Gandhi ideology mocked in Modi's India
India is celebrating Gandhiji's 150th birth anniversary like some kind of a mockery. Modi has restricted Gandhi to just a symbol of cleaning roads. There is a reason to this. Gandhi is a memory, an indelible one, that seeps the sangh Parivar in guilt owing to the end he met at the hands of a person who believed in Sangh ideology. Hence the BJP which believes in Sangh ideology has restricted Gandhiji to a metaphor of sweeping roads. BJP leaders stand with rooms in the hands on the birth anniversary of Gandhiji clearly ignorant is all other messages and teachings. Gandhians fear whether the leaders have held broom to sweep away his other values such as non violence, coexistence, harmony and secularism.
It is true that Gandhiji placed cleanliness above all other values. He wants visited pilgrimage which was dirty beyond comprehension and said god would never be present here. He once visited Krishna Mutt and the dignitaries invited him to visit the main temple Gandhiji asked them are Dalits allowed in that place?
Upon getting a negative answer he refused to go to the temple. His emphasis for cleanliness was not just external. He believed external cleanliness is as important as internal purity. This is the main reason why Modi's swachata andolan is not taking off as expected. The reason for its failure is here. There is also a reason as to why the river Ganga is not getting cleaned up. So long as social evils such as poverty, casteism and untouchability are not eradicated from our society, or the government does not work with total integrity to eradicate them from the society, all these celebrations will just remain mere slogans or pretensions.
Gandhiji strongly believed in nonviolence. That was the route he chose to earn freedom for India. Just as the non-cooperative movement was gaining momentum some people set a police station on fire when he heard this he withdrew from the movement.
He felt the country wasn't prepared to gain independence. He regretted for this incident of violence. At a time when the country celebrates his 150th birth anniversary violence is looming large in all quarters of the country. There was a time when those to cared for the cows were known as Gau rakshaks. Today's Gau rakshaks are those who brandish knives, do rowdism, smoke ganja and drink alcohol creating trouble for everyone and claiming innocent lives in the pretext of cow protection. Dairy farming held prominent place in Gandhi's India. Princes in Modi's India, dairy farming takes a backseat and fake Gau rakshaks gain prominence.
Farmers are killed by this fake cow protectors. Police kill without hesitation in the name of encounters. More than anything else government got down to assault the farmers who had gathered to press for the demands at the national capital on Gandhi Jayanti day itself. This is the tragedy of the celebration. This bloodthirsty government will attempt to kill common people but will pay tributes to Gandhiji by banning sale of meat on the day of his birth anniversary. Just as fake cleanliness is a mockery of Gandhi's values running sale of meat is also another contradiction to what Gandhi stood for.
India is a country where people have varied sources of food, it's not a majoritarian nation. Meat and alcohol should not be made on the same scale. Alcohol is not food and by consuming it man loses semblance of thoughts. The government has to ban sale of alcohol on certain occasions.
Gandhi had staged anti alcohol protest many a times during his freedom struggle. But never ever did he stage a demonstration against food or choice of meat as one's food. Many of his friends were meat eaters and Gandhi never protested against it. This being the case why should the government ban sale of meat on his birth anniversary? More than 50% of the population in India dies of malnutrition. World Health Organisation has been warning that the numbers are increasing with every passing year. With this by placing meat and alcohol on the same level what message is the government trying to give to the people of the country?
The government is trying to reduce the food of the majority of Indians to third grade. This government is trying to create an inferiority Complex among people about eating meat. Where are the examples of vegetarians having followed the path of non violence?
History is testimony to the fact that Hitler was vegetarian. All those who have been exploiting the Dalits since ages are vegetarians. This being the facts what is the basis to prove that non vegetarian diet encourages violence or cruelty among its consumers?
Violence is to take away the right to sell cattle from the hands of their rearers which are farmers. Denying people their food for not possessing Aadhar card is violence. Banning sale of meat on Gandhi Jayanti day and denying people their choice of food is violence. The irony of democracy is that the government decides the diet of people starting from Gandhi Jayanti to Mahavir Jayanti. Gandhiji would have never approved of this. No administration or any government has any right to dictate food choices to people. Before people take to streets demanding their choice of food the government should issue a directive to district administration to not issue official orders on what people should be eating on a particular day.
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
Bengaluru (PTI): Justice B V Nagarathna of the Supreme Court on Saturday called for the creation of a judicial reforms commission to reduce mounting pendency in the courts, saying systemic incentives across stakeholders were contributing to delays in justice delivery.
She was speaking at the Supreme Court Bar Association's (SCBA) first National Conference on the theme "Reimagining judicial governance: strengthening institutions for democratic justice" here.
Nagarathna, who was part of the panel session addressing "From Pendency to Prompt Justice: Rethinking Justice Delivery in Indian Courts," said, this reforms commission must have membership not only from the judiciary of the Supreme Court, the High Court, as well as the District judiciary, but also have members from the Bar, Attorney General, Solicitor General, and also certain members representing the Bar at the institutional level, such as the Bar President, and from the government side to enable an inter-institutional dialogue on reducing pendency.
She reflected that, from the point of view of various stakeholders, a litigant gains from the status quo, to proceed to prolong proceedings.
ALSO READ: A political legacy, but no win yet: Padmaja Venugopal''s new fight in Thrissur
"A lawyer or an advocate loves adjournments and postponement because he/she benefits from per appearance and extended timelines. A government department reduces bureaucratic risk by appealing rather than accepting defeat.
"A judge, and particularly a trial judge, is always acting with caution because he/she is confronted with appellate reversal, and therefore he/she prefers procedural caution rather than having an aggressive docket control. Each of these decisions is individually rational, but how does it help the system? It is only leading to systemic delay," she added.
In order to break this equilibrium, Justice Nagarathna said that what is required is institutional interventions through a judicial commission to reduce pendency, rather than merely exhorting better conduct from judges, adherence to procedural timelines, asking advocates not to seek adjournments, urging the government to reduce litigation, or expecting courts to function round the clock and judges not to take leave.
On pendency, the judge questioned the inclusion of defective filings in court statistics, suggesting that such cases should not be counted until they are procedurally ready for hearing.
She also underlined the role of the government as the "largest generator of litigation", noting that officials tend to file appeals to avoid scrutiny, even in cases where disputes could be settled earlier. This, she said, results in cases travelling through multiple judicial levels unnecessarily.
"The government publicly expresses concern about judicial backlog, while simultaneously feeding that backlog through relentless litigation," she observed.
Justice Nagarathna further claimed judicial capacity is constrained by inadequate public investment, including delays in appointment of judges, lack of infrastructure and insufficient use of technology.
Among the measures suggested, she called for improved case management, curbs on unnecessary adjournments, adoption of technology, prioritisation of cases, promotion of alternative dispute resolution mechanisms, and creation of specialised benches.
She also urged advocates to adhere to professional and ethical standards, litigants to avoid frivolous appeals, and the government to adopt a practical litigation policy and ensure timely funding and appointments in the judiciary.
