Kalamji Birthday

Courtesy: The Hindu

ALAPPUZHA: The former President, A.P.J. Abdul Kalam, who arrived here late on Thursday night, is one who prefers to stay away from the limelight, particularly on his birthdays. And when the clock struck 12, he welcomed the 80th year of his life in his own style – very quietly, with a few close associates and then, in the unusual company of policemen.

Mr. Kalam, who spent the night at the State Guest House here, cut a cake in the presence of personal secretary R.K. Prasad, advisor V. Ponraj, a couple of former associates from his Hyderabad days, and then, the policemen who were on duty at the guest house and the guest house staff as well. The policemen, tired after the day’s work and in for a long night, were pleasantly surprised when Dr. Kalam called them into his room and gave them slices of his birthday cake. “I am entering my 80th orbit,” he told them.

Later, slipping into an informal chat with The Hindu, even as he wrote a message for another late night visitor, Dr. Kalam, looking back at the past years, said the happiest and the most important moment for him was when the technology for the Agni heat shield was used in Floor Reaction Orthosis (FRO) lightweight callipers for physically challenged people.

The other important events for him were the entry of the country into the satellite launch vehicle phase (the SLV-3 for the Rohini Satellite) in 1980; the launch of the Agni missile; and when India became a nuclear weapon State in 1998. The political system discussing his India Vision 2020 too was a significant development for him.

Pointing out that he was proud of “nature smiling” at the Research Centre Imarat in Hyderabad, hinting at the scenic environment at the centre, Dr. Kalam said he had met 9.5 million youth across the country. “I know their pains. I know their dreams too.”

And at 80, what he desires most is to see smiles on faces all over India, who he firmly believes will be a super power in no time.

Incidentally, this was the second time Mr. Kalam was in Kerala on his birthday. Last year, he spent the day in Kozhikode.

http://www.hindu.com/2010/10/16/stories/2010101655391400.htm

When Ayodhya verdict went online…

Courtesy: http://www.ciol.com

BANGALORE, INDIA: The waiting is over. No more speculations or anticipations about the disputed land in Ayodhya. The diplomatic verdict by the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court has said that a partition is the way out to enable myth and history to co-exist.

You can agree or disagree with the verdict but the common people, and even celebrities, are happy that the episode ended peacefully; a typical climax like that of an ‘and-they-lived-happily-ever-after’ story.

And it is the same sentiments that is reflected in the reactions of netizens too. While the verdict went online at two websites – NIC as well as Allahabad High Court site – , immediately after it was declared, it was the blogosphere only that spread the breezy news like wildfire, of course without spreading hatred.

Complete article at:

http://www.ciol.com/News/News/News-Reports/When-Ayodhya-verdict-went-online/141877/0/

Ayodhya Verdict Summary

1

BRIEF SUMMARY

Subject matter of the decided cases

OOS No. 1 of 1989 Shri Gopal Singh Visharad Vs. Zahur

Ahmad and 8 others, OOS No. 3 of 1989 Nirmohi Aakhada etc. Vs.

Baboo Priya Dutt Ram and others, OOS No. 4 of 1989 Sunni

central Board of Waqfs U.P. Lucknow and others Vs. Gopal Singh

Visharad and others and O.O.S.No. 5 of 1989 Bhagwan Sri Ram

Virajman at Ayodhya and others Vs. Rajendra Singh and others

were filed before the Court of Civil Judge, Faizabad. Thereafter on

the request of State of U.P. the cases were transferred to this Court

and Hon’ble the Chief Justice constituted special Bench.

Government of India decided to acquire all area of the

disputed property and the suits were abated. Thereafter the apex

court directed this Court to decide the case as per judgement in

Dr.M. Ismail Faruqui and others Vs. Union of India and others

reported in (1994) 6 SCC 360.

OOS No. 4 of 1989 (Reg. Suit No.12-61)

The Sunni Central Board of Waqfs U.P., Lucknow & others

Versus

Gopal Singh Visharad and others

The instant suit has been filed for declaration in the year 1961

and thereafter in the year 1995 through amendment relief for

possession was added.

Plaint case in brief is that about 443 years ago Babur built a

mosque at Ayodhya and also granted cash grant from royal treasury

for maintenance of Babri Mosque. It was damaged in the year 1934

during communal riots and thereafter on 23.12.1949 large crowd of

Hindus desecrated the mosque by placing idols inside the mosque.

The disputed property was attached under Section 145 Cr.P.C.and

thereafter the suit was filed for declaration and for delivery of

possession beyond the period of limitation.

2

On behalf of the defendants separate written statements were

filed alleging that structure is not a mosque and it was constructed

after demolishing the temple against the tenets of Islam. The A.S.I.

report was obtained which proved the earlier construction of

religious nature.

On the basis of the report of the Archeological Survey of

India massive structure of religious nature is required to be

maintained as national monument under the Ancient Monument

Archeological Site and Remains Act, 1958. The Apex Court in

Rajiv Mankotia Vs. Secretary to the President of India and

others, AIR 1997 Supreme Court page 2766 at para 21 directed

the Government of India to maintain such national monuments.

Thus, it is mandatory on the part of the Central Government to

comply with the provisions of Act No. 24 of 1958 and ensure to

maintain the dignity and cultural heritage of this country .

On behalf of some of the defendants, it was alleged that not

only in the outer courtyard but also in the inner courtyard people

used to worship the birth place of deity and it is being worshipped

from times immemorial. The Court dismissed the suit. Issue wise

finding is as under;

O.O.S. No.

4 of 1989

Issues No. 1 and 1(a)

1. Whether the building in question described as mosque in the

sketch map attached to the plaint (hereinafter referred to as

the building) was a mosque as claimed by the plaintiffs? If

the answer is in the affirmative?

1(a) When was it built and by whom-whether by Babar as alleged

by the plaintiffs or by Meer Baqi as alleged by defendant

No. 13?

Decided in favour of defendants and against the plaintiffs.

3

Issues No. 1(b)

1(b) Whether the building had been constructed on the site of an

alleged Hindu temple after demolishing the same as alleged

by defendant No. 13? If so, its effect?

Decided in favour of defendants and against the plaintiffs

on the basis of A.S.I. Report.

1(A). Whether the land adjoining the building on the east, north and

south sides, denoted by letters EFGH on the sketch map, was

an ancient graveyard and mosque as alleged in para 2 of the

plaint? If so, its effect?

Deleted vide courts order dated 23.2.96.

Issues No. 1(B)a

1-B(a). Whether the building existed at Nazul plot no. 583 of the

Khasra of the year 1931 of Mohalla Kot Ram Chandra known

as Ram Kot, city Ahodhya (Nazul estate of Ayodhya ? If so

its effect thereon)”

Property existed on Nazul Plot No. 583 belonging to

Government.

Issues No. 1(B)(b)

1B(b).Whether the building stood dedicated to almighty God as

alleged by the plaintiffs?

Decided against the plaintiffs.

Issues No. 1(B)(c)

1-B (c ).Whether the building had been used by the members of the

Muslim community for offering prayers from times

immemorial ? If so, its effect?

Decided against the plaintiffs.

Issues No. 1(B)(d)

1-B(d).Whether the alleged graveyard has been used by the

members of Muslim community for burying the dead

bodies of the members of the Muslim community? If so,

its effect?

4

Issue 1 B (d) deleted vide court order dated 23.2.96.

Issues No. 2, 4, 10, 15 & 28

2. Whether the plaintiffs were in possession of the property in

suit upto 1949 and were dispossessed from the same in 1949

as alleged in the plaint?

4. Whether the Hindus in general and the devotees of Bhagwan

Sri Ram in particular have perfected right of prayers at the

site by adverse and continuous possession as of right for more

than the statutory period of time by way of prescription as

alleged by the defendants?

10. Whether the plaintiffs have perfected their rights by adverse

possession as alleged in the plaint?

15. Have the Muslims been in possession of the property in suit

from 1528 A.D. Continuously, openly and to the knowledge

of the defendants and Hindus in general? If so, its effect?

28. “Whether the defendant No. 3 has ever been in possession of

the disputed site and the plaintiffs were never in its

possession?”

These issues are decided against the plaintiffs.

Issues No. 3

3. Is the suit within time?

Decided against the plaintiffs and in favour of defendants.

Issues No. 5(a)

5(a) Are the defendants estopped from challenging the character

of property in suit as a waqf under the administration of

plaintiff No. 1 in view of the provision of 5(3) of U.P. Act

13 of 1936?

(This issue has already been decided in the negative vide

order dated 21.4.1966 by the learned Civil Judge).

Issues No. 5(b)

5(b). Has the said Act no application to the right of Hindus in

general and defendants in particular, to the right of their

worship?

Decided against the plaintiffs and in favour of defendants.

5

Issues No. 5(c)

5(c). Were the proceedings under the said Act conclusive?

(This issue has already been decided in the negative vide

order dated 21.4.1966 by the learned Civil Judge.)

Issues No. 5(d)

5(d). Are the said provision of Act XIII of 1936 ultra-vires as

alleged in written statement?

(This issue was not pressed by counsel for the defendants,

hence not answered by the learned Civil Judge, vide his

order dated 21.4.1966).

Issues No. 5(e) and 5(f)

5(e). Whether in view of the findings recorded by the learned Civil

Judge on 21.4.1966 on issue no. 17 to the effect that, “No

valid notification under section 5(1) of the Muslim Waqf Act

(No. XIII of 1936) was ever made in respect of the property

in dispute”, the plaintiff Sunni Central Board of Waqf has no

right to maintain the present suit?

5(f). Whether in view of the aforesaid finding, the suit is barred on

accunt of lack of jurisdiction and limitation as it was filed

after the commencement of the U.P. Muslim Waqf Act,

1960?

Both these issues are decided against the Plaintiffs.

Issue No. 6

6. Whether the present suit is a representative suit, plaintiffs

representing the interest of the Muslims and defendants

representing the interest of the Hindus?

Decided in favour of plaintiffs and against the defendants.

Issue No. 7(a)

7(a). Whether Mahant Raghubar Dass, plaintiff of Suit No. 61/280

of 1885 had sued on behalf of Janma-Sthan and whole body

of persons interested in Janma-Sthan?

Decided against the plaintiffs and in favour of the

defendants.

6

Issue No. 7(b)

7(b). Whether Mohammad Asghar was the Mutwalli of alleged

Babri Masjid and did he contest the suit for and on behalf of

any such mosque?

Decided against the plaintiffs and in favour of the

defendants.

Issue No. 7(c)

7(c). Whether in view of the judgment in the said suit, the

members of the Hindu community, including the contesting

defendants, are estopped from denying the title of the

Muslim community, including the plaintiffs of the present

suit, to the property in dispute? If so, its effect?

Decided against the plaintiffs.

Issue No. 7(d)

7(d). Whether in the aforesaid suit, title of the Muslims to the

property in dispute or any portion thereof was admitted by

plaintiff of that suit? If so, its effect?

Decided against the plaintiffs.

Issue No. 8

8. Does the judgment of Case No. 6/281 of 1881, Mahant

Raghubar Dass Vs. Secretary of State and others, operate as

res judicate against the defendants in suit?

Decided against the plaintiffs and this judgment will not

operate as resjudicata against the defendants in suit.

Issue No.9

9. Whether the plaintiffs served valid notices under Sec. 80

C.P.C. (Deleted vide order dated May 22/25, 1990).

7

Issues No.11, 13, 14, 19(a) & 19(c)

11. Is the property in suit the site of Janam Bhumi of Sri Ram

Chandraji?

13. Whether the Hindus in general and defendants in particular

had the right to worship the Charans and ‘Sita Rasoi’ and

other idols and other objects of worship, if any, existing in

or upon the property in suit?

14. Have the Hindus been worshipping the place in dispute as Sri

Ram Janam Bhumi or Janam Asthan and have been visiting it

as a sacred place of pilgrimage as of right since times

immemorial? If so, its effect?

19(a).Whether even after construction of the building in suit deities

of Bhagwan Sri Ram Virajman and the Asthan Sri Ram Janam

Bhumi continued to exist on the property in suit as alleged on

behalf of defendant No. 13 and the said places continued to

be visisted by devotees for purposes of worship? If so,

whether the property in dispute continued to vest in the said

deities?

19(c). Whether any portion of the property in suit was used as a

place of worship by the Hindus immediately prior to the

construction of the building in question? If the finding is in

the affirmative, whether no mosque could come into existence

in view of the Islamic tenets, at the place in dispute?

Decided against the plaintiffs.

Issue No.12

12. Whether idols and objects of worship were placed inside the

building in the night intervening 22nd and 23rd December,

1949 as alleged in paragraph 11 of the plaint or they have

been in existence there since before? In either case, effect?

Idols were installed in the building in the intervening

night of 22/23rd December, 1949.

8

Issue No.17

17. Whether a valid notification under Section 5(1) of the U.P.

Muslim Waqf Act No. XIII of 1936 relating to the property in

suit was ever done? If so, its effect?

(This issue has already been decided by the learned Civil

Judge by order dated 21.4.1966).

Issue No.18

18. What is the effect of the judgdment of their lordships of the

Supreme Court in Gulam Abbas and others Vs. State of U.P.

and others, A.I.R. 1981 Supreme Court 2198 on the finding of

the learned Civil Judge recorded on 21st April, 1966 on issue

no. 17?

Decided against the plaintiffs and in favour of defendants.

Issue No.19(b)

19(b). Whether the building was land-locked and cannot be reached

except by passing through places of Hindu worship? If so, its

effect?

Decided against the plaintiffs and in favour of the

defendants.

Issue No.19(d)

19(d). Whether the building in question could not be a mosque

under the Islamic Law in view of the admitted position that it

did not have minarets?

Decided against the plaintiffs and in favour of the

defendants.

Issue No. 19(e)

19(e).Whether the building in question could not legally be a

mosque as on plaintiffs own showing it was surrounded by a

9

graveyard on three sides.

Decided against the plaintiffs.

Issues No.19(F)

19(F).Whether the pillars inside and outside the building in question

contain images of Hindu Gods and Goddesses? If the finding

is in the affirmative, whether on that account the building in

question cannot have the character of Mosque under the

tenets of Islam?

Decided against the plaintiffs and in favour of the

defendants.

Issue No.20(a)

20(a). Whether the Waqf in question cannot be a Sunni Waqf as the

building was not allegedly constructed by a Sunni

Mohammedan but was allegedly constructed by Meer Baqi

who was allegedly a Shia Muslim and the alleged Mutwalis

were allegedly Shia Mohammedans? If so, its effect?

Decided against the plaintiffs.

Issue No.20(b)

20(b). Whether there was a Mutwalli of the alleged Waqf and

whether the alleged Mutwalli not having joined in the suit, the

suit is not maintainable so far as it relates to relief for

possession?

Suit is not maintainable and the issue is decided in favour

of the defendants.

Issue No.21

21. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of alleged deities?

Decided against the plaintiffs and in favour of the

defendants.

10

Issues No. 23 & 24

23. If the wakf Board is an instrumentality of state? If so,

whether the said Board can file a suit against the state itself?

24. If the wakf Board is state under Article 12 of the

constitution? If so, the said Board being the state can file any

suit in representative capacity sponsering the case of

particular community and against the interest of another

community)”.

Issues are decided against the plaintiffs and the suit is not

maintainable.

Issues No. 25 & 26

25. “Whether demolition of the disputed structure as claimed by

the plaintiff, it can still be called a mosque and if not whether

the claim of the plaintiffs is liable to be dismissed as no

longer maintainable?”

26. “Whether Muslims can use the open site as mosque to offer

prayer when structure which stood thereon has been

demolished?”

Decided against the plaintiffs and in favour of the

defendants.

Issue No. 27

27. “Whether the outer court yard contained Ram Chabutra,

Bhandar and Sita Rasoi? If so whether they were also

demolished on 6.12.1992 along with the main temple?”

Yes, issue is decided in positive.

Issue No.16 & 22

16. To what relief, if any, are the plaintiffs or any of them,

entitled?

22. Whether the suit is liable to be dismissed with special costs?

Plaintiffs are not entitled for any relief.

The suit is dismissed with easy costs.

11

O.O.S No. 1 of 1989 (R.S.No.2-50)

Sri Gopal Singh Visharad Vs. Zahoor Ahmad and others

The instant suit has been filed on the assertion that the father

of the plaintiff on 14.1.1950 was not allowed to touch the deity.

Accordingly the injunction has been sought on behalf of the

defendants including the State Government to not disallow the

plaintiff to touch the deity.

State Government opposed the claim and stated that in order

to control the crowd reasonable restrictions were imposed.

The suit was dismissed for the reasons (i) no valid notice was

given, ( ii) the plaintiff has no legal character and (iii) the State

Government can impose reasonable restrictions in public interest

to control the crowd and to enable every body to have the Darshan

of the deity.

Finding of the court issue wise is as follows;

O.O.S. No.

1 of 1989

Issues No. 1, 2 and 6

1. Is the property in suit the site of Janam Bhumi of Shri Ram

Chandra Ji?

2. Are there any idols of Bhagwan Ram Chandra Ji and are His

Charan Paduka’ situated in the site in suit.?

6. Is the property in suit a mosque constructed by Shansha

Babar commonly known as Babri mosque, in 1528A.D.?

Connected with issues No. 1(a), 1(b), 1-B (b), 19-d, 19-e

and 19-f of the Original Suit No. 4 of 1989, wherein these

issues have been decided in favour of defendants and

against the Sunni Central Waqf Board, U.P.

