firangi memsahib----

8/4/2019 FIRANGI MEMSAHIB----

1/20

FIRANGI MEMSAHIB SONIAGANDHI---A SUBVERTER OF THE

INDIAN CONSTITUTION ANDDESTROYER OF THE INDIAN STATE

V.SUNDARAM I.A.S.

Aeschylus in his The Eumenides (458 BC) observed for all time: Nobody has a

more sacred obligation to obey the law than those who make the law. Wrongmust not win by technicalities

The indefatigable and irrepressible champion of Liberty, Freedom, HumanRights, Rule of Law, Principle of Equality before the Law and upholding theoverriding Majesty of Law, regardless of the Status of Persons involved,Dr.Subramanian Swamy has given a new backbone to the Nation by filing ACivil Appellate Petition (Review Application No. 215 in the High Court of Delhi)in Writ Petition No.13873 of 2009.

In 2006, Sonia Gandhi, Chairman of the UPA Coordination Committee (withCabinet Rank to Boot), owing her allegiance to the Pope in Rome and not to theLetter and Spirit of the Indian Constitution, participated in a shamelesslydefiant and treasonable conduct, by receiving a TITLE called ORDER OFLEOPOLD from the hands of the King of Belgium. An advocate called Rajanfrom Cochin had written to the President of India (Abdul Kalam) that SoniaGandhi should be disqualified from functioning as a Member of Parliament onthe following grounds.

a) By receiving a title from the King of Belgium, Sonia Gandhi had violatedArticle 18 (2) of the Indian Constitution which declares No citizen of Indiashall accept any title from any foreign state.

b) Sonia Gandhi should be disqualified as a Member of Parliament under Article102 (6) (D) of the Indian Constitution which declares: A person shall bedisqualified for being chosen as, and for being, a member of either House ofParliament if he or she is under any acknowledgement of allegiance or

adherence to a Foreign State.

Rajan had argued that by accepting and receiving the ORDER OF LEOPOLDfrom the King of Belgium, Sonia Gandhi is guilty of acknowledgement ofallegiance or adherence to a foreign state like Belgium.

President Abdul Kalam had forwarded the Petition of Rajan to the ElectionCommission of India for appropriate action. The Election Commission of Indiaformed a majority opinion, of 2 [the ECs] to 1 [the CEC], without holding aninquiry u/s 146 of the RPA, and rejected the complaint of Rajan as withoutmerit. The said Opinion was however sent with a covering note by the CEC tothe President with the observation that an inquiry as contemplated under the

Constitution could not be made. The Union Law Ministry issued a GazetteNotification dated May 18, 2009 the said majority Opinion as the Presidents

1


2/20

Order. This Order of the Government of India was challenged byDr.Subramanian Swamy in the Delhi High Court and Dr.Swamys Petition wasrejected by the High Court of Delhi on 16-12-2009.

The Review Petition filed in the High Court of Delhi by Dr.Subramanian Swamyon 2nd September 2011 seeks a Review of the earlier Order of the High Court of

Delhi passed on 16-12-2009 (in which the High Court of Delhi had rejected hisPetition) on the following grounds:

a) New and Fresh facts have been obtained from the Election Commission ofIndia by Dr.Swamy by Filing Applications Under the Right to Information Act(RTI)

b) These new facts have completely brought out and revealed the mostreprehensible conduct of Navin Chawla, First as Election Commissioner andlater as Chief Election Commissioner. Navin Chawla was fully aware of the factthat the Chief Election Commissioner N.Gopalaswamy had recommended to thePresident of India his removal from the Post of Election Commissioner on the

ground that he was functioning as a whole-time agent of Sonia Gandhi and herParty and YET HE DID NOT RECUSE HIMSELF when he sat in judgment on theissue of disqualification of Sonia Gandhi to continue as a Member of Parliamentunder Article 102 of the Indian Constitution.

c) In his Review Petition submitted to the High Court of Delhi, Dr.Swamy hasclearly explained that he could not obtain the concerened vital documentsearlier through RTI because of the official obstruction and hindrance of Mr.Navin Chawla.

Navin Chawlas track record for having subverted the Indian Constitutionduring the days of Emergency declared by Indira Gandhi in 1975-77 and his

several acts and deeds of criminal misconduct during that period weredocumented and highlighted by the Shah Commission in 1978. His disgracefuland criminal acts during those Dark Days of Emergency were viewed asglorious deeds of heroism, patriotism, dog-like-loyalty and selflessness byIndira Gandhi when she became Prime Minister in 1980!!

Dr.Subramanian swamy is absolutely right when he says in his Review Petitionthat Navin Chawla pactically functioned as a whole time political agent of thatImposter from Italy Firangi Memsahib Sonia Gandhi. On 3rd February 2009, Ihad written an article titled Helpless Electorate, in which I had stated asfollows: Our Law Minister H R Bharadwaj has betrayed this long-cherished,semantic, cultural and spiritual tradition by letting down the common people of

India. I am saying this in the light of what he has recently said on thecontroversy relating to the removal of Navin Chawla, duly recommended by theChief Election Commissioner Gopalaswamy under clause 5 of Article 324 of theConstitution of India. H R Bharadwaj has declared: Difference of opinionamong the Election Commissioner does not mean that they were biased. EveryGovernment functionary has the right to express his opinion frankly andfearlessly. The Chief Election Commissioner is only the administrative head ofthe Election Commission. He and other Election Commissioners have equal

powers. Gopalaswami should do his work in EC and not become a political boss.The Chief Election Commissioner should not speak like a political leader. AsUnion Law Minister, in the due discharge of his duties in accordance with theletter and spirit of the Indian Constitution, he has shown himself to be totallyincapable of showing either the wisdom of caution or the insight ofstatesmanship. Election Commission is the fountainhead and apex authority forthe smooth functioning of our democracy. We cannot depend upon the whims

2


3/20

of men like Bhardwaj or Navin Chawla for conducting the ensuingParliamentary Elections 2009 in a fair, objective, impartial and fearlessmanner.

In the same article I had also stated A plain reading and interpretation of theproviso suggests that the power and jurisdiction under the Constitution to

recommend removal of an Election Commissioner (EC) vests solely andexclusively with the Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) and no other authority neither the Government nor even the judiciary is empowered to make such arecommendation. The moment information about the bona fides of an EC comesinto his possession either from his own observation or from reliable andresponsible sources, the CEC is duty bound to activate the process ofascertaining the truth of it and exercise his power to make an appropriaterecommendation. It is far-fetched to argue, as some experts have done, that hehas to await some reference from an extraneous agency, whether it is theGovernment or any other, before initiating the process and making hisrecommendation. Since the CEC is the only person qualified to make therecommendation, by implication, no other authority has the power to second-

guess it or sit in judgment over it. The Law Minister has asserted that an EC canbe removed only by impeachment like the CEC. Such a stand flies against theletter and spirit of the Constitution as it stands at present and it is disturbingthat a Law Minister like Bhardwaj should be making such an obviouslyuntenable statement.

