In an interview with ET Now, Zee MD Punit Goenka allayed investor fears surrounding debt mounting on the Zee Entertainment, saying that his company aims to pay back the outstanding amount in the next three months through asset divestment, ahead of the six-month extension given to them by lenders.
#ETNOWExclusive | Zee MD @punitgoenka tries to allay fears over the debt overhang on Zee Entertainment. In an interview with ET NOW, he informs investors that the company aims to repay their outstanding debt within 3 months. Listen in! @nikunjdalmiapic.twitter.com/jeffFrtz1f
The Zee Entertainment is in the throes of debt repayment with its promoters’ debt still at Rs 6,300 crore against Rs 13,400 crore at the start of 2019.
The Essel Group which is the promoter of Zee Entertainment Enterprises Ltd (ZEEL) has informed its investors that none of ZEEL’s shares were pledged to Russia’s VTB Capital Plc, in the structured loan arrangement inked between the firms in September 2017. The development comes after both, VTB Capital Plc and Essel Group, disclosed to stock exchanges on Friday that ZEEL’s promoters have created an encumbrance on 10.2 crore shares, translating to a 10.7% stake held by promoter entity Essel Media Ventures Ltd, in favour of VTB Capital.
Clarifying his organisation’s stance, MD Punit Goenka said, “VTB transaction was always considered as a part of total loan that was payable by the promoters even back in January when the total outstanding loan was Rs 13,000 crores. Today that number stands at around Rs 7,000 crores. VTB was part of that 13,000 and is a part of 7,000 as well. The VTB loan stands at Rs 2,000 crores and Rs 5,000 crores is in the domestic markets. We are working with VTB and paying them some part of the loan in the next tranche of the sale after which they will actively consider restructuring the loan.”
Goenka further added that to address the domestic loan of Rs 5,000 crores, the organisation is intending to sell two of its assets-205 MW Solar power to realise Rs 1,300 crores of EV value and are in talks to sell another 80 MW plant and some other road assets are also there. In between these two, the company aims to pay off a significant amount of the domestic loan and for the residual amount, Zee MD plans to divest at max another 10 per cent of Zee to take care of the entire debt.
You have to give it to the media management genius of this government. They know exactly when to do a soft launch.
Tejas Express launched.
And just like that, with a bare minimum of fanfare, India’s first private train is on its way.
Of course it is not exactly a private. Rather the train is run by IRCTC, a corporation that is owned by the state. Or is it?
IRCTC IPO oversubscribed by 112 times.
As the Lucknow – Delhi Tejas Express rolled off, the Initial Public Offering (IPO) for IRCTC was launched into the market. Now you can buy a piece of the Railway in India.
Yeah, that does make Tejas India’s first privately run train. The sheer scale of this reform is too big for words. We have always been familiar with the old steam engine logo of the Indian Railways. And its attitude, which was exactly like that steam engine: hopelessly out of date.
At some point, we needed to realize that if we want clean stations, clean compartments and trains that run smoothly and on time, we cannot have a socialist big government monopoly. We will need the private sector. For some basic accountability. If Tejas Express is delayed by an hour, each passenger gets Rs. 100.
It is not about one hundred rupees, nor one train going from Lucknow to Delhi. You have to understand what this represents. Imagine the heads of the government babus that would have exploded at the idea that railway passengers are actually paying customers and deserve the dignity of being treated as such.
One must also understand the necessity for a soft launch, perhaps even a launch by stealth. Our national character is still in the deep red, poisoned by decades of socialist rhetoric and indoctrination everywhere, from media to our education system. We just don’t have the consensus yet for such a big lunge towards free market capitalism. Cutting through the red tape of hidebound socialist babus and the blob of vicious unions to achieve India’s first private train would have been a Herculean task. The last thing the government needed was for the shrill media to come in and create more trouble.
Funnily enough, there are already other Tejas trains in operation, all fully owned and operated by Indian Railways and not IRCTC. It is likely that the confusion about names has been created for a reason, further adding to the “softness” of the launch.
Think about the political bottleneck that the Railway had become. For populist reasons, decades pass without regular passenger fares being raised, even to meet the bare minimum requirement of inflation. Of course, like all kinds of socialism, you have to pay somewhere. The government has to keep raising the fares for cargo. The average person pays for “cheap” rail travel by paying more for goods that have to be brought by train. And of course, by undertaking a potentially unsafe and unpleasant journey on a perennially underfunded railway.
At the same time, AC and first class fares were raised to absurd levels, to the point where it became cheaper to just fly.
One of the things that Modi government did early on was get rid of the Railway Budget and merge it with the Union Budget. A simple, no cost change that made a big difference. By reducing the glamour quotient of the Railway Budget, we could do away with the annual ritual of a socialist boondoggle where fares never rise and the Railway Minister showers new train connections on whichever happens to be their home state.
And now, a private train. One can only hope that the IRCTC Tejas network will expand, the government will cut its stake further and further in IRCTC. And finally we will have multiple private corporations running trains. Either their own trains or by leasing existing trains from the Indian Railways.
