Tag: Government of India

MPs and Air India

Our MPs forget they are representatives of people and not their lords and masters. They demand privileges they do not deserve. Their demand for red beacons atop their cars in Delhi was rejected by Sonia Gandhi. Now comes the news that demand for special treatment of MPs made through House Committee of Lok Sabha is accepted by Air India and Airports Authority of India. A committee member said MPs are not even provided minimum basic facilities.

Air India is making loss and after spending thousands of crores of rupees to keep it going another 30,000 crore rupees will be spent in the coming years. Privileges for MPs will make Air India’s survival more difficult.

As per proposed protocol Airport managers are required to meet MPs when they come to the airport and provide them helpers till they enter the plane. While in plane air hostesses and stewards have to meet MPs and offer them compliments of the captain. After the plane departs the airport manager has to inform about MPs to the next airport manager who has to receive them and provide helpers. When the flight ends the commander has to file reports about MPs.

MPs should be treated like other passengers. What do they mean by minimum basic facilities? If they do not get something other passengers also do not get them. If they demand to be treated differently than other passengers they are demanding privileges and not minimum basic facilities.

Airport managers, airport employees and cabin crew have enough work and they should not be burdened with doing favours to MPs. AAI and Air India employees should protest against the protocol. There is talk of austerity. Most Indians travel long distance by train. Air travel for MPs should be disallowed and they should travel by train. MPs behave life nobility in France before French Revolution. If they do not improve a revolution with Reign of Terror and guillotine is possible in India.

Excise on gold

On 7/5/2012 Finance Minister Pranab Mukherjee announced rollback of excise on gold. Nobody spoke against rollback. Jewellers had opposed it. Sriprakash Jaiswal, a minister, had talked against it. Being coal minister he had nothing to do with gold. Delegations of jewellers had met Sonia Gandhi. There were no discussions on TV channels against rollback.

Gold is not a necessity. Jewellers on strike would not have made much difference to ordinary people. Marriages would have taken place without gold.

When there is rollback of price rise of diesel, petrol, kerosene and LPG there are discussions on TV channels. There is criticism that this is good politics and bad economics. When excise on gold is rolled back there is no discussion. TV channels get ad revenue from jewellers. Free news media is a myth. When TV content is dictated by who gives ad revenue there is no freedom.

If the ground for rollback is that it will lead to corruption and harassment, that applies to excise on all items, not just for gold and jewellers. Other businessmen also face harassment. Excise on all items should be abolished.

There is service tax on various items and people who raise bills have to collect service tax and deposit it with the government except for transport. Transporters raise bills that do not mention service tax but service tax is deposited by people who make payment.

Rule of law means equality before law. When law is applied differently there is no rule of law. When jewellers and transporters are treated differently it is wrong.

Consenting adults and law

There are people who say what consenting adults do in private should not be covered by law. This is mainly in reference to Section 377 of IPC which is under litigation in Supreme Court.

By that logic prostitution, sale and purchase of narcotics and psychotropic substances and illicit liquor, corruption, polygamy, transmission of pornographic material and many others matters that take place between consulting adults will be out of the scope of law. Drug traffickers can claim they have right to life and liberty to sell heroin, marijuana and such things to consenting adults in private and they have right to equality. The state will have no right to legislate on marriage, divorce, alimony and child custody. Also concubinage, live-in relationship and palimony will be out of the legal purview.

What happens if a man who is married does not reveal his marital status and marries another woman? What happens if a woman has sex with a man because he promises her something and later he does not keep his promise?

What about doctors and parents who after sex determination test terminate the pregnancy of a foetus knowing it is female? India’s sex ratio is going down. Medical termination of pregnancy is not a crime. Female foeticide is a crime.

Some blame Thomas Macaulay for everything what they claim is wrong with India including Section 377 of IPC. Thomas Macaulay came to India in 1834 and left India in 1838. IPC was promulgated in 1860.

Some give examples of Khajuraho and Ajanta-Ellora as examples of Indian culture and civilization. It is like saying Jarawa women who do not cover their breasts as representative of all Indian women. Khajuraho and Ajanta-Ellora are exceptions. If what they show is a sample of what is Indian then all temples would have shown them.

A vociferous minority supported by sections of media attacks people who stand for heterosexuality. Those who speak of freedom of speech criticize Ghulam Nabi Azad and Baba Ramdev when they exercise their freedom of speech.

Some wrongly speak of gays and lesbians being married and having children. They are bisexuals. There is nothing hereditary being gay. If someone is gay he would not have had children.

It is not for judges to declare what should be the law. Their job is to deliver judgment as per law. Judges who cross their limits do lot of damage.

It is wrong to call gays and lesbians a minority. Minorities are either ethnic, or religious or linguistic. All types of criminals can claim they are a minority. Terrorists can claim they are a minority doing a noble job but misunderstood by the majority. Bandits can claim they are a minority.

If Supreme Court judges do not know what is sex according to order of nature it is penile vaginal intercourse. Terms like unnatural sex have definite meanings acquired over the years. It is not for judges to change the meanings. It is for legislatures to change the law.

The government of India wants to run with the hare and hunt with the hound. On 23/2/2012 Additional Solicitor General P. P. Malhotra told the Supreme Court Bench comprising Justices G. S. Singhvi and J. S. Mukhyopadhyay “The issue whether to retain or not to retain Section 377 IPC was considered by the Law Commission of India in its 42nd report and it observed that Indian society by and large disapproves of homosexuality and disapproval was strong enough to justify it being treated as a criminal offence even when adults indulge in it in private.” About privacy he said “Whose privacy is being disturbed? Nobody’s privacy is being disturbed. Privacy is not an absolute right and is always subject to restriction. It is an offence.” Then home ministry came out with a press release that the government is neutral on the issue. It had asked Attorney General to assist the Supreme Court. May be if Shahi Imam or head of Darul Uloom wants to retain Section 377 as it is the government will take a stand in favour of retention.