Saturday, April 26, 2008

Setusamudram hey kaarasthan: thieves, saboteurs & pawnbrokers -- V. Sundaram

Setusamudram hey kaarasthan: thieves, saboteurs & pawnbrokers -- V. Sundaram

Thieves, saboteurs and pawnbrokers – I

V SUNDARAM | Sat, 26 Apr, 2008 , 02:17 PM
‘Falsehoods not only disagree with truths, but usually quarrel among themselves’
— Daniel Webster (1782-1852)

T R Baalu’s blatant Falsehoods seem to be in a state of war with Dr Manmohan Singh’s nervous truths laced with meek falsehoods. I can see from today’s papers that PM’s Office has asked CBI for an inquiry about the commercial dealings of Union Minister for Shipping and Transport, Baalu and his family members.

In a situation when charges have been made that Baalu has abused his public office as Union Shipping and Transport Minister to get gas allotments in the name of his sons, the ordering of an enquiry by PM’s Office gains public importance.Though Baalu has accepted in Parliament, that he used his office to ask for gas allotment for his sons’ firms, yet he has also had the shameless political audacity to proclaim in Parliament that there was nothing wrong in doing so.This only shows Baalu’s determined Dravidian inability to distinguish between that which is patently wrong and that which is morally right. Only those who are entirely bereft of probity and believe that misusing authority is part of the privilege of holding any public office can be so scandalously callous. By choosing to remain silent, as a helpless spectator standing on the sidelines in Parliament, our disgraceful Prime Minister has shown that he wholly subscribes (both in letter and spirit) to the corrupt and corrupting political philosophy of Baalu and his grisly gang.

AIADMK Rajya Sabha MP Dr Maithreyan who raised several relevant and valid questions on the political misconduct and misdeeds of Baalu, was directed to withdraw from the House. After a lapse of 19 years, the withdrawal of a Member was ordered in Rajya Sabha. The Honourable Speaker of the Rajya Sabha has shocked the conscience of the man in the street in India by his wholly one-sided, if not partisan attitude, on this very important issue. Condemning the action of the Rajya Sabha Chairman, BJP members observed a silent protest during the Question Hour.
Our surrogate Prime Minister, as usual, chose to remain silent when Dr.Maithreyan was ordered to withdraw from the House. I have no doubt that the Prime Minister cannot chose to remain neutral between the fire brigade and the fire for too long. In the next few days he will be forced to respond in Parliament to the issues raised by Dr Maithreyan and BJP members.

In order to equip himself suitably to meet this unsavory contingency, I understand that the PM has requested the CBI to conduct an enquiry on the allegations made against Baalu by Dr Subramanian Swamy, Dr Maithreyan and others, with specific focus on the following questions/ issues. Reliable sources indicate that four important enquiries have been posted for investigation.
1.Using a firm based in Andhra Pradesh as benami, for dredging operations in Setusamudram project, have contracts been given to Baalu’s family members? Have any members of Baalu’s family benefited from such benami contracts?

2.In Golden Quadrilateral Project, complaints have been made that low-level politicians are involved in illegalities in many states. What is the truth in these allegations?

3.To what extent have Baalu family-related concerns benefited from ONGC? What special privileges and facilities and concessions have been provided by ONGC to these entities? Have there been any illegalities in these facilities provided by ONGC? Details should be gathered.

4.Large bank loans have been taken in the name of Baalu’s sons’ firms and have not been repaid; is this allegation based on fact? To prevent banks from initiating action to recover the dues, has any abuse of office occurred by Baalu’s attempted interventions? Are there cases pending in Bank loan recovery tribunals?

I reliably understand that the Prime Minister’s Office has asked for the above-mentioned details to be gathered by CBI at the earliest.

In these columns in March 2007, I had written a series of three articles titled ‘SSCP - A MONUMENT OF FRAUD AND INFAMY’. In the first article, I had observed as follows: ‘Many of the Union Cabinet Ministers and many of the Public Servants in positions of high authority in the Government of India need public insults in the larger public interest. Many of them behave or conduct themselves so abominably that they cry out for public abuse….. The public men who are responsible for the shoddy evaluation and murky implementation of the Sethusamudram Shipping Canal Project (SSCP) can only be described in the words of Shakespeare: ‘Horrible villains! Villains of the Earth! Soulless villains! Hungry villains! Insolent villains! Smiling, damned villains! Abominable villains! Treacherous villains!....’ I am of the view that SSCP is a monument of fraud and infamy. The Office of the Prime Minister, The Union Ministry of Shipping and Transport, The Tuticorin Port Trust have collectively bungled in a calculated manner in according sanction to this Project which in my view will only lead to disastrous consequences’. I have been fully vindicated on my stand today.
Likewise, in my second article in March 2007, keeping in view the highly suspicious and questionable postures, responses, deeds and actions of Baalu, I had stated: ‘No one can dispute the fact that the Sethusamudram Shipping Canal Project (SSCP) has been planned, organized and launched as a ‘Political (Commercial) Asset’ for a few Cabinet Ministers in UPA Government and some of their selected counter parts in Tamilnadu. According to experts, unbiased technical and scientific opinion in India and abroad, SSCP is a scientifically inconsistent, technologically non-feasible Project at the present time. The cogent arguments presented by great Tsunami Specialists and Earth Scientists of International stature have not been considered or answered in open transparent forums by the leading proponents of the Project. Many of the vital questions raised by Prime Minister’s Office (PMO) in March 2005, were bypassed in a subterranean manner by insidious, covert, sly, slimy and stealthy maneuvers and operations. What is amazing is that the top brass of the Indian Navy has remained silent or neutral on the SSCP and the brazen promoters of the SSCP like Baalu – I mean the firmly entrenched vested interests involved only in a private loot under the garb of the public interest – have become the de-facto Naval Strategists of Palk Bay’.

I had concluded that there had been an organized conspiracy of firmly entrenched vested interests – The PMO, The Union Ministry for Shipping and Transport and The Tuticorin Port Trust – to ignore the best technical advice given by International Experts about the wholly avoidable dangers of the SSCP in its present shape. I had also stated ‘Due process of law requires that the proceedings shall be fair, but fairness is a relative, not an absolute concept. It is fairness with reference to particular conditions or particular results. Whichever way one looks at it, there has been a total violation of The Due Process by the Government of India in according sanction for the SSCP. That is why I am appealing to the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of India to treat this Newspaper article of mine as a Public Interest Litigation Petition and to stay the construction work under SSCP till all the public issues are fully thrashed out openly in the highest judicial tribunal of the land’.

I earnestly hope against hope that the Supreme Court of India which is going to deal with this issue for the nth time on Tuesday the 29 April 2008 would not treat the above vital national issues raised as STALE. The Supreme Court of India had treated more than one billion common citizens of India with supreme contempt when it dismissed the petition filed by Dr Subramanian Swamy against Sonia Gandhi for her having giving filed a false affidavit in a deliberate manner relating to her non-existent qualifications as a Graduate of Cambridge University in England. The Supreme Court called it a STALE ISSUE and dismissed the case.

In this context, I would like to recall the following words of timeless and pragmatic judicial wisdom of Justice Francoise Brandeis and Justice Felix Frankfurter:
Justice Francoise Brandeis said ‘And in the development of our liberty insistence upon procedural regularity has been a large factor. Respect for law will not be advanced by resort, in its enforcement, to means which shock the common man’s sense of decency and fair play.’

Justice Felix Frankfurter stated ‘The history of liberty has largely been the history of observance of procedural safeguards.’

In several Marathi Newspapers, they had recently published the hilarious headline: ‘Setusamudram hey Kaarasthaan’. ‘Kaarasthaan’ in Marathi means ‘conspiratorial place’. Against this background, Dr S Kalyanaraman has declared with high and unquestionable moral authority: ‘Setusamudram was the place where Sri Rama won his great victory over a-dharmic forces led by Asura Ravana. The legatee a-dharmic forces still operating today will meet their just end in Setusamudram. These evil forces will sink in this confluence of oceans parted by Rama Setu.’

The Government of President Nixon (1913-1994) of USA became famous in world history as the Government of Watergate by Watergate for Watergate. The imbecile Government of Dr Manmohan Singh—lifeless and listless in every area of Government activity excepting in the most abominable field of transnational Himalayan corruption—has already become world famous as a Surrogate-Watergate—Watergate for Surrogate—Government. I am not using these words loosely or casually just for the sake of alliteration. Perhaps my alliteration by way of ‘political poetry’ may be incidental, but what I am trying to convey is fundamental. I am only acting upon the words of wisdom of the great American Poet Robert Frost (1874-1963): ‘Poetry is nothing but a beautiful and artful combination of sound of sense and sense of sound’.

Dr Manmohan Singh and his corrupt Cabinet Ministers, duly blessed by ‘Mother Superior’ from Italy, have ‘Condomised’ every institution of the State—the Executive, the Legislature and the Judiciary—for their own private purposes in the ‘garb of public interest’ with pseudo-secular gay abandon which has been fully endorsed by all the anti-national gangsters in the UPA coalition Government.

V SUNDARAM | Mon, 28 Apr, 2008 , 02:39 PM

‘The judge is under a duty, within the limits of his power of innovation, to maintain a relation between law and morals, between the precepts of jurisprudence and those of reason and good conscience.’—JUSTICE CARDOZO, Benjamin N.

Perhaps Justice Learned Hand (1872-1961), the famed American Judge, had Courts of Law like our today’s Supreme Court in view when in a famous case (Loubriel vs United States) in 1926 ruled in this manner: ‘There is no surer sign of a feeble and fumbling law than timidity in penetrating the form to the substance’. I am quoting Justice Learned Hand here, only with reference to the context of the Islam-embracing, Christianity-coveting, Hindu-hating, Lord Rama-baiting and Ram Sethu destroying ‘Minority UPA Government’, under the unconstitutional stranglehold of a woman imposter from Italy, shamelessly retracting from their earlier stand on Lord rama and Ram Sethu and withdrawing their earlier affidavit in the famous SSCP-Ram Sethu case in the Supreme Court in September 2007. The ever-shaky Government of India were really panicked by the political repercussions of their anti-Rama and anti-Ram Sethu stand on the one hand and the grand manner in which the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) moved to take the matter to the streets all over India to mobilize popular public support. The Central government in a knee-jerk response decided to withdraw the ‘offending remarks’ from the earlier affidavit which said ‘there is no scientific or historical evidence to prove the existence of ‘Lord Ram.’

When the Additional Solicitor General of India (representing the ever unsteady Central Government!) thus retracted in a shaky and nervous manner before the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court by choosing to remain silent, in effect, only gave a cubic content to the words of Justice Learned Hand cited above: ‘There is no surer sign of a feeble and humbling law than timidity in penetrating the form to the substance’ This was the end of Stage I in the tortuous evolution of the Ram Sethu Case in the Supreme Court.

In the wider political arena outside the Supreme Court, H R Bhardwaj, Union Minister for Law (-lessness?) somersaulted from his earlier pseudo-secular anti-Hindu position and said with brazen dissimulation: ‘Lord Ram is an integral part of Hindu faith and his existence can never be doubted. As Himalaya is Himalaya, Ganga is Ganga, Rama is Rama. It is a question of faith. There is no requirement of any proof to establish the existence based on faith’.