This is real reform. And it will pay off just like the lifting of government monopoly on air travel did. The new Tejas train has no concessional fares for anybody and dynamic pricing for all. So, will it leave out those at the bottom of the ladder?
No! How could it? What did we get when we opened up the airline market? We had more people taking flights than ever before (And believe you me, the elites are still not over it).
This kind of reform will only lead to a better railway for all.
This kind of reform also signifies Modi sarkar finally becoming comfortable embracing its fundamental free market instincts. In the first term, it had to be all about welfare. Or the Indian people, addicted to socialism, would simply relapse to the Congress era by 2019. You had to take the enabler out of the equation first. This is why the second term for Modi was so important. Finally free to remake India. Low taxes. Labor reforms. Disinvestment. Privatization. This is what it has to be all about. From now on. We’ve already lost too many decades to wait any longer.
The Kerala police have finally cracked the case of the death of six persons belonging to the same Catholic family, who died under mysterious circumstances, in Kozhikode district between 2002 and 2016.
The prime suspect, Joly Joseph (47), in the Kerala serial killings case, who was arrested on Saturday, has confessed to her crime, police said on Sunday. Joly who was the family’s daughter-in-law was arrested eight years after her husband’s death following consumption of cyanide-laced food. Along with her, the Kerala Police also detained her second husband Shaju and another relative who supplied cyanide to execute the murders.
KG Simon, Superintendent of Police Kozhikode Rural who is heading the investigation team in the case, said Joly Joseph confessed her role in the killing of six members of her family over a period of 14 years.
Speaking to India Today, Simon said: “We have arrested her and two associates in the murder of her husband Roy Thomas in 2011. The autopsy report of the deceased revealed the presence of Pottasium cyanide. The second accused, MS Mathew also confessed that he provided cyanide sourced from third accused and a local goldsmith, Prajith Kumar,” he said, adding that “Based on confessions and scientific evidence, the accused were arrested.”
Meanwhile, police are also probing the roles of seven persons including local political leaders who were close associates of the prime suspect, Joly Joseph. Police suspect that Joly sought the help of her friends to cover up the murders and also consulted a criminal lawyer before her arrests. Joly also made an unsuccessful attempt to transfer the investigation officer by seeking the help of political leaders.
“The accused did meticulous planning and charted the safe mode to conceal the murders. It was a challenging case, a police official told India Today.
The chain of deaths:
The first target in the serial killing was a retired teacher Annamma Thomas (57), mother-in-law of Joly Joseph, whose death in the year 2002 did not raise any suspicion as the family treated it as a natural death. After six years, her husband Tom Thomas (66) died of heart failure.
In 2011, their elder son and husband of the prime accused in the case, Roy Thomas (40), died under similar circumstances. The family still could not smell anything fishy though the autopsy report revealed poisoning before death.
In 2014, Annamma’s brother, Mathew Manjadiyil (67), died similarly. Two years later in 2016, their relative’s daughter, Alphonsa (2), died of a heart attack and within months her mother, Sili (27), also died.
Soon after that Roy’s widow, Jolly, married Sili’s widower Shaju and claimed ownership of the family property with the support of the last will prepared by her father-in-law Tom Thomas who had died in 2008.
Meanwhile, Roy’s younger brother Mojo, an NRI based in the US, perceiving the ploy by now, challenged the transfer of ownership of family property and lodged complaints with the Crime Branch regarding the serial deaths in his family.
Based on his complaints, Kerala police opened family tombs on October 4 to examine the reasons behind the deaths of six persons from a family who died under mysterious circumstances.
The police interrogated Jolly and Shaju eight times and found discrepancies in their statements. They found that Jolly was present in the locations when all six persons died. When the police asked Jolly to undergo polygraph tests, she refused on health grounds.
Police said Jolly, who was a commerce graduate, had claimed she was an engineering graduate and was working as a lecturer at the National Institute of Technology (NIT).
While verifying call details, police found that Jolly and Shaju were in constant touch during odd hours. When the dead bodies were exhumed, forensic experts found the presence of cyanide.
In all the cases the Modus Operandi has been the same. In each case, traces of cyanide had been found and it had been a case of slow poisoning, police said. “We found that Roy’s death had occurred due to cyanide, while the wife had claimed he had died of cardiac arrest,” police officers added.
Police revealed that Annamma Thomas, who was at the helm of family affairs, was killed to claim her money, while it is suspected that Tom Thomas, a retired government employee, was killed to get more share of the property. Roy was killed as the accused was not getting along well with her husband.
Annamma’s brother Mathew was killed as he had insisted on postmortem of Roy, police said adding Sili and her one-year-old daughter were also killed in similar circumstances.
If you have spent considerable time on social media, you’d have come across ‘social media influencers’. The ‘influenza’ bug has bit people across platforms and there are ‘political influencers’, ‘make up influencers’, ‘food bloggers’ and people selling just about anything they could, most of the times, for money.
“Influencers” like to feel important by calling themselves one, the way ‘intellectuals’ refer to themselves as one. They introduce themselves as one because otherwise no one would know who they are.
Now, the Hospitality Industry of India has started scanning the food-blogging community to weed out non-genuine reviewers, bloggers and influencers who mislead the public by giving opinions about restaurants. As reported by Mumbai Mirror, the hospitality industry is keeping a close watch over the blogger community to take legal action against those who defame the restaurants. Those food bloggers without certification or recognition from the national hospitality body can now be booked for defamation.
Hospitality Industry of India Chairperson Sanee Awsarmmel says that only 25% of these food bloggers and ‘influencers’ are genuine. “How can an engineer and IT professional judge about food? It is like an an engineer treating a patient and not a doctor,” he reportedly told Mumbai Mirror.
Echoing his sentiments, Shambhu Sharan, Executive Chef of Emcure Group said that most of these influencers are good at taking pictures and writing creatively about food. He said they do not know about the chemistry that goes behind the making of the food. He added that food bloggers write about this with little knowledge about food.
Sharan further alleges that new bloggers write good reviews about restaurants, then take it to other restaurants in a bid to get them to pay them to write for them or for perks. If things go sour between them, the blogger then goes to write bad reviews.
While the engineers can very well review food because you don’t need to be a rocket scientist to judge whether the food is good or not, the fears of the hospitality industry are not completely unfounded.
There is a food-blogger who wrote a really trashy book on the street-foods of India which made me feel bad for the trees that were cut to print it, regularly likes to visit restaurants for free food. He regularly posts pictures of restaurant food which he just got delivered, without putting disclaimers that he didn’t pay for it. Another influencer likes to talk about restaurants in his food column in newspaper he works for so that the restaurants buy ad space!
A newly opened restaurant in Ahmedabad invited bloggers for free pizza, hoping they’d use their influencer power to spread word of mouth. However, the day the meet was organised, genuine paying customers came up, that too in large number that they could not accommodate so many people. They requested bloggers that the meet is postponed and well, bloggers were so offended they trashed the restaurant on social media for being ‘unprofessional’.
Many of these food bloggers are an entitled bunch and would not think twice before either creating a scene in a restaurant or immediately logging on to websites and giving a negative review. Some of these have their own following on social media platforms where they would trash an establishment, most of the times, ‘just because they can’.
Here’s a little story. A bunch of food bloggers were invited at opening of a restaurant. The restaurant had said you’d pay for your own food and give genuine reviews on various platforms as well as to the team. Of course, one of them took an offence at the preposterous idea of having to pay for own food as an ‘influencer’. He created a scene and even called out the restaurant for not ‘paying them’ (over and above free food) to write good review. On the same day, he posted on a Facebook group of foodies how he hates bloggers who charge money for reviews.
Irony just gave itself 5 stars on Zomato.
Social media has given power to people on their fingertips and with this power has come great irresponsibility. Naming and shaming on social media, not just for restaurants but for any brands, has now become a norm and not exception. Instead of raising grievances with the management or customer support, the first instinct is to trash the establishment on social media.
Unfortunately, this is not limited to just food bloggers. A lot of people use it to virtue-signal as well. Recently, a lawyer from Delhi decided to take to Twitter to ‘name and shame’ a restaurant in up-scale Khan Market area of New Delhi because the restaurant did not allow him to take along a ‘poor boy’ who was in the street, to eat with him. To begin with, private restaurants reserve the right to admission and it is up to them whom they choose to allow to dine in. Secondly, instead of raising the issue there, or perhaps taking the child elsewhere where another restaurant would accommodate them, the virtue-signaller chose to just trash this restaurant.
His tweet went viral and got over 2000 retweets and 4000 likes. A lot of similar virtue-signallers decided to boycott this restaurant. Mind well, he is a lawyer and has influential lawyer friends who could have taken the restaurant to court. But what did he choose to do? Trash the restaurant on social media.
While the fear of restaurants is not completely out of place, one really wonders whether taking a legal course of action will help? Unless the ‘influencer’ industry as a whole stops taking free goodies and brands stop giving free stuff to them, a genuine customer should continue to trust no one else but themselves.
The Friday Times weekly magazine published in Pakistan has claimed that Saudi Arabia’s Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman was so “alienated” with “some dimensions” of Pakistan Prime Minister Imran Khan’s actions on the sidelines of the UNGA session in New York last month, that he ordered his “private jet to disembowel (sic) the Pakistani delegation” from midway.
Before attending the 74th session of the UN General Assembly (UNGA) in New York, Imran Khan had first visited Saudi Arabia. While departing for New York after his meeting with Saudi Prince in Jeddah, Salman reportedly stopped Imran Khan and his delegates from embarking a commercial flight to the US and asked him to fly on board his private jet as he could not let his guest travel in a commercial plane, Pakistani media reports had said.
However, Khan on his way back to Islamabad from New York on September 28 had returned in a commercial flight. It was reported then that the Saudi plane developed a technical glitch following which the Prime Minister and his delegation returned to New York from the airport and then took a commercial flight back to Pakistan.
This claim was refuted by the Pakistani magazine. In its article published on October 4, it said: “The Saudi Crown Prince, Mohammad bin Salman, was so ‘alienated’ by some dimensions of the Pakistani Prime Minister’s diplomacy in New York – he couldn’t have been happy at the prospect of Imran Khan, (Turkish President) Recep Tayyip Erdogan and (Malaysian Prime Minister) Mahathir Mohammad planning to jointly represent the Islamic bloc, nor with Pakistan’s interlocution with Iran without his explicit approval…he visibly snubbed Imran by ordering his private jet to disembowel (sic) the Pakistani delegation…”
The report was strongly critical of the Pakistani PM for making the territorial conflict between two countries as the “clash of fierce ideologies representing the ‘Islamic’ Pakistan and ‘Hindu’ India”.
The 74th UNGA session was nothing but a brew of bloopers and blunders for the Pakistani Prime Minister. On the sidelines of the UNGA, the Pakistani Prime Minister had met the Turkish President, Erdogan and Mahathir Mohammad, his Malaysian counterpart, and decided to launch a BBC type English language TV Channel, which apart from highlighting Muslim issues, would also fight Islamophobia.
Moreover, during the UNGA Imran Khan had announced that he was working to mediate with Iran to defuse the tensions in the Gulf at the request of both US President Donald Trump and the Saudi Crown Prince.
Reacting to the Friday Times article, a Pakistani government spokesperson rubbished the claims on Sunday: “This is a cooked up story. The leaders of Pakistan and Saudi Arabia have good relations. The conclusion of Khan’s meeting with the Turkish and Malay leaders is pure fiction. The report is aimed at political vendetta. We dismiss this report,” the spokesman added.
The Asia Pacific Group (APG) of the Financial Action Task Force (FATF), which has been keeping a close watch on the terror state of Pakistan, published its annual report (Mutual Evaluation report of Pakistan) on Saturday, a week ahead of the annual plenary of the FATF. The meeting is scheduled to be held in Paris between 13-18 October where a decision could be taken on Pakistan’s ‘grey-list’ status and whether there is a plausible reason to move towards “blacklisting” the country.
The report says, “With the exception of some recent actions discussed in detail below, Pakistan has not taken sufficient measures to fully implement UNSCR 1267 obligations against all listed individuals and entities – especially those associated with Lashkar-e-Tayyiba (LeT)/Jamaat-ud-Dawa (JuD), and Falah-i-Insaniat Foundation (FIF) as well as the groups’ leader Hafiz Saeed.”
Asia Pacific Group (APG) of the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) : Pakistan should adequately identify, assess and understand its ML (Money Laundering)/TF (Terror Financing) risks including transnational risks and risks associated with terrorist groups operating in Pakistan. https://t.co/4hxpoDimOn
Exposing the Pakistan government’s collusion, the report adds, “Despite being listed by the UNSCR 1267 Committee in 2008 (JuD) and 2012 (FIF), before February 2018, JuD/FIF openly operated in Pakistan, including holding public rallies and fundraising events. Numerous Pakistani media reports showed FIF raising funds ostensibly for humanitarian relief, as well as operating a large ambulance fleet, which calls into question whether the prohibition on providing funds and financial services was being fully implemented.”
This observation might come as a major blow to the terror state which faces the threat of being placed on the FATF’ ‘black-list’.
Pakistan has reportedly scored badly in the FATF-APG report which highlighted 10 parameters for ‘Effectiveness and Technical Compliance Ratings’ and 40 parameters for ‘Technical Compliance Ratings’.
Of the ten effectiveness ratings, Pakistan was found “low” in nine areas and “moderate” in one. Of the ‘Technical Compliance’ parameters, the country was found “compliant” in only one, “partially compliant” in 26, “largely compliant” in nine, and “non-compliant” in four.
Hence the report concluded that Islamabad has not taken sufficient measures to fully implement UNSCR 1267 obligations against 26/11 mastermind Hafiz Saeed and other terrorists associated with LeT, JuD among other terror groups.
In the 228-page report which would be the bases for the scrutiny that Pakistan would be put to by the FATF, next week, APG has asked Pakistan to identify, assess and understand its ML (Money Laundering)/TF (Terror Financing) risks including transnational risks and risks associated with terrorist groups operating in the country.
It is pertinent to note here, that the global watchdog had placed Pakistan in its ‘grey-list’ in June last year. In March 2019, the Paris based organisation had also warned Pakistan regarding the increase in suspicious transactions in 2018 and 2019.
As per the data released by FATF various suspicious transactions have been reported in 2018 which were about 57% higher than that of 2017. About 1,136 STRs were issued in January and February this year alone. This comes on the heels of the warning it had issued on February 22, 2019. It had then condemned the attack on CRPF convoy in unequivocal terms, calling upon Pakistan to curb terror financing to impose restrictions on the actions of terror outfits.
FATF has been constantly exerting pressure on Pakistan to fulfil the commitments it made to curb terror financing and money laundering risks to the global financial system, whereas India also wants Pakistan which is currently listed on Grey-list, to be moved to blacklist for non-cooperation in the fight against terrorism and turning a blind-eye towards money laundering and terror funding.
This report which the FATF has now come out with might strengthen India’s case in the upcoming annual plenary session due next week.
In the last week of September, the Tripura High Court in an atrocious judgment banned Pashubali (animal sacrifice) at the Maa Tripureswari Mandir in Udaipur and other Hindu temples in Tripura. Tripureswari temple, also known as Tripura Sundari Temple, is one of the 51 Shaktipeeths, and Pashubali is an integral custom of the temple. Kamaleswari Kali temple, located beside the India-Bangladesh border in Kasba village in west Tripura, is another important temple in the state where Pasbhubali is performed.
Tripura government has decided to file a Special Leave Petition (SLP) in Supreme Court against the High Court order. Royal scion and former Pradesh Congress president Pradyot Kishore Deb Burman has also announced that he will move Supreme Court against the Tripura High Court judgement banning animal sacrifice in the temples in the state.
It is a good time, perhaps, to look into the judgment in greater detail. The ridiculousness of the verdict is only matched by its utter preposterousness. The judges displayed a remarkable lack of awareness about the cultural sensitivities of Hindus and it was pretty clear that they were under the assumption that they have been awarded the mantle of reforming the Hindu faith.
In its judgment, the court asks the questions, “Which religion or community mandates infliction of unnecessary pain or suffering on an animal? Which religion prescribes that physical or mental pain or suffering should not be eliminated in the pre-slaughter stage? Which religion would want its followers not to treat animal with compassion, care or a humane approach?”
There is a necessity to address these questions one by one. With regard to the first question, the term ‘unnecessary’ is entirely subjective. Moreover, the courts have demonstrated time and again that it’s only one particular religion that they dare reform and that religion happens to be Hinduism. Rationality has no bearings in the domain of faith and religion. The question itself is moot.
And anyway, the Court has no right to decide what’s necessary and what’s not when it comes to matters of religious faith. As for cruelty, the extent to which Pashubali inflicts cruelty on animals is not even remotely comparable to the monstrous cruelty that is inflicted on them during industrial farming for meat. If anyone is serious about stopping animal cruelty, they should first stop the industrial farming of animals.
Banning Pashubali to stop animal cruelty while animals are still slaughtered for food and reared on an industrial scale is like a deluded moron feeling good about himself for contributing towards environmental protection by putting out a candle in his home while there’s a raging wildfire out there.
The desire to ban Pashubali has absolutely nothing to do with stopping cruelty towards animals at all. If it were, people would first ban animal slaughter for food before going anywhere near Pashubali. Here we have certain individuals who just want to feel good about themselves by targeting the meek.
As for the second and third questions, there is Halal slaughter, a certified Islamic manner of killing that involves torturing an animal to death. And yet, the Court dare not speak a word on that. The reasons for it are, of course, obvious.
Kamaleswari Kali Mandir in Tripura
The Tripura High Court then proceeds to ask, “Which religion would allow itself to be shackled to dogma, superstition and unfounded beliefs so as not to reform and be in tune with the changing times in pursuit of Constitutional goals and morality.” This question comes across as a joke. ‘Constitutional goals and morality’ is a cringe-worthy term invented by the Judiciary to grab the powers of the executive & legislature and indulge in judicial overreach under the garb of constitutional mandate.
Constitutional morality is a farce invented by judges to excede their mandate. The constitution is nothing more than a legal contract between the state and its citizens. If the concept of ‘constitutional morality’ weren’t farcical enough, the Tripura High Court has gone a step further to include ‘constitutional goals’ to it to make it even more ridiculous.
Union Law Minister Ravishankar Prasad had once remarked, “We hear about Constitutional morality, we appreciate innovations but nuances of Constitutional morality should be outlined with clarity and should not differ from judge to judge and there must be a consensus.” The statement highlights the subjectivity of the term and how it was entirely invented by the most opaque arm of the state, that is, the Judiciary.
As for the first part of the Court’s question, I would like to quote BJP MP Meenakshi Lekhi’s words which were spoken in the context of the Sabarimala verdict but stands just as true here, “It’s not the Court’s business!” Paraphrasing her words, “Will the Court decide how the birth of Jesus took place? Will the Court decide which body should be buried and which should be burnt?”
The judgment has even more ridiculous gems to offer, “Any customs, usages and traditions contrary to the constitutional spirit, cannot be a source of law.” It says further, “In our considered view, sacrifice of an animal, based on superstition or not being an essential part of practice of religion in a temple is absolutely an antithesis to compassion.” To all of this, I again quote Meenakshi Lekhi’s words, “It’s not the Court’s business!”
If we go by the logic of what is essential and what is not in a religion, almost all religious rituals and traditions will be deemed to be not essential. Religious rituals are matters of belief and tradition, they can’t be judged on the basis of necessity, as each and every ritual can be termed as superstition.
That the Judiciary has taken upon itself the mantle of reforming Hinduism is quite evident from the manner in which they express their desire for ‘social transformation’. The judgment says, “Every individual is duty bound to adopt a rational and logical thinking and not to be carried away by superfluous religious dogmas.” It adds, “Progressive society cannot be achieved when one is confined to religious dogmas. Also one has to adopt measures to inculcate scientific temper in a society ridden with superstitions.”
If all of this was not bad enough, it descends into the realm of the utterly bizarre pretty soon. The judges decided to pontificate on the possible negative impact on children who witness Pashubali. They did so without citing any authentic peer-reviewed research that showed the possible negative impact of witnessing such events on children and the impact it might have had in the future. The judges just assumed that it has negative impact on children, without citing any evidence. For all their supposed allegiance to ‘scientific temper’, this is remarkable demagoguery.
The judgment of the Tripura High Court said, “A child witnessing continuous violence towards animals may fail to inculcate moral values of showing an act of love, kindness and compassion towards animals.” It adds, “Sacrifice of animals in temples is not pleasing to the eyes and this inhuman religious practice in the name of religion has a definite impact on the psyche of a child.” I repeat, there’s not a shred of evidence for any of this. It’s entirely the musings and personal opinions of the judges themselves. Also, what is pleasing to eyes and what is not is an extremely subjective and personal matter, it is a wonder how judgements can be delivered on this basis.
The tradition of Pashubali has been going on for centuries, practised by generation after generation. It is particularly amusing because the practice is hugely widespread among the Bengali community, which is often lauded for being greatly progressive. Quite clearly, Pashubali hasn’t stopped Bengali children from growing up to be Progressives, which is, of course, changing quite fast these days.
The judgment is also remarkably condescending about parents who participate in such rituals, giving the impression as if the judges care more about the children than their parents themselves and that the parents are not raising the children properly. It’s absolutely outrageous.
The judgment then draws an equivalence between human sacrifice and animal sacrifice. It says that since human sacrifices were stopped centuries ago, there’s no reason why animal sacrifice can’t be either. First and foremost, there is no equivalence between the two. Cannibalism is not accepted in modern society but the consumption of meat is. Killing a human being is a crime everywhere in the world, but killing a non-protected animal, especially livestock, is not a crime, but a regular activity done by people. To even compare the two is an absurdity of the highest order.
The judgment says, “Importance cannot be construed to be an essentiality, meeting the twin test; being core; inextricably connected with its fundamental character.” This is a subjective opinion made by the Court while indulging in judicial overreach. It also says, “Practice of sacrificing animal in most other Shakti pithas is not seen or carried out.” This is a blatant falsehood. Tarapith and Kamakhya are two revered Shakti Peethas where Pashubali is carried out to this day. There are many other temples associated with Shaktism where animal sacrifice is performed. It is astonishing that the judgement mentions a complete falsehood to justify its order.
The Tripura High Court further says, “If the substratum of the ritual of animal sacrifice is taken away, the ceremony of performance of puja cannot be said to have been defiled or the right to practice and profess religion, obstructed, hindered or diminished in any manner.” Again, this is not for the Court to decide. One gets tired of saying it over and over again but it needs to be said as many times as the Court indulges in judicial overreach.
The Court makes numerous other observations, the only legitimate response to which is Meenakshi Lekhi’s words, “It’s not the Court’s business!”
The Court’s monumental ignorance of the Hindu faith is displayed when it implies that the rights of the devotees who do not believe in animal sacrifice have to be protected by the Court. It’s utterly ridiculous. If people do not believe in animal sacrifice, they can either not make a sacrifice themselves or avoid the Temple entirely. Hinduism allows for the diversity of traditions to flourish. While Hindus overwhelmingly have traditionally respected the divergent practices of respective sects and sampradayas, the Courts and a paltry sum of deluded liberal Hindus are destroying Hinduism’s diversity through their callousness.
The High Court also implies that the rights of those don’t believe animal sacrifice takes precedence over the rights of those who believe in Pashubali.
All in all, the Tripura High Court judgment is a perfect demonstration of the urgent necessity of judicial reforms. There’s also a great need for constitutional amendments to ensure that Hindu traditions aren’t violated.
The Judiciary should also contemplate the implications of its frivolous conduct. There is a growing sense of disrespect for the Judiciary among the citizens of the country which is extremely inconducive for the health of a democracy. The sacrifices at the Maa Tripureswari Mandir continues unabated to this day, the judgment has been utterly ignored by every section of the population and with good reason. And unlike Sabarimala, here the state government is also against the judgement, therefore it is difficult to implement the judgement. And this is not the first time this has happened. For example, even after the Supreme Court had banned traditional animal fights, buffalo fights are continued to be organised in Assam every year, with the sensible administration looking the other way. Such judgements attacking the religious and traditional practices which are opposed by the mass only harm the reputation of the judiciary.
There’s not a single good reason why Hindus should embrace edicts on their essential religious practices from the Indian judiciary. There’s no reason why they should take the personal musings of judges seriously, especially when it’s coated under the garb of a fallacious term such as ‘Constitutional Morality’. The judges should introspect on their conduct. Otherwise, the kind of contempt of court that we are witnessing at Maa Tripureswari Mandir with the explicit consent of the Hindu population at large and implicit consent of the ruling government will become par for the course going forward. The road to anarchy is paved with ‘Constitutional Morality’.
The Supreme Court today directed that status quo be maintained in Aarey Colony and said that no more trees can be cut in Aarey which is the proposed site for the Mumbai metro car shed. The SC made it clear to Maharashtra government that if trees can’t be cut legally, they can’t be cut at all.
However, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta appearing for Maharashtra government said that no more trees are required to be cut. He said that once the Court reopens after the Dusshera break, the case can be taken up by the Environment Bench on the legality or illegality of the trees cut.
The SC has also sought a report from the state government on compulsory afforestation. The SC has also asked for status of the saplings planted by Maharashtra government. It also directed the government to release the activists detained if not already done so.
The apex court green bench will hear the matter next on 21st October. Maharashtra, along with Haryana, is set to go to polls for state assembly elections on 21st October.
Justice Arun Mishra asked whether the Aarey Colony was an eco-sensitive zone or not. Demanding evidence for the same he said that it was a no-development zone and not an eco-sensitive zone.
Supreme Court hearing #AareyForest case: Justice Arun Mishra asks ‘tell us whether it(#AareyForest) was an eco-sensitive zone or not. It was a no development zone not an eco-sensitive zone. This is what we get, show us the documents’ https://t.co/QEaW3Sgh8r
A Special Bench of the Supreme Court comprising Justices Arun Mishra and Ashok Bhushan heard the PIL against felling of trees in Mumbai’s Aarey Colony which is the proposed site for Mumbai metro car shed. Last night, the SC had converted a letter written against the cutting of trees into a PIL and formed a special bench to hear it.
Some students had sent a letter to the Chief Justice of India today seeking a stay on cutting the trees, which was signed off by Dhananjay Ranjan, a 4th-year law student of Lloyd Law College, Noida.
The letter had said that there is no time in preparing a formal appeal against the Bombay High Court judgement, as by that time all the trees will be cut. It also mentioned the detention of protestors including students who were trying to protect the trees earmarked for felling. The Supreme Court took suo moto cognisance of the matter and decided to hear the matter urgently.
On the night of 4th October, the Mumbai Metro Corporation had started the process of cutting 2185 trees in Aarey colony after the Bombay High Court dismissed all petitions against the same earlier in that day. As per an order issued by the Tree Authority on 13th September, approval for cutting 2185 trees and transplanting 461 trees was grant to clear the allotted land for the depot of metro trains. According to an Indian Express report, 2134 trees already have been cut by last night, within less than 24 hours of starting the operation. This means all the 2185 trees have been cut by now as another 24 hours has passed. Transplantation of 461 trees will take longer time comparatively. Police had to impose section 144 of the IPC for smooth implementation of the order as protestors had arrived at Aarey Colony to prevent trees from being cut.
It may be noted that in April this year, the Supreme Court had rejected the plea against locating the metro rail depot at Aarey, ruling that all other alternative locations suggested by activists were rejected by the Technical Committee after thorough studies. The activists had approached the Supreme Court after Bombay High Court had rejected their petitions. A bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi and comprising Justices Deepak Gupta and Sanjiv Khanna had dismissed the interlocutory application within minutes, citing the Bombay HC order and the technical committee’s report.
After the go-ahead from the courts, the MMRC had approached the Tree Authority for permission to cut the trees in the allotted area, and the permission was granted on 13th September. Activists had again approached the Bombay High Court against this permission, but the court dismissed the petitions on 4th October, and even imposed a fine of Rs 50000 on one of the petitioners. After the dismissal of petitions, the MMRC went ahead with clearing the area on the same day, as the car depot is already behind schedule by one year due to opposition by activists.
As both the High Court and Supreme Court had ruled that other alternatives are not viable for the project, it is not clear on what basis the fresh petition was sent to the SC. In the letter, the law students have raised the same arguments against the Metro project in Aarey colony which were raised earlier several times by activists and were rejected by the Courts. They have not made any fresh argument. Moreover, the trees already have been cut, so any request to stop that would be infructuous.
Activists had spread a false propaganda that the cutting the trees was illegal as there is a 15-day waiting period after the High Court order. But the fact is, the 15-day waiting period was imposed by Tree Authority while granting the permission to cut and transplant the trees on 13th September, which means the waiting period is already over. The High Court had imposed no waiting period. The letter claims that although the order was passed on 13 September, it became effective only on 4th October after High Court dismissed petitions against it, hence 15 day starts from that date, but that is not true as the Court had not stayed the order.
Mumbai Metro has already planted 20,900 trees with GPS tagging on each of them in nearby Sanjay Gandhi National Park, and survival rate is 95% for the trees, as confirmed by the Chief Conservator Forest and Director of Sanjay Gandhi National Park. The Tree Authority has further ordered MMRC to plant 13,110 trees in the Aarey Colony area within 30 days. This means, compared to 2185 trees cut and 461 trees transplanted, almost 34000 trees are being planted, which is 15 times the number of trees felled.
“There is a sort of heightened political correctness,” Lord Indarjit Singh, the veteran Sikh host of BBC Radio who quit after it censored his talk on Sikh guru Guru Tegh Bahadur because it ‘might upset Muslims’. In a conversation with news agency ANI, Lord Singh said that there is a pressure and people are fearful of upsetting the Muslim community.
“There is nothing in that which upsets the Muslims as it is an example of how all human beings have a history of intolerance toward each other. We should learn from it and instead of learning from history we are trying to bury it,” Lord Singh said. He added that his talk on Guru Tegh Bahadur was agreed upon by the show producer and it was ready to be broadcast the next morning. However, a senior producer said he would not allow the talk to go ahead as it may upset Muslims.
Lord Singh, while expressing his exasperation at denial of atrocities carried out by the Mughals in the 17th century, said, “This is a factual, historical incident that commemorates the martyrdom of someone who is prepared to give his life defending freedom of belief of the Hindu community. This should be commemorated by all people of every religion but she (BBC producer) had some imaginary fear of some Muslim extremist being upset or something.”
Lord Singh who has been a famous voice of the Today programme for over three and a half decades, said that the BBC tried to block him from discussing Guru Tegh Bahadur who fought against the forced conversion of some Hindus to Islam in 17th century India. He says that this attempt to censor religion is wrong and comes from misplaced sense of political correctness that we shouldn’t say something that might offend anyone by some stretch of the imagination.
Lord Singh adds that he took up the matter with higher ups who carried out little investigation and while they promised to sort things out, BBC’s inaction prompted him to quit.
Guru Tegh Bahadur was the ninth of the ten Sikh Gurus of the Sikh religion. He not only prevented forceful religious conversion of Kashmiri Pandits to Islam but was also publicly beheaded by Mughal emperor Aurangzeb in Delhi for refusing to convert to Islam. He was condemned for ‘waging a war’ and was told only Islam could save him. When he refused, he was beheaded. In Delhi, Gurudwara Sis Ganj Sahib and Gurudwara Rakab Ganj Sahib mark the places of his execution and cremation of his mortal remains.
Hundreds of ‘peaceful protestors’ who have gathered in Chakothi village near Jiskool at the Line of Control (LoC) to cross the border and march toward Srinagar, have reportedly been blocked by the administration and police. As per Pakistani media, containers, barbed wires and electricity poles have been used to keep the infiltrators at bay.
Yesterday, we had reported how thousands of Pakistanis had announced that they will infiltrate India by crossing the LoC en masse to ‘liberate Kashmir’. However, Pakistani Prime Minister Imran Khan had warned them not to do so lest it upset the narrative Pakistan is building against India.
As per reports, the ‘protestors’ were heard chanting ‘Hum le ke rahenge, Azaadi’ (we will take freedom at any cost) slogans while waving flags of ‘Azaad Kashmir’ and Jammu and Kashmir Liberation Front (JKLF), the separatist group headed by Yasin Malik.
According to JKLF separatist leader Mohammad Rafiq Dar, the ‘protestors’ are staging a sit-in and wait for the containers to be removed.
Pakistani security personnel reportedly warned the ‘protestors’ that if they continue with the shenanigans, there is a serious threat that the Indian side will resort to shelling since once they cross Jiskool, they enter the firing range.
Hundreds of Pakistanis have gathered near the LoC, in Pakistan-occupied-Kashmir (PoK) ready to infiltrate India for a ‘Freedom March’, two months after the Indian government abrogated Article 370 which gave separate status to erstwhile state of Jammu and Kashmir. Separatist group Jammu and Kashmir Liberation Front (JKLF) leader Yasin Malik’s supporters have organised this ‘rally’ which is to start from PoK and cross the LoC.
According to Pakistani media reports, hundreds of ‘protestors’ gathered in Muzaffarabad in PoK and are planning to cross over LoC and reach Srinagar. JKLF spokesperson Rafiq Dar was quoted by Pakistani news agencies as saying the Pakistanis have all the ‘legal rights’ to cross over the LoC because they “do not recognise the division of Kashmiris”. He even appealed to Pakistani troops to allow them to infiltrate.
Pakistani Prime Minister Imran Khan took to Twitter to urge his citizens to not ‘play into the hand of Indian narrative’ by crossing the border. He said that infiltrating India en masse will only ‘divert narrative’ from the Kashmiris struggle and it will be labelled as ‘Islamic terrorism’ driven by Pakistan. Reminding his fellow brethren that India will not shy away from striking and even attack across the LoC if need be, Khan urged the separatists to back off.