Issues No. 3, 4 & 7

3. Has the plaintiff any right to worship the ‘Charan Paduka’ and

the idols situated in the place in suit.?

12

4. Has the plaintiff the right to have Darshan of the place in

suit.?

7. Have the Muslims been in possession of the property in suit

from 1528A.D.?

Connected with Issues No. 1-B(c), 2, 4, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14,

15,19-a, 19-b, 19-c, 27 and 28 of Original Suit No. 4 of 1989,

wherein these issues have been decided in favour of

defendants and against the plaintiffs.

Issues No. 9, 9(a), 9(b) & 9(c)

9. Is the suit barred by provision of section (5) (3) of the Muslim

Waqfs Act (U.P. Act 13 of 1936);?

(a) Has the said act no application to the right of Hindus in

general and plaintiff of the present suit, in particular to his

right of worship.?

(b) Were the proceedings under the said act referred to in written

statement para 15 collusive? If so, its effect?

(c) Are the said provisions of the U.P. Act 13 of 1936 ulta-vires

for reasons given in the statement of plaintiff’s counsel dated

9.3.62 recorded on paper No.454-A-?

Connected with Issues No. 5-a, 5-b, 5-c, 5-d, 5-e, 5-f, 7-b,

17(issue no.17 of O.O.S. No.4 of 1989 has already been

decided by the Civil Judge, Faizabad) 18, 20-a, 20-b, 23,

24, 25 and 26 of Original Suit No. 4 of 1989, wherein these

issues have been decided in favour of defendants and

against the plaintiffs.

Issues No. 5(a) & 5(b)

5(a) Was the property in suit involved in original suit no.61/280 of

1885 in the court of sub-judge, Faizabad Raghubar Das

Mahant Vs. Secretary of State for India & others.?

5(b) Was it decided against the plaintiff.?

Connected with issue No. 1-B (a) of Original Suit No. 4 of

1989.

Property existed on Nazul plot No. 583 belonging to

Government.

13

Issues No. 5(c) & 5(d)

5(c) Was that suit within the knowledge of Hindus in general and

were all Hindus interest in the same.?

5(d) Does the decision in same bar the present suit by principles of

Resjudicata and in any other way?

Connected with issue No. 7-a, 7-c, 7-d and issue no. 8 in

Original Suit No. 4 of 1989, wherein these issues have been

decided in favour of defendants and against the plaintiffs.

Issue No. 13

13. Is the suit No.2 of 50 Shri Gopal Singh Visharad Vs. Zahoor

Ahmad bad for want of notice under section 80 C.P.C. ?

Decided in favour of defendants and against the plaintiffs.

Issue No. 8

8. Is the suit barred by proviso to section 42 Specific Relief

Act.?

Decided against the plaintiffs and in favour of defendants.

Issues No. 11(a) & 11(b)

11(a) Are the provisions of section 91 C.P.C. applicable to present

suit ? If so is the suit bad for want of consent in writing by the

advocate general ?

11(b) Are the rights set up by the plaintiff in this suit independent of

the provisions of section 91 C.P.C. ? if not its effect. ?

Decided in favour of plaintiffs and against the defendants.

Issue No. 12

12. Is the suit bad for want of steps and notices under order 1

Rule 8 C.P.C. ? If so its effect. ?

Decided in favour of plaintiffs and against the defendants.

Issue No. 14

14. Is the suit no.25 of 50 Param Hans Ram Chandra Vs. Zahoor

Ahmad bad for want of valid notice under section 80 C.P.C. ?

Withdrawn, no finding is required.

14

Issue No. 15

15. Is the suit bad for non-joinder of defendants.?

NO

Issue No. 10

10. Is the present suit barred by time ?

NO

Issue No. 16 & 17

16. Are the defendants or any of them entitled to special costs

under section 35-A C.P.C.?

17. To what reliefs, if any, is the plaintiff entitled. ?

Plaintiff is not entitled for the relief claimed and the suit is

dismissed with easy costs.

15

OOS No. 3 of 1989

Nirmohi Akhara & Anr. Vs. Shri Jamuna Prasad Singh & Ors.

The suit was filed by Nirmohi Akhara, alleging that right

from times immemorial, they are worshipping the deities.

Accordingly the management of the temple may be handed over to

the plaintiff by defendant- State Government.

The defendants have contested the claim and this Court

found the suit barred by time and also on merits that the plaintiff

failed to prove the case.

Finding of the court issue wise is as follows;

O.O.S. No.

3 of 1989

Issues No. 1, 5 and 6

1. Is there a temple of Janam Bhumi with idols installed therein

as alleged in para 3 of the plaint ?

5. Is the property in suit a mosque made by Emperor Babar

Known as Babari masjid ?

6. Was the alleged mosque dedicated by Emperor Babar for

worship by Muslims in general and made a public waqf

property?

Connected with Issues No. 1, 1(a), 1(b), 1B(b), 12, 19(d),

19(e) and 19(f) of O.O.S. No. 4 of 1989, wherein these issues

have been decided in favour of defendants and against the

plaintiffs.

Issues No. 2, 3, 4 & 8

2. Does the property in suit belong to the plaintiff No.1 ?

3. Have plaintiffs acquired title by adverse possession for over 12

years ?

4. Are plaintiffs entitled to get management and charge of the

said temple ?

16

8. Have the rights of the plaintiffs extinguished for want of

possession for over 12 years prior to the suit ?

Connected with Issues No. 1B(c), 2, 4, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15,

19(a), 19(b), 19(c), 27 & 28 of O.O.S. No. 4 of 1989.

Decided against the Plaintiffs.

Issues No. 7(a), 7(b) & 16

7(a) Has there been a notification under Muslim Waqf Act (Act

no.13 of 1936) declaring this property in suit as a Sunni Waqf ?

7(b) Is the said notification final and binding ? Its effect.

16. Is the suit bad for want of notice u/s 83 of U.P. Act 13 of

1936 ?

Connected with issues no. 5(a), 5(b), 5(c), 5(d), 5(e), 5(f),

7(b), 17, 18, 20(a), 20(b), 23, 24, 25 and 26 in O.O.S No. 4 of

1989, wherein these issues have been decided against the

plaintiffs.

Issue No. 9

9. Is the suit within time ?

Connected with issues no. 3 decided in O.O.S. No. 4 of 1989.

Decided in favour of defendants and against the plaintiffs.

Issues No. 10(a) & 10(b)

10(a) Is the suit bad for want of notice u/s 80 C. P.C.

10(b) Is the above plea available to contesting defendants ?

Decided in favour of the plaintiffs and against the

defendants.

Issue No. 11

11. Is the suit bad for non-joinder of necessary defendants ?

Connected with Issue No. 21 of O.O.S. No. 4 of 1989.

Decided in favour of defendants and against the plaintiffs.

17

Issue No. 14

14. Is the suit not maintainable as framed ?

Decided in favour of the plaintiffs and against the

defendants.

Issue No. 17

17. (Added by this Hon’ble Court order dated 23.2.96) “Whether

Nirmohi Akhara, Plaintiff, is Panchayati Math of Rama Nandi

sect of Bairagies and as such is a religious denomination

following its religious faith and per suit according to its own

custom.”

Decided in favour of the plaintiffs and against the

defendants.

Issue No. 15

15. Is the suit properly valued and Court-Fee paid sufficient ?

(Already decided)

Issues No. 12 & 13

12. Are defendants entitled to special costs u/s 35 C.P.C. ?

No.

13. To what relief, if any, is the plaintiff entitled ?

Suit is Dismissed.

18

O.O.S. No. 5 of 1989 (R.S.NO. 236/1989

Bhagwan Sri Rama Virajman & Ors. Vs. Sri Rajendra Singh & Ors.

The instant suit was filed on behalf of the deities and Sri

Ram Janm Bhumi through the next friend, praying that the

defendants be restrained not to interfere in the construction of the

temple of plaintiff nos. 1 and 2 on the ground that the deities are

perpetual minors and against them Limitation Laws do not run.

This Court is of the view that place of birth that is Ram Janm

Bhumi is a juristic person. The deity also attained the divinity like

Agni, Vayu, Kedarnath. Asthan is personified as the spirit of

divine worshipped as the birth place of Ram Lala or Lord Ram as

a child . Spirit of divine ever remains present every where at all

times for any one to invoke at any shape or form in accordance

with his own aspirations and it can be shapeless and formless also.

Case has been decided on the basis of decision of Hon’ble the Apex

Court specially the law as laid down in 1999(5) SCC page 50,

Ram Janki Deity Vs. State of Bihar, Gokul Nath Ji Mahraj Vs.

Nathji Bhogilal AIR 1953 Allahabad 552, AIR 1967 Supreme

Court 1044 Bishwanath and another Vs. Shri Thakur

Radhabhallabhji and others & other decisions of Privy Council

and of different High Courts.

Finding of the court issue wise is as follows:

O.O.S. No.

5 of 1989

19

ISSUES NO. 1, 2 & 6

1. Whether the plaintiffs 1 and 2 are juridical persons?

2. Whether the suit in the name of deities described in the

plaint as plaintiffs 1 and 2 is not maintainable through

plaintiff no. 3 as next friend?

6. Is the plaintiff No. 3 not entitled to represent the plaintiffs 1

and 2 as their next friend and is the suit not competent on this

account ?

Decided in favour of the plaintiffs and against the

defendants.

ISSUES NO. 9, 10, 14 & 22

9. Was the disputed structure a mosque known as Babri

Masjid ?

10. Whether the disputed structure could be treated to be a

mosque on the allegations, contained in paragraph-24 of the

plaint ?

14. Whether the disputed structure claimed to be Babri Masjid

was erected after demolishing Janma-Sthan temple at its site?

22. Whether the premises in question or any part thereof is by

tradition, belief and faith the birth place of Lord Rama as

alleged in paragraphs 19 and 20 of the plaint ? If so, its

effect ?

Connected with issues No.1, 1(a), 1(b), 1B(b), 11, 19(d),

19(e) & 19(f) in O.O.S. No. 4 of 1989.

Decided against Sunni Waqf Board and in favour of the

plaintiffs.

ISSUES NO.15, 16 & 24

15. Whether the disputed structure claimed to be Babri Masjid

was always used by the Muslims only, regularly for offering

20

Namaz ever since its alleged construction in 1528 A.D. To

22nd December 1949 as alleged by the defendants 4 and 5 ?

16. Whether the title of plaintiffs 1 & 2, if any, was

extinguished as alleged in paragraph 25 of the written

statement of defendant no. 4 ? If yes, have plaintiffs 1 &

2 reacquired title by adverse possession as alleged in

paragraph 29 of the plaint ?

24. Whether worship has been done of the alleged plaintiff deity

on the premises in suit since time immemorial as alleged in

paragraph 25 of the plaint?

Connected with issues no. 1-B(c), 2, 4, 12, 13, 14, 15, 19(a),

19(b), 19(c), 27 & 28 of O.O.S. No.4 of 1989.

Above issues are decided against Sunni Central Waqf

Board and Others.

Issue No.17

17. Whether on any part of the land surrounding the structure

in dispute there are graves and is any part of that land a

Muslim Waqf for a graveyard ?

Deleted vide this Hon’ble Court order dated 23.2.96.

Issue No.23

23. Whether the judgment in suit No. 61/280 of 1885 filed by

Mahant Raghuber Das in the Court of Special Judge,

Faizabad is binding upon the plaintiffs by application of the

principles of estoppel and res judicata, as alleged by the

defendants 4 and 5 ?

Decided against the defendants and in favour of the

plaintiffs.

Issue No.5

(5) Is the property in question properly identified and described

21

in the plaint ?

Decided in favour of the plaintiffs and in favour of the

defendants.

Issues No. 7 & 8

(7) Whether the defendant no. 3, alone is entitled to represent

plaintiffs 1 and 2, and is the suit not competent on that

account as alleged in paragraph 49 of the additional

written statement of defendant no. 3 ?

(8) Is the defendant Nirmohi Akhara the “Shebait” of Bhagwan

Sri Rama installed in the disputed structure ?

Decided against the defendant no.3 and in favour of

plaintiffs no. 1, 2 and 3.

Issues No.19

19. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties,

as pleaded in paragraph 43 of the additional written

statement of defendant no. 3 ?

Suit is maintainable.

Issue No.20

20. Whether the alleged Trust, creating the Nyas defendant no.

21, is void on the facts and grounds, stated in paragraph 47

of the written statement of defendant no. 3 ?

Decided in favour of the plaintiffs and against the

defendant no.3.

Issue No.21

21. Whether the idols in question cannot be treated as deities

as alleged in paragraphs 1, 11, 12, 21, 22, 27 and 41 of the

written statement of defendant no. 4 and in paragraph 1 of

the written statement of defendant no. 5 ?

22

Decided in favour of the plaintiffs and against the

defendants no. 4 and 5.

Issues No. 26 & 27

26. Whether the suit is bad for want of notice under Section 80

C.P.C. as alleged by the defendants 4 and 5?

27. Whether the plea of suit being bad for want of notice under

Section 80 C.P.C. can be raised by defendants 4 and 5 ?

Decided against defendant nos. 4 & 5.

Issue No.25

25. Whether the judgment and decree dated 30th March 1946

passed in suit no. 29 of 1945 is not binding upon the

plaintiffs as alleged by the plaintiffs ?

Decided in favour of the plaintiffs and against the

defendants.

Issue No.29

29. Whether the plaintiffs are precluded from bringing the

present suit on account of dismissal of suit no. 57 of 1978

(Bhagwan Sri Ram Lala Vs. state) of the Court of Munsif

Sadar, Faizabad?

Decided in favour of the plaintiffs and against the

defendants.

Issue No.28

28. Whether the suit is bad for want of notice under Section 65

of the U.P. Muslim Waqfs Act, 1960 as alleged by defendants

4 and 5 ? If so, its effect?

Decided in favour of the plaintiffs and against defendants

no. 4 and 5.

23

Issue No.18

18. Whether the suit is barred by Section 34 of the the Specific

Relief Act as alleged in paragraph 42 of the additional

written statement of defendant no. 3 and also as alleged in

paragraph 47 of the written statement of defendant no. 4 and

paragraph 62 of the written statement of defendant no. 5 ?

Decided in favour of the plaintiffs and against the

defendants.

Issues No. 3(a), 3(b), 3(c), 3(d) & 4

3(a) Whether the idol in question was installed under the central

dome of the disputed building (since demolished) in the early

hours of December 23, 1949 as alleged by the plaintiff in

paragraph 27 of the plaint as clarified on 30.4.92 in their

statement under order 10 Rule 2 C.P.C. ?

3(b) Whether the same idol was reinstalled at the same place on a

chabutra under the canopy?

3(c) “Whether the idols were placed at the disputed site on or after

6.12.92 in violation of the courts order dated 14.8.1989,

7.11.1989 and 15.11. 91 ?

3(d) If the aforesaid issue is answered in the affirmative, whether

the idols so placed still acquire the status of a deity?”

(4) Whether the idols in question had been in existence under the

“Shikhar” prior to 6.12.92 from time immemorial as alleged

in paragraph-44 of the additional written statement of

defendant no. 3 ?

Decided in favour of the plaintiffs and against the

defendants.

Issue No.11

(11) Whether on the averments made in paragraph-25 of the

plaint, no valid waqf was created in respect of the structure in

24

dispute to constitute it as a mosque ?

Decided in favour of the plaintiffs and against the

defendants.

Issue No.12

(12) If the structure in question is held to be mosque, can the same

be shifted as pleaded in paragraphs 34 and 35 of the plaint?

Deleted vide court order dated 23.2.96.

Issue No.13

(13) Whether the suit is barred by limitation ?

Decided in favour of the plaintiffs and against the

defendants.

Issue No.30

30. To what relief, if any, are plaintiffs or any of them entitled?

Plaintiffs are entitled for the relief claimed and the suit is

decreed with easy costs.

************

1

ISSUES FOR BRIEFING

1. Whether the disputed site is the birth place of Bhagwan

Ram?

The disputed site is the birth place of Lord Ram. Place of

birth is a juristic person and is a deity. It is personified as the

spirit of divine worshipped as birth place of Lord Rama as a

child.

Spirit of divine ever remains present every where at all

times for any one to invoke at any shape or form in accordance

with his own aspirations and it can be shapeless and formless

also.

2. Whether the disputed building was a mosque? When

was it built? By whom?

The disputed building was constructed by Babar, the year

is not certain but it was built against the tenets of Islam. Thus, it

cannot have the character of a mosque.

3. Whether the mosque was built after demolishing a

Hindu temple?

The disputed structure was constructed on the site of old

structure after demolition of the same. The Archaeological

Survey of India has proved that the structure was a massive

Hindu religious structure.

4. Whether the idols were placed in the building on the

night of December 22/23rd, 1949?

The idols were placed in the middle dome of the disputed

structure in the intervening night of 22/23.12.1949.

2

5. Whether any of the claims for title is time barred?

O.O.S. No. 4 of 1989, the Sunni Central Board of Waqfs

U.P., Lucknow and others Vs. Gopal Singh Visharad and others

and O.O.S. No.3 of 1989, Nirmohi Akhara and Another Vs. Sri

Jamuna Prasad Singh and others are barred by time.

6. What will be the status of the disputed site e.g. inner

and outer courtyard?

It is established that the property in suit is the site of

Janm Bhumi of Ram Chandra Ji and Hindus in general had the

right to worship Charan, Sita Rasoi, other idols and other object

of worship existed upon the property in suit. It is also

established that Hindus have been worshipping the place in

dispute as Janm Sthan i.e. a birth place as deity and visiting it as

a sacred place of pilgrimage as of right since time immemorial.