In the same article I had also concluded as follows: All the enlightened anddecent common people of India are indebted to Gopalaswami for havingheroically and boldly discharged his duties as Chief Election Commissioner andupheld the cause of public interest by sending his recommendations to thePresident under Article 324 (clause v) of the Indian Constitution for theremoval of Navin Chawla. Neither the Union Law Minister nor for that matter

any Judge, including the Chief Justice of India, has a right to take away theConstitutional Right of the CEC to make this recommendation on the removal ofany EC working under his overall control. Union Minister for Lawlessness mayfeel constrained all the time to look up to Sonia for instructions all the time.Article 324 (v) gives freedom and discretion to the Chief Election Commissionerto sit in Judgment on the administrative suitability/desirability of having aknown pro-Congress (24x7) man like Navin Chawla as his ElectionCommissioner, particularly with Parliamentary Elections 2009 round the cornerin April-May 2009.

The then Union Law Minister (may I say lawless) and now the ungovernableBharadwaj had spoken in February 2009 like a typical riff-raff muffosil

Congress Politician when he said: Gopalaswamy should function as a ElectionCommissioner and not as a Political Leader. However, thispolitical thug wasofficially very happy when that known chaprasi of Sonia Gandhi Navin Chawlabehaved like a low-grade Congressman in a despicable manner! Gopalaswamydoing his allotted duty under the Constitution in letter and spirit was dismissedas politicking by Bharadwaj! Navin Chawla openly wrecking the IndianConstitution within the Election Commission was viewed as Due Discharge ofhis Constitutional Duties by the Union Law Minister Bharadwaj.

In addition, between 2005 when Navin Chawla was appointed as ElectionCommissioner for the first time and 2009 when he was elevated as ChiefElection Commissioner, I had written the following articles on the totallyunwholesome, unconstitutional and other undesirable antecedents of NavinChawla. I AM PRESENTING BELOW THE FULL TEXT OF THOSE 5 ARTICLESWHICH WILL GO TO TOTALLY VINDICATE THE STAND TAKEN BY

3


4/20

DR.SUBRAMANIAN SWAMY AGAINST NAVIN CHAWLA AND HIS UNBECOMINGCONDUCT AS BOTH ELECTION COMMISSIONER AND CHIEF ELECTIONCOMMISSIONER IN THE NEW REVIEW PETITION FILED BY HIM IN THE HIGHCOURT OF DELHI ON 2ND SEPTEMBER 2011.

(I)A BELGIAN CITIZEN IN INDIASPARLIAMENT

20 February, 2008

V.SUNDARAM I.A.S.

A year back (exactly in March 2007), I had written in detail about the shadyantecedents of a Nepali citizen called M.K SUBBA who had succeeded inbecoming a Member of our ludicrously shameful Parliament. Today our de-factoPrime Minister, Sonia Gandhi swears her allegiance to the King of Belgium.

M K Subba

Sonia-Congress Party has degenerated into Servants of Sonia Society (SOSS).All the Congress men and all the Congress Ministers are in her bonded labour.Her Indian citizenship is dubious and questionable. Despite the highlycondemnable, partisan and one-sided Judgment given by the HonourableSupreme Court of India (viewing her fraudulent educational qualifications

fictitiously obtained from the University of Cambridge as a Stale issue), thewhole country knows the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth abouther proudly proclaimed educational and academic background!. Now byaccepting the Order of Leopold from the King of Belgium in November 2006,she has clearly shown that she has contempt for India and the Indian people.She has greater contempt for the Law of Indian Constitution. It is a knownpublic fact that Sonia treats the office of the President of India as a disposablePawn to be moved about on the Chess Board of Indian Politics at her sweet willand pleasure depending upon political exigencies from time to time.

Thus her Citizenship, her basic Educational Credentials and above all her loyaltyto the Indian Nation are all dubious and questionable. She is able to survive in

Indias political life only because of the underground subterranean support ofIndias judiciary at the highest level which has no concern for the Rule of Law,

4


5/20

the Rule of Equality before the Law and above all the Rule of Majesty of Law.Perhaps the only inference that I can draw is that according to our SupremeCourt, Indian Constitution is Stale; Indian people are more Stale and finallyIndias survival as a Nation is most Stale. I am basing these observations onthe Doctrine of Staleness referred to by Supreme Court in the case relating toSonia Gandhi.

The common people of India have come to the conclusion that they can notexpect any justice under the Law from our Honourable Supreme Court on anyissue, least of all on the Sonias issue. The people of India felt let down by theSupreme Court of India. In this context I would like to quote the immortalwords of Honourable Justice Felix Frankfurter (1882-1965): Lawyers, withrare exceptions, have failed to lay bear that the Law of the Supreme Court is

Sonia Gandhi

enmeshed in our countrys history.The vital share of the Supreme Court in the

interplay of the countrys political and economic forces has largely escaped theattention of Historians. Not unnaturally the Supreme Court has been outside

the permanent focus of the Historians eye for the momentum of the SupremeCourts influence has been achieved un-dramatically and imperceptibly, like the

gradual growth of a coral reef, as the cumulative product of hundreds of cases,individually unexciting and seemingly even unimportant, but in their totaleffect telling in the pulls and pressures of society.

The history of the Supreme Court of India is not the history of an abstraction,but the analysis of individuals acting as a Court who make decisions and laydown Doctrines, and of other individuals, their successors, who refine, modify,and sometimes even overrule the decisions of their predecessors, re-interpreting and transmuting their doctrines. Thus in Law men too make adifference. Viewed in this light Supreme Court of India has only given a deathblow to the Law of the Constitution if not Bharat Matha.

Dr Subramanian Swamy has stated that Sonia Gandhi stands disqualified underthe Law of the Constitution to continue as a Member of Parliament. TheElection Commission, by a majority of 2:1, has decided to issue notice to theCongress President, Sonia Gandhi, seeking her response to an allegation thatshe had incurred disqualification as a Member of Parliament, under Article102(1) (d) of the Constitution, for accepting the Order of Leopold from theKing of Belgium in November 2006. Article 102 (e) of the Constitution says thata person shall be disqualified for being chosen as, and for being, (a line missing see encl) a member. India, or has voluntarily acquired the citizenship of aforeign state, or is under any acknowledgement of allegiance or adherence to aforeign state. Disqualification of Ms.Gandhi is thus attracted under Article 102(1) (d) of the Constitution for being under any acknowledgment of allegiance

or adherence to a foreign state.

5


6/20

King Leopold

It is now a known public fact (excepting for Ashok Singhvi the Bugle-boy ofSonia Gandhi!) that on being granted the title of the Order of LeopoldMrs.Gandhi had signed the Register as Member of the Association of the Orderof Leopold. Article 1 of the Association states that the Association memberswill display an eternal devotion to Belgium and the monarchy. Mrs.Sonia

Gandhi thus fully attracts the disqualification under Article 102 (e) of theIndian Constitution.

A P J Abdul Kalam, as President had referred to the Election Commission apetition on this matter received from P.Rajan an Advocate of Kochi. It issignificant that Election Commissions Legal Department had recommendedIssue of Notice to Mrs.Gandhi in September 2007 but it was only on February14, 2008 that the Election Commission found a prima facie case had been madeout by the petitioner for issuing notice.

When Sonia Gandhi, President of the Indian National Congress and Chairpersonof the ruling United Progressive Alliance, accepted in person the highest honour

given by the King of Belgium, the Order of Leopold, on 15 November, 2006, sheshould have realized the legal and constitutional implications of a sittingmember of the Lok Sabha accepting such foreign titles having learnt the hardway the significance of Article 102 in the office of profit matter earlier. Section(2) of Article 18 of the Indian Constitution says: No citizen of India shallaccept any title from any foreign state;, and Section (4) says: No personholding any office of profit or trust under the state shall, without the consent ofthe President, accept any present, emolument, or office of any kind from orunder any foreign state.

That Sonia Gandhi had not taken any permission from the President of India isevident from the fact that Dr.Abdul Kalam, who was then the President, had

forwarded the representation from Advocate Rajan, seeking her disqualificationas member of the Lok Sabha for accepting the award from the King of Belgium.

I fully endorse the view of Dr. Subramanian Swamy in this context: The Orderof Leopold is not an ordinary title given by a foreign power. IT DEMANDS THEDEVOTION AND LOYALTY OF THE RECIPIENT TO THE KING OF BELGIUM. SoniaGandhi attended in person the investiture ceremony in Belgium and signed theregister of the Association of the Order of Leopold, signifying her voluntarydeclaration of allegiance to the King of Belgium, a foreign monarch of a dubiousreputation. The Association of the Order of Leopold was established in 1944with a view to displaying eternal devotion to Belgium and to the monarchy.Every member of the Association must, under law, take an oath which says: I

swear not to undertake anything that could damage the respectability of theOrder of Leopold and to fully observe the regulations and act as a loyal and

6


7/20

faithful member. Attempt by the Congress to compare Sonia Gandhi acceptingthe Belgium award to Morarji Desai accepting Nishan-e-Pakistan award or Indiaconferring Bharat Ratna on Nelson Mandela, is stupid. The recipients in thesecases were under no obligation to the country that offered the awards. That amember of Indian Parliament should express devotion and loyalty to KingLeopold who plundered and massacred the people of Belgium Congo, now

called Zaire, is nationally demeaning and disgraceful.

The legality of such split loyalty was settled in 1985 when a Full Bench of the

Madras High Court [AIR 1985 Mad.855] disqualified K.S.Haja Sharief, an Indiancitizen, from membership of the Tamil Nadu Legislative Council for accepting

the title of Honorary Consul of Monaco, a tiny European country.

Dr Subramanian Swamy has rightly concluded that the Election Commissionshould therefore let Law take its course, and disqualify Ms.Sonia Gandhi. Sheshould also publicly apologize to the people of all Third World countries fordeclaring allegiance to a brutal, feudal oppressor of the Zaire people. [Fordetails of his murderous activities, read Hochschild, Adam: King Leopolds

Ghost-A Story of Greed, Terror, and Murder in Colonial Africa, Macmillan (1998)(ISBN: 0333661265)]. In a recent broadcast, the BBC held King Leopoldresponsible for 10 million deaths in Zaire, more than Hitler, who is had gotkilled 6 million Jews.

Abhishek Singvi, the Superincumbent Goebbels of the dying Nazi SoniaCongress Party today (who is supposed to be a Senior Lawyer to boot!) hasspoken like a political Pawn Broker by saying that the Congress will give astrong and fitting reply to the Election Commission. The people of India wouldlike to know whether the Election Commission has issued the notice to whomSonia Gandhi? Abhishek Singhvi? The Congress Party? Does Abhishek Singhvitalk in terms of Law of the Indian Constitution or in terms of LAW (LESSNESS!)

of the Super-Sonia Constitution (Belgian plus Italian!)

Sonia Gandhi by her known methods of anti-national and anti-Hindufunctioning, has created a kind of political public stage in India which can onlybe described in the beautiful words of T.S. Elliot (1888-1965): Shape withoutform, shade without colour, paralyzed force, gesture without emotion, men,figures stuffed with straw, gather on stony soil in a valley of dying stars. Theyare empty without vision: they learn and act together without thought: their

voices whisper meaninglessly, through a land of stone images and deathsdream kingdom. Here man cannot die decently. He approaches his shabby end

by way of a Nursery RhymeHere we go round the prickly peara childsgame turns into an ironic litany of complete frustration.

(II) IS THIS A STALE OR NOT SOSTALE CASE, PLEASE!

15 -2-2008

V.SUNDARAM I.A.S.

7


8/20

If there is one person in India who is above the Law of the Constitution andwho has been endowed and empowered to treat the Criminal Procedure Code,the Indian Penal Code and a Civil Procedure Code with cavalier contempt it isSonia Gandhi, the de-facto Prime Minister of India.

ORDER OF LEOPOLD

GIVEN TO SONIA GANDHI

She has a stranglehold on the flabby and fledgling apparatus of the crumblingIndian State. Not only the Hindus of Gujarat, Punjab, Uttaranjal and HimachalPradesh but all the Hindus of India have come to realize that she owes herallegiance not to the Indian Constitution (either in letter or in spirit!) but to thePope in Rome.

This dictatorial de-facto Prime Minister covered herself with everlasting secularCongress glory (instead of non-secular communal disgrace!) when she filed afalse affidavit to the effect that she had studied in Cambridge University inEngland before the Returning Officer of Rae Barellie ParliamentaryConstituency in UP. She had deliberately concealed the fact that she hadstudied only in a Teaching Shop connected with teaching Language CoursesWhen Dr Subramanian Swamy moved the Supreme Court of India through aSpecial Leave Petition in May 2007 to get her disqualified on this solid fact ofher having filed a false Affidavit, the Supreme Court dismissed her Petition. Athree Judge Bench comprising Chief Justice K G Balakrishnan and Justices B PSingh and G P Mathur acted like an Oriental Potentate when it asked DrSubramanian Swamy: Should the Supreme Court go into all the Affidavits tofind out whether they are false or not? Further investigation is not possibleinto a stale issue and it should be dropped. As a Gentleman, Dr Swamy

replied if you take such a large-hearted view then the matter should bedropped. I have nothing more to say.

