democracy, nor will he recognize “democracy” as the form of government in India, although Jawaharlal Nehru is said to have chosen Laski as his idol. Indira Gandhi practiced socialism by nationalizing banks and capitalism by financing her son’s unsuccessful adventures into free enterprise, including Maruti Car manufacturing. Unable to raise private sector capital Sanjay made a run on the banks and obtained unsecured loans after nationalization of banks. He vindictively retaliated against those who previously questioned the loans. In short he terrorized the bureaucracy at the Center.
Nothing said herein needs to be interpreted as the authors being opposed to pristine socialism or secularism which are essentially lofty guiding principles if not corrupted by the politicians and the judiciary. During and after the emergency, Indira’s youngest son Sanjay Gandhi was next to her directing the Government. Politicians from different states courted him. When he came to Andhra Pradesh (A.P.) a Congress M.P. and later Minister of Parliamentary Affairs (K. Raghuramaiah) introduced him to a public gathering saying, “I served your father, I served your mother, and I am ready to serve you the rising son of India.” Such was the Indian sycophancy, an illustration of “laachari.” Sanjay Gandhi was shoe-in for the post of P.M. But fate had it otherwise. He died in reckless adventures with aircraft flying. Also, Indira Gandhi, soon thereafter, was assassinated. After Indira’s death the most capable successor to the post of P.M. in the cabinet was P.V. Narasimha Rao. He was a poet, an author, linguist, statesman, and a diplomat of considerable experience. He was, however, not to succeed Indira Gandhi as it would break the succession to dynasty. The cronies of Indira Gandhi, within hours of her death, while her body was still warm, before her cremation was complete, inducted her other son Rajiv Gandhi to the position of P.M. Who was Rajiv Gandhi? Rajiv Gandhi, who along with his brother went to England to study, married an Italian and was content to be a pilot. Although he was the older of the two, he was initially not a candidate for the throne. He was, in stark contrast with P.V. Rao, a mediocre student and showed no signs of any distinction. In the records of Government of India listing of the Prime Ministers of India, it is stated (with some pride) that Rajiv never was interested in “studies”- which were defined in this document as “mugging for the examinations,” disparagingly implying that sincere students interested in studies are “muggers” and the elite chosen to rule the country and hold the helm of the national affairs was a cut above them during his formative years for neglecting his “studies.” Obviously, his concept of education and learning was limited to “Mugging.”
Two of the remarkable tragedies during his brief rule were interfering in the free elections in Kashmir sparking years of terrorism, and another, sending troops to Sri Lanka to control the Tamil Freedom Movement in which effort several Tamils were killed and which finally resulted in his assassination. He was also accused of promoting the retaliatory killings of Sikhs in Delhi after his mother’s assassination. P.V.N Rao, a non-dynasty leader, succeeded Rajiv Gandhi, who for the first time in the history of Independent India led India to liberalizations of economy, partly because of his own political philosophy as well as efforts and partly propelled by the World Bank conditioning the liberalization. With all his brilliance, he was perhaps the most monumental of the P.M.s India has seen. He needs to be given his due credit for initiating the process for Indian “abhyudaya,” but sadly he shared the common trait with almost all other modern congress leaders, that of “corruption.” He was accused of corruption, tried, and disgraced. In this manner the history of India will, we are afraid, deface him rather than recognize him as the father of economically strong modern day India. Cronies of Nehru Family, who themselves have no ability for leadership, ganged behind Sonia Gandhi, the wife of Rajiv, and elected her as the Head of the party. Anyone opposed to her was removed from the party for ‘disciplinary reasons’. They arranged Darshan (holy viewing) of her by crowds in Delhi. To show that she was the leader, they arranged dancing before her residence. One man stood on a bus and declared that he would commit suicide if Sonia was not elected a premier (P.M.). But Sonia does not or cannot give press interviews or hold a press-conference. When she came to the U.S no press correspondent including any reporter of Indian press was allowed to talk to her for the fear of exposing her. Her only claim for leadership, - in fact entitlement, - is that she is the daughter-in-law of Indira Gandhi and the latter died in her lap! When B.J.P Government fell, she claimed the post of premier but because of certain constitutional challenges she was