[vignesh_ce]

Originally Posted by neetugw

Pressure on Musharraf:-

1. Situation in Lahore, Pakistan has got changed since Chief Justice Chaudhary asked Prime Parvez Musharraf to quit.
2. Pakistan is under military rule of President Musharraf.
3. Pakistan Government is against Chief Justice which describes constitutional & judicial matter.
4. Two main opposition leaders in Pakistan are Benazir Bhutto & Nawaz Sharif.
5. Ms. Bhutto might join hands with President Musharraf.
6. Govt. might opt for Emergency option by seeing protects, Pakistan is state of high political flux.
7. India should open avenues by reading signals correctly in Pakistan.

great work! will join with u frm tommo...

[jubilant_ankit]

Originally Posted by neetugw

No Giving up on Gas.

1. It is talking about energy relations with of India with Iran.
2. Financial & technical par aments of the pipeline project among Iran, Pakistan & India.
3. Bush would be in award position if the deal between India & Iran would get finalized. So, new delhi looking towards US for energy.
4.Between, India & Iran there is pricing dispute in the annual import of 5 million tones of LNG.
5 New Delhi should push itself with "Washington 123" agreement for the prospect in nuclear cooperation.

@neetu ..
In the article "No giving up on gas"
correct me if I m wrong .but I think the article says that Bush govt. would be in awkward position if the deal gets thru.. n it wants that the deal shouldn't get thru...
And in the article "Pressure on Musharraf"
Although, I m not aware of the exact situation but I think the article says that Musharraf asked Chief Justice Choudhari to quit n not vice versa..

[neetugw]

Thanks for correcting me.

[Sudheshna]

Originally Posted by neetugw

Pressure on Musharraf:-

1. Situation in Lahore, Pakistan has got changed since Chief Justice Chaudhary asked Prime Parvez Musharraf to quit.
2. Pakistan is under military rule of President Musharraf.
3. Pakistan Government is against Chief Justice which describes constitutional & judicial matter.
4. Two main opposition leaders in Pakistan are Benazir Bhutto & Nawaz Sharif.
5. Ms. Bhutto might join hands with President Musharraf.
6. Govt. might opt for Emergency option by seeing protects, Pakistan is state of high political flux.
7. India should open avenues by reading signals correctly in Pakistan.

Hi,
Apropos to the editorial posted by neetugw, i would like to add the following points.it actually briefs on what happend and why the agitation started in pakistan. this is not totally my work. i read the article in India Today and found it quite interesting..so its an abstract to tht article
by d way..nyc wrk neetugw
The pressure on Musharraf:
Finally the Pakistanis are outraged. They are out on streets protesting against the President Msuharraf. How this all started?
General Musharraf ,wanting to get himself elected for the next elections, was apprehensive of the Supreme Court under Chaudhary admitting a possible petition asking him to renounce his uniform which is quite crucial for the General President becuase he knew his threat comes from his own constituency, the military. As a result of which he has become obsessed with micro managing everything.
It was for this reason the government prepared a refernce against the cheif justice hoping to browbeat him into resigning.
When people watched in dismay the arrogance of police by grabbing the cheif justice by hair and pushing him into the car, a national hero was born. By refusing to succumb to Musharraf's pressue Chaudhary has united the judiciary,media and society and created an ever-growing territory of dissent. The lawyer's movement has acquired support because of abhorrence of military rule. Thus the impropoer removal of the cheif justice might unravel the military's hold over Pakistan.
The legal community challenging the government's action has made it a point that the pakistanis are matured and are against hypocrisy.

[jubilant_ankit]

thnx for the info sudheshna ......really nice to c ppl discussing on the forum..continue this tempo

[Sudheshna]

UttarPradesh Pvt Ltd:
1. UP, the largest state of India, without a business sector,a supportive society has a very low growth rate.
2. Everything in the state is run by politics. Politics form a part and parcel of the common man's lives.The politics is it's largest industry, its private sector, corporate sector, oppurtunities provider.
3. The motto of the parties is to increase its profitability, attract shareholders.
4. The transformation of BSP from dalits to suvarna castes by Mayawati implies great oppurtunities.If the CEO gets her post, the other posts are up there for grabs for educated,upper caste people.
5. Satish Changra Misra, the new brahmin face and number two of the party is the key strategist of brahmin alliance and a new MD inspite of joining the company few years ago.
6. Most of the legislators change their parties atleast twice purely on the basis of future oppurtunity.
7. Though after the Ram Janmabhoomi movement, BJP gained some place it didnt last long withthe competition for the political oppurtunity comes from lower caste SP and BSP.
8. Industry has yet to be born in most of the state. with an increasing number of umployed, migrants the state needs oppurtunities.
9. The only language other than english is that of politics and what emerges out of the elections is business outcome with loads of oppurtunities in a party.

