OVERACTIVE INDIAN JUDICIARY.

 

BY K P PASWAN.

 Fierce verbal battle is going on in India between Judiciary and the executive ,subject matter being the appointment of Judges.

At present Indian Judiciary is under scanner for various reasons. Judges of Apex court are being appointed by a Collegium of judges which is not found in other  democratic countries in the world The system, interestingly was introduced by the Supreme court itself in 1993 when a weak central coalition government was functioning . PM of the contemporary India was responsible for social tension and political instability.  Supreme court introduced Collegium System headed by Chief Justice and assisted by three senior most judges to appoint judges of High Court and Supreme court. Collegium also deals with promotion and transfer of high court judges.

BACKGROUND. Before 1993, Indians witnessed some of the brilliant judges occupying the post of judges of supreme court. There was complete independence of Judiciary. In Goloknath case the Apex Court gave the ruling that parliament could not amend the constitutions but it was the famous Keshwanand bharti case that Supreme Court introduced the concept of Basic Structures and debarred parliament from amending the basic structures of the constitution but the Apex court failed to elaborate the nature of basic structures, Religion tolerance and freedom of speech are inbuilt in Indian constitution and there is no dispute but it is left upon the apex court to explain and pronounce other types of basic structures whenever situation arises, for example appointment of judges and independence of judiciary are regarded as basic structures, this is surprising as independence of judiciary cannot be questioned in an open democracy. Late PM Indira Gandhi superseded several senior judges just to appoint a particular person as the Chief Justice of India. She also introduced terms like Secular and Socialist in the preamble. Secularism and Socialism have lost relevance in modern age as the entire world is under the cloud of religion bigotry and radicalism is spreading like virus.The term Socialism has become a metaphor in the hands of politicians who cannot differentiate between evening and morning. In the same way social welfare without discrimination is the cornerstone modern democracy. Preamble of Indian constitution reflects true nature of basic structures and the preamble has been amended by a PM  (Indira Gandhi)who is regarded as one of the most ambitious but strong political figure of India.

 Indira Gandhi wanted a committed judiciary and a committed Bureaucracy, she succeeded in achieving her objects. Same thing is happening in Israel, wherein PM Netanyahu is engaged in fierce verbal battle with judiciary and is bent upon taming the judiciary by making the legislature more powerful than judiciary. Benjamin Netanyahu may be right as the elected  representatives cannot be allowed to become mute spectators when development of the country is halted by a series of judicial pronouncements. In Brazil. Supreme Court  created problems for president Bolsomaro. There are reasons to believe that pandemic in Brazil was not handled in an effective way as President and the Supreme Court engaged in verbal fighting.

Strange is the behavior of the Supreme Court of the mighty nation, US which is  an open democracy. In the US Guns Culture is the fundamental of personal freedom and this Guns culture has claimed thousands of lives and there is hardly any month in which innocents are not massacred by the supporters of Guns culture. There is executive command issued by the most powerful president of this planet only to be declared null and void by the judiciary giving license to certain individuals to carry out mass shooting in schools or at crowded place. American judiciary acknowledges the supremacy of the executive but find itself at the receiving end as Guns culture is an embodiment of personal freedom  enshrined in the constitution.  Situations have so worsened that it is said that US might colonist the Red Planet but cannot end the Guns culture by a constitutional amendment which is impossible. What is surprising that one political party openly supports the possession of deadly guns while other party is equally determined to control the violence.

In India situation is alarming. Indian society is caste ridden and politicians cannot do politics without glorifying the caste system. Judges appoint themselves and it is not written in the Indian constitution that a Collegium can dictate the president of India and above all ORDER the PM to accept the appointment of judges as suggested by the Collegium. Recently Indian Judiciary instructed the Government of India that Chief Justice  of the Supreme Court has to be given authority to have a say in the appointment of Chief Election Commissioner and members of the Election Commission of India. Flabbergasted by this judicial verdict diatribe against the judiciary is seen in every section of society..  But Supreme Court shall not allow the executive to interfere in the composition of Collegium as this tantamount to independence of judiciary. By Collegium system the Apex Court has virtually inaugurated an era of dynastic culture in the judiciary. Taking advantage of the fragile nature of elected government Apex Court is behaving like parliament. 

  American president is a politician and he appoints Judge which is further subject to cross examination by politicians in the Senate, and once appointed there is scant chance of lampooning the autonomy of the judiciary, but in India  Independence Of Judiciary is in danger is cried by the judges and the corrupt and disgruntled politician.In such circumstances principles of Check And Balance are disturbed and people suffer.Supreme Court in India cannot bear involvement of politicians in the appointment of judges. Mounting cases of pendency reflect the true nature of judiciary. Lawyers in India have their own ethics and they think themselves as real Lawmakers, most of them argue in the air   and hardened criminals and money launderers are favorite clients of these money hankering lawyers.

 FINAL WORDS,  Independence of judiciary is necessary in an open  democracy. It must be guaranteed and respected by legislature and the executive but in India  judiciary is asserting its authority in a wrong way. Days are not far off when Indian Supreme Court may ask a greater say in the appointment of certain high posts. It even may ask a permanent Judge as a member of the Cabinet Appointment Committee headed by PM. Indian minister of Law has described Collegium system as an alien to the constitution. Judiciary cannot be allowed to overtake the parliament to enforce its own views. Executive in India is virtually meritless and spiritless but in a democracy people are sovereign and executive  owes its primacy to an elected government. This has to be acknowledged.

NEW FACES OF DEMOCRACY.

 BY K P PASWAN.

Recently XiJinping the strong man of China claimed that China is the real democratic country of the world. US is fighting for democracy not only in China but also in Russia. This is surprising as US is also shielding cesspits autocracy in various Oil rich Sheikdoms of the middle East and have very good relations with dictator like Recep Erdogan of Turkey. US is open democracy with plenty of freedom in every sphere of life. Guns Culture is an essential ingredient of democracy in US. People’s will is of paramount importance in a democratic set up Than we have parliamentary system seen in Scandinavian countries and in UK and France. In most of the democratic countries of Europe democracy as been identified with people’s participation in the functioning of the government. There is no place for Guns Culture in such a democratic country. India is the largest democratic country in the world. India as a sovereign republic has a history of only 75 years but democracy is flourishing. In Islamic states except Turkey and to some extent Pakistan, democratic institutions with certain restriction are functioning without hindrance. Open democracy as practiced in US is not applicable to the whole world. As per late President Monroe of US, democracy is for the people of the people and by the people. In such a democracy sovereignty rests with the people. But we find different kinds of people. Most of the African and Islamic countries are facing tribal and sectarian conflicts so open democracy cannot flourish.

 Modern state is a welfare state and without freedom of speech welfare of common people cannot be conceived. So in what sense Chinese are telling that Chinese democracy is the only democratic country in the world? China suffered badly during the WW2. Foreign powers plundered the national wealth. Communism was introduced to stop the exploitation of suppressed and underprivileged.  China was following the policies of Russia which was the first Communist country in the world. But China realized that poverty cannot be removed without outside help and outside of China not the Communism but democratic ideas were working smoothly. So gradually China started mixing Communism with capitalism. On 21^st Feb 1971 Chairman Mao welcomed US president Richard Nixon and his national security advisor Henry Kissinger and the world changed. Unlike US president China has only one party that is Communist party but without Communist ideology. Common people elects delegates who elects President. In absence of multiparty systems people have no choice but to endorse delegate as per his/her personality. US has only two parties and President is not elected directly on the basis of universal franchise but by delegates and in a way common people have choices in selecting delegates.

It is said that an open democracy is necessary for economic growth but Chin’s case is different. China is not an open democracy but has disturbed balance of power by becoming super economic power. Private property been allowed and restricted freedom pf speech has been granted to people. After hundred years Hongkong was returned by UK to China. At the time of hand over there was no laws and order in Hongkong street fighting and demonstration were common but now Hongkong is a modern province of one China so in a way XiJinping may be right in saying that China is the only democracy in the world. Democracy has its own limits. In Russia Gorbachev introduced democracy, Boris Yeltsin undermined it and a KGB hawk Putin has introduced a dose of democracy. There is a parliament member of which are directly elected by people but in absence of multiparty system Russian president cannot be compared with American president.  Russia has in its possession largest number of advanced Nukes which is giving disturbed sleep to the master of the White house. It is difficult to introduce either British or US forms of democracy in Russia. Russia is not a regional power but a super power and in a position to challenge US in every segment where artificial intelligence is needed.

So we find that there are different types of democracy but will of the people is the basis of the governance and for this common people must live without the fear of being killed by the followers of Guns Cultures. In autocratic countries like in the countries of the middle East it is impossible to introduce democracy as there is internal bickering and serious issues related with religion. Religious based terrorism is not allowed in the Middle East. But there is social tensions . The political head popularly known as EMIRS are not ignoring development works and large numbers of immigrants are enjoying excellent wages and basic amenities. It is doubtful if an open democracy can do better than autocracy? In the same way in Egypt Algeria and Morocco universal franchise has been introduced but Islamic brotherhood which advocates imposition of  religious based laws are not allowed to participate in elections. This has kept the militants away from national politics. Arab Spring started in Tunisia as a way to introduce some democratic principles but except removing dictators from Libya and a few other Islamic countries Arab Spring failed to make any impact upon the greatest autocrat, the royalty of Saudi Kingdom. So Arab Spring is dead

FINAL THOUGHT. With spread of education and advance in science people want their voice to be heard by the ruling class. Violent demonstrations are being noticed in different countries of the world but democracy cannot be introduced by force. Democracy whether restricted or open must cater to the welfare of people who elect the politicians. Days are not far off when even the paranoid dictator will not be able to succeed as a Dictator unless he is democratically elected by people . Recep Tayyip Erdogan of Turkey is a living example.

SECULARISM AND MODERN POLITICS.

 

BY K P PASWAN,

Secularism is not defined in any constitution of any country of the world. Separating Church or religion from state is taken as Secularism, this concept is widely used and misused . In India, secularism  is the most abused word and surprisingly this word is being misused in India by those politicians and persons who are self-proclaimed intellectuals. Most of educated persons think that secularism means separation of religion from the state. It means state cannot preach and encourage a particular religion. We find in modern world that barring Islamic countries every country preach secularism. In India secularism means a person in political power cannot practice his own religion. These educated persons with neurotic personality are responsible all types pf social and political troubles in India.

 In US Jim Matis declared one America and one religion as the aim of political parties without disturbing constitution. In US Church has been separated from the state but we find rich Americans contributing to the growth of Christianity and major Western powers spread modern education by opening a large number of educational centers. These efforts contributed to the growth of scientific temper and encouraged rational thinking.

Religion has played an important role in the development of modern science. In ancient times preacher like St Augustine  and the Archbishop of Cantbury contributed the scientific reasons for the presence of a creator.

 Western concept of secularism is not conservative in the sense that liberals and orthodox were always in conflict with each others.Birth of Protestant is the result of such conflicts  In Europe every country was a Christian majority states so the religious figures were encouraged to spread  Christianity in the colonial states . But at home the politicians in power never allowed religious leaders to interfere in administration. To avoid clash with religions it was separated from state and religion became a personal choice. In France and Germany religious leaders tried to enforce their unscientific ideas and the result was in 1905 France declared a different type of Secularism, France declared itself a nation free from religion.

