HELLO, THIS IS KISHEN, MY MOBILE NO. IS ....

Sometimes you can’t escape from comparisons though comparison, at times, may be odious. According to our mythology, Lord Krishna was quite elusive, despite his mischievous deeds and omnipresence, for those whom he tormented out of love. Our own Telugu bidda, Kishen ji, who claims to fight a dharmic war for the sake of the poor and downtrodden, is accessible to every journalist, talks to everyone at will, travels extensively, but our establishment cannot trace him or pin him down like Sri Krishna for his Gopis. He is at large for the establishment, but he is available to anyone just for a buzz.

Exchange of statements between Maoist leader Kishen and the government, especially the Home Minister sounds as if two sovereign states are talking to each other. First, when Union Home Minster Chidambaram wanted theMaoists to stop violence for 72 hours before there could be any meaningful dialogue, Kishen taunted the Home Minister that he would enforce a ceasefire for 72 days provided the government stopped its offensive. It was just a tit for tat. He knew that the government cannot accept conditional offer for talks and still he wanted to score a point over the government.

When Chidambaram wanted the Maoists to fax their statement direct to him instead of talking through the media and gave them his fax number, Kishen had the audacity to give his mobile number and asked the Home Minister to talk to him over phone. He did not leave a choice for the Minister for the timing. Kishen wanted him to call him on Feb 25 at 5 PM. “Let him (Chidambaram) call me with specific proposals. We are offering the truce in all honesty, disregarding our earlier conditions”, Kishen said with all temerity that he can command.

As a counter to Operation Green Hunt, he threatens to launch Operation Peace Hunt and put the governments of Chattisgargh, Orissa, Jharkand and West Bengal on notice. He also threatened an armed rebellion in the capital city of Kolkatta just before 2011 assembly elections.

Do all these mean that the Maoists are somewhere nearer to their objective of overthrowing a democratically elected government through the barrel of gun? Have they succeeded in establishing their “Red Corridor” without encountering any challenge from the duly elected governments? Are the Maoists talking from a position of strength vis-a-vis state governments?

So far as the West Bengal government is concerned, it is absolutely clear that there is no political will to take on the Maoists. Sildha massacre in West Midnapore district is a classic example for the state government’s complacence despite intelligence inputs, if one has to use Shivraj Patil’s phrase – “actionable intelligence”. There were five attacks on police outposts in West Midnapore district during the last six months killing 32 security personnel. West Midnapore is a stronghold of Maoists and 266 people were killed in the district since 2002 in Left Extremist violence. Of this, 155 persons were killed since June 2009.
Despite the resurgence of Maoist activities since 2004, Buddhadeb Bhattacharya feels and talks like Buddha. He feels ban will not serve the purpose when the problem is a political one. According to observers there is inexplicable reluctance to use force against Maoists. There are also reports that atleast one two occasions, the security forces zeroed in on Kishen and at the last minute they were asked not to rein him in.

Sildha is a recent example for lack of preparedness. When the Maoists ran into the camp, 50 jawans were busy in the kitchen with no arms around. It is not clear whether these jawans were aware of the Standard Operating Procedures. Jawans were poorly trained and there were no adequate arms and ammunition.

When this is the attitude of the Marxist government in containing the Maoist menace, Marxists are charging their beta noire Mamta Banerjee for being soft on Maoists or for arriving at a deal with them. It may be a fact that Mamta di must be deriving vicarious pleasure when the Maoists are targeting the Marxists in West Bengal for after all “my enemy’s enemy is my friend”. When her one point agenda in politics is to throw out the Marxist government in West Bengal who have been ruling the roost for three decades, she is prepared to take help from any quarter.

But what Mamta di should realise is that Maoists have always played this game and they will have no remorse to turn against her once she ascends the gaddi. They did it twice in Andhra Pradesh. When the late Dr Marri Channa Reddy wanted to finish TDP, he took the help of Peoples War Group and returned as chief minister for the second time. Late Dr Y S Rajasekara Reddy also followed in his footsteps and scored a spectacular win in 2004. As a thankgs giving gesture, he lifted the ban on PWG immediately after coming to power and invited them for talks. That the talks were a miserable flop is a different story. And YSR had to constitute a special elite force to wipe out Maoists from the state.

Whether the Maoists offer of ceasefire is real or a ploy to regroup, as they always did like the LTTE of yesteryears, what is there for Chidambaram to talk to them when he said “Maoists should abjure violence and issue a statement that they were prepared for talks”. Several intellectual groups (read Maoist sympathisers or front organisations in the garb of NGOs) want the Centre not to miss this opportunity for talks. This is quite amusing. Talks for what? Does the government expect the Maoists to give up their ideology of capturing power through the barrel of gun after the so-called talks? If the government thinks so, it seems to have learnt no lesson from the past. If anyone has illusions about the Maoists love for the poor and tribals, they exposed themselves when they brutally attacked a tribal village in Bihar and massacred them and burnt their houses.

The bottom line is that Maoists will not be prepared to dilute their ideology, even if – a big IF indeed - they abjure violence for a shortwhile. They are not going to come before Chidambaram with ash and sac clothes. So long as their ideology remains, talks are going to be just talks for the sake of talks. We have seen it in Andhra Pradesh where they insisted on coming to talks with their guns slung on their shoulders. What happened after the talks is history now.

Rajpaksha mantra is the only answer for the Maoist menace

MANIPURI YOUTH WELCOME IN TAMIL NADU !

If you think that Saudi Arabia or other Arab countries alone import cheap labour from India, you may have to change your opinion. Within our own country there is inter-state migration because of appalling poverty and lack of development in one region and relative affluence in other regions. If it is exploitation of poverty by some, it is mere survival instinct for some others.

No. I am not just talking about Biharis who have registered their presence in every State and not just Mumbai over which Thackerays are making so much noise. Youngsters in the age groupof 15-25 from Manipur, Assam and also from Nepal have migrated, may not be in large numbers, to various parts of Tamil Nadu. Their main destination is 3-star hotels and restaurants.

Thank God for small mercies. Kalaignar Karunanidhi is in power and the entire state is his family property like the Maharajas of yesteryears with his wives (how did he escape from the Hindu marriage act is a puzzle to everyone) and their children and grand children having economic interests in every field of human activity in the state, legal or otherwise. Therefore he or his progeny in politics are not unduly bothered about these migrations unlike power-hungry Thackerays who have an eye on Marathi vote bank. After all, Kalaignar or his party is no less parochial than Shiv Sena. Let’s not forget that it is the DMK which is the forerunner for regionalism in the country.

It is a different form of racism, if we may say so, that is on play in the hotels and restaurants of major towns in Tamil Nadu. Not far away from the most scared temple of Kamakshi in Kanchipuram, if you enter some of the decent restaurants, you will find a visual display of this kind of racism. You would find dark-skinned Dravidians, rather pure breed, serving hot idlis, dosas with steaming Sambar cups, and very fair-complexioned (lemon coloured)Manipuris, Assamese and Nepalis with distinct ethnic features, clearing the plates and cleaning the tables and floors. The contrast would be quite stark. For colour conscious Tamils, it is quite an interesting scene.

I was curious to know how Manipuris, Assamese and Nepalis, who do not share the cultural and civilisational ethos of Tamils and without knowing a word of Tamil land in places like Kanchipuram, Madurai, Tiruchirappalli, Coimbatore etc. I was told that it is not that they land here on one fine morning. Owners or their middlemen visit North-East for mass recruitment just like IT czars go in for campus recruitment.

Why are they not given relatively decent jobs of stewards or suppliers, but made to do menial jobs like cleaning the floors or tables, toilets, etc? I was told that these guys do not pick up the local Tamil dialect quite easily and they can’t be given the job of interacting with the guests/customers.

Are they not getting “locals” for the “menial” jobs? The answer made me to sit up and take note which is not without its positive side. “Local” youth are not prepared to do such jobs as most of them are educated or have become skilled labour with the mushrooming ITIs offering them training in various trades. Industrialisation of the southern states has enabled absorption of such skilled labour. After all, nature leaves no vacuum. Manipuris and their brethren from the North East seem to fill the void in Tamil Nadu. No one says that they have stolen the jobs of the local Tamils.
Is there a lesson for the ruling class in states like Bihar, Uttar Pradesh, Assam in the Tamil Nadu phenomenon, leaving aside the discrimination and exploitation factors apart? It is all fine raising peurile slogans like “Mumbai for all Indians” and “India for Indians”. Who said it is not? Should we have to be told or reminded every now and then?