This is my first analysis. I daily think of readin the editorial and analysin it bt was unable to do so. i am vry happy for whoevr started this thread coz am able to do which i neglectd til now. i know i should reduce the analysis content still more \..wil surely try

cheers,

[Accent2Future]

Political tour de force

It was `subaltern' power on spectacular display across Uttar Pradesh. Mayawati's Bahujan Samaj Party defied sceptics to win an astonishing 200+ of 403 seats on the basis of a vote share exceeding 30 per cent. The BSP pulled off this brilliant victory in the face of innumerable odds. A Bahujan party with a core Dalit vote, it lacked the social skills and visibility of its opponents — a factor that seemed, paradoxically, to work to its advantage. The electoral arena was crowded with contestants, among them the Samajwadi Party, the Bharatiya Janata Party, the Congress, and a score of smaller parties and independents — in all 2972 candidates from 117 parties besides 2275 independents. In the event, the result was almost one-sided, disproving conventional wisdom that pointed to a fractured mandate. The last time any party won a majority on its own in U.P. was in 1991, when the BJP secured 221of 425 seats with a vote share of 31.45 per cent. The saffron party rode to office on the back of a divisive campaign conducted in the backdrop of the Ramjanmabhoomi movement. By contrast, the BSP scored in an attempt to bridge the social divide: the party's emphasis through its campaign was on sarvajan samaj. Established citadels crumbled as Mayawati's elephant marched across the State, penetrating social blocks previously outside its reach. The feisty BSP supremo achieved for her party what Bhim Rao Ambedkar could only dream of and what her mentor Kanshi Ram envisioned but could not realise in his own life time.
The BSP more than doubled its 2002 tally, topping the charts in every geographical region, from Western U.P. and Rohelkhand at one end to Avadh and Purvanchal at the other. The BSP's gains translated into major losses for its rivals. The Samajwadi Party held its overall vote share but saw its seats tally decline by one-third while the BJP recorded its worst performance since 1991. The Congress ran a high-profile campaign with Rahul Gandhi at the helm. But his roadshows, lapped up by television channels hungry for footage of the first family, ended up as just that — an over-hyped media event. The BJP too went on a publicity overdrive. Party strategists seized on limited success in the civic polls to project tall claims of the party's resurgence. Simultaneously, they attempted to raise the communal temperature through recourse to inflammatory campaign material, including the poisonous compact disc currently under the scanner of the Election Commission of India. The BJP leaders made sectarian speeches, focussing on issues — terrorism, Mohammad Afzal's hanging, the Sachar committee report, and so forth — that they thought would polarise votes on communal lines. The strategy backfired. Hindus and Muslims alike refused to swallow the bait.
The opinion and exits polls consistently over-projected the BJP even as they failed to gauge the full extent of the subterranean support for the BSP. Ms. Mayawati's campaign was conducted mostly away from the glare of the cameras — a strategically intelligent move that helped her organisation concentrate on the task at hand. The BSP's rivals spent valuable time at the television studios. Ms. Mayawati's party worked silently and assiduously on the ground, wooing previously adversarial social groups through a series of bhaichara (caste amity) campaigns. The breakthrough came with the success of its Brahmin jodo abhiyan (`take the Brahmins along' project). To get a sense of this socio-political achievement, consider the traditional hostility between Brahmins and the BSP. If Brahmins held the BSP in contempt, the latter ceaselessly targeted `manuwadis,' reserving its choicest epithets for them. Interestingly, each time the BJP aligned with the BSP, the former's share of votes and seats went down. Attributing this to forward caste disapproval of the alliances, the BJP finally ended its off-on relationship with the BSP. That sections of the same forward castes have now shown a willingness to cohabit with the BSP is an irony too large to miss. However, it was not only Brahmins that the BSP co-opted as it went about enlarging its base. The Bahujan party reached out to all sections through a network of committed zonal commanders, each on a mission to integrate one social group or another. Preliminary findings suggest that Ms. Mayawati's party secured a large share of OBC votes besides the votes of Muslims.
It is tempting to attribute the BSP's extraordinary triumph to arithmetic. However, to do so is to overlook the hard work and dedication of a party that has transformed itself from a bahujan party with narrow caste interests to a sarvajan party attractive to various social groups and communities. Mention must also be made of a subtle change in the public perception of Ms. Mayawati. Not long ago, her image was that of a leader of a single-caste party, given to abusive language, obsessed with the manuwadi system, and wasting resources on extravagant projects when in power. Today, the image is that of an independent and confident leader who is expected to deliver efficient and people-oriented governance. A final word on the Election Commission of India's sterling contribution to the democratic process. Its strategic planning, hard work, impartiality, far-sightedness, and no-nonsense supervision ensured that not one life was lost to violence and not one polling booth was seized by toughs. For the people of Uttar Pradesh, the ECI is as much a hero as their Chief Minister-in-waiting.

[Accent2Future]

Originally Posted by Accent2Future

Political tour de force

It was `subaltern' power on spectacular display across Uttar Pradesh. Mayawati's Bahujan Samaj Party defied sceptics to win an astonishing 200+ of 403 seats on the basis of a vote share exceeding 30 per cent. The BSP pulled off this brilliant victory in the face of innumerable odds. A Bahujan party ...................

Some Vocab-breakfast coming out of this article

subaltern :Inferior in rank or status

citadels :A stronghold into which people could go for shelter during a battle

subterranean :Being or operating under the surface of the earth

assiduously : With care and persistence

adversarial : Someone who offers opposition

contempt : Lack of respect accompanied by a feeling of intense dislike

ceaselessly : With unflagging resolve

epithets : A defamatory or abusive word or phrase

cohabit : Room or live together; usually said of two people who are not married

sterling : Highest in quality

toughs : An aggressive and violent young criminal

[Accent2Future]

Judicial reform in the Indian context V.R. Krishna Iyer
There is no reason why we should not have a Performance Commission for the judiciary.



JUDGES IN democratic countries are independent and impartial. They enjoy vast powers provided by convention as in Great Britain or by constitutional provisions as in the U.S. and India. Judges in India have wide jurisdiction conferred on them by the Constitution. Within the broad scheme of the suprema lex there are powers and autonomy in the executive and the legislature that are inviolable by judicial authority. The final pronouncements by the highest court on disputes are binding on civil authorities, and any breach is punishable. The contempt power is secured by statutory authority and by specific articles implicit in the Constitution. Even free speech, a fundamental right, is subject to the contempt power. This means there is paramountcy for the jurisprudence of judicial action, which imparts a practical guarantee to the civil rights of citizens.
Inevitably, the people of India have to assure themselves about the appointment, performance and removal of judges at all levels. Sometimes judges play a role of imperium in imperio, which is dangerous if their semantic perception has a social philosophy that is contrary to the basic socialist, secular, people-oriented values inscribed in the Preamble. Even Parliament can be belittled and victimised by judicial `excesses' and class biases. The highest court, with the most powers and the amplest immunity, should suffer public scrutiny and criticism from a constructive angle. In the language of Judge Jerome Frank (as quoted from David Pannick's book Judges), courts should not shy at exposure if true and responsibly presented:
"Some politicians, and a few jurists, urge that it is unwise or even dangerous to tell the truth about the judiciary. I am unable to conceive... that, in a democracy, it can ever be unwise to acquaint the public with the truth about the workings of any branch of government. It is wholly undemocratic to treat the public as children who are unable to accept the inescapable shortcomings of man-made institutions... The best way to bring about the elimination of those shortcomings of our judicial system which are capable of being eliminated is to have all our citizens informed as to how that system now functions."
The governance of our Republic, in the totality of administration, is vested in the trinity of executive, legislature, and the judiciary. The actions of the executive are subject to judicial review when there is injustice — social, economic or political — or aberration from the provisions of law and the Constitution. When the legislature makes laws beyond constitutional bounds or acts arbitrarily, contrary to its basic structure, the highest court examines and corrects. When the judiciary is guilty of excesses, either a larger Bench or a constitutional amendment alone can intervene.
The supremacy of the judiciary, its finality and presumed infallibility, make it obligatory to control its operation by a sublime instrumentality accessible to the people. So it becomes a matter of great democratic moment to preserve the judiciary from going beyond what the Constitution provides. Parts III, IV, and IV A contain the soul of the Constitution, and the court has a solemn duty to accept its social philosophy, culture, and imperatives.
