Archive for May, 2017


Either the Indian media hides the meaningful words of the remarks passed by the judiciary, with a view to give a negative message against the BJP lead government or the judiciary pokes its nose in administrative matters and passes uncalled remarks on the action taken by the government.

Yes. This has been observed twice on some major actions of the government.


Somebody had filed a PIL before SC against the demonetization of Rs 500 and Rs 1000 currency notes, on the plea that the Government had not followed legally prescribed procedure and had not taken sufficient precautionary measures. The action taken by the government was in haste.

The media had given head line that SC had asked the Central Government to clarify its position. Besides this, the SC had also feared whether the government had examined the law and order situation likely to take place in the states, like agitations and riots, before taking the decision. It appears that the SC was of the opinion or the SC was to show its wisdom that the demonetization could be a reason that can burst riots or can deteriorate the law and order situation in the states.

Surprisingly such remarks were made after several weeks of demonetization. There was not a single news, showing occurrence of such incidents where the bad law and order situation was noticed on account of demonetization. People used to stand in queue calmly. Some stray incidents occurred due to mismanagement in distribution of new currency notes. But ultimately such cases did not result into riots. Despite of this, the well-read SC passed a remark as to what precautions and preventive measures were taken by the government against riots in the states.

It is possible that the antisocial elements had to suffer a lot due to the demonetization. As per the report of a government appointed committee of early nineties of the last century, the anti-social elements have the nexus with political parties and local police. The Nehruvian Congress cannot be ruled out from the nexus, what to talk about its allied parties? The allied parties have the same culture.

Who had made big noise against demonetization?

The people knew very well.

The remark of SC can have genuine fear of breaking up riots provided the nexus gangs plans out quickly. But the nexus had two fight out at three fronts.

First front was to replace their currency notes by new ones as much as possible and as soon as possible.

Second front was to create an atmosphere of large scale dissatisfaction and anarchy.

Third front was to plan out to create riots.

But to plan out for riots, the nexus had a fear that their activities were being monitored by the government intelligence. The nexus knew that they cannot take Narendra Modi for granted, on his intelligence performance. They feared a big risk in planning out for riots. However we cannot ruled out that the nexus had dropped the idea of planning of generating riots. That is why they incorporated the fear of bursting riots. And it is possible that for that reason, the SC might have put up the remark related with possible likely hood of riots.

However, so far SC is concern, it was supposed to put a cross question against the petitioners, that the matter of law and orders pertains to the state. Why have you not made the state governments as the opposite parties? Or the SC could have sent of its own the notice of the petition to the state governments. This is because the SC had entertained the point of “law and order” viz. Riot as a factor.

The second incident is of HC of U.P. on the litigation related to ban of illegally running slaughter houses.

illigal sloughter houses

The remarks of HC for the U.P. Government;

  • Renew the licenses which are pending for approval, by such and such date.

If the media has published this remark of the HC in its true literary sense and spirit, both the remarks of HC are uncalled.

The HC has instructed the U.P. Government to renew the licenses pending for renewal by such and such date. This remark is uncalled. Not only this, but the remark of HC gives a message that, the HC has examined the renewal applications of the owners of the slaughter houses and found them in order. Thereby HC has taken the status “Pending” of the applications, as a fraud on the part of the U.P. Government.

There is no information that HC has visited the places of slaughter houses whose applications for renewal of the license, were pending. There is no information as to a committee has submitted a report before the HC on the fulfillment of all the stipulated conditions required for the renewal of the license.

Is it not a matter of surprise as to how the HC can issue a blanket administrative instructions without going through the details in each case?

In case the finding of the HC is, that the previous government had kept the approval of the renewals of the licenses ready, but the succeeding  government (i.e. present government) has withhold the licenses. Then in such situation the HC can issue orders to take disciplinary actions against the officers concern. If HC is active even on passing a hypothetical remarks (discussed below) against the Government, it was more desirable to make the government active on preventive measures against the lethargy of officers, by proposing/ordering disciplinary actions.

The second remark of HC is most astonishing.

  • The government cannot enforce its idea upon the people to change their food habit, and ask the people to be vegetarian.

This remark is absolutely hypothetical. One cannot abuse anybody on hypothetical basis. The media has not furnished any details as to on what ground the HC has passed such remark. Such remark of the HC gives a message that the U.P. Government has the willful tendency to not renew the licenses of the slaughter houses though they have fulfilled all stipulated conditions for the renewal of the licenses.

It is possible that the petitioner might have narrated a point that the U.P. Government machinery wanted to please the new CM and thereby it has shown its reluctance in renewing the licenses.

This looks funny if the HC takes such points of petitioners for granted and pass abusive remark against the U.P. Government.

