Will Karunanidhi do a 3rd umpire?

In an aptly captioned cartoon “Chennai Super Princes”, the renowned cartoonist Sudhir Tailang really made our day that we waited for all along.

http://www.dc-epaper.com/GalleryView.shtml

It is a matter of speculation how Karunanidhi is going to deliver the judgment.

His initial stroke was with words – expectedly- for what he is originally known.

He waxed eloquent with popular dialogues from ‘bleeding heart’ to the farcically present democratic way of his party in electing the leader.

But we know how a product of his blood would leap where he can only walk.

Alagiri replied that he is ready for a ‘democratic’ election within his party.

We know what he means when he says this.

And Karunanidhi also knows that.

What is missing is that he has not yet spelt out by how many votes he would win.

Perhaps he would reveal it when the election is announced!

So Karunanidhi has lost in the first round.

Now his acumen will dictate that he would better quit taking sides and instead play the umpire, rather the 3^rd umpire - than to be present in the field.

A 3^rd umpire will have the privilege of giving the verdict – irrespective of the kind of tempo felt around the field.

So what can we expect from him now?

In this day of Women’s empowerment, he will find it a shrewd move to bring in a third party – a woman who could be a better choice to appeal to the gallery.

Kanimozhi will be his choice.

But that runs the risk of going aground because we have the super trader in Alagiri.

For one who knows the advantages of threats and treats, getting Kanimozhi out of reckoning will not be a problem.

Here the master player in the guise of the 3^rd umpire will drop his next ammunition.

If Lalu could bring in Rabri, why not usher in a ‘revolution’ in Tamilnadu too?

An amicable choice will be Dayalu ammaal, the mother of the warring princes, but would Rajaathi ammaal remain a spectator then?

Dayalu will be ready to retire before hurt and so Rajaathi Ammal will enter the field.

With that comes the short Tea - Break.

But before it ends, a shrewd Karunanidhi who would not like to see both the princes lose, will manage to get the State bifurcated and with that ends the much awaited Battle for Tamilnadu ending without a Battle.

The princes would rule their respective states happily thereafter.

What would happen to the daughter then?

As per Tamil culture, girls belong to the other house and would be taken care by regular flow of gifts.

Kalagjar TV will be gifted to Kanimozhi who would also be given a berth in the Central cabinet –

the same tactic of keeping the fighters in different arena that Karunanidhi is following at present for his two sons.

Karunanidhi’s memories of old ties with his nephew can not be wiped out.

So Maran brothers will continue with their respective empires and play to the tunes of Stalin.

Sun TV will become the Voice of Stalin.

But can Alagiri be left mute without a Voice?

Kanimozhi fills the bill and would lend Alagiri the Voice of the TV that she has inherited.

By mutual give and take and with no need to cross each other’s territory, all will proper!

This is the way Tamilnadu politics would shape up.

I say this not with any astrological inputs.

No astrological knowledge is needed to predict what Karunanidhi & Co would do.

No one would raise a whimper as everyone has become partners of the system in some way or the other.

By partners I mean that everyone from the voter to the Highest official share a same bond in being corrupt.

In such a situation, it is day dreaming to expect Dharma to show up its head.

For whom Dharma should come?

To protect whom, Dharma needs to fight Adharma?

Recall Ouvaiyyaar,

எவ்வழி நல்லவர் ஆடவர் ,
அவ்வழி நல்லை வாழிய நிலனே .

Where men are honest and good, the land also will prosper.

This is a far cry as far as Tamilnadu is concerned.

PS:

Just some thoughts from astrological angle.

The Twin eclipse – a solar eclipse following a lunar eclipse – that took place in December – January does not bode well for the king. The effect will be felt between 3 to 6 months as they occurred in common and movable signs.

From my previous article The twin eclipse- effect.

“The present Twin eclipse foretells increasing conflicts and war of words between people and sections of people in the country. There will be an increase in the number of divorces, domestic quarrels and domestic violence.

Thinking of domestic quarrels, somehow the First Family of Tamilnadu comes in my mind. It is because both the eclipses occurred in mid heaven, stretching to the 5^th part of the day showing that not all is well with the 'princes'. Today we think we have no monarchy, but in Tamilnadu we do have sons of the leaders as princes.”

The solar eclipse was annular. Annular solar eclipse happening in mid-heavens again foretells trouble to the princes.

From that article:-

“Dissensions among people and between partners,

A low for the traders,

A low for ministers and their sons and the womenfolk in their families,

And an outbreak of a disease can be expected.”

Remark:- In this age of Kali, where Adharma has a field day, even planets can not give the assigned results.

The same Twin eclipse effect would have had a stronger impact had it been the previous times when Dharma stood at least on one leg.

In the current age of Adharma everywhere, Dharma will make a retreat.

Only individuals who still stick to Dharma will be protected by Dharma…hopefully so.

Narendra Modi batting, not battling!

From

http://www.dc-epaper.com/DC/DCH/2010/04/02/ArticleHtmls/02_04_2010_010_029.shtml?Mode=0

           

Questions and Answers

By

Balbir K. Punj

 

By appearing before the SIT, Narendra Modi underlined not just that no one was above the law, but that those in power had ` the additional responsibility to lead the way in submitting to the majesty of the law

 

IT SEEMS that the Gujarat Chief Minister, Mr Narendra Modi, has deprived the socalled secularists of a golden opportunity they were looking for. Now they are a disappointed lot. That explains their ridiculous demand of asking the Chief Justice of India, K.G. Balakrishnan, not to share the dais with Mr Modi at the first convocation ceremony of Gujarat National Law University in Ahmedabad.