Having stressed the glory and the supremacy of the judiciary, what comes up is the matter of the appointment of those who are to occupy the high office for administration of law and justice. When public servants are to be chosen impartially and competently, Public Service Commissions of high stature are the convention. They are usually the authorities for ordinary public appointments. But when it comes to judges, the matter is of greatest constitutional importance. Therefore, the selecting body must in its composition be beyond question — the most eminent body. It should have a high level of representation from the judiciary. The Chief Justice of India must be the Chairperson and a few of the Chief Justices of High Courts its members. Perhaps the Union Home Minister may appropriately be in it. So also the Chairman of the Union Public Service Commission. Statesmen or stateswomen who are above political controversy or party influence could be included if the President and the Prime Minister, in consultation with the majority of the Chief Ministers, are agreeable. The Vice-President or the Speaker of Parliament may be considered for membership, or they may nominate a deputy. The Bar must be represented. These are not well-thought-out ideas but preliminary thoughts to initiate a discussion.
The present situation on the ground of the independence of the judiciary supersedes the practice of the Prime Minister being the decisive voice that prevailed for decades. The present process, based on the interpretation of the Supreme Court, involves a majority of the Bench, a collegium of three to five judges of the Supreme Court. This contradicts Dr. Ambedkar's view expressed in the Constituent Assembly.
The performance of the collegiums during the last few years has been hardly creditable, rarely prompt. It is the replacement of executive favouritism (in consultation with the Chief Justice of India) by a judicial alternative, the choice being never based on a rational principle or comprehensive investigation or opportunity for the opinion of the Bar or the public. No objective study is done of the social background or commitment of the candidates. No opportunity is given to the Bar or public organisations concerned with justice — social, economic, and political.
There is a Roman adage based on natural justice: "Whatever touches us all should be decided by all." The appointment of judges must be a public process, not a matter of secrecy as it is now. This idea may be elaborated for public debate. There must be guidelines based on which the selection may be made; and the principle must be implementation of the values of the Constitution. The independence of the judiciary must be reflected in the independence of the selecting instrumentality and its processes.
When the appointment is to the Supreme Court, whether by direct selection from the Bar or by elevation from among judges, there should be an investigation into the professional capacity, character, performance, and social background of the candidates. A two-thirds majority of the Commission must support the selection. In India where communal lunacy and insidious corruption in action are increasing in public life, the selection of the higher judiciary must rule out all such suspicion. The court must be impeccable in integrity, intelligence, and constitutional wisdom. By accident, we have now fine judges. Currently there is much criticism about the higher judiciary on various grounds; that is why special care must be taken in the choice.
If our Republic is to live up to the promises in the Constitution the judges have an important role to play. The justice system is the principal instrumentality in satisfying the undertakings in the Constitution. Therefore, `We, the People of India' must be ensured the integrity and efficiency, the moral responsibility and reality of easy access to the court as well as early finality of dispute resolution. All these together constitute what we may regard is the successful performance of the judicature, assuming that judges are chosen rightly, with an eye on the values of the Constitution and the rights of the people. To realise this we must have a machinery to guarantee the good performance of the judiciary.
This is best done by means of a Performance Commission. The judiciary now functions without check, except impeachment in Parliament. But that involves a political process.
David Pannick, in Judges, recommended a Performance Commission. Many U.S. States have constituted such commissions, which examine complaints about the conduct of judges. They are vested with powers to take consequential action. There is no reason why India should not have a Performance Commission. The transfer and promotion of judges of the High Courts could be based on its recommendations. The censure of culpable judges must be governed by the Commission.
Without doubt, its stature must be high. It should be nationally sensitive and supremely impartial. Judges hold the highest constitutional office and their record has been superior to other public offices although the wave of corruption across the nation has marginally tainted the judiciary. Any commission that examines the performance of the members of the apex court must equally be of the most respected status and independent character, of course, with the Chief Justice of India as chairperson. These tentative views could be the starting point of a national debate.

