Sonia should ensure Karunanidhi apologises with folded hands for speaking against Rama

Sonia should ensure Karunanidhi apologises with folded hands for speaking against Rama

10.01.2008

PRESS RELEASE

I welcome the Delhi High Court issuing a Show Cause Notice to the Government asking why Mr.M.Karunanidhi the present Chief Minister of the DMK minority Government in Tamilnadu should not be prosecuted.

It would now be proper for the UPA chairperson Ms.Sonia Gandhi to advise Mr.Karunanidhi to seek an apology with folded hands before the public for his scurrilous and venomous remarks disparaging Bhagwan Sri Rama and thereby hurting the sacred and devoutly held faith and sentiments of the masses of India. This kind of advice to apologize with folded hands to sooth religious feelings was given by UPA Minister Priyaranjan Das Munshi to Ms.Taslima recently when she had written some objectionable words in her book on Islam.

If UPA is not to be accused of practicing double standards and Muslim appeasement, then Ms.Sonia Gandhi should ensure that Mr.Karunanidhi appears before the Court with folded hands and asks for being forgiven, on his promise of never again speaking against Rama.

(SUBRAMANIAN SWAMY)

Court notice to Delhi government

Staff Reporter

Revision petition against Karunanidhi for remarks on Lord Ram

NEW DELHI: The Delhi High Court on Wednesday issued a notice to the Delhi government on a revision petition by Delhi High Court lawyer Monica Arora seeking a direction for registration of a case against Tamil Nadu Chief Minister M. Karunanidhi for allegedly making disrespectful remarks against Lord Ram last year following the controversy over Sethusamudram project and thus hurting her religious sentiments.

Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul asked the government to file a reply by February 29, the next date of hearing.

The High Court in November last year called for the records from a trial court here relating to dismissal of a complaint by Ms. Arora against the Chief Minister.

The trial court dismissed the complaint saying that the complainant had not obtained prior sanction of the competent authority for prosecuting the Chief Minister under Sections 153A (promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of religion, race, place of birth… and doing acts prejudicial to maintenance of harmony) and 295A (deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings of any class by insulting its religion or religious beliefs) of the IPC as provided in the Cr.PC.

Two other grounds on which the lower court had dismissed the complaint were that the offences allegedly attributed to the Chief Minister were not committed in the hearing distance and in the sight of the complainant and that there was no clear intention on the part of him (Mr. Karunanidhi) to hurt her religious sentiments.

In her revision petition, Ms. Arora submitted that there was no need for prior sanction for prosecuting the Chief Minister as he had not committed the offences against the State but an individual and a religious community for which the Cr.PC did not provide sanction.

As regards the other two grounds, Ms. Arora submitted that the respondent (Mr. Karunanidhi) had committed the offences in her hearing distance and in her sight as she saw and heard him make the remarks on television.

http://www.hindu.com/2008/01/10/stories/2008011055751200.htm

Karunanidhi’s vituperations catching up with him

V SUNDARAM | Thu, 10 Jan, 2008 , 04:29 PM

.

I am proud to be a highly superstitious (definitely not rational!), communal and barba rous, if not wholly illiterate Hindu. In these columns yesterday, I had stated that Priya Ranjan Das Munshi should advise Karunanidhi to apologise to the Hindus with folded hands for having made his derogatory remarks against Lord Ram.

Perhaps Lord Ram saw to it that THE DELHI HIGH COURT issued a notice yesterday to the Delhi government on a petition seeking prosecution of Tamilnadu Chief Minister M. Karunanidhi for his derogatory remarks on Lord Ram.

This historic petition has been filed by MONIKA ARORA, a heroic advocate and Legal Counsel and more importantly, a devotee and practising Hindu. I have no doubt that immortal and time-defying Lord Ram has especially chosen Monika Arora to file this heroic petition on behalf of all the Hindus of India in absolute majority and the Hindus in all the other parts of the world.

Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul asked the Delhi government to explain its stand on the issue by 29 February, 2008, the next date of hearing, as  Monika Arora’s petition against Karunanidhi was earlier dismissed by the Trial Court of Metropolitan Magistrate on 17 October, 2007.

In a complaint petition against Karunanidhi Arora had prayed that the Metropolitan Magistrate Court may be pleased to summon the accused under sections 153,153A ,295A,298,505 of IPC and the accused be tried and punished in accordance with law for the aforesaid offence committed by him. 

R K  Singh, Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi, (in complaint case No. 2675/01 of 2007. Police Station Malviya Nagar, under Section 153,153 (A), 295 (A), 298 and 505 (2) IPC)  had dismissed Ms. Arora’s complaint on the ground that prior sanction of the government was required for initiation of criminal proceedings against Karunanidhi.  The same court had also held that there was no ground to take cognizance of the offence against the Chief Minister.

Challenging the order of the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate in the Delhi High Court, petitioner Monika Arora stated that no prior sanction was required as the offence was not committed against the State. THE PETITIONER HAS SOUGHT KARUNANIDHI’S PROSECUTION UNDER VARIOUS SECTIONS OF THE INDIAN PENAL CODE INCLUDING SECTION 153 (Giving provocation with intent to cause riots),SECTION 295A (Maliciously insulting the religion or religious belief of any class) AND SECTION 505 (2)  (False statement, rumour for causing enmity between different classes).

Arora had placed some newspaper clippings to support her claim that  Karunanidhi’s purported  statements on Lord Ram, questioning his existence, had hurt the sentiments of Hindus, which constituted an offence under the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

Monika Arora filed a complaint under Section 190 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for taking cognisance of the offence under section 153,153A ,295A,298 and 505 committed by the accused Karunanidhi in the Court of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate in Delhi.

In her petition, she had stated that even the Father of the Nation Mahatma Gandhi also worked towards establishment of Ram Rajya i.e. an ideal state in India where everybody is happy and prosperous. When the Father of Nation died, his last words were ‘Hey Ram’.

Millions and millions of Hindus start their day by wishing each other RAM-RAM every morning.

Even Allama Iqbal, a great poet who later became the architect of the formation of Pakistan, said: HAI RAM KE WAJOOD PE HINDOSTAN KO NAAZ AHLE NAZAR SAMAJHTE HAIN USKO IMAM-E-HIND.

(Meaning that the existence of Ram makes Hindustan proud; the discerning accept him as the Imam of this land.)

I am quoting below the relevant portions from her complaint petition:

‘That on the morning of 21, September, 2007, the complainant and her family members were shocked to read the remarks which the accused made against Lord Ram in his press conference held on the previous day in Chennai. That the accused used highly derogatory, objectionable and defamatory words with respect to Lord Ram with an intention to cause ill-will and hatred’.

‘That the aforesaid press conference was held on 20, September 2007 and the accused made the remarks about Lord Ram in context of the controversy regarding the Setu Samudram Project of the government of India.’

‘That the Union of India had filed an affidavit in the Supreme Court on the the existence of Lord Ram was questioned. This resulted in violent reactions among Hindus and the entire country was brought to a standstill on 12 , September on the call of various Hindu groups for ‘Chakka Jam.’

‘Thereafter The Union of India sought the permission of the Chief Justice of India in the Supreme Court to grant it permission to withdraw the controversial affidavit and thereafter withdrew it.’

‘That the accused being Chief Minister of Tamilnadu’  the State which is the centre of this controversy over Sethu Samudram project was very well aware of all such happenings in India’.

‘Thus the accused willfully, maliciously and without any lawful excuse, with a clear intention to cause ill-will and hatred deliberately made derogatory statements regarding Lord Ram which were widely published in the newspapers throughout the country.’

‘That the accused not only described LORD RAM AS – A BIG LIE AND A DRUNKARD but also questioned his existence. That he described him as a mere myth having no proof of his existence. He further asked whether there was any proof of Ram having built the bridge or that he had any engineering expertise and if so from which engineering college? He also described Ramayana as simply a novel with no historical basis.

‘Various Newspapers carried his defamatory statements regarding Lord Ram which are annexed here as Annexure-1 (Colly)’.

In her heroic petition, Monika Arora gave extracts of the various offending and wounding statements of Karunanidhi against Lord Ram published in several newspapers and publications:

**  ‘You tell me if Ram lived .So I have stated that there was no person in the name of Ram.’  (The Times of India, New Delhi, 20 September, 2007)

**  ‘Ram is as big a lie as the Himalayas and Ganga are true’.

**  ‘’Valmiki called Ram a drunkard, who regularly drank intoxicants.’  (The Times of India, 21 September,2007)

**  ‘Valmiki called Ram a drunkard, who regularly drank intoxicants.’ (Interview to NDTV news channel)

Against this known documentary background, which she had already presented before the Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Monika put forward the following view before the Delhi High Court.  She said that the derogatory remarks made by the accused Karunanidhi resulted in incitement to violence in various parts of India and hence disturbed public peace and order. Such statements about the Hindu religion and a great Hindu God like Lord Ram flared up passions among Hindus resulting in violent demonstrations in various parts of India. Incidents of stone- throwing and burning of buses were widely reported. Thus the irresponsible anti-Ram and anti-Hindu statements of the accused incited the people to break law, indulge in rioting and created disharmony among various groups of people.

Therefore, Monika came to the following conclusions in her petition:

‘Thus the accused willfully and deliberately with a clear intention to cause ill-will made the aforesaid remarks against Lord Ram’.

‘That taking into consideration the above mentioned facts, the accused is liable to be prosecuted under the following sections of IPC Section 153, 153A, 295A, 298, 505’.  

‘That the act of the accused becomes more heinous and grave as the accused is the Chief Minister of a State and hence responsible for maintaining law and order, promoting peace and harmony among different groups, races, religions, castes etc.’

‘That the complainant is a Hindu woman who was born in a devout Hindu family and also got married in a Hindu family. That she and her family members worship Lord Ram and regard him as ‘MARYADA PURUSHOTTAM’ i.e. an ideal person like millions of other Hindus not only in India but throughout the world.

‘That she has also named her son as Raghav which is another name of Lord Ram’.

‘That the court has the jurisdiction to entertain and try the present complaint because the statements of the accused have deeply hurt the religious feelings of the Hindus in majority.’

Monika Arora submitted to the court that by hurting the religious feelings of the complainant as also inciting the people to commit violence in different parts of the country by defaming, derogating and attempting to tarnish the image of their God, Lord Ram, the accused has made himself liable to be prosecuted under the following sections of IPC-Section 153, 153A, 295A, 298, 505.

All the Hindus of India and the world wholeheartedly welcome the timely statement of Dr. Subramaniam Swamy issued today.

‘I welcome the Delhi High Court issuing a show-cause notice to the government asking why Karunanidhi the present Chief Minister of the DMK minority government in Tamilnadu should not be prosecuted. It would now be proper for the UPA chairperson Sonia Gandhi to advise Karunanidhi to seek an apology with folded hands before the public for his scurrilous and venomous remarks disparaging Bhagwan Sri Ram and thereby hurting the sacred and devoutly held faith and sentiments of  the masses of India. 

This kind of advice to apologise with folded  hands to soothe religious feelings was given by UPA Minister Priyaranjan Das Munshi to Taslima recently when she had written some  objectionable words in her book on Islam. If UPA is not to be accused of practising double standards and Muslim  appeasement, then Sonia Gandhi should ensure that Karunanidhi  appears before the Delhi High Court with folded hands and asks for being forgiven, on  his promise of never again speaking against Lord Ram’.

(The writer is a retired IAS officer)
e-mail the writer at
vsundaram@newstodaynet.com

http://newstodaynet.com/col.php?section=20&catid=33&id=4004

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: