The distorted National Anthem!

The Supreme Court ruled that the National Anthem has to be played before the screening of movies in movie halls and while it is played, the doors of the halls should be kept shut.

I have been more than an average patriot, am and will always be. However, I consider it bizarre for the court to have decreed as such in relation to National Anthem. Respect has to come from within the heart of every citizen, which cannot be forced. Earlier days movie halls used to play the anthem at the end of the movie and many people used to hurriedly exit either during the play of the Anthem.

Jindal won a phenomenal victory as a citizen, getting the restrictions on hoisting flags on private buildings reversed in the Supreme Court. How many residences display the flag?

The present generation, which is born long after independence of our nation, does not know the sacrifices that our leaders and masses made to drive the colonial rulers out. It is a hair-raising event to view, when our soldiers hoist the flag in places like Kargil, in life threatening conditions as in the sports stadiums. The National Anthem was misused and abused in every possible way, often for commercial gains and stopping that is a welcome step. Political parties should also be barred from the use of the colours of the National flag for their parties.

The present flag-bearers of the country, the lawmakers in the government and in the opposition, seldom fall in the category of great leaders, evincing awe and a voluntary respect from the ordinary citizens. Demanding a respect, either by statute or by force therefore may defeat the purpose of instilling patriotism of any kind.

The court could well have stayed away from such forced measures, may not evoke any national fervor or patriotism to all. People like me will salute the flag and stand in respect, whenever and wherever the National Anthem is played, regardless of how the judiciary has felt about it.

Sampath Kumar

Intrépide voix

 

No your Lordship III

The Judiciary does it again. The Delhi High court, while hearing an appeal from a harassed parent couple who wished to evict their son and daughter-in-law from their house decides that an adult son…

Source: No your Lordship III

No your Lordship III

The Judiciary does it again. The Delhi High court, while hearing an appeal from a harassed parent couple who wished to evict their son and daughter-in-law from their house decides that an adult son lives at their parent’s home only at their mercy.

The High court upheld the decision of the lower court, while ruling that a person can stay at their parents’ house only at the mercy of the latter. This conditional on the fact that the property not being an inherited one and is a self-acquired by the parents. The son can live only at the mercy of the parents up to the time the parents allow it.

It cannot be always denied that the son’s attitude changes after marriage, when he has to share his life with his wife. This finds difficult to digest by an adoring mother, who starts finding fault with the daughter-in –law, the differences often reaching to breaking point. Who could be really at fault could be a tough question to decide legally, as several psychological factors may influence the situation.

The second factor is the character of the father himself. What if he is of a loose moral character and wishes to send his son and daughter-in-law away to move in with another live-in partner, or even a second wife, which is altogether not strange? What if the daughter, influenced by a crooked son-in-law engineers the eviction of the son to gobble the property of her parents?

Lastly, the joint family system is a time-tested system, being given a go-by these days, particularly in the urban centers, leading to disconnect from the roots and culture. This will also lead to lesser emotional bonding and consequential fragile family relationships as we see in the west. Are we ready to embrace the western culture, with respect to our children or parents, just because the judiciary decides so?

Can the son, who has to struggle through his life, particularly while fighting to get a job of whatever kind, becoming a load on the parents is evicted? In Hindu families the son performs as long as he lives the monthly and yearly rituals for his deceased parents, by way of Tarpan and Shradh. Can the judiciary also snap these?

On the other side, vulnerability of the old parents, who are bundled out to far off old age homes, when they require not a shelter, but a bit of love need to be controlled by the judiciary, which they have begun recently.

The case in Delhi court has generalized the scenario and failed to take into factors, which transcend judicial points alone and should be reviewed, recalled to make it more comprehensive. Can the court merely order either of the spouses to fulfill the carnal desires of the partner? There is something called heart and emotion, which judiciary alone cannot decide! Would the applicable to daughters too or is gender specific? I must hasten to add that I have not undermined the plight of the hapless parents in the said case, but merely looked at the flip side of such orders.

There is shortage of effective judicial minds in the country!

Sampath Kumar

Intrépide voix