Thackerays may be harsh, crude and uncouth. Violence cannot be the medium for their message. If you look at the target of Thackerays’ wrath, it is the poorer section from Bihar and UP who eke out their livelihood as taxi drivers, coolies, milkmen, domestic helps, etc. What these paper tigers in Maharashtra should be told is that Biharis are now everywhere and not just in Mumbai. Oriyas also started following the footsteps of their Bihari brethren. A majority of the cab drivers in Kolkatta are from Bihar. They had spread far and wide.

Even in the new state of Sikkim their presence is noticeable especially in the hotels and restaurants. Tsongo lake (a tourist spot in Sikkim, but known for its avalanches) is almost on the China border where, thanks to AK Antony, roads are being widened and repaired because of the threats from our northern neighbour. You can find Biharis there making their livelihood doing odd jobs.

It may be unfair to Biharis if we conclude that they are semi-literates or illiterates capable of doing only menial jobs. Academic institutions in Delhi are full of Biharis. If you advertise for any post in Delhi, more than 50% of the applicants would be Biharis who fled Bihar during the chaotic rule of Lalu and his wife and landed in Delhi for higher studies and jobs. That’s what Lalu brand of socialism or Mulayam brand of secularism did to Bihar and UP.

Just because so-called socialists like Lalu or Mulayam, or Dalit Netri, in the name of dogma or having a vested interest in the promotion and sustenance of poverty and casteism, refuse to invest in long-term development, and force the people to flee the state just to keep their body and soul together, should those netas go scot free? Should they not be accountable for their abysmal failure to develop the states and to provide for gainful employment to their people. Some of them may not be in power today. But their sins are haunting their people to be at the receiving end of parochial bigots. It is all fine to say Constitution provides freedom of movement. But the spirit of the same Constitution mandates the rulers for providing livelihood for the people. What did these socialist worthies do except mouthing platitudes and promoting casteism and communalism?

Yes, Rahul Gandhi might have had a fancy for “travelogues” in Mumbai. His focus on UP and Bihar to reinvent the Congress may be for power. But, if he can reverse the pernicious trend set by the outdated netas and help taking these states towards development, we can forgive the ambitions of the dynasty, however much it is distasteful. There are reports that the present chief minister Nitish Kumar has achieved some success in reversing the trend. The only way to defeat Thackerays is to develop states like Bihar and UP. We can say “cheers” to anyone who does it – Nitish or Rahul!

Tamil Nadu has shown the way. A state whose leaders were once talking of secession has now opened its doors to North-east – something unimaginable in the sixties and seventies. Development is the mantra to smoke out the Tigers of Maharashtra, not empty slogans and counterslogans.

JUDICIAL ACTIVISM VS RESTRAINT

There is a great deal of debate in all functional democracies over judicial activism as opposed to judicial restraint. It all started in the wealthiest democracy in the world – United States where progressive judicial verdict was responsible for putting an end to the segregation in schools in 1954. Till then, African American students were not allowed to study in the schools meant for American white students.

As far as India is concerned, the nation owes to V R Krishna Iyer for opening the gates for judicial activism by entertaining a post card as writ petition. He delivered quite a few landmark judgments which paved the way for his successors to try their hand in judicial activism. No doubt, judicial activism helps change erroneous or anti-people socio-economic policies of the government. The question is where does activism stop and restraint begin?

In fact, conventionally judiciary is expected to observe restraint. There is a school of thought among the legal luminaries that courts should leave policy decisions to the Legislature and Executive bodies. Again, if we go by convention, judiciary is expected to interpret law and determine whether a law is in accordance with the Constitution of the country. It can point out if the Legislature/Executive deviates from the path laid out by the Constitution. The judgment should speak for the judges and not the judges themselves barring occasional or rather incidental oral observations. The Apex court has time and again reminded the High Courts that judiciary should observe utmost restraint in the open court.

There was an occasion in 2007when Justice Markandeya Katju found fault with the Supreme Court itself for “breaching boundaries of ‘self-restraint’ by asking the Central government to formulate a comprehensive scheme on consumer fora”. Justice Katju said that in the name of affirmative action or judicial activism, Supreme Court could not amend the law as it would be a “naked usurpation of legislative power. This court must exercise judicial restraint”. Interestingly, his brother Judge of the same Bench voiced his strong dissent and criticised Katju for not practicing what he preached. What he meant was that while Justice Katju wanted judicial restraint, he himself violated it by criticising the earlier decision in the open court. That the issue was referred to the Chief Justice is a different story. The moral is that the judiciary must observe utmost restraint while making observations in the open court.

Why should it be so? Courts are composed of unelected judges and the courts are the least democratic branch of the State. Judiciary, a creation of the Constitution to interpret laws and to render justice to those who have no hopes of getting from other arms of the State, should not get involved in political questions or conflicts between the other two branches of the State.

As a matter of fact, judicial restraint demands that the courts should not impose their views on other branches of the government or the states unless there is a clear violation of the Constitution. The language of the judges in an open court should not resemble that of a politician or give out their personal views or go to the extremes. The seat of judiciary is a sanctified one and there can be no scope for a language that does not befit the dignity of the exalted branch of the State. In fact, there are some who believe that a passive role of the court is preferred to an extra-judicial role. After all, those who have to face the wrath of the people or accountable to the people and the legislature are the elected representatives and the government.

In the light of what we understand as “judicial restraint”, let’s look at the observations of the Andhra Pradesh High Court while hearing the petition in connection with the violence on Osmania University campus, as reported in the media , assuming that the media report truly reflects what the honourable judge said in the open court.

Police excess, though thoroughly unjustified, is not something that has begun after the T-agitation started in November last year. Nor is it unique only to Andhra Pradesh. Nor lathi charge is something new that the Police started using selectively. Agitationists - either student unions or social activists - are dispersed, when there is interference with law and order, by lathi charge. Can we forget the way Jayaprakash Narayan’s scalp was battered with lathis before the Emergency? Every state has its share of Police excess and no one can defend it. Police might say there was provocation from the protestors. As far as the OU violence is concerned, we are yet to get an impartial account.

But the judicial observation in the AP High Court ran like this. “The State police are a lawless lot and accountable to none. It looks like they are acting at the behest of somebody”. Who is that SOMEBODY is known to the honourable judge and to those keen observers of current affairs in the state. It is pure conjecture and only legal pundits can answer the question whether there is any scope for conjectures in judicial observations.

If there was any doubt about the target, further observation of the judge cleared it. “It is all the more unfortunate that such things are happening at a time when a renowned former police officer is the governor of the state. His presence should act as a deterrent on the police. But the reverse is happening”.

The observation on the state DGP was a personal taunt. “Girish Kumar was working on the basis of interim directions of the high court. He seems to be more concerned about saving his seat than overseeing the law and order situation in the state”. There is no link between the State government appealing against the order of the CAT and the violence on the OU campus. But the observation makes one feel that the DGP remains in his post with the sufferance of the court and he was done a favour.

Further, what was not in conformity with the practice of judicial restraint is the comparison with Jallianwalabagh and General Dyer. “There are several Dyers here and your government is not competent enough to control them”, was the judicial, shall we say, extra-judicial observation. Usually, this is the language missile that a politician fires at his opponents. But, here politicians were given on a platter something that will cause verbal diarrhoea for them.

The last straw in the judicial observation was the invitation to Amnesty International. Does our Constitution recognise this body? Don’t we have enough vigilance mechanisms like National Human Rights Commission, National Commission for Women etc to look into human rights violations? Even an irresponsible political party does not demand the intervention of Amnesty International. Thank God, there was no reference to UN Security Council. With all humility and deference to the judiciary one can say that intemperate language does not go well with the image of the judiciary.

Expression of my views in this blog is confined to the observations and NOT to the merits or demerits of the judgement itself which dismissed the appeal of the state government.

MUCH ADO ABOUT MARATHI MANOOS

It is difficult to understand what is the issue at stake in neighbouring Maharashtra for all that hot air blown by every party making Mumbai to look like on big hot air balloon? By now, people have become familiar with the mindset of Shiv Sena or its modified version Maharashtra Nava nirman Sena. Whenver they have to face the electorate in Maharashtra – elections to the Mumbai Municipal Corporation is in the offing - they have been raising this slogan that “Maharashtra is for Maharshtrians”. Who said it is not?

The very rationale behind the formation of linguistic states is that it would give a sense of belonging to the people who speak the same language. Whether the Constitution makers anticipated that the political class in the country would stoop down so low to become parochial to the core or not, they, in their wisdom and remarkable foresight, gave us the fundamental right to freedom of movement.
Let’s be fair to Sena. This freedom is being threatened not only in Maharashtra but in Andhra Pradesh as well. (I will come to that a bit later) What is the provocation for the present cacophony of voices in the business capital of India?

Buoyed by his relative success in wooing the people of Uttar Pradesh, heir apparent Rahul Gandhi wanted to open an account for his party in Bihar which is going to the polls later this year. How to do it? He has to tickle the ego of Biharis who were at the receiving end in Maharashtra. He put his foot in the mouth when he said that it was Commandos from Bihar and UP, who fought the terrorists in Mumbai and saved the city from total destruction. First of all, this is a highly objectionable statement because this only confirms the divisive mindset of this fledgling politician. One cannot and should not look at the linguistic or regional background of NSG commandos for after all they belong to the nation. They fought not for Mumbai but for the honour of the entire nation. However, to be fair to Rahul, his statement that Mumbai is for all Indians is unexceptionable.

This statement was like giving a flower garland to a monkey. Remember Tendulkar had earful from the Sainiks when he made an innocuous statement that ‘he was Indian first and Maharashtrian next’. What one fails to figure out is what exactly ageing Thackeray or his cohorts want when they attack anyone who says “Mumbai is for all Indians”. Are they trying to emulate the mindset of DK and DMK of Fifties when they were harping on secession? No, ultra-nationalist Thackeray stoutly denies that Sena ever advocated separating Maharashtra from the rest of the country. In his own typical style, the ageing Sena leader taunts Rahul that his party does not need lessons from Prince Rahul especially since his party Congress was responsible for the division of the country.

Saamna editorial also echoed similar sentiments. “Sena had never said Mumbai was not part of India nor could seeds of separation be ever sowed on Marathi soil”. Fair enough! Why then this war of words and threats?

Yes, when it comes to threats, the image of the Maharashtra Congress and government stands sullied. It was the state chief minister Ashok Chavan who asked the cab drivers in the state, who are mostly from northern states, to learn to read and write Marathi to qualify for driving licence. This veiled threat was enlarged by Raj Thackeray, who incidentally was the Frankenstein of the Congress to corner Shiv Sena, to indulge in criminal intimidation.

The one who was caught in this crossfire was Shah Rukh Khan. Is he not entitled to his opinion on the composition of IPL? Sainiks want an issue and Khan gave it on a platter like Rahul Gandhi. Khan’s posters are torn, there are attempts to stop the screening of his film “My name is Khan”. Well, this may sound quite familiar to the people of Andhra Pradesh. It is only recently they witnessed the tamasha over “Adhurs” film starring junior NTR, and various attempts to disrupt the shooting schedules of different film productions in the Telangana region. Were there not threats against the Andhra/Rayalaseema leaders from undertaking tours in Telangana districts? Entrepreneurs from the coastal districts were lumped together as “capitalists” with the tone and tenor being as though the capitalists are “sinners” or “looters”, and warned against entering Telangana.

A legal luminary and former Solicitor General , while commenting on Maharashtra developments, says “This fascist trend, if not uprooted, can extend to other areas and lead to divisiveness...” Is he not aware that it has already spread to Andhra Pradesh with the slogan “Telangana Jago, Andhr awale Bago”. We can’t blame him. The problem is with the media and its priorities. For the national media what happens in Mumbai or Delhi is earth-shaking development whereas what happens down South is fit for only 30-second round up. Did the national media give the same importance to divisive tendencies that were in play in AP as they are playing up in Maharashtra now.

Be that as it may, let us revert to Maharashtra. A refreshing development is that the decades-long ally of Shiv Sena , Bharatiya Janata Party and its mentor RSS have called the bluff of the ageing Tiger. Both Mohan rao Bhagavat and his protégé Nitin Gadkari opposed discrimination on the basis of language and violence against people coming from other States.

Here again, it is not without political motives and certainly not because of Constitutional niceties. BJP and JD(U) are fighting the elections together in Bihar and if BJP does not send the right message to the Biharis, like Rahul did, coalition has to incur the wrath of Bihar voters. However, Rahul being a novice, he did not know how to orchestrate his political strategy and gave a handle to Sena bosses. While pandering to Bihari sentiments in Bihar, BJP seems to have taken the calculated risk in Maharashsra because Sena, anyway, is a dying force with Uddhav failing to shape up to his octogenarian father’s belligerence and MNS being a sideshow of the Congress. BJP’s game plan seems to occupy the “right” space that will be up for grabs after the senior Thackeray calls it a day.