In these columns I had written two articles in May 2007, under the title TheDarkest Day in our Legal History and Cavalier Dethronement of the Rule ofLaw I had clearly stated how the Supreme Court of India functioned as afountain head of planned and calculated injustice in giving the above not sostale verdict in favour of Sonia Gandhi in gross violation of the letter and spiritof the Indian Constitution. I had clearly stated that the common people ofIndia would continue to express such feelings of anger and despair indefinitelytill the end of time or till the Supreme Court of India functions as a partisanbody at the highest level by dismissing all the vital issues affecting our national

integrity and national survival as STALE matters.

8


9/20

Sonia Gandhi, lover of Belgium

Now it has come to light that after giving a false Affidavit in a disgracefulmanner about her own educational qualifications in 2004, Sonia Gandhi wentall the way to Belgium for accepting the ORDER OF LEOPOLD from the King ofBelgium in November 2006. By accepting this Order, Sonia Gandhi has shownthat she not only owes her allegiance to the Pope in Rome, but also to the Kingof Belgium. The Election Commission by a majority of 2:1 has decided to issuenotice to the Congress President and de-facto Prime Minister Sonia Gandhiasking her as to why she should not be disqualified from acting as a Member ofParliament under Article 102 (1) of the Constitution for her having acceptedthe Order of Leopold from the King of Belgium.

Rajan, a public spirited lawyer from Kochi, being fully aware of the fact that aMember of Parliament in India cannot accept a foreign title that compromiseswith his or her allegiance or loyalty to India, investigated deeper to find outwhether the Order of Leopold was an innocuous gilt-edged paper like the manyinnocuous Awards which many Social Clubs give to different categories ofpeople. He found to his shock dismay that the Order of Leopold was no ordinarypaper but a special title that demanded devotion and loyalty to the King andthe State of Belgium in return from the person honoured with the title.

Agitated by this shocking discovery, Rajan sent a complaint to the President ofIndia in May 2007 pleading that Sonia Gandhi be removed as Member ofParliament for having acknowledged her allegiance to Belgian King and Stateby accepting the Order of Leopold. Fortunately for our country, the incumbentof the Rashtrapati Bhavan then was Dr APJ Abdul Kalam, a man of greatintegrity imbued with a sense of high nationalism founded on his loftypatriotism, in stark contrast with his Sonia-servile successor in that high officewith dubious if not criminal credentials, and Dr Kalam promptly sent thecomplaint of Rajan to the Election Commission for careful consideration.

When the Election Commission functions as the informal politicalAgent of Sonia Gandhi on the eve of recent Gujarat Elections, I hadwritten in these columns an article describing our disgraceful ElectionCommission as a Politically Partisan Election Commission. When thepolitically partisan Navin Chawla, a known and celebrated page boy ofSonia Gandhi to-day and Sanjay Gandhi and Indira Gandhi ofyesterday (during Emergency in 1975-77), was appointed as ElectionCommissioner in April 2007, I had written an Article in these columnsunder the title For Gods sake, go! Navin Chawla! I had clearly statedthat as Secretary to the Lt. Governor of Delhi during Emergency in1975-77, he was guilty of Emergency Excesses when he participatedalong with Sanjay Gandhi with gusto in the criminal process ofsubverting the constitution of India with impunity. His several deedsof misconduct were adversely commented upon by the ShawCommission appointed by the Janatha Government after its sweepingvictory in the Elections held in 1977. Now recently on 31 January,

2008, 180 MPs of the National Democratic alliance have signed apetition addressed to the Chief Election Commissioner of India (CEC)

9


10/20

asking him to recommend the Removal of Navin Chawla as ElectionCommissioner

It is a well-known public fact that both Navin Chawla and S Y Quraishi owetheir positions as Election Commissioners to Sonia Gandhi and the CongressParty. Both of them take special pride in functioning as political agents ofSonia Gandhi within the Election Commission. Though the Former Presidentof India Dr. Abdul Kalam forwarded the petition of Rajan to the ElectionCommission as early as in June 2007, yet the Chief Election Commissionercould do nothing because Navin Chawla and S Y Quraishi, owing their totalallegiance to Sonia Gandhi and her family, checkmated Chief ElectionCommissioner Gopal Swamy for nearly 7 months. Navin Chawla seems to beunder the mistaken impression that he can cleverly mislead the country bystanding alongside Gopal Swamy in the matter of issue of notice to SoniaGandhi on the Order of Leopold issue and alongside S Y Quraishi on the otheraspect of reference to the Ministry of External Affairs. Navin Chawla knowsfull well that if he does not support Gopal Swamy on this aspect of the issue,then by his own abstention he would be forfeiting his claim to succeed Gopal

Swamy as Chief Election Commissioner. On the other aspect of referral to theMinistry of External Affairs, both Navin Chawla and S Y Quraishi are colludingas greyhounds together to hunt down Gopal Swamy. Both these politicalhunters know that the Ministry of External Affairs under its ever-effeminateMinister Pranab Mukherjee will be waiting in combat-readiness to give a cleanchit to Sonia Gandhi.

I fully endorse the view of N S Rajaram on the issue of Soniasacceptance of the Order of Leopold Award: Beyond the legalities andtechnicalities of accepting an award demanding allegiance and loyaltyto a foreign sovereign, there is a moral dimension to it. King Leopoldof Belgium was one of the worst mass murderers in history. His rule

was the inspiration for Joseph Conrads Heart of Darkness and themovie Apocalypse Now. The stark immorality of Sonias acceptance ofthis monstrous order synonymous with slavery and genocide- should be highlighted, and not just the technical and legal aspects.Sonia Gandhis acceptance of an award instituted in his name bringsdishonor not only to India but also the illustrious name that she uses.Can you imagine a greater contrast between Mahatma Gandhi andKing Leopold? It defiles a great name. This should give an idea ofSonias level of culture and education. What next? A Hitler order?

Sonia Gandhi is guilty of political treason for having accepted the Order ofLeopold from the King of Belgium. She is a known and established subverter

of the Law of the Constitution. She is a known and sworn enemy of theHindus of India. Dr Subramanian Swamy, former Union Minister andPresident of the Janata Party has given the right verdict on behalf of thepeople of India. I welcome the decision of the Election Commission to issue anotice to Ms Sonia Gandhi to show cause why she should not be disqualifiedunder Article 102(1) of the Constitution to be a Member of Parliament. Thereshould be no doubt in anybodys mind that Ms Gandhi is indeed disqualified toremain an MP if one goes by the precedent settled by a judgment of the FullBench of the Madras High Court in 1985 {see AIR 1985 Mad 855} wherein itwas held that an Indian citizen Mr K S Haja Sharief who was an MLC in thethen Madras Legislative Council, stood disqualified for his receiving a title ofHonorary Consul from a small European country. In Ms Sonia Gandhis case,

she attended in person in the investiture ceremony in Belgium and signed theregister of the Association of the Order of Leopold that clearly meant a

10


11/20

voluntary declaration of allegiance to a foreign sovereign King of Leopold ofBelgium. Hence she stands similarly disqualified and unfit to be an MP of ade-colonised India. Moreover, this award for a MP of a Third World countrylike India is shameful and degrading because King Leopold reigned overbutchery, plunder and murder of the people of Belgium Congo, an Africancountry, now called Zaire.

(III) FOR GOD'S SAKE, LET US HAVEDONE WITH NAVIN CHAWLA!

(11-4-2007)

V.SUNDARAM I.A.S.

A few days ago, I had written about the fact of 205 MPs having sent arepresentation against the appointment of Navin Chawla as an ElectionCommissioner soon after his appointment to that post. I had also referred indetail to the Press Statement issued by L.K.Advani, Official Leader of theOpposition in the Lok Sabha, warning the nation against the avoidable publicdangers of Navin Chawla's continuance as an Election Commissioner.

Postings and transfers of senior bureaucrats have a crucial impact on twosectors - law and order including security and the delivery systems in the

country. On both these counts we have reached a critical stage in our nationalhistory and we will be in a deeper crisis if the government of India under theeffete and de jure Prime Ministership of Dr Manmohan Singh and the de factomachinating, manoeuvring, mendacious Prime Ministership of Madame MotherSuperior with her epicentre in Italy continues to be afflicted with the MotherSuperior Disease Syndrome (MSDS) of apoplexy at the centre and anaemia atthe extremities.

Two months before his appointment as Election Commissioner on 16 May 16using his clout with Mother Superior, Navin Chawla was moving for hisappointment as Union Home Secretary. At that time on 16 March 2005 I wrotean article under the headline 'Shame Without Honour':

'The most spectacular Congress Party enforced classical principle in Indianbureaucracy is that whilst all bureaucrats of similar seniority are equal onpaper, yet some chosen few are more equal than others. Navin Chawla belongsto the latter category, with a tremendous clout in the UPA government, thanksto his unbroken record of 'loyalty' and 'service' to the Nehru family. He wasvery close to Sanjay Gandhi and wielded unprecedented power in his officialcapacity as Secretary to the Lieutenant Governor of the Union Territory of DelhiKishan Chand during the emergency in 1975-77. He functioned as the de factoGovernor of Delhi and several bureaucrats who happened to interact with himduring this period have confirmed the fact that he was known for hisunabashed authoritarianism. His controversial role as secretary to the Lt.

Governor of Delhi was noted by the Shah Commission which went intoEmergency Excesses. Navin Chawla did not cover himself with glory when the

11


12/20

Constitution of India was subverted with impunity during emergency. As onewho occupied a vantage position during that period, he was charged witharbitrary exercise of authority. Any other officer with this kind of backgroundwould have been sidelined under the clich-ridden 'Law will take its owncourse' umbrella. But there are spectacular exceptions to this general rule inour decadent and perverted democracy. Navin Chawla comes under the

category of special exceptions and special exemptions under the law of theland'. For some unknown reasons, our poor nation was spared the ordeal ofhaving a man of such exemplary character as Union Home Secretary!

As a free lance and unknown journalist, after penning the above helpless lines,I continued to remain a worm of the earth, earthy. But this exceptional man ofspectacular pseudo-secular fire however soon rose by ascending spirals todizzy heights. Navin Chawla was appointed as Election Commissioner in May,2005. His track record of having subverted the Indian Constitution duringemergency in 1975-77 and his several acts and deeds of misconduct during thatperiod were buried under the sea and he was considered as suitable and fit forappointment as Election Commissioner of India. Justice Shah had commented

on Navin Chawla in his report: 'Navin Chawla became the Lieutenant Governorof Delhi and Kishan Chand the Lieutenant Governor became Navin Chawla'sLieutenant'. Thus this Chawla, the distinguished Daftri (perhaps 'Chaprasi') ofthe Nehru dynasty and Sanjay Gandhi's Man Friday was illegitimately rewardedby the government of India for his life-long loyalty not to the nation but to afamily. Thus the ghosts of the Emergency were finally exorcised by theelevation of Navin Chawla to the post of Election Commissioner!

In his farewell remarks, the then outgoing Chief Election CommissionerT.S.Krishnamurthy rightly commented that he feared the politicization of theElection Commission. Anyone with a clear conscience can reasonably deducethat perhaps Chawla's 'very' 'distinguished' background was very much in his

mind when he made this comment.

I too had commented as follows in an evening newspaper in February 2006 that: 'Chawla's appointment as Election Commissioner was against the publicinterest and all the more objectionable because, by sheer seniority, Chawlawould be the Chief Election Commissioner in 2009 when the general election isdue. It may not be out of place or out of context to reasonably imagine thatSonia Gandhi has cleverly planted him in this post keeping in view the interestof her son Rahul Gandhi whom she wants to elevate to the post of PrimeMinister of India in 2009. In case Navin Chawla performs as per herexpectations in 2009, he may as well land up to begin with as the Vice-President of India and later with Sonia willing, may even become the Indian

President! Normally when we are helpless we say that 'God only knows!' Butunfortunately for India and for all of us, even God does not know. Perhaps'Sonia only knows' - all the way, now and for ever!!'

One more striking instance of gross misconduct of Navin Chawla that came tolight was the fact that he was using his official influence in the IndianAdministrative Service, with the full blessings of his Mother Superior, to collectlarge sums of money for a non-governmental agency being run by his wifeRupika Chawla under the contrived umbrella of 'Social Work and Social Service'.It has been reported that Ambika Soni contributed Rs 15 lakh, Karan Singh Rs10 lakh, A R Kidwai Rs 45 lakh and God only knows how much money otherCongressmen contributed to this great humanitarian effort without parallel in

chequered human history! Are they all preparing themselves for 2009elections? Are they all doing strategic perspective planning?

12


13/20

Soon after his notification as Election Commissioner on May 16, 2005 NavinChawla declared with a magisterial aplomb, that no money had been collectedafter his assumption of office as Election Commissioner. His response was bothirrelevant and irresponsible. The moot question is whether before hisappointment as Election Commissioner, he was a private citizen or a member ofthe IAS. If he was a member of the IAS, then he was very much governed by

the All India Services Conduct Rules and as per these rules, any collection ofunauthorized money unconnected with one's official duty from any member ofthe public or any organisation is prohibited. But as I have written several timesearlier, right from day one of his entry into the IAS, he was exempted from allrules under the All India Services, first by Indira Gandhi, then by SanjayGandhi, again by Indira Gandhi after 1980 and subsequently by Rajiv Gandhiand Sonia Gandhi. I am saying all this only in the light of the fact that seniorCongressmen have participated with gusto and enthusiasm with huge sums ofmoney in the collection drive of the NGO controlled by his wife. The wholenation knows that their aim is not to wipe every tear from every eye! Their aimis only to wipe every tear from every eye in Mother Superior's family.

