Tuesday 28 October 2014

AN IDEA TO REMOVE THE FALSE INJURY REPORT




1.Present status of the false injury  report

It is often seen that  false injury report is manufactured by medical practitioner  after being bribed that makes the allegation either weak or strong.If rape is committed,then after being bribed,the medical practitioner makes false report that rape is not committed and if rape is not committed,then the medical practitioner makes false report that rape has been committed.If  the injury is simple or no injury ,then the medical practitioner makes the false report of grievous injury and if the injury is  grievous ,then the medical practitioner makes the false report of simple injury.It is my personal experience after going through a lot of medical reports that more than 75% medical reports  are false.

2.Measures  to remove the falsity of injury  report

There is a very simple measure to remove the falsity of injury report.There must be appellate provision against an  injury report.If a party  (whether accused or informant   )  is aggrieved from the injury report,then he may file an appeal before the higher authority of that medical practitioner.If an  injury report is prepared by a medical practitioner of a primary health centre and  a parties aggrieved by the report,then he may file an appeal before the District Sadar Hospital or nearest Medical college and hospital.

It shall be mandatory for the medical practitioner to prepare a report within 12 hours in case of injury other than rape and within 24 hours in case of rape and the medical practitioner shall furnish a copy of the  report to the  both parties free of cost  and also transfer the alleged victim to the higher authority for its medical check up if a party prefers appeal  ,so that the higher authority can prepare a fresh report and decide as to whether  the report prepared by lower medical practitioner is true or false.In such circumstances where alleged victim is not able to be transferred to the higher authority due to physical condition,then the medical practitioner shall mention in the report reasons of not being transferred and after hearing  an appeal, it shall be the duty of the appellate higher authority to reach to the place within 12 hours  where alleged victim is kept to examine the victim and shall examine  the alleged victim and decide as to whether report prepared by lower medical authority is true or false.Appeal shall be decided within  12 hours in injury other than rape and within 24 hours in case of rape and the time of 12 hours provided for reaching to the place where victim is kept shall be excluded.The copy of the decision of appellate authority along with injury report shall be provided free of cost to both  parties.Further if a party is aggrieved by the decision of appellate authority,the aggrieved party shall be entitled to make a complain before the Chief Judicial Magistrate /Metropolitan Magistrate within 24 hours and it shall be the duty of the magistrate to constitute the medical board within 24 hours of the filing of complain and the board shall submit its report within a week.

3.Provision Of Punishment

Lower Medical practitioner making false injury report shall be subjected to fine of Rs 25,000 by the appellate authority and  also be subjected to  prosecution  under the requisite sections of the IPC and the appellate authority deciding falsely shall be subjected to fine of Rs 25,000 by the court and also be subjected to prosecution under the requisite sections of the IPC .A party making false appeal before the appellate authority or making false complain before the court shall be subjected to fine of Rs 5,000.

4.Special Provision Regarding DNA Profiling

Where a sample is sent to forensic science laboratory or any medical institute for DNA profiling,it shall be the duty of that FSL/medical institute to prepare report within a month and furnish a copy of the report to both parties.A party aggrieved by the report shall make  a complain before the Chief Judicial Magistrate /Metropolitan Magistrate within  15 days   of the receiving of report and the court shall decide over the complain within a weak and it shall be the duty of the court to constitute a medical board of expert for the DNA Profiling.The medical board shall submit its report within next one month.If the report of FSL/medical institute  is found true by the medical board,then the  court shall impose a fine of Rs 5,000 to the party who makes false complain before the court.Fine of Rs 5,000 shall also be imposed to the FSL/medical institute  ,if  report of FSL/medical institute  is found false by the medical board.

5.Constitution Of Medical Board

The medical board of all above cases shall consist of at least 5  eminent doctors of those all subjects  which are the matter of examination.

6.Need to pass a special act

A special act must be passed to enforce the draft as proposed above. 



 ......................................

Tuesday 21 October 2014

Corrupt Rules Of the NHRC


राष्ट्रीय मानवाधिकार आयोग ने चिरंजीवी राय,प्राचार्य,जवाहर नवोदय विद्यालय,बिरौली,समस्तीपुर के विरुध्द विद्यालय के छात्र/छात्राओं से जबरन वसूली के मामले में दायर कराई गई शिकायत को ये कहकर निष्तारित कर दिया है कि शिकायत पत्र का सिर्फ COPY (प्रतिलिपि) आयोग को प्रेषित किया गया। राष्ट्रीय मानवाधिकार आयोग की वेबसाइट  www.nhrc.nic.in पर फाइल नंबर 3683/4/30/2014 डालकर इस केस पर आयोग द्वारा पारित आदेश देखा जा सकता है।लेकिन मैंने शिकायत पत्र का प्रतिलिपि आयोग को प्रेषित नहीं किया था बल्कि शिकायत पत्र को दस जगह एक साथ प्रेषित किया गया था जिसमें दूसरे नंबर पर राष्ट्रीय मानवाधिकार आयोग को संबोधित किया गया था।जब शिकायत की सिर्फ प्रतिलिपि भेजी जाती है तो आवेदन पत्र के अंत में सबसे नीचे Copy To लिखकर संबंधित विभागीय अधिकारी  का नाम लिखा जाता है ना कि आवेदन के ऊपर में ही सभी विभागीय अधिकारियों को क्रमानुसार एक साथ संबोधित किया जाता है।मैंने आयोग में  सिर्फ आयोग को संबोधित करते हुए पुनः आवेदन दायर किया है जिसका पंजीकरण हो चुका है और आयोग के विचाराधीन है।आयोग के वेबसाइट पर फाइल नं 3862/4/30/2014 डालकर इस शिकायत का स्टेटस   चेक किया जा सकता है।

आयोग ने शिकायत को निष्तारित करने का उपरोक्त नियम(राष्ट्रीय मानवाधिकार आयोग प्रक्रिया संशोधन विनियम,1997 का विनियम 9) अपने मन से बनाया है जो भारतीय संसद द्वारा पारित मानवाधिकार संरक्षण अधिनियम,1993 की धारा 36 के विपरीत है।सर्वोच्च न्यायालाय ने भी एक निर्णय  (Ramdeo Chauhan @ Rajnath Chauhan VS  Bani Kant Das & Ors on 19 November, 2010  later reported as AIR 2011,SC 615) में  मानवाधिकार की रक्षा करना आयोग का सर्वोच्च दायित्व माना है,इसलिए उपरोक्त आधार पर मेरा शिकायत को निष्तारित करना सर्वोच्च न्यायालय के फैसला के मूल में छिपी भावना के विपरीत है।देखना अब ये है कि दोबारा दायर की गई शिकायत पत्र पर आयोग अब क्या फैसला सुनाती है।मैंने सारे कानूनी तथ्य का विस्तृत वर्णन आयोग में दोबारा दायर किए गए आवेदन में किया है,जिसके आधार पर आयोग यदि मामला की सुनवाई करने के  बजाय निष्तारित करती हैं तो आयोग द्वारा अपने मन से बनाए गए  राष्ट्रीय मानवाधिकार आयोग प्रक्रिया संशोधन विनियम,1997 का विनियम 9 के विरुध्द सर्वोच्च न्यायालय में जनहित याचिका दायर करना पड़ेगा।

दोबारा दायर किया गया आवेदन नीचे प्रस्तुत है-


Gmail Rahul Kumar <648rahul@gmail.com>
Request to admit my complaint and initiate action against the illegal levy imposed by Chiranjiwi Roy,Principal of Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya,Birauli,Samastipur,Bihar against the students of the said school-Regarding,Ref:-File No.3683/4/30/2014 as assigned by the Commission
1 message
Rahul Kumar <648rahul@gmail.com> 7 October 2014 07:59
To: nhrc.india@nic.in, covdnhrc <covdnhrc@nic.in>, jrlawnhrc <jrlawnhrc@nic.in>, "ar2.nhrc" <ar2.nhrc@nic.in>
To
The Chairperson
National Human Rights Commission
New Delhi


Date:-07/10/2014

Sub:-Request to  admit my complaint and  initiate  action against  the
 illegal levy   imposed  by  Chiranjiwi  Roy,Principal of Jawahar
Navodaya Vidyalaya,Birauli,Samastipur,Bihar against the students of
the said school-Regarding

Ref:-File No.3683/4/30/2014  as assigned by the Commission

Sir

The learned commission has dismissed in limine my complaint File
No.3683/4/30/2014  as assigned by the Commission on dt 1/10/2014  with
an observation that

"The complaint is addressed to other authority with only copy sent to
this Commission. The authority is expected to take  appropriate action
in this matter. Hence, no action is called for. File."


Only copy of complaint was not sent to the commission.The commission
was addressed to S.No.2 in the list of all ten authorities  addressed
in my complaint  and all authorities were addressed altogether.Nowhere
 Copy of the complaint was sent.There is difference between addressing
all authorities altogether and sending a copy of the complaint.In
addressing all authorities altogether ,name of all authorities is
written serial wise and in sending a copy of complaint,at the last of
the application "Copy To'' is written for the information and
appropriate action.So,my complaint was not addressed to other
authority but it was addressed to all authorities  altogether.


So,in exercise of the power conferred under  Regulation 9(xiii) of
the  National Human Rights Commission (Procedure) Amendment
Regulations ,1997 my complaint can't be dismissed in limine.


There is difference between a complaint dismissed in limine and a
complaint dismissed after a decision.

Dismissed in limine refers to the dismissal of the complaint at the
admission stage-before exercising trial.Since my complaint has not
been dismissed after a decision as under Regulation 9(xii) of the
National Human Rights Commission (Procedure) Amendment Regulations
,1997, commission is empowered to dismiss in limine of such complaint
where matter  is covered by a judicial verdict/decision of the
Commission ,so if i admit this complaint again after
rectifying/removing the grounds for which it was dismissed if it has
not been dismissed because decision has already been passed by the
commission,the complaint ought to be entertianed by the commission to
protect the human rights.In view of the above fact,a fresh application
is being submitted before the commission by only addressing the
commission.



National Human Rights Commission (Procedure) Amendment Regulations
,1997 is made by the commission  in exercise  of the powers conferred
by sub-section (2) of 10 of the Protection of Human Rights Act  1993
(Act 10 of 1994),and section 10(2) of the act is cited below-

"Subject to the provisions of this Act and the rules made
thereunder,the Commission shall have the power to lay down by
regulations its own procedure."


After the analysis of the section 10(2) of the act,it is obvioused
that making regulations for the procedure is confined to the extent
which will be not in conflict with the  provisions of the Protection
Of the Human Rights Act,1993.



In this regard,section 36 of the act may be observed  in the manner
whether certain provisions of the  Regulation 9  of  the  National
Human Rights Commission (Procedure) Amendment Regulations ,1997 is in
conflict with section 36 or not.

36.Matters not subject to jurisdiction of the Commission-

(1) The Commission shall not inquire into any matter which is pending
before a State Commission or any other Commission duly constituted
under any law for the time being in force.

(2) The Commission or the State Commission shall not inquire into any
matter after the expiry of one year from the date on which the act
constituting violation of human rights is alleged to have been
committed.

After the analysis of the section 36 of the act,it is obvioused that
the complaint concerning the matter not subject to the jurisdiction of
the commission as provided under section 36 of the act may only be
dismissed in limine.


So,except Regulations 9(iv) and 9(V) of the  National Human Rights
Commission (Procedure) Amendment Regulations ,1997 ,all other
regulations enshrined under Regulation 9 is in conflict with the
section 36 of the act and thus Regulation 9(xiii) of  the  National
Human Rights Commission (Procedure) Amendment Regulations ,1997 is
also in conflict with the section 36 of the act and that's why
dismissing in limine a complaint if only copy of the complaint is sent
to the commission and originally complaint is addressed to other
authority is in conflict with the section 36 of the act.However,i have
not sent only copy of the complaint,but complaint has been addressed
to all authorities altogether.



 Honb'ble Supreme Court has observed in para 46   of  Ramdeo Chauhan @
Rajnath Chauhan vs Bani Kant Das & Ors on 19 November, 2010 (AIR
2011,SC 615 ) that "The NHRC has been constituted to inquire into
cases of violation of and for protection and promotion of human
rights. This power is an extensive one, which should not be narrowly
viewed."Further in para 47 it has been observed that  "It must be
jurisprudentially accepted that human right is a broad concept and
cannot be straitjacketed within narrow confines. "

After the analysis of the observation of Hon'ble Supreme Court,it can
be concluded that the power of NHRC is not merely vested in dismissing
in limine a complaint but it's power is vested in to inquire into
cases of violation of and for protection and promotion of human
rights. Further,as per para 47, it can be concluded that human rights
can not be  straitjacketed or suppressed merely on the facts of some
legal trappings because fact remains constant that there is the
violation of human rights.

The commission is a tribunal as it has power of court under section 13
of the Protection Of Human Rights Act,1993  and it has to exercise
its power independently and in many Judgements (around 25),the High
Courts and the Supreme Court held that  a tribunal has an inherent
power of rectification of its mistake.But i am not of the opinion to
give burden to the commission to rectify its mistake but i am of the
opinion to rectify the mistake occured in my complaint  and after the
rectification,this appliction is filed before the commission only by
addressing the commission and this time my application may be
entertained because  there is difference between a complaint dismissed
in limine and a complaint dismissed after a decision.

Dismissed in limine refers to the dismissal of the complaint at the
admission stage-before exercising trial.Since my complaint has not
been dismissed after a decision as under Regulation 9(xii) of the
National Human Rights Commission (Procedure) Amendment Regulations
,1997 ,commission is empowered to dismiss in limine of such complaint
where matter  is covered by a judicial verdict/decision of the
Commission ,so if i admit this complaint again after
rectifying/removing the grounds for which it was dismissed if it has
not been dismissed because decision has already been passed by the
commission,the complaint ought to be entertianed by the commission to
protect the human rights.


Complaint which was assigned by the commission as File
No.3683/4/30/2014 was addressed also to the Central Vigilance
Commission but the Central Vigilance Commission has not initiated any
action yet in regard to this complaint ,so this complaint is presently
not under the considertaion before any other commission and same is
not barred under section 36(1) of the Preotection  Of  Human Rights
Act,1993 and same can't  be dismissed as  per  Regulation 9(iv) of the
 National Human Rights Commission (Procedure) Amendment Regulations
,1997.

Therefore,a fresh application is again submitted before the commission
with the summary cited below:-


"Approx 1 Lakhs rupees have been collected from the girls students of
the JNV Samastipur by the principal and 44 new fans of brand namey
Havells have been purchased.But it is easy to visualise that 44 fans
may not carry cost of approx 1 lakhs.Further,it is to inform you that
taking money for any kind of  work is illegal because Jawahar Navodaya
Vidyalaya is established by the Govt of India and it is a school
providing education free of cost and fund is provided by Govt of India
(by the Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti) for such works like instituting
fans and repairing articles.

It appears that the fund provided for the these  works has been chewed
up or is going to be chewed up by the  said principal and by the way
of levying  money from the students,he is now going to do those works
which were/are to be done by the fund provided.

Now,principal is going to levy money in the name of instituting new
television for the male students.The television available for the boys
will be sent to girls hostel and the television available in the girls
hostel will be sent to the Guest House.What amount will be levied from
each student  has not  been fixed yet.Money has not been levied yet
from the male students in the name of instituting new fans and
repairing other articles but it has been planned to levy Rs 1000 from
each male students of the class 6 and Rs 500  from  each male students of
class 7  and 8 and house master of the hostel has been directed to
collect the money.

levying money from students is criminal breach of trust by the public
servant which is an offence under section 409 of the IPC and it is
also an offence under section  417 and 420 of the IPC. Students are
forced  to give money and forcibly levying money is just an economic
and mental harassment and same economic and mental harassment is
violation of article 21 which confers right to freedom from torturing
as included in right to life and thus it is also  a case of violation
of human rights.

Above information is based on inputs provided by some students of the
said school which has been mentioned on my email complaint of dt
13/9/2014 and its reply of dt 15/9/2014 and 26/9/2014.

Therefore,it is requested to admit my complaint and ensure all
appropriate necessary actions.


Thanking You

Yours

Rahul Kumar
S/O-Jagannath Ray
Vill+Post-Sughrain
Via-Bithan
Distt-Samastipur
State-Bihar
PIN-848207
Mob-07759071885 and  07654528780

Friday 17 October 2014

Corrupt Media makes nation fool

मीडिया लोगों को हमेशा मूर्ख बनाने में लगी रहती है।बलात्कार का कथित प्रयास करने के एक अभियुक्त के विरुध्द जब पंचायत ने एक लाख जुर्माना लगाया तो मीडिया में रिपोर्ट छपती है कि पंचायत ने इज्जत की बोली एक लाख में लगा दिया।इज्जत की बोली नहीं,जुर्माना लगी है।पंचायत तो जुर्माना ही लगा सकती है,वह जेल में नहीं डाल सकती।लड़की के परिजन को पंचायत लगवाना ही नहीं चाहिए था।लड़की के परिजन को ये मालूम है कि पंचायत का काम जुर्माना लगाने भर सीमित है फिर लड़की के परिजन ने पंचायत लगवाया क्यों?फिर इज्जत की बोली किसने लगायी?लड़की के परिजन ने या पंचायत ने?लड़की के परिजन ने इज्जत की बोली लगाई।लड़की के परिजन थाना तब पहुँचे जब अभियुक्त ने पंचायत में जुर्माना देना स्वीकार करने के बाद जुर्माना देने से मना कर दिया।मतलब अभियुक्त जुर्माना दे देता तो लड़की के परिजन थाना नहीं पहुँचते।मतलब एक लाख रुपये में इज्जत की बोली लग जाती।लेकिन मीडिया को लड़की के परिजन का गलती नहीं दिखता।मीडिया का जनता को बेवकूफ बनाने में सबसे ज्यादा योगदान है।और मीडिया ये फैसला क्यों सुनाने लगती है कि सही में बलात्कार/बलात्कार का प्रयास हुआ है,जबकि ज्यादातर केस फर्जी होता है।

मैं मानता हूँ कि पंचायत का दायित्व था कि वह इस मामला को थाना को अग्रसारित कर दे।लेकिन इसका मतलब ये नहीं हुआ कि लड़की के परिजन की गलती नहीं है।लड़की के परिजन को पंचायत करवाने के बजाय थाना जाना चाहिए था।ये लड़की के परिजन को मालूम रही होगी कि पंचायत मामला को थाना अग्रसारित करने के बजाय जुर्माना लगाएगी।उसके बावजूद परिजन ने पंचायत करवाया।यदि लड़की के परिजन इस उम्मीद के साथ पंचायत करवाए थे कि पंचायत मामला को थाना अग्रसारित करेगी,फिर परिजन ने जुर्माना का राशि लेना स्वीकार क्यों किया और मामला को अग्रसारित करने के लिए पंचायत को क्यों नहीं कहा?यहाँ बात लड़की के परिजन के MOTIVE की हो रही है।लड़की के परिजन का MOTIVE सिर्फ इतना था कि जुर्माना का रुपया मिल जाए और बात को दबा दिया जाए।अभियुक्त द्वारा पंचायत में स्वीकार करने के बाद जुर्माना देसे से मना करने के बाद लड़की के परिजन ने फिर से पंचायत लगवाने के बजाय थाना में शिकायत कर दिया।फिर से पंचायत लगाने के बाद पंचायत यदि मामला को थाना अग्रसारित नहीं करती तब माना जाता कि पंचायत की गलती है।

I missed this aspect that Police is corrupt,dull and lazy and sometimes also misbehaves against informant and its parents etc but ultimately they reached to the Police.If they had no belief on police,then they could take decision to hold Panchayat but when they failed to collect money of Rs 1 Lakh,then they reached to police.But if money would be provided,then they wouldn't approach before the police.What was the motive,now please conclude.If they had no belief on police,then how they reached ultimately to the police? They could reach directly before the court and the court had to listen..

UNION MINISTRY OF HEALTH & FAMILY WELFARE MAKES EXCUSE TO SAVE ITSELF FROM FURNISHING OF INFORMATION UNDER RTI ACT,2005



My questions of  RTI Application of dt 22/9/2014  sent to the Secretary,Ministry Of Health & Family Welfare regarding construction work and recruitment  of assistant professors
in the  Jai  Prakash Narayan All India Institute of Medical Sciences,Patna  are cited below:-

"(i)     Please list the name of all departments  of the hospital building which are still under construction.
(ii)    What was the deadline fixed for the construction of these hospital buildings?
(iii)   What  was the order of  the Hon’ble High Court Of Patna
regarding construction of hospital building?
(iv)    Has order been followed?
(v)     What is the reason of delay in  the completion of the construction?
(vi)    What measures have been taken/are going to be taken to speed up the construction work?
(vii)   When  will all sorts of construction be completed?
(viii)  Who is the guilty of such delay?
(ix)    What action is proposed to be taken against guilty and when the proposed action will be taken?
(x)     If action will not be taken against guilty, then what is the reason?
(xi)    Please list the total number of  seat available  for  assistant professors  for each faculty of the AIIMS ,Patna who  should be appointed in each faculty  as per  the requirement.
(xii)   Please list the number of assistant professors  presently
available in each faculty.
(xiii)  What is the reason of not appointing assistant  professors as per the seat available in each faculty?
(xiv)   When all seats of assistant professors will be filled up as the requirement of each  faculty?"


Reply of dt 29/09/2014 received from Sindhu Patil,Section Officer of the Ministry is cited below:-


"1.I am directed to refer to your RTI Application dated 22/09/2014  received in this Ministry on the subject mentioned above and to return herewith your IPO No.15F 616741 of Rs 10/-respectively with the remarks that IPO is in favour of Secretary,MOHFW,Nirman Bhawan,New Delhi whereas it should be in favour of Accounts Officer,Ministry Of Health & Family Welfare.

2.You are ,therefore,requested to send the fresh RTI Application along with requisite fee of Rs 10/- in the form of DD/IPO/BC in favour of Accounts Officer,Ministry Of Health & Family Welfare,Nirman Bhavan,payable at New Delhi."


Question Of  Law


Rule 6(b) of the Right to Information Rules, 2012  provides below-.

6. Mode of Payment of fee.—

Fees under these rules may be paid in any of the following manner, namely:—

(b) by demand draft or bankers cheque or Indian Postal Order payable to the Accounts Officer of the public authority.

It is written that fees by the IPO (Indian Postal Order ) should be payable to the Accounts Officer of the public authority but nowhere in the Right to Information Act,2005 and Right to Information Rules ,2012,it is written that if fee is not payable to the Accounts Officer,then the Indian Postal Order along with the RTI Application should be returned to the applicant.


Further,the full bench of the  Central Information Commission has recommended under section 25(5) of the RTI Act,2005 in Subhash Chandra Agrawal VS Ministry of Home Affairs (File No.CIC/BS/C/2013/000149/LS,File No.CIC/BS/C/2013/000072/LS and  File No.CIC/LS/C/2010/000108/LS) on dt 27/8/2013 and 
the recommendation 1 (as mentioned in para 11  of the judgement) is cited below:-

"(i). All public authorities shall direct the officers under their command
to accept demand drafts or banker cheques or IPOs payable to their
Accounts Officers of the public authority. This is in line with
clause (b) of Rule 6 of the RTI Rules, 2012. In other words, no
instrument shall be returned by any officer of the public authority
on the ground that it has not been drawn in the name of a particular
officer. So long as the instrument has been drawn in favour of the
Accounts Officer, it shall be accepted in all circumstances."


The commission has also observed that ''In other words, no
instrument shall be returned by any officer of the public authority
on the ground that it has not been drawn in the name of a particular
officer.''Meant,if the IPO is not payable to the Accounts  Officer,then also IPO should not be returned.Therefore,returning my RTI application along with the IPO is against the recommendation of the commission.

Now it is evident that the Ministry has made an excuse to save itself from furnishing the information by returning the IPO along with the RTI Application.There is delay in Construction Works of AIIMS,Patna due to corruption and it is not easy to give answer of my questions,so this excuse has been made.It is also difficult to give answer of Q No.(xiii) and (xiv).One of the student of AIIMS,Patna and my senior Vivek Ranjan bhaiji informed me about this matter and thereafter,RTI application was sent by me.He has also sent an RTI Application in this matter to the Secretary of the said Ministry but his postal order is also payable to the Secretary,not to the Accounts Officer.


Since this recommendation is mainly concentrated on the matter if the IPO is returned,when the IPO is payable to the Accounts Officer,so i am going to file a complaint under section 18(1) of the RTI Act read with section 25(5) of the RTI Act before the Central Information Commission requesting to make a fresh recommendation that ''no instrument shall be returned by any officer of the public authority on the ground that it has not been drawn in the name of a particular officer.''However,i am sending an RTI application again to the Ministry Of Health & Family Welfare along with sending IPO  of Rs 10 in favour of the Accounts officer.

In my complaint,i am going to suggest the commission to make also a recommendation u/s 25(5) of the RTI Act,2005  that ''no RTI Application shall be returned solely on the ground that the fees have not been paid or there are some defections in DD/IPO/BC etc because nowhere in the RTI Act,2005 and RTI Rules,2012 it is written that the RTI Application shall be returned.Instead of Returning the RTI Application,the CPIO shall send a letter to the applicant to submit the requisite fee or submit a fresh DD/IPO/BC etc,as the case may be.
Provided that sending DD/IPO/BC etc  not to a particular officer of the concerned  public  authority  is not defection.
 Provided  further that sending expired DD/IPO/BC etc or at the wrong address or having pasted at address of Payee etc shall be termed as defections."   



.............................

Thursday 16 October 2014

JOINT ADMISSION COMMITTEE OF IISERs FURNISHED FALSE INFORMATION AS WELL REFUSED TO PROVIDE INFORMATION UNDER RTI ACT,2005




My questions of RTI Application of dt 22/9/2014 sent to JOINT ADMISSION COMMITTEE OF IISERs  and reply  of dt  8/10/2014 recieved from Saptarshi Mukherjee on behalf of the  committee   are hereunder:-


Q.1. What was the category wise cut-off  for  the physics stream  in the year 2014  for  the selection  through  the  Kishore Vaigyanik Protsahan Yojana (KVPY) ?

Ans.1.Information Not available,as stated earlier all the candidates who had applied through the KVPY Channel were offered admissions in IISERs.There was no separate list subject wise.

Q.2.Please send a copy of the merit list of each selected students of the physics stream of the year 2014 selected through  the  Kishore Vaigyanik Protsahan Yojana (KVPY).

Ans.2.Information Not available.

Q.3. What was the category wise cut -off  for  the physics stream  in the year 2014  for the selection  through  the Joint Entrance Examination (Advanced) 2014?

Ans.3.Information Not available,as stated earlier the IIT-JEE (Advanced) 2014 merit rank list was used to offer admission to candidates.The merit rank list is based on the marks obtained in Physics,Chemistry and Mathematics Combined and individual marks of any subject were not considered.

Q.4. Please send a copy of the merit list of each selected students of the physics stream of the year 2014 selected through  the Joint Entrance Examination (Advanced) 2014.

Ans.4.Information Not available.

Q.5.What was the category wise cut -off  for  the physics stream  in the year 2014  for the selection  through  the  State and Central  Boards?

Ans.5.Information Not available,as stated earlier eligible candidates applying through the SCB Channel had to appear for the IISER Aptitude Test 2014,which comprised equal number of questions  from Biology,Chemistry,Mathematics  and Physics and individual marks of any subject were not considered.

Q.6. Please send a copy of the merit list of each selected students of the physics stream of the year 2014 selected through  the State and Central Boards.

Ans.6.Information Not available.

Q.7. Please send a copy of the Result List of  IISER Science Aptitude Test (ISAT) of each selected students of the physics stream of the year 2014  selected through  the State and Central Boards.

Ans.7.Information Not available,as stated earlier that for the merit rank list based on the IISER Aptitude Test 2014 was based on the total marks obtained in all the four subjects ,namely Biology,Chemistry,Mathematics and Physics and individual marks of any subject were not considered.


Reply on question No 1 is right and same i believe to be true. 
Reply on Q.No 3 and Q.No.5 is false because  it is replied that individual marks of any subject were not considered.I sought query regarding Cut-Off  for the physics stream and  Cut-Off for the selection in physics stream was if available,then it ought to have been provided,unless not.There is no relationship in between the individual marks of any subject and cut-off.Response has been submitted against the query sought and same may be treated as furnishing false information.


The CPIO has refused to provide information on Q.No.2,4,6 and 7.Whether separate merit list/result list for a particular stream of these three channels are issued or not,but by my  questions it is obvioused that merit list/result list of each selected students of the physics stream have been sought,so the CPIO ought to have made a separate list of selected students of physics stream and accordingly merit list/result list of these students ought to have been provided.


Now again I am sending  an RTI application to this authority and demanding merit rank list and result list of all students of the IISERs selected through these all three channels in 2014 and also seeking cut-off  specified in 2014 for the qualification through these channels .Meant not seeking information regarding any particular stream.



As the CPIO has furnished false information of two questions and refused to provide information of four questions,so the complaint against the CPIO will be filed before the Central Information Commission under section 18(1) of the RTI Act,2005.


Earlier,the IISER,Bhopal had refused to provide above  information by stating that IISERs admission is conducted by Joint Admission Committee,IISERs and information is not available with us but the RTI application was not tranferred to the  Joint Admission Committee,IISERs in accordance with the section 6(3) of the RTI Act,2005 and same will be treated under section 7(2) of the act that the CPIO has refused to provide information.So,on 22/9/2014,i have made complaint before the Central Information Commission under section 18(1) of the RTI Act,2005 against this behaviour of the IISER,Bhopal.

Since all  IISERs are not issuing Cut-Off, Merit List and Result Of Aptitude Test and the reason behind not issuing is that IISERs are  involved in making fraudulent admission through ”back door” of such students who are not
eligible to be enlisted in merit list and who are not qualifying
aptitude test. Therefore,earlier IISER,Bhopal had not tranferred my RTI Application and now JAC,IISERs have provided false information as well refused to provide information.



..........................

Wednesday 15 October 2014

मोदी सरकार के समर्थन में कुतर्क


मोदी का समर्थन करने वाले मोदी सरकार की उपलब्धियों को बताने के लिए निराधार कुतर्क दे रहे हैं।

1.कुतर्क-कालाधन  पर कमिटि मोदी ने बनायी।
सच्चाई-कालाधन पर कमिटि बनाने का आदेश सुप्रीम कोर्ट का था,जिसे किसी भी सरकार को बनाना ही पड़ता।कमिटि का सह अध्यक्ष जस्टिस अरिजीत पशायत हैं,जो पहले ही गुजरात दंगा में मोदी को क्लीन चीट दे चुके हैं।

2.कुतर्क-पेट्रोल का दाम सस्ता मोदी सरकार के कारण हुआ है।
सच्चाई-अंतराष्ट्रीय बाजार में कच्चा तेल का दाम घट जाने के कारण पेट्रोल का दाम घटा है।

3.कुतर्क-मोदी सरकार के कारण सब्जी की दाम सस्ती हुई है। 
सच्चाई-सब्जी का दाम सीजन पर निर्भर करता है।जिस सीजन में सब्जी खेत से तैयार होकर बाजार पहुँचती है,दाम सस्ती हो जाती है।

4.कुतर्क-प्रधानमंत्री जन धन योजना मोदी ने बनाया।
सच्चाई-ये योजना पहले से ही SBI में चल रही थी जिसे मोदी ने कॉपी किया।एक दिन में 1.5 करोड़ खाता नहीं खुली और इतना खोलना संभव भी नहीं।

5.कुतर्क-शेयर बाजार में उछाल,आर्थिक वृध्दि दर में इजाफा और रुपये में मजबूती मोदी के कारण हुई।
सच्चाई-ये सब पूँजीपतियों को मोदी द्वारा फायदा देने के कारण पूँजीपतियो के विकास का परिणाम है।


6.कुतर्क-मोदी ने पाकिस्तान को औकात दिखा दिया।
सच्चाई-मोदी के समय में पाकिस्तानी घुसपैठ और संघर्ष विराम का उल्लंघन काफी ज्यादा बढ़ गई।ऐसी स्थिति में कोई भी सरकार पाकिस्तान को करारा जवाब देता क्योंकि भारत के पास पाकिस्तान से ज्यादा सैन्य व सामरिक शक्ति है।

7.कुतर्क-इराक से भारतीय नागरिकों का वापसी मोदी ने करवाया।
सच्चाई-इराकी सरकार ने भारतीय नागरिकों की वापसी में भारत का मदद किया।ऐसी स्थिति में कोई भी सरकार अपने नागरिकों की वापसी करवा सकता है।

8.कुतर्क-आधा सजा काट चुके विचाराधीन कैदी को जेल से रिहा करने का आदेश मोदी ने दिया।
सच्चाई-ये आदेश सुप्रीम कोर्ट ने CrPC का धारा 436A के आधार पर दिया है।वर्ष 2005 में CrPC में एक नई धारा 436A  जोड़ी गई जिसमें प्रावधान है कि यदि कोई भी अभियुक्त उसके विरुध्द लगे धाराओं के तहत मिलने वाली अधिकतम सजा का आधा सजा काट लिया है तो उसे जमानत देकर या बांड बनाकर जेल से रिहा कर देना चाहिए।

Common School System and Right to Education



Abstract:- "The Concept of common school system prevailing in the mindset of Govt which is seen in the nature of policy of Govt is totally of capitalist approach and same need not to be appreciated by the common people in the name of common school system. Bihar Common School System Commission submitted its report in which the commission has proposed to pass a bill namely The Bihar Right to Education and Common School System
(Equality, Excellence and Social Justice), Bill, 2007 wherein common school system has been confined to the system of providing school education of equitable quality to all children from the age of five years to the age of eighteen years.There are a lot of demerits in the the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 and in fact there is no discussion of common school system.So RTE Act,2009 can't lead us to create a circumstances to adopt the common school system."

1.Review Of Common School System

It is amazing that common school system has been seen in the nature of providing school education of equitable quality.The Education Commission of India in its report in 1964-66 recommended the establishment of a Common School System for all children irrespective of their class, caste, religious or linguistic background. The Kothari Commission's recommendation of a Common School System (CSS) across the country was endorsed by the National Education Policy, 1986 and POA, 1992. The Ramamurti Committee considered the development of Common School System (CSS) to be a “very vital component of the overall strategy for securing equity and social justice in education.” Parliament has expressed its unambiguous commitment to the Common School System thrice in its resolutions on the National Policy on Education in 1968, 1986 and 1992. But, report of the Education Commission of India,New Education Policy,1986 and report of Ramamurti Committee on the review of New Education Policy,1986 has merely seen common school system as the system of providing school education of equitable quality and the Parliament of India has reflected same view by its resolutions.
Bihar is the first state that constituted Bihar Common School System Commission in 2006 and the Commission Submitted its report on 8 June 2007.In its 313 paged reports,among other things ,the Commission drafted a bill namely The Bihar Right to Education and Common School System (Equality, Excellence and Social Justice), Bill, 2007 .
Section 2(iv) of The Bihar Right to Education and Common School System
(Equality, Excellence and Social Justice), Bill, 2007 defines common school system as
(iv) “Common School System” means a system of schools covering the
whole of the State of Bihar and comprising of government and private
recognised schools, providing school education of equitable quality to
all children from the age of five years to the age of eighteen years
ordinarily residing in the prescribed Poshak Kshetra .
Section 2(vii) of the said bill defines “Education of Equitable Quality as
(Vii)“Education of Equitable Quality” means education as provided by a
Neighbourhood School that conforms to the minimum Norms and
Standards as specified in Schedules I and II of this Act.
Schedule I of the said bill provides Norms and Standards for the Common School System wherein criteria has been proposed in the manner of required necessity of various infrastructure for the common school system and Schedule II of the said bill provides about the Medium of Education and the Teaching of Languages.
Solely providing equitable quality of education-in my words an education that can compete with the education quality of private school -is not common school system.The word common is more broad than its present meaning in regard to this subject matter.Common school system should mean a system of education where no private school exists and the Govt schools have infrastructure in such manner that the child of every person of the Country studies in the Govt School.This is the actual common school system that need to be adopted,enacted and enforced.
If Govt school will be made of higher quality and there also will be the private school ,then no common school system can be established in Bihar or elsewhere in the country because those who have more money will still send their children to the private school.Then how there will be common school system?How there will be the common facility,common standard of education and no disparity in the process of gaining education?
If private school is demolished and there is only Govt school,then the Govt school will automatically be of higher quality because the children of all leaders and bureaucrats will study in the Govt School and only due to this reason they will pay more attention to the Govt School and the condition of the Govt School will be changed in very few time.
Providing many private facilities in Indian Market is out of the principle of economics and law of market.If we take Private school for the example, they are neither following the law market,even nor following the principle of a capitalist economy.What market it is?It is not monopoly,monopolistic,oligopoly or perfect competition.It is another matter that there is higher demand and lower supply,so the price (fee of private school) should be higher because there is one more view of determining price in the market and the price is determined also on the type of market.Along with large number of demand (large number of students),now a large number of suppliers (Private Schools) are available in the market.Private Schools are available in each street of the town and that is the large number of suppliers,so there must have been perfect competition amongst the suppliers,amongst the private schools and thus price (fee)should have been less due to perfect competition.Even possessing the nature of a perfect competition market,the market is not perfect competition and determining fee arbitrarily on its own desire,as if there is monopoly.Each Private school is determining its own fee arbitrarily and establishing its own monopoly.In monopoly market,there is single supplier ,so price is determined arbitrarily but even being large number of suppliers,large number of private schools,price (fee) is determined arbitrarily by the these schools,as if even being in large number- possessing the nature of perfect competition,they have established its own monopoly due to lack of law and order.Same condition is applicable for private coaching centre,private nursing home,private bus,room rent etc.
An act must be passed for the removal of private schools in order to achieve the goal of common school system and in this act,in its preamble of the act,it must be mentioned that private schools are being run against the law of market and principle of economics.The bill suggested by the Bihar Common School System Commission must never be passed.

2.Review of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 and its relationship with common school system.

Right To Education Act,2009(the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 ) passed by Indian Parliament in 2009 and it is in force since 1 April 2014 with a motive to provide free elementary education to all children of the age group 6 to 14.It is the seventh Fundamental right enshrined under Article 21A of the Constitution of India.
Section 12(1)(C) of the RTE Act,2009 makes it mandatory for the private school to admit 25 % of the children belonging to weaker section and
disadvantaged group in the neighbourhood in class I and provide free and compulsory elementary education till its completion on the expenditure of Govt as per the provision of section 12(2) of the RTE Act,2009.But ,even many states have not initiated its first step to enforce this provision and those states who have initiated its first step to enforce this provision,could not be able to apply this provision in practice and admit 25% children belonging to weaker section and
disadvantaged group in the neighbourhood in class I.
Nothing is going to happen merely by making provision of the admitting 25 % Children of Class I in private school because we are in fact giving an obligation ,or in other words,making a request to do so and if they fail to do so,there is no provision of punishment under this section.There is need of removing private school,instead of making children admitted in these schools on Govt Expenditure.
Section 13 of the RTE Act,2009 provides as follows:-
13. No capitation fee and screening procedure for admission
(1) No school or person shall, while admitting a child, collect any capitation fee and subject the child or his or her parents or guardian to any screening procedure.
(2) Any school or person, if in contravention of the provisions of sub-section (1),–
(a) receives capitation fee, shall be punishable with fine which may extend to ten times the capitation fee charged;
(b) subjects a child to screening procedure, shall be punishable with fine which may extend to twenty five thousand rupees for the first contravention and fifty thousand rupees for each subsequent contraventions.
Section 2(b) of the said act defines ”capitation fee” as any kind of donation or contribution or payment other than the fee notified by the school;
What sorts of fee can be notified by the school is not mentioned elsewhere in this act and a school can notify many fees but it will not belong to capitation fee.Fee other than the school fee (fee of schooling) shall deemed to be capitation fee but there is no such provision.
If a child is subjected to screening procedure,then only there is the provision of fine.There is no provision of fine if a parents or guardian is subjected to screening procedure.
How these fines will be imposed,what will be the process of making application for these fines,have not been mentioned in this act.Then how it can be believed that there won't be screening procedure or there won't be imposition of capitation fee?
Section 16 of the RTE Act,2009 provides as follows:-
16. Prohibition of holding back and expulsion
No child admitted in a school shall be held back in any class or expelled from school till the completion of elementary education.
There is no provision of punishment if a child is held back or expelled.Then why a child will not be held back or expelled ,as there is no provision of punishment for those who holds back the child or expelled a child.
Section 17 of the RTE Act,2009 provides as follows:-
17. Prohibition of physical punishment and mental harassment to child
(1) No child shall be subjected to physical punishment or mental harassment.
(2) Whoever contravenes the provisions of sub-section (1) shall be liable to disciplinary action under the service rules applicable to such person.
Subjecting a child to physical and mental harassment is already an offence under the provisions of Indian Penal Code,1860 (Under section 323 of the IPC for causing hurt) and section 23 of the Juvenile Justice Act,2000.But section 17 of the RTE Act,2009 merely provides disciplinary action under the service rules applicable to such person.Is it not the way of protecting an offender by only initiating disciplinary action against that person?Why not it is said that a person (a teacher or a head teacher) subjecting a child to physical and mental harassment will be liable to punishment in accordance with the section 323 of the IPC and section 23 of the Juvenile Justice Act,2000 along with the disciplinary action under the service rules applicable to such person?
Section 21 of the RTE Act,2009 provides as follows:-
21. School Management Committee
(1) A school, other than a school specified in sub-clause (iv) of clause (n) of section 2, shall constitute a School Management Committee consisting of the elected representatives of the local authority, parents or guardians of children admitted in such school and teachers:
Provided that atleast three – fourth of members of such Committee shall be parents or guardians:
Provided further that proportionate representation shall be given to the parents or guardians of children belonging to disadvantaged group and weaker section:
Provided also that fifty per cent of Members of such Committee shall be women.
(2) The School Management Committee shall perform the following functions, namely:–
(a) monitor the working of the school;
(b) prepare and recommend school development plan;
(c) monitor such other functions as may be prescribed.
Section 22 of the RTE Act,2009 provides as follows:-
22. School Development Plan
(1) Every School Management Committee, constituted under sub-section (1) of section 21, shall prepare a School Development Plan, in such manner as may be prescribed.
(2) The School Development Plan so prepared under sub-section (1) shall be the basis for the plans and grants to be made by the appropriate Government or local authority, as the case may be.
There is no participation of child in the school management committee.How a committee can run in a good manner without the participation of child? Leadership must have been provided also to the child.
Who will be held responsible if school management committee is not constituted ,is not mentioned.Who will be held responsible if school development plan is not prepared,is not mentioned. Who will be held responsible if the school development plan prepared by the committee is not followed by the appropriate Government or local authority, as the case may be.
There is no provision of punishment if school management committee is not constituted.There is no provision of punishment if  school development plan is not prepared.There is no provision of punishment if school development plan is not followed by the appropriate Government or local authority, as the case may be.
In lack of such provisions,the provisions of section 21 and 22 of the said act will never be applied in practice.
Section 25 of the RTE Act,2009 Provides as follows:-
25. Pupil-Teacher Ratio
(1) Within six months from the date of commencement of this Act, the appropriate Government and the local authority shall ensure that the Pupil-Teacher Ratio, as specified in this Schedule, is maintained in each school.
(2) For the purpose of maintaining the Pupil-Teacher Ratio under sub-section (1), no teacher posted in a school shall be made to serve in any other school or office or deployed for any non-educational purpose, other than those specified in section 27.
Section 27 of the RTE Act,2009 provides as follows:-
27. Prohibition of deployment of teacher for non-educational purposes
No teacher shall be deployed for any non-educational purposes other than the decennial population cencus, disaster relief duties or duties relating to elections to the local authority or the State Legislatures or Parliament, as the case may be.
But the fact remains constant ,why teachers shall be made to serve in works specified in section 27 of the act.Deploying a teacher in works specified in section 27 is in fact against the Schedule of the Act.
S.No 3 of the Schedule of the Act is as follows:-
3.Minimum number of working days/instructional hours in an academic year
(i) two hundred working days for first class to fifth class;
(ii) two hundred and twenty working days for sixth class to eighth class;
(iii) eight hundred instructional hours per academic year for first class to fifth class;
(iv) one thousand instructional hours per academic year for sixth class to eighth class.
S.No 4 of the Schedule of the Act is as follows:-
4.Minimum number of working hours per week for the teacher
forty-five teaching including preparation hours.
Now the question arises how the provision of S.No.3 and S.No. 4 of the Schedule will be fulfilled if teachers are deployed in works as specified in section 27 of the act.If Teachers are deployed in election duty,cencus duty etc,then is it possible to maintain two hundred workings days and eight hundred instructional hours per academic year for the first class to fifth class,is it possible to maintain two hundred and twenty working days and one thousand instructional hours per academic year for sixth class to eighth class,is it possible to maintain forty-five working hours per week for the teacher? The provision of S.No.3 and S.No. 4 of the Schedule will not be fulfilled if teachers are deployed in works as specified in section 27 of the act.So,it ought to have been mentioned in the act that no teacher shall be deployed in any non-academic work and there shall be special staffs for those works and accordingly a new act must have been passed for the deploying of special staffs in those works which are done by teachers as specified in section 27 of the RTE Act,2009 or done by staffs of any department.It would generate employment and make department efficient in their own works.
Conclusion:- Common School System needs to be enacted in the manner as mentioned above in my article.The RTE Act,2009 needs to be amended in the manner as mentioned above in my Article.
Reference:-1.Report of the Bihar Common School System Commission
2.The Gazette Of India dated-27 Aug 2009 regarding notification on the the Right
of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009.
Residential Address
Rahul Kumar
S/O-Jagannath Ray
Vill & Post-Sughrain
Via-Bithan
Distt-Samastipur
State-Bihar
PIN-848207
Mob-07759071885 and 07654528780
Email Id-648rahul@gmail.com
College Address
Economics Honours(Part II)
CM College,Darbhanga
LNMU

MALALA:A CREATION OF AMERICA

Malala is the creation of America.In Swat Valley of Pakistan where she resided,obviously she has fought for girl's education and she is brutaly shot by Taliban,but her work was not competent enough to be worthy of nobel prize.Her work was only confined to her approach to some girls.Nobel Prize should never be given on the observation that even being a child,she has fought and brutaly shot,but always weightage of work should only be an observation.
Malala's father(Founder of a chain of school) had a political approach and this thing led to pay attention of PAK Govt and USA to her.USA deliberately made Malala a world personality and the motive of USA behind it was to suppress the fact that a lot of Malalas have been killed by USA in drone attack and to make USA influence heavier in Pakistan and Afganistan in the name of suppression being done by Taliban.Swat Valley is a mineral rich area of Pakistan and USA might have motive to approach that area and capture minerals.
.............................

महात्मा गाँधी का ब्रह्मचर्य प्रयोग आश्रम व्यवस्था के विरुध्द था।सन 1946 में 77 वर्ष का एक वृध्द व्यक्ति 17 वर्ष की लड़की(मृदुला गाँधी उर्फ मनु बेन) और आश्रम के अन्य महिलाओं के साथ नग्न अवस्था में सोता है और खुले तौर पर कहता है कि वह ब्रह्मचर्य का प्रयोग कर रहा है।हमारे धर्म ग्रन्थों में 25-25 वर्षों का चार आश्रम है।पहले 25 वर्ष तक ब्रह्मचर्य आश्रम,25 से 50 वर्ष तक गृहस्थ आश्रम,50 से 75 वर्ष तक वानप्रस्थ आश्रम और 75-100 वर्ष तक संन्यास आश्रम निर्धारित है।सिर्फ गृहस्थ आश्रम में ही यौन-इच्छा की पूर्ति करने की मान्यता दी गई है।यदि महात्मा गाँधी को ब्रह्मचर्य का प्रयोग करना था तो गृहस्थ आश्रम में ही अपने पत्नी के साथ करना चाहिए था।75 वर्ष की अवस्था में व्यक्ति संन्यास आश्रम में प्रवेश कर जाता है और उसे ये सिध्द करने की आवश्यकता नहीं रहती कि वह किसी महिला/लड़की के साथ नंगे सोने के बावजूद यौन-संबंध बनाए बगैर रह सकता है।वानप्रस्थ और संन्यास आश्रम में ये प्रयोग करने की जरुरत नहीं कि कोई व्यक्ति यौन-संबंध बनाए बगैर रह सकता है या नहीं क्योंकि उसे यौन-संबंध बनाए बगैर ही रहना है।गृहस्थ आश्रम मेँ ये प्रयोग होना चाहिए।

इधर दो फेसबुक मित्रों ने मुझसे पूछा है कि गोडसे द्वारा गाँधी का हत्या करना सही था या गलत।

गाँधी हत्या के पीछे कई रहस्य है।संभव है कि राष्ट्रीय स्वयंसेवक संघ ने गोडसे से गाँधी का हत्या करवाया हो और इसके पीछे संघ का ये उद्देश्य रहा हो कि गाँधी हिन्दू और मुस्लिम को समान दृष्टि से देखते थे और संघ हिन्दुओं को ये दिखाना चाहता हो कि हिन्दु-मुस्लिम एकता की बात करने वाला का यही हाल होना चाहिए ताकि हिन्दुओं का समर्थन संघ को मिल सके।एक रहस्य ये भी है कि गाँधी आजादी का विरोध विभाजन के साथ साथ एक और कारण से कर रहे थे।ऐसा माना जाता है कि भारत को आजादी एक गुप्त संधि के तहत मिली जिसमें आजादी के नाम पर सिर्फ सत्ता का हस्तांतरण हुआ है और भारत पर ब्रिटिश साम्राज्यवाद का अभी भी परोक्ष नियंत्रण है।गाँधी इस गुप्त संधि के विरोध में आंदोलन करने वाले थे जिससे पटेल,नेहरु खफा था।भारतीय संविधान का अनुच्छेद 147 भी कुछ ऐसा ही गुप्त संधि का संकेत देता है।हो सकता है कि गाँधी की हत्या इस कारण से भी की गई हो।लेकिन हरेक स्थिति में हत्या करना गलत था और गोडसे को आगे किया गया था।नेहरु ने गोडसे को फाँसी दिए जाने का विरोध किया था।
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

A BRIBE TO GOD

A BRIBE TO GOD
लोगों ने देवी-देवताओं के मूर्ति पर पैसे और विविध सामाग्रियों को चढ़ाने का परंपरा बना लिया है।मानो कि पैसा या सामग्री के बल पर देवी-देवताओं को अपने फायदा के लिए खरीद रहा हो।मानो कि अपना काम निकालने के लिए देवी-देवता को घूस दे रहा हो। हम अपना काम निकालने के लिए किसी व्यक्ति को पैसा या कोई उपहार मतलब घूस देते हैं और अपना काम निकालने के लिए देवी-देवताओं पर भी पैसा और विविध सामाग्री चढ़ाते हैं,इसलिए बात तो बराबर ही है।
यदि हम चाहते हैं कि भ्रष्टाचार रुके और हरेक व्यक्ति धर्म-सम्मत तरीके से धर्नाजन करे तो हमें देवी-देवता पर होने वाले चढ़ावा को भी रोकना होगा।क्योंकि जब कोई व्यक्ति अपना काम निकालने के लिए अपना भगवान को पैसा और सामाग्री दे सकता है तो वह व्यक्ति अपना काम निकालने के लिए किसी दूसरे व्यक्ति को पैसा और उपहार मतलब घूस देने में संकोच नहीं करेगा और घूस लेने में भी नहीं।
पूजा आत्मिक शक्तियों का सृजन के लिए की जानी चाहिए(जहाँ चढ़ावा चढ़ाने की जरुरत नहीं होती),कोई मन्नत पूरा करवाने के लिए नहीं।जब आत्मिक शक्तियों का सृजन हो जाएगा तो मनुष्य कर्मयोगी बन जाएगा और अपने कर्म के बलबूते अपने मन्नत को पूरा कर लेगा।

I have said this act as bribe to god on two points-

1.People offers god money and materials and same is offered in bribe.

2.There is some motive behind offering bribe that a person offering bribe wants to fulfill his desire.

There is one more point that should be included-

3.Without doing work,people offering money and materials wants to get result by the bless of god and same is in the case of bribe that people wants to get a certain result or wants a certain work done without having potency and eligibility for that result or work.

Then,there must not be any objection in saying this act bribe to god. No matter god never demands it or accepts it.The matter is that we are offering it with a certain motive to quench the desire without doing work and as per this mindset of people,this act can be called as bribe to god.

There might be an exceptional case and merely few people can be exceptional because they are self-satisfied in such a way that they offer things to god by understanding things valueless.But it is an exceptional case and if we talk about something in a generalized form of mentality,attitude or mindset,we talk about most of the people and bribe to god is applied against most of the people,not in exceptional case.
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
पौराणिक पंडितों का राम के विरुध्द साजिश
________
ये कहानी सरासर असत्य है कि राम ने सीता को महज इसलिए देश-निकाला दे दिया क्योंकि नगरवासी को शक था कि लंका में सीता अपवित्र हो गई।जब नकली सीता लंका गई थी तो फिर असली सीता अपवित्र हुई कैसे?बाल्मीकि रामायण के साथ छेड़खानी करके पौराणिक पंडितों द्वारा इस कहानी को जोड़ा गया है।वस्तुतः सीता गर्भवती होने के पश्चात संतानोत्पति के लिए वन गई थी क्योंकि वैदिक संस्कार-विधि में ऐसी मान्यता है कि गर्भवती महिला को वन में रहने से संस्कारी संतान उत्पन्न होता है।जब गौतम बुध्द गर्भ में थे तो उनकी माँ भी लुम्बिनी वन संतानोत्पति के लिए गई थी।अभी हम जिस बाल्मीकि रामायण को पढ़ते हैं,वो पौराणिक है जिसमें कई मनगढ़ंत कहानियाँ पुराणपंथियों ने जोड़ दिया है।आप रामायण का वैदिक संस्करण पढ़े जो मूल बाल्मीकि रामायण है जिसमें स्पष्ट है कि संतानोत्पति के लिए सीता वन गई थी।पौराणिक पंडितों ने अत्याचार से पीड़ित महिला को भी अपवित्र करार देने के लिए कहानी के साथ छेड़छाड़ कर दिया ताकि लोग ये सोचकर सीता जैसी परिस्थिति या उससे भी बुरी परिस्थिति से गुजरने वाली महिला को गलत समझे क्योंकि राम भी गलत समझते थे।

सीता संतानोत्पति के पश्चात राम के पास लौटी या नहीं, इसके बारे में वैदिक रामायण में क्या लिखा है मुझे नहीँ पता क्योंकि वैदिक रामायण का अध्ययन करने वाले व्यक्ति से चर्चा के दौरान वैदिक रामायण का ये तथ्य उनके मुख से मैंने सुना।उन्होंने और भी कई कहानियाँ बताई जो कि पौराणिक रामायण में मनगढ़ंत है।हालांकि यदि वैदिक रामायण में भी सीता वापस नहीं लौटी तो इसका कारण ये भी हो सकता है कि वह अपने पुत्र का शिक्षा महर्षि बाल्मीकि के सान्निध्य में संपन्न कराना चाहती हो और सीता ने अपने पुत्र के शिक्षा के लिए वन में ही रहना उचित समझा हो।जीवन के पच्चीस साल का समय ब्रह्मचर्य आश्रम का होता था जिसमें वन में रहकर शिक्षा ग्रहण करना पड़ता था।लोग शिक्षा ग्रहण करने घर से वन जाते थे तो फिर सीता जब पुत्र के साथ वन में थी ही तो वन से घर क्यों आए।विशुध्द ब्रह्मचर्य आश्रम यही होता कि लव-कुश अपने बचपन का समय वन में गुजार कर शिक्षा ग्रहण करे।चूँकि लव-कुश काफी छोटे थे,इसलिए सीता उसे छोड़ कर नहीं जा सकती थी।


 नकली सीता की कहानी पौराणिक रामायण में है जिसमें कहा गया है कि असली सीता अग्निदेव के संरक्षण में थी और नकली सीता को बनाया गया जो लंका गई।फिर यहाँ ये सवाल खड़ा होता है कि जब असली सीता लंका गई ही नहीं और लंका में सभी के समक्ष अग्निदेव ने असली सीता को राम को सुपुर्द किया था,फिर राम सीता पर कैसे शक कर सकते हैं?राम अपने राज्यवासी का शक ये कहकर भी दूर कर सकते थे कि नकली सीता लंका गई थी और अग्निदेव को बुलवा कर इसकी पुष्टि करवा सकते थे।वैदिक रामायण में ऐसी कोई कहानी नहीं है।सवाल ये भी खड़ा होता है कि जब नकली सीता लंका गई थी तो राम को पहले से ज्ञात था कि असली सीता सुरक्षित है और ये भी ज्ञात था कि नकली सीता लंका गई है,फिर राम सीता हरण के बाद सीता को खोजने के पीछे इतना परेशान क्यों थे?सारी पौराणिक कहानी फर्जी है।मैं वैदिक और पौराणिक दोनों रामायण का पूरी तरह अध्ययन करने के बाद पौराणिक रामायण के विरुध्द मुकदमा दायर करुँगा क्योंकि पौराणिक रामायण में लिखित विरोधाभासी कथन और तथ्य से स्पष्ट है कि पौराणिक रामायण की कहानियाँ मनगढ़ंत है और वैदिक रामायण में स्थिर बयान और तथ्य होने से स्पष्ट है कि ये मूल बाल्मीकि रामायण है।
...................................
सवाल ये खड़ा किया गया है कि इसका क्या प्रमाण है कि गीता में बाद में कई श्लोक जोड़ा गया है और मूल 108 श्लोक ही गीता में मौजूद थी,अभी का 700 श्लोक नहीं था।भले ही इसका प्रत्यक्ष या दस्तावेजी प्रमाण नहीं है,लेकिन तार्किक प्रमाण जरुर है।

1.अर्जुन को रणभूमि में कृष्ण धर्म की रक्षा के लिए युध्द करने के लिए संदेश दे रहे थे और कर्म,ज्ञान और भक्ति का उस वक्त वहीं संदेश दिया जा सकता है जो रणभूमि में दुविधाग्रस्त अर्जुन को युध्द के लिए जागृत कर सके।फिर अधर्म के बढ़ जाने से स्त्री दूषित हो जाती है,बगैर अन्नदान और दक्षिणा का यज्ञ तामस यज्ञ होता है,सात्विक,राजस और तामस भोजन,कृष्ण का विराट और चमत्कारी रुप से जुड़ा श्लोक कहाँ से आ गई जो मौजूद तथ्य और परिस्थिति के अनुसार प्रासंगिक है ही नहीं।

2.कृष्ण ने रण भूमि में गीता संदेश कितने देर के लिए दिया था?क्या उतने कम समय में 700 श्लोक बोला जा सकता है?उतने कम समय में कोई मुझे 700 श्लोक बोलकर और समझाकर दिखाए।
मैं गीता के कुल 700 श्लोक पर टिप्पणी करुँगा और ये निष्कर्ष निकालूँगा कि कौन कौन श्लोक गीता का मूल श्लोक हो सकता है और कौन कौन श्लोक गीता में पौराणिक पंडितों ने जोड़ दिया है।

..........................

Chanting hymns without understanding its meaning is a slave mentality because a person is a person of slave mentality till the time when he attains his independent way of thinking and developes an independent understanding.
............................