There is marked difference between freedom of religion and freedom from religion. France is a Catholic dominated country with a large section of Muslims from Algeria, Morocco and other Muslim countries. These immigrants do not enjoy freedom associated with democracy in the countries of their birth, so they are still rigid in their personal belief.  Conflict of civilization is seen not only in France but in every country of EU. France has taken the 1905 resolution by which France was declared a country which enjoys the concept’’ Free from Religion’’ and now the minority has no option but follow the rules governing social.political.and religious beliefs In modern society there is no place for religion intolerance.

 In India we find a different type of secularism preached by a few politicians and intellectuals. This type of secularism is beyond the understanding of common people. These secularists go beyond the concept  as prevail in France and want the Govt to refrain from indulging in religious activities associated with majority community. They argue in the air and get much publicity Such type of intellectuals were responsible in the past for creating mischief. They forget that modern India is a gift from the British empire, the King/Queen of UK is also the Defender of Faith and not the destroyer of religion. It also appears that Indian secularists call themselves as Fundamental Secularists and support terrorists committed abroad by religious terrorists and describe them as the victims of foreign powers. This is far from the truth. Religion has never been a binding force between human being. But some religious are bent upon creating fear psychoses in the society. Al Qaeda was borne in Saudi Arabia with a determination to throw away the autocratic rule and impose the religious laws. But Al Qaeda was expelled from Saudi Arabia and found safe sanctuary in Afghanistan and Pakistan. They carried twine tower attacks and got themselves destroyed by the mighty nation, Except Turkey there is no place for secularism in an Islamic nation where minority is taught the supremacy of a particular religion. There is nothing wrong to describe one’s religion as superior but what is wrong is the suppression of minorities.

 It is also said that secularism can play pivotal role in a polarized society as diversity encourages religion tolerance. Is there any proof? There are several countries which are dangerously polarized society, but secularism is not practiced. The country known as India was divided on the basis of religion so after 75 years India was bound to be nation of diverse culture with maximum religious tolerance but the result is just opposite. Religious tensions prevail in India. UK is facing worst type of radicalisation  owing  a particular religion. UK has given birth to several dreaded terrorists and is a perfect breeding ground of terrorists who ready to fight and die for religion.

 In India secularism is likely to be influenced by success or failure of religious based terrorism in other countries. Politicians are using secularism and religion to settle personal and political scores.  Those who are opposed to any kind of secularism are being patronized by rich and famous.

 In Turkey vulgar display of  western style of secularism being protected by the army was rejected by common people but they also refused to accept the hegemony of religious leaders. In the name of secularism, consuming of alcohol and nude dance in  places of worships were put to  end by Recep Tayyib Erdogan, the current president of Turkey. I purchased a copy of Satanic Verses in Turkey, In India this book is banned, it is doubtful if politicians and intellectuals have even read few pages of this book. An educated Indian lady uttered something the head of a religion, in most of European countries people will not mind such type of comments, but in India several organisations demanded the head of the woman.

 FINAL THOUGHT. Secularism is the corner stone and fundamental of a democracy. But it cannot succeed unless it is defined in a clear language. Our neighboring countries boast of secularism but religion intolerance is at its zenith.  In Africa in most of the country’s secularism has no place. Tribal conflicts and sectarian killings are very common and run contrary to the principle of both democracy and secularism. This will continue till dooms day.

THREE ATHEISTS, BAD PHILOSOPHERS.

 

BY K P PASWAN

At present we find three Atheists, inspiring the world by their wonderful arguments against GOD and religion, Richard Dawkins book GOD DELUSION is being smuggled through internet in the Middle East where this book is banned for sale. What an irony, this book is downloaded in Saudi Arabia and a few enthusiasts have been either jailed or convicted to death.

Sam Harris is an American Neuro Scientist, a brilliant scholar on Buddhism, Hinduism and Jainism. But the twine towers attack has turned him against a particular religion and proudly declares that war against terrorism means war against Islam. His book THE END OF FAITH, if translated into Arabic is certain to lead violence and the people would forget the massacre of employees of the French Magazine CHARLE HEBDO. He has been accused of suffering from Islamophobia. By heart he is a Democrat, is in the habit of blasting Donald Trump and calls him a hypocrite. He has authored a book, LETTER TO A CHRISTIAN NATION . The third atheist making a mockery of Divine power is Daniel C Donnette, he has authored a book Breaking the Spell. In Physical appearance, he resembles Narendra Modi, the PM of India.

 Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris are brilliant scientists and Daniel Dennett is a philosopher and may be compared with  British atheist philosopher Wittgenstein. Richard Dawkins attacks God for sending Tsunami for killing innocent people. His act is balancing Islam and Christianity and condemned Martin Rees, a world-famous astrophysicist for accepting Templeton award which is given to those scientists who present something positive with, sufficient proofs, of religion.

I had an opportunity to listen to Richard Dawkins in the Kolkata book fare when I just finished my post-graduation in physics. After listening to the brilliant biologist of our time, I concluded that I listened to a lecture on geology by a Zoologist. By sheer luck I came closer to a Nobel Laureate in physics who considers himself an avowed atheist, but he is a scholar of GEETA and Upanishads. US has a large number of institutions which imparts education in Sanskrit, and if you want to learn the true meaning and contents of holy scriptures of Vedic religion, you will find US not legging behind India.

It may be noted that Sam Harris spent many years in India and developed liking for Buddhism, Jainism and of course Hinduism. Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris are aggressive in attacking God and religion. Richard Dawkins thinks wrongly that the term God emerges from religion. He forgets that neither Buddhism nor a section of Hindu scriptures believe in a God, who sends tsunami and hurricane to kill innocent people.

PAST ATHEISTS. Germany has always been known as producing excellent scientists and atheists. We know a philosopher, Frederik Nietzsche who declared that GOD was dead meaning end of traditional morality, while one German philosopher declared that he killed GOD, what does it mean? It means God was roaming in Germany with a dagger in his hand and threatening people, so he was caught and killed. Highly qualified and educated philosophers of Germany like Leibniz, discussed the rationality of the universe and their experiences were shared with admiration all over the world. With progress in fundamental science, new facts started emerging, then we find emergence of counter anti atheistic movement in US.

Bertrand Russel and George Bernard Shaw, they were much respected intellectuals of their times. Bertrand Russel, a mathematician and Nobel peace prize winner, became an atheist as the Second Law of thermodynamics led him to believe that human race would face extinction in heat death, while Bernard Shaw, who won Nobel in literature was influenced by prevailing suffering of people due to Second World War. In present time, scientists are not talking of heat death as there are conflicting opinions, whether an expanding universe ever would achieve maximum entropy or disorder?  We are less concerned with heat death or collapse of universe into nothing, because there won’t be any body left to see the apoplectic end of the universe and there won’t be any restaurant at the end of the universe.

LAWS OF THERMODYNAMICS, are not the final words of reasons of our existence. Energy cannot be created and destroyed, so there is no need for a creator, Energy can be converted into other things but what whens ENERGY becomes NOTHING, great brains are engaged in cracking the code of NOTHING, if it turns out laws of nature than the first law demands a writer of these laws. The Universe is not static and Roger Penrose is telling us that the present universes from an already existed universe. The Universe is cyclic but it needs an operator, in the case of a static universe, atheists will win the race but the universe is expanding and is not static.

Jacques Monad of France, who was one of the youngest scientists to win a Nobel in medicine was first to denounce existence of divine power and his arguments are more convincing than Richard Dawkins. Monod is convinced that our destiny has not been written, and we are completely at the mercy of evolution. His philosophy greatly influenced the minds of scientists of ours times.

Coming to real issue, Dawkins assaults religion for reasons best known to every educated persons of the world. He forgets that his own country being ruled by overambitious politicians were responsible for the lamentable state affairs and twisted religion as per their wish. Sam Harris launches attack on Islam, forgetting that his own country does not allow entry of liberal Muslims scholars to enter to US but allows Wahhabi and Salafi to flourish and engage in terrorist activities, Richard Dawkins’s motherland UK has become the breeding ground for the worst type of terrorists, ready to die for paradise. The whole of EU is behaving like defender of terrorists in the name of human rights.

 It is unfortunate that a brilliant scholar like Dawkins thinks that evil and goodness may be attributed to selfish jen and not God, but everybody in this world irrespective of religion, believe that human being possesses certain qualities which cannot be proved by Dawkins Selfish Jean and BLIND WATCH MAKER, but these people also don’t think that a divine power is working behind these qualities. Sam Harris being a neuro scientist is perhaps more rational than Richard Dawkins. Sam Harris is outraged that twin tower attack was in the name of protecting religion, but dead terrorist, instead of protecting religion, gave birth to a person like Sam Harris and created persons who hate the religion of terrorists. Baghdadi killed and raped women in the name of punishing the infidels, but he himself met a tragic.

While attacking religion and questioning the existence of a benevolent GOD, Richard Dawkins does not give any scant credit to several brilliant particle physicists, who unraveled the mystery of nature without invoking a supernatural power. There are some atheists who think that by providing relief and help to humankind we can replace God, but this is happening even without atheism. Every state, barring exceptions are engaged in welfare activities meant for every section of society. There are more than 300 Nobel Prise winners in US, in different segments, but mostly in physics, Chemistry and Medicines. There are few American physicists who are willing to accept Richard Dawkins as a living manifestation of destiny, targeting a divine power. Moreover, Dawkins surprisingly calls certain politicians and scientists like Einstein as atheist.

DALAILAMA And Neuroscience,  Dalai lama is very much interested in Neuroscience. Buddhism and certain section of Vedic schools denounce a personal God and Vedic philosophy identified soul with Brahmans which is certainly not God, I am not certain, but a leading scholar told me that entire Buddhism is influenced by a particular Upanishads, which decries soul and God. For Buddhism, Souls are not free from the cycle of death and rebirth and here Neuroscience plays important role in understanding human nature. When a few learned American Physicists from Mount Palomar, (famous for one of the largest observatories) visited His Holiness Dalai lama, the later asked the physicists the latest discovery and news from Mount Palomar, after listening to physicists Dalai lama told them “So now we have a position”. Sam Harris, himself well versed in Buddhism and Neuroscience may realise the significance of Dalai lama’s observations. In the same way Richard Dawkins attacks an unproven divine power for human sufferings, but he must be aware of those suffering, which led to the emergence of Prince Siddhartha as Lord Buddha, we call him an atheist but he remains silent when asked about a creator.

 Daniel Dinette listens to latest developments in physics but he does not think that science has reached its zenith, his way of denouncing God and religion is quite different’

 FINAL WORDS. The Universe is expanding but the question is expansion from what and expansion into what? In the same way Evolution from what and into what? Neither Dawkins nor Sam Harris can answer. Physicists are trying to find an answer. We are certain that we will find answer, then it is possible that religion itself becomes a form of science. And in the changed scenario no religion with violence can hope to survive. These three atheists Richard Hawkins’s Harris and Daniel Dennett are great atheists and brilliant scientists, but not great philosophers, in fact they are very bad philosopher. Atheists movement has badly failed to generate enough strength in the world. Philips Johnson, the most renowned Creationist accepts that evolution has taking place, but he insists more on selection, and the question is selection by whom?  Evolution without Selection badly assaults the writer of BLIND WATCH MAKER, as per Richard Dawkins, we the human being select the future, but human being is not the ultimate target of evolution, selection would lead to a new form of species with artificial intelligence, but we are not certain and no scientists worth the name are certain. Stefen Joy Gould who advocated the compatibility of science and religion and before his death suspected outside influence for guiding the universe.  Stephen joy Gould was not an atheist but an agnostic and one of the greatest Paleontologist of our time for whom neither Dawkins, Harris or Dennett have even scant respect.