#everydayquiz #improveEnglish
The Hindu: December 10, 2015
The Gandhis must face the courts
Whatever( जो कुछ भी) be the merits( गुण) of the charges against the principal office-bearers(धारक ) of the Congress party in the ‘National Herald’ case,
it is an issue that has to be settled in a court of law, and not in the wider
political arena( कार्यक्षेत्र ), much less in Parliament.
If the Congress believes
there has been no wrongdoing(अन्याय ) in the transactions related to the acquisition(अधिग्राहण) of Associated Journals Private Ltd. by Young Indian, a
non-profit company in which the party's president, Sonia Gandhi, and
vice-president, Rahul Gandhi, are the main shareholders, it must simply choose
the judicial( न्यायिक) route to establish their innocence. The Delhi High
Court order upholding the trial court summons(बुलावा ) to both of them, along with other directors of Young
Indian, is based on what it sees as prima facie( प्रथम दृष्टि में) evidence ( सबूत )of criminality. The best way to deal with the
situation is to face it legally. When Subramanian Swamy first questioned the
legality of the transactions, it was the Congress that challenged(ललकार ) him to take Ms. Gandhi and her son to court. “It is
for those who make allegations( इलज़ाम) to prove their charges,” the party had said in 2012.
It cannot then turn around( कायापलट कर देना) now and say that the entire proceedings amount to
political vendetta( प्रतिशोध). Even if there is a political motive, the party’s
president and vice-president have to provide answers to the questions that have
arisen(उठना) from the
trial court summons(बुलावा ) and the High Court’s refusal to intervene(हस्तक्षेप करना). To disrupt(गड़बड़ करना) Parliament on an issue that involves no larger public
interest goes against all democratic norms, and it cannot be justified on any
count. Indeed, to speak of political vendetta following a court summons is to
cast aspersions(दोष) on the very
independence of the judiciary(न्यायपालिका).
A look at the facts of the case does make one doubt
whether AJL could not have protected its shareholders’ interests by liquidating( बेच डालना) some of its assets in order to return its loan to the
Congress. The floating(अल्पकालिक) of
Young Indian, described by the court as a ‘special purpose vehicle’, does cast
some suspicion(अविश्वास ). At the same time, the weak point in Dr. Swamy’s case seems to
be the absence of any identifiable( पहचान योग्य) victim(पीड़ित) who has been cheated or whose funds have been
misappropriated. After all, the various assets of AJL still stand in its name
and the shareholders of Young Indian, which being a Section 25 (non-profit)
company, cannot get any dividend or profit out of the company’s rental income.
The Congress will have to believe in its own contention( प्रतिविरोध) that there was no ‘entrustment’ in the first place for
anyone’s trust to be breached( उल्लंघन ) and that no one claims to be deceived(धोख़ा देना) or cheated. But the judicial process will have to be
faced squarely( वर्गमूल) without resort to political theatre. The charges of
cheating and criminal breach of trust against the Congress leaders will have to
be countered(प्रतिकार करना) only through the legal route.
The Hindu: Trumpeting bigotry( कट्टरता )
American politics touched a new low this week when
Donald Trump, a frontrunner for the Republican presidential nomination(नामांकन ), called for a “total and complete shutdown(बंद करना) of Muslims entering the United States”. Mr. Trump’s
controversial( विवादग्रस्त) remarks( आलोचना ) in the past, including offensive( अपमानजनक) statements about undocumented(बिना दस्तावेज़ का) Mexican immigrants( किसी देश में जाने वाला) being rapists, insults to war veterans(अनुभवी व्यक्ति ) and sexist attacks on women in the media, drew
expected criticism( आलोचना ) from Democrats and other liberals. Yet, this time even
fellow Republican candidates and mainstream( मुख्यधारा ) Republican Party heavyweights distanced themselves
from Mr. Trump’s views on Muslims. The property mogul’s comment contradicts( विपरीत होना), morally if not legally, the First Amendment to the U.S.
Constitution, which requires that “Congress shall make no law respecting an
establishment of religion, or prohibiting( निषेध करने की आज्ञा ) the free exercise thereof”. Islamophobia in the U.S.,
which surged(आगे बढ़ना) after the 9/11 terror attacks, appears to be on the
rise again. This time it is coterminous(सीमा) with soaring(उड़नेवाला) worldwide anxiety(उत्सुकता) about Islamic State, which has been linked to the
Paris terror attacks of November and last week’s shooting in San Bernardino,
California. Little wonder then that the numerically significant cohorts(संगी) of the U.S. conservative( वर्तमान नियम के बदले जाने का विरोधी) fold are lapping up(उत्सुकतापूर्वक ग्रहण करना) Mr. Trump’s incendiary(भड़काने वाला), divisive proposal. Their support is manifested(व्यक्त) in the one polling trend that has baffled( चकित) campaign analysts, Mr. Trump’s evergreen( लोकप्रिय) lead over all other candidates, which shows no sign of
withering( तिरस्कारपूर्ण) in the face of his increasingly reckless(असावधान) provocations(उकसाना). After this week’s foray(आक्रमण ) into apparent(स्पष्ट) bigotry( कट्टरपन ), a rolling five-day poll by Reuters placed his
support vote at 35.6 per cent, giving him a comfortable lead over Florida’s
Senator Marco Rubio, a distant second at 14.9 per cent.
The Trump phenomenon( अद्भुत वस्तु () begs( निवेदन करना) questions both tactical(सुनियोजित) and strategic. Tactically, he has made a stark( पूर्ण रूप से) choice in the matter of battle-versus-war and it could
well win him the Republican nomination. His steady( संतुलित) march(अभियान) to the far right of American politics is a safe bet
that he will emerge(उभर कर आना), or has already emerged, as the favourite of those who
championed the cause of the Tea Party, of immigration hawks(हिंसक व्यक्ति), pro-lifers, white supremacists, gun-lovers and all manner of
conservatives. However, that leaves the rest of America unaccounted(न समझाया जा सकने योग्य) for, especially the elusive(भटकाने वाला) median( मध्य मूल्य) and swing voters. Unless Mr. Trump abruptly( आकस्मिक रूप से) changes tack ( जहाज की दिशा बदलना )post-nomination, a move that could prove politically
costly in itself, he may have handed the Democratic nominee, likely to be
Hillary Clinton, the keys to the Oval(अंडाकार) Office next year. Beyond the nomination battle, the
broader strategic link between the rise of IS and the worldwide proliferation( प्रसार) of Islamophobia is paramount(सर्व श्रेष्ठ). Perhaps mindful of this link, Ms. Clinton has moved in exactly
the opposite direction, towards the political centre. She has taken a firmer( मजबूत) stand against IS than President Barack Obama did, yet
spoken expansively(ठाठ से) about fostering(पालन-पोषण ) an attitude of inclusiveness. Depending on which
paradigm(paradigm) prevails( प्रचलन), post-2016 America will either continue to welcome
minorities to its shores(समुद्र का किनारा), or emerge( उभर कर आना) as a source of recruitment propaganda( फैलाना) for extremists(चरमपंथी).
#SSC #IBPS #SBI #RBI
#NABARD #NICL #NIACL #CAT #NMAT #everydayquiz
No comments:
Post a Comment