Woman's Era - - Editorial -


The Supreme Court of In­dia has taken a firm step against tainted po­lit­i­cal lead­ers. The court has di­rected the cen­tral and state gov­ern­ments to form spe­cial courts to clear the pend­ing cases against them in one year. The court asked how many cases had been cleared out of 1581 tainted mem­bers of the Par­lia­ment and State As­sem­blies who fought elec­tions till 2014? How many fresh cases have been reg­is­tered? The court di­rected the gov­ern­ment to re­ply to this within six weeks.

What the gov­ern­ment is ex­pected to re­ply? In our coun­try, the Par­liamment and State As­sem­blies have the power to con­sti­tute and run a gov­ern­ment. When its one-fourth mem­bers are with crim­i­nal back­ground then what the gov­ern­ment can do? Many more are roam­ing free out of the area of the courts and law of the land. Which gov­ern­ment has dared to tackle them till now? When they were caught, they es­caped by get­ting bail. They, one af­ter an­other, go to higher court and the fi­nal ver­dict is not given even by the time they pass away.

This is why, the pun­ish­ment for politi­cians must be strin­gent and for a long time. Why it should be? Be­cause, the sta­tus of politi­cians is much more higher than that of gen­eral peo­ple. If they are pun­ished harshly, the fear fac­tor will be strong enough to cre­ate an im­pact among pub­lic also.

When con­victed, they should be im­me­di­ately re­moved ac­cord­ingly from the po­si­tion of power (July 2013 judge­ment). If they want to go for an ap­peal or bail, they can go. The Elec­tion Com­mi­sion and Supreme Court both want to de­bar the politi­cians to con­test any elec­tion for life­time, if con­victed of a crime.


The new facts which have sur­faced about the mur­der of a boy in Gur­gaon’s Ryan School are heart- rend­ing. For the mur­der of the stu­dent Pradyuman the school bus conductor Ashok Ku­mar was ar­rested. Haryana Po­lice had made him con­fess to the crime af­ter tor­tur­ing him phys­i­cally.

On the plea of Praduy­man fa­ther when the mat­ter was en­trusted to the CBI it was re­veated that the school’s se­nior stu­dent had mur­dered Pradyuman. The same stu­dent had first in­formed the school au­thor­i­ties about the corpse of Pradyuman ( CCTV fro­taye and re­cov­ery of Knife led to the real crim­i­nal one whole in­ci­dent is so weird that it raises se­ri­ous ques­tion on po­lice ad­min­is­tra­tion, ju­di­ciary, jour­nal­ism, and ed­u­ca­tion sys­tem. The fa­ther of the al­leged mur­der says that if his son had com­mit­ted the crime with knife there should have been blood stains on his shirt. No­body no­ticed blood stains in the school nor at home. Is CBI’S in­ves­ti­ga­tion base­less?

The mo­tive of the crime is said to be strange. It is said that the cul­prit was weak in stud­ies and wanted that day’s ex­am­i­na­tion to be post­poned. Any one else could have been in Pradyuman’s place. The al­leged crim­i­nal ad­mit­ted the fact. Let us see what does the court do. What tor­ture the bus conductor must have gone through in the jail! The ques­tion is what kind of cul­ture is tak­ing roots in these pub­lic schools. Is pass­ing ex­am­i­na­tion is such a big is­sue that some one would be mur­dered for it? Ex­tort­ing heavy fees from par­ents, mount­ing ten­sion in stu­dents and hyp­o­crit­i­cal life­style also cause such types of heinous in­ci­dents.


At many places demon­stra­tions against the movie Pad­ma­vati are be­ing staged and state­ments made. San­jay Leela Bhansali is lucky that his film is be­ing seen on front pages of news­pa­pers and TV chan­nels. He would have not got so much pub­lic­ity even if he had spent ` 100 crore. But the ques­tion is, what is ob­jec­tion­able in this film. Some Ra­jput or­gan­i­sa­tions are rais­ing ob­jec­tions against the film. In other words they are dress­ing a valiant queen in a casteist con­tro­versy. Does it mean that only Ra­jputs have the right to be proud of Pad­ma­vati?

It should be clear to ev­ery­one that in­sult to Pad­ma­vati is in­sult of ev­ery In­dian. If some peo­ple want to stop the in­sult it is right. But how did they know that there are cer­tain ob­jec­tion­able scenes in the film? Those who are rais­ing the ob­jec­tions have they seen the film? Why are they protest­ing without watch­ing seen the film? The film has not been re­leased yet. This ques­tion has been asked by Al­la­habad High Court and the apex court. The film has been not yet put be­fore the Cen­sor Board. Even if the film is passed there is re­course to the Ap­peal Board. The film ‘PK’ was also the tar­get of protest. Those protest­ing against the film had not even seen the film. I had seen the film and said that the film had raised voice against hypocrisy. I dis­cussed the film with the peo­ple rais­ing ob­jec­tions. The con­tro­versy sub­sided.

There are three ob­jec­tions be­ing raised without view­ing the film Pad­ma­vati. The first one is that Pad­ma­vati has per­formed Ghoomar dance which Ra­jput queens don’t do. More­over, this film is made in 21st cen­tury and not the 14th. In an­other pe­ti­tion, there is an al­le­ga­tion that the film sup­port sati tra­di­tion.

Those who have filed the ap­peal should be asked the fol­low­ing ques­tion. Does Ma­hab­harat sup­port gam­bling and the dis­robe­ment of queen Drau­padi?

The third ob­jec­tion is that Alaud­din Khilji is has shown dream­ing about Pad­ma­vati. This is base­less al­le­ga­tion. It might be oth­er­wise. Is it not pos­si­ble that Pad­ma­vati had been in­vach­ing Alaud­din’s dream and the protesters had saw in­verted scene about the dream.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from India

© PressReader. All rights reserved.