made to withdraw her application by the President Abdul Kalam, for which he is paying a price of not being supported by her party for the second term. Although she is not the Prime Minister, she acts as one, by sitting next to the current Prime Minister. Virtually she is in control. Sonia has a son and a daughter, both of whom are spoken for leadership. A congress leader in A.P. recently called for Sonia’s son to be elected as the leader of the party. That is where the Nehru Dynasty stands at the moment. The Indian media have been wooing Sonia’s son and daughter for many years now and building for last many years the groundwork for her succession. Thus the dynasty will be perpetuated regardless what the people want or by asserting that the dynasty is what the people actually want. Mini Demonarchies of India: If the dynasty is acceptable at the center, where, because of the distance from the states mystery can be maintained, the process can be effective in the states as well. In Andhra, N.T. Rama Rao was succeeded by his son-in-law and new attempt is made to induct his son into politics. Laalu Prasad Yadav of Bihar went to jail on corruption charges and his wife kept the court and held the fort until he returned. M.G. Ramachandran was the Tamilnadu Chief Minister succeeded by his wife Janaki Ramachandran and the “other woman” (his mistress) Jayalalitha succeeded the latter claiming that she was the wronged woman (Wikipedia). (Shashi Tarror in New York Times). We have the other established case of Sheik Abdullah succeeded by his son Farooq in Kashmir, and in Orissa Navin Patnaik succeeded his father Biju. In Tamil Nadu, Karunanidhi is trying to anoint his son Stalin as his successor and grooming his daughter of a second wife to be a Central Minister. In Maharashtra, Sharad Pawar of Nationalist Congress Party is grooming his daughter by making her a member of Rajyasabha. Even in Shivasena of Maharashtra aspiring to establish national presence two rivaling mini-dynasties have recently emerged. So the phenomenon of using democracy to build dynasties keeps on going. This is also the plight of many other fifty some political parties that are emulating the Congress party or UPA. The phenomenon is also seen on the Bollywood scene. That brings us to closing the circle by asking the question: Is monarchy in the eyes of the beholder because of the deep-seated fascination for the same in the population of the immature democracies or are there small groups who are exploiting the fascination for monarchy in the immature population to gain and retain the power in some influential families by manipulating the population at large and by manipulating the political system they call democracy? WHAT IS IN FUTURE FOR INDIA? The people of India despite all the abuses they suffered under the political systems of the British and the succeeding Indian aristocracy represented by Congress is resilient. Over 70% of Indian electorate vote compared to about 50% in the U.S. The liberalization of economy has changed the picture of India rapidly. As Indira Gandhi feared the rise of Janata Party because of the emergence of a large middle class, entrepreneurship is rising, foreign investment and urbanization is changing the political landscape of India very rapidly with expanding middle class. The state does not control the fate of people, not so much as it did before. While the power is in the same segment of population still, challenge to it is bound to come.
It is no longer easy to amend the constitution as no one party is likely to have absolute majority in the foreseeable future. Once the hold of the “Congress” is gone, because of the inability to dole out patronage, the power lost will never be regained by Congress or UPA. Thus in Bengal, congress could not defeat Communist party for the last 30 years.
At least in India communists did not practice demonarchy as in North Korea! In the state of U.P from which nine of thirteen prime ministers were elected, a power house of politics, congress was the distant third. In Tamilnadu, congress has no hope of returning to power but content to court the regional party for alliance. The rise of regional parties according academic politicians in the U.S Universities is leading to speculation that India may break away and disintegrate like Yugoslavia and this issue will be discussed further in a sequel to this, a future article.
Because of all this it is imperative and important to support the National parties which were built by the sacrifices of so many great leaders, be it Congress, Communist, or BJP. It is, therefore, inappropriate for the leaders of B.J.P to argue that Sonia is the problem of Congress party alone and it is an internal matter for the Congress party. Who leads a National party and by what process is of National Importance. If such national party retains power term after term, it is a reflection of immature democracy and affects every Indian’s image.
