Newscan |
Back to Laloo in Bihar President’s rule was imposed in Bihar the very next day. The announcement was made by information and broadcast minister, Pramod Mahajan, who declared that President’s rule would end a nine–year–old regime under which 5,000 murders, 3,000 dacoities, 1,000 rapes and 2,500 kidnappings had been taking place on an average each year. However, President’s rule could not prevent the retaliatory attack that claimed 11 lives on the very second day of its imposition. Four more were killed subsequently. The BJP revoked President’s rule on March 8, as soon as it became clear that the Rajya Sabha would not ratify the move, where the opposition is in the majority. The BJP had earlier staunchly stood by its decision to impose President’s rule in the state, with Vajpayee even threatening BJP’s allies with his resignation if they did not support the move. Though the BJP won the move in the Lok Sabha by a narrow margin of 29 votes, the decision to revoke President’s rule before putting it before the Rajya Sabha seems to indicate the move was simply a muscle flexing exercise for the BJP. Which explains why no similar moral considerations had troubled their conscience while refusing to even consider President’s rule in Gujarat despite protracted attacks on Christians. No caste count in ‘Ambedkar Era’? Fire: The show is on again After three months of protest, litigation and debate, Fire finally made it back to cinema halls last month. However, it was only a partial victory for the film. Though the censor board had again passed the film without any cuts on February 13, the producer, Jhamu Sugandh, later made two ‘minor’ cuts at Thackeray’s behest, which included the deletion of the scene of a servant watching a blue film. But the more outrageous act of censorship was the deletion of the names of the two protagonists (Sita and Radha) from the entire film! Obviously the deletion of the names creates confusion for the viewers. Thackeray had stated in the second week of February that after discussing the issue with Union information and broadcasting minister, Pramod Mahajan, he had agreed that this was not the time to raise the issue of the film. But despite the go–ahead from Thackeray after the cuts, the Nasik unit of the Shiv Sena prevented the screening of the film that was to begin on February 26. Though the theatre owners had asked for protection, the police was unable to give them protection, as they were busy with the bandobast for a Shiv Sena convention taking place at the same time. Thackeray, while speaking at a public meeting at Nasik, asserted that a conspiracy was on to corrupt the minds of the younger generation through such films and called for a complete boycott of the film. Reportedly, the Sena in Nasik has now put up a large board banning the entry of women while the men are being allowed into the theatres! North–east women’s convention Freedom fighter and member of the Subhash Chandra Bose’s Indian National Army, Capt. Laxmi Sehgal, called for a strong national level women’s movement against discrimination, asserting that it was time for women to unite in order to find solutions, "as men have made a mess of things". Brinda Karat, general secretary of the organisation, attacked the Centre for having always considered the resources of the North–east as national resources yet never having taken up the problems of the region’s people as national issues. The convention has decided to ask the North–eastern Council to ensure women’s development. A delegation of women is also scheduled to meet President K.R. Narayanan in April to draw attention to the plight of women in the region and submit a memorandum of demands. Police protection for Srikrishna–indicted Guardian status to mothers, at last In a recent judgement by the Supreme Court, the mother was finally given equal status to that of the father in cases of guardianship. Both parents will now be treated as natural guardians of a minor child under the Hindu Minority and Guardianship (HMG) Act. Section 6 (a) of the HMG act states that, "In case of a boy or an unmarried girl (guardianship rests with) the father and after him, the mother, provided that the custody of a minor who has not completed the age of five years shall ordinarily be with the mother." Two petitions had raised the question of whether the mother could be regarded as the natural guardian of a child during the lifetime of the child’s father. The court interpreted the section to mean that the word ‘after’ did not necessarily mean after the death of the father. The mother’s right to guardianship, the court ruled, did not necessarily stand obliterated in the lifetime of the father. The court listed indifference to the matters of the minor, physical or mental inability to take care of the minor, or mutual agreement between the parents as grounds to treat the father as absent and give the mother recognition as natural guardian of the child. The bench comprising of Chief Justice A.S. Anand, Justice M. Srinivasan and Justice U.C. Banerjee, in separate but concurrent verdicts said, "the father by reason of a dominant personality cannot be ascribed to have a preferential right over the mother in the matter of guardianship since both fall within the same category." Justice Banerjee said, "Gender equality is one of the basic principles of our constitution…and disqualification of a mother to act as a guardian during the lifetime of the father…would definitely run counter to the basic requirement of the constitutional mandate and would lead to a differentiation between male and female". |