24: Exactly the thing that was missing from Indian television.

            Anil Kapoor's "24" comes in just in time to save Indian television from a drought of an action packed thriller and provides a much needed break from the dreadfully boring days of Saas-Bahu conflicts shown on the small screen as it brings a world of classy production values and mature performances unknown to Indian television.

  

                  The eight episodes, which have been aired till now have proved to be instant showstoppers. Like the show's agile energetic anti-terror hero, there is not an ounce of flab in the hour-long playing time of "24". 

               Rensil D'Silva and Bhavani Iyer's writing is topnotch. While retaining the looming suspense and the breakneck narrative speed of the original American series, the writers have created space for the very peculiar cultural compulsions of urban India where the householder must balance the demands of his posh job with family obligations. 

               The lead Anil Kapoor has shown his fantastic ability as an actor by displaying the range of his performing abilities from the RD of "Race 2" on the 70mm screen to the mature panther-like agility of a family man coping with a national crisis ATU chief Jai Singh Rathore in "24" on the portable screen. It's like a dream role for any actor and one into which Anil sinks his teeth with restrained relish. 56 year old Anil Kapoor's action performance looks comparable to any young actor doing similar scenes. 

                  Nowhere does he over-do the bravura, even in that intrinsically cocky sequence where he injects glucose into his insufferable senior pretending it would kill the boor in seconds. It just made the audience lol and understand the strength of ATU chief Jai Singh Rathore.

                 Though the lead star says it is a show beyond TRP or TVT, I am pretty sure that it will create new records. In my personal opinion it has proved itself better than any movie that is out in the theatre and trust me, it is going to take a lot of persuasive powers from filmmakers to drag viewers out of their homes on Friday and Saturday nights until the rest of the 16 episodes are aired.

                

NOTA: Something missing yet something achieved.

                         The Supreme Court in PUCL v UOI held that the EVMs must now include the NOTA (None Of  The Above) button as an extension of secrecy for an eligible voter’s right not to vote. Since the petition was a Writ Petition under Article 32, the Court had to judge its maintainability, as it was contended that Right to Vote is considered a statutory right. The Court held that although Right to vote is a statutory right, the decision taken by the voter is a facet of Freedom of Expression under Art. 19(1)(a). Fundamental Right under 19(1)(a) and statutory right under S. 79 of Representation of People Act is violated if right not to vote is denied. Thus the Court held that the Writ Petition is maintainable. The Court held that “Democracy is about choice. This choice can be better expressed by giving the voters an opportunity to verbalise themselves unreservedly and by imposing least restrictions on their ability to make such a choice." Additionally, accepting the EC’s suggestion, the Court directed the NOTA button to be included in the EVMs.

                Chief Election Commissioner V.S. Sampath had made it clear earlier this month that the NOTA option would be available to the five Assembly election-bound States, the modalities of its inclusion had been specified in a communication issued on Friday. The option will be provided at the bottom of the panel on the EVMs or as the last row in the ballot paper after all the candidates have been listed with their respective symbols in the same language used to list the candidates.

                             At present, under the Representation of the People Act, the returning officer is duty-bound to declare the candidate who secures the maximum number of votes as the winner. NOTA is not a candidate. Now the question arises whether there will be a re-poll if NOTA secures more votes than any candidate. Under the present law there can be no re-poll. This issue would have to go back to Parliament. 

                             As has been clarified by S.Y.Quereshi (former CEC) in the The Indian Express, the judgment does not actually recognize this form of right to reject. In the article, Quereshi argues that since right to reject will mean that a re-election will have to take place in certain cases (if the rejection option receives more than 50% of the votes or if the number of votes is greater than the highest number of votes for any candidate), it is not a desirable option, primarily noting the wastage/lack of resources and the rights of the contestants.

                 With regard to the disqualification of the candidates, Quereshi argues that the candidates’ right to contest will be violated. This essentially means the former CEC is weighing the right to contest vis-a-vis the electorate’s right to vote and freedom of expression! The former must not be given greater weight over the latter. A suitable solution must be worked out. For example, a minimum percentage of votes may enable the candidate to re-contest. The political parties are unlikely to field rejected candidates in any case. 

                     In India countermanding of elections on voters’ expressing their disapproval will require an amendment in law. The Supreme Court cannot in a writ of mandamus direct the government to do this. Such an initiative has to be shown by the executive and reciprocated by the legislature. However, what is encouraging is the fact that this judgment would lead to very strong demands for the ‘right to reject’ option as is available in other countries. It is of great significance to note that right to reject is already there in many countries of the world.

                 Another biggie of the same league former CEC N. Gopalaswami has presented entirely different view and is of the opinion that the right of negative voting should extend to a right to reject all candidates. He says that "The NOTA case is a classic example of the government’s failure to do the right thing at the right time. The Election Commission of India (ECI) moved the Law Ministry in 2001 for an amendment to the rules to provide for a button in electronic voting machines in order to protect the identity and secrecy of a voter who does not want to vote for any candidate." He has also mentioned in his article that, with 12 crore first time voters who will have NOTA before them in the coming election to Parliament, the stage is set for the electorate to challenge political parties’ commitment to decriminalising the legislative bodies. A comprehensive electoral reform is the need of the hour but if the political class keeps dragging its feet, courts may be willing to clean the Augean stables. Luckily enough I would also be one of those 12 crore Indians who would vote for the first time and I seriously hope that I will not be forced to use the NOTA button. But If I am I won’t hesitate to waste my vote for the cause of ‘right to reject’ which is still to be achieved.

                         

Unnao Gold Hunt: A fairy tale that could turn into reality

Once There was a Sadhu











..Named Shobhan Sarkar, who is the head priest of revered Shobhan temple in Uttar Pradesh.




And He Had a Dream











Not a normal dream like you and me, mind you.


In Which a Martyr King Came




:












Raja Rao Ram Bux Singh was a martyr of the 1857 revolt and Unnao's mid-19th century ruler.He had fought the British forces along with Rani Laxmibai of Jhansi during the 1857 First War of Independence and was overthrown in the process. He went into hiding, but was captured by British forces in Varanasi and sent to the gallows.




And Told Him to Dig up His Dilapidated Fort's Hidden Treasure Trove













He spoke to him in the dream and told him to take care of the gold.


Thats Nearly 1,000 Tonnes of Gold!!











..Worth almost $50 billion




But He Was a Patriotic King







Apparently Bux Singh asked Sarkar to get the treasure dug up and hand it over to the government of India to tide over the economic crisis. Go figure Raghuram Rajan!






But the Government Would Not Have Any of the Amar Chitra Katha Stuff








Initially Sarkar's dream was not taken seriously by the local administration and the state government. He had even written to Prime Minister Manmohan Singh.

And Then a Union Minister Saves the Day







Sarkar reportedly convinced Union Minister Charandas Mahant of his dream.Mahant, minister of state for agriculture and food processing industries, had visited Sarkar's ashram here on September 22 and October 7 and assured him of needful action. His devotee, Congress leader Bhakt Charan Das also visited the saint and then urged the ASI to take up the issue.






So Now Archaeological Survey of India is Excavating to find the Gold Treasure

















ASI officials have been camping at the site for the last three days and have completed marking the area of the potential treasure trove late Thursday amid tight security.




Ofcourse All This After the Sadhus Performed a Yagna



Thinkstock









Praying for the success of the 'Gold Quest'






So Keep Your Fingers Crossed


















Because if they find the gold, it will be one hell of a miracle story. A story better than any fairy tale because it would be reality.

Ordinance on Convicted Law Makers finally withdrawn.

 A good decision arrived from the government but certainly not in a pleasant way. The government has ultimately decided to withdraw the controversial ordinance that protects convicted parliamentarians. The reversal of policy was cleared at a short cabinet meeting chaired by the Prime Minister. The government also decided to withdraw the bill it had moved on convicted lawmakers in the parliament.

         The entire sequence of events was triggered by a Supreme Court (SC) decision that declared as null and void Section 8 (4) of the Representation of the People Act that excluded from disqualification sitting lawmakers even after being convicted of crimes that would have made ordinary citizens ineligible to contest elections. The government moved to amend the SC order, claiming a political consensus on the issue, something that the BJP now says is not true.

       The government moved a Bill that would have prevented immediate disqualification provided the convicted lawmaker had moved an appellate court and the court had stayed the conviction and sentence.

       As a middle path, the Bill proposed that they would not have voting rights and a salary while the appeal was pending. Subsequently to deal with the impending conviction of two lawmakers — Congress’s Rashid Masood and RJD leader Lalu Prasad — the Cabinet approved an ordinance for the same.

       The government move was widely criticised and was not taken lightly by the public who was already tired of the falling standards of public life. Reading the public mood, the BJP declared its opposition to the government move, and several Congress leaders too voiced their concerns.

       Later the president sought a clarification on the issue and reportedly questioned the urgency and necessity of the move.

Serious Coordination Problem??

The very next day Congress vice president Rahul Gandhi came out rather aggressively and termed the ordinance as "complete nonsense" that should be "torn and thrown out". The cause was undoubtedly correct as a person who has been convicted by the court and sent to prison is in fact a criminal. A criminal by any mean is not eligible to be a parliamentarian and to make laws for the country. But unfortunately Mr. Gandhi chose the wrong way; he should have settled this matter in person rather than publicly criticizing the ordinance and by it in a way doing so to the prime minister. These kind of acts decrease the dignity of the prime minister especially his international standing. It left me with extreme anguish that Dr. Singh's Pakistani counterpart said some disgraceful words regarding the Indian's position in the government. However the reality is quite much reversed, the Paki has no control over the situations there in true sense. This act of Mr. Gandhi gave another chance to the Time magazine to put on a caustic remark on Indian politics, the magazine quotes "India’s Prime Minister and ‘Crown Prince’ Have an Awkward Spat". These kinds of acts should be avoided that causes a harm to the dignity of the country's top executive.

Anyways the decision finally taken by the government is more than correct in my personal opinion. A person who has been convicted by a court of law should be immediately debarred from the parliament and should not be allowed to contest election unless and until he gets acquitted by a higher court.