[neetugw]

Art of reinvention
Ask a politician if he wants more than he has been allotted — a different cabinet berth, a higher party rank or a more prestigious national position- and you will hear the usual coy and patently false denials. And then will follow the pious platitudes on how service to the people and party is paramount.
I can think of only one politician who would not bother with the pretence. In a rare television interview, much before her stunning victory in Uttar Pradesh left everyone gawking, Mayawati did not even blink before answering. Yes, she wanted to be Prime Minister, and yes, she could see herself ensconced at Race Course road, within the next ten years. Today, as this daughter of an ordinary government employee gets ready to take over as Chief Minister for the fourth time, no one would dare laugh at the proclamation. And till that happens, the 51-year old will be content in the knowledge that India’s next President can’t be chosen without her assent.
The ulta-pulta state has lived up to its name: now that the gladiatorial battle in India’s largest political arena has been fought and won, conventional wisdom has been turned upside down and new rules for survival are being drafted for the future.
And once our eyes move beyond the scorecard, here’s what may be the writing on the wall:Caste matters just as much as it always did, but it is both malleable and dynamic. The BSP may have been born and rooted in anti-Brahminical rebellion. But social churning made it possible for Mayawati’s elephant to shed its traditional symbolism.
If, in the past, it was an angry animal that was ready to trample all over the hint of any prejudice, this time it was unveiled as the friendly, generous, beloved Ganesha, who could embrace believers across the divide.
Everyone from the President of India to political pundits may lament the easy predictability and stability of the two-party system. But get used to it — and let the middle-class moan and groan — the future of India will be driven by regional players and identity politics, with castes, religions and ethnicities locked in a competitive battle for assertion. Coalitions at the Centre may continue to be formed around the two big national players, but they will increasingly be dependent on the state satraps.
Charisma does make a difference, but a strong point of view matters even more. If this election was a springboard for Rahul Gandhi’s plunge into national politics, he may especially want to ponder on that. His clean-cut charm and obvious sincerity pulled in the crowds and made him a media fixation. But in his effort to be all things to all people, did he end up being nothing to nobody?
Yes, a national party cannot end up seeming like a bigoted suitor. But perhaps what was missing in the Congress campaign was a passionate focal point. This need not have been caste centered. Just the fact that the Congress made a determined effort to put up younger candidates than any other party, for example, could have made youth the high point of the Uttar Pradesh courtship. Instead, we ended up with a well-meaning, but far too generalised wooing of the voter.
Despite the inflammatory CDs and the perception of middle-class annoyance at what it calls minority appeasement, the BJP will continue to be circumscribed by its central paradox. Is its defining feature governance or religion? Yes, this time too, there was the token lip service to a temple at Ayodhya, but the party has seen that Hindutva is only able to take it so far, and no further. Perhaps, the Congress routs in Punjab and Uttarakhand gave the BJP a misplaced sense of confidence. The UP results show there is no national wave, one way or the other.
The Muslim voter remains smart, strategic and entirely unmoved by simple rhetoric. He votes to protect himself and his community. The BJP’s calculation that a three-way split of the Muslim vote would work to its advantage hasn’t quite turned out as expected. And despite the fact that Mayawati faced flak for neglecting the minorities, she still picked up a sizeable chunk of their vote. Like everyone else, India’s Muslim voters like a winner.
Politics is the art of reinvention. Mayawati has proved that in her dramatic evolution from Dalit queen to Brahmin messiah. Now, India will hope that she will evolve further. Will she continue to behave like an autocrat with little patience for dissent or debate? Or will she embrace the democracy that has created the remarkable phenomenon of her party’s rise?
Now that she’s at the top, she can look down with a little more gentleness. The firebrand can afford to mellow down.
And finally, we love our film stars and generations of Indians still worship Amitabh Bachchan as the biggest icon of the big screen. But that doesn’t mean, that when he says there is no crime or lawlessness in Uttar Pradesh, we believe him.
The Indian voter is simply too smart.
Barkha Dutt is Managing Editor, NDTV 24x7
Source:- Art of reinvention- Hindustan Times