Our Courts of Law have not yet taken note of the fact that the UPA Government consisting of political toadies and touts randomly drawn from a conglomeration of political parties without any public ideology, is letting loose some of the worst and most soul-destroying forms of Hindu discrimination and blatant violation of Hindu Human Rights in an organized manner. Their only aim is to destroy Hindu Religion, Hindu Culture and Hindu Society in the next decade and thus convert all the living Hindu Gods of India like Lord Rama, Lord Krishna, Lord Vishnu, Lord Shiva, Lord Brahma, Goddess Durga, Goddess Lakshmi, Goddess Saraswati and several other Hindu Gods into dead artifacts of history like the dead Gods of Greece and Rome, through politically crooked machinations if possible and through Courts of Law if necessary.

The Second Stage (II) in this tortuous case was reached when a Supreme Court Bench comprising Hon’ble Justices B N Agarwal and P P Naolekar created history when they imposed a STAY on the proposed Bandh of DMK and its allies in Tamilnadu on 1 October, 2007. By pronouncing this bold decision, they have indeed become great and fearless heroes in the eyes of all the Hindus of India.

When Karunanidhi and his party men sat on a stage and fasted against the Stay orders of the Supreme Court of India, Dr.Ramachandran, the Chairman of the Committee of Eminent Persons on SSCP appointed by T.R.Baalu, Union Minister for Shipping and Transport, covered himself with everlasting shame when he went and put a Ponnadai (shawl) on the fasting Chief Minister who was showing open contempt for the Ban Orders of the Supreme Court of India. I am presenting below the photograph of the Chairman of the Experts Committee putting a Ponnadai on Karunanidhi that historic occasion. Thus the Committee of Eminent Persons for the SSCP has forfeited public confidence because of its known pro-DMK bias and sycophancy.

Death of fairplay and natural justice:
Dr Ramachandran putting a shawl on Karunanidhi
on the day of his fast on 1 October, 2007

It is clear from all public accounts and public records that both Dr.Ramachandran and Karunanidhi have contempt not only for Lord Rama and Ram Sethu but also for the Supreme Court of India. Karunanidhi had asked the questions “What are the qualifications of Rama? Where did Rama get his Engineering Degree from?”The third (III) Stage in this case was reached on 15th April 2008 when the Supreme Court Bench consisting of Chief Justice Balakrishnan and Justice Ravindran, dealt a lethal blow to the time-honoured religious feelings, emotions and sentiments of more than 1 billion Hindus in India, by expressing its uncalled for displeasure to Dr.Subramanian Swamy who had rightly called Ram Sethu, a place of worship. The Supreme Court with supreme contempt for Lord Rama asked: “Who says Ram Sethu is a place of worship? Who goes to the middle of the sea to worship? Don’t say people go there to worship? As a student of history, I can confirm the fact that no Judge either during Muslim Rule (100AD to 1080 AD) or British Rule (1764 to 1947) ever questioned the Historicity or Sacredness of Lord Rama or Rama Sethu.

In this context, I fully endorse the statement of Col.S.S.Rajan, who undertook a heroic Padayatra from Chennai to Rameswaram last year to defend Ram Sethu: ‘For more than a Billion, ie. 1000 million Hindus in India and outside India throughout the world, Rameshwaram and the RAMA SETHU are as holy and as sacred as the Wailing Wall in Jerusalem to the Jews, the Vatican in Rome to the Roman Catholics, the Bodhgaya in Bihar to the Buddhists and Mecca in Saudi Arabia to the Muslims…..The attitude of the CJI and other learned Judges hearing the case has only strengthened my view that, in matters of faith, no Court, I repeat no Court should ever be asked to adjudicate; for in matters of faith, no Court; not even the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India or for that matter the International Court of Justice at Hague, has neither the knowledge, competence or jurisdiction to hear such cases; leave alone delivering judgment on such cases’.

The IVth Stage in this case starts in the Supreme Court on 29-4-2008. It is interesting to note that Janata Party President and former Union Cabinet Minister, Dr. Subramanian Swamy today has circulated a letter yesterday (27-4-2008) to the petitioners in the Rama Setu case in the Supreme Court to seek time on Monday [when the Union of India is making a mention before the Chief Justice for a priority listing] to file an interlocutory application to extend the Stay granted on August 31,2007 against the damaging or destroying of the Rama Setu, to staying the entire Sethu-samudram Ship Channel Project[SSCP] till the certain urgent matters of conflict of interest are heard by the Court. Consequently, Dr.Swamy had filed his interlocutory petition today at the Supreme Court.

I understand that In his interlocutory application, Dr. Swamy has documented how the ship channel project will profoundly benefit Union Shipping Minister Mr. T.R. Baalu’s sons and two wives[which itself is a criminal offence under Section 494 of IPC and carries a seven year punishment] as large share holders of Meenam Fisheries Limited as well as the Tamil Chief Minister Mr. M.Karunanidhi’s wife Rajathiamma and daughter Kanimozhi as major share holders of Westgate Logistics Limited. According to Dr.Swamy, both companies will directly benefit from the project because at present Meenam’s fishing trawlers and motorized boats presently have to travel from Port Blair to Kakinada for a longer distance around Sri Lanka for sea food exports[ valued at more than $ 2 million annually]. Westgate business will also boom once the project is implemented because it’s main business is stevedoring, piloting and customs & freight handling which with the claimed increased ship traffic from Tuticorin to Chennai and to Kolkatta will increase business of the Westgate Logistics. Dr. Swamy has pointed out in his application to the Supreme Court that both Baalu and Kanimozhi have admitted owning shares in these companies in their affidavits filed as candidates in the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha elections respectively.

Dr. Swamy has written to the Prime Minister seeking sanction to prosecute Mr. Baalu under Section 11 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. He told Jaya TV that he was examining whether to ask the TN Governor for sanction to prosecute the Chief Minister Mr. Karunanidhi for the same reason.

