In a recent case in Mumbai, the Traffic Police arrested a co-passenger for abetment after they caught a drunk driver who tested positive and also had alcoholic content more than the permitted limits. The duo were served a fine of Rs 2000/- and a night in jail for the offense.
This is the first time that a person was booked and punished for abetting the crime of drunk driving. In this particular case the co-passenger himself was equally sloshed and wouldn't have been in a position to bother much about it. But the precedence has been set and next time someone is found driving drunk, his co-passengers, be it friends, wife or kids also go into the slammer even if they are totally sober or teetotalers.
As per the Indian Motor Vehicles act, Section 188, abetting drunk driving attracts the same punishment as drunk driving, A fine of Rs 2000/- and/or Jail time upto six months.
So what defines abetting drunk driving? Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code defines it as " A person abets the doing of a thing, who-
First: -Instigates any person to do that thing; or
Secondly: -Engages with one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that thing; or
Thirdly: -Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing."
In this particular case the co-passenger was arrested because the duo had drinks together. This is just another instance of the high handed attitude of the Police in our country. How does the co-passenger, who himself is drunk realize whether his driver is fit to drive or not?
Moreover if the person who is sitting with the drunk driver somehow aided the driver in drunk driving, what about the liquor manufacturer, the marketing agency which keeps the advertising of liquor alive by proxy, what about the pub owner, what about the steward or the bartender who served them, what about the government who gave the license or the permit to the pub owner, what about all the other patrons of the pub who were, with their own cheerfulness and enjoyment instigated our man to drink more, what about the music company and the singer of the record that was playing in the pub or the bar and creating an atmosphere congenial for drinking, What about the Glass manufacturer whose glasses the pubs were using, what about the manufacturer of the refrigerator which was used to chill the drinks or make ice, I can go on.
The point is that in some way or the other all these above people, industries or institutions abetted (aided) the drinking part of an otherwise perfectly responsible citizen. The man in fact, if you look closely, is the lowest link in the chain and our brave and socially conscious police books him. But the others get away scot-free and continue abetting the same crime for which once innocent citizens get punished and branded for life.
If someone is seriously interested in the welfare of this country he would go for the bigger fish, but, alas, that someone is himself guilty of abetting the bigger crime of the bigger fish. And there is no other way to present an eyewash/lip service to the society.
Screw the small fish.
Friday, February 13, 2009
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
Puppet President!
Speaking about it, it sounds so grand. President of India, the largest democracy in the world, of a country with a more than billion people. Wow, one must think, she has to be the most important person in the world and the most powerful one at that. The fact is that it is just the opposite.
The fiasco at the Mumbai Airport on the 09 Feb 2009 once again highlighted the irrelevance of the Indian President in the country's affairs. On that day it seems that an Air India pilot narrowly averted a tragedy by steering his plane away from a IAF helicopter which was part of the President's entourage. No, the President was not on the helicopter which was in the line of danger, but the incident became NEWS because it was one of the three accompanying the President.
Now the fact. The President of India was not on a world saving or even nation saving endevour when the incident took place. Nor was she attending any event of national significance. She was here in Mumbai to inaugurate the Global Vipassana Pagoda at Gorai in Mumbai.
Now what does the President have to do with with the Global Vipassana Pagoda? She is not a Buddhist. And neither has she advocated Vipassana publically after occupying the country's highest chair. So does it mean that she is now the brand ambassador of Vipassana. I don't think so. The acceptance of the invitation to inaugurate the Global Pagoda only reflects upon the abundant availablitlity of free time on the hands of the politically irrelevant President of India. Here one must stop and think, should the chair of the President of India be reduced to such menial tasks?
Should the President of India, a strongly secular country, offer to advocate or participate in what is definitely a practice initiated by a particular religion, even though it may have been termed as non-sectarian? For the same reasons, shouldn't the President of India stay away from being a part of a particular type of meditation program. By attending the Pagoda inauguration is she denouncing, the teachings of Baba Ramdev, the yoga guru, Sri Sri Ravi Shankar, the founder of Art of Living and Sadhguru, the founder of Isha foundation. Now the brand ambassador logic suddenly seems full of prospects.
If that was not enough, our President had some more obligations to complete (Part of her contract?) She went on to Gondia, Vidharba in Maharashtra to inaugurate a new computer section of Manoharbhai Patel Institute of Engineering and Technology. Oh my God! Not even a complete institute. Just a new computer section. How much more would they pull down the dignity of the chair of the President of India. Why would the President do it? Because Manoharbhai Patel, in honor of whom the institute has been named was the father of the current Civil Aviation Minister Mr Praful Patel. It also happened to be the Birth anniversary of Manoharbhai Patel. It all makes sense now. After all even the President of India is in a way elected by our politicians. How could she refuse the invitation of the very people who elected her?
In the end it is not about a minister, a religion , a mediatation technique, an institute or a person. It is about the honor, dignity of the President of India and the President of India should not be wasting his/her time returning favours, rather he/she should be performing tasks worthy of the stature imposed upon the designation. Else the truth will be out. That , the President is a mere puppet in the hands of politicians.
The fiasco at the Mumbai Airport on the 09 Feb 2009 once again highlighted the irrelevance of the Indian President in the country's affairs. On that day it seems that an Air India pilot narrowly averted a tragedy by steering his plane away from a IAF helicopter which was part of the President's entourage. No, the President was not on the helicopter which was in the line of danger, but the incident became NEWS because it was one of the three accompanying the President.
Now the fact. The President of India was not on a world saving or even nation saving endevour when the incident took place. Nor was she attending any event of national significance. She was here in Mumbai to inaugurate the Global Vipassana Pagoda at Gorai in Mumbai.
Now what does the President have to do with with the Global Vipassana Pagoda? She is not a Buddhist. And neither has she advocated Vipassana publically after occupying the country's highest chair. So does it mean that she is now the brand ambassador of Vipassana. I don't think so. The acceptance of the invitation to inaugurate the Global Pagoda only reflects upon the abundant availablitlity of free time on the hands of the politically irrelevant President of India. Here one must stop and think, should the chair of the President of India be reduced to such menial tasks?
Should the President of India, a strongly secular country, offer to advocate or participate in what is definitely a practice initiated by a particular religion, even though it may have been termed as non-sectarian? For the same reasons, shouldn't the President of India stay away from being a part of a particular type of meditation program. By attending the Pagoda inauguration is she denouncing, the teachings of Baba Ramdev, the yoga guru, Sri Sri Ravi Shankar, the founder of Art of Living and Sadhguru, the founder of Isha foundation. Now the brand ambassador logic suddenly seems full of prospects.
If that was not enough, our President had some more obligations to complete (Part of her contract?) She went on to Gondia, Vidharba in Maharashtra to inaugurate a new computer section of Manoharbhai Patel Institute of Engineering and Technology. Oh my God! Not even a complete institute. Just a new computer section. How much more would they pull down the dignity of the chair of the President of India. Why would the President do it? Because Manoharbhai Patel, in honor of whom the institute has been named was the father of the current Civil Aviation Minister Mr Praful Patel. It also happened to be the Birth anniversary of Manoharbhai Patel. It all makes sense now. After all even the President of India is in a way elected by our politicians. How could she refuse the invitation of the very people who elected her?
In the end it is not about a minister, a religion , a mediatation technique, an institute or a person. It is about the honor, dignity of the President of India and the President of India should not be wasting his/her time returning favours, rather he/she should be performing tasks worthy of the stature imposed upon the designation. Else the truth will be out. That , the President is a mere puppet in the hands of politicians.
Wednesday, February 4, 2009
Are Bandhs Really Democratic?
The Supreme court has turned over it's own decision regarding Bandhs on it's head. The surprising thing in this case is that it is not only an establishment overturning it's opinion, it is a case where the same individual Chief Justice of India K G Balakrishnan, has reverted his own opinion. Yes, KG Balakrishnan was part of the Kerala High Court bench which had termed Bandhs as illegal, back in 1997. At that time the judgement was upheld by the Supreme court. Eleven years later the same man as the Chief Justice of India has overturned the very decision that he had taken and the Supreme Court had upheld. To me it says only one of two things, First Justice KG Balakrishnan is fickle minded and should not be relied upon to be rational anymore. Second, the Chief Justice has succumbed to political pressure and can no longer stand up to his convictions. Either way it is bad for the Indian judiciary.
"What (will) this court do. It is their right to express their feelings," are the words that the Supreme Court bench used. There are many ways of expressing feelings, or does the SC bench not know that. Or are they just translating their behaviour at home to express their feelings. Angry with wife, stop doing anything till such time she comes to her senses. Whatever happened to tools like communication, discussions, brain storming, media interviews. The statement only shows the helplessness of the courts, and the Supreme court, mind you. What is worse is that all the present bench has to do is only cite the precedence and the earlier judgement of the supreme court which termed Bandhs as illegal and unconstitutional, like it did in Oct 2007 for the DMK Bandh in Tamil Nadu. What has changed in the last few months since then. So, obviously some vested interests or external political pressures are at work here.
The decision taken back in 1997-98 was based on the upholding the interests of the public and correctly so, that Bandhs were getting too frequent and were disrupting everyday life. People were suffering, businesses loosing money, public amenities like hospitals, transportation etc shutting down and at worse people were being coerced into being part of the Bandh against their will. The state and the country loosing money is in any case the last thing on anyone's mind.
The Bandhs are generally called by the political parties which, as any electoral polls will show do not represent even 50 % of the population of the state or country. How can they be then a form of protest to just "express their feelings"? A Bandh does not express the solidarity of the entire state behind the cause since more often than not the public is terrorised to stay inside their homes and shops threatened with dire consequences if they open. It is just a case of political vandalism. Destroying property, causing loss to the economy and terrorising people just to project some vested interest to the masses and also to gain cheap popularity or shall I say, show of power.
In 1997 the HC had said, "No political party or organisation can claim that it is entitled to paralyse industry and commerce in the entire state or nation and is entitled to prevent the citizens not in sympathy with its viewpoint from exercising their fundamental right or from performing their duties for their own benefits or for the benefit of the state or the nation." The Supreme Court had upheld the decision at that time. Is the Supreme Court now saying that it is alright to paralyse industry and commerce? Is the Supreme Court now saying that it is okay for some individuals or political parties to hold the citizens, state or country to ransom? Is it okay to snatch the fundamental right of citizens to move around freely, even so, for a few hours, using sheer terror tactics?
India has finally started showing some growth and development, a consitent and strong economy and has just started to be counted as a nation of power amidst the International community. Why would the Supreme Court want to send us back to the days of misery, unemployment, poverty and hooliganism? We are still grappling with external terrorism, why does the Supreme Court want to encourage Internal terrorism? A society can be free and offer the freedom to citizens only when it has the wherewithal and the inclination to control abuse or misuse of that very freedom. We don't As is the misfortune of our society, some unscruplous elements will again misuse the freedom to express their feeling and take us back into the dark days of fear and terror.
I hope better sense prevails on Feb 16 and the Supreme Court and the honorable bench do not turn their current thoughts into a decision which will undo whatever little was achieved in the last eleven years.
"What (will) this court do. It is their right to express their feelings," are the words that the Supreme Court bench used. There are many ways of expressing feelings, or does the SC bench not know that. Or are they just translating their behaviour at home to express their feelings. Angry with wife, stop doing anything till such time she comes to her senses. Whatever happened to tools like communication, discussions, brain storming, media interviews. The statement only shows the helplessness of the courts, and the Supreme court, mind you. What is worse is that all the present bench has to do is only cite the precedence and the earlier judgement of the supreme court which termed Bandhs as illegal and unconstitutional, like it did in Oct 2007 for the DMK Bandh in Tamil Nadu. What has changed in the last few months since then. So, obviously some vested interests or external political pressures are at work here.
The decision taken back in 1997-98 was based on the upholding the interests of the public and correctly so, that Bandhs were getting too frequent and were disrupting everyday life. People were suffering, businesses loosing money, public amenities like hospitals, transportation etc shutting down and at worse people were being coerced into being part of the Bandh against their will. The state and the country loosing money is in any case the last thing on anyone's mind.
The Bandhs are generally called by the political parties which, as any electoral polls will show do not represent even 50 % of the population of the state or country. How can they be then a form of protest to just "express their feelings"? A Bandh does not express the solidarity of the entire state behind the cause since more often than not the public is terrorised to stay inside their homes and shops threatened with dire consequences if they open. It is just a case of political vandalism. Destroying property, causing loss to the economy and terrorising people just to project some vested interest to the masses and also to gain cheap popularity or shall I say, show of power.
In 1997 the HC had said, "No political party or organisation can claim that it is entitled to paralyse industry and commerce in the entire state or nation and is entitled to prevent the citizens not in sympathy with its viewpoint from exercising their fundamental right or from performing their duties for their own benefits or for the benefit of the state or the nation." The Supreme Court had upheld the decision at that time. Is the Supreme Court now saying that it is alright to paralyse industry and commerce? Is the Supreme Court now saying that it is okay for some individuals or political parties to hold the citizens, state or country to ransom? Is it okay to snatch the fundamental right of citizens to move around freely, even so, for a few hours, using sheer terror tactics?
India has finally started showing some growth and development, a consitent and strong economy and has just started to be counted as a nation of power amidst the International community. Why would the Supreme Court want to send us back to the days of misery, unemployment, poverty and hooliganism? We are still grappling with external terrorism, why does the Supreme Court want to encourage Internal terrorism? A society can be free and offer the freedom to citizens only when it has the wherewithal and the inclination to control abuse or misuse of that very freedom. We don't As is the misfortune of our society, some unscruplous elements will again misuse the freedom to express their feeling and take us back into the dark days of fear and terror.
I hope better sense prevails on Feb 16 and the Supreme Court and the honorable bench do not turn their current thoughts into a decision which will undo whatever little was achieved in the last eleven years.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)