Demonarchy cannot be allowed to replace democracy in India. It is up to the major parties to reexamine their mode of thinking and advance democracy. Why do the parties proliferate? Why did Congress split into two [Congress (O) and Congress (I)], and Communists also into two separate parties ( CPI and CPI(M))? The answer lies in the unfortunate fact that in India democratic thinking, tolerance of dissent, and respect for minority opinion were never practiced as a part of the Indian political culture, for just conducting elections on large scale is misconstrued as democracy and thus, mature democracy is a whole new culture for India. In the name of party discipline, anyone criticizing the leader or his policy is removed.
This is not any different than the Communist parties of Soviet Union or China. Meanwhile, if the youth of the country learns to distinguish between propaganda and truth, rhetoric and relevance, democracy can be secured and demonarchy can be averted. In short, the youth of India should reflect how the ruling party in India of billion people is beholden to a foreigner (Italian) with Mafia connections such as with Ottavio Quattrocchi, after the country being ruled by the British for 200 years. Regardless of political affiliation, all Indians, and even Indians without any political inclinations or ambition, would find this state of affairs an embarrassment. Only a Pollyanna in Politics would justify it as a reflection of broadmindedness of the Indians and take pride in such picture.
Yogesh Kumar Saxena
Advocate, High Court
H.I.G.203, Preetam Nagar, Sulem sarai, Allahabad-211001
yogrekha@gmail.com, yogrekha@rediffmail.com, yogrekha@yahoo.co.in
Founder President- World Citizenship Group Foundation, Swami vevekanand world ethical foundation,
Executive Member- World Parliament Experiment conference 2008 at Bonn (germany),
Vice President- Geeta Asharam International Cheritable Trust, Rishikesh, Pauri Garhwal
Ex Vice President- Advocate’s Association, High Court, Allahabad

Our Last English Chief Justice Orby H. Mootham- ‘When Chief justice Mootham apologized to a litigant’. WHERE ARE THOSE JUDGES?

Our Last English Chief Justice Orby H. Mootham- ‘When Chief justice Mootham apologized to a litigant’. WHERE ARE THOSE JUDGES?

"Life is a shylock; always it demands. The fullest usurer’s interests for each pleasure Gifts are not freely scattered by its hand. We made returns for every borrowed treasurer. Each talent, each achievement and every gain me necessitated some penalty to pay. All you bestow on causes or on men of love or hate of malice or devotion somehow and sometime shall be returned again. This was the lesson in my life. There is no waste toil, no lost emotion. The motto of the world is to give and take. It gives you favour out of sheer goodwill but unless a speedy recompense you make you will find yourself presented with its bill". "Competition is a struggle for existence because there is always be survival of the fittest". "Every Act and every inquiry and similarly every action and pursuit, given by him was thought to aim at some good, and for this reason, the good has rightly been declared, to be that, at which all things aim. But a certain difference is found among ends". For him "For best was he who knows all things himself good, he that hearkens when men counsel right. But he who neither knows, nor lays to heart another wisdom, is a useless night".
Seldom I feel that there was some thing wrong with me in association with other, but still I felt difficulty in expressing my resentments. This is difficult to express an opinion as to what is the correct approach; as to whether I should keep silent; or I should react over the situation. It was realised that the best way was to adopt an apathetically behavior toward every situation, but at the same time, I feel that I have lost my identity and in this situation I feel a lot of disturbances. From there I have started my interactions towards the behavior and other associated activities, which was directly or indirectly associated with my life.
Seldom the people think that they know something but when they start searching for it then they find that it is missing the manner to which they knew. This is the beginning of the legal profession. The greatest virtue in legal profession is to create and enjoy at the same moment. The people do not readily except the superiority of the other intelligent person and as such these people are always remain in controversy. The simple reason of the superiority was lying in his brevity of thought and the discussion to the point on the subject. He was a great learner and a great scholar in his contemporary period. I have seen him with tears in his eyes before his clients when he was informed that the family of the client is passing through financial constraint. The pain was apparent and was being chafed again and again before it can heel by his guidance on number of the occasions in my life.
With regard to Justice and injustice to an individual’s opinion assessments, we must consider the kind of action, it’s means and the justness for considering its effect and solution. Thus the justice is always represent in corresponding sense. I have seen him in association of some advocates who are ideologically antagonistic to his opinion, but from the very inception, a heterogeneous conglomeration of disparate and desperate interests designed mainly hedge against common enemy on both the constituents. There is no one having the perfection, but certainly some of the individuals may have risen to the heights, if they may start thinking in the perfect manner and convey the idea generated through such experiences with the same precision. This is very rare in the life of an individual to have the correct analysis of his perceptions with the desire, aptitude and knowledge in adequate representations.
This was not a manifestation, to lost the bread earner in family at my age of 19 years; and thereafter to complete law examination at 20 years 6 months of age and there after supervision of agriculture activities for 10 years from 1971 onwards; and then joining the legal profession at High Court, but the real acknowledgement of the potential of an Advocate. There are the reflections of the memories in my mind, when I have seen him conducting the arguments from 1974 onwards. I have started practice after being enrolled as an Advocate in 1974. During the intervening period, since, I was involved in number of problems associated towards my responsibility of supervising 75 Acre agriculture land required to be cultivated, after converting to it’s potential from barren land to profitable agricultural land .The reason for looking after the said land was due to the sudden death of my father in the year of 1971,who died a premature death leaving behind my mother, my elder brother, myself and a younger sister. Since I could not continue my practice at Allahabad & I shifted to District Court due to family responsibilities, I could not see him conducting the argument at High Court for a long duration. This was in year of 1978, when I visited any chamber for seeking guidance. I have visited in his chamber with a hope that I may get the adequate response, but the response I got was something beyond my expectations. It was initially to discourage me from joining the profession. He said that why a professional in the same profession will like to provide the potential to another rival in the same profession. Thus to rise up to the heights, what the individual may have attended after hard labour and dedications towards his profession, is the hard labour, dedication, sincerity and devotion to study the law. This reply has come forward with another complement that he may not be misunderstood for what he is expressing to myself regarding his inability to guide me. I immediately got the determination that now I will flight for rising up to the tower of success through my own efforts.
There were very few Advocates, who can speak such a bitter truth before junior colleagues for giving them a boosting response. To rise through struggle by his own efforts and the individual is not required to have the crutches of other person to provide the support to his body. This was a very valuable advice given to me , which has always provided me a lot of confidence and inclination for struggle. This has become the guidelines to provide a contribution in due discharge of the professional responsibility. These personality track fallow in its carving out through experience of adversities else they simply comes through cultivation of opinion and is being stimulated through notional ideology of Isolated doom and perform predominant role in it’s development. This is also a symbol of self-made man personality.
.
I have seldom realised, that, whenever I used to criticize the provision of the constitution inviting the unprecedented litigation before High Court. Senior Advocates were used to react in the same manner by conveying his protest that in case if he possessed a paperweight, he could have thrown it for hitting on my body. This was simply due to the reason that without even learning to the provisions I had started giving my opinion after joining the profession, which was intolerable to him. This is the incident in the previous years, when I first visited Allahabad High Court as an Advocate and started gossiping with such a senior Advocate .The cultivation of moral foundations is called our cultural heritage.
On 2nd August 2000 he wrote an article in daily newspaper titled as ‘Those were the days’- the last English Chief Justice Orby H. Mootham.. His reminiscences of about 50 years, right from the period of the English judges to the present scenario. It has been said that those judges were mature, modest and commanded the respect by their very entry in the courtroom. There gesture of kindness to the lawyers and courteous dialogues used to blush out of their modesty even if their faces looked red and they were scared in the moment. They entered the courtroom right at 10.00 A.M. never before or a second afterwards. The chief justice was so cordial, warm and affectionate that this was the etiquette of high constitutional functionaries. The unusual dissent conduct with a strange warmth decency of Chief Justice Mootham was continued to remember even after his death to heavenly abode from this world.
The second article published on 9th August 2000. ‘When Chief justice Mootham apologized to a litigant’. Chief justice Mootham entered the court smilingly, but became tense and pointed out to the Bench Secretary for the impropriety of behavior of a litigant, a gentle man who was sitting in the fifth or sixth row wearing a head-gear. The gentleman has removed his cap. The moment the functioning started, the chief justice regained his usual pleased posture, but the irritation was again visible, when he saw the gentleman recapped his head. However, when the orderly went towards the gentleman he voluntarily removed his cap. This was perhaps by reflexes that he wore the cap once again. The chief justice stopped functioning and asked the court officer to act upon and thereafter the gentleman was asked to leave the courtroom. It was per by chance that one contemporary Advocate went to chief justice’s chamber to make a mention. Justice Gyanendra Kumar was present in chief justice chamber. The chief justice in a most inimitable style asked, whether he had seen the gentleman, who despite been told not to wear the cap, defied the advice of the bench secretary. The chief justice has also said that the gentleman looked a dissent person, but he wandered why he repeatedly wore his cap soon after removing it. Was it by the defiance to authority of the Court?
Justice Gyanendra Kumar, a very pleasant conversationalist, intervened. He said "Chief Justice", your lordship in the English society, people take off a hat to show courtesy, but we in this country wear a cap to show our respect. Thus the gentleman was only trying to repeat his gesture of respect. The chief justice perhaps never knew it otherwise this was not causing irritation to him. The tall person, the chief justice broke into laugher and asked the bench secretary to trace and bring the gentleman in his chamber. Perhaps the gentleman was still out side the chief justice chamber. As soon as he entered, the chief justice expressed regret to him and pleaded his ignorance that the cap is worn to show respect. Soon, the gentleman after being happy from the reprimand made by the chief justice was again called to request him to be in the courtroom soon after the lunch. Justice Gyanendra Kumar was curious as to why the chief justice was insisting to have the gentleman in court. On being inquired the chief justice Mootham observed:- " He has been reprimanded in court by me and therefore he deserves an apology from chief justice in the court itself. Later the chief justice apologized in court itself. This has been never seen or heard by any judge about such gesture even to a lawyer when there is no good ground for reprimand." HOW CAN SUCH A JUDGE, THOUGH HE RETIRED IN 1961 CAN GO OUT OF MEMORY OF THOSE WHO HAVE SEEN HIM WORKING IN COURT AND OUTSIDE". The last glimpse of chief justice Mootham was seen at his farewell dinner when he rose to shake hands with each one of Advocates participating in the dinner.. The chief justice said that he refuses to take notice of the political affiliations of lawyers or their complexion and after this chief justice burst in laughter and shook left hand.
The third article published on 31st August, 2000 was about Justice Raghubar Dayal, Advocate has written that he open his submissions by using a phrase from the privy council’s judgement without referring to it. He said that the learned District Judge has carved out an new case for which no place was found in pleading! Justice Raghubar Dayal did not open the file and remarked - if counsel have learned to use this kind of language so early in life, he would land himself in disaster. Advocate immediately apologized. He said that he has escaped his lordship wrath and will have a chance before another judge, but justice Dayal said to him that he might present in the courtroom at 10.00 A.M. as this case will be taken as part heard case. Justice Dayal was tensed and his earlier day’s annoyance was apparent. Advocate said that he was relying Privy Council judgement where the judicial committee has used the same language. He said that he was conscious that he did not know English to well, yet he use such word, which were used by Privy Council. Justice Dayal admitted the appeal, but refuse to exercise discretion for staying the decree for demolition. He has written that his indiscreet use of language cause lost to his client. The house of the client was demolished but Advocate has written that he has repented this incident through out his life as to find out where he was wrong. Justice Raghubar Dayal, who retired in 1960 as the judge of Supreme Court, still had the great respect from Advocate, as he never committed such mistake through out his life.

Yogesh Kumar Saxena
Advocate, High Court
H.I.G.203, Preetam Nagar, Sulem sarai, Allahabad-211001
yogrekha@gmail.com, yogrekha@rediffmail.com, yogrekha@yahoo.co.in
Founder President- World Citizenship Group Foundation, Swami vevekanand world ethical foundation,
Executive Member- World Parliament Experiment conference 2008 at Bonn (germany),
Vice President- Geeta Asharam International Cheritable Trust, Rishikesh, Pauri Garhwal
Ex Vice President- Advocate’s Association, High Court, Allahabad