If It is Really His Site, Pranab Mukherjee Should Certainly be Censored

Subhas Chandra Pattanayak

A shocked friend sent me a link obtained from facebook that led me to a page carrying a link to Pranab Mukherjee’s personal website.

The above picture is the picture of that page obtained through screen shot.

As I clicked on the link there and the site opened, I was so shocked that I could not believe my eyes and ears for what hit me. I suspected the facebook link. Then I made a google search for Mukherjee’s personal website. I found the same link also in the google search page. The picture below is the picture of the google search page obtained through screen shot.

The so-called Congress high command, in the past, had planted some of its loyal factotums as President of India taking advantage of the constitutional provisions that the President would not be elected directly by the people.

But no sycophant of the Congress high command, preceding Pranab in the President post, had, after becoming the President, ever shown the audacity of calling upon the countrymen to proceed hand-in-hand with the Congress Party. Pranab is doing this. The background song of his personal website gives this call. Click here to see the site and to hear the song.

If the google search result is correct, if the link to his site in the facebook is not incorrect, if the site is really his site, Pranab Mukherjee deserves to be censored in the strongest term one can use. No Indian, worth the epithet, can digest such destruction of the dignity of India’s President.

Mukherjee must ensure that the song of his mad loyalty to the Congress Party, in use as the background song of his personal site, is instantly deleted; because he has, howsoever unfortunate for India is his election to the august office, become the President.

Advertisements

Oof! Bengali Chauvinism!

By Saswat Pattanayak

Indrajit Hazra, an Editor with Hindustan Times gloats over how the ‘moment has come for fellow Bengalis’ now that Pranab Mukherjee enters “Rashtropoti Bhobon”! And in the tradition of a classic supremacist, he feels it necessary to inflame in the readers regionalistic suspicions that are unfounded and dangerous.

In a way, it is quite predictable that Hazra would choose this path, for this narrow and myopic route seems to be the only plausible manner one can glorify this political selection for the highest post of our country with. Somehow in the figment of Hazra’s repulsive imaginations, Oriyas are upset over Mr Mukherjee’s selection essentially because he happens to be a Bengali. Again within his nauseating scheme of historical imaginings, Oriyas have a need to reclaim Netajee Subhas Chandra Bose or President V. V. Giri.

Three Stooges of Capitalism

And yet again, the Oriyas have become the losers, Hazra surmises. Such losers that, he writes, “the outbreak of celebrations in the state next door has been keeping neighbours in Orissa awake at night.”

As unpalatable as it may sound, Oriyas have certainly lost sleep over the celebrations in the state next door since decades now, just as any oppressed group experiences lack of sleep when a bunch of neighboring racists culturally subjugate it. However, this has to do only with principled opposition to Bengali racism (which continues to violate not just Orissa, but the North-Eastern regions as well) and it has nothing to do with Mr Mukherjee’s unenviable political selection.

Hazra is not naive when it comes to understanding racism. After all, he empathizes with Karan Johar’s victimization when it comes to the racist institution that bestows Academy Awards in America. But he is abominably proud of his own Bengali racism. And his declaration in glee at a “Durga-worshipping, non-Oriya, Kulin Brahmin” President of India completely fits the pattern of his abhorrently racist mentality.

Only if the essay penned down by Hazra were a satire. Alas, it is not. It is a definitive byproduct of a parochial mindset that must claim the President of India and Netaji Subhas Bose as mere Bengalis or the current Prime Minister as just a Punjabi. His joy at realizing that Mr Mukherjee as a President will not have to report to a non-Bengali boss is also a harrowing attempt at claiming “Bengali superiority”.

His contention that Oriyas are at fault for identifying Netaji Subhas’ place of birth, which according to Hazra is an inaccurate identification, for Cuttack was under Bengal Presidency those days, is a deliberate extension of a perverted mind nurtured after myths of cultural purities. It is equally illogical an extension, considering colonial subjects then – according to Hazra’s reasoning – would have to be identified with colonial masters if someone born and brought up in Orissa has to be declared hailing from Bengal. In the same vein every Indian under British rule then would have to be called a Britisher. Hazra’s venomous campaigns to malign the Oriyas has resulted in this deliberate oversight.

While Hazra makes a case for “long-pending ethnic-, religious- and gender-based biases being reversed” in this century, he misses the mark in his own racist overtones. And that is a tragedy. The bigger tragedy of course is that the Hindustan Times, long associated with history of India’s freedom struggles, decided to publish such a racist, casteist and antinational article that can only serve to antagonize one region against another within the Republic of India.

It is prudent to remember that Manmohan Singh is correctly opposed by large majority of concerned Indian citizens not because he is a Punjabi, but because of his relentless McDonaldization of India. Likewise Pranab Mukherjee is not going to be evaluated by Indian people for his birth in West Bengal, but because of his track record of being an accomplice to Mr Singh. The fact that Hazra glorifies the President’s privileges (of being a Bengali vis-a-vis the Oriyas, and of being a “Kulin Brahmin” in a country deeply wounded through upper-caste hegemonies) as matters of pride for the Bengalis speaks about the callous insensitiveness and lack of humanity on his part.

One merely hopes that the “fellow Bengalis” whom Hazra, a racist journalist has beckoned for support in his supremacist march, resent his unfortunate and un-interrogated privileges; and as much as we all enjoy free press, the Hindustan Times stands upto its historically responsible missions in acknowledging its lapse of judgment and morality for having entertained such divisive, bloodthirsty and reactionary a writer.

IT WOULD BE WRONG AGAINST INDIA TO VOTE FOR PRANAB

Subhas Chandra Pattanayak

The outgoing President Pratibha Patil has shown us how dangerous it is to have a Sonia Gandhi family sycophant as President of the country.

Another of her sycophants, Pranab Mukherjee is now a candidate for the highest office in India, to be elected by the sitting representatives of the people in the Central as well as the State Legislatures.

But it would be a wrong against India if the said representatives vote for him.

It is:

not because, he is a Sonia Gandhi family sycophant that the President of India should not be;

not because, he is habituated in working under the pleasure of the present Prime Minister and hence may stay a habitually subdued President;

not because, as a minister for many years under Dr. Manmohan Singh, the present PM knows where, how and to what extent he has willfully erred in administration and may use the same to keep him tamed and thereby he may at best be a puppet President;

not because, he was under spy-cam by unknown persons while in office as Finance Minister, which, despite his intimation to the PM not being solved, will keep him in constant discomfort so as to deter him from using his conscience against any bad decision of the government needing Presidential approval;

not because, he has been avoiding a debate to establish his suitability for the top-most post despite stress laid thereupon by his rival Mr. Sangma;

not because, Mr. Sangma, who not only is a flawless former Speaker of the Loksabha, but also a man that made a monumental mark of distinction as the perfect-most central labor minister, is personification of aspirations of majority of Indians – tribals and the working class – is a better presidential candidate;

but because, he is the man, who, sabotaged India’s constitutional resolve and sovereignty by subjecting the country to GATT behind back of the Parliament.

In 1993-94, when the country had very strongly protested against this treachery, he had, with Rao as Prime Minister, even subjected the Parliament to the ignominy of being a mere instrument of paving the way for implementation of the treaty so unauthorizedly signed behind the people, a tactics which he again used in the matter of the Hyde Act with Singh as the Prime Minister.

Instead of trying to enhance Parliament’s supremacy in matters of such international treaties, as the concerned minister in both the regimes of Rao and Singh, he had tried to exploit the weak points of Indian Constitution to justify the government’s executive powers to sign the treaties sans permission or approval of the Parliament, though thereby the country was to be drastically affected in all fronts of interest of the people of this country. In eagerness to serve the interest of foreigners than Indians, specifically in consonance with American design, he had even ignored the advice of Indian Parliament, as witnessed in signing of the TRIPs agreement.

The ‘draft agreement’ on TRIPs, pushed mainly by multinational medicine manufacturers, had ignored every major matter mentioned in the background paper India had submitted to the ‘Negotiating Committee’ on 27 July 1989. The entire country showing serious concern over this, the government had to place the matter before the Parliament, as a result of which the the ‘draft agreement’ was forwarded to the Standing Committee of the Parliament attached to the Commerce Ministry for its consideration, opinion and direction. The Standing Committee, comprised of 40 eminent MPs drawn from all political parties, after intense examination, had decided to disagree with all the major terms and conditions and stipulations spelt out in the ‘draft agreement’. In its report submitted on 13 November 1993, the Standing Committee opposed the ‘product patent system’ stipulated in the ‘draft agreement’ as it would lead to steep increase in prices of medicines. It was not proper for India, in the opinion of the Standing Committee, to accept the ‘draft agreement’ that, as it pointed out, would be of drastic negative impact on manufacture of drugs and medicines in the country, essential for health of its people and affordable health care. It suggested several amendments whereby Indian interest should not be compromised. But, Mukherjee signed the draft agreement in total disregard to the report and recommendations of the Standing Committee of the Parliament, rendering the Parliament absolutely irrelevant.

Dishonoring the Parliamentary Standing Committee’s report and recommendations is dishonoring the Parliament of India itself.

It is an offense against India that Pranab committed by misusing his position as the Minister-in-charge.

But it was not the sole offense against India. Offense was committed against the people of India in several fronts by signing the GATT behind back of the Parliament that has disadvantaged the people in matter of economy involving agriculture, business and industry as well as impinged seriously upon the country’s eco-systems.

The same modus operandi of rendering the Parliament irrelevant was also employed in signing of the Hyde Act and 123 agreement that subjected India to American nuke hegemony. In pushing the Hyde Act, the US Congress had even made it clear that Indian Parliament must “approve the text of the Act” before signing it. But the “text” of the said Act was never placed before the Parliament.

In both these mischiefs played against the people, Mukherjee was the main collaborator of the two instruments of USA, Rao and Singh, in the two most relevant phases. Before signing these treaties that so severely affect the life of our present and future generation, neither the people of India nor the Parliament were taken to confidence by the two Prime Ministers and their common tahalia, Pranab Mukherjee, who had the role next only to the Prime Minister in signing treaties so devastative to India.

His steps in the name of globalization, ever since the dark acts of signing the said treaties behind back of the Parliament, have thrown the country into the labyrinth of disadvantages for majority of Indians, forcing them to suffer continuous price rise and economic instability while facilitating concentration of the country’s wealth in hands of the favored few, over and above which, the country has been forced to serve the trade-interest of foreign nuke dealers at the peril of India’s environment and indigenous expertise in use of its own raw materials for its own safety and prosperity.

To keep the Parliament powerless in matter of signing international deals or treaties in foreign interest, the team that included Mukherjee, has ignored the necessity of making the necessary law to regulate the procedure of signing such instruments. Nothing can be more severe a treachery against the country by its government, be it of Rao or of Singh where saboteurs of Indian Constitution like Mukherjee have served as relevant ministers. They have entered into international treaties disadvantageous to India under the umbrage of executive powers, though making of such treaties is not within the expressed exclusive competence of the Executive.

And, when the Indian Parliament has tried to take stock of the state action, Pranab has always steadfastly defended the executive powers of the government while denigrating the demands for making Parliamentary permission a prerequisite for signing the treaties. As for example, when a private member’s bill to amend the Constitution, introduced in February 1992 by M.A.Baby, was taken up for consideration in Rajyasabha in March 1997, requiring Parliament’s approval before signing any international treaty, Pranab had stressed on undesirability of restricting the executive to Parliament’s permission in signing treaties, which, in opinion of the executive were beneficial to people. In this, his aptitude against parliamentary democracy is discernible inasmuch as it emphasizes on keeping parliamentary sovereignty subservient to state sovereignty executed by a political government enjoying its power through the often questionable number game. This aptitude is dangerous to democracy.

On this premise alone, it would be wrong on parts of the members of the houses of people’s representatives to vote for Pranab in the presidential election. Of course, it depends upon whether or not the present MPs and MLAs consider India’s Parliamentary sovereignty more important than freedom of the executive to treat India as its fee simple.

THE PRESIDENT’S CHAIR BE NOT AGAIN STAINED WITH A SYCOPHANT

Subhas Chandra Pattanayak

India has been dragged into such a critical condition by the agents of nuclear traders and industrial empires that the political government cannot be stymied on further wrongs against the people if a sycophant again occupies the chair of the President. The men manning the political governments need a sycophant in the highest office to feel safe in their selfish pursuits.

Therefore, not the Pranab Mukherjees, but the Kalams are the persons that should be the choice for the post of the President.

There is no dearth of Kalams in India – simple and selfless, known to and respected in the world, committed to the cause of the country and capable of taking correct decisions in time – to be chosen as the President.

India needs a President to whom it will not be difficult to understand the uniqueness vested in him/her by the Constituent Assembly and to act in terms of the spirit of the Constitution in right earnest to save the people from the nefarious game the avaricious agents of foreign interests as well as indigenous companies, attired as Indian politicians, have been playing against them.

The bad experience the country has had by having a Pratibha Patil as the President is enough to warn us that the chair of India’s President should not again be stained with a political sycophant.

Willfully negligent to her duties in India, she has costed Indian exchequer a sum of at least 200 crores on foreign jaunts with her family members and relations in the guise of Presidential tours.

Such persons, even in President’s chair, remain susceptible to pressure from their nominators or whosoever is in power to create disadvantage if his/her interest is not served.

In selection of the new President, this experience should be kept in mind and suitability of the person in focus should be placed before the people of India by their proposers to enable people to know at least what sort of a person they are going to have as their president. In this course, his/her background and conduct should be honestly placed before the people with evidence, if any, on his/her commitment to the country’s Constitution.

As far as Pranab Mukherjee is concerned, he is a party to have sabotaged Indian Constitution by subjecting India to GATT in rendering its Preamble inconsequential and his versions in the matter of this agreement as well as of the nuke deal cannot be accepted as consonant with the need of our parliamentary sovereignty. If he be the choice for the post of President, his conduct in these two episodes should be made public and subjected to elaborate public debates, in interest of the country, by the party/parties/persons nominating/sponsoring him for the highest office.

Simultaneously, his proposers should also ascertain from him and place before the people the legitimacy of the fabulous wealth he and his family has accumulated.

Election affidavits show that he has assets exceeding Rs.3 crores and one of his sons Abhijit Mukerjee has near about Rs. 5 crores.

Pranab being a full time politician, his income from salary vis-a-vis cost of living, when compared with others in similar income and expenditure bracket, calls for analysis of whether or not his assets are disproportional to known source of income.

This is also necessary in his son’s case. Abhijit was working as a manager under the establishment of Steel Authority of India. None of his cadre and career has this much asset on records.

Where from he accumulated assets worth about 5 crores? Has Pranab any contribution thereto?

The country is so much affected by corruption because of the climate of corruption the politicians in power have created, that, when assets of a person in possibility of being nominated for the post of President seems disproportional to his known source of income, it should be better to eliminate every doubt on such accumulation of assets.

But sadly, the rules of the country do not make it a must.

Hence, it is better for politicians to find out a nonpolitical person of name, fame and achievements for the post of India’s President instead of Patils and Pranabs.

The chair of the President is too precious for India to be allowed to be stained with tainted players of power game.

In times to come, when increasingly higher numbers of people are taking militant stances against disparities and civil societies are getting resolutely more active against corruption and concentration of wealth in few hands as the Parliament is succumbing to number games, the country needs a President with no obligation to political power players, as only such a person can act as the final protector of Indian sovereignty from the network of vested interests.

Orissa Became Odisha: What Else Could Have Happened When Stupids Rule the Roost?

Subhas Chandra Pattanayak

The Government of Orissa celebrated the assent of the President of India to the erroneous Orissa (Alteration of Name) Bill, 2010 that tampers with classicism of Oriya language by enforcing change of the State’s English spelling from Orissa to Odisha with effect from November 01, 2011. The Chief Minister declared November 05 a holiday to mark the success in the mischief and announced that signboards all over the State and official files shall be made to replace Orissa and Oriya with Odisha and Odia respectively by end of March, 2012. The Hindi words – Urisha and Uriya – must also be changed in use accordingly.

The Bill was erroneous inasmuch as it is surprisingly silent about so called wrong naming of the State in Bengali and other Indian languages. It is erroneous, further because, its nomenclature was misconceived. It was not meant for altering the name of Orissa and in fact it does not. Orissa as pronounced in Oriya is kept in tact and is to continue like that. So, there is a blatant mismatch between the nomenclature of the Bill and the purpose thereof. Over and above this mismatch, the aim of the Bill was detrimental to the classic character of Oriya language. Hence the Parliament of India should not have passed the misleading Bill and when despite our protests, the Bill was passed, the President should not have given assent to it sans required cogitation. The Parliament was certainly conspicuous by its absence of mind in considering the Bill and has made a blunder in passing it without going into the history of transliteration of these two most material words. But the President acted a mere rubber stamp of political power holders and approved it without application of mind to the issue raised by us.

Chief Minister Naveen Patnaik is a congenital non-Oriya born to Biju Patnaik through a non-Oriya mother. He has neither any education in Oriya nor any commitment for this matchless language, which not only is recognized in Linguistic Survey of India (Vol.IV) as a language “of a rich vocabulary in which respect neither Bengali nor Hindi nor Telugu can vie with it”, but also is marked as the most distinguished language on archaic aspect of languages of India, specifically amongst the neighboring tongues when linguistic authorities like Dr. Suniti Kumar Chatterjee of Bengal points out that, “Of these three languages – Oriya, Bengali and Assamese – Oriya has preserved a great many archaic features in both grammar and pronunciation and it may be said without travesty of linguistic truth that Oriya is the eldest of the three sisters, when we consider the archaic character of the language” (Indian Historical Quarterly, Vol.XXIII, at p.337). Neither Naveen Patnaik and his followers and fellow politicians in Orissa nor the members of Indian Parliament who passed the Bill know of this archaic distinction of Oriya language. But, they have given a death blow to this distinguished feature by making this misconceived Bill a Law of the land giving it effect through an amendment in the Constitution of India. This happens, when stupids rule the roost with determination to stay in power by any means and contrive schemes to divert public attention from blatant failure of their administration to misled satisfaction on fulfillment of misconceived pride that the schemers deliberately coin.

The moment it had come to our attention that the lingua non-Oriya fellows in power in Orissa were conspiring to kill the classical feature of Oriya language through this misconceived instrument, we had tried to place our views on records and had urged upon the CM that the English and Hindi spelling of the name of the State and its language should not be changed, as the same was nothing but recognition of Oriya’s classic distinction by non-Oriya Indians and English speaking foreigners.

People of this State had not coined the words Orissa or Oriya or Urisha or Uriya to pronounce and spell the name of their land or language. The non-Oriyas – Indian and foreigners – had to develop these spellings by using ‘R’ for approximately correct pronunciation of the concerned Oriya words.

The peculiarity of Oriya language lies in different appearances of the same alphabet to serve the purpose of two patterns of pronunciation. This was posing a problem for the non-Oriyas, particularly the British occupants of the land. To remove this difficulty, a British officer – Mr. T. J. Maltby of the Madras Civil Service – had authored a ‘Handbook’ in 1874 “mainly for the non-Oriya officers serving in the Oriya speaking districts of the Madras Presidency”. Orissa Government adopted the book – A Practical Handbook of the Oriya Language – in 1945, by courtesy of Miss Lilian Cranworth Maltby, daughter of the author. In this book, Maltby has most ably and faithfully located the pronunciational differences of similar Oriya letters to the extent of even a single letter and has laid down rules for transliteration thereof to Roman equivalents. In the process, he has marked the two patterns of pronunciation of the single Oriya letter represented by Roman D. When the first pronunciation of D is “dental” or “soft” like ‘D’ as in ‘Did’, the second pronunciation of the same D is “cerebral” or “hard” as in the word “Dol”, he has noted. The second pattern of pronunciation of this particular letter was being stressed by the children of the soil by adding distinction to the same alphabet with a dot underneath. M altby, who mandated that “Oriya words in the Roman character are to be pronounced as in German or Italian rather than as in English, and care must be taken that every letter be distinctly sounded” ruled that the relevant alphabet represented by Roman D with a dot underneath justifying its “cerebral” or “hard” pronunciation must stand converted into ‘R’ in transliteration and therefore, in transliteration, Odissa with a dot underneath ‘d’ had become Orissa and Odiya had become Oriya. Attempts were made in 1930s in the all-time authoritative lexicon of Oriya language – Purnachandra Bhashakosha – to present a new transliteration form by prefixing ‘R’ to ‘D’ in representing the dot underneath in matter of cerebral or hard pronunciation thereof and thus Ordisa was posted as transliterated name of the State and Ordia of the language. But, as this was practically problematic, the Bhashakosha’s prefixing of ‘R’ to ‘D’ was discarded by the founding fathers of this State and Mr. Madhusudan Das et al had accepted the rule of transliteration framed by Mr. Miltby and thus Orissa and Oriya had become the transliterated forms of the names of its land and language. Therefore these two words are symbolic of the classical status of Oriya language. Chief Minister Naveen Patnaik who celebrated the stupidity of tampering with the classical components of Oriya language in this matter does not know of this.

Oriya language is not only matchlessly superb as pointed out in Linguistic Survey of India and Indian Historical Quarterly as mentioned supra, but also is the language that has given birth in India to the concept of linguistic states.

But, Naveen Patnaik, after taking over the Office in the name of Orissa’s regional interest, has shown constant disrespect to this splendid language and has continuously contravened the Orissa Official Language Act 1954, which stipulates that Oriya is “to be used for all or any of the official purposes of the State of Orissa”. In his regime, administration runs not in Oriya language, but in English. And, in his regime, massive majority of projects have gone to non-Oriyas, all major allocation of land have gone to non-Oriyas and priority of administration has been steered into serving the interest of non-Oriyas to the utter disadvantage of indigenous people of Orissa. This man now celebrates the death blow on the classical features of Oriya language and asserts to impose/enforce replacement of Orissa and Oriya by Odisha and Odia by March 2012 in the name of Oriya pride!

What a great farce! What else could have happened when stupids rule the roost?

Democracy in Decadence: Motion to Impeach Justice Sen Dies in the Lower House of Indian Parliament

In the upper chamber of Indian Parliament, Justice Soumitra Sen of Kolkata High Court was found guilty of misappropriation of Rs.33.23 lakhs when he was appointed receiver by the High Court in 1883.

Upper House Chairman (Vice-President of India) had appointed a three-member committee to find out if the allegation of financial irregularities was correct and on receipt of its affirmative report, had admitted the motion of impeachment against Sen. On August 18, the motion was adopted by the Upper house with 189 members voting for impeachment as against only 16 dissenting.

The legitimate course of the motion thereafter was its adoption or rejection in the Lower House of the Parliament and therefore the Loksabha had listed it for discussion and decision on September 5.

Surprisingly, the legitimate step of the Lower House was preempted by the President when she did not reject the resignation letter of Justice Sen sent to her not in handwritten form but by fax and ultimately accepted, even though that was meant to make the Loksabha abort the Constitutional task that the sovereign House was occupied with.

The preceding article on this subject was written in this context.

But, the sovereign House has magnanimously or mistakenly allowed the motion of impeachment die in its lap under assumption that the object of impeachment no more exists as a Judge to be removed.

The President’s wrongful action has given birth to this assumption. And the constitution’s only provision against the Judges of misconduct has been thrown into the labyrinth of unfathomable peculiarities of Indian Parliament.

Parliament Should Impeach President Prativa Patil

If democracy in India deserves not to be killed, the Parliament should impeach President Pratibha Patil for having sabotaged its business of impeaching Justice S. Sen of Kolkata High Court whose corruption forms the crux of allegation against him.

The Rajyasabha has already adopted the resolution to impeach him and the Loksabha has duly taken up the issue and enlisted his impeachment in its business to transact.

As such the issue of impeachment of Justice Sen is a pending business before the Loksabha. The Loksabha is the only authority, in the circumstances, to take a decision on impeachment of Justice Sen and his consequent removal or continuance on application of its collective wisdom, after which the President should have discharged her duties as deemed proper in the matter.

But by co-operating with Sen to evade impeachment, she has clearly sabotaged the Parliament’s continuing business.

Under the stipulations laid down in the Constitution, removal from office a Judge of higher judiciary is to follow “an address by each House of Parliament supported by a majority of total membership of that House and a majority of not less than two-thirds of the members of that House present and voting has been presented to the President in the same session”. But Article 121 makes it clear that “no discussion shall take place in Parliament with respect to the conduct of any Judge of the Supreme Court or a High Court in the discharge of his duties except upon a motion for presenting an address to the President praying for the removal of the Judge”. Once the motion is admitted in the House in this respect, the matter, till disposal by the concerned House, is an absolute property of the same House and cannot be rendered inconsequential in the midway. Any action, that makes the pending business before any House of the Parliament by any body inconsequential, should certainly be seen as an offense against the Parliament.

Parliament comprises the President, the Loksabha and the Rajyasabha and the President can neither legally nor morally dissociate from its businesses. On the other hand, a Loksabha official has informed that the President has been informed on Friday that the impeachment motion against Justice Sen was being listed for Monday. The impeachment motion was headlined by all the print majors and telecasted by all the TV channels worth the name and the President is provided with top ranking information officers to update every important information to her. She cannot plead ignorance about the motion of impeachment awaiting Loksabha votes.

In the circumstances, it is very clear that she has played tricks upon the Parliament by accepting the resignation of Justice Sen, intended to preempt his removal by way of impeachment.

In doing this also, she has contravened the Constitution of India and has broken her oath to preserve and protect it.

It is mandated in the Constitution that, to resign his office, a Judge must address his resignation to the President, “by writing under his hand”. This make it a must for the President to reject the resignation application if the Judge has not written it in his hand.

Justice Sen had sent his application, design to frustrate the Loksabha agenda, to the President by fax and therefore the document before the President was never wriiten by his hand. There was, hence, no scope for the President to entertain it. But she has done.

Ms. Pratibha Patil has undoubtedly degraded the august office of the President by resorting to this illegality and offense against the Parliament.

If democracy dose not deserve to be killed, she should be impeached by the Parliament for this brazen misconduct.