 

The CJI gave a reply to these desperate people by attending the function and sharing the dais with Mr Modi. This came as a big blow to the self-styled secularists who had created a huge brouhaha around the CJI's visit using US-based children of former Congress MP Ehsan Jafri, who was killed in Gulberg Society massacre. These "secularists" had characterised Mr Modi as a "modern day Nero" and even claimed that the CJI sharing the dais with him would be interpreted as him supporting Mr Modi who is "being examined under the directives of the Supreme Court for his alleged role in the killing of innocent people".

 

At the function, the CJI gave no opportunity to the "secular pack" to get a quote from him against Mr Modi and the chief minister himself did not utter a word. Interestingly, Zimbabwe's former Chief Justice Ahmed Musa Ebrahim, who also spoke at the meeting, gave a fitting reply to the pack. He lauded Mr Modi for attending the Special Investigation Team (SIT) enquiry as a witness and for pointing out that nobody is above the law and the Constitution.

 

Earlier reports about the SIT asking Mr Modi to appear before it for questioning had given the "secular pack" an opportunity for their usual anti-Modi flagellation. But Mr Modi disappointed them by going through a nine-hour-long grilling.

Against the impression several newspaper reports gave of Mr Modi being an accused, the SIT chief R.K. Raghavan was very clear-headed. Referring to a possible recall of the chief minister for further questioning, he told the press: "This applies to every witness. If I find there are some gaps, the SIT has a right to recall any witness". This way Mr Raghavan clarified that Mr Modi was present before it as a witness and not as an accused.

 

Instead of standing on what could be termed as an "executive privilege" of a chief minister, Mr Modi decided to submit to the rule of law. By appearing before the SIT, like any other witness, he underlined not just that no one was above the law, but that those in power had the additional responsibility to lead the way in submitting to the majesty of the law and the Constitution.

 

Now compare Mr Modi's response to what Indira Gandhi and her son Sanjay Gandhi did in 1978.

Sanjay Gandhi, the undeclared heir to the Nehru-Gandhi legacy, had his goons disturb the proceedings of the Justice Shah Commission that was enquiring into his misdeeds during the Emergency. And Indira Gandhi, in fact, refused to answer any questions of the commission claiming "executive privilege" as Prime Minister. Justice Shah, a former CJI, pointed out that at the time of questioning Indira Gandhi was out of power and, therefore, could not avail the privilege and that the commission had, in fact, been set up to look specifically into complaints of misuse of power by her and her regime. Indira Gandhi didn't budge and this prompted the commission to instruct the government to prosecute her for refusing to testify, as all citizens are required to appear if called upon by a court or a commission instituted under the Commissions of Enquiry Act.

 

When the government decided to take action, Indira Gandhi created another political drama instead of submitting to law or defending herself legally. At every step, she (and Sanjay Gandhi) placed herself above the law. It must be recalled in this context that the constitutional amendment which her government had pushed through in Parliament during Emergency actually specified that she would be above all accusations and all action taken previously, like nullifying her election by the Allahabad high court bench, would be annulled.

 

The 1976 Amendment placed her on a pedestal above all restrictions and obligations that the law places on every citizen.

And this was done when she had misused the Constitution to deny all citizens even the primary right to life and work.

When some Congress leaders railed against Mr Modi, expecting him to follow in Indira Gandhi's footsteps in responding to the SIT's summons, they thought that they have got yet another opportunity for Modibashing. When Mr Modi went for the enquiry and answered the SIT's questions for as long as nine hours, disappointment was evident on their faces.

 

The "secular pack" has now resorted to attacking the SIT itself. When they went to the Supreme Court with Mrs Jafri's petition, they were talking of law and justice. Now that the apex court has set up the SIT, headed by a former CBI director, the attack is on the team itself, alleging that some of its members are from Gujarat. The aim is very clear: They are preparing for the day when, and if, the SIT finds that the truth of the incidents it is looking into is far from what the secular pack has been claiming.

 

The accusation against the SIT is also an outcome of the secular pack's disappointment that the SIT did not condemn Mr Modi but only called him as a witness, for merely finding out and not for cross-examining as courts do. The petition to the CJI that he refuse to share the dais with the Gujarat chief minister was yet another attempt to get an official condemnation of Mr Modi even before the facts have been found out.

 

BALBIR K. PUNJ can be contacted at punjbalbir@gmail.com

 

 

 

How deep are the roots of Indian civilization? -- BB Lal (Review by Dr Vaidehi Nathan)

From

http://www.organiser.org/dynamic/modules.php?name=Content&pa=showpage&pid=338&page=23

A must read book on Indian civilization Review by  Dr Vaidehi Nathan How Deep are the Roots of Indian Civilization? Archaeology Answers, Dr. B. B. Lal , Aryan Books International, Pp 150 (PB), Rs. 390.00 ARCHAEOLOGY in India has been one of the most argued subjects among the academics. It has been influenced by ideological bias, scanty research into primary sources and most important of all the lack of interest on the part of the government to support, sponsor and spread the information on the deep roots of our history and civilization. Hence, the book by one of the most renowned archaeologists B B Lal on the Indian civilization has come as a fresh breath. Lal, an academic of international repute and author of several acclaimed books has written How Deep are the roots of Indian Civilization? Archaeology Answers. Adopting narrative style, he has minimised the academic lingo and made it easy for a common reader to sail with the content.  Right at the outset, the book connects today's reader with our forefathers thousands of years ago, by pointing out the similarities in rituals and daily practices. The tradition of applying sindoor in the centre parting on the forehead by married women has been observed in the terracotta figurines that have been carbon dated to be circa 2800-2600 BCE (Before Common Era), even before what is known as Harappan civilization. Bangles and the 'chauk' on the forehead were also in vogue then, as they are now. Utensils similar to the ones in common use now in our kitchens have also been excavated from the Harappan region. The tradition of bead craft in Gujarat region too dates back to thousands of years. The excavations yielded six-faced dice, evidences of chess game and reading and writing material like takhtis. Some of the commonly narrated bedtime stories, like the cunning fox that makes the crow drop the food on its beak and the intelligent crow that made water rise in the pot by dropping pebbles into it have been found in illustrations in vases and jars, indicating these stories have been coming down generations for thousands of years. They prove an incontrovertible continuity in our culture and habitation. Lal has dedicated the book to his illustrious student Dr SP Gupta. In the dedication he writes, "Dedicated to my most beloved student Dr SP Gupta whose pursuit of knowledge, balanced judgement, unflinching devotion, self-sacrifice and institute-building capacity will ever remain enshrined in the annals of Indian Archaeology."  Gold, silver, copper and bronze were known to the Harappan people, so were horses and spokes wheels. For decades the Indian students had been taught in their history text books that these were unknown to the Harappan civilization. Lal roundly dismisses the Aryan invasion theory and provides unassailable proof for his argument. He is equally dismissive of the recent academic propaganda of an Aryan 'immigration,' implying that they were a nomadic community. He quotes the Rigveda and the Satpathabrahmana to fortify his position that there was neither invasion from outside nor immigration within and that the Vedic people, the Harappan people and the present Indian society are a continuum of the same race and civilization. Says he, "Looking back, one finds that the most ancient civilization of India, known variously as the Harappan, Indus or Indus-Sarasvati civilization, was indeed remarkable in many respects. It may not have given to the world the high-rising pyramids of Giza or the immensely rich royal tombs of Ur, but it has shown how an ideal and well balanced community lives – in which the differences between the rich and the poor are not glaring. In the other two countries, symbolised by the pyramids and the royal tombs, the haves had it all, while the have-nots none at all." This observation is very much an illustration of our concepts of vasudeva kutumbakam and the Ram Rajya, where everyone was happy and none sad on account of materialistic disparities.  Some of the most famous archaeologists in modern India are Britishers, like Sir Mortimer Wheeler and Sir John Marshall. Though their contribution to the study of Indian archaeology cannot be disputed, they have tended to jump to conclusions and pronounce judgements on excavations, influenced by their own academic upbringing and prejudice. Lal, who calls Wheeler his guru does not hesitate to point out the incongruities in their arguments.  The heavily illustrated book is a precious work Lal has done to the cause of understanding our civilization. It must be included in the curriculum of young classes so that they imbibe the wealth of knowledge of our ancient and glorious past. It is a must read for every Indian. There are a few printer's devils, which one hopes will be corrected in the subsequent editions. Lal needs no introduction. He was the Director General of the Archaeological Survey of India (1968-72) and took early retirement when he was 51 to pursue his research programmes. He has excavated several sites and made immense contribution. His publications include 150 seminal research papers and several books.  (Aryan Books International, Pooja Apartment, 4B, Ansari Road, New Delhi-110 002; aryanbooks@gmail.com)

*********************

Related posts:-

Sindhoor in Harappan figurines

BB Lal's book on deep roots of Indian civilization.

Insulting Hindu religious belief by a reference to Radha-Krishna

Insulting Hindu religious belief by a reference to Radha-Krishna

By
Dr S. Kalyanaraman.

An open letter to all citizens of Bharat,

Appended is a report on the Supreme Court's decision on pre-marital sex.

We take exception to the obiter dicta of the Court reported in the media. "Drawing an analogy from the Hindu mythology, the court said, even Lord Krishna and Radha lived together."

It is shocking that such a statement should have reportedly been made by the learned judge(s). It is shocking because it shows a gross ignorance about Hindu traditions and Hindu history.

First of all, the reality of Krishna is established by the Itihaasa Mahabharata text and the astronomical reference contained in the text. Hence, Krishna is NOT mythology.

It is absurd to refer to the episode of Radha-Krishna in the context of a case related to pre-marital sex. Sri Krishna, Bala Krishna was only 10 years of age when he left Brindavan for the Gurukulam in Sandeepani Ashram. The episode of Radha-Krishna occurred when Sri Bala Krishna was a child 10 years of age.

Bhagavata Purana, does NOT refer to Radha by name but is alluded to within the tenth chapter of the text as one of the gopis whom Krishna plays with during his upbringing as a young boy. Krishna left Vrindavan for Mathura at the age of 10 years and 7 months according to Bhagavata Purana . So Radha is assumed to be a child of about 10 years or less, when Krishna left Vrindavan. http://www.vedabase.net/sb/10/45/3/en

I suggest that Bhagavata Purana together with the works of Savant Nimbarka, a vaishnava acharya, should be made essential reading for all constitutional functionaries.