Against this irrefutable background, every law abiding citizen in India expectsthe Chief Election Commissioner of India to take note of this article and toinitiate appropriate action against Navin Chawla as per the law. I would alsoappeal to the President of India to remove him forthwith from the post ofElection Commissioner after following the prescribed procedure for functioningas an informal agent of the Congress party with the panoply of official authorityfor 30 years and more.

The Election Commission always talks with bravado about the need for a codeof conduct amongst political parties and politicians. In this context I would liketo make it clear that all the Election Commissioners themselves must have acode of conduct and they should all realize the fact that they too are not above

the law of the land.

A legitimate question can be asked as to why I am choosing the words 'ForGod's sake, go! Navin Chawla!' My answer is this. In May 1940, when NevilleChamberlain was voted out of office as Britain's Prime Minister, one of hissenior Cabinet Ministers called L.S.Amery played a key role in that excitingpolitical drama. In a brilliant speech, he requested Neville Chamberlain toresign from his post immediately. On that momentous occasion, L.S.Ameryproduced an electrifying effect upon the House of Commons by recalling andquoting the historic words of Oliver Cromwell spoken to Long Parliament in1653: 'You have sat too long here for any good you have been doing. Depart, Isay, and let us have done with you. In the name of God, go'.

(IV) FOR GOD'S SAKE, GO! NAVINCHAWLA !

(9-2-2006)

V SUNDARAM I.A.S.

13


14/20

Postings and transfers of senior bureaucrats have a crucial impact on twosectors - law and order including security and the delivery systems in thecountry. On both these counts we have reached a critical stage in our nationalhistory and we will be in a deeper crisis if the government of India under theeffete and de jure Prime Ministership of Dr Manmohan Singh and the de factomachinating, maneuvering, mendacious Prime Ministership of Madame Mother

Superior with her epicenter in Italy continues to be afflicted with the MotherSuperior Disease Syndrome (MSDS) of apoplexy at the centre and anemia at theextremities.

Two months before his appointment as Election Commissioner, using his cloutwith Mother Superior, he was moving for his appointment as Union HomeSecretary. At that time on 16 March 2005 I wrote under the headline 'ShameWithout Honour':

'The most spectacularly classical evidence in Indian bureaucracy is that whilstall bureaucrats of similar seniority are equal on paper, yet some chosen few aremore equal than others'.

Navin Chawla belongs to the latter category, with tremendous clout in the UPAgovernment, thanks to his unbroken record of 'loyalty' and 'service' to theNehru family. He was very close to Sanjay Gandhi and wielded unprecedentedpower in his official capacity as Secretary to the Lieutenant Governor of theUnion Territory of Delhi Kishan Chand during the emergency in 1975-77. Hefunctioned as the de facto Governor of Delhi and several bureaucrats whohappened to interact with him during this period have confirmed the fact thathe was known for his unabashed authoritarianism. His controversial role assecretary to the Lt. Governor of Delhi was noted by the Shah Commission whichwent into Emergency Excesses. Navin Chawla did not cover himself with glorywhen the Constitution of India was subverted with impunity during emergency.

As one who occupied a vantage position during that period, he was chargedwith arbitrary exercise of authority. Any other officer with this kind ofbackground would have been sidelined under the clich-ridden 'Law will takeits own course' umbrella. But there are spectacular exceptions to this generalrule in our decadent and perverted democracy. Navin Chawla comes under thecategory of special exceptions and special exemptions under the law of theland'.

As a free lance and unknown journalist, after penning the above helpless lines,I have remained of the earth, earthy. But Navin Chawla has risen by ascendingspirals to dizzy heights. He was appointed as Election Commissioner in May,2005. His track record of having subverted the Indian Constitution during

emergency in 1975-77 and his several acts and deeds of misconduct during thatperiod were buried under the sea and he was considered as suitable and fit forappointment as Election Commissioner of India. Justice Shah had commentedon Navin Chawla in his report: 'Navin Chawla became the Lieutenant Governorof Delhi and Kishan Chand the Lieutenant Governor became Navin Chawla'slieutenant'. Thus this Chawla, the distinguished Daftri (perhaps 'Chaprasi') ofthe Nehru dynasty and Sanjay Gandhi's Man Friday was illegitimately rewardedby the government of India for his life-long loyalty not to the nation but to afamily. Thus the ghosts of the Emergency were finally exorcised by theelevation of Navin Chawla to the post of Election Commissioner.

In his farewell remarks, the outgoing Chief Election Commissioner

Krishnamurthy rightly said that he feared the politicization of the commission.

14


15/20

Perhaps Chawla's shady and sordid background was very much in his mindwhen he made this comment.

Chawla's appointment as Election Commissioner was against the public interestand all the more objectionable because, by sheer seniority, Chawla would bethe Chief Election Commissioner in 2009 when the general election is due. Itmay not be out of place or out of context to reasonably imagine that SoniaGandhi has cleverly planted him in this post keeping in view the interest of herson Rahul Gandhi whom she wants to elevate to the post of Prime Minister ofIndia in 2009. In case Navin Chawla performs as per her expectations in 2009,he may as well land up to begin with as the Vice-President of India and laterwith Sonia willing, may even become the Indian President! Normally when weare helpless we say that 'God only knows!' But unfortunately for India and forall of us, even God does not know. Perhaps 'Sonia only knows' - all the way,now and for ever!!

One more striking instance of the reprehensible conduct of Navin Chawla hasrecently come to light. Using his official influence in the Indian Administrative

Service and with the full blessings of his Mother Superior, he has collectedlarge sums of money for a non-governmental agency being run by his wifeRupika Chawla under the contrived umbrella of 'Social Work and Social Service'.Ambika Soni seems to have contributed Rs 15 lakh, Karan Singh Rs 10 lakh, A RKidwai Rs 45 lakh and God only knows how much money other Congressmenhave contributed to this great humanitarian effort without parallel in humanhistory! Are they all preparing themselves for 2009 elections? Are they all doingstrategic perspective planning?

Navin Chawla has stated that after his appointment as Election Commissioner,no money has been collected. His response is both irrelevant and irresponsible.The moot question is whether before his appointment as Election

Commissioner, he was a private citizen or a member of the IAS. If he was amember of the IAS, then he was very much governed by the All India ServicesConduct Rules and as per these rules, any collection of unauthorised moneyunconnected with one's official duty from any member of the public or anyorganisation is prohibited. But as I have stated earlier, right from day one ofhis entry into the IAS, he was exempted from all rules under the All IndiaServices, first by Indira Gandhi, then by Sanjay Gandhi, again by Indira Gandhiafter 1980 and subsequently by Rajiv Gandhi and Sonia Gandhi. I am saying allthis only in the light of the fact that senior Congressmen have participated withgusto and enthusiasm with huge sums of money in the collection drive of theNGO controlled by his wife. The whole nation knows that their aim is not towipe every tear from every eye! Their aim is only to wipe every tear from every

eye in Mother Superior's family.

Soli Sorabji, the former Solicitor General of India, has rightly suggested thatNavin Chawla should step down. But as one who has voluntarily chosen thepath of shame without honour, it is not unlikely to expect Navin Chawla to treatthe observation of Soli Sorabji with indivisible contempt. I expect the ChiefElection Commissioner of India to take note of this article and to initiateappropriate action against Navin Chawla as per the law. I would request thePresident of India to remove him forthwith from the post of ElectionCommissioner for functioning as an informal agent of the Congress party withthe panoply of official authority for 30 years and more.

The Election Commission always talks with bravado about the need for a codeof conduct amongst political parties and politicians. In this context I would like

15


16/20

to make it clear that all the Election Commissioners themselves must have acode of conduct and they should all realise the fact that they too are not abovethe law of the land.

(V)SHAME WITHOUT HONOUR(16-3-2005)

V.SUNDARAM I.A.S.

Mr. B G Deshmukh former Union Cabinet Secretary has appositely observed:'Transfers of bureaucrats have a crucial impact on two sectors - law and orderand security and the delivery systems the country. On both these counts wehave reached a critical stage and we will be in deep trouble very soon if we do

not control/tackle this now .

People who are worried about good governance in India are quite shocked bythe recent news item that the present Union Information and BroadcastingSecretary Mr Navin Chawla is being tipped for the post of Union Home Secretarywhich is now being held by Mr Dhirendar Singh. Mr Dhirendar Singh is retiringon 31 March, 2005. Mr. Navin Chawla is due for retirement on 31 July, 2005.

The most spectacularly classical element in Indian bureaucracy is that whilst allbureaucrats of similar seniority are equal on paper, yet some chosen few aremore equal than others. Mr Navin Chawla belongs to the latter category withtremendous clout in the UPA government thanks to his unbroken record of

loyalty and 'service' to the Nehru family. He was very close to Sanjay Gandhiand wielded unprecedented power in his official capacity as Secretary to the Lt.Governor of the Union Territory of Delhi Mr Kishan Chand during Emergency in1975-77. He functioned as the de-facto Governor of Delhi and severalbureaucrats who happened to interact with him during this period haveconfirmed the fact that he was known for his unabashed authoritarianism. Hiscontroversial role as Secretary to the Lt Governor of Delhi as noted by the ShahCommission which went into emergency excesses. Mr Nayin Chawla did notcover himself with glory when the Constitution India was subverted withimpunity during emergency. As one who occupied a vantage position duringthat period, he was charged with arbitrary exercise of authority. Any otherofficer with this kind of background would have been sidelined under the

cliche-ridden 'Law will take its own course' umbrella. But there are spectacularexceptions to this general rule in our decadent andPerverted democracy.

It is here that I have to say with sadness that the politicisation of thebureaucracy in India has been carried to absurd lengths and heights. Under theexisting rules, the Union Cabinet Secretary can go on up to 62 years, unlike theother Union Secretaries who retire at 60 years. I understand that a proposal isbeing put up before the Union Cabinet for raising the age of retirement of UnionHome Secretary and Union Defence Secretary to 62 years on par with UnionCabinet Secretary. The politicisation of this loaded proposal is being cleverlyand surreptitiously sneaked into the frame-work of rules by the UPAgovernment proposition that the benefit of this upward revision will not beavailable to the existing incumbent in the post of Union Home Secretary who isretiring on 31 March, 2005.

16


17/20

It is understood that Mr.Navin Chawla will replace Mr.Dhirendra Singh as UnionHome Secretary on 1st April, 2005. He is likely to be the first beneficiary of thenew rule raising the age of retirement of Union Home Secretary from 60 to 62years. Thus the UPA government is endeavouring to stealthily operate underthe umbrella of the so-called Rule of Law by bringing in an amendment to

existing rules and regulations in order to provide special advantage exclusivelyto one individual, to the particular exclusion of not only the existing incumbentin the post of Union Home Secretary but also general exclusion of several whoare equally qualified if not more for the post. There are several officersbelonging to the 1968 batch and 1969 batch very much senior to Mr.NavinChawla with a track record of outstanding and unblemished service and whowould get side-lined in their last years of service for want of politicalpatronage.

The concern for upholding the cause of so-called public interest cannot be soeasily invoked in the case of Mr Navin Chawla because if that is the objectivebasis for raising the age limit of retirement for Union Home Secretary from 60

years to 62 years, then Mr.Dhirendra Singh, the present Home Secretary, wouldbe the first to qualify for the benefit of the revised rule. No responsiblegovernment committed to the enforcement of the rule of law under theconstitution can afford to have shifting and personalised approach to theenforcement of common rules. It cannot be argued that the factor of upholdingthe cause of public interest under the new rule can take effect only from 1stApril 2005. We cannot have arbitrarily chosen cutoff dates in the matter ofprimacy of public interest. Justice is truth in action and not blatant untruth insnappy action. The UPA government should not forget that there is a justice,but we do not always see it. Discreet, smiling, it is there, at one side, a littlebehind injustice, which makes a big noise.

Aeschylus in his The Eumenides (458 BC) observed for all time: Nobody has amore sacred obligation to obey the law than those who make the law. Wrongmust not win by technicalities.

The only consolation we have today is that such decisions do not'bureaucratically' emanate from the ivory towers of the Prime Minister's Officebut 'democratically' arise from a Private Residence on a road dedicated to thecommon people appropriately called JANPATH-the path of the people.

The morale of the bureaucracy in Now Delhi has been shattered by the UPAgovernment's approach to postings and transfers. After the death of Nehru in1964, all political parties in India have used bureaucrats as their private

handles or, if I may say so, as disposable condoms. No bureaucrat can survivein any sensitive post if he is unwilling to carry out the illegal or immoral orirregular dictates of his political masters, some of whom have functioned asboisterous thugs with full legal and constitutional protection in post-independent India. And if there is a bureaucrat who wilt heed his politicalmaster, he will be given a prime posting. In his individual case, rules would beso applied or interpreted or changed or modified as to suit the politicalconvenience of the moment both ---for the Master and the Servant, Lord andSerf, Guild-master and Journeyman, Freeman and Slave, in a word theOppressor and the Oppressed. BUREAUCRATS OF INDIA UNITE YOU HAVENOTHING TO LOSE BUT YOUR CHAINS!!