Dr.Swamy has also said that he is examining whether the recent contract given for dredging in the SSCP by the Dredging Corporation of India to the Belgian company, Dredger International had anything to do with Ms. Sonia Gandhi’s receiving the Belgian King Leopold Golden Cross medal and honorary citizenship. Officers of the Dredger International were in attendance when Ms. Gandhi went to Brussels to kneel before the King and receive the award. The Election Commission has yet to pronounce on her MP disqualification petition on this matter, after sending her a Notice.

The besieged Hindus of India are hoping that the Supreme Court would do justice to them.On September 2 1962, in a historic Editorial titled ‘The Frankfurter Legacy,’ New York Times paid this tribute to Justice Felix Frankfurter:“History will find greatness in Felix Frankfurter as a justice, not because of the result he reached but because of his attitude toward the process of decision. His guiding lights were detachment, rigorous integrity in dealing with the facts of a case, refusal to resort to unworthy means, no matter how noble the end, and dedication to the Court as an institution.’ It is the inalienable right of all the Hindus of India to demand that all our Supreme Court Judges ought to function like the great Justice Felix Frankfurter (1882-1965) and not like Oriental potentates.

V SUNDARAM | Tue, 29 Apr, 2008 , 03:54 PM
The Supreme Court Bench headed by the Most Honourable Chief Justice K.G.Balakrishnan posed these questions to Dr.Subramanian Swamy in open court on April 14, 2008: “Who says Ram Sethu is a place of worship?

Who goes to the middle of the sea to worship? Don’t say people go there and worship!” By putting such questions, the Supreme Court of India has caused a grievous hurt to the soul of Bharat Matha whose beloved immortal Son is Lord Rama. The Supreme Court of India derives its power from the spirit of the People of India and vice versa. In the ultimate analysis, Supreme Court Judges are Public Servants and this means they are servants of the people in the larger sense and not vice versa. As an insignificant citizen, armed and fortified by the faith of my Hindu forefathers dating back to the Vedic Age, I am presenting above a news cutting from one of the most popular Tamil Dailies of Tamil Nadu called DINAMALAR about how thousands of women offered their worship on mid sea in Rameswaram called ‘Agni Theertha on 28th April 2008. This news appeared on the same day on Page 3 of Dinamalar dated 28th April 2008. Under the bold and inspiring leadership of Ms.Thillai Packiyam, thousands of Hindu women, first went on a march on all the streets of Rameswaram before finally reaching ‘Agni Theertha’. There on mid sea, they offered their traditional prayers in keeping with the age old conventions established by their forefathers. They offered a special prayer for the protection of Ram Sethu against the organized plot and conspiracy of the anti-Hindu, anti-Rama and anti-Ram Sethu marauders in UPA Government to somehow destroy Ram Sethu – a timeless symbol of Hindu culture.

I asked my friend Dr.Kalyaraman who is an Internationally acknowledged scholar on Sanatana Dharma and Saraswati Civilization to give me some references from our Vedic Heritage and Sanskrit Literature regarding the significance of offering prayers on Ram Sethu in mid sea.

Let us hear his inspiring words in this context:

Vedavyasa refers to Nalasetu in Mahabharata:nalasetur iti khyÄto yo ‘dyÄpi prathito bhuvi rÄmasyÄjnÄm puraskrutya dhÄryate girisannibhaah MBh. 3.267.45 “... which even today, popular on earth as Nala’s bridge, mountain-like, is sustained out of respect for [Lord] Rama’s command. (Nala was son of Vis’wakarma).

Kalidasa’s Raghuvamsa (sarga 13): Rama, while returning from SriLanka in pushpaka vimaana: ‘Behold, Sita, My Sethu of mountains dividing this frothy ocean is like the milky way dividing the sky into two parts’

The worship by offering deepams in the Setu ocean in Rameshwaram is in adherence to this tradition of respecting Sri Rama’s command. As Veda Vyasa notes, even during the days of Mahabharata, it was deemed as a responsibility of the people to protect Rama Setu: ramasyaajnaam puraskritya dhaaryate... that is, protect true to Sri Rama’s command. It is a tribute to the greatness of Hindu dharma exemplified by Rama Setu that the worship of Rama Setu to protect Rama Setu should find expression by this thrilling example of the women of Rameshwaram offering lamps in the Setusamudram in Agniteertham.’

All the Hindus of India are deeply hurt by the contempt shown by our Supreme Court towards the Divine Glory of Lord Rama and the sacredness of Ram Sethu. A former Judge of the Madras High Court (a practicing Hindu) told me that it is my public duty as a Hindu Journalist to invite the kind attention of the culturally absolutist Supreme Court of India to the following advice given to all the Judges by Chief Justice Felix Frankfurtur: ‘For the highest exercise of Judicial duty is to subordinate one’s personal pulls and one’s private views to the Law of which we are all guardians – the impersonal convictions that make a society a civilized community, and not the victims of personal rule’.

I have been greatly influenced and inspired by the writings and pronouncements of Chief Justice Felix Frankfurtur (1882-1965). Here is another quote from him which is no less relevant in the present context: ‘There is torture of mind as well as body; the will is as much affected by fear as by force. And there comes a point where this Court should not be ignorant as Judges of what we know as men.’ I would also like to invite the benign attention of our Supreme Court to the following advice of Justice Harlan F. Stone given in a judgment in 1936: ‘While unconstitutional exercise of power by the Executive and Legislative branches of the Government is subject to judicial restraint, THE ONLY CHECK UPON OUR OWN EXERCISE OF POWER IS OUR OWN SENSE OF SELF RESTRAINT.’

One of the time-defying utterances of Gauthama Buddha is : ‘Believe in righteousness and not self-righteousness’. If Lord Rama and his Ram Sethu can be subjected to puerile and stale judicial questioning, then even Gauthama Buddha may have to face the same fate as Lord Rama in many of our Courts of Law. Here again, the advice of Justice William O. Douglas given in the course of Judgment delivered in 1947 becomes appositely relevant:

‘There is no special perquisite of the judiciary which enables it, as distinguished from other institutions of democratic Government, to suppress, edit or censor events which transpire in proceedings before it.’ Even while the Hindus of India have been shattered by the boisterously anti-Hindu sentiments displayed by the Supreme Court of India towards their religious feelings, yet at the same time they are also beholden to former Honourable Justice K. T. Thomas of the Supreme Court for coming out boldly with the message that ‘Ram Sethu should not be broken’. Justice K.T. Thomas has been hailed as a fearless and bold Judge, as a shining symbol of justice and independent judiciary. As a Supreme Court Judge, he brought to his work not only a first class mind, but a sense of form and values which is given by a broad and human culture which he inherited from his forefathers belonging to the age of Saint Thomas. As a Supreme Court Judge, he was ever vigilant to see and ensure that within the farthest limit permitted by Law, right was not worsted and wrong did not triumph.

He was hailed by the Bar for being firm, even handed and resolute in the handling of every case that came up before him. He can afford to be candid on vital issues, thanks to his spotless career. Let me now quote his bracing words on Ram Sethu spoken on behalf of all the people of India: ‘In projects like Sethusamudram Shipping Canal Project (SSCP), decisions are to be based not only on a study of geological implications; the religious sentiments of the people are also to be taken into account. The religious sentiments of the people of Bharat must be honoured and there exists a tradition in this land, of honouring religious sentiments. So, it is my definite opinion that RAM SETHU must not be broken’. History tells us that Guru Nanak went to Rameshwaram and offered prayers to Lord Rama. This fact by itself may not be relevant to the deathless and immortal Judges of today’s Supreme Court.

And yet I have been greatly inspired by the verses in praise of Lord Rama in ADI SHRI Guru Granth Sahib. I am presenting below a few excerpts from the Chapter ‘Ram’ in the book ‘Adi Shri Guru Granth Sahib ki Mahima’ by Dr. K.K. Agrawal, published by Bharat-Bharati (Voice of India). ‘The story of Rama in the Granth Sahib ‘The name of God most often lauded in the GRANTH SAHIB, after that of Hari is Ram. Ram, Raja Ram, Raghunath and such other words occur approximately 2500 times in the Granth. In the Ramapurva Tapaneeya Upanishad, the various meanings of the word Rama are explained as follows: ‘Raajate vaa maheem sthitah san iti Raamah’ that is, he who is on the earth and fulfills the desires of his devotees and is hailed as a king, is Rama. In other words, when Sacchidanand or Mahavishnu or Shrihari incarnated in the home of Dasharatha in the family of Raghu, He was named Rama. At whose hands, Rakshasas are destroyed, He is Rama. Or He who renders the Rakshasas powerless in His human form, is Rama. By his ideal behaviour, He guides kings in the way of Dharma. The utterance of His name results in the attainment of the way of Jnana. He grants Vairagya when He is meditated upon. He grants prosperity when his image is worshipped. For these reasons did His name become famous on the earth as Rama. The Vedas say that in fact yogis dwell (Sanskrit: Ram-) in the endless, ever-joyous, self-absorbed Brahma state, and so Parabrahma Universal Soul (Paramatma) is itself described as the Rama state. Thus, although Brahma is self-absorbed, non-dual, undivided and devoid of the five-elemental body, it manifests as a conscious body in order to fulfil the Bhaktas’ desires. For love of the Bhaktas, the Nirakar (formless)’ ghaT ghaT ramaiya ramat rAm rAI gur sabde gur liv lAge (Page 172) (In every heart Rama is contained. Through the Gurus word, the love for God is contracted. ) rAm ramahu baRaBAgio jal thal mahiali soI nAnak nAmi arAdhi-ai bighanu na lAgai koi (Page 521) (O ye very fortunate ones, contemplate on Rama, who pervades the ocean, earth and sky. Nanak says, by meditating on the Name, no calamity befalls the mortal.) Our Courts of Law may be shocked to note that THE GRANTH SAHIB has displayed a fondness for referring to the play of Paramatma on this earth in terms of Rama-avatar and Raja Ram. ‘The law is the witness and external deposit of our moral life. Its history is the history of the moral development of the race.’—JUSTICE OLIVER WENDELL HOLMES (1841-1935). Our courts of law may perhaps dismiss this observation of Justice Holmes as irrelevant, communal, pseudo secular, non cosmopolitan and uncivilized.

V SUNDARAM | Wed, 30 Apr, 2008 , 04:33 PM
The Supreme Court of India is hearing the petitions filed by Shri Ramgopalji, President of Hindu Munnani and others challenging the decision of Government of India to demolish the Ram Sethu _ a timeless symbol of Hindu Culture and Hindu Religion—as part of its larger political plan of Sethusamudaram Shipping Channel Project (SSCP). Shri Ramgopalji in his petition has given valid and scientific reasons as to why Ram Sethu, as a World Heritage should be protected and should not be destroyed in the name of a Project called SSCP [Shamelessly Stupid Criminal Project! {combined conspiracy of Sonia Gandhi, T.R.Balu and Karunanidhi to destroy Ram Sethu forever} ]. According to Shri Ramgopalji, as in the days of Aurangazeb in the 17th Century, under the deliberately anti-Hindu and Islamic UPA Government, the Hindus are under a siege today.
I am presenting below the most relevant excerpts from his petition.
1. In their order dated 19.06.2007, the Hon'ble Chennai High Court, after recording the concerns put forward by the petitioner herein, had directed the respondent no. 3 i.e. Ministry of Culture to file its counter affidavit explaining whether any study has been undertaken by the Archaeological or any other concerned Department in respect of Rama Sethu and whether the said bridge can be regarded as National Monument within the meaning of the 1958 Act. But the respondent Ministry of Culture has not filed any affidavit before this Hon'ble Court, in compliance of the aforesaid directions.
2. That the Report of the Eminent Persons in two volumes is absolutely devoid of moral ethics, which should govern the search for truth. It is distressing that scientists and scholars can do so (using the public exchequer funds), which will adversely impact the levels of confidence the public repose on professionals and the levels of honesty which the public expect from such people.
3. That as noted on Page 89 (Report Vol II), the Committee of Eminent Persons had admitted that it had received huge volumes of materials upto 31 October 2007 and there were annexures running into almost 2000 pages and public hearing continued only for 7 seven days up to 6th November 2007 only in Chennai. Even though advertisements were issued in all national language dailies, submissions were requested only in English and hearings were not held even in the cities near the Project area. The hearings were closed and not open to the media. This procedure prevented from many members of the public and experts from making their submissions.
4. That the report shockingly indulges in selective dissemination of received submissions, culling out only submissions which support the case of the Respondents and which justify only the 6th alignment. There has been an absolute lack of transparency and honesty in dealing with the submissions in a rational and systematic manner. Given the enormity of the documentation submitted, it is surprising that within one month the Committee was able to evaluate all the submissions. In fact, the Committee's Terms of Reference DO NOT include such evaluation and such value-judgements by the Committee, the composition of which itself is biased including atheists and who had worked for the project thus compromising their integrity with conflict of interest.
5. That the Committee did NOT include experts from the areas of marine archaeology, navigation (mariners and merchant navy), national security, geology (GSI), oceanography (NIO), tsunami, trade unions or members of fishermen' federations. The warnings contained in the Nature magazine of 6 Sept. 2007 have just been ignored. These warnings are so serious related to an impending tsunami that may be more devastating than the 26 Dec. 2004 tsunami and in that possible event, the whole coastline of South India, involving property and lives of millions of people, will be put at risk.
6. That it is submitted that eminent scientists and experts have made submissions which have not been deliberated upon by the Committee. It is necessary that all the submissions made to the Committee to establish that the Committee has indulged in a command performance and taken only references which support the case of the Respondent. Requests for copies of the submissions have NOT been complied with so far. Even requests made under Right to Information Act made by several persons have not been acceded so far by the Respondent, Union of India.
7. That the list of materials supplied includes `Marine Geo-Physical Surveys' carried out for the proposed Sethu Samudram Navigational Channel (Feb. 2005) by NIOT _ 132 pages). This Report includes an evaluation by the Consultant of NIOT that there was human activity and that the lithologs of 10 bore wells indicate that rock layers were brought in from outside since they could not have been formed by the sea. Detailed Reports have also been given for example, by Dr. CSP Iyer, Dr. Parchure and Dr. Gopalakrishnan on geotectonics, geothermal activity, geoenvironment, oceanography and environmental impacts _ reports which scientifically question the reliability of the information provided power point presentation mentioned earlier; by Capt. Balakrishnan on navigation and naval security aspects, by Dr. S. Kalyanaraman providing to the Committee recommendations of Dr. SR Rao, eminent Marine Archaeologist of the Country, on implications of another tsunami based on studies of Prof. Tad S Murty and other scientists including the report in Nature Magazine of 6 Sept. 2007, the International Law of the Sea and International Obligations under World Heritage and Underwater Cultural Heritage Conventions of UNESCO to which India is a signatory. These expert submissions have a profound relevance in determining the viability of the project itself.
8. That the Report fails to record that in 1999 the Environmental Ministry refused to clear the project on environmental considerations and recommended that the project be scrapped.
9. That the Report also fails to note that 37 Srilankan Experts had submitted a Report after one-year's study and concluded, inter alia, that water supply to Jaffna and Rameshwaram will be adversely affected if dredging is carried out on Rama Setu.
10. That the Report also fails to note the opinions of scientists like Dr. Kannaiyan who was Chairman of the Environment Monitoring Committee for the Project and Dr. Gopalakrishnan, Dr. Badrinarayanan, Dr. Subramanian, who were Directors in Geological Survey of India who have reiterated that blasting or dredging activity in the project area will devastate the coastal reefs and aquatic wealth, apart from causing coastal erosions, mini-tsunamis triggered by fault-lines and geothermal activity.
11. That it is respectfully submitted that an illegality has been committed by not involving Geological Survey of India and National Institute of Oceanography, which are the expert body which can carry out the studies regarding marine archeology in this ocean project, an involvement mandated by law.
12. That under the project what has been put on stake is not merely Rama Sethu but the very foundations of national integrity and unity governed by clearly demarcated duties and responsibilities of public functionaries who have been empowered by the people through the Constitution. The affidavit is an assault on the basic structure of the Constitution, indulging in buck-passing and toying with peoples' sentiments. What is needed is not adjudication but justice, a polity governed by the rule of law and compassion for future generations by ensuring the integrity of the property and peoples lives along the coastline and national sovereignty.
13. That a prima facie illegality has been committed by not conducting archaeological study before inaugurating work on Alignment 6 for the mid-ocean Channel, an undertaking unprecedented in human history.
14. That In Paragraph 85 of the Respondent (Min. of Shipping) Affidavit and In Chapter 9 of the report, it is admitted that, " It has noted that no archaeological studies have been undertaken in the Ramasethu/Adam's Bridge area by Archaeological Survey of India.
15. That Since the Committee was engaged by the Union of India, it is the responsibility of the Union of India, in particular the Respondents Archaeological Survey of India and Ministry of Culture to own up with grace and ordinary honesty, their own appointee's that is, the Committee's Report.
16. That it is strange that the Union of India now disowns its own Committee's observations. The Respondent's affidavit notes in Paragraph 87: `Whereas the Committee of Eminent Persons has examined the available evidence and arrived at certain conclusions relating to the nature of the structure called Adam's Bridge/Ram Setu, issues of faith, except those in which historicity of an event is subject to adjudication, cannot be resolved by taking recourse to science or scientific evidence'. This averment, absurd by itself, directly contracts the views of the Committee contained on Page 111 (Committee's Report).
17. That a Perusal of the Counter affidavit shows that it indulges in suppressio veri and suggestio falsi with a string of misrepresentations, misleading statements and false averments.
Shri Ramgopalji as a Field Marshall of the Bharat Hindu Brigade has made it clear in his Petition that the Hindus of India do not have to get the prior permission of any Court of Law in India to practice and follow their ancient faith rooted in Sanatana Dharma. The Hindus of India are of the view that the Supreme Court has outraged the modesty and soul of Bharat Matha by questioning the historic glory of Lord Rama and the eternal sacredness of Ram Sethu in this context. I would like to invite the kind attention of our Supreme Court to the following excerpt from the judgment of Justice William O.Douglas (in United States vs. Ballard US 78, 1944): `Freedom of thought, which includes freedom of religious belief, is basic in a society of free men. It embraces the right to maintain theories of life and death and of the hereafter which are rank heresy to followers of the orthodox faiths. Heresy trials are foreign to our Constitution. Men may believe what they cannot prove. They may not be put to the proof of their religious doctrines or beliefs'. What is good for Christian USA, is equally good and relevant for Hindu India rooted in its ancient Hindu faith.
Swami Vivekananda (1863-1902) was profoundly moved to say this to an American audience in 1896: `Rama, the ancient idol of the heroic ages, the embodiment of truth, of morality, the ideal son, the ideal husband, the ideal father, and above all, the ideal king, this Rama has been presented before us by the great sage Vâlmiki. No language can be purer, none chaster, none more beautiful and at the same time simpler than the language in which the great poet has depicted the life of Rama'. Unfortunately for the Hindus of India today, our Supreme Court today is capable of asking: "Who is Swami Vivekananda? What are his credentials to speak on Lord Rama?'

Thu, 01 May, 2008 , 02:34 PM (News Today): V. Sundaram (Update 4)
The Supreme Court of India which is hearing the arguments in respect of the case relating to the life and death spiritual and cultural war that is taking place between the Islam-embracing,
Christianity-coveting and Hindu-destroying UPA Government on the one hand (which is hell bent on somehow destroying Ram Sethu by hook or by crook) and the besieged and agitated but never say die Hindus of India on the other, should not fail to take due note of the submissions made by Shri Ramgopalji, President of Hindu Munnani in his pending petition before the Supreme Court to the following effect:‘That it is the submission of the Petitioners that matters of sentiment and tradition do not have to be submitted to mundane frameworks of historicity.
Mythology is essence of history – the very essence of peoples’ perceptions of their identity and world-view —and tradition is evidence. This identity and world-view constitute sentiments of millions of people worldwide in relation to Rama, Ramayana and Rama Setu which is a metaphor for the victory of good over evil, victory of dharma over a-dharma’. ‘That the bias and illegal procedures are evidenced by the fact that the Committee of Eminences have also failed to live up to their Terms of Reference and have not submitted the entire sets of over 8000 pages of submissions made to them covering over 160 topics’.
‘That the Committee’s observations bristles with contradictions as may be seen even from a preliminary reading. On Page 113, the Committee notes a submission regarding ancient human settlements dating to 18000 to 8000 years before present and at the same time states that this reported evidence has no relevance to events mentioned in the Ramayana. How could the Committee conclude so when they have not found it within their competence to date the events mentioned in the Ramayana?’
‘That it is also shocking that in Paragraph 88 of the Respondent’s Affidavit that the following authoritative statement has been made: ‘The Union of India is of the belief that it should not be called upon to respond to issues of faith, except in recognizing their existence’. This averment raises a fundamental constitutional issue, impacting the basic feature of the Constitution, the meaning of the word ‘Secular’ used in the Preamble (as amended). The word is translated in the Official Hindi version as ‘pantha nirapekshataa’ that is, neutrality as to different paths of belief systems’.
‘That Rama Setu issue as submitted by the Petitioners is based on tradition and sentiments of millions of people world-wide. This is reality, as real as the sacredness attached to Ganga or Himalayas (Amarnath or Kedarnath or Gangotri) or to the Mahakumbh held every 12 years. It is an emphatic reality of tradition that lakhs of pilgrims go to Rama Setu to make offerings to the ancestors (pitru tarpanam) on Ashadha Amavasya day, year after year and include this tirthasthaanam as part of the chaar dham (four sacred tirthasthaana) yatras’.
‘That Rama Setu is not a mere stone or body or cave of water as claimed by the respondent. It inheres the very essence of the identity of the nation as evidenced by the Survey of India logo: “Aasetu Himachalam” (meaning: from Setu to Himalayas), defining this bridge effectively as the southern boundary indicator. It also signifies the unity of the nation recollecting as received socio-cultural memory of the travels of Sri Rama from Ayodhya to Sri Lanka to win over a-dharmic forces, to create a channel cutting through Rama Setu. It will be an unpatriotic act impinging upon national sovereignty if the Historic waters of the Indira Gandhi-Sirimavo Bandaranaike declaration of 1974 is converted into an International Waters boundary by creating this channel exactly, just 3 kms. west of the medial line between India and Sri Lanka’.
‘That in paragraph 10.2 of the Committee’s Report while citing the examples of Suez Canal in Egypt and Panama Canal in Panama, there is a surprising failure to note the fact that the proposed mid-ocean channel passage (as opposed to Suez and Panama which are land-based canals) is unprecedented in the history of navigation anywhere in the world. No such mid-ocean channel passage has ever been created and bristles with problems of stability as noted by Sir A. Ramaswamy Mudaliar in their first post-independence Report of 1956 on navigation across Gulf of Mannar and Palk Strait.
They clearly noted that the idea of cutting a channel passage through Rama Setu/Adam’s Bridge should be ABANDONED. Despite Madras HC directive to answer this observation of Ramaswamy Mudaliar Committee, Union of India remains silent. What is left unstated in the submissions of the Respondent and the attached Committee Report is a tale of shocking misleading statements, indulging in suggestio falsi and suppressio veri, thus negating the very foundations of justice’.
‘That the fact that Gulf of Mannar is a Notified Marine National Park makes it a natural property as defined for World Heritage Sites under an international convention to which India is a signatory….The Rama Setu is the largest bridge in the ocean which has been used as a bridge linking India and Sri Lanka unlike the Great Barrier Reef of Australia which is called only a Reef. This aspect has not been taken into account by Archaeological Survey of India (ASI). Nor has the ASI submitted its response to this Hon’ble Court”.
‘That para 39 is misleading. While ASI had not done any archaeological study, it is misleading in the project report (NEERI) to declare that there was no archaeological site in the project area’. ‘That it is submitted that If Environment Ministry considered the project to be environmentally unacceptable in March 1999, the change of stand and situation in subsequent years is not explained and only self created by the respondents’. ‘That it is submitted that a research is carried by Hyderabad-based National Remote Sensing Agency (NRSA) that comes under the Department of Space, says the satellite images have revealed an “ancient bridge between India and Sri Lanka in Palk Strait’.
‘Its structure suggests that it may be man-made,…. It contradicts the affidavit of the Respondents’. As a freelance Hindu Journalist (very unfortunately a barbarous, illiterate, half-savage, superstitious, communal, non-secular, saffornized and condemned Hindu to boot!), I have received more than 10000 e-mails and letters from Hindus from different parts of India and all of them carry this basic common wailing message: ‘We are spiritually shocked and tortured by the patently anti-Hindu stance and posture of the Supreme Court of India. Why are the Judges of our Supreme Court so blatantly anti-Rama and anti-Ram Setu?’ In this context, for larger public enlightenment, I would like to present below one e-mail from Col. S.S.Rajan who is a highly decorated soldier of the Indian Army and who is very proud of being a great devotee of Lord Rama:
‘I, Colonel SS Rajan, a committed Hindu and a proud citizen of Bharathvarsh say that, Justice KG Balakrishnan, the Hon’ble Chief Justice of India and Justice RV Raveendran, the two learned judges on the Bench hearing the case pertaining to Ram Sethu, need to be ‘lauded’ for their temerity and audacity in questioning the faith of a billion Hindus in India and abroad; and for their arrogance in uttering, ‘Don’t say people go there and worship’, and for their utter contempt for Hindus, in asking, ‘Who says it (Ram Sethu) is a place of worship? Who goes to the middle of the sea to worship?’ It appears that the CJI of India and the other learned Judge of the Bench, have no clue what so ever, regarding the rich cultural and spiritual heritage of Bharathvarsha and in their questioning the historicity and sacredness of Ram Sethu as a place of worship and pilgrimage, they have forfeited their moral right to hear the case any further’.
Karunanidhi’s right to question the engineering or other technical qualifications of Lord Rama would be treated as sacred and sacrosanct by all our Courts of Law. Likewise, the dubious, non-existent (and of course fraudulent!) Cambridge University educational qualifications of a Super Sonia Gandhi would be invested with irrevocable legal authority in perpetuity at the highest level. Even the tenuous law relating to the Recusal of Judges in India is vague, nebulous and unclear.
In America, on the other hand, the Law of Recusal is very clear and defined. U.S.Federal law requires the automatic disqualification of a Federal judge under certain circumstances. In 1994, the U.S. Supreme Court held that ‘Disqualification is required if an objective observer would entertain reasonable questions about the judge’s impartiality. If a judge’s attitude or state of mind leads a detached observer to conclude that a fair and impartial hearing is unlikely, the judge must be disqualified.’ [Emphasis added]. Liteky v. U.S., 114 S.Ct. 1147, 1162 (1994).
American Courts have repeatedly held that positive proof of the partiality of a judge is not a requirement; the only requirement is the publicly perceived appearance of partiality. In Liljeberg v. Health Services Acquisition Corp., 486 U.S. 847, 108 S.Ct. 2194 (1988) it was held by the Court that ‘what matters is not the reality of bias or prejudice but its appearance’.
Likewise in United States v. Balistrieri, 779 F.2d 1191 (7th Cir. 1985), the Court held that ‘Section 455(a) of the Judicial Code is directed against the appearance of partiality, whether or not the judge is actually biased. Section 455(a) of the Judicial Code is not intended to protect litigants from actual bias in their judge but rather to promote public confidence in the impartiality of the judicial process.
Section 455(a) requires a judge to recuse himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned. It is important that the litigant should not only actually receive justice, but that he believes that he has received justice. Thus the final affirming and abiding principle is that a Justice must satisfy the appearance of Justice’.
In USA, every judge has a legal duty to disqualify himself even if there is no motion asking for his disqualification. I would like to end this tortuous story with a limerick:The Law our Supreme Court Judges know about Is property and Land.They know nothing about the sacred Ram Sethu Bridge under the sea.Why the cyclonic winds disturb it under the seas, Why the leaves are on the trees,Why honey is the food of bees, They do not understand!

No comments: