Ceiling on Private Wealth be the New Mission this New Year

Subhas Chandra Pattanayak

The New Year 2016 has come to us. Let us not make it barren.

The new year has come uniformly to all of us, who live in human society. Nobody has been left behind in 2015 and nobody has been conveyed over anybody into 2017. So, 2016 has come for the equal time span to all of us in this world.

This time span equally available to all of us must also be viewed as an opportunity to wipe out inequality – financial and social – to establish that all of us are not only born equal, but also are born to equality.

The last year like preceding ones was lost to 99% of the members of human society as only 1% that comprise the machine owners, mines owners, money hijackers, land-grabbers, weapon manufacturers and monopoly traders kept the world under their pernicious grip, with their commission agents ruling the roost.

We all that constitute the 99% should wake up to destroy this grip and save our society from the greedy and inhuman 1%, so that the time span that has uniformly come to us does not go barren.

To ensure this, some may recommend a violent class war. But, averse to violence, I stand for leash on avarice.

New Theory of Political Economy

India’s emancipator Mahatma Gandhi, because of whom mostly, the world has been saved from political imperialism, had advanced a new theory of political economy. That is, Theory of Trusteeship.

Wealth accumulators should consider themselves as trustees of the people but for whom their wealth could not have been generated, was the essence of this theory.

He was murdered by the agents of the rich, because this theory was anathema to their avarice.

Gandhiji gave birth to a new world order where independence of the nations became essence of existence. But, the Political Economy of Trusteeship, which he had advanced as against Political Economy of Capitalism and Political Economy of Socialism, has not gained ground after his assassination. This is now threatening the world with a class war between the affluent 1% and the rest 99%, which, unless Gandhiji’s idea is heeded to, will certainly be violent and wipe out the 1% along with their associates and acolytes from the world in their entirety.

Violent Class War in Scriptural economy

We have seen this in Mahabharata, where Muni Vyasa had told in the mouth of his hero SriKrushna that, occupiers of upper strata should always act partners of the people in the lower strata and vice versa in order to avoid class war and prosper. The verse is:

Devan Bhavayatanena Te Deva Bhabayantu Bah / Parasparam Bhavayantah Shreyah Paramabapsyatha //( Srimad Bhagavat Gita, 3/11).

Kauravas did not study its significance and got extinguished in the class war where the clarion call of Krushna was to wipe out completely the avaricious occupiers of power, despite them being close relations. Death to the greedy – is what Krushna had said.

We see this in the concept of Mahakali too. A corpse (Shava) was lying on the way of advancing revolution (Mahakali) and that Shava became Shiva when a foot of that Mahakali touched its chest. This simple episode suggests that the dormant society was in slumber when Mahakali symbolizing the mass revolution kick-started it into action and that collective force wiped out the gene of the exploiter Raktavirjya, as so emphatically shown in Devi Mahatmya.

So, complete extermination of the exploiters is what scriptures also provide for.

But, should we resort to this?

When this question haunts, and both the political economies – capitalism and socialism – have failed to stop concentration of wealth in the hands of only 1%, the alternative to these two theories – Theory of Trusteeship that Gandhiji had advanced – seems the only alternative.

Gandhi the Only Alternative

Gandhi’s Theory of Trusteeship is the only refuse available to the world at present to save the earth from possible blood bath.

To bring the avaricious rich to this theory, they are required to be dragged into the habit of staying satisfied with limited wealth, so that they can tame their unlimited greed.

And, therefore, the commission agents of the rich that are in power with the help of the rich and running the administration for benefit of the rich, in order to save their masters from physical extermination, should impose ceiling on private wealth of the rich and their associates, before the tortured and exploited 99% respond to SriKrushna’s call: Hato Ba Prapsyasi Swargam, Jitva Ba Bhokshase Mahim / Tasmaduttistha Kaunteya Yuddhaya Krutanishchayah // (If you die in the battle, heaven would be yours, if you win the battle, yours shall be the land. Hence, Arjuna, decide to fight. And, fight.) (Srimad Bhagavat Gita, 2/37)

So, if life is not to be lost in a fight, for whosoever love the people, and love the earth, and love universal brotherhood, love peace and harmony, and love the future generation, should wake up to demand for ceiling on private wealth to make the aggressive runners after wealth habituated with limited wealth; so that Gandhiji’s Theory of Trusteeship could emerge as the alternative political economy, which may forestall a catastrophic class war.

Hence, dear friends, ceiling on private wealth be the new mission this new year.

Indian Parliament showed no concern for the soul of India; President should refuse assent to the Juvenile Justice Bill 2015

Subhas Chandra Pattanayak

Majority of the members of Indian Parliament have shown no concern for the soul of India, as has been established by passing of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Bill, 2015 on 22nd December in the Rajya Sabha completing its parliamentary course that had got the stamp of adoption in the Lok Sabha on 7th May. It is such a mockery of legislation, having not paid any heed to cries of India for justice to its soul – Nirbhaya, that, the President should do good by refusing the Bill his assent.

Had Jyoti Singh of New Delhi not been brutalized by a gang of satyrs in December 2012, too savage and severe for medical science to save her life, this Bill would not have been generated at all. Her indomitable will to live to see the bruits punished by her motherland had kept her alive till in utter despair she allowed her breathe to pass away. Her desire to see the criminals punished did not die with her death. We the People of India took her to be the symbol of our tortured yet courageous entity by calling her Nirbhaya, the soul of India.

It was soon found that the youngest of the criminals that brutalized Nirbhaya was juvenile, four months to cross the age of 18 years.

The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act, 2000 (as amended in 2006) was protecting him from punishment applicable to adult criminals. Hence, as demanded by whole of India, the Bill in question was conceived to reduce this age limit to 16 from 18 to give justice to Nirbhaya by punishing the youngest and yet the severest savage.

When the Bill was drafted it was inherently defective meant as if to ensure escapement to this young bruit. It was a haphazard draft very much in need of vetting in a Parliamentary Select Committee. The age factor was creating confusion. The approach was not based on criminology of rape. Before leaving the House in protest, Sitaram Yechury, leader of CPI (M), had rightly asked, “Today you are demanding the juvenile age to be reduced from 18 to 16 ; what if tomorrow a 15-year old commits a horrendous crime?” Members, who passed the Bill, did not bother about the question. Had the Bill been sent to Select Committee, members thereof might have stumbled upon the angle I am pointing to. But that did not happen.

The members did not bother to make the new law applicable to the juvenile criminal because of whose savagery Nirbhaya had lost her life. Minister-in-charge Maneka Gandhi had made it clear in the House that the Bill won’t be retrospective. Sad, the members could not catch even then that the main purpose of going for the new law was going to be defeated. They did not bother about this mischief.

The Supreme Court refused to intervene, because, by applying the old law of 2000 to set free the criminal in absence of any law to keep him under the Court’s clutch any further, the High Court had committed no illegality.

Before passing the Bill, the Rajya Sabha was aware of this. It was aware of the fact that unless given retrospective effect, the core purpose of engagement with the Bill before it was to be lost. It should have woken to the occasion and made the Bill retrospective. Had it acted diligently and passed the Bill in time with retrospective effect, at least from December 16, 2012 the day on which the horrendous crime having shocked the country had necessitated this new Law, the bruit that according to government has not reformed, could not have been put back in the society, to the panic of the society, as has been done.

It is better for the President, in the circumstances, to refuse his assent to this Bill, so that legislative wisdom may get a new chance to do away with the wrong the lawmakers have committed in this case in the aspect as discussed above.

Governance of Orissa in Oriya // CM apprises Assembly of Rules on the Anvil

Subhas Chandra Pattanayak

ama bhasa ama rajabhasaOur struggle for governance of Orissa in Oriya is fetching success step by step despite a ruling party MP trying to misguide the people.

In reply to a question, i.e. UDAQ No. 2325 from Member Nabakishore Das, Chief Minister Naveen Patnaik has told the Assembly on 14th December that the government is now finalizing the Rules to make it a must for the authorities to use Oriya as the Official Language.

The Chief Minister has almost admitted that notwithstanding enactment and instant enforcement of Orissa Official Language Act in 1954, which had stipulated that “Oriya shall be the language to be used for all or any of the official purposes of the State of Orissa”, the administration is not running in Oriya.

We had, in our meetings with the ministers, submitted various departmental circulars that had directed the departmental officers to work in Oriya language. These circulars were not traceable in headquarters. We had collected them – credit goes certainly to Joint Convener of Odia Bhasa Sangram Samiti Dr. Subrat Kumar Prusty – from the guard files of field offices at great pain and given copies thereof to the government to show how the Act was not functioning. In his reply referred to above, the Chief Minister has cited those circulars. Despite such circulars, the officers are not using Oriya language for official purpose.

JB's OrderIn course of my investigation I stumbled upon the order of Chief Minister J. B. Patnaik, as he then was, directing all offices to use Oriya as the language of administration. This was a mandatory order from the Chief Minister of the constitutional government.

It is surprising that despite such clear orders from the Chief Minister himself, officers did not care to use Oriya.

In the regime of the present Chief Minister, various orders have also been issued for administration in Oriya; such as GA Department letter No.10552 of 17/4/2013. Another instance is letter No. 16086 of 12/6/2013 of the same department that controls all other departments. Yet, the officers did not use Oriya as official language.
What could be the reasons of this?

On research I found, there were no Rules to drive the Act ahead. The contraveners of the Act should have been subjected to disciplinary action; but there was no provision to administer discipline, including necessary prosecution for offense against the State. I found the Act itself had no provision for framing of the Rules. The Officers knew this lacuna and knew that they should be enjoying immunity under the shade of the deficient Act even if they continue to contravene it.

To eradicate this lacuna, I submitted the draft of proposed amendment to the Act of 1954 along with a draft of the proposed Rules to the Chairman of Official Language Advisory Committee Hon’ble Minister Sri Debi Prasad Mishra. Behind this was the collective wisdom and support of the entire leadership of the Odia Bhasa Sangram Samiti led by eminent poet Shankarshan Parida and fortunately for the State of Orissa, the Chairman and members of the ministerial committee formed by the Chief Minister wholeheartedly appreciated the initiative. The same has officially been posted in the dedicated website for public suggestions if any.

We are most happy to note that the Chief Minister has approved the website titled ODIARE SHASANA entirely dedicated to our demand for governance of Orissa in Oriya. On his behalf, Minister Debi Prasad Mishra who heads the Official Language Advisory Committee (formerly the Joint Action Committee) has launched this site in the presence of all the Ministers and representatives of the Odia Bhasa Sangram Samiti, that constitute the Committee and author of the proposed Language Policy Dr. Debi Prasanna Pattanayak.

We congratulate the Chief Minister for having informed the House as noted supra that the Rules are currently under active consideration of the Government for adoption.

Once the Act is amended and Rules adopted, no Officer, whatsoever be his / her rank and status, would dare to play mischief with our people’s right to get governance of our State in our mother tongue Oriya.

We put below the Assembly document carrying the question and the CM’s answer as a matter of documentation.

Reply of the CM

Kejriwal the confusing new right

Saswat Pattanayak

Arvind Kejriwal suddenly discovers in Modi a coward and psychopath, simply because he finally becomes a victim of fascist vendetta now. However, this outrage is a social media melodrama as it was Kejriwal himself who has contributed the most in the resulting chaos that prevail today. Modi/Shah and their BJP goons are professionally committed as communal politicians and xenophobes who have always practiced hate politics to perfection. Indian public had always rejected such right-wing fanatics throughout the country’s democratic history. It is Kejriwal who lent them a humane face through his creation of a hoopla over the corruption bogeyman, only with the sole aim to destabilize what he and his right-wing allies Shanti Bhushan, Kiran Bedi and Kumar Vishwas felt as “dynasty politics”.

Bhushan who funded the creation of AAP was also the same man who was one of the founders of BJP in 1980 – the only aim at that time was to oppose Indira Gandhi because she had dared to “misuse her power” by ensuring that India aims to become a “socialist” and “secular” country. When BJP failed to gain any momentum in India owing to their rabidly communal agendas, these reactionaries floated an outfit by the name of AAP to espouse the same anti-Congress politics, but on a more populist political plank: Corruption.

Prior to advancing the carefully orchestrated political party AAP, Kejriwal was at the forefront of the anti-socialist formation called “India Against Corruption” and an anti-secular formation called “Youth for Equality” – the sole aim of these so-called apolitical movements (ably supported by the likes of objective corporate media comprising Arnav Goswami/Rajat Sharma) was to excite the otherwise indifferent middle class students into getting wet dreams over the potential demise of Congress and the Left in India; to materialize the RSS reveries of a Congress-Mukt Bharat into reality.

Aam Aadmi Party – many of whose stalwarts subsequently have gone back to their BJP family – thereafter emerged as the New Right in India, the first outfit to succeed in legitimizing capitalistic meritocracy as an acceptable political proposition in a society whose collective progress depends on reservation policies, to allow for a political scope for rabidly communal elements of this society to gain a respectable electoral mandate that was virtually impossible to obtain prior to Kejriwal and his team arrived as the educated “we-are-not-political-we-are-you” actors, and to create for the first time in India’s history a Parliament without an empowered Opposition.
It is not Modi, but Kejriwal who created an imagination for a new India whose socio-economic policies could be drafted without the Congress and the Left. And when Kejriwal is not given that rightful due, and instead is treated like he were an outsider, it is only natural that he calls his former bosses names. But even then, Modi continues to heave a sigh of relief, because Kejriwal once again is letting him to be used as a tool to diminish the current debate just when Rahul Gandhi cries vendetta. Because educated Indian bourgeois class and its aspirants know quite well, that when vendetta too appears meritocratic, it is no longer to be treated as a misuse of power.

Naveen will leave Orissa Bankrupt: Media should start educating the people

Subhas Chandra Pattanayak

Professional aloofness displayed by physicians may not be found faulty; but the same in media is unfortunate and blatantly anti-people. Media must be the medium of public education in matter of management of the State.
Orissan media is oversaturated with fellows that pursue the only mission of ingratiating with the ministers, and bureaucrats whom ministers rely upon. Media houses in Orissa run mostly by economic offenders encourage their representatives in this mission so that powers that be may protect them at times of need.

This is why ruling BJD and Chief Minister’s blatant failure in protecting Orissa’s interest in matter of Polavaram project is not yet known to the people. Similarly the people have not yet known that this government is pushing the State into bankruptcy.

The State Finance Minister has told member Dillip Ray in response to his question, on 14th December that the loan of the State shall reach by the amount of Rs. 56,540.13 crores putting debt load on every citizen to the tune of about Rs. 14 thousand. This financial year itself shall be loaded with a loan amount of Rs.12, 800. 38 crores that surpasses all the previous borrowing records.

Loan for development is not unusual. But, the peculiarity in this is that, the State government is borrowing increasingly higher amounts year after year without any workable planning for repayment. It has already impoverished the State denuding her of valuable natural resources and reducing her to a greasing ground of avaricious anti-people non-Oriya industries; and more dangerously, by ruining the peasants’ confidence on self-employment in their traditional agriculture.

There is no easy way for the people to know if the borrowing is productively used and if so, why instead of repaying the loans the State has been borrowing higher amounts every year to reach the state of bankruptcy. Audit Paras on wrongful expenditure and loot of exchequer are galore; but no penal action against any offender is discernible. Why? Shouldn’t media come forward to focus on it?

Acquittal of Salman Khan makes people look askance at Judiciary: Supreme Court should take note of it

Subhas Chandra Pattanayak

A man died and four persons were fatally injured under the wheels of actor Salman Khan’s uncontrolled car while sleeping on a footpath of Mumbai in the night of 27 September 2002, according to what the area magistrate had recorded the eye-witness accounts of Khan’s bodyguard Ravindra Patil. He was sentenced to 5 years imprisonment by the Sessions Court. But a single judge bench of the Bombay High Court has quashed that order and acquitted him completely of all the charges. This has shocked the people.

What was the eye-witness account? What had Patil deposed before the Magistrate?

According to him, Salman Khan and actor Kamaal Khan had gone to hotel (JW Marriott) when Patil was waiting in Salman’s Land Cruiser. They returned at about 2.15 am. Salman drove the car despite Patil’s advice that he should not drive when drunk. “He was drunk and was driving … at the speed of 90 to 100 kilometers per hour. Before coming to the junction of Hill Road, I told Salman to lower the speed”, Patil had stated under oath before the Magistrate. He had further stated, “He could not control his motor car while taking the right turn and it went on the footpath. The people were sleeping on the footpath. The motor car ran over (them)”.

This was almost the same as Salman’s friend and companion Kamaal Khan had told the Police on October 4, 2002. He had stated: “On the night of September 27, 2002, I went to meet Salman at his residence and we planned to have dinner outside. Salman, his bodyguard and I went out in a Land Cruiser to Rain Hotel at Juhu. His brother Sohail and his bodyguard came in a different vehicle. We had reached the hotel around 11 pm and it was very crowded.

Salman, Sohail and I had snacks at the service counter. After about an hour or two, we left for JW Marriott Hotel in the white Land Cruiser. After spending some time there, we left.

Salman sat to drive the vehicle, while his bodyguard sat next to him. I was behind the driver’s seat…Salman was driving and we started to head to his house. We were heading from St Andrew’s Road to Hill Road. While taking a right turn, Salman lost control of the car and it went on the steps of a building and crashed into a shutter. I heard shouts and people gathered around the car. The crowd was shouting ‘Salman come out’. Some were trying to help the injured. When we got down, people pushed us. Salman’s bodyguard told the people he was a policeman, which calmed down the crowd.”

When Police did not produce Kamaal Khan as witness in the Sessions Court, Patil met death in a pathetic condition during pendency of the case.

Now the High Court has concluded that the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of Salman.

In its words, “For the reasons separately recorded in the judgment and order the following operative order is passed:

ORDER:
1) Criminal Appeal No.572 of 2015 preferred by appellant Salman Salim Khan is allowed;
2) The impugned judgment and order dated 6th may, 2015 passed in Sessions case No. 240 of 2013 is hereby quashed and set aside;
3) The appellant-accused Salman Salim Khan is acquitted of all the charges. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled;
4) If the fine amounts which are imposed in view of the impugned judgment and order, are already paid, the same shall be refunded back to him……….”

Of what value then are the eye-witness Statements of Salman’s body guard Patil before the Magistrate and of Salman’s friend and companion Kamaal Khan before the Police?

The High Court has of course directed Salman to execute a PR.bond under Section 437-A of Cr.PC. This Section requires the accused, before conclusion of the trial and before disposal of the appeal, to execute bail bonds with sureties, to appear before the higher Court as and when such court issues notice in respect of any appeal or petition filed against the judgment of the respective Court and such bail bonds shall be in force for “six” months.

What shall happen if the State of Maharastra does not prefer any appeal in the Supreme Court?

The very question is tormenting.

The matter looks like using law for covering up a very serious instance of illegality. Looking at askance the judiciary in such a situation would not be unnatural. Whether or not the State of Maharastra prefers appeal against the High Court order, the Supreme Court should do justice to the people of this dazzled country by instituting a special investigation into this case from its beginning to end and passing necessary orders after such investigation.

Justice should appear justified.

Let the Supreme Court ensure this.

MAKE in INDIA // Questions that make us worried

Subhas Chandra Pattanayak

Whatever is the outcome of an election, in absence of political economy as the crux of challenge to electoral wisdom, should not the political party that captures power, make its Prime Minister refrained from allowing the foreigners own the means of production in India, where subsidy in rice or wheat is the only trick administration uses to stymie starvation death of innumerable Indians?

Should not its members, if there is any concern for the countrymen in them, oppose their PM’s call to foreigners to “make in India”?

It is a shame that PM Modi has been giving this message to the world that India has nothing to offer as “Made in India”.

Is it not an offense against the mana of India, which, as the PM, he is required to safeguard and serve?

He is asking foreigners to “make in India”. For what should the foreigners “make in India”?

Obviously, not for loss, but for profit – their own profit.

We shall give the foreigners the land they need, the water for their industries, the manpower to serve them as cheaply as possible, the infrastructure they will require as quickly as possible, and a very vast domestic market. But, the profit they will fetch would be theirs.

Is not this design meant to help the foreigners to loot and exploit India?

Isn’t the PM Modi acting in interest of foreign business empires? If not, why “make in India” at the cost of mana of India?

Is he not bringing in a new foreigners’ combine like that of the former East India Company, which had, under cover of business, pushed India into the British rule?

Is Modi’s “Make in India” call paving the path for a sort of ‘West India Company’ to grab India?

Let him explain the matter in a white-paper to reach every Indian home; because the future of India is threatened by this pro-foreigner call.

Every Indian patriot has reasons to be worried.