High Court in Apparent Error in Pratyusha Case, as Naveen Patnaik is not Asked to Explain Why He Found Her the Most Suitable

Subhas Chandra Pattanayak

The ruling BJD is de facto owned by Naveen Patnaik, whom all the members thereof know as their supreme master (‘the supremo’) and obey, exactly as my German Shepherd Dog knows me as its master and obeys my orders.

Patnaik decides who should contest from which constituency, provides funds for electioneering, projecting them as party candidates under the pretense of democratic practice.

He appoints his sycophants in any post available in Government, Public Sector and his party and even uses his personal factotum to take action against any of them as and when he wants.

He treats Orissa as his fee simple and squanders away Orissa’s natural resources like his father’s property in interest of any private – even foreign – industry and education mafia as he likes.

All his offenses are supported by his stooges, as they know, thereby is generated the election funds. Their participation in elections begin with nomination of candidates by him.

He or his authorized agent issues party tickets and inform the Returning Officer of this, basing on which, his party symbol is allotted to his candidates.

So, Naveen Patnaik is basically and entirely responsible for the nomination papers, which the BJD candidates file before the ROs.

The RO is guided by Naveen Patnaik as the issuer of party tickets pursuant to which election symbol of BJD gets allotted.

Laws prohibit a non-Indian to contest election.

So, the party boss that issues party tickets to a non-Indian is responsible for acceptance of a non-Indian by the RO/Election Commission as a legitimate candidate.

Kandhamal MP Ms. Pratyusha Rajeswari is alleged to be not of Indian nationality. She is alleged to be a lady of Nepal, staying in India as a widow of an Indian.

On this allegation, the High Court of Orissa has asked Pratyusha to explain as to why her election to Lok Sabha should not be nullified on nationality ground and has issued notices to the RO and the EC to explain their positions.

But Naveen Patnaik, the so-called supremo of BJD, being basically responsible for misguiding the RO/EC into accepting Pratyusha as a legitimate candidate to the extent of throwing the entire electoral process in to the feared fiasco, has not been asked by the HC to say as to why he set as his/his party’s candidate a non-Indian.

I think, this is an error that needs to be removed and Naveen Patnaik needs to be be asked by the High Court to explain as to why he shall not be responsible for crime against the country if his Kandhamal MP for whom he had actively campaigned along with his ministerial colleagues, is not of Indian Nationality.

If the allegation is found correct, Naveen is bound to be punished. But for this, it is essential that he be called for to explain as to why he had found Pratyusha the most suitable to be set up as his party candidate.

Advertisements

We Need Such A Law

Subhas Chandra Pattanayak

In March, the Additional Sessions Judge holding Fast Track Court No. 2, at Phulbani had acquitted 142 persons arrested by the Brahmunigaon police as their offense allegedly committed in 2007 could not be proved.

So also the Additional Sessions Judge holding Fast Track Court No.1 had acquitted 14 persons arrested in a 2008 case by G Udayagiri Police, as the prosecution could not establish the charges.

In yet another case, the First Track Court No.2 has on April 21 acquitted 7 persons arrested by Tikabali police against alleged offenses committed in 2008, as there were no evidence to prove them guilty.

Is the acquittal enough?

It is time to cogitate this question.

People of Kandhamal district are too simple and ignorant to estimate what damage they have been forced to suffer being accused under-trial.

But when they are adjudged not guilty, because the prosecution had no evidence against them, they deserve to be automatically compensated in cash for the damage they have financially, physically, mentally and socially suffered.

Steps in this regard in appropriate forums are essential.

When the police fails to prove the charges it levels against any citizen, the police officer responsible for loss of his freedom and imposition of under-trial stigma on him, must be punished for misuse of power in arresting the person, for having falsely implicated the person against whom there is no evidence or for suppression of evidence to help the accused escape punishment.

Orissa Assembly Standing Committee on Home Department, in its report to the House in the Budget Session, has come down heavily upon deliberate dereliction of duty marked in the police organization. As non-registration of FIR is an offense which the police is asked not to resort to, institution of false cases against any citizen by the police also must be viewed as an offense.

The acquitted accused must be compensated with appropriate amount of cash to be collected from police officer responsible for his suffering.

We need such a law.

One Italian Released, the Other in Crux of a Question the Government must Answer

Subhas Chandra Pattanayak

Italian tourist Claudio Colangelo, held hostage since March 14 by Maoists, has been released at the place of his abduction in Kandhamal in the afternoon of March 25, in a hope that the government would understand the positive gesture and stop state terror unleashed on progressive ultras and fulfill the pending promises made during earlier negotiations incorporated in the instant charter of 13 demands.

Release of the other Italian, Paolo Bosusco, would depend on government response to the instant gesture, leader Sabyasachi Panda has said while handing over Claudio to a team of media persons.

To a private TV channel, he, however, has given a reason of zeroing in on the Italians. In the guise of tourists they were trying to track private life style of tribal women and capturing pictures of their natural lustier as if they were commodities for joy of the foreigners. Taking them to hostage was meant to tell them as well as to the world outside, that tribal women of Orissa living in deep forests are not commodities of tourists interest and must not be considered so, Panda has stated.

Paolo, who has not been released, hails from a place in North Italy and has been staying in Puri since 23 years, is a tourist visa holder. He is working under a cover that he has contrived and christened as ‘Orissa trekking and Adventure’ with its office on Chakratirtha Raod. This being a commercial venture, how he is allowed to operate it is a conundrum.

The progressive ultras having taken him to hostage and having not released him with the man he had taken for the “adventure trekking” is a matter that makes the government answerable on how the Italian is allowed and by whom so allowed to operate the “trekking and adventure” venture in stark contravention of visa terms.

A detail investigation into the Italian’s activities in Orissa is now a must for the government.

ACTIVE PRACTICE OF RELIGION AND UNLIMITED ACCUMULATION OF PROPERTY IN PRIVATE HANDS SHOULD BE BANNED, SAYS SCP

A blatant ban on active practice of religion is most urgent as otherwise the country can never be saved from the worst of unrest, warned eminent scribe and social activist Subhas Chandra Pattanayak at Athgarh on January 12 while addressing as the Chief Guest a congregation of politicians, academicians, advocates, students and youth on occasion of the National Youth Day dedicated to Swami Vivekanand.

Strongly disapproving the way religious revivalists have endangered Indian society by using conversion and counter-conversion as their weapons, Sri Pattanayak lauded the landmark contributions of Vivekanand to lessening of venoms of religions by spreading his mentor Ramakrishna Paramahans’ dictum that no religion is better than the other.

He regretted that the Hindu religious fundamentalists are using Vivekanand as their icon through misinterpretation of his words and speeches though his stress on co-ordination of all religions is indicative of his conscious endeavor to free religions of their respective venomous fundamentality.

Elaborating his observation, Sri Pattanayak clarified that fundamentality besides being the basis of peculiarity of every religion is the chain with which the preachers keep their respective followers bonded. Emphasis on co-ordination of all religions means emphasis on removal of all the streaks of fundamentality from all the religions, which Vivekanand had tactfully undertaken, he said.

But, he also said, Vivekanand or his mentor was not the first to find out how dangerous were the religions fundamentally.

SCP addressing audience in Athagarh

SCP addressing audience in Athagarh

Muni Vyasadev in saying “Sarvadharman parityajya mamekam saranan vraja” in the Bhagavat Gita in the lips of Sri Krshna, had made it unambiguously clear that all the religions must be discarded for saving the society from disunity and fall.

Vivekanand had made improvisation on Vyasa’s drastic rejection of religion by stressing on coordination of all religions that necessarily meant discarding of the components of fundamentality inherent in all of them. Now as religious revivalism has re-emerged with all its macabre machinations and fundamentalists of all the religions are wrecking havoc on human lives, as witnessed latest in Kandhamal, Vivekanand looks more relevant, he said.

SCP delivering speech at Athgarh

SCP delivering speech at Athgarh

He called upon right-thinking peoples to unite to force the religions to co-ordinate with each other for saving the society from religion-generated mayhems or, if the fundamentalists don’t listen and do not desist from dragging people to hell while living in misguided anticipation of happiness after death, to ban active practice of all religions, as no religion is more important than human beings.
Speakers Manoranjan Mohanty and Divyajyoti Pani dwelt on life and time of Vivekanand and how he had inspired the youth to make supreme sacrifice for the motherland.

Presiding over the event, Lalatendu Senapati, Journalist and principal organizer of Gadjat Parikrama, lauded Vivekanand’s contribution to the concept of Universal Brotherhood and thanked Sri Pattanayak for the new angle he gave to contextual interpretation of the person, who had and still inspires the brilliancy in youth.

Audiance At Athgarh

Audiance At Athgarh

The event being organized by Gadjat Parikrama there was a seminar on contributions of Gadjats (Ex-Princely States) to Orissa.

SCP observed that the most magnificent contribution of Gadjats to Orissa is discernible in the Odissi as well as Chhau dance systems and in tie-dying textiles.

Recognized by culture-scholars as the grammar of Odissi dance, the unique scripture captioned Abhinaya Darpana Prakash was authored by the Prince of Tigiria, Jadunath Rai Singh Tunga, who had developed the new system of dance by amalgamating his family dance discipline called Tunga Nrtya with Alasa Nrtya of coastal Orissa, he said. Similarly the Chhau dance discipline was developed in three princely states such as Mayurbhanj, Keonjhar and Sareikela with extensive practice in the Oriya populated track of West-Bengal, Purulia. Gadjats being hilly regions, many tribal dance forms such as Ghumura of Kalahandi, Dhenkanal and Tigiria, Ravana Chhaya of Talcher and Palalahara etc had developed to the tune of nature that are now attracting world attention.

On the dias

On the dias

Sri Pattanayak gave details of how the unique tie-dying technique used in production of the famous Khandua was developed in Tigiria and how Bibhuti Kanungo acquiring training in this technique from Arjuna Subuddhi of Nuapatna of Tigiria had contributed the technique to weavers of other regions, such as Sambalpur, for which he was awarded by the central government. Maniabandh of ex-State Baramba has also enriched this technique, he said, while stressing that princely States like Sonepur have made unique contributions to indigenous textile technology.

But the greatest contribution of Gadjats, he pointed out, is their peoples’ role in shaping the country. The youngest martyr of India, Baji Raut, was from Orissa’s Dhenkanal and his brutal assassination by the British and Royal forces had sharpened the freedom struggle that ultimately extinguished kingship in the country. The peoples’ movement of Dhenkanal developing into militant revolt against the kings of Orissa, they were forced to merge their respective States with the Union of India after the British had left. Had the peoples not forced their Kings to merge their respective States in the Union of India, the country could never have acquired the geographical shape it has at the moment. In fact, merger of the Princely States of Orissa with India had paved the path for merger of other Princely States in other parts of the Country, he said.

Pointing out how the supreme sacrifices of martyrs have been lost due to lust for money in peoples in power and in trade and commerce, Sri Pattanayak said that the peoples of Gadjats were traditionally respecting their kings as gods, specifically as in Hindu scriptures they were equated with Vishnu. But the same people revolted against the kings and wiped out kingship. In doing this, they in fact had expressed their disapproval of unlimited accumulation of properties by individuals. This was perhaps the best ideological contribution of Gadjat peoples to the country. But the politicians have killed the spirit of this ideology as a result of which mafia has taken over India; economic offenders have emerged as achievers and traitors have emerged as leaders.

The peoples of the Gadjats, by forcing kings out of their thrones in order to extinguish the system of accumulation of unlimited property by individuals had shown the way, let us not shy away, he said.

The participants pledged to devote themselves for all round development of Gadjat areas. Activists Lalatendu Senapati, Sanatan Rai, Brahmanand Lenka, Chandrakant Mishra, Asok Dash, Ratnakar Beura, Bhubananand Pattnaik, Pratap Chandra Rautray, Prakash Puhan, Nachiketa Parmanik, Sudhansu Nanda, Prakash Sethy, Harihar Sahu, Radhanath Das and Bijoy Kumar Nayak were felicitated. Students of Athgarh Nrtya Sangeet Vidyalaya sung the title song on Gadjat authored by eminent lyricist Radhanath Das.

(Source: Gadjat Parikrama, Athgarh)

KANDHAMAL IS NOT A CASE OF COMMUNALITY: IT IS A CASE OF NATIONALITY

Subhas Chandra Pattanayak

Kandhamal of Orissa is in hot headlines for enmity between the followers of two religions: Hindu and Christian. The politico executive and judicial administration wants us to believe that it is a case of communality. But in reality it is a case of religious nationality.

The peoples of India have suffered the separation of precious parts from the body of their motherland in 1947 as it was a prerequisite for independence on August 15 on the ground of religious nationality when the Muslims, multiplied on this soil through conversions claimed to be a separate nation as against the nation of the Hindus.

With formation of Pakistan, Hindustan lost a great portion of its national asset and has been in constant loss due to the terrorism practiced by Muslim converts at the border.

So rise of another religious nationhood through multiplication of Christians by conversions has become the crux of alarm for the Hindus as the Christians, by concept and in practice belong to a religious nationality, as they themselves want others to know by projecting their religious head, the Pope, as a Sovereign Head of State.

It is politically significant that the Pope, because of being the Pope, is being projected and treated as a Sovereign Head of State.

This understood, there is no difficulty in understanding why everywhere in India Hindu activists are trying to bring prodigal children back to their homes through counter-conversions.

Every Hindu may act as a counter-conversionist if thereby his motherland could be saved from another division on religious nationality.

Laxmananand was such a counter-conversionist who had concentrated in Kandhamal.

Unknown assailants, who, in local perception, are Christians, have killed him

So attack on Christians by Hindus in that district is a counter-attack.

A man, face wrapped, projected as a Maoist, has told a private TV channel that members of his organization have killed Laxmanananda to obstruct religious revivalism. This assertion is being read as a Christian mischief to hoodwink the general public. This is simply because, peoples know, the Maoists cannot find any difference between a conversionist and a counter-conversionist as both of them are religious revivalists. So killing of Lamananand alone on reason of religious revivalism cannot be accepted as an act of the Maoists.

In the circumstances, it is easily inferred that the Christians of Kandhamal received the counter-impact of their own mischief after the cold-blooded murder of Laxmananand.

The assassinated Hindu activist was unambiguously the strongest obstacle that the Christian missionaries were facing in converting Hindus to Christian religion in the region. And he was killed.

The Hindu agony is increasing beyond tolerance as the Governments, both in the State and at the Center, have failed to find out the assassin of the man who had sacrificed his worldly comforts to conduct counter-conversion to obstruct the rise of a rival religious nationality again on the soil that has already suffered the disadvantage of division of the motherland by converted Muslims at the time of independence.

The Christians have gone to the Supreme Court of India through a PIL seeking orders for inquiry into the assault on them by the CBI.

Suppose the CBI takes over the case, should that automatically end the unrest?

What is the crux of their allegation that they need the CBI to inquire into? As they say it is the assault on Christians. But in reality the issue is not the assault on the Christians; the issue is counter-assault on the Christians.

It would therefore be wrong to inquire into the counter-attack before the attack is inquired into. Therefore the ghastly murder of Laxmananand should first be inquired into before any inquiry is ordered into assault on Christians.

And the assault on Christians being a counter-assault, should, instead of expenditure of so much official energy on it, be left to be settled by the Christians themselves through credible pledges that they would do everything to wipe out the feeling that they are building up a Christian nationhood like the Muslims of pre-independence era.

As long as this feeling is not wiped out, the Hindus of Hindustan cannot be, even at gun point of Police, obstructed from taking any step, including violent steps, to preempt any possibility of a fresh division of their motherland on the ground of religion.

It is absolutely wrong to say that the majority (Hindu) community has assaulted the minority (Christian) community in Kandhamal. The concept of community is a wrong concept. The correct phenomenon is that a portion of the citizenry has assaulted another portion of the citizenry and the later portion has mounted a counter assault on the former. And in this specific instance, minority amongst the citizens (Christians) assaulted majority amongst the citizens (Hindus) by killing Laxmananand and by building up a minority religious nationhood, in retaliation to which the Hindus, being the majority of the citizenry, have, if at all, mounted their counter-assault.

This had to happen. Majority citizens cannot sit mum when motherland is infested with the viruses of minority nationality.

This scenario is really painful. It would never have happened had all the religions been banned after adoption of the Constitution of India.

Every religion was a societal code that was controlling man’s behaviors vis-à-vis the Society. With framing of the Constitution these codes called religions should have been stored for sociological study only. But shortsighted politicians have played the nastiest of mischief by allowing them to control human behavior in free India. So these religions have become rivals to our Constitution and their followers have linked these codes to their respective religious nationalities.

This being the fact, Christians constitute a rival nation vis-à-vis the Hindus. Hindus form the majority. India is a democracy. Democracy is run by majority. So India as a democracy belongs to the Hindus. But Hindus have never misappropriated India for themselves. Though they were the majority in the Constituent Assembly they framed a Constitution that resolved to build up the country as a secular democracy. They gave full freedom to practitioners of their rival religions to treat India as their home and to practice their religion without obstruction. But nowhere they had said that the practitioners of their rival religions should be allowed to expand their religious nation by dragging away members of Hindu religion to their own.

In view of this every conversion since framing of our Constitution is absolutely unauthorized and blatantly illegal.

The Cuttack Archbishop’s PIL has given the Supreme Court a great chance to dive deep into this matter. The active practice of religion should be seen as active denigration of the Constitution inasmuch as the Constitution being the supreme code of conduct, parallel or rival codes of conduct cannot be countenanced.

It should be made clear that by secularism the framers of the Constitution had only meant that there should be no bar in practice of the religions by their respective followers’ families. But they had never meant for keeping the State mum when certain religions would try to encroach upon others.

If the Supreme Court gives real serious attention to the issue, it should nullify all conversions with retrospective effect from the day of the adoption of our Constitution. And put a blatant ban on emergence of religion as nation.

Words like protection to minority may look magnanimous, but if minority religions take turn towards becoming minority nations, the majority of the country’s citizenry will never sit silent. They must fight that design come what may. Because, to the Hindus of Hindustan, any possibility of further division of their motherland on basis of minorities’ religion-nation can never be acceptable.

So, let us be very clear that Kandhamal is not a case of communality as is being projected; it is a case of religious nationality.

WHAT SHOULD THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DO?

Subhas Chandra Pattanayak

Quit if you can’t protect the minorities.

This is what Justice Markandey Katju of the Supreme Court of India reportedly remarked on January 5, while a division bench headed by the Chief Justice was hearing a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by Cuttack Archbishop Chinnath seeking CBI enquiry into communal violence in Kandhamal of Orissa affecting Christians of the District.

The Opposition, specifically the Congress, is trying to take advantage of this remark. The President of Orissa Pradesh Congress Committee (OPCC) Jaydev Jena and Leader of Opposition J.B.Pattanaik have asked Chief Minister Navin Patnaik to quit in view of this remark. Jena has declared in a Press conference that his party would agitate in every corner of the State demanding resignation of the CM if he doesn’t quit in view of the judicial remark.

It is therefore clear that the passing remark of the Judge is going to be politically used.

When the case is in the hearing stage and the allegations raised in the PIL are yet to be tested on the matrix of reality, such a passing remark, if at all it was made, should not have come from the lips of the Judge hearing the case, because the matter being politically sensitive, the remark was supposed to be politically misused, specifically when the bed of politics has already become worm with foreplay of election.

What should the Supreme Court do? Should it allow its remark to be politically used?

Is it not time for the Supreme Court to dissuade its Judges from passing off the cuff remarks that may have ingredients to be used politically by certain politicians against their political rivals, before the final verdict is delivered?

In the instant case, is it not proper for the Supreme Court to issue a clarification on the alleged remark and to put a ban on its political use by Opposition Congress in Orissa?

DEMOCRACY DEFILED: HOUSE OUSTS CONGRESS MEMBER FOR A WEEK; REALITY ENTOMBED

Subhas Chandra Pattanayak

Orissa Legislative Assembly has ousted Congress member Tarakant Bahinipati for seven days as on adoption of a treasury bench motion to suspend him the Speaker decided to enforce it on 11th December.

Bahinipati attracted the harsh decision by venturing to hit the Speaker with an earphone though that had missed the target. It was an affront to dignity of the House, members felt. Bahinipati also felt the same way; but explained his action as a reaction to anti-democratic conduct of the treasury side.

After successfully stonewalling the House the preceding day on the ground of absence of a white paper in respect to the official notice calling attention on killing of Laxmananand and consequent communal violence in Kandhamal that turned into exposing the government’s reluctance to provide the same for use as the base of debate, the Opposition on 11th December allowed the House to proceed so that its own version as well as the government’s could be kept on records and the reality could be known.

And, thus the House started to proceed on Kandhamal issue.

And, thus the House came to hear what the Deputy Leader of Opposition, Narasingha Mishra, known for clear comprehension and in-depth analysis of any issue in hand, was to say on Kandhamal.

Mishra began his speech by razing down the “rosy picture” painted by the initiator of the debate, government chief whip, B.K.Arukh on the present situation in Kandhamal. This district, he reminded the government, is one of the most backward districts of India, where Schedule Tribes constitute 52 per cent and Schedule Castes 17 per cent of its total population. But 90 per cent of its population perish Below-the-Poverty-Line (BPL) with an average per capita income of Rs.4, 743/- as against Rs.5,264/- in other districts of Orissa in the same segment, he showed from statistical reports. And roared, is it the evidence of development that the government boasts of? And then, as he proceeded, he cited certain documents on records in print media to show the darker side of the communal flare up at Kandhamal, the core issue of the particular debate.

Giving vent to his suspicion that Laxmananand’s murder might have been the BJP’s handiwork in executing its stratagem to cultivate communal support in approaching elections, he went ahead to support his apprehensions with circumstantial evidences, to the utmost discomfort of the BJP members of the treasury benches.

He cited newspaper reports to show how contemptuously Togadia of saffron combine had alleged that it was Chief Minister Navin Patnaik’s chilling nonchalance that had facilitated the murder of Laxmananand.

And, as bruised BJP members were at a loss to understand how to stop Mishra’s trigger, he went on to show how Laxmananand was a destroyer of societal solidarity in the affected district in the name of religion and how he was the arch villain behind the 1994 caste conflicts that in acrimony had surpassed every conceivable violence in that district.

Even as no action was taken against perpetrators of that crime against the community, it is the BJP’s alliance government that surreptitiously withdrew the security cover from Laxmananand before his murder in the night of August 23, 2008, although as many as 26 hours before the murder, he had informed the Police that there was threat to his life.

After the murder of Laxmanananda BJP has tried to use him posthumously for consolidation of its vote bank, but its coalition government has not net in the real murderer.

This, he said, points the needle of suspicion for the murder of Laxmananand to the BJP and its allies, which they might have done in thirst for votes.

He cited the instance of Kendrapara where a BJP leader had organized bombardment on the house of another leader of his own party with the motive to project the crime as an act of Muslims, so that communal passions ignited against the minority community could have helped the saffronists in having a new polarized vote bank in their favor. There is no reason not to see the same modus operandi in the murder of Laxmananand, Mishra thundered.

Referring to Togadia’s tirades as reported by the Press, Mishra wondered as to how and why the BJP Ministers sharing the dais with Togadia at that time were not taken to task for having not protested against the acerbic words hurled at their Chief Minister. Recitation of the reported words by Mishra was unbearable for the BJD members and even as they squealed, Mishra went ahead to cite Puri Sankaracharya who had alleged that it is the Chief Minister who alone should be held responsible for the murder. The CM, Mishra wondered, was unable to stop the crime as he was dependent on the Sangh Parivar to stay in power and the Sangh Parivar was to make a sacrifice of Laxmanananda at the altar of their ambition that could be fulfilled only through electoral politics. To put his apprehensions on a supportive base, he read out a letter of the Sangh Parivar that was pregnant with the conspiracy as published in a printed edition of Lokamat.

This was more than enough for the BJP members and their BJD allies to digest. They rushed into the well of the Hall demanding deletion of Mishra’s citations.

Under the waves of uproar that soon engulfed the House, Kalpataru Das of BJD was allowed to raise a point of order when Ms. Draupadi Murmu of BJP was in the Chair and as Das started saying, the microphone of Mishra was laid inoperative. The Opposition stood in protest and the pandemonium took a turn towards the worse. In that oral free for all environment inside the Hall, Bahinipati ventured the most condemnable offense against the Chair. He whisked out an earphone and hurled it at the august authority. Democracy was defiled as never before in the very heart of its throne.

Rightly he has been put under suspension. His is an offense that no lover of democracy can tolerate.

But it is also a fact that had the House not been goaded by the treasury bench members into the environment that precipitated the offense, what happened might not have happened at all.

If the peoples of the State are now unable to know the behind the screen reality that could have addressed appropriately to the issue put on agenda of the Assembly by the treasury side itself, whom to blame except the treasury side?