After the construction of the disputed structure it is proved the

deities were installed inside the disputed structure on

22/23.12.1949. It is also proved that the outer courtyard was in

exclusive possession of Hindus and they were worshipping

throughout and in the inner courtyard (in the disputed

structure) they were also worshipping. It is also established that

the disputed structure cannot be treated as a mosque as it

came into existence against the tenets of Islam.

*********

(Relevant paragraphs containing result/directions issued)

4566. In the light of the above and considering overall findings of this Court on

various issues, following directions and/or declaration, are given which in our view

would meet the ends of justice:

(i) It is declared that the area covered by the central dome of the three domed

structure, i.e., the disputed structure being the deity of Bhagwan Ram Janamsthan

and place of birth of Lord Rama as per faith and belief of the Hindus, belong to

plaintiffs (Suit-5) and shall not be obstructed or interfered in any manner by the

defendants. This area is shown by letters AA BB CC DD is Appendix 7 to this

judgment.

(ii) The area within the inner courtyard denoted by letters B C D L K J H G in

Appendix 7 (excluding (i) above) belong to members of both the communities, i.e.,

Hindus (here plaintiffs, Suit-5) and Muslims since it was being used by both since

decades and centuries. It is, however, made clear that for the purpose of share of

plaintiffs, Suit-5 under this direction the area which is covered by (i) above shall

also be included.

(iii) The area covered by the structures, namely, Ram Chabutra, (EE FF GG HH

in Appendix 7) Sita Rasoi (MM NN OO PP in Appendix 7) and Bhandar (II JJ KK

LL in Appendix 7) in the outer courtyard is declared in the share of Nirmohi

Akhara (defendant no. 3) and they shall be entitled to possession thereof in the

absence of any person with better title.

(iv) The open area within the outer courtyard (A G H J K L E F in Appendix 7)

(except that covered by (iii) above) shall be shared by Nirmohi Akhara (defendant

no. 3) and plaintiffs (Suit-5) since it has been generally used by the Hindu people

for worship at both places.

(iv-a) It is however made clear that the share of muslim parties shall not be less

than one third (1/3) of the total area of the premises and if necessary it may be

given some area of outer courtyard. It is also made clear that while making

partition by metes and bounds, if some minor adjustments are to be made with

respect to the share of different parties, the affected party may be compensated by

allotting the requisite land from the area which is under acquisition of the

Government of India.

(v) The land which is available with the Government of India acquired under

Ayodhya Act 1993 for providing it to the parties who are successful in the suit for

better enjoyment of the property shall be made available to the above concerned

parties in such manner so that all the three parties may utilise the area to which they

are entitled to, by having separate entry for egress and ingress of the people without

disturbing each others rights. For this purpose the concerned parties may approach

the Government of India who shall act in accordance with the above directions and

also as contained in the judgement of Apex Court in Dr. Ismail Farooqi (Supra).

(vi) A decree, partly preliminary and partly final, to the effect as said above (i to

v) is passed. Suit-5 is decreed in part to the above extent. The parties are at liberty

to file their suggestions for actual partition of the property in dispute in the manner

as directed above by metes and bounds by submitting an application to this effect to

the Officer on Special Duty, Ayodhya Bench at Lucknow or the Registrar, Lucknow

Bench, Lucknow, as the case may be.

(vii) For a period of three months or unless directed otherwise, whichever is

earlier, the parties shall maintain status quo as on today in respect of property in

dispute.

4571. In the result, Suit-1 is partly decreed. Suits 3 and 4 are dismissed. Suit-5 is

decreed partly. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case the parties shall bear

their own costs.

(From the Judgment of Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sudhir Agarwal)

FINDINGS ON ISSUES

Suit-4

1. Issue 1 (Suit-4) is answered in favour of plaintiffs.

2. Issue 1(a) (Suit-4) is answered in negative. The plaintiffs have failed to prove that the building

in dispute was built by Babar or by Mir Baqi.

3. Issues 1(b), 6, 13, 14 and 27 (Suit-4) are answered in affirmative.

4. Issue 1-B(a) (Suit-4) is answered in affirmative and it is held that the fact that the land in

dispute entered in the records of the authorities as Nazul plot would make things difference.

5. Issue 1-B(b) (Suit-4) is not answered being irrelevant.

6. Issue 1-B(c) (Suit-4)-It is held that building in question was not exclusively used by the

members of muslim community. After 1856-57 outer courtyard exclusively used by Hindu and

inner courtyard had been visited for the purpose of worship by the members of both the

communities.

7. Issue 2 (Suit-4) is answered in negative, i.e., against the plaintiffs.

8. Issue 3 (Suit-4) is answered in negative, i.e., against the plaintiffs. It is held that Suit-4 is

barred by limitation.

9. Issue 4 (Suit-4)-At least since 1856-57, i.e., after the erection of partition wall the premises in

outer courtyard has not been shown to be used/possessed by muslim parties but so far as the

inner courtyard is concerned it has been used by both the parties.

10. Issue 5(a) (Suit-4) is answered against the plaintiffs.

11. Issue 5(b) (Suit-4) is answered in favour of defendants and Hindu parties in general.

12. Issues 5(c), 7(c), 8, 12, 22 (Suit-4), are answered in negative.

13. Issue 5(d) (Suit-4) is not pressed by the defendants, hence not answered.

14. Issue 5(e) (Suit-4) is decided in favour of plaintiffs subject to that issue 6 (Suit-3) is also

decided in favour of defendants (Suit-3).

15. Issue 5(f) (Suit-4) is answered in negative, i.e., in favour of plaintiffs and against the

defendants.

16. Issue 7(a) (Suit-4) is answered in negative. It is held that there is nothing to show that Mahant

Raghubar Das filed Suit-1885 on behalf of Janamsthan and whole body of persons interested

in Janamsthan.

17. Issue 7(b) (Suit-4) is answered in affirmative, i.e., in favour of plaintiffs (Suit-4).

18. Issue 7(d) (Suit-4) is answered in negative to the extent that there is no admission by Mahant

Raghubar Das plaintiff of Suit-1885 about the title of Muslims to the property in dispute or

any portion thereof. Consequently, the question of considering its effect does not arise.

19. Issues 10 and 15 (Suit4) are answered in negative, i.e., against the plaintiffs and muslims in

general.

20. Issue 11 (Suit-4)-It is held that the place of birth as believed and worshipped by Hindus his the

area covered under the central dome of the three domed structure, i.e., the disputed structure in

the inner courtyard in the premises of dispute.

21. Issue 16 (Suit-4)-No relief since the suit is liable to be dismissed being barred by limitation.

22. Issue 17 (Suit-4) is answered in negative holding that no valid notification under Section 5(3)

of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1936 was issued.

23. Issue 18 (Suit-4)-It is held that the decision of the Apex Court in Gulam Abbas Vs. State of

U.P. and others, AIR 1981 SC 2199 does not affect findings on issue 17 (Suit-4) and on the

contrary the same stand supported and strengthen by the said judgment.

24. Issue 19(a) (Suit-4)-It is held that the premises which is believed to be the place of birth of

Lord Rama continue to vest in the deity but the Hindu religious structures in the outer

courtyard cannot be said to be the property of plaintiffs (Suit-5).

25. Issue 19(b) (Suit-4) is answered in affirmative to the extent that the building was land locked

and could not be reached except of passing through the passage of Hindu worship. However,

this by itself was of no consequence.

26. Issue 19(c) (Suit-4)-It is held that Hindus were worshipping at the place in dispute before

construction of the disputed structure but that would not make any difference to the status of

the building in dispute which came to be constructed at the command of the sole monarch

having supreme power which cannot be adjudicated by a Court of Law, came to be constituted

or formed much after, and according to the law which was not applicable at that time.

27. Issue 19(d) and 19(e) (Suit-4) are answered in favour of the plaintiffs.

28. Issue 19(f) (Suit-4)-In so far as the first part is concerned, is answered in affirmative. The

second part is left unanswered being redundant. In the ultimate result the issue is answered in

favour of plaintiffs (Suit-4).

29. Issue 20(a) being irrelevant not answered.

30. Issue 20(b) (Suit-4)-It is held that at the time of attachment of the building there was a

Mutawalli, i.e., one Sri Javvad Hussain and in the absence of Mutawalli relief of possession

cannot be allowed to plaintiffs who are before the Court in the capacity of worshippers.

31. Issue 21 (Suit-4) is decided in negative, i.e., in favour of the plaintiffs. The suit is not bad for

non-joinder of deities.

32. Issues 23 and 24 (Suit-4) are held that neither the Waqf Board is an instrumentality of State

nor there is any bar in filing a suit by the Board against the State. It is also not a ‘State’ under

Article 12 of the Constitution and can very well represent the interest of one community

without infringing any provision of the Constitution.

33. Issues 25 and 26 (Suit-4)-Held that as a result of demolition of the disp0uted structure it

cannot be said that the suit has rendered not maintainable. Nothing further needs to be

answered.

34. Issue 28 (Suit-4)-It is held that plaintiffs have failed to prove their possession of the disputed

premises, i.e., outer and inner courtyard including the disputed building ever.

Suit-1

1. Issue 1 (Suit-1)-It is held that the place of birth, as believed and worshipped by Hindus, is the

area covered under the central dome of the three domed structure, i.e., the disputed structure in

the inner courtyard in the premises of dispute.

2. Issue 2 (Suit-1)- It is held that the idols were kept under the central dome of the disputed

structure within inner courtyard in the night of 22nd/23rd December, 1949 and prior thereto the

same existed in the outer courtyard. Therefore, on 16.01.1950 when Suit-1 was filed the said

idol existed in the inner courtyard under the central dome of the disputed structure, i.e., prior

to the filing of the suit. So far as the Charan Paduka is concerned, the said premises existed in

the outer courtyard. Since Suit-1 is confined only to the inner courtyard, question of existence

of Charan Paduka on the site in suit does not arise.

3. Issues 3 and 4 (Suit-1)-It is held that plaintiffs have right to worship. The place in suit to the

extent it has been held by this Court to be the birthplace of Lord Rama and if an idol is also

placed in such a place the same can also be worshipped, but this is subject to reasonable

restrictions like security, safety, maintenance etc.

4. Issues 5(a), 5(c), 5(d), 9(c) and 11(a) (Suit-1) are answered in negative.

5. Issue 5(b) (Suit-1)-Held, the Suit 1885 was decided against Mahant Raghubar Das and he was

not granted any relief by the respective courts, and, no more.

6. Issue 6 (Suit-1) is answered in negative. The defendants have failed to prove that the property

in dispute was constructed by Shahanshah/Emperor Babar in 1528 AD.

7. Issue 7 (Suit-1) is decided in negative, i.e., against the defendants muslim parties.

8. Issue 8 (Suit-1) is answered in negative. Suit is not barred by proviso to Section 42 of Specific

Relief Act, 1963.

9. Issue 9 (Suit-1) is decided in favour of plaintiffs (Suit-1).

10. Issue 9(a) (Suit-1) is answered in favour of plaintiffs (Suit-1).

11. Issue 9(b) (Suit-1) is answered against the plaintiffs.

12. Issue 10 (Suit-1) is answered in negative, i.e., in favour of plaintiffs of Suit-1.

13. Issue 11(b) (Suit-1) is answered in affirmative.

14. Issue 12, 13, 15, 16 and 21 (Suit-1) are answered in negative, i.e., in favour of the plaintiffs

(Suit-1).

15. Issue 14 (Suit-1) has become redundant after dismissal of Suit No. 25 of 1950 as withdrawn.

16. Issue 17 (suit-1)-The plaintiffs is declared to have right of worship at the site in dispute

including the part of the land which is held by this Court to be the place of birth of Lord Rama

according to the faith and belief of Hindus but this right is subject to such restrictions as may

be necessary by authorities concerned in regard to law and order, i.e., safety, security and also

for the maintenance of place of worship etc. The plaintiffs is not entitled for any other relief.

Suit-3

1. Issue 1 and 16 (Suit-3) are answered in negative.

2. Issue 2, 3, 4 and 9 (Suit-3) are answered in negative, i.e., against the plaintiffs.

3. Issue 5 (Suit-3) is answered in negative. The defendants have filed to prove that the property

in dispute was constructed by Shahanshah/Emperor Babar in 1528 AD.

4. Issue 6 (Suit-3) is not proved hence answered in negative.

5. Issue 7(a) and 7(b) (Suit-3) are answered in negative, i.e., in favour of plaintiffs and against

the defendants in Suit-3.

6. Issue 8 (Suit-3) is decided in negative.

7. Issue 10 (Suit-3) is decided in favour of plaintiff. It is also held that a private defendant cannot

raise objection of maintainability of suit for want of notice under Section 80 CPC.

8. Issue 11 and 12 (Suit-3) are decided in negative, i.e., in favour of plaintiffs.

9. Issue 13 (Suit-3)-The plaintiff is not entitled for any relief in view of the findings in respect of

issues 2, 3, 4, 14 and 19.

10. Issue 14 (Suit-3) is answered in affirmative. It is held that the suit as framed is not

maintainable.

11. Issue 15 (Suit-3) is answered in affirmative, i.e., in favour of plaintiffs (Suit-3).

12. Issue 17 (Suit-3) is decided in favour of plaintiffs. Nirmohi Akhara is held a Panchayati Math

of Ramanandi Sect of Bairagi, is a religious denomination following its religious faith and

pursuit according to its own customs. However, its continuance at Ayodhya is found sometime

after 1734 AD and not earlier thereto.

Suit-5

1. Issue 1 (Suit-5) is answered in affirmative. Plaintiffs 1 and 2 both are juridical persons.

2. Issue 2 (Suit-5) is not answered as it is not necessary for the dispute in the case.

3. Issue 3(a) (Suit-5) is answered in affirmative. The idols were installed under the central dome

of the disputed building in the early hours of 23rd December, 1949.

4. Issue 3(b), 3(d), 5, 10, 11, 14 and 24 (Suit-5) are answered in affirmative.

5. Issues 3(c), 7, 19, 23 and 28 (Suit-5) are answered in negative.

6. Issue 4 (Suit-5) is answered in negative. The idol in question kept under the Shikhar existed

there prior to 6th December, 1992 but not from time immemorial and instead kept thereat in the

night of 22nd/23rd December, 1949.

7. Issue 6 (Suit-5) is decided in negative, i.e., in favour of plaintiffs (Suit-5).

8. Issue 8 (Suit-5) is answered against the defendant no. 3, Nirmohi Akhara.

9. Issue 9 (Suit-5) is answered against the plaintiffs.

10. Issue 13 (Suit-5) is answered in negative, i.e., in favour of plaintiffs. It is held that suit is not

barred by limitation.

11. Issue 15 (Suit-5)-It is held that the muslims atleast from 1860 and onwards have visited the

inner courtyard in the premises in dispute and have offered Namaj thereat. The last Namaj was

offered on 16th December, 1949.

12. Issue 16 (Suit-5)-Neither the title of plaintiffs 1 and 2 ever extinguished nor the question of

reacquisition thereof ever arise.

13. Issue 18 (Suit-5) is answered in negative, i.e., against the defendants no. 3, 4 and 5.

14. Issue 20 (Suit-5) is not answered being unnecessary for the dispute in the case in hand.

15. Issue 21 (Suit-5) is answered in negative, i.e., against the defendants no. 4 and 5.

16. Issue 22 (Suit-5)-It is held that the place of birth as believed and worshipped by Hindus his

the area covered under the central dome of the three domed structure, i.e., the disputed

structure in the inner courtyard in the premises of dispute.

17. Issue 25 (Suit-5) is answered in affirmative. It is held that the judgement dated 30.03.1946 in

Suit No. 29 of 1949 is not binding upon the plaintiffs (suit-5).

18. Issues 26 and 27 (Suit-5) are answered in negative, i.e., in favour of plaintiffs (Suit-5).

19. Issue 29 (Suit-5) is answered in negative, i.e., in favour of plaintiffs.

20. Issue 30 (Suit-5)-The suit is partly decreed in the manner the directions are issued in

para 4566.

Gist on some point

1. The area covered under the central dome of the disputed structure is

the birthplace of Lord Rama as per faith and belief of Hindus.

2. Disputed structure was always treated, considered and believed to be

a mosque and practised by Mohammedans for worship accordingly.

However, it has not been proved that it was built during the reign of Babar

in 1528.

3. In the absence of any otherwise pleadings and material it is difficult

to hold as to when and by whom the disputed structure was constructed but

this much is clear that the same was constructed before the visit of Joseph

Tieffenthaler in Oudh area between 1766 to 1771.

4. The building in dispute was constructed after demolition of Non-

Islamic religious structure, i.e., a Hindu temple.

5. The idols were kept under the central dome of the disputed structure

in the night of 22nd/23rd December 1949.

Other Original Suits no. 3 of 1989 and 4 of 1989 are barred by limitation.

ISSUES FRAMED

Suit-4 :

Issue No. 1:- Whether the building in question described as mosque in the sketch map attached to

the plaint (hereinafter referred to as the building) was a mosque as claimed by the plaintiffs? If the

answer is in the affirmative-

(a) When was it built and by whom-whether by Babar as alleged by the plaintiffs or by Meer

Baqi as alleged by defendant no.13?

(b) Whether the building had been constructed on the site of an alleged Hindu temple after

demolishing the same as alleged by defendant no.13? If so, its effect?

Issue No. 1-B(a) :-Whether the building existed at Nazul plot no. 583 of the Khasra of the year

1931 of Mohalla Kot Ram Chandra known as Ram Kot, City Ayodhya (Nazul Estate) Ayodhya? If

so its effect thereon?

Issue No. 1-B(b) :-Whether the building stood dedicated to almighty God as alleged by the

plaintiffs?

Issue No. 1-B(c) :-Whether the building had been used by the members of the Muslim community

for offering prayers from times immemorial? If so, its effect?

Issue No. 2 :-Whether the plaintiffs were in possession of the property in suit upto 1949 and were

dispossessed from the same in 1949 as alleged in the plaint?

Issue No. 3 :- Is the suit within time?

Issue No. 4 :-Whether the Hindus in general and the devotees of Bhagwan Sri Ram in particular

have perfected right of prayers at the site by adverse and continuous possession as of right for

more than the statutory period of time by way of prescription as alleged by the defendants?

Issue No. 5 :- (a)Are the defendants estopped from challenging the character of property in suit as

a waqf under the administration of plaintiff no.1 in view of the provision of 5(3) of U.P. Act 13 of

1936?

(b) Has the said Act no application to the right of Hindus in general and defendants in

particular, to the right of their worship?

(c) Were the proceedings under the said Act conclusive?

(d) Are the said provision of Act XIII of 1936 ultra-vires as alleged in written statement?

(e) Whether in view of the findings recorded by the learned Civil Judge on 21.4.1966 on issue

no.17 to the effect that “No valid notification under section 5(1) of the Muslim Waqf Act ( No.

XIII of 1936) was ever made in respect of the property in dispute”, the plaintiff Sunni Central

Board of Waqf has no right to maintain the present suit?

(f) Whether in view of the aforesaid finding, the suit is barred on account of lack of

jurisdiction and limitation as it was filed after the commencement of the U.P. Muslim Waqf Act,

1960?

Issue No. 6 :-Whether the present suit is a representative suit, plaintiffs representing the interest of

the Muslims and defendants representing the interest of the Hindus?

Issue No. 7 :- (a) Whether Mahant Raghubar Dass, plaintiff of Suit No. 61/280 of 1885 had sued

on behalf of Janma Sthan and whole body of persons interested in Janma-Sthan?

(b) Whether Mohammad Asghar was the Mutwalli of alleged Babri Masjid and did he contest

the suit for and on behalf of any such mosque?

(c) Whether in view of the judgment in the said suit, the members of the Hindu community,

including the contesting defendants, are estopped from denying the title of the Muslim community,

including the plaintiffs of the present suit, to the property in dispute? If so, its effect?

(d) Whether in the aforesaid suit, title of the Muslims to the property in dispute or any portion

thereof was admitted by plaintiff of the that suit? If so, its effect?

Issue No. 8 :-Does the judgment of case No. 6/281 of 1881, Mahant Raghubar Dass Vs. Secretary

of State and others operate as res judicata against the defendants in suit?

Issue No. 9 :- Deleted vide order dated May 22/25, 1990

Issue No. 10 :-Whether the plaintiffs have perfected their rights by adverse possession as alleged

in the plaint?

Issue No. 11 :-Is the property in suit the site of Janam Bhumi of Sri Ram Chandraji?

Issue No. 12 :-Whether idols and objects of worship were placed inside the building in the night

intervening 22nd and 23rd December 1949 as alleged in paragraph 11 of the plaint or they have

been in existence there since before? In either case, effect?

Issue No. 13 :-Whether the Hindus in general and defendants in particular had the right to worship

the Charans and ‘Sita Rasoi’ and other idols and other objects of worship, if any, existing in or

upon the property in suit?

Issue No. 14 :-Have the Hindus been worshipping the place in dispute as Sri Ram Janam Bhumi or

Janam Asthan and have been visiting it as a sacred place of pilgrimage as of right since times

immemorial? If so, its effect?

Issue No. 15 :-Have the Muslims been in possession of the property in suit from 1528 A.D.

continuously, openly and to the knowledge of the defendants and Hindus in general? If so, its

effect?

Issue No. 16 :-To what relief, if any, are the plaintiffs or any of them, entitled?

Issue No. 17 :-Whether a valid notification under Section 5(1) of the U.P. Muslim Waqf Act No.

XIII of 1936 relating to the property in suit was ever done? If so, its effect?

Issue No. 18 :-What is the effect of the judgment of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in

Gulam Abbas and others vs. State of U.P. and others, AIR 1981 Supreme Court 2198 on the

finding of the learned Civil Judge recorded on 21st April, 1966 on issue no. 17?

Issue No. 19(a) :-Whether even after construction of the building in suit Deities of Bhagwan Sri

Ram Virajman and the Asthan, Sri Ram Janam Bhumi continued to exist on the property in suit as

alleged on behalf of defendant no.13 and the said places continued to be visited by devotees for

purposes of worship? If so, whether the property in dispute continued to vest in the said Deities?

Issue No. 19(b) :-Whether the building was land-locked and cannot be reached except by passing

through places of Hindu worship? If so, its effect?

Issue No. 19(c) :-Whether any portion of the property in suit was used as a place of worship by the

Hindus immediately prior to the construction of the building in question? If the finding is in the

affirmative, whether no mosque could come into existence in view of the Islamic tenets at the

place in dispute?

Issue No. 19(d) :-Whether the building in question could not be a mosque under the Islamic Law

in view of the admitted position that it did not have minarets?

Issue No. 19(e) :-Whether the building in question could not legally be a mosque as on plaintiffs’

own showing it was surrounded by a graveyard on three sides?

Issue No. 19(f) :-Whether the pillars inside and outside the building in question contain images of

Hindu Gods and Goddesses? If the finding is in the affirmative, whether on that account the

building in question cannot have the character of Mosque under the tenets of Islam?

Issue No. 20(a) :-Whether the Wqaf in question cannot be a Sunni Waqf as the building was not

allegedly constructed by a Sunni Mohammedan but was allegedly constructed by Meer Baqi who

was allegedly a Shia Muslim and the alleged Mutwallis were allegedly Shia Mohammedans? If so,

its effect?

Issue No. 20(b) :-Whether there was a Mutwalli of the alleged Waqf and whether the alleged

Mutwalli not having joined in the suit, the suit is not maintainable so far as it relates to relief for

possession?

Issue No. 21 :-Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of alleged Deities?

Issue No. 22 :-Whether the suit is liable to be dismissed with special costs?

Issue No. 23 :-Whether the Waqf board is an instrumentality of State? If so, whether the said

Board can file a suit against the State itself?

Issue No. 24 :-If the Waqf Board is State under Article 12 of the Constitution? If so, the said Board

being the State can file any suit in representative capacity sponsoring the case of particular

community and against the interest of another community?

Issue No. 25 :-Whether demolition of the disputed structure as claimed by the plaintiff, it can still

be called a mosque and if not whether the claim of the plaintiffs is liable to be dismissed as no

longer maintainable

Issue No. 26 :-Whether Muslims can use the open site as mosque to offer prayer when structure

which stood thereon has been demolished

Issue No. 27 :-Whether the courtyard contained Ram Chabutara, Bhandar and Sita Rasoi If so,

whether they were also demolished on 6.12.1992 along with the main temple?

Issue No. 28 :-Whether the defendant no.3 has ever been in possession of the disputed site and the

plaintiffs were never in its possession?

Suit-1 :

Issue No. 1 :- Is the property in suit the site of Janam Bhumi of Sri Ram Chandra Ji?

Issue No. 2 :-Are there any idols of Bhagwan Ram Chandra Ji and are His Charan Paduka situated

in the site in suit?

Issue No. 3 :-Has the plaintiff any right to worship the ‘Charan Paduka’ and the idols situated in

the site in suit.

Issue No. 4 :-Has the plaintiff the right to have Darshan of the place in suit?

Issue No. 5(a) :-Was the property in suit involved in Original Suit No. 61/280 of 1885 in the court

of Sub -Judge, Faizabad, Raghubar Das Mahant Vs. Secretary of State for India and others?

5(b) Was it decided against the plaintiff?

5(c) Was the suit within the knowledge of Hindus in general and were all Hindus interested in

the same?

5(d) Does the decision in same bar the present suit by principles of res judicata and in any other

way?

Issue No. 6 :- Is the property in suit a mosque constructed by Shanshah Babar commonly known as

Babri Mosque, in 1528 A.D.?

Issue No. 7 :-Have the Muslims been in possession of the property in suit from 1528 A.D.

continuously, openly and to the knowledge of plff and Hindus in general? If so, its effect?

Issue No. 8 :- Is the suit barred by proviso to Section 42 Specific Relief Act?

Issue No. 9 :- Is the suit barred by provision of Section 5(3) of the Muslim Waqfs Act (U.P. Act 13

of 1936)?

9(a). Has the said Act no application to the right of Hindus in general and plaintiff of the present

suit , in particular to his right of worship?

9(b). Were the proceedings under the said Act, referred to in written statement para 15, collusive?

If so its effect?

9(c) Are the said provisions of the U.P. Act 13 of 1936 ultra vires for reasons given in the

statement of plaintiff’s counsel dated 9.3.62 recorded on paper no. 454-A?

Issue No. 10 :-Is the present suit barred by time?

Issue No. 11 :-(a) Are the provisions of section 91 C.P.C. applicable to present suit? If so, is the

suit bad for want of consent in writing by the Advocate General?

(b) Are the rights set up by the plaintiff in this suit independent of the provisions of section 91

CPC? If not, its effect.

Issue No. 12 :-Is the suit bad for want of steps and notice under Order 1, Rule 8 CPC? If so, its

effect?

Issue No. 13 :-Is the suit no. 2 of 50 Shri Gopal Singh Visharad Vs. Zahoor Ahmad bad for want of

notice under Section 80 CPC.

Issue No. 14 :-Is the suit no. 25 of 50 Param Hans Ram Chandra Vs. Zahoor Ahmad bad for want

of valid notice under section 80 CPC?

Issue No. 15 :-Is the suit bad for non-joinder of defendants?

Issue No. 16 :-Are the defendants or any of them entitled to special costs under Section 35-A

C.P.C.

Issue No. 17 :-To what reliefs, if any, is the plaintiff entitled?

Suit-3:

Issue No. 1 :- Is there a temple of Janam Bhumi with idols installed therein as alleged in para 3 of

the plaint.

Issue No. 2 :-Does the property in suit belong to the plaintiff no.1?

Issue No. 3 :-Have plaintiffs acquired title by adverse possession for over 12 years?

Issue No. 4 :-Are plaintiffs entitled to get management and charge of the said temple?

Issue No. 5 :- Is the property in suit a mosque made by Emperor Babar known as Babari Masjid?

Issue No. 6 :-Was this alleged mosque dedicated by Emperor Babar for worship by Muslims in

general and made a public waqf property?

Issue No. 7 :- (a) Has there been a notification under Muslim Waqf Act Act No. 13 of 1936)

declaring this property in suit as a Sunni Waqf?

(b) Is the said notification final and binding? Its effect?

Issue No. 8 :-Have the rights of the plaintiffs extinguished for want of possession for over 12

years prior to the suit?

Issue No. 9 :- Is the suit within time?

Issue No. 10 :-(a) Is the suit bad for want of notice u/s 80 C?

(b) Is the above plea available to contesting defendants?

Issue No. 11 :-Is the suit bad for non-joinder of necessary defendants?

Issue No. 12 :-Are defendants entitled to special costs u/s 35 CPC?

Issue No. 13 :-To what relief, if any, is the plaintiff entitled?

Issue No. 14 :-Is the suit not maintainable as framed?

Issue No. 15 :-Is the suit property valued and court fee paid sufficient?

Issue No. 16 :-Is the suit bad for want of notice u/s 83 of U.P. Act 13 of 1936?

Issue No. 17 :-Whether Nirmohi Akhara, plaintiff, is Panchayati Math of Rama Nand sect of

Bairagis and as such is a religious denomination following its religious faith and persuit according

to its own custom?

Suit-5:

Issue No. 1 :-Whether the plaintiffs 1 and 2 are juridical persons?

Issue No. 2 :-Whether the suit in the name of Deities described in the plaint as plaintiffs 1 and 2 is

not maintainable through plaintiff no.3 as next friend?

Issue No. 3 :- (a) Whether the idol in question was installed under the central dome of the disputed

building (since demolished) in the early hours of December 23, 1949 as alleged by the plaintiff in

paragraph 27 of the plaint as clarified in their statement under Order 10 Rule 2 C.P.C.

(b) Whether the same idol was reinstalled at the same place on a Chabutara under the canopy?

(c) Whether the idols were placed at the disputed site on or after 6.12.1992 in violation of the

courts order dated 14.8.1989 and 15.11.91?

(d) If the aforesaid issue is answered in the affirmative, whether the idols so placed still acquire

the status of a deity.

Issue No. 4 :-Whether the idol in question had been in existence under the “Shikhar” prior to

6.12.92 from time immemorial as alleged in paragraph 44 of the additional written statement of

defendant no.3?

Issue No. 5 :- Is the property in question properly identified and described in the plaint?

Issue No. 6 :- Is the plaintiff no.3 not entitled to represent the plaintiffs 1 and 2 as their next friend

and is the suit not competent on this account?

Issue No. 7 :-Whether the defendant no.3 alone is entitled to represent plaintiffs 1 and 2, and is the

suit not competent on that account as alleged in paragraph 49 of the additional written statement of

defendant no.3?

Issue No. 8 :- Is the defendant Nirmohi Akhara the “Shebait” of Bhagwan Sri Ram installed in the

disputed structure?

Issue No. 9 :-Was the disputed structure a mosque known as Babri Masjid?

Issue No. 10 :-Whether the disputed structure could be treated to be a mosque on the allegations

contained in paragraph 24 of the plaint?

Issue No. 11 :-Whether on the averments made in paragraph 25 of the plaint, no valid waqf was

created in respect of the structure in dispute to constitute it as a mosque?

Issue No. 12:- Deleted vide order dated 23.02.1996.

Issue No. 13 :-Whether the suit is barred by limitation?

Issue No. 14 :-Whether the disputed structure claimed to be Babri Masjid was erected after

demolishing Janma Sthan temple at its site.

Issue No. 15 :-Whether the disputed structure claimed to be Babri Masjid was always used by the

Muslims only regularly for offering Namaz ever since its alleged construction in 1528 A.D. to

22nd December 1949 as alleged by the defendants 4 and 5?

Issue No. 16 :-Whether the title of plaintiffs 1 and 2, if any, was extinguished as alleged in

paragraph 25 of the written statement of defendant no.4? If yes, have plaintiffs 1 and 2 reacquired

title by adverse possession as alleged in paragraph 29 of the plaint?

Issue No. 17:- Deleted vide order dated 23.02.1996.

Issue No. 18:-Whether the suit is barred by section 34 of the Specific Relief Act as alleged in

paragraph 42 of the additional written statement of defendant no.3 and also as alleged in paragraph

47 of the written statement of defendant no.4 and paragraph 62 of the written statement of

defendant no. 5?

Issue No. 19 :-Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties, as pleaded in paragraph

43 of the additional written statement of defendant no.3?

Issue No. 20 :-Whether the alleged Trust creating the Nyas , defendant no.21, is void on the facts

and grounds stated in paragraph 47 of the written statement of defendant no.3?

Issue No. 21 :-Whether the idols in question cannot be treated as Deities as alleged in pragraphs

1,11,12,21,22, 27 and 41 of the written statement of defendant no.4 and in paragraph 1 of the

written statement of defendant no.5?

Issue No. 22 :-Whether the premises in question or any part thereof is by tradition, belief and faith

the birth place of Lord Rama as alleged in paragraphs 19 and 20 of the plaint? If so, its effect?

Issue No. 23 :-Whether the judgment in suit no. 61/280 of 1885 filed by Mahant Raghubar Das in

the Court of Special Judge, Faizabad is binding upon the plaintiffs by application of the principles

of estoppel and res judicata as alleged by the defendants 4 and 5?

Issue No. 24 :-Whether worship has been done of the alleged plaintiff Deity on the premises in suit

since time immemorial as alleged in para 25 of the plaint?

Issue No. 25 :-Whether the judgment and decree dated 30th March 1946 passed in Suit No. 29 of

1945 is not binding upon the plaintiffs as alleged by the plaintiffs?

Issue No. 26 :-Whether the suit is bad for want of notice under section 80 C.P.C. as alleged by the

defendants 4 and 5?

Issue No. 27 :-Whether the plea of suit being bad for want of notice under Section 80 CPC can be

raised by defendants 4 and 5?

Issue No. 28 :-Whether the suit is bad for want of notice under Section 65 of the U.P. Muslim

Waqfs Act, 1960 as alleged by defendants 4 and 5? If so, its effect.

Issue No. 29 :-Whether the plaintiffs are precluded from bringing the present suit on account of

dismissal of suit no. 57 of 1978 (Bhagwan Sri Ram Lala Vs. State) of the Court of Munsif Sadar,

Faizabad?

Issue No. 30 :-To what relief, if any, are plaintiffs or any of them entitled?

GIST OF THE FINDINGS by S.U.Khan J.

1. The disputed structure was constructed as mosque by or under orders of Babar.

2. It is not proved by direct evidence that premises in dispute including constructed portion

belonged to Babar or the person who constructed the mosque or under whose orders it was

constructed.

3. No temple was demolished for constructing the mosque.

4. Mosque was constructed over the ruins of temples which were lying in utter ruins since a

very long time before the construction of mosque and some material thereof was used in

construction of the mosque.

5. That for a very long time till the construction of the mosque it was treated/believed by

Hindus that some where in a very large area of which premises in dispute is a very small part birth

place of Lord Ram was situated, however, the belief did not relate to any specified small area

within that bigger area specifically the premises in dispute.

6. That after some time of construction of the mosque Hindus started identifying the premises

in dispute as exact birth place of Lord Ram or a place wherein exact birth place was situated.

7. That much before 1855 Ram Chabutra and Seeta Rasoi had come into existence and

Hindus were worshipping in the same. It was very very unique and absolutely unprecedented

situation that in side the boundary wall and compound of the mosque Hindu religious places were

there which were actually being worshipped along with offerings of Namaz by Muslims in the

mosque.

8. That in view of the above gist of the finding at serial no.7 both the parties Muslims as well

as Hindus are held to be in joint possession of the entire premises in dispute.

9. That even though for the sake of convenience both the parties i.e. Muslims and Hindus

were using and occupying different portions of the premises in dispute still it did not amount to

formal partition and both continued to be in joint possession of the entire premises in dispute.

10. That both the parties have failed to prove commencement of their title hence by virtue of

Section 110 Evidence Act both are held to be joint title holders on the basis of joint possession.

11. That for some decades before 1949 Hindus started treating/believing the place beneath the

Central dome of mosque (where at present make sift temple stands) to be exact birth place of Lord

Ram.

12. That idol was placed for the first time beneath the Central dome of the mosque in the early

hours of 23.12.1949.

13. That in view of the above both the parties are declared to be joint title holders in possession

of the entire premises in dispute and a preliminary decree to that effect is passed with the condition

that at the time of actual partition by meets and bounds at the stage of preparation of final decree

the portion beneath the Central dome where at present make sift temple stands will be allotted to

the share of the Hindus.

Order:-

Accordingly, all the three sets of parties, i.e. Muslims, Hindus and Nirmohi Akhara are

declared joint title holders of the property/ premises in dispute as described by letters A B C D E F

in the map Plan-I prepared by Sri Shiv Shanker Lal, Pleader/ Commissioner appointed by Court in

Suit No.1 to the extent of one third share each for using and managing the same for worshipping.

A preliminary decree to this effect is passed.

However, it is further declared that the portion below the central dome where at present the

idol is kept in makeshift temple will be allotted to Hindus in final decree.

It is further directed that Nirmohi Akhara will be allotted share including that part which is

shown by the words Ram Chabutra and Sita Rasoi in the said map.

It is further clarified that even though all the three parties are declared to have one third

share each, however if while allotting exact portions some minor adjustment in the share is to be

made then the same will be made and the adversely affected party may be compensated by

allotting some portion of the adjoining land which has been acquired by the Central Government.

The parties are at liberty to file their suggestions for actual partition by metes and bounds

within three months.

List immediately after filing of any suggestion/ application for preparation of final decree

after obtaining necessary instructions from Hon’ble the Chief Justice.

Status quo as prevailing till date pursuant to Supreme Court judgment of Ismail Farooqui

(1994(6) Sec 360) in all its minutest details shall be maintained for a period of three months unless

this order is modified or vacated earlier.

Hindu writeups about Journalism and Prasara Bharati

The Hindu has published two news items, one about journalism and another about Prasara Bharati. Both  are interesting. Here are just two paragaraphs from each article. The interested may click the links below to read complete articles.

Journalism must become more participative

CHENNAI: With the growing spread of the digital medium, journalism will have to become more participative by seeking and allowing responses from readers, Alan Rusbridger, Editor of The Guardian, United Kingdom, said on Saturday.

Delivering a lecture organised by The Hindu and the Asian College of Journalism on ‘The future of journalism in the digital age,’ Mr. Rusbridger referred to the debate that his paper had on the BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, adding that others (non-journalists) could be involved in the pre-publication processes as well.

Pointing out that journalists were not the only voices of authority, expertise and interest, Mr. Rusbridger said that in the digital age, journalism should encourage others to initiate debate or make suggestions. “Newspapers can utilise the digital records of non-journalists who happened to witness events,” he said.

http://www.hindu.com/2010/09/19/stories/2010091962381500.htm

Can we afford Prasar Bharati?

A ugust and September have been distracting months for the scandal-chasing media. Else somebody would at least have drawn attention to the extraordinary developments concerning Prasar Bharati. In August, the Minister for Information and Broadcasting recommended the dismissal of its Chief Executive to the Prime Minister. And in the same month, she introduced an amendment bill in Parliament that seeks in effect to ensure that all employees of the corporation will remain government servants on deemed deputation. Three milestones achieved by non-Congress governments in 1978, 1990 and 1997 have been quietly reduced to rubble.

Lal Krishna Advani mooted the idea of broadcasting autonomy in 1978, P. Upendra presided over its becoming an Act in1990, and seven years later yet another non-Congress government hastily notified the Act just before the government fell. But for all their pains, what has developed since represents neither public service broadcasting in its best sense, nor autonomy. A 38,000-employee behemoth now has its 20-plus registered employee unions, all clamouring for the Act to be withdrawn. They want Prasar Bharati to go back to being what they euphemistically call a national broadcaster so that they can go back to being proper government servants. With tax payers now footing an annual bill of Rs. 3,000 crore for the privilege of having a public service broadcaster!

Meanwhile, the Central Vigilance Commission has found colourful examples of autonomous functioning by the CEO and his colleagues, amounting to questionable financial dealings. And the board set up to oversee Prasar Bharati finds itself in a quirky position. The decisions it takes are simply not recorded by the CEO who records the minutes. A huge democracy that set out to give itself broadcasting autonomy has ended up giving one man autonomy, through the tenures of three different chairpersons. Though found guilty of presiding over highly suspicious decision-making by the CVC, the next step, that of suspension, so that an enquiry can take place, has not been taken. The leaders of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha, both former Ministers of Information and Broadcasting, should be asking why.

How did this country’s experiment with an autonomous public broadcaster come to such a sorry pass?

http://www.hindu.com/mag/2010/09/19/stories/2010091950010100.htm

Around 2000 media professionals to cover Commonwealth Games

(Courtesy: Times of India)
NEW DELHI: Around 800 international and 1200 domestic media personnel are expected to cover the Delhi Commonwealth Games scheduled to be held in the capital from October 3 to 14.

As compared to 1562 Media accreditations for the Melbourne Games in 2006, around 2000 accreditations will be made for Delhi 2010.

The Main Press Centre (MPC) will be available for use from September 23 and can be accessed till September 30, daily between 8 a.m. and 10 p.m and will be open round-the-clock from October 1-15.

The MPC boasts 600 work stations for press and photo areas, with Wi-Fi and High-speed broadband at rate card, Games info service to access Games News Service and transport schedules.

The Venue Media Centres, that will open two hours prior to the event and close two hours after the event concludes, will also have work stations, high-speed Internet, press conference room, Media Lounge, info terminal for Games News Service, catering concession outlets and Mixed Zones.

Apart from this, the Games Village Media Centre will have an International Zone, which will allow access to accreditated pass-holding Media.

The Media Centre will have work areas, Media Lounge, Media Pass Desk, two press conference rooms, presentation studio and two interview rooms.

Also around 600 volunteers will assist the Media at all competition and non-competition venues.

There will be extensive transport arrangements for the Media, with T4 shuttles being made available. The Main Media Transport Mall will be located at ITPO, Complex, about 70 metres from MPC.

Read more: Around 2000 media professionals to cover Commonwealth Games – Top Stories – Commonwealth Games – Events & Tournaments – Sports – The Times of India http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/sports/events-tournaments/commonwealth-games/top-stories/Around-2000-media-professionals-to-cover-Commonwealth-Games/articleshow/6507296.cms#ixzz0yoxTdwOa

Published in: on September 7, 2010 at 2:36 pm  Leave a Comment  
Tags: , , , , , , ,

Rajdeep article on PAID NEWS in Prajavani

Published in: on January 4, 2010 at 1:45 pm  Leave a Comment  
Tags: , , , , , ,

ಶ್ರೀಕೃಷ್ಣದೇವರಾಯ

ಸ್ನೇಹಿತರೆ,
ನನ್ನ 5 ನೇ ಪುಸ್ತಕ ಶ್ರೀಕೃಷ್ಣದೇವರಾಯ ಬಿಡುಗಡೆಗೆ ಸಿದ್ಧವಾಗಿದೆ. ಪುಸ್ತಕದ ಬಿಡುಗಡೆ ಸಮಾರಂಭದ ಆಹ್ವಾನ ಪತ್ರಿಕೆ ಮತ್ತು ಮುಖಪುಟಗಳು ಇಲ್ಲಿವೆ. ಬಿಡುವು ಮಾಡಿಕೊಂಡು ಬನ್ನಿ.


The Funny Side of Newspapers

This is the mail sent by Rick Brown, from Historybuff.com. I hope this will be interesting for you. Read and Enjoy. For more details please visit the website www. historybuff.com
* * *
The Funny Side of Newspapers
As a newspaper collector, I have come across lots of newspapers with funny headlines or content. Here are a few of my favorites:
In a 1768 American newspaper, the back page had a small ad offering a reward. In that era the were many indentured servants that ran away from their “owners.” (An indentured servant was a person that willingly agreed to work for a craftsman with only room and board for payment. It was this method that they could learn a trade to support themselves after the contract expired.) I started reading the ad and it related that a man’s wife had run off with a salesman. The ad went on to give a description of his wife and of the salesman; weight, height, color of hair, etc. Then at the bottom it offered the following reward: “5 pence reward for information leading to her whereabouts, or a 5 pound reward if you keep her.” (Remember, we were still on British currency then.)
Another favorite of mine appeared on the front page of a rural newspaper from the late 1960s. The top half of the front page was a headline “40 Chickens Stolen From Local Farmer” as well an article giving details. What made this front page funny was what was on the lower half of the page. The headline was: “Scout Troop to Host Chicken Dinner.”
Sometimes I have to wonder if the editor chose the correct words for their headlines:
Grandmother of eight makes hole in one
Deaf mute gets new hearing in killing
Police begin campaign to run down jaywalkers
House passes gas tax onto senate
Stiff opposition expected to casketless funeral plan
Two convicts evade noose, jury hung
William Kelly was fed secretary
Milk drinkers are turning to powder
Safety experts say school bus passengers should be belted
Iraqi head seeks arms
Queen Mary having bottom scraped
NJ judge to rule on nude beach
Squad helps dog bite victim
Dealers will hear car talk at noon
Enraged cow injures farmer with ax
Lawmen from Mexico barbecue guests
Miners refuse to work after death
Two Soviet ships collide – one dies
Two sisters reunite after eighteen years at checkout counter
Nicaragua sets goal to wipe out literacy
Drunk drivers paid $1,000 in 1984
Autos killing 110 a day, let’s resolve to do better
If strike isn’t settled quickly it may last a while
War dims hope for peace
Smokers are productive, but death cuts efficiency
Cold wave linked to temperatures
Child’s death ruins couple’s holiday
Man is fatally slain
Something went wrong in jet crash, experts say
Death causes loneliness, feeling of isolation

Published in: on November 9, 2009 at 7:53 pm  Leave a Comment  
Tags: , , , , , ,

ಸುದ್ದಿ ಸ್ಪೋಟಕದ ವಿರುದ್ಧ ದೂರು.

28082009006ಸುತ್ತು ಬಳಸದೆ ನೇರವಾಗಿ ವಿಷಯಕ್ಕೆ ಬರುತ್ತೇನೆ. ಸುದ್ದಿ ಸ್ಪೋಟಕ ಬ್ಲಾಗ್ ಮೇಲೆ ದೆಹಲಿಯ ಸೈಬರ್ ಪೊಲೀಸ್ ಠಾಣೆಯಲ್ಲಿ ದೂರು ದಾಖಲಿಸಿದ್ದೇನೆ.

ಕಾರಣವಿಷ್ಟೇ! ಜನರ ವಾಣಿಯಂತಿರುವ ಕನ್ನಡ ದಿನ ಪತ್ರಿಕೆಯೊಂದರಲ್ಲಿ ಉನ್ನತ ಸ್ಥಾನದಲ್ಲಿರುವ, ನಾನು ತುಂಬಾ ಗೌರವಿಸುವ ಹಿರಿಯ ಪತ್ರಕರ್ತರೊಬ್ಬರು, ಹೂವಿನಂತಹ ಮನಸ್ಸಿನ ಮತ್ತೊಬ್ಬ ಪತ್ರಕರ್ತರು ಹಾಗೂ ದೆಹಲಿಯಲ್ಲೇ ಇರುವ ವರದಿಗಾರ ಗೆಳೆಯರೊಬ್ಬರು ನನ್ನ ವಿರುದ್ದ ವಿಸ್ಪರಿಂಗ್ ಕ್ಯಾಂಪೇನ್ ಶುರು ಮಾಡಿ, ಅಪಪ್ರಚಾರಕ್ಕೆ ಮುಂದಾಗಿದ್ದರು. ವಿಸ್ಪರಿಂಗ್ ಕ್ಯಾಂಪೇನ್ ಸಾರಾಂಶ ‘ಸುದ್ದಿ ಸ್ಪೋಟಕ, ವಿಮರ್ಶಕಿ, ಸುದ್ದಿಮಾತು, ಯುಕೆನಿಷದ, ಈ ಎಲ್ಲಾ ಫೇಸ್ಲೆಸ್ ಬ್ಲಾಗ್ ನಡೆಸುತ್ತಿರೋದು ಮತ್ತು ಕೆಲವರ ವಿರುದ್ಧ ಬರೆಯುತ್ತಿರುವುದು, ಹಿಂದೆ ವಿಜಯ ಕರ್ನಾಟಕದಲ್ಲಿದ್ದ ಒಬ್ಬ ಪತ್ರಕರ್ತರು ಹಾಗೂ ಶಿವಪ್ರಸಾದ್’ ಎಂಬುದು.

ಈ ವಿಷಯ ತಿಳಿಸಿದ್ದು ದೆಹಲಿಯಲ್ಲಿರುವ ಇಂಗ್ಲೀಷ್ ಚಾನೆಲ್ ನ ಆಪ್ತಮಿತ್ರ. ಈ ಮಿತ್ರ ಕೆಲ ದಿನಗಳ ಹಿಂದೆ ಫೋನ್ ಮಾಡಿ, ‘ಶಿವಪ್ರಸಾದ್, ಈ ರೀತಿ ಇಂತಹ ಪತ್ರಕರ್ತರೊಬ್ಬರ ಪರವಾಗಿ ಯಾರೋ ಒಬ್ಬರು ಫೋನ್ ಮಾಡಿದ್ದರು. ಅವರಿಗೆ ನೀವೇ ‘ಹಿರಿಯ’ ಪತ್ರಕರ್ತರೊಬ್ಬರ ವಿರುದ್ದ ಬರೆಯುತ್ತಿದ್ದೀರಿ ಎಂಬ ಅನುಮಾನವಿದೆಯಂತೆ. ‘ಸುದ್ದಿ ಸ್ಪೋಟಕ, ವಿಮರ್ಶಕಿ, ಸುದ್ದಿಮಾತು, ಯುಕೆನಿಷದ ಈ ಎಲ್ಲಾ ಬ್ಲಾಗ್ ಗಳನ್ನು ನೀವು ಹಾಗೂ ವಿಜಯ ಕರ್ನಾಟಕದ ಮಾಜಿ ಉದ್ಯೋಗಿಯೊಬ್ಬರು ಸೇರಿ ನಡೆಸುತ್ತಿದ್ದೀರಂತೆ. ನಿಮ್ಮ ವಿರುದ್ಧ ಎಲ್ಲಾ ದಾಖಲೆ ಸಂಗ್ರಹಿಸಿದ್ದಾರಂತೆ. ಶೀಘ್ರದಲ್ಲಿ ನಿಮ್ಮ ವಿರುದ್ಧ ದೂರು ನೀಡುತ್ತಾರಂತೆ. ನೀವು ನಿಮ್ಮ ಪುಸ್ತಕ ಬಿಡುಗಡೆ ಮಾಡಲು ಅವರನ್ನು ಕೇಳಿದ್ದಿರಂತೆ. ಅದಕ್ಕೆ ಅವರು ಒಪ್ಪಲಿಲ್ಲವಂತೆ. ಹೀಗಾಗಿ ನೀವು ಅವರ ವಿರುದ್ಧ ಬರೆಯುತ್ತಿದ್ದೀರಂತೆ’ ಎಂದು ತಿಳಿಸಿದಾಗ ಜೋರಾಗಿ ನಕ್ಕೆ. ಆ ಮಿತ್ರ ‘ನಗಬೇಡಿ. ಇದು ಸೀರಿಯಸ್’ ಎಂದರು. ನನಗಂತೂ ಚಂದಮಾಮ ಕಥೆಗಿಂತ ಇದು ಚನ್ನಾಗಿದೆ ಎನ್ನಿಸತೊಡಗಿತ್ತು. ಸುಮಾರು 45 ನಿಮಿಷ ಫೋನ್ ನಲ್ಲೇ ಆ ಮಿತ್ರನಿಗೆ ಯಾಕೆ ನಾನು ಆ ಬ್ಲಾಗ್ ಬರೆಯಲು ಸಾಧ್ಯವೇ ಇಲ್ಲ ಎಂದು ಎಳೆ ಎಳೆಯಾಗಿ ವಿವರಿಸಿದಾಗ ಅವರಿಗೂ ಮನವರಿಕೆಯಾಗಿತ್ತು.

ಮೊದಲೇ ನನಗೆ ಒಂದು ನಿಮಿಷ ಪುರುಸೊತ್ತಿಲ್ಲದ ಕೆಲಸ. ವಾರಕ್ಕೊಮ್ಮೆ ನನ್ನ ಬ್ಲಾಗ್ ಗೆ ಬರೆಯುವುದೇ ಕಷ್ಟ. ಜೊತೆಗೆ ಈಗ ಮತ್ತೊಂದು ಪುಸ್ತಕ ಬರೆಯಲು ಕುಳಿತಿದ್ದೇನೆ. ಅದಕ್ಕೆ ನನಗೆ ದಿನಕ್ಕೆ 3ರಿಂದ 4ಗಂಟೆ ಸಮಯ ಬೇಕು. ಮೇಲೆ ಕಚೇರಿ ಕೆಲಸ. ಗಂಟೆಗೊಮೆ ಫೋನೋ ಕೊಡಬೇಕು. ನನ್ನ ಏಕೈಕ ಪತ್ನಿ ಅರ್ಪಿತಾ ದೂರದ ಕರ್ನಾಟಕದಲ್ಲಿರುವುದರಿಂದ ಅಡುಗೆ, ಪಾತ್ರೆ, ರೂಂ ಕ್ಲೀನ್, ಬಟ್ಟೆ ವಾಷಿಂಗ್, ಇಸ್ತ್ರಿ… ಎಲ್ಲವೂ ನನ್ನದೆ. ಜೊತೆಗೆ ಕಳೆದ 5-6 ವರ್ಷಗಳಿಂದ ಎರಡು ದೇಶಗಳಿಗೆ ಹೋಗಲೇಬೇಕು ಎಂದು ಆಸೆ ಪಡುತ್ತಿದ್ದೆ. ಒಂದು ವರ್ಷದಿಂದ ತೀವ್ರ ಪ್ರಯತ್ನ ನಡೆಸಿದ್ದೆ. ಈಗ ಎರಡೂ ದೇಶಗಳ ರಾಯಭಾರಿಗಳನ್ನು ಕಂಡು ನನ್ನ ಉದ್ದೇಶ ವಿವರಿಸಿದ್ದೇನೆ. ಅವರು ವೀಸಾ ಕೊಡುವ ಬಗ್ಗೆ ಭರವಸೆ ನೀಡಿದ್ದಾರೆ. ಅದಕ್ಕೆ ಬೇಕಾದ ದಾಖಲೆಗಳನ್ನು ಹೊಂದಿಸಲು ಪರದಾಡುತ್ತಿದ್ದೇನೆ. ನವೆಂಬರ್-ಡಿಸೆಂಬರ್ ವೇಳೆಗೆ ಅಲ್ಲಿಗೆ ಹೋಗಬೇಕಾದರೆ ಅಷ್ಟರಲ್ಲಿ ಈಗ ಬರೆಯುತ್ತಿರುವ ಪುಸ್ತಕ ಮುಗಿಸಬೇಕು. ತಲೆಕೆಳಗಾದರೂ ಅಕ್ಟೋಬರ್ 20ರೊಳಗೆ ಪುಸ್ತಕ ಮುಗಿಸಲೇಬೇಕು. ಏಕೆಂದರೆ ನಂತರ 10 ದಿನ ರಜೆ ಹಾಕಿ, ನಾನು ಅಪ್ಪನಾಗುವ ಸಂಭ್ರಮ ಅನುಭವಿಸಬೇಕು!. ಆಗ ನೋವಿನಲ್ಲಿ ಒದ್ದಾಡುವ ನನ್ನ ಜೀವನ ಸಂಗಾತಿ ಅರ್ಪಿತಾಳ ಜೊತೆ ಇರಬೇಕು. ನಂತರ ಎಲ್ಲವೂ ಸರಿ ಹೋದರೆ ಒಂದು ತಿಂಗಳ ಸುದೀರ್ಘ ಪ್ರವಾಸಕ್ಕೆ ಸಜ್ಜಾಗಬೇಕು. ಅದಕ್ಕೆ ಬೇಕಾದ ಹಣ ಗೆಳೆಯರಿಂದ ಹೊಂದಿಸಿಕೊಳ್ಳಬೇಕು. ಅಲ್ಲಿನ ಮಾಹಿತಿ ಸಂಗ್ರಹಿಸಿ, ನೋಟ್ಸ್ ಮಾಡಿಕೊಳ್ಳಬೇಕು. ಅಲ್ಲಿ ಇರುವುದು ಎಲ್ಲಿ? ಯಾರನ್ನೆಲ್ಲಾ ಭೇಟಿ ಮಾಡಬೇಕು ಎಂದು ಪ್ಲಾನಿಂಗ್ ಮಾಡಿಕೊಳ್ಳಬೇಕು.

ಈ ನಡುವೆ ದೆಹಲಿಗೆ ವಿದಾಯ ಹೇಳಿ ಬೆಂಗಳೂರಿಗೆ ಹೊರಡುವ ಸಾಧ್ಯತೆಗಳಿವೆ. ಆದಷ್ಟೂ ನನ್ನನ್ನು ದೆಹಲಿಯಲ್ಲೇ ಬಿಡಿ ಎಂದು ಕೇಳಿಕೊಂಡಿದ್ದೇನೆ. ಆ ಮನವಿಗೆ ಮನ್ನಣೆ ಸಿಗದಿದ್ದರೆ ಇಲ್ಲಿಂದ ಗಂಟುಮೂಟೆ ಕಟ್ಟಬೇಕು. ಬೆಂಗಳೂರಿನಲ್ಲಿ ಮನೆ ಹುಡುಕುವುದು, ಇಲ್ಲಿಂದ ಸಾಮಾನು ಸಾಗಿಸುವುದು ಹೇಗೆ ಎಂಬ ಚಿಂತೆ. ಯಾವಾಗ ಕಚೇರಿಯಿಂದ ಅಂತಿಮ ನಿರ್ಧಾರ ಹೊರ ಬೀಳುತ್ತದೋ ಎಂಬ ನಿರೀಕ್ಷೆ. ಇದೆಲ್ಲದರ ನಡುವೆ ಗಂಟೆಗೆ 10-15 ಫೋನ್ ಕಾಲ್ ಗಳ ಹಾವಳಿ. ಇಷ್ಟೆಲ್ಲಾ ಮಾಡಿ, ಮಲಗಲು ಸಿಗುವುದೇ ಹೆಚ್ಚೆಂದರೆ 5 ರಿಂದ 6 ಗಂಟೆ. ದಿನಕ್ಕೆ 18 ಗಂಟೆ ದುಡಿದು, ಇನ್ನು ಯಾವ ಸುಖಕ್ಕೆ ಈ ಫೇಸ್ ಲೆಸ್ ಬ್ಲಾಗ್ ನಡೆಸಬೇಕು? ಕಂಡವರ ವಿರುದ್ಧ ಬರೆಯಬೇಕು? ಅದರಿಂದ ನನಗಾಗುವ ಲಾಭವೇನು? ದಿನಕ್ಕೊಂದು ಪೋಸ್ಟ್ ನನ್ನ ಈ ಬ್ಲಾಗ್ನಲ್ಲಿ ಬರೆಯುವುದಕ್ಕಿಂತ, ಅದೇ ಸಮಯವನ್ನು ಬೇರೆ ವಿಷಯದ ಬಗ್ಗೆ ಬರೆಯಲು ಉಪಯೋಗಿಸಿದರೆ ಮತ್ತೊಂದು ಪುಸ್ತಕ ಬರೆಯಬಹುದು ಎಂಬ ನಿಲುವಿನವನು ನಾನು. ಹೀಗಾಗಿಯೇ ನನ್ನ ಚಿಂತನಗಂಗಾ ಹಾಗೂ ಕನ್ನಡ ಬುಕ್ ಬ್ಲಾಗ್ ಗಳನ್ನು ತಿಂಗಳುಗಳಿಂದ ನನಗೆ ಅಪ್ ಡೇಟ್ ಮಾಡಲಾಗಿಲ್ಲ. ನನ್ನ ಈ ಬ್ಲಾಗನ್ನೂ ನಡೆಸಲಾಗದೆ ನಿಲ್ಲಿಸಬೇಕು ಎಂದು ಯೋಚಿಸಿದ್ದಾಗ, ಔಟ್ ಲುಕ್ ನ ಕೃಷ್ಣಪ್ರಸಾದ್ ಅವರು ನನ್ನ ಅಜ್ಞಾನ ಹೋಗಲಾಡಿಸಿದ್ದರು. ಒಂದು ಬ್ಲಾಗ್ ಗೆ ಒದ್ದಾಡುತ್ತಿರುವ ನಾನು ಇನ್ನು ಹೇಗೆ 3-4 ಫೇಸ್ ಲೆಸ್ ಬ್ಲಾಗ್ ನಡೆಸಲಿ? ನನಗೆಲ್ಲೋ ಅಮಾನುಷ ಶಕ್ತಿ ಬಂದಿರಬಹುದು! ನಾನು ಸರ್ವಾಂತರ್ಯಾಮಿಯಾಗಿರಬಹುದೆ? ಸುದ್ದಿಮಾತು, ವಿಮರ್ಶಕಿ, ಸುದ್ದಿ ಸ್ಪೋಟಕ ಬ್ಲಾಗ ಗಳನ್ನು ತಡವಿದ್ದೇ ನಾನು ಮಾಡಿದ ತಪ್ಪೇ? ಎಂಬ ಅನುಮಾನ ನನಗೇ ಹುಟ್ಟುವ ಮಟ್ಟಿಗೆ ಈ ವಿಸ್ಪರಿಂಗ್ ಕ್ಯಾಂಪೇನ್ ಸಾಗಿತ್ತು.

ಅಲ್ಲದೆ ನಾನು ಆ ಹಿರಿಯರಿಗೆ ನನ್ನ ಯಾವುದೇ ಪುಸ್ತಕ ಬಿಡುಗಡೆ ಮಾಡಿಕೊಡಿ ಎಂದು ಕೇಳಿರಲಿಲ್ಲ. ಬದಲಿಗೆ ನನ್ನ ಜಲಿಯನ್ ವಾಲಾ ಬಾಗ್ ಹಾಗೂ ಚಂದ್ರಯಾನ ಪುಸ್ತಕಗಳ ಬಿಡುಗಡೆಗೆ ಒಂದು ಸ್ಥಳ ಹುಡುಕುತ್ತಿದ್ದೇನೆ. ನಿಮಗೆ ಯಾವುದಾದರೂ ಹಾಲ್ ಗೊತ್ತಿದ್ದರೆ ತಿಳಿಸಿ ಎಂದು ಕೇಳಿದ್ದೆ. ಕೊನೆಗೆ ಅವರೇ ಎಲ್ಲರೂ ಸೇರಿ ಕನ್ನಡ ಸಾಹಿತ್ಯ ಪರಿಷತ್ ಸಭಾಂಗಣ ಗುರುತು ಮಾಡಿ ಕೊಟ್ಟಿದ್ದರು. ದುಡ್ಡನ್ನೂ ಅವರೇ ಕೊಟ್ಟಿದ್ದರು. ನಾನು ಪುಸ್ತಕ ಬಿಡುಗಡೆಯಾದ ದಿನ ಬಾಡಿಗೆ ಮೊತ್ತ 750 ರೂ. ಅವರಿಗೆ ಕೊಟ್ಟಿದ್ದೆ. ಇಷ್ಟೆಲ್ಲಾ ಸಹಾಯ ಮಾಡಿದ್ದ ಆ ಮಿತ್ರರು ಈಗ ಏಕೆ ಈ ರೀತಿ ತಪ್ಪು ಭಾವನೆ ತಳೆದಿದ್ದಾರೆ ಎಂದು ಅರ್ಥವಾಗಲಿಲ್ಲ. ಅದರಲ್ಲೂ ನನ್ನ ಖಾಸಗಿ ಬದುಕಿನ ದುರಂತವನ್ನು, ನನ್ನ ನೋವನ್ನು, ನನ್ನ ಮಾನಸಿಕ ಸ್ಥಿತಿಯನ್ನು ತಮಾಷೆ ಮಾಡುವಂತೆ ಅದನ್ನೆಲ್ಲಾ ಜಗಜ್ಜಾಹೀರು ಮಾಡುತ್ತಿದ್ದದ್ದು ನನಗೆ ಆಘಾತಕಾರಿಯಾಗಿತ್ತು. ತಕ್ಷಣ ಫೋನ್ ಮಾಡಿ, ಆ ದಿನ ಪತ್ರಿಕೆಯ ಹಿರಿಯರಿಗೆ ಬೆಂಡೆತ್ತಿ ಎಂದು ಮಿತ್ರರೊಬ್ಬರು ಹೇಳಿದರು. ಆದರೆ ಅವರಿಗೆ ನನ್ನ ವಿರುದ್ಧ, ನನ್ನ ಖಾಸಗಿ ಬದುಕಿನ ದುರಂತವನ್ನು ಪ್ರಚಾರ ಮಾಡಿ, ಸಂತೋಷ ಸಿಗುವುದಾದರೆ ಸಿಗಲಿ ಎಂದು ಸುಮ್ಮನಾದೆ.

ಸ್ಪೋಟಕ ಸುದ್ದಿ ಆರಂಭವಾಗಿ, ಎಲ್ಲಾ ಫೇಸ್ ಲೆಸ್ ಬ್ಲಾಗ್ ಗಳ ಬಗ್ಗೆ ಬರೆದಾಗಲೇ ಬೆಂಗಳೂರಿನ ಸೈಬರ್ ಕ್ರೈಂನಲ್ಲಿರುವ ಡಿಸೋಜಾ ಅವರಿಗೆ ಫೋನ್ ಮಾಡಿ, ನನ್ನ ಸಮಸ್ಯೆ ಹೇಳಿ, ಈ ರೀತಿ ಬ್ಲಾಗ್ ನಡೆಸುತ್ತಿರುವವರು ಯಾರು ಎಂದು ಕೇಳಿ ದೂರು ನೀಡುವ ಬಗ್ಗೆ ವಿಚಾರಿಸಿದ್ದೆ. ಅದರ ಮರುದಿನ ಬೆಂಗಳೂರಿನ ಸೈಬರ್ ಕ್ರೈಂಗೆ ವರದಿಗಾರ ಮಿತ್ರರೊಬ್ಬರು ಫೋನ್ ಮಾಡಿ, ನನ್ನ ಹೆಸರನ್ನೇ ಹೇಳಿ ವಿಚಾರಿಸಿದ್ದು ತಿಳಿಯಿತು. ಆ ಕರೆ ಮಾಡಿದ್ದ ವರದಿಗಾರ ಯಾರು ಎಂದು ತಿಳಿಯುತ್ತಿದ್ದಂತೆಯೇ, ನನ್ನ ವಿರುದ್ದ ನಡೆಯುತ್ತಿರುವ ಷಡ್ಯಂತ್ರದ ಪೂರ್ತಿ ಚಿತ್ರಣ ಸಿಕ್ಕು ಬಿಟ್ಟಿತ್ತು. ಅಲ್ಲದೆ ಮೊದಲ ಲೇಖನದಲ್ಲೇ ನನ್ನ ಹೆಸರು ಬಳಸಿದ್ದನ್ನು ಪ್ರಶ್ನಿಸಿ, ಸ್ಪೋಟಕ ಸುದ್ದಿಗೆ ಆರಂಭದ ಒಂದೆರಡು ದಿನದಲ್ಲೇ ಮೇಲ್ ಕಳುಹಿಸಿದ್ದೆ. ಉತ್ತರ ಬರಲಿಲ್ಲ. ಇದನ್ನೆಲ್ಲಾ ನನಗೆ ವಿಷಯ ತಿಳಿಸಿದ ಇಂಗ್ಲೀಷ್ ಚಾನೆಲ್  ನ ಆ ಮಿತ್ರನಿಗೆ ಹೇಳಿದೆ. ಹಾಗಾದರೆ ನಿಮ್ಮ ವಿರುದ್ಧ ವ್ಯವಸ್ಥಿತ ‘ವಿಸ್ಪರಿಂಗ್ ಕ್ಯಾಂಪೇನ್’ ನಡೀತಿದೆ. ಹುಷಾರಾಗಿರಿ ಎಂದರು. ಮಾಡಿಕೊಂಡ್ರೆ ಮಾಡ್ಲಿ ಬಿಡಿ ಎಂದು ಸುಮ್ಮನಾದೆ.

ಆದರೆ ಅದು ಅಲ್ಲಿಗೆ ನಿಲ್ಲದೆ ಮುಂದುವರೆಯಿತು. ನಂತರ ಈ ಮಿತ್ರನ ಜೊತೆ ಎರಡು ಮೂರು ಬಾರಿ ಚರ್ಚಿಸಿ, ನನ್ನ ವಿರುದ್ಧ ಅನುಮಾನ ಪಡುತ್ತಿದ್ದವರನ್ನು ನೇರವಾಗಿಯೇ ಮಾತನಾಡಿಸಿ, ಇದನ್ನೆಲ್ಲಾ ನಿಲ್ಲಿಸಿ. ಸುಮ್ಮನೇ ಇಂತಹವರು ನಿಮಗೆ ಮಿಸ್ ಗೈಡ್ ಮಾಡಿದ್ದಾರೆ ಎಂದು ಹೇಳೋಣ ಎಂದು ನಿರ್ಧರಿಸಿದೆವು. ಸುಮಾರು 8-10 ಕರೆ ಮಾಡಿದೆ. ಆದರೆ ಅವರು ಬ್ಯುಸಿ ಇದ್ದದ್ದರಿಂದ ಕರೆ ಸ್ವೀಕರಿಸಲಿಲ್ಲವಂತೆ. ವಾಪಸ್ ಕರೆ ಕೂಡ ಮಾಡಲಿಲ್ಲ. ವಿಸ್ಪರಿಂಗ್ ಕ್ಯಾಂಪೇನ್ ನಿಲ್ಲಲಿಲ್ಲ. ಚಾರಿತ್ರ್ಯವಧೆ ಮುಂದುವರಿದೇ ಇತ್ತು. ಕೊನೆಗೆ ಆ ವ್ಯಕ್ತಿಯ ಕಿರಿಯ ಗೆಳೆಯೊಬ್ಬನಿಗೆ ಫೋನ್ ಮಾಡಿ, ಏನು ನಿಮ್ಮ ಗುರುಗಳು ಹೀಗೆ ಮಾಡ್ತಿದ್ದಾರೆ ಎಂದು ಕೇಳಿದೆ. ಅವರು ನನಗೇನೂ ಗೊತ್ತಿಲ್ಲ. ಫೋನ್ ಮಾಡಿ, ನನಗೂ ವಿಚಾರಿಸಿದ್ರು. ಎಂದು ಹೇಳಿದ.

ಆತನೊಡನೆ ಮಾತನಾಡಿದ್ದರಿಂದ ತಿಳಿದು ಬಂದದ್ದು ಏನೆಂದರೆ ಇವನಿಗೂ ಈ ವಿಷಯವೆಲ್ಲ ಮೊದಲೇ ತಿಳಿದಿದ್ದರೂ ನನಗೆ ಅದನ್ನು ತಿಳಿಸಿರಲಿಲ್ಲ. ಬದಲಿಗೆ ನನ್ನ ವಿರುದ್ದ ಅನುಮಾನ ಹೆಚ್ಚುವಂತೆ ತನ್ನ ಗುರುಗಳಿಗೆ ಮಾಹಿತಿ ನೀಡಿದ್ದ. ತನ್ನ ಕೆಲ ಪೊಲೀಸ್ ಮಿತ್ರರಿಗೂ ಫೋನ್ ಮಾಡಿ, ನನ್ನ ಹೆಸರು ಹೇಳಿಯೇ ವಿಚಾರಿಸಿ, ತನಿಖೆ ಆರಂಭಿಸಿದ್ದ. ಈ ಎಲ್ಲವೂ ತಿಳಿದಿದ್ದರೂ, ಸಹಜವಾಗಿ ಕೇಳಿ ಸುಮ್ಮನಾದೆ. ಏಕೆಂದರೆ ನನಗೆ ಈ ಮಿತ್ರನ ಬಗ್ಗೆ ಯಾವುದೇ ಧ್ವೇಷವೂ ಇಲ್ಲ. ಆದರೆ ಮನಸ್ಸಿಗೆ ನೋವಾಗಿದ್ದಂತೂ ನಿಜ. ಏಕೆಂದರೆ ನಿತ್ಯ ಒಂದೆರಡು ಬಾರಿಯಾದರೂ ಸಿಗುವ ಈ ವರದಿಗಾರ ಗೆಳೆಯ ನನ್ನ ಬಗ್ಗೆ ಯಾರೋ ಅನುಮಾನ ಪಡುತ್ತಿದ್ದಾರೆ ಎಂದು ತಿಳಿದಾಗ ಅದನ್ನು ನನ್ನ ಗಮನಕ್ಕೆ ತರದೆ, ವಿಸ್ಪರಿಂಗ್ ಕ್ಯಾಂಪೇನ್ಗೆ ಕೈ ಜೋಡಿಸಿದನಲ್ಲ ಎಂದು. ಆ ರೀತಿ ನಿಜಕ್ಕೂ ನನ್ನ ವಿರುದ್ಧ ದಾಖಲೆಗಳಿದ್ದರೆ, ಐ.ಪಿ. ಅಡ್ರೆಸ್ ಇದ್ದಿದ್ದರೆ ನೇರವಾಗಿ ನನ್ನ ವಿರುದ್ಧ ದೂರು ನೀಡಬಹುದಿತ್ತು. ಅಥವಾ ನನಗೆ ಕರೆ ಮಾಡಿ, ಬೋ.ಮ. ಎಂದು ವಿಚಾರಿಸಬಹುದಿತ್ತು. ಆದರೆ ಇಂತಹ ಕೆಲಸಕ್ಕೆ ಕೈ ಹಾಕಿದ್ದು ಖಂಡಿತಾ ಬೇಸರ ಉಂಟು ಮಾಡಿತ್ತು. ನಾನೇ ಫೋನ್ ಮಾಡಿದಾಗಲಾದರೂ ಆ ಹಿರಿಯ ವರದಿಗಾರ ಮಿತ್ರರು ಮಾತನಾಡಬಹುದಿತ್ತು. ಅಥವಾ ನಂತರ ಕರೆ ಮಾಡಬಹುದಿತ್ತು. ಅದಾವುದನ್ನೂ ಮಾಡದೆ, ನಾನು ಹೇಗೆ? ಏನು? ಎತ್ತ? ಎಂದು ನನ್ನ ಖಾಸಗಿ ವಿಷಯವೆಲ್ಲ ತಿಳಿದಿದ್ದರೂ, ಯಾರದೋ ದ್ವೇಷದ ಮಾತು ಕೇಳಿ ನನ್ನ ಮೇಲೆ ಅನುಮಾನ ಬರುವಂತೆ ಮಾಡ ಹೊರಟಿದ್ದು, ನಿಜಕ್ಕೂ ಬೇಸರ ಮೂಡಿಸಿತ್ತು.

ಇದೆಲ್ಲವನ್ನು ವಿವರಿಸಿ, ಸ್ಪೋಟಕ ಸುದ್ದಿಗೆ ಮತ್ತೆ ಮೇಲ್ ಕಳುಹಿಸಿದೆ. ಅದನ್ನೇ ಕಾಮೆಂಟ್ ರೂಪದಲ್ಲೂ ಅವರ ಬ್ಲಾಗ್ ಗೆ ಕಳುಹಿಸಿದೆ. ಅದು ಪ್ರಕಟವಾಗಲು ಇಲ್ಲ. ಮೇಲ್ ಗೆ ಉತ್ತರವೂ ಬರಲಿಲ್ಲ. ಇದನ್ನೆಲ್ಲಾ ತುಂಬಾ ಸುದೀರ್ಘವಾಗಿ ನನ್ನ ಹಿರಿಯ ಮಿತ್ರರೊಂದಿಗೆ ಚರ್ಚಿಸಿದೆ. ಅವರು ತಮಗೆ ತೋಚಿದ ಕೆಲವು ವಿಚಾರ ಹೇಳಿ, ಇಲ್ಲಿಗೆ ಬಿಟ್ಟು ಬಿಡುವುದು ವಾಸಿ ಎಂದರು. ಹಾಗೆಯೇ ನನ್ನ ಇತರೆ ಕೆಲವು ಮಿತ್ರರ ಜೊತೆ ಚರ್ಚಿಸಿದಾಗ ದೂರು ನೀಡುವುದು ವಾಸಿ ಎಂದು ಹೇಳಿದರು. ಹೀಗಾಗಿ ಅಂತಿಮವಾಗಿ ಬೇರಾವುದೇ ದಾರಿ ಕಾಣದೆ ಸ್ಪೋಟಕ ಸುದ್ದಿ ಬ್ಲಾಗ್ ವಿರುದ್ಧ ದೂರು ದಾಖಲಿಸಿ, ಬಂದಿದ್ದೇನೆ. ಈ ರೀತಿ ನಿಮ್ಮ ವಿರುದ್ಧ ದೂರು ದಾಖಲಿಸಿದ್ದೇನೆ ಎಂದು ಸ್ಪೋಟಕ ಸುದ್ದಿಗೆ ಮತ್ತೊಂದು ಮೇಲ್ ಕಳುಹಿಸಿ ಒಂದು ದಿನದ ಮೇಲಾಗಿದೆ. ಅದಕ್ಕೂ ಉತ್ತರ ಬಂದಿಲ್ಲ. ಹೀಗಾಗಿ ಇದನ್ನೀಗ ನನ್ನ ಬ್ಲಾಗ್ ನಲ್ಲಿ ಪ್ರಕಟಿಸುತ್ತಿದ್ದೇನೆ. 

ಈ ಫೆಸ್ ಲೆಸ್ ಬ್ಲಾಗ್ ಗಳ ವಿರುದ್ಧವಾದರೂ ಹೋರಾಡಬಹುದು. ಆದರೆ ಜೊತೆಗೇ ಇದ್ದುಕೊಂಡು, ನಾವು ಏನು ಎಂದು ತಿಳಿದೂ ಸುಖಾ ಸುಮ್ಮನೇ ವಿಸ್ಪರಿಂಗ್ ಕ್ಯಾಂಪೇನ್ ಮಾಡುವವರ ಬಗ್ಗೆ ಏನು ಮಾಡಬೇಕೋ ಅರ್ಥವಾಗುತ್ತಿಲ್ಲ. ಹಾಗಾಗಿ ಅವರಿಗೇ ಅರ್ಥವಾಗಲಿ ಎಂದು ಸುಮ್ಮನಾಗಿದ್ದೇನೆ. ಇದನ್ನು ಓದಿದ ಮೇಲಾದರೂ ಅವರಿಗೆ ಅರ್ಥವಾದೀತು. ಯಾರದ್ದೋ ಮಾತು ಕೇಳಿ, ಮತ್ತ್ಯಾರದ್ದೋ ಮೇಲೆ ಅನುಮಾನ ಪಡುವುದರಿಂದ ಏನೇನಾಗುತ್ತದೆ ಎಂದು ತಿಳಿದೀತು. ಯಾರ ಮಾತನ್ನೋ ಸುಲಭಕ್ಕೆ ನಂಬಿ, ಸುಮ್ಮನೇ ಕೆಲಸ ಮಾಡಿಕೊಂಡಿರುವವರ  ಬಗ್ಗೆ ಅನುಮಾನ ಪಡಬಾರದು ಎಂಬ ಸೂಕ್ಷ್ಮ ಅರ್ಥವಾದಿತು ಎಂದು ಭಾವಿಸಿದ್ದೇನೆ. ಇದೆಲ್ಲಾ ಕೇವಲ ಯಾವುದೋ ಒಬ್ಬ ಪತ್ರಕರ್ತ ಅವರಲ್ಲಿ ತಪ್ಪು ಭಾವನೆ ಬರುವಂತೆ ಮಾಡಿದ್ದು ಕಾರಣವೇ ಹೊರತು ಬೇರೇನೂ ಅಲ್ಲ.

ಈಗಲೂ ಈ ಇಬ್ಬರು ಹಿರಿಯ ಪತ್ರಕರ್ತರು ಹಾಗೂ ಈ ಕಿರಿಯ ಮಿತ್ರನ ಬಗ್ಗೆ ಅಷ್ಟೇ ಗೌರವ, ಪ್ರೀತಿ ಇದೆ. ವಿಶ್ವಾಸ ಕದಡಲು ನಾನು ಬಿಟ್ಟಿಲ್ಲ. ಆದರೆ ಇದನ್ನೆಲ್ಲಾ ಹೇಳುವ ಅನಿವಾರ್ಯತೆ ಇದ್ದದ್ದರಿಂದ ಹೇಳಬೇಕಾಯಿತು. ಈ ಎಲ್ಲಾ ಕಾರಣದಿಂದ ಸ್ಪೋಟಕ ಸುದ್ದಿ ವಿರುದ್ಧ ದೂರು ದಾಖಲಿಸಿ ಬಂದಿದ್ದೇನೆ. ಇದು ಎಲ್ಲಿ, ಹೇಗೆ, ಯಾವತ್ತು ಕೊನೆಯಾಗುತ್ತದೋ ಗೊತ್ತಿಲ್ಲ.

Drought of justice, flood of funds: P Sainath

20070921507010901Majority of the journalists like us, speak about farmers often. It has become a fashion for us. But it’s a passion for very few. There are very few journalists who practice what they preach! P Sainath is one among those very few journalists who not only speak about farmers and villages, but also live among them, speak on behalf of the farmers and fight for them.

His books and write-ups in leading news papers and magazines have compelled the respective governments to reconsider their policies and attitude towards farmers.

Now, P Sainath has written an excellent piece in The Hindu. He has exposed the Union Government and our politicians through the article.  It has exposed the plight of the farmers and the favor given by the union government to the corporate sector.

Here is just one paragraph from the article. To read it full, click the link given below.

 * * *

Take a look at the budget and the “Revenues foregone under the central tax system.” The estimate of revenues foregone from corporate revenues in 2008-09 is Rs. 68,914 crore. (http://indiabudget.nic.in/ub2009-10/statrevfor/annex12.pdf) By contrast, the NREGS covering tens of millions of impoverished human beings gets Rs. 39,100 crore in the 2009-10 budget. Remember the great loan waiver of 2008, that historic write-off of the loans of indebted farmers? Recall the editorials whining about ‘fiscal imprudence?’ That was a one-time, one-off waiver covering countless millions of farmers and was claimed to touch Rs. 70,000 crore. But over Rs. 130,000 crore (in direct taxes) has been doled out in concessions in just two budgets to a tiny gaggle of merchants hogging at the public trough. Without a whimper of protest in the media. Imagine what budget giveaways to corporates since 1991 would total. We’d be talking trillions of rupees.

* * *

Click this link to read the full article.

http://www.hindu.com/2009/08/15/stories/2009081555920800.htm

ಫೇಸ್ ಲೆಸ್ ಜರ್ನಲಿಸ್ಟ್ ಮತ್ತು ಬ್ಲಾಗ್ ಗಳು ಬೇಕೇ?

mask%20cotton%20full%20skullಕನ್ನಡದಲ್ಲಿ ಯಾಕೋ ಫೇಸ್ ಲೆಸ್ ಜರ್ನಲಿಸ್ಟ್ ಗಳು, ಬ್ಲಾಗುಗಳ ಸಂಖ್ಯೆ, ಹೊಟ್ಟೆಕಿಚ್ಚು, ತಮ್ಮ ಮೂಗಿನ ನೇರಕ್ಕೆ ತಮಗೆ ತೋಚಿದಂತೆ ಬರೆದುಕೊಳ್ಳುವುದು, ತಮಗೆ ಬೇಕಾದವರು, ಪರಿಚಯ ಇರುವವರ ಬಗ್ಗೆ ಹೊಗಳುವುದು, ಬೇಡವಾದವರ ಬಗ್ಗೆ ತೆಗಳುವುದು, ಇತ್ಯಾದಿ ಹೆಚ್ತಿದೆ.
ಮೊದಲು ಈ ಚಾಳಿ ಆರಂಭವಾದ್ದು ಸುದ್ದಿ ಮಾತು ಎಂಬ ಬ್ಲಾಗಿನಿಂದ. ಅದನ್ನು ನಡೆಸುವವರು ಯಾರು ಎಂದು ಈಗಾಗಲೇ ಎಲ್ಲರಿಗೂ ಅರ್ಥವಾಗ್ತಿದೆ. ಇದರಲ್ಲಿ ಎಲ್ಲಾ ಲೇಖನಗಳನ್ನು ಒನ್ ಸೈಡೆಡ್ ಹಾಗೂ ತಮಗೆ ಬೇಕಾದವರನ್ನು ಹೊಗಳೋಕೆ, ಬೇಡವಾದವರನ್ನು ತೆಗಳೋಕೆ, ಬಳಸಿದ್ದರು. ಅದರಲ್ಲಿ ಬಂದ ಲೇಖನಗಳೆಲ್ಲ ಒನ್ ಸೈಡೆಡ್ ಆಗಿದ್ದವು. ಸುದ್ದಿ ಮಾತು ನಿಸ್ಪಕ್ಷಪಾತವಾಗಿ ಕೆಲಸ ಮಾಡಬಹುದು ಎಂದು ನಿರೀಕ್ಷಿಸಿದ್ದವರಿಗೆಲ್ಲ ನಿರಾಶೆಯಾಗಿತ್ತು. ಬ್ಲಾಗ್ ಜನಪ್ರಿಯತೆಯನ್ನು ತಮಗೆ ಬೇಕಾದಂತೆ ಬಳಸಲು ಆರಂಭಿಸಿದ್ದು ಎದ್ದು ಕಾಣುತ್ತಿದೆ. ನಮ್ಮ ಪಾಡಿಗೆ ನಾವು ಕೆಲಸ ಮಾಡಿಕೊಂಡಿದ್ದರೂ, ಇನ್ಯಾರೋ ಫೇಸ್ ಲೆಸ್ ಜರ್ನಲಿಸ್ಟ್ ಗಳು ಅನಾನಿಮಸ್ ಹೆಸರಿನಲ್ಲಿ ತಮಗೆ ಬೇಕಾದವರು, ಬೇಡವಾದವರು ಎಲ್ಲರ ವಿರುದ್ದ ಬೇಕಾಬಿಟ್ಟಿ ಕಾಮೆಂಟ್ ಮಾಡಿದ್ದರು. ಹೇಗೂ ತಾವು ಯಾರು ಎಂದು ತಿಳಿಯುವುದಿಲ್ಲ. ಹೀಗಾಗಿ ತನ್ನ ಪಾಡಿಗೆ ತಾನು ಕೆಲಸ ಮಾಡಿಕೊಂಡಿರುವ ಮತ್ತಾವುದೋ ಪತ್ರಕರ್ತನ ಚಾರಿತ್ರ್ಯವಧೆ ಮಾಡುವುದು ಸುಲಭ! ಉಗ್ರರು ಬಾಂಬ್ ಇಟ್ಟ ಸಂದರ್ಭದಲ್ಲಿ ನಾವು ಕೊಟ್ಟ ಫೋನೋ, ಮುಂಬೈ ಟೆರರ್ ಕವರೇಜ್ ಮುಂದಿಟ್ಟುಕೊಂಡು, ನಾನು ಟಿವಿ9 ನಲ್ಲಿ ಆ ಕವರೇಜನ್ನು ಪ್ರಚಾರಕ್ಕೆ ಮಾಡಿದ್ದು, ಚಡ್ಡಿ ಪತ್ರಕರ್ತ, ಪ್ರಚಾರ ಪ್ರಿಯ ಎಂದೆಲ್ಲ ಕೆಲವರು ಕಾಮೆಂಟ್ ಮಾಡಿದ್ದರು. ಹೇಗೂ ಫೇಸ್ ಲೆಸ್ ಅಲ್ವಾ? ಏನು ಬರೆದರೂ ನಡೆಯುತ್ತದೆ ಎಂಬ ಧೋರಣೆ. ಇದೇ ರೀತಿಯ ಸಮಸ್ಯೆಯನ್ನು ಅನೇಕರು ಎದುರಿಸಿದ್ದರು. ನಮ್ಮ ಪಾಡಿಗೆ ನಾವು ಇದ್ದರೂ, ಮತ್ತ್ಯಾರೋ ಮಾಡಲು ಕೆಲಸವಿಲ್ಲದವರು ನಮ್ಮ ಹೆಸರು ಹೇಳಿಕೊಂಡು ಕಚ್ಚಾಡುವುದು ನೋಡಿ ನಗಬೇಕೋ? ಅಳಬೇಕೋ ತಿಳಿಯುತ್ತಿಲ್ಲ.
ನಂತರ ಮತ್ತೊಂದು ಬ್ಲಾಗ್ ಶುರುವಾದದ್ದು ಸುದ್ದಿ ಮನೆ ಕಥೆ! ಅದು ಹುಟ್ಟಿದ ಒಂದೇ ವಾರಕ್ಕೆ ಕೊನೆಯುಸಿರು ಎಳೆಯಿತು. ಅದರಲ್ಲೂ ಹೀಗೇ ಬೇಕಾಬಿಟ್ಟಿ ಬರೆದರು. ಟಿವಿ9 ಗಂಪುಗಾರಿಗೆ ಎಂದೆಲ್ಲ ಬರೆದು ತಮಗೆ ಬೇಕಾದವರು, ಬೇಡವಾದವರೆಲ್ಲರ ಹೆಸರು ಹಾಕಿ ತಮಗೆ ತೋಚಿದ ಗುಂಪಿನೊಂದಿಗೆ ಜೋಡಿಸಿದ್ದರು. ಸುವರ್ಣ ಚಾನೆಲ್ ಗೆ ಹೋಗಲು ಅನಂತ್ ಕುಮಾರ್, ರಾಜೀವ್ ಚಂದ್ರಶೇಖರ್, ನನ್ನ ನಡುವೆ ಮಾತುಕತೆ ನಡೆದಿದೆ ಎಂದು ಗೀಚಿದ್ದರು. ಅದರ ಪರಿಣಾಮ ಏನಾಗುತ್ತಿದೆ ಎಂಬ ಅರಿವೂ ಇಲ್ಲದೆ! ಹೇಗೂ ಫೇಸ್ ಲೆಸ್ ಅಲ್ವಾ? ಉಳಿದಂತೆ ಇನ್ನೂ ಅನೇಕರ ಬಗ್ಗೆ ತಮಗೆ ಬೇಕಾದಂತೆ ಬರೆದು ಚಟ ತೀರಿಸಿಕೊಂಡರು. ಆದರೆ ಅದೇನಾಯಿತೋ? ಒಂದೇ ವಾರಕ್ಕೆ ಸುದ್ದಿ ಮನೆ ಕಥೆ ಬ್ಲಾಗ್ ಸ್ಥಗಿತಗೊಂಡಿತ್ತು. ಅಕಾಲಿಕ ಮರಣಕ್ಕೆ ತುತ್ತಾಗಿತ್ತು.
ನಂತರ ಬಂದದದ್ದು ವಿಮರ್ಶಕಿ ಎಂಬ ಮತ್ತೊಂದು ಫೇಸ್ ಲೆಸ್ ಬ್ಲಾಗ್. ಆರಂಭದ ನಿರೀಕ್ಷೆಗಳನ್ನು ಹುಸಿಗೊಳಿಸಿ, ಇದೂ ಸಹ ಅಡ್ಡ ಹಾದಿ ಹಿಡಿದಿರುವುದು ಎದ್ದು ಕಾಣುತ್ತದೆ. ಇತ್ತೀಚೆಗೆ ಕನ್ನಡ ಪ್ರಭದ ರಂಗನಾಥ್, ರವಿ ಹೆಗಡೆ ಕುರಿತು ಬರೆದ ಬರಹವಂತು ಎಷ್ಟು ಕೀಳಾಗಿದೆ ಎಂದರೆ ಬ್ಲಾಗ್ ನಡೆಸುವವರ ಮಾನಸಿಕ ಸ್ಥಿತಿ ಬಗ್ಗೆ ಯೋಚಿಸುವಂತಾಗುತ್ತದೆ. ಇದಕ್ಕೆ ರವಿ ಹೆಗಡೆ ಸ್ಪಷ್ಟೀಕರಣವನ್ನೂ ಸಾಕಷ್ಟು ಸುದೀರ್ಘವಾಗಿ ನೀಡಿದ್ದಾರೆ. ಬರೆಯುವಾಗ ಮಿನಿಮಮ್ ಲೆವೆಲ್ಲಿನ ನಾಗರೀಕತೆ ಅಂತ ಇರುತ್ತೆ. ಅದನ್ನು ಮೀರಿ ಎಲುಬಿಲ್ಲದ ನಾಲಿಗೆಯನ್ನು ಹೇಗೆ ಬೇಕಿದ್ದರೂ ಬಲಸಬಹುದು ಎಂದು ಬ್ಲಾಗ್ ಮಾಡರೇಟರ್ ತಿಳಿದಂತಿದೆ.
ಈಗ ಹೊಸದೊಂದು ಬ್ಲಾಗ್ ಹುಟ್ಟಿಕೊಂಡಿದೆ. ಸ್ಪೋಟಕ ಸುದ್ದಿ. ಈ ಬ್ಲಾಗ್ ನ ಮೊದಲ ಬರಹದಲ್ಲಿ ಟಿವಿ9 ಟಾರ್ಗೆಟ್ ಮಾಡಿದ್ದಾರೆ. ಅದರಲ್ಲಿಯೂ ಸುಖಾ ಸುಮ್ಮನೇ ಕೆಲವರ ಹೆಸರು ಎಳೆ ತಂದು ಸೇರಿಸಿದ್ದಾರೆ. ಈ ಫೇಸ್ ಲೆಸ್ ಬ್ಲಾಗ್ ಇನ್ನೂ ಯಾವ ಅವಾಂತರ ಮಾಡುತ್ತದೋ ಗೊತ್ತಿಲ್ಲ.
ನಾವು ಪತ್ರಕರ್ತರು ಟೀಕೆಯಿಂದ ಹೊರತು ಎಂದು ಯಾವತ್ತೂ ನಾನು ಯೋಚಿಸಿಲ್ಲ. ಆದರೆ ಅದಕ್ಕೊಂದು ಚೌಕಟ್ಟಿರಬೇಕು. ಲಿಮಿಟೇಷನ್ ಇರಬೇಕು. ಈ ರೀತಿ ಫೇಸ್ ಲೆಸ್ ಬ್ಲಾಗ್ ನಡೆಸುವವರು ನೇರವಾಗಿ ಹೊರ ಬಂದು ನಾವು ಇಂತಿಥವರು ಎಂದು ಹೇಳಿಕೊಂಡು ಬ್ಲಾಗ್ ನಡೆಸಲಿ. ಟೀಕೆ ಮಾಡುವುದಿದ್ದರೆ, ಹೊಗಳುವುದಿದ್ದರೆ, ಜಗಳವಾಡುವುದಿದ್ದರೆ ನೇರವಾಗಿಯೇ ಮಾಡಲಿ. ಅದು ನಮ್ಮನ್ನು ನಾವು ತಿದ್ದಿಕೊಳ್ಳಲು, ಇನ್ನು ಉತ್ತಮವಾಗಿ ಕೆಲಸ ಮಾಡಲು, ಬೇರೆಯವರಿಗೂ ಪಾಠವಾಗಲು ಸಾಧ್ಯವಾದರೆ ಆಗಲಿ. ಅಂತಹ ಟೀಕೆಗಳನ್ನು ನಮ್ಮಲ್ಲಿ ಯಾವ ಪತ್ರಕರ್ತರೂ ಬೇಡ ಎನ್ನುವುದಿಲ್ಲ.
ಆದರೆ ಸುಮ್ಮನೇ ಫೇಸ್ ಲೆಸ್ ಆಗಿ ಏಕೆ ಟೀಕೆ ಮಾಡೋದು? ಬ್ಲಾಗ್ ಬರೆಯೋದು?? ಕಂಡ ಕಂಡವರ ಬಗ್ಗೆ ತಮಗೆ ತೋಚಿದಂತೆ ಕಾಮೆಂಟ್ ಮಾಡುವುದು? ಅದರಿಂದ ಯಾವ ವಿಕೃತ ಸಂತೋಷ ಈ ಬ್ಲಾಗ್ ಮಾರೇಟರ್ ಗಳಿಗೆ ಸಿಗುತ್ತದೆ? ಅಲ್ಲಿ ಕಾಮೆಂಟ್ ಮಾಡುವ ವಿಕೃತ ಮನಸ್ಸಿನ ಪತ್ರಕರ್ತರು ನೈತಿಕವಾಗಿ ಎಷ್ಟು ದಿವಾಳಿ ಎದ್ದಿರಬಹುದು? ಇಲ್ಲೆಲ್ಲಾ ಬರೆದಿರುವುದನ್ನು ನೋಡಿ ಮಜಾ ತೆಗೆದುಕೊಳ್ಳುವ ನಾವು, ನಮ್ಮ ಜೊತೆ ಇರುವವರು ನಿಜಕ್ಕೂ ಪತ್ರಕರ್ತರಾ ಎಂದು ಹೇಸಿಗೆ ಹುಟ್ಟುತ್ತದೆ.
ಈ ಎಲ್ಲಾ ಬ್ಲಾಗ್ ಗಳಿಗೆ ಹೋಗಿ ಕೆಟ್ಟ ಕುತೂಹಲದಿಂದ ಇವತ್ತು ಯಾರ ಬಗ್ಗೆ ಬರೆದಿದ್ದಾರೆ? ಯಾರ ವಿರುದ್ಧ ಏನು ಕಾಮೆಂಟು ಮಾಡಿದ್ದಾರೆ ಎಂದು ನೋಡುವುದನ್ನೇ ವಿಕೃತ ಚಟವಾಗಿಸಿಕೊಂಡವರು ಇದ್ದಾರೆ.
ಇಂತಹ ಫೇಸ್ ಲೆಸ್ ಬ್ಲಾಗ್ ಗಳು ನಿಜಕ್ಕೂ ತಾವು ನಿಸ್ಪಕ್ಷಪಾತವಾಗಿದ್ದೇವೆ ಎನ್ನುವುದಿದ್ದರೆ ನೇರವಾಗಿ ಹೊರ ಬಂದು ಬ್ಲಾಗ್ ನಡೆಸಲಿ. ಬೇಡ ಎಂದವರಾರು? ಅಥವಾ ಫೇಸ್ ಲೆಸ್ ಆಗಿದ್ದರೂ ನಮಗೇನೂ ಸಮಸ್ಯೆ ಇಲ್ಲ. ವಾಸ್ತವ ಅರಿತು, ನಿಜ ಏನೆಂದು ತಿಳಿದು ಬರೆಯಲಿ. ಯಾರದ್ದೋ ಚಾರಿತ್ರ್ಯವಧೆ ಮಾಡಲು ಬರೆಯೋದು ಬೇಡ. ಒಂದು ಆರೋಗ್ಯಕರ ಚರ್ಚೆಗೆ ಈ ಎಲ್ಲಾ ಬ್ಲಾಗ್ ಗಳು ದಾರಿ ಮಾಡಿಕೊಡಲಿ. ತಪ್ಪುಗಳನ್ನು ಎತ್ತಿ ತೋರಿಸಲಿ. ಆದರೆ ಅನಗತ್ಯ, ಚಾರಿತ್ರ್ಯ ವಧೆ, ಅನಾನಿಮಸ್ ಕಾಮೆಂಟ್ ಗಳಿಗೆ ಅವಕಾಶ ನೀಡುವುದು, ಒಂದೇ ದೃಷ್ಠಿಕೋನದಲ್ಲಿ ಬರೆಯುವುದು, ಇದೆಲ್ಲ ಬೇಡ. ಅದರಿಂದ ಒಳಿತಂತೂ ಆಗದು.
ಎಲ್ಲರೂ ಒಟ್ಟಾಗಿ ನಾವುರುವ ಚಾನೆಲ್, ಪೇಪರ್ ಗಳು, ಸಂಸ್ಥೆಗಳ ಗೊಡವೆ ಇಲ್ಲದೆ, ಒಂದಾಗಿ ಪತ್ರಿಕೋದ್ಯಮದ ಒಳಿತಿನ ಬಗ್ಗೆ, ನಮ್ಮೆಲ್ಲರ ಮಾನಸಿಕ, ಬೌದ್ಧಿಕ ವಿಕಾಸ, ಬೆಳವಣಿಗೆ ಬಗ್ಗೆ, ಉತ್ತಮ ವಿಚಾರಗಳ ಬಗ್ಗೆ ಚರ್ಚೆ ಮಾಡುವುದು, ಕಲಿಯುವುದು ಎಂದು?
ನಮ್ಮನ್ನು ನೋಡಿ, ಇದೀಗ ತಾನೆ ಪತ್ರಿಕೋದ್ಯಮಕ್ಕೆ ಕಾಲಿಡುತ್ತಿರುವ ವಿದ್ಯಾರ್ಥಿಗಳು ಅಸಹ್ಯ ಪಟ್ಟುಕೊಳ್ಳುತ್ತಾರೆ ಎಂಬ ಕನಿಷ್ಠ ಪ್ರಜ್ಞೆ ನಮ್ಮಲ್ಲಿ ಇರಲಿ.

How many channels are in India?

How many TV channels are in India?

C.M.Jatua, Minister of State for Information and Broadcasting in a written reply to a question in the Lok Sabha, has given some details.

Have a look. 

***
LOK SABHA

The Ministry of Information & Broadcasting has so far permitted 410 private satellite TV channels to uplink from India as per uplinking guidelines and 73 private satellite TV channels, uplinked from abroad, to downlink in India as per downlinking guidelines.

As on date, applications of 143 TV channels for permission to uplink from India and applications of 20 TV channels, uplinked from abroad, for permission to downlink in India are at various stages of scrutiny in accordance with the existing uplinking and downlinking guidelines.

Although no definite time frame can be indicated, once the applicant companies provide all required information/documents and clearances from other Ministries are received, the applications are considered for permission in the minimum time frame.

ಉತ್ತಮ ಪತ್ರಕರ್ತರಾಗಲು ಹನ್ನೆರಡೂವರೆ ನಿಯಮಗಳು

ನಾನು ತುಂಬಾ ಗೌರವಿಸುವಂತಹ ಹಿರಿಯ ಹಾಗೂ ಅಷ್ಟೇ ಯಂಗ್ ಆದ ಔಟ್ ಲುಕ್ ಸಂಪಾದಕರಾದ ಕೃಷ್ಣ ಪ್ರಸಾದ್ ರೊಂದಿಗೆ ಇತ್ತೀಚೆಗೆ ಕೆಲ ಗಂಟೆಗಳನ್ನು ಕಳೆದೆ. ನಾನು ವಿಜಯ್ ಟೈಮ್ಸ್ ದಾವಣಗೆರೆ ಜಿಲ್ಲಾ ವರದಿಗಾರನಾಗಿದ್ದಾಗ ಅವರು ನನಗೆ ಸಂಪಾದಕರು!

ಇತ್ತೀಚೆಗೆ ಅವರೊಂದಿಗೆ ಕಳೆದ ಸಮಯದಲ್ಲಿ ಕಲಿತ ವಿಷಯಗಳ ಬಗ್ಗೆ ಹಂಚಿಕೊಳ್ಳುವ ಮುನ್ನ, ಅವರು ತಮ್ಮ  we are the best ಬ್ಲಾಗ್ ನಲ್ಲಿ ಬರೆದಿದ್ದ  ಉತ್ತಮ ಪತ್ರಕರ್ತನಾಗಲು ಹನ್ನೆರಡೂವರೆ ನಿಯಮಗಳನ್ನು ನಿಮ್ಮ ಬಳಿ ಹಂಚಿಕೊಳ್ಳಬೇಕು.  

ನಿಯಮಗಳು ಇಲ್ಲಿವೆ. ನಾನೂ ಸೇರಿದಂತೆ ಪತ್ರಕರ್ತರಾದವರೆಲ್ಲ ಇವುಗಳಲ್ಲಿ ಎಷ್ಟನ್ನು ನಾವು ಅಳವಡಿಸಿಕೊಂಡಿದ್ದೇವೆ ಎಂದು ನಮ್ಮ ನಮ್