After his education in Sandeepani Ashram, Shri Krishna never returned to Brindavan. He went to Mathura.

What is wrong with our educational system that even learned judges should refer to a seven-year old Shri Krishna and his being a darling of humanity and who enthralled Radha and other Gopikas has NOTHING to do with pre-marital sex since he was in Brindavan only until he was seven years of age.

Is a mother's affection to a child considered pre-marital sex? Is the adoration by elders of an avatara considered pre-marital sex?

Maybe, there should be a law requiring minimum education in Hindu history and cultural traditions of avatara purusha like Shri Rama and Shri Krishna to all constitutional functionaries.

In this context, it is apposite to recall the words of Justice ASP Iyer who was Justice of Madras High Court. Justice A.S.P Iyer I.C.S (1899-1963) in his book, 'Sri Krishna – The Darling of Humanity', says: "Alexander the Great once asked a Brahmin scholar in the 4th century BC. "How can we know a man to be God?" and the scholar replied "When he does what no man can ever do." To illustrate this divine point, I would refer to how Krishna saved the chastity, dignity and honour of Draupadi at the Royal Court of Hastinapura.

Does a seven year old darling of Brindavan become an example of pre-marital sex in jurisprudence?

Something is amiss here. I hope there will be an apology to all Hindus whose sentiments have been deeply hurt (cf. Section 295A of IPC) by the unwarranted reference to Radha-Krishna as an analogy of pre-marital sexual relationship.

Dhanyavaadah.

Dr. S. Kalyanaraman

Section 295A. Deliberate and malicious acts, intended to outrage religious feelings or any class by insulting its religion or religious beliefs 1[295A. Deliberate and malicious acts, intended to outrage religious feelings or any class by insulting its religion or religious beliefs. Whoever, with deliberate and malicious intention of outraging the religious feelings of any class of 2[citizens of India], 3[by words, either spoken or written, or by signs or by visible representations or otherwise], insults or attempts to insult the religion or the religious beliefs of that class, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to 4[three years], or with fine, or with both.]

1. Ins. by Act 25 of 1927, s. 2. 2. Subs. by the A.O. 1950, for "His Majesty's subjects". 3. Subs. by Act 41 of 1961, s. 3, for certain words (w.e.f. 27-9-1961) 4. Subs. by Act 41 of 1961, s. 3, for "two years" (w.e.f. 27-9-1961)

***********************

	Live-in, pre-marital sex no offence: SC 24 Mar 2010, 0541 hrs IST, ET Bureau
	NEW DELHI: There is good news for the votaries of the live-in partners. The Supreme Court on Tuesday observed that the live-in relationships between the adult couples cannot be treated as an offence. "When two adult people want to live together what is the offence. Does it amount to an offence? Living together is not an offence. It cannot be an offence," said a bench comprising Chief Justice K G Balakrishnan, Justice Deepak Verma and Justice B S Chauhan. Drawing an analogy from the Hindu mythology, the court said, even Lord Krishna and Radha lived together. The apex court said there was no law which prohibits live-in relationship or pre-marital sex. The bench passed the observation while reserving its judgement on a special leave petition filed by noted south Indian actress Khushboo. She had approached the apex court seeking quashing of about 22 criminal cases filed against her after she allegedly endorsed pre-marital sex in interviews to various magazines in 2005. While hearing the case, the judges grilled the counsel for some of the complainants in the case and repeatedly stressed that the perceived immoral activities cannot be branded as offence. The argument of the counsel was that her comments allegedly endorsing pre-marital sex would adversely affect the minds of young people leading to decay in moral values and ethos of the country. "Please tell us what is the offence and under which section. Living together is a right to life," remarked the court. apparently referring to Article 21 of the Constitution relating to right to life and liberty. The apex court further said the views expressed by Khushboo were personal. "How does it concern you. We are not bothered. At the most it is a personal view. How is it an offence? Under which provision of the law?" the bench asked the counsel. The apex court further asked the complainants to produce evidence to show if any girls eloped from their homes after the said interview. "How many homes have been affected can you tell us," court asked while enquiring whether the complainants had daughters. When the response was in the negative, they shot back, "Then, how are you adversely affected"? Khushboo had approached the apex court after the Madrash High Court in 2008 dismissed her plea for quashing the criminal cases filed against her through out Tamil Nadu.

http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/articleshow/5717877.cms?prtpage=1

***************

Related post:-

SC on living-in-relationship – where Law is not the same as Dharma.

The path of universes and justification for doing pithru tarpan.

The 4th article in the series on Vedic Model of Creation can be read in the following link.
http://www.tamilhindu.com/2010/03/creation-theory-4/

The article establishes that there is a 3rd element in Space and Time dimension. It also establishes that that all the universes rotate around a central axis in infinite numbers. The universes are moved in a base and they move with an internal charge. In the process of explaining these, it is also established that nothing moves on its own, but by the power of the Almighty which we call Brahman and that our life also is powered by him before birth and also after birth when we survive by borrowing air. From the analogy of baby birth (compared to birth of Universes from Vishnu's umbilical cord) an explanation is derived how and why we have to discharge the pithru-runam after the death of parents.


பிரபஞ்சம் செல்லும் பாதையும் பித்ரு காரியத்தின் அவசியமும்
By ஜெயஸ்ரீ சாரநாதன்

'பெற்றோர் இறந்தவுடன் அவர்களுக்கு பித்ரு காரியம் செய்கிறேன் என்றால் அவர்களுக்குத் தெரியவா போகிறது? அது அவர்களை அடையப் போகிறதா என்ன? அதற்குப் பதிலாக அவர்கள் உயிருடன் இருக்கும் போதே அவர்களை நன்றாகக் கவனித்துக் கொண்டால் போதும். இறந்த பிறகு ஸ்ராத்தம் என்று சடங்குகள் செய்யத் தேவையில்லை. அப்படிச் செய்யவில்லை என்றால் அதனால் நம் பிள்ளைகளையும், பேரன்களையும் பாதிக்கும் என்பதெல்லாம் சும்மா புருடா.'– இதுவே இன்றைக்குப் பரவலான கருத்து.

SC on living-in-relationship – where Law is not the same as Dharma.

(A write-up by an avowed Sanathanist, on the Supreme Court’s observation on living-in relationship in ‘Kushboo- case’ will be on expected lines!! Beware!)

I am focusing my attention on a few features only.

The first one – expectedly is the comparison quoted by the Chief Justice, on Radha- Krishna relationship.

Coming as it does from the highest authority of the Judiciary, I am tempted to ask

· Would he give death penalty to a kidnapper of a woman – and even pronounce that death sentence be carried out by the husband of the kidnapped lady – because Rama did so?

· Would he allow a rapist to go unpunished, because no one was punished when Draupathi was molested?

· Would he refrain from sending a boy and a girl to juvenile home, if they were found in living –in – relationship? For, the characters whom he quoted were in their pre-adolescent period – happily playing around. There are millions of school children of that age –group spending time together – but not in the sense he is imagining. If he thinks that it is a living-in-relationship, if he thinks that Radha and Krishna had a living-in-relationship, won’t he give a judgment that be they be given a rehabilitation treatment?

I don’t know whether it is right to comment like this on the views of the CJ.

His observations show how Dharma of this land is not the same as Laws of this land, or rather, what the law-interpreters think - though both (Dharma and Laws) are shaped by the existing value system followed by the people of this land.

The issue is ‘rights’ of the individual.

Any precedence to them is found only from our country – because such precedence will be suitable or applicable to us - the people who are brought up here. Even the CJ has unwittingly accepted such a dictum and tried at it with a mis-quote on Radha- Krishna!

But when we choose a precedent, it must be known for what we are quoting. Radha- Krishna relationship is known for “Devotion” and glorified only for that even today.

For man-woman relationship, the precedence has always been Rama and Sita though their married life was short lived.

This country has had 12 such pairs glorified from times of yore. They have had their ups and downs and in their relationships. But what finally made them a successful pair depended on how they adjusted with each other and respected each other’s wishes and learned to do their bit for the sake of each other. It is about give and take – and it comes as a life long process.

Adjusting with each other can not happen in a few years. It is a continuing process, a process of growing-up together for ever.

This brings us to the next issue of whether living-in will really deliver results. Without going into the pros and cons, let me bring to notice how the ‘rights’ issue is country & culture -based and not on modernity.

Rights do not come alone; they come with a set of responsibilities. These two – (Rights and Responsibilities) - are intertwined in any (private or social) relationship. There is a system of Rights and Responsibilities in this country followed from times of yore.

The ‘rights’ of the children are unwritten in our country – unlike in the US; so also their responsibility to the parents in their old age.

In the US, the ‘rights’ of the children are many - but not much is heard about their responsibilities. Government itself takes responsibility for the parents in old age in a variety of ways. Where the society demands something as ‘rights’ over their parents, the parents would not think that they have responsibilities for their children. As a result, an American parent does not have to save or spend on children as we do in our country. In contrast, the connection between the parents and the wards is a continuing bond in diverse ways in our country. That is why the family system is intact in our country. There are both rights and responsibilities for everyone in the family in our system.

Recently a question - Do parents have right over their children?- came up for discussion when some parents approached the court, suing their wards that they have failed to take care of them; they wanted them to be punished for not taking care of them. I don’t know whether the court has delivered the judgment. But what we must accept is that we are living in a system where children are brought up with a sense of responsibility that they take care of parents in old age. Not many are doing that nowadays, but that is not a reason for shunning that responsibility.

Our system is such that the responsibility and obligation to parents continue even after their death in the form of death-related ceremonies. A majority are within such established family norms of this culture.

On the question of marriage, parents of this country still continue to have a say. They pray, fast and spend for the sake of happy marriage of their wards. Marriage still continues to be a family decision in most homes. There may have been aberrations here and there, but they are not accepted as norms. A vast majority of Indians are middle class or lower middle class people only, with the family system of rights and responsibilities. The living-ins may be an attractive idea with the upper class or the ultra rich like Kushboo. They form only a minute percentage of the population.

It is reported that Kushboo asked sarcastically if people had not tried pre-marital sex in our society. They had. That had been there at all times in the past – as “kalavu’ and as “Gandharva vivaha’. That does not mean it is a norm in the society. Even in these two instances, experimenting as living-in was definitely not practiced.

One can not know someone in a few years of living-in. Man’s responses change from time to time. It also boils down to tolerance limits – how far you are ready to tolerate each other.

It is also the same as how you manage to adjust with your boss in your work place. In astrology we apply the same yardstick of 7^th house significance to both the spouse and the boss in the work place!

You may have lot of differences with your boss, yet you continue with him. The reason is the benefits you get form the job. They out-weigh the trouble your boss gives you. You won’t quit the job until and unless the balance shifts.

Such a cost- benefit ratio will evolve only with time in relationships. It will take time to know that. In job, we are ready to tolerate, adjust and adapt ourselves as long as the ratio is to our benefit. . All these three are necessary features in married life also.

We have to demand these features as rights and responsibilities from both the partners for smooth running of life. This is where we are at the current juncture. This can be done without jeopardizing our continuing system of family values.

In such a context, the court thrusting ideas contrary the existing ones is uncalled for. At best, it could have been said that Kushboo has ‘rights’ to voice her opinions, and not that people have the ‘right’ to living-in- relationship.

- jayasree

*******************

Related links:-

Live-in relations not against Indian values

http://ibnlive.in.com/videos/111991/ftn-living-together-not-against-indian-values.html

Excerpts from

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article7074875.ece

The Indian Government does not provide statistics for unmarried couples cohabiting but a study by the Mumbai-based International Institute for Population Sciences last month showed that 17 per cent of young men in rural areas said that they had had premarital sex, compared with 10 per cent in urban areas.

The survey of 55,000 women and men aged 15-29 also showed that 4 per cent of women in rural areas claimed to have had premarital sex, compared with 2 per cent in the cities.

Age of modernity

525m mobile telephone connections in India (for a population of 1.1bn)

60% of India’s population is under the age of 25 2.3m work in the IT sector

$110m value of Indian plastic surgery industry last year 5% of the population is classified as obese

4m Indians on Facebook

20,900 members of gaymatchindia.com dating site

29% live in cities

Sources: Telecom Regulatory Authority of India; researchandmarkets.co.uk; Forbes.com; World Travel and Tourism Council; Times database

***************

From

http://in.news.yahoo.com/32/20100324/1070/ten-living-in-no-offence-sc.html

Living-in no offence: SC

Wed, Mar 24 05:00 PM

New Delhi, March 23 -- The Supreme Court on Tuesday came out in support of south Indian film actress Kushboo who is facing 22 criminal cases after she allegedly endorsed pre-martial sex in her interviews to various magazines in 2005. A bench headed by Chief Justice K.G. Balakrishnan wondered what was wrong in two adult people living together. "When two adult people want to live together what is the offence. Does it amount to an offence? Living together is not an offence. It cannot be an offence," the bench told advocates representing some of the complainants in the case. The bench is hearing Kushboo's petition to quash the cases on the ground that it violates her fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression. The court said there was no law prohibiting live-in relationship or pre-martial sex. It referred to mythological stories and added that even Lord Krishna and Radha lived together. All the three judges of the bench were of the view that the "perceived immoral activities" as per the complainants could not be branded as offence. It brushed aside the argument that Kushboo's comments adversely affect the minds of young people. While reserving its judgment on Kushboo's petition the

"How does it concern you. We are not bothered. At the most it is a personal view. How is it an offence? Under which provision of the law ?"the bench asked the counsel.

***************

From

http://ipc498a-misuse.blogspot.com/2010/03/blog-post_23.html

Tuesday, March 23, 2010

மொட்டைத்தலை + முழங்கால் = இந்திய நீதிமன்றம்!

தலைப்பைப் பார்த்து குழப்பமாக இருக்கிறதா? மொட்டைத்தலைக்கும் முழங்காலுக்கும் ஏதாவது தொடர்பு இருக்கிறதா? அது தான் இந்திய நீதிமன்றங்களின் இன்றைய நிலை. பொறுப்பான நிலையில் இருக்கும் உச்ச நீதிமன்றம் வெளியிட்டிருக்கும் கருத்துக்களை பார்க்கும் போது அதுபோலத்தான் தோன்றுகிறது.

==========================================

திருமணத்துக்கு முன் செக்ஸ் தவறு இல்லை: சுப்ரீம் கோர்ட்

தினமலர் மார்ச் 24,2010

புதுடில்லி : 'திருமணத்துக்கு முன் செக்ஸ் உறவு வைத்துக் கொள்வதோ அல்லது திருமணம் செய்து கொள்ளாமல் ஆணும், பெண்ணும் விரும்பும் பட்சத்தில் இணைந்து வசிப்பதோ எந்தவிதத்திலும் தவறு இல்லை' என, சுப்ரீம் கோர்ட் தெரிவித்துள்ளது.

திருமணத்துக்கு முன் செக்ஸ் உறவு வைத்துக் கொள்வது தொடர்பாக சினிமா நடிகை குஷ்பு, 2005ல் பத்திரிகை ஒன்றுக்கு அளித்த பேட்டியில் தெரிவித்திருந்தார். தமிழ் கலாசாரத்தை பாதிக்கும் வகையில் குஷ்பு தனது கருத்தை தெரிவித்ததாகக் கூறி அவர் மீது தமிழக கோர்ட்டுகளில் பல்வேறு வழக்குகள் தொடரப்பட்டன. இதையடுத்து, தன்மீது தொடரப்பட்ட வழக்குகளை ரத்து செய்ய வேண்டும் என, சென்னை ஐகோர்ட்டில் குஷ்பு மனு தாக்கல் செய்தார். இம்மனு தள்ளுபடி செய்யப்பட்டது. இதையடுத்து, சுப்ரீம் கோர்ட்டில் அவர் மேல் முறையீடு செய்தார். இந்த வழக்கு, சுப்ரீம் கோர்ட்டில் தலைமை நீதிபதி கே.ஜி.பாலகிருஷ்ணன், நீதிபதி தீபக் வர்மா மற்றும் சவுகான் ஆகியோர் முன்னிலையில் நேற்று வந்தது.

அப்போது நீதிபதிகள் கூறியதாவது: தகுந்த வயதை அடைந்த இருவர் ஒன்றாக வாழ்வதை எப்படி குற்றமாக கருத முடியும்? ராதையும், கிருஷ்ணனும் ஒன்றாகவே வாழ்ந்ததாக புராணங்கள் கூறுகின்றன. திருமணத்துக்கு முன் செக்ஸ் உறவு வைத்துக் கொள்வதோ அல்லது திருமணம் செய்து கொள்ளாமல் ஆணும், பெண்ணும் ஒன்றாக வாழ்வதையோ தவறு என எந்த சட்டமும் கூறவில்லை. குஷ்பு தெரிவித்த கருத்துக்கள் அனைத்தும் தனது தனிப்பட்ட சொந்த கருத்துக்கள். எந்தவகையில் அது கலாசாரத்தை சீரழிப்பதாக கருதமுடியும்? எத்தனை வீடுகள் இந்த பேட்டியால் பாதிக்கப்பட்டுள்ளன? இவ்வாறு நீதிபதிகள் கேள்விகளை எழுப்பினர்.

======================================

கிருஷ்ணரும் ராதையும் ஒன்றாக வாழ்ந்தார்களாம். அதனால் இந்தியாவில் திருமணம் செய்யாமல் எல்லோரும் கூடி வாழலாம் என்று சொல்கிறது நீதிமன்றம். இவர்கள் கடவுளை வைத்து இந்தியர்களை அவமானம் செய்கிறார்களா அல்லது கடவுள் பக்தியோடு கடவுள் காட்டிய வழியில் நடக்கவேண்டும் என்று சொல்கிறார்களா? அப்படியென்றால் ராமபிரானின் தந்தை தசரதனுக்கு நூற்றுக்கணக்கான மனைவியர் இருந்தனர். அதனால் புராணங்கள் காட்டியவழியில் எல்லோரும் கணக்கிலடங்கா திருமணம் செய்துகொண்டால் அதற்கு நீதிமன்றம் இதுபோல ஆதரவு தருமா?

இந்தியாவில் பிறகெதற்கு இந்து திருமணச் சட்டம் என்று ஒன்றை வைத்திருக்கிறார்கள்? யாரும் யாரோடு வேண்டுமானாலும் பிடித்தவரை கூடி வாழ்ந்துவிட்டு பிள்ளைகளைப் பெற்றுப் போட்டுவிட்டு விலங்கினங்கள் போல நாட்டில் திரிந்துகொண்டிருக்கலாமே?

ஒரு தனிப்பட்ட நபர் சொல்லிய கருத்து அவரின் தனிப்பட்ட விஷயம் அதில் அடுத்தவர் அக்கறை காட்டத்தேவையில்லை என்று நாகரிகமாக வழக்கை முடிக்கத்தெரியாமல் கடவுளையும், புராணங்களையும் கொச்சைப்படுத்தி மேற்கோள்காட்டி மனித ஒழுக்கநெறியை உடைக்கும் விதமாக இப்படி ஒரு செய்தியைக்கொடுப்பதற்கு நீதிமன்றங்கள் எதற்கு? அதை கீழ்த்தரமான ஒரு மஞ்சள் புத்தகமே எளிதாக செய்துவிடுமே!

இந்தியாவிற்கு உலகளவில் பெருமை சேர்த்துத் தருவது பாரம்பரியம் மிக்க இந்திய குடும்ப அமைப்புமுறை. அரசியல்வாதிகளும் நீதிமன்றங்களும் அல்ல. இதுபோன்ற பொறுப்பற்ற நீதிமன்ற கருத்துக்களின் பின்னணியில் இருப்பது மேற்கத்திய கலாச்சார இறக்குமதியும் அதற்கு கிடைத்துக்கொண்டிருக்கும் வெகுமதியும்.

மேலைநாடுகளில் தந்தையில்லாமல் குழந்தைகள் பிறப்பது சர்வசாதாரணமான விஷயம். குழந்தைப் பிறப்புச் சான்றிதழ் விண்ணப்பத்தில் தந்தையில்லாத குழந்தை என்று குறிப்பிடும் வசதியும் இருக்கிறது அந்த நாடுகளில். தந்தை அல்லது தாய் இல்லாமல் ஒற்றைப் பெற்றோருடன் பலகுடும்பங்கள் இருக்கின்றன. அந்தக் குடும்பத்துக் குழந்தைகளுக்கு சரியான வளர்ப்பு முறை இல்லாமல் மனித இனத்திற்குறிய கலாச்சாரமும் பண்பாடும் இல்லாமல் மனம்போன போக்கில் வாழ்ந்துகொண்டிருக்கிறார்கள்.

அதுபோன்ற இழிநிலை இந்தியாவிற்கு வரவேண்டும் என்பதுதான் இன்றைய அரசியல்தலைவர்களின் நீண்டநாள் கனவு. அதற்கு அவர்கள் கொடுத்திருக்கும் பெயர் “பெண் சுதந்திரம்”! இந்தக் கனவு நனவாவதற்கு அவர்களுக்கு வெளிநாடுகளிலிருந்து நிதியுதவியும் கிடைக்கிறது. அந்த திட்டத்திற்குப் பெயர்தான் iVAWA

அரசியல் தலைவர்களின் அந்தக் கனவின் ஒரு வெளிப்பாடுதான் இந்திய நீதிமன்றத்தின் இந்த மொட்டைத்தலை + முழங்கால் கருத்துக்கள்!

Karunanidhi, the engineer versus Ram who has no engineering degree.

‘Cho’s editorial in today’s Thuglak (31-03-2010) took a dig at the enormous praises heaped on the Chief Minister Mr Karunanidhi as the ‘architect’ of his Dream Project – the new building of the Legislative Assembly.


Everyone from Sonia Gandhi to local scribes had praised his contribution in shaping the building, supervising at odd hours at night and in giving suggestions every now and then.


It remains a mystery in which Engineering college Mr Karunanidhi obtained his degree to qualify for giving ideas to the German company which was paid huge sums to design and construct this structure. Even the two petitions that questioned the engineering aspects of the structure so hurriedly built were dismissed by the court on the pretext that the petitioner had not produced the engineer’s opinion to support his accusation.


Therefore we go with the assumption that Mr Karunanidhi holds an engineering degree and acumen that made the world renowned builders follow his instructions. This reminds us of the unchallenged question that Mr Karunanidhi once asked of Ram – in which engineering college did Rama study to have built the Ram sethu?


Yes, he is right.
Rama was not an engineering expert.

He did not even have the basic knowledge of the procedures - didn’t call for a global tender, no publicity and no proper materials were used. His workforce, the vanaras were also like him, not trained enough because they just pulled out whatever they saw around them and piled them up as a bridge. The only solace that Rama can claim is that he engaged a so-called expert, one Mr Nala. But can a Nala be an equal to Mr Karunanidhi?

Nala hurried – faster than Mr Karunanidhi in finishing the project. He finished it in just 5 days! What kind of workmanship can you expect in a 5-day project? No sooner did they finish, part of it was submerged in water.

And did they have any sense of importance for a grand gala opening? They just went along with the bridge as it was being built. Perhaps they did not have esteemed friends like Mr Karunanidhi has – to inaugurate the bridge.

Ok. Enough with the comparisons.
It is said that pictures speak better than words.
Let us see a comparison of the Rama’s work with Karunanidhi’s work.


Ram sethu becomes visible even at a height of 620 km.













Some better visibility of the New Secretariat happens at 243 metres.


















Ram Sethu at 93 km height











At a height of 30 km, the dark patches are the visible structure above the sea water.









At 12 km.
Clear layers are seen. Impossible to happen like this in Nature for a short stretch connecting the two land masses.












At 5.8 km height



















At 1 km height












Features of the structure boasted of by Mr Karunanidhi - become visible only at 1/2 km height.
















At 3.93 km, the cricket stadium at Chepauk (red arrow) is a better visible object from the sky!

From

http://kalyan97.wordpress.com/category/uncategorized/

Rama Setu: explaining coral rocks at 10m. depth

May 29, 2007

I hope experts in the study of corals will explain the existence of coral rocks on Rama Setu in deeper layers, say 10 m. below sea-level according to bathymetry (sea-depth) and geological and geo-technical surveys reported in the government web-site.

The uniqueness of Rama Setu region with coral rocks as building blocks appears to be due to the following:

1. this is the only region in the world, along the coastline of Bharatam, ranging from Makran coast, Gulf of Kutch, Gulf of Khambat, Gulf of Mannar — that turbinella pyrum, called s’ankha flourishes. Nowhere else in the world does such a coral reef exist.

2. on either end of Rama Setu, there was subsidence of the canyon below the ocean, resulting in the rise of the land-link between Dhanushkodi and Talaimannar.

3. Ocean currents do NOT form coral blocks, ocean currents can only allow accumulation of limestone or mineral-encrusted-sand aggregates, corals are not indigenous to Rama Setu, blocks of coral rocks should have been brought from outside the region, say the coral reef islands from Tuthukudi to Rameswaram.

4. Rama Setu is a crescendo formed by a huge mountain, almost a canyon, rising in height in a steep slope — from 3000 m. below sea-level near Tuthukudi to almost zero m. between Dhanushkodi and Talaimannar.

5. Is it really possible to keep a 12 m. deep channel dredged, in the mid-ocean, through such a steel slope stable and safe from mountainous land-slides? Won’t the limestone rocks cave into such a channel, given the steep slope? Imagine such a canal in, say, Himalayas. Will the canal stay open given the dynamic state of the mountains — due to plate tectonics – and the recurrences of avalanches? Has any study been done on the state of the canyon topped by the Rama Setu where people had lived and where trees grew (according to a 1799 eye-witness report in Asiatic Researches, Asiatic Society)?