In the Western context, according to Black's Dictionary of Law: The Rule of Lawrefers to a legal principle, of general application, sanctioned by the recognitionof authorities, and usually expressed in the form of a maxim or logical proposi-

17


18/20

tion. The rule of law, sometimes called the supremacy of law, provides thatdecisions should be made by the application of known principles or lawswithout the intervention of discretion in their application.

The notion of the rule of law, however, does not merely imply the existence oflaw and its application. It was developed in the context of Western liberalism

as a means of restraining arbitrary actions by those in power.

According to Friedrich A Hayek, rule of law means that: government in all itsactions is bound by rules fixed and announced beforehand; rules which make itpossible to foresee with fair certainty how the authority will use its coercivepowers in given circumstances and to plan one's individual affairs on the basisof this knowledge: More concretely, rule of law means, first, that laws must beapplicable to every individual in a given society; second, the rulers must followthe laws as the ruled do; and third, the ruler's behaviour is predictable. Rule oflaw is the very foundation of human rights. In the Western legal tradition, lawis applied equally to all; it is binding on the lawgiver and is meant to preventarbitrary action by the ruler. Because the rule of law means that government

must never coerce an individual except in the enforcement of a known rule, itconstitutes a limitation on the powers of all government.

Viewed against this background, I can assert in the light of my own experiencein the Indian Administrative Service for 29 years that all the political parties inIndia after independence have uniformly voted for the RULE OF MEN in replace-ment of the RULE OF LAW. The Congress Party has done this on Secularprinciples; the BJP has done it on Hindutva principles; the DMK party onRational(!) Periyar end Anna principles; the AIADMK party on MGR principles(?)and the Communist Party on Leninist and Marxist principles!! All of them haveenslaved all the bureaucrats of India, and through the bureaucrats, the dumbmillions of India In the name of so-called democracy (sham!) and social

(in!)justice.

The rule of law is a recognition of the government's obligation to the citizenry.In arbitrary governments, like the present UPA government all are equallyslaves. A vague and indefinite obedience, to the fluctuating and arbitrary will ofany superior, is the most abject and complete form of slavery.

Most unfortunately, the UPA government's modern interpretation of the term'law' is an invitation to the abuse of power. The English jurist Sir WilliamBlackstone declared in 1765 that 'law is not a transient order from a superior toor concerning a particular person or thing, but something permanent, uniform,and universal'.

The US Supreme Court declared in 1907, 'Law is a statement of thecircumstances in which the public force will be brought to bear upon menthrough the courts.'

But nowadays In India taws are being increasingly introduced to bind ordinarycitizens in arbitrary ways. Laws are often getting carved in the politicalfluctuations of expediency. In the Indian context, a law is simply a reflection ofthe momentary perception of set-interest by a majority of Members In alegislative body. It is binding only until enough Members of that body find it intheir self-interest to repeal or revise it. Thus Law is increasingly something thatGovernment does to helpless private citizens until further notice from time totime.

18


19/20

The flood of laws and revision of laws in India amounts to perpetually changingthe rules of society all the time. Laws are always on the eve of the nextsweeping revision, creating an atmosphere of Iegal instability and uncertainty.Neither the legislators nor the bureaucrats in our country now have any senseof the sanctity of law---of the idea that law should not be changed simply formomentary political convenience. The more often government officials change

the rules by which individuals will be judged, the more those individuals will beleft to the Government's mercy, since most citizens do not know and cannotpossibly understand the law and regulations they mot obey.

In our country during the last 30 years; support for the classical concept of theRule of Law has evaporated. Instead, competing bands of self seekingintellectuals have been championing either the Executive Branch or LegislativeBranch or Judicial Activism or some other fleeting fad from time to time. Ratherthan focus on the actual operations of Government Agencies, political thinkingis often characterised by a `Do it now! philosophy. Discretionary power hasbeen granted to bureaucrats in India by many laws because Ministers andpolitical leaders in India don't have the courage to say openly what they want

the bureaucracy to do, leading to government by stealth.

Arbitrary power is thus the mirror image of the Indian Rule of Law. Arbitrarypower destroys morality, for there can be no morality without security.Arbitrariness is incompatible with the existence of any government consideredas a set of institutions. For political institutions are simply contracts; and it is inthe nature of contracts to establish fixed limits. Hence arbitrariness, beingprecisely opposed to what constitutes a contract, undermining the foundationof all political institutions. The essence of arbitrary power in India isgovernments refusal to issue clear rules limiting its prerogative to punish orreward its servants and citizens. .

If the posts of Union Home Secretary and Union Defense Secretary are to betreated on par with Union Cabinet Secretary in terms of their public importance,then I would appeal for the intervention of the Supreme Court of India todeclare that these posts can also be filled up only by going through aConstitutional Committee headed by the Vigilance Commissioner as has alreadybeen done in the case of appointment of Director of the CBI.

I have one more suggestion to make. There should be an Act of Parliament toprevent politicians from interfering in the transfers and postings of seniorbureaucrats from the level of Joint Secretary and above. This Act must ensurethat every posting must have a minimum tenure of two or three years; it doesnot matter which, though three years is better. With statutory backing; three

year, should be enough to do justice to any job. If the public servant is shiftedbefore his tenure is complete, the reasons should be recorded in writing andthese should be communicated to him. So, if necessary, he can go to theadministrative tribunals and have the decisions overturned: But even if thegovernment feels that the reasons for his transfer cannot be given in the largerpublic interest, these should be so told to the officer being transferred out.

What is justice? Socrates asked that question at the beginning of Plato'sRepublic, and we have all been asking ever since. It was, perhaps, the firstgreat philosophical question, and it is still the most important and unavoidablephilosophical question, embracing as it does not only those essential questionsabout what we deserve in life and same disturbing questions about how weshould punish those who hurt us but also all of those basic questions about thegood life - what it is, how to find it, how to live it.

19


20/20

Moral of the story: You have to be singularly unscrupulous in order to bemagnificently successful (Not only for the post of UnionHome/Defence/Cabinet Secretary)

Jo kuch ho! JAI HIND.

CONCLUSION:

Daily Prayer of Navin Chawla

May we be united in Sonia heartMay we be united in Sonia speechMay we be united in Sonia feelingsMay we be united in Sonia thoughtsMay we perform our Sonia dutiesMay we be united in our Sonia prayerMay the Goddess of Sonia Day Grant us Peace and ProsperityMay the Goddess of Sonia might grant us Ministerial OfficesMay the Goddess of Sonia space grant us all Power.

firangi memsahib----

Documents