It is a well-known fact that the Indian Constitution is not against non-vegetarian food. A state Government is capable enough to understand this provisions of the Indian Constitution, at least through its learned officers how are presenting their case before HC.

Can we ruled out the possible influence of Media on the judiciary? Yes the media has a habit to emotionalize every matter. Thereby it diverts the discussion to suit to its agenda. By linking the action taken by Adityanath Yogi on illegal slaughter houses, as his approach towards to change the eating habit of people of India, the action can be sensationalize. But we expect the judiciary to apply its mind before spelling out some remarks.

Shirish Mohanlal Dave

Tag: Uncalled remark, SC, HC, Vegetarian food, slaughter houses, renewal of license, CM of U.P., Narendra Modi, Adityanath Yogi

Read Full Post »



It is a matter of surprise that the Nehruvian Congress has become successful to instigate a big lot of Muslims, even on the matters not related with Hindu-Muslim relations, that the court case of “Triple Talaq” has been generated by Hindus.


In a book stall of Islam, there was a display board, which was indicating the Issue of “Triple Talaq” is being misunderstood, and Muslims are not favoring the existing provision of Triple Talaq. We are ready to discuss. Please come and discuss with us. So far the display is concern, it is fine, that Muslims are ready to protect the human rights of Muslim women.

Just as a curiosity I asked whether the existing method of giving Talaq to a Muslim woman  by a Muslim man, simply by spelling out “Talaq Talaq Talaq”, has been supported by Koran or not? It was a simple question, which could have been replied under “Yes” or “No”.

But instead of this, the Muslim young man tried to explain at length. He said, it the misunderstanding and misinterpretation of our own Muslims of what really has been provided in Quran. Then he explained that there is provision of one month gap, between each word “Talaq”. We are ready to provide justice to our women. Why the Government should interfere?

The Muslim further added, “Look … we have our own marriage ritual. When the Government does not interfere in marriage ritual, why should it interfere in our system of “Talaq”? What is more important? “Marriage” or “Talaq”? Marriage is more important in the life than the “Talaq”. When the Government does not interfere in an important matter of “marriage” then why is it interfering in the less important matter of “Talaq”. Talaq is a personal matter. Two partners of the life, are not ready to live together. One person wants to be separated, how can we force him to live together? In Quran, there is a procedure as to how to deal with this matter of talaq. It asks the husband to say Talaq once. Then a time period is given for one month, during which the wife has to stay in the same house, so that both can rethink on the idea of separation. They have scope to improve their performance. Once again a time of one month is given after the spell out of second “Talaq”. Then ultimately the third time “Talaq” is spelled out. What is wrong in it?

Off course the Muslim was silent on the procedure which is being applied in practice with the Muslim woman. I had no interest to pose to put cross questions.


The Muslim continued. He said when the Government does not interfere into the injustice made to Hindu Dalits, Hindu women, why should it interfere into Muslims? Look … I can show you Manu-Smriti. How much injustice made to Dalits and women?

I tried to clarify, that Manu-Smriti is not a recognized book in Hindu religion. Recognized book is Veda and Bhagvat Geeta. Since the language of Veda is difficult to interpret, there is a simpler book named Bhagvat Geeta. However if there is a contradiction between Veda and Bhagvat Geeta, then what Veda has said, has to be accepted. Besides this Shankaracharya has said, that what Veda said, that contradicts to our experience then what experience tells us, is to be accepted. E.g. If Veda says Fire is cool and our experience says Fire is Hot, then Fire is Hot is to be accepted.

The Muslim was not interested in this matter, he said, “Look at Jasodaben …?”

I said “Jasodaben? Which Jasodaben.” I could not link Jasodaben to this topic


The Muslim said; “oh! You do not know Jasodaben? Jasodaben is the wife of our Narendra Modi. Had this Jasodaben been a Muslim, she could have already re-married to another person if Narendra Modi would have given her divorce.”

I said “Jasodaben and Narendra Modi had mutually agreed to remain separate. Narendra Modi had taken clearance from Jasodaben, to live their own lives in their own way. If Jasodaben asked divorce, it would have been given by Narendra Modi. What is wrong if two persons get separated with mutual understanding? Look at the episode of Buddha. Buddha had not even taken the permission from his wife and he had left her even without any intimation.

The Muslim fellow was suddenly stopped the discussion and said “oh it is my time for Namaza” I am going. He went away.

What the Muslim fellow reflected to me an impression which was quite uncalled. He linked Hindu religion in the matter of “Triple Talaq”.



The responsible person and party for generating this atmosphere and mind set of minorities, is Nehru and his party.


Nehru though presenting himself as a logical person, he himself was lacking in logical interpretation. He wanted India to be a secular country. But what was his definition of “Secular”?

In accordance to his belief and action, the definition of “Secular” means “let the religious minorities live their lives in their own way. The Government and the Constitution will not interfere in their traditions, rituals and lives. Even if any interpretation needed, the interpretation on any religious tradition, rituals and rights will be accepted as has been interpreted by their religious priests. If the interpretation contradicts the human rights provided under the Indian Constitution, the constitutional provisions would be modify to respect the religion of the minority community.

According to the Nehru and his fellow men, the feeling of religious minority community should not be hurt in the name of the constitution of India. It is the liberty of the religious community to have the feeling that “their religion is First” and their religion is above the Indian constitution. Nehruvian Congress leaders and their cultural allies still carry the same interpretation what Nehru had made. Shah Bano case is the good example to read the mindset of these pseudo secular gangs.


Nehru was skillful in playing political Dramas. He could do all his adventures during the struggle of independence, as he had a lot money, the money his father earned as a lawyer. This made him very much popular among second level leaders of Congress, because Nehru’s house was the rest house for them as and when they come to Allahabad. Nehru’s dramas made him popular in lower level lots. All these could happen in the pre-independence period. This effect continued for few years after independence too.


The meaning of democracy is “The truth is honored irrespective of which level it comes from”.

The Democracy is the place “where all are equal before law”

Is it necessary to have the act in regards to a religion for its code of conduct, on the plea to show the respect to that religion?

There is no need to have any Code pertaining to a religion. i.e. To have a Hindu Code, Muslim Code, Christian Code … all is humbug on the plea that Indian Constitution has respect towards other religions and thereby our constitution has the provisions to approve the religious code.


What does a code incorporate?

Marriage, Divorce and Succession.

Do we need such code?

Government must say;   we are least concern with the system, ritual and celebration that you adopt in regards to your marriage. We want you to follow the following procedure.


Both of you should submit an affidavit that (1) Our status is unmarried (2) We want to marry each other (3) Our permanent addresses are as under with photo(4) We herewith  pay Rs xxxx/- to publish notice for inviting any objection from public on our proposed marriage. (5) We will sign the document of the marriage in this office on this Date.

The office of the Department of Family Welfare or the Family Court, would publish a notice with details of Name, parents’ full name, Surname, photos of the coupe of the proposed marriage, addresses etc… in the three prominent local news papers.

The Government is least concern with the ritual, celebration or system what adopted or even not adopted by the couple.


Similarly in case of a divorce, the couple would submit an application jointly or separately that they have agreed to be separated under the mutually agreed conditions. The couple would submit a proposed mutually agreed Draft of Agreement. In case of any absence of mutually agreed conditions, the case would be heard (which even now prevails) as usual and judgement would be given to provide justice to each one of the couple.


In the matter of succession, one man can marry one girl only. The government cannot permit more than one wife at a time. A person must apply for a divorce to the existing partner before getting married to another.

As for the property, the wife has right to 1/3 share of the property of her husband or vice versa if the property is an earned property. If the property is an inherited property, the wife will have the 1/3 of the share of her husband’s share.  Off course 1/3 share is shown here as an example. It may be decided by the Court depending upon the liability.

Law of succession must be same for all the religion and communities. At present the law of succession is different for different communities. It is prone to become a fraud unless the matter is brought before the court of law.

No person can enjoy a right to his own benefit, harming others for no fault of others. A person includes a group, a community based on geography, language, region, religion or organization as the case may be.



Was Nehru incompetent to understand Human Rights and respect towards religion? Nehru was not only incompetent, he was not capable to understand what is meant by justice. He was simply pampering minority to get spoiled.

We do not need several Acts like “Right to Information”, “Right to freedom to express”, “Consumers Right”, “Right to service”, “Right to organize”, “Right to elect”, “Right to call back (though this right is inbuilt in right to elect, but the EC does not entertain this right on the plea of absence of procedure. This looks funny) etc. … provided the Court is capable to interpret all the expressed rights in the light of the human rights.

In short the Muslims need not abuse Hindu religion in the matter of Teen TALAQ, simply because the present BJP lead government does not follow the line of action of previous Nehruvian Congress lead Government.

Shirish Mohanlal Dave

Tags: Nehruvian Congress, Muslim, Triple Talaq, women, Jasodaben, Naendra Modi, Islam, Dalit, Manu Smriti, Veda, Bhagvat Geeta, Shankaracharya, Drama, pre-independence, struggle for independence,  Religious minority, minority Community, Intelligence, Competence, incapable, democracy, human rights, EC, Constitution of India, truth is honored

Read Full Post »

%d bloggers like this: