03-17-2005, 10:11 PM
ITALIAN EXPERSS trying to cast aspersions on the judiciary to save their darling MAFIA leader LALU
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->http://www.indianexpress.com/full_story....t_id=66584
<b>The judge must clarify</b>
For justiceâs sake, investigate Judge Variavaâs statements on the fodder scam case urgently
Justice S. Variavaâs claim that he had been contacted by someone from an unidentified high court to indirectly ascertain whether the judge in the fodder scam case could be changed raises a host of questions. Simply put the issue is this. If someone was indeed trying to influence Justice Variava, then proceedings should be initiated against that person. The justice should lodge a formal complaint and enable the law to take its course in the matter. It makes little sense for a Supreme Court judge to make an innuendo in open court, without formally naming the accused. The judge also complicated matters by suggesting that there was an attempt to influence him âindirectly.â This is also a vague formulation. Either there was a culpable attempt at influencing or there wasnât. If the attempt to influence the judge clearly violated the law, then action should be taken. But the phrase âindirectlyâ leaves it entirely unclear what the ground of the complaint is.
The judiciaryâs importance and its increasing conflicts with the legislature are bringing its words under a scanner. Justice Variava may not have named the high court in question for fear of politicising the matter. But his words have politicised the issue. They imply that the plaintiffs in the case are trying to manipulate the outcome. The finger of suspicion is already pointed at the RJD. It was patently unfair of the judge in question to allow room for speculation, while not revealing the full facts. The RJD has rightly demanded an investigation into the judgeâs allegations. The Supreme Court would do well to insist on such an investigation.
If there is substance to the justiceâs claims, punishment must be meted out. If these claims are not sustainable after an investigation, then the judge has done grievous harm to the reputations of the plaintiffs in question. If the honorable justices of the country do not fully acknowledge that words uttered in a court of law should have a clear meaning; if they do not draw the line between innuendo and a clear framing of charges, then the cause of justice is truly in jeopardy.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Here was Advani's interview to NDTV. Now they are tring to spin this against him and BJP
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->http://www.indianexpress.com/full_story....t_id=66461
Hold Advani to his word Consensus requires BJP to shed the bitterness of defeat; the Congress, the arrogance of power
http://www.indianexpress.com/full_story....t_id=66583
In India, policies and decisions have often been delayed or subverted because of fixed conventions. Opposition parties often oppose for the sake of opposing; governments often refuse to consult the Opposition simply to assert their authority. This vicious circle, where the Opposition accuses the government of not consulting them enough, and the government accuses the Opposition of not giving sufficient cooperation, needs to be urgently broken.
In a recent Walk the Talk interview, L.K. Advani declared that he was open to cooperating with the UPA and its constituents on many legislative issues. The Congress and its allies should hold Advani to his word. It should be possible for the Congress and the NDA to get together to ensure that a significant amount of legislation, on whose desirability they both agree, should pass. Why cannot the model of cooperation on foreign policy issues be extended to other areas? Indeed, such cooperation is the only way of ensuring that policy-making is not held hostage to the veto power exercised by small and uncompromising parties like those on the Left. Small parties are gaining power because national parties are refusing to cooperate. Such cooperation as Advani envisages is, of course, easier said than done. Both the NDA and UPA now have a history of grandstanding that will not be easy to overcome. Second, much of the conflict between the various political parties now stems from the personalisation of politics. The fact that parties in power usually try and embarrass their opponents by using or misusing the CBI has led to the politics of recrimination.
How will we evolve a political culture where genuine cases can be pursued free of political interference? Much of the possibility of the kind of cooperation that Advani is talking about depends upon an answer to this question. All political parties should now realise that the politics of revenge is collectively harming them. Being obstructionist for the facile objective of denying your opponent credit, discredits the political process as a whole. Advaniâs call for cooperation should extend not just to immediate legislative matters, but also to creating conventions that benefit all parties in the long run. A genuine democratic sensibility can be created only on the basis of a willingness to compromise and negotiate. Advani rightly argued that the only way to move things forward is through a politics of consensus. But creating such a consensus will require the BJP to overcome the bitterness of its defeat, and the Congress, the arrogance of its power. It will require leaders to act like statesman, not politicians. This may seem a tall order in the present political climate but worth giving a shot.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->http://www.indianexpress.com/full_story....t_id=66584
<b>The judge must clarify</b>
For justiceâs sake, investigate Judge Variavaâs statements on the fodder scam case urgently
Justice S. Variavaâs claim that he had been contacted by someone from an unidentified high court to indirectly ascertain whether the judge in the fodder scam case could be changed raises a host of questions. Simply put the issue is this. If someone was indeed trying to influence Justice Variava, then proceedings should be initiated against that person. The justice should lodge a formal complaint and enable the law to take its course in the matter. It makes little sense for a Supreme Court judge to make an innuendo in open court, without formally naming the accused. The judge also complicated matters by suggesting that there was an attempt to influence him âindirectly.â This is also a vague formulation. Either there was a culpable attempt at influencing or there wasnât. If the attempt to influence the judge clearly violated the law, then action should be taken. But the phrase âindirectlyâ leaves it entirely unclear what the ground of the complaint is.
The judiciaryâs importance and its increasing conflicts with the legislature are bringing its words under a scanner. Justice Variava may not have named the high court in question for fear of politicising the matter. But his words have politicised the issue. They imply that the plaintiffs in the case are trying to manipulate the outcome. The finger of suspicion is already pointed at the RJD. It was patently unfair of the judge in question to allow room for speculation, while not revealing the full facts. The RJD has rightly demanded an investigation into the judgeâs allegations. The Supreme Court would do well to insist on such an investigation.
If there is substance to the justiceâs claims, punishment must be meted out. If these claims are not sustainable after an investigation, then the judge has done grievous harm to the reputations of the plaintiffs in question. If the honorable justices of the country do not fully acknowledge that words uttered in a court of law should have a clear meaning; if they do not draw the line between innuendo and a clear framing of charges, then the cause of justice is truly in jeopardy.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Here was Advani's interview to NDTV. Now they are tring to spin this against him and BJP
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->http://www.indianexpress.com/full_story....t_id=66461
Hold Advani to his word Consensus requires BJP to shed the bitterness of defeat; the Congress, the arrogance of power
http://www.indianexpress.com/full_story....t_id=66583
In India, policies and decisions have often been delayed or subverted because of fixed conventions. Opposition parties often oppose for the sake of opposing; governments often refuse to consult the Opposition simply to assert their authority. This vicious circle, where the Opposition accuses the government of not consulting them enough, and the government accuses the Opposition of not giving sufficient cooperation, needs to be urgently broken.
In a recent Walk the Talk interview, L.K. Advani declared that he was open to cooperating with the UPA and its constituents on many legislative issues. The Congress and its allies should hold Advani to his word. It should be possible for the Congress and the NDA to get together to ensure that a significant amount of legislation, on whose desirability they both agree, should pass. Why cannot the model of cooperation on foreign policy issues be extended to other areas? Indeed, such cooperation is the only way of ensuring that policy-making is not held hostage to the veto power exercised by small and uncompromising parties like those on the Left. Small parties are gaining power because national parties are refusing to cooperate. Such cooperation as Advani envisages is, of course, easier said than done. Both the NDA and UPA now have a history of grandstanding that will not be easy to overcome. Second, much of the conflict between the various political parties now stems from the personalisation of politics. The fact that parties in power usually try and embarrass their opponents by using or misusing the CBI has led to the politics of recrimination.
How will we evolve a political culture where genuine cases can be pursued free of political interference? Much of the possibility of the kind of cooperation that Advani is talking about depends upon an answer to this question. All political parties should now realise that the politics of revenge is collectively harming them. Being obstructionist for the facile objective of denying your opponent credit, discredits the political process as a whole. Advaniâs call for cooperation should extend not just to immediate legislative matters, but also to creating conventions that benefit all parties in the long run. A genuine democratic sensibility can be created only on the basis of a willingness to compromise and negotiate. Advani rightly argued that the only way to move things forward is through a politics of consensus. But creating such a consensus will require the BJP to overcome the bitterness of its defeat, and the Congress, the arrogance of its power. It will require leaders to act like statesman, not politicians. This may seem a tall order in the present political climate but worth giving a shot.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->