Hindus in Russia tense ahead of final verdict on Gita ban

Moscow:  India's diplomatic efforts to resolve a controversy relating to Russian state prosecutors' bid to get a Russian interpretation of the Bhagavad Gita banned and branded extremist literature will be put to test again with a high court in the Siberian city of Tomsk set to deliver its final verdict on Tuesday.
Anxiety and frustration has gripped Hindus in Russia as they feel there was a state-sponsored effort to proscribe "Bhagavad Gita As It Is", written by A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada, the founder of the International Society for Krishna Consciousness (ISKCON). Prosecutors have gone in appeal against a Tomsk lower court's dismissal of their plea December 28 last.
Indo-Asian News Service(IANS) had brought the case to global notice in December when Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh was in Moscow for a summit meeting with Russian President Dmitry Medvedev, resulting in an uproar back home in India. Parliament was rocked for two days over the Russian prosecutors' attack on their supreme religious text and philosophical treatise.
This led to External Affairs Minister S.M. Krishna making a statement in parliament on the Tomsk city case that was filed in June 2011 and the Indian government mounting a diplomatic effort at the "highest levels" with the Russian government to get the matter resolved.
"Anxiety is mounting. The appeal by the state prosecutors is coming up for a final hearing on March 20 at the higher court in Tomsk," Bhakti Vijnana Goswami, the international chief of ISKCON, told IANS over the phone. He is currently on international tour and was somewhere in West Asia.
"This is the final hearing in the state prosecutors' appeal beginning on Tuesday. The verdict in the case may be pronounced either on Tuesday or Wednesday," ISKCON devotee Sadhu Priya Das told IANS from Moscow.
The appeal came up for hearing March 6 and, after hearing the prosecutors, the court fixed March 20 to hear the Hindus on their defence before the verdict is delivered.
Tomsk region prosecutor general Vasily Voikin, in his appeal, demanded that a Russian interpretation included in 'Bhagavad Gita As It Is' be banned.
"The prosecutor has demanded that a Russian translation of a comment in this book, earlier published in English, be banned as extremist, not the canonical text of the scripture," Tomsk region deputy prosecutor general Ivan Semchishin argued.
"The bid to ban the Russian translation of the Bhagavad Gita has been misunderstood," Tomsk region prosecutor general Alexander Buksman said.
"It's important to discern gems from the chatter in this very case; the society's perception of this issue is that prosecutors are standing against the concepts of this religion (Hinduism). However, the problem is that the Russian translation has paragraphs that could be seen as promoting extremism; prosecutors started the case for that reason," Buksman said.
"The prosecutor (Voikin) is now maintaining his claims in an appeal court for that very reason," Semchishin added.
However, Hindus have dismissed the prosecutors' claim, saying these were "twists" being given for public consumption.
"The prosecutors have based their appeal on the lines of the same arguments they placed before the lower court -- that the book is extremist and spread hatred against non-believers," Mikhail Frolov, the advocate for Hindus in the case, told IANS from Moscow. He pointed out to Semchischin's remarks that the prosecutor is maintaining his claims on Bhagavad Gita in the appeal too.
"In reality, the prosecutors are seeking a ban on Bhagavad Gita. They do not want to see the tradition related to commentaries on the Bhagavad Gita," Mr Goswami said.
Interestingly, Krishna devotees in Russia held a conference on Bhagavad Gita in Tomsk on March 1, ahead of the appeal in the case coming up before the higher court. Scholars, a majority of them Russian, came out strongly in support on 'Bhagavad Gita As It Is' and condemned the prosecutors' attempts to ban it.
In another effort to drum up support, a group of 20 Russian scholars on India wrote an open letter to Kremlim duo, Dmitry Medvedev and president-to-be Vladimir Putin, to take personal interest relating to the controversy and get the prosecutors' attempts to get Bhagavad Gita ban dropped.
"The book does not contain any signs of extremism and does not incite hatred on ethnic, religious or any other grounds. On the contrary, the book written in the commentary tradition of Bengali Vaishnavism, one of the most popular branches of Hinduism, is considered sacred by a section of believers," the scholars said.
The scholars warned that the trial "discredits Russia's cultural and democratic credentials in the eyes of the civilised world and is driving a wedge in Russian-Indian relations."

For NDTV Updates, follow us on Twitter or join us on Facebook

View the original article here

Webcam spying case: Clementi's gay partner describes verdict on Ravi as 'just'

New York:  With Indian-origin student Dharun Ravi convicted in the webcam spying case, the family of his Rutgers roommate Tyler Clementi, who had committed suicide, say the case brought pain to many people and should serve as an example that others should be treated with respect.

Mr Ravi, 20, was found guilty by a jury yesterday on all 15 charges of bias intimidation, invasion of privacy and witness tampering that he faced for spying on Mr Clementi's sexual encounter with his male partner.

Mr Clementi's partner identified as MB, who was among the 30 witnesses to testify in the trial, issued a statement calling the verdict "just." MB said "for him to heal within and be a better person the redemption would have to begin and end within his own mind and heart.

"But we must be mindful that when one person truly hurts another, society must have the right to demand justice for all. And if that means that Ravi should be reminded that his type of conduct must be deterred, then so be it."

Mr Clementi had committed suicide in September 2010 after he found out that Ravi had seen him kissing another man, known in court records only as MB, and had then texted his other friends to watch the encounter online.

Mr Ravi will be sentenced on May 21 and faces a possible 10 year prison term and subsequent deportation to India. Mr Ravi sat expressionless in a packed New Jersey courtroom as the jury read out its verdict in the case, which has generated massive interest across the country and was being closely followed by the American media.

Mr Ravi's attorney Steven Altman has said he plans to appeal in the case.

After Mr Ravi's conviction Joe Clementi, the father of Tyler Clementi, read a statement to reporters in which he thanked the prosecutor's office for remaining sensitive to the family's concerns, and ensuring the privacy of his son and the protection of his friend MB.
"The trial was painful for us, as it would be for any parent who must sit and listen to people talk about bad and inappropriate things that were done to their child," Mr Clementi, accompanied by his wife, Jane and son James, said.

"We were here every day because we wanted to be here for our son and because we believe the trial was important because it dealt with important issues for our society and for our young people today."

He said his message to young people in college and high school is that "You're going to meet a lot of people in your lifetime. Some of these people you may not like. But just because you don't like them, does not mean you have to work against them. When you see somebody doing something wrong, tell them, "That's not right. Stop it."

"You can make the world a better place. The change you want to see in the world begins with you," he added.

The family set up a foundation in their son's name and hoped that the attention the case has got will help their efforts to sensitise young people "in the important areas of respect, privacy, responsibility in a digital world."

MB said the case has caused much hurt to too many innocent people. "Tyler was a good person and seeing his family go through the tortures of the trial was painful," he said.

He said he had hoped that a trial could have been avoided but it was Mr Ravi's decision to defend himself in court and now "he will have to live with it."

He added that even though he had testified in the case, he bore no malice or hatred toward Ravi.

For NDTV Updates, follow us on Twitter or join us on Facebook

View the original article here

Budget Bombshell: Vodafone verdict prompts changes to tax laws

New Delhi: 

In a move that will have far-reaching impact on foreign investment and the Vodafone tax case, the government has proposed an amendment to the Income tax act from April 1, 1962 that would allow it to tax transactions like Vodafone's acquisition of Hutch. 

The government has quietly inserted an amendment to provisions of the Income Tax Act to tax overseas transfer of shares that hold underlying assets in India like in the Vodafone situation. The government plans enforce the amendment with retrospective effect from 1962.

According to R S Gujral, finance secretary, transactions like Vodafone are subject to taxes in India.

“The new amendment is only a clarification reiterating the point that such transactions are to be taxed in India,” he said.

He also said that the 10 per cent withholding tax should have been levied on Vodafone.

He said that the government expects to recover Rs 35,000 to Rs 40,000 crore from cases similar to Vodafone and that the figure included Vodafone.

This means the government has changed laws with retrospective effect (1962).

Experts have expressed an outrage over the decision.

“The government has challenged the Supreme Court,” Surjit Bhalla, chairman Ox(u)s Investment.

“The decision will affect investor sentiment,” Ketan Dalal of PriceWaterhouseCoopers, a consultancy firm said.

The BSE Sensex shed 1.3 per cent at 3.30 pm on Friday.

On 20 January 2012, the Supreme Court ruled that Vodafone, the British telecom giant does not have to pay taxes and penalties for the transaction that saw the company acquire 67 per cent stake in Hutchison Essar, a mobile phone operator in India in 2007. The deal was for 55,000 crore or $11.5 billion.

The Supreme Court had said that Indian tax officials do not have jurisdiction over a deal between two global companies, even if the assets involved in that deal are located in India. 

The Supreme Court had said that the Vodafone tax case was an "eye-opener" for Indian legislature to take measures to meet such unprecedented situations which arise due to "what we lack in our regulatory laws".

"Case in hand is an eye-opener of what we lack in our regulatory laws and what measures we have to take to meet the various unprecedented situations, that too without sacrificing national interest," Justice K S Radhakrishnan, who wrote a separate judgment concurring with the findings of Chief Justice S H Kapadia and Justice Swatanter Kumar had said.

The court said insufficient legislation might give opportunities for money laundering and tax evasion adding "it is imperative that Indian Parliament would address all these issues with utmost urgency".

For NDTV Updates, follow us on Twitter or join us on Facebook

View the original article here

2G: Govt seeks review of verdict questioning policy

New Delhi:  The government today moved the Supreme Court questioning its verdict holding the policy of first-come-first-served in 2G spectrum allocation as unconstitutional while cancelling 122 licences saying it has entered into the exclusive domain of the executive and beyond the limits of judicial review.

The review petition contended the top court's prescription of a single method for distribution of all natural resources, including spectrum, through "auction" route is contrary to the principle of separation of powers embodied in the Constitution.

The government said the February 2 judgement cancelling the 2G licences "is liable to be reviewed since there are errors which are apparent on the face of the record" and there are other sufficient reasons for reviewing the verdict delivered by a bench of justices G S Singhvi and A K Ganguly (since retired).

While pointing out flaws in the policy of auction, the petition said there was error in the judgement that State is duty bound to follow this procedure in all cases, as no reasonable authority could hold that in all cases, natural resources must go to the highest bidder.

The government also questioned the top court for interfering into the policy decision and said the judgement in respect of the policy is "directly contrary to the settled law."

It said the remarks made in the judgement that the policy of first-come-first-served adopted in the 2G spectrum was "lopsided" and "flawed" and was not in public interest needs reconsideration.

Quoting several top court judgements, the petition said "the essence of policy-making and governance is the weighing and balancing of different values and considerations, which is the role of the executive, and it is not permissible for the court to take this exercise upon itself and engage in policy-making, both for the reason that it is not its role to do so and it does not have the expertise to do so."

"For that, the court travelled beyond the established limits of judicial review and entered the exclusive domain of the executive when it held in the impugned judgment that the policy was flawed on the ground that the court disagreed with the weight attached by the executive to the different factors underlying the decision to adopt the policy," the petition said.

The government submitted the Supreme Court had erred in holding the first-come-first-served policy as "flawed" and "lopsided" as the considerations of maximizing short-term revenue for the state outweighed promoting growth, affordability, penetration of wireless services in semi-urban and rural areas, as well as maintaining a level-playing field between existing and new licensees for 2G spectrum.

It said that in holding the policy to be not in public interest, the court's finding was "entirely contrary to the jurisprudence of judicial review, which does not permit a court to hold a policy decision to be flawed only because the court has a different view from that of the executive of what lies in public interest."

Further, the government said that within the limited scope of a judicial review, the court "ought not to have disapproved of the policy on the ground that the state could have earned greater revenue by following a different policy."

For NDTV Updates, follow us on Twitter or join us on Facebook

View the original article here

Yes, was under pressure to resign after Supreme Court verdict, says Army Chief

New Delhi:  Army Chief General V K Singh, who lost his battle with the Defence Ministry on the age row, feels the Supreme Court has "not effectively" closed the issue but ruled out his resignation.

"It would be dishonest to say that that I was not under pressure to resign.  Even my closest advisors were affected by the media interpretation and, yes, I was extremely disappointed that the Supreme Court had not effectively closed the issue.

"... as chief of army staff, I have a responsibility towards the army and its men and have to attend to the unfinished tasks that I had set out for myself.  I cannot quit until I complete what I have started. Organisational interests are supreme," he told "Outlook" magazine in an interview.

General Singh said many commentators were looking at this matter as a classic case of strained civil-military relations, and drew parallels with the unfinished resignation of General K S Thimmayya, to predict his resignation.

"But I see the age as something that I and the army have to address, and we will do it once we are given a legal order," he said in reply to a question about the wide speculation that he would resign since the Supreme Court did not uphold his case.

General Singh said the apex court order has created more confusion, without addressing the main issue. It talks of a statutory complaint being divided into two parts--the process of decision-making on the one hand and maintainability on the other.

"The Ministry of Defence (MoD) has argued that since the decision has been taken by them to peg my Year of Birth as 1950, I must accept this regardless.  This goes against the principles of natural justice," General Singh said.

Asked about the impression that he had lost the battle and that the Supreme Court had ruled against him, he said it was a strange situation.

While the apex court was dealing with the case there was a parallel minute-by-minute interpretation of the proceedings in the media.  Breaking news on TV and newspaper headlines the next day delivered their own verdict which declared that 'the General has lost the battle'.

But, he said, when the order came out on February 15, the media did not report it and everyone missed its import. "It is an innocuous order that leaves recognition of the DoB to the competent authority based on records.  The media was reporting obiter dicta in a highly exaggerated manner," he said.

To a question about his decision to withdraw the petition in the court gave an impression that he was satisfied with what the court had to say, General Singh said after his statutory complaint was rejected the Defence Ministry on December 30 last, he had moved the court.

On February 3, the court questioned the decision-making process which led to it being turned down and opined that it went against the principles of natural justice.

On February 10, the Attorney General withdrew the Defence Ministry's order against the statutory complaint and tacitly admitted that the actual DoB was 1951 and that the ministry was opposing it only "on a matter of principle".

General Singh said after that there was nothing else to be said in court especially since the judges had also indicated that the court did not want to get into the actual date of birth.

"Now, unless the Defence Ministry's decision-making process is spelt out so as to explain the rationale behind still pegging my YoB as 1950, how can I challenge it. I therefore withdrew my petition and have decided to wait for the MoD to give its reasons afresh," he said.

He said it is important to put in place systems that ensure that such cases were never repeated in future.

Asked about the views of his daughter who wrote in an article pointing at the hand of former chief General J J Singh in the DoB controversy, General Singh gave no direct answer except to say that the problem got aggravated when the Defence Ministry chose to "endorse this line without going into why this was being done".

Q: Are you saying that the 2006 decision (taken by J J Singh) was illegal?

A: It has its ramifications. Even I say that I don't contest it, it cannot be implemented because the SC order does not say anything about the legality of two different dates of birth.

To a question he was looked upon as someone standing up to the establishment, giving as good as he got, General Singh said, "being Chief of the Indian Army does not insulate me from public opinion and I am aware that many feel that I was wrong in taking the fight to the MoD".

He said the tendency after reaching senior ranks is to avoid rocking the boat. "But if I, as the chief, did not stand up for what is correct, what sort of a message would I be sending to the rank and file," he said.

Similarly, he said, that despite the overwhelming opinion he should resign, it was necessary for him to stay the course.

"The SC has sidestepped the issue. But it certainly does not clear the way for any illegal order to be given to the Army. Had I resigned, it would have been a self-goal and in the long run, against the interest of the organisation," General Singh said.

For NDTV Updates, follow us on Twitter or join us on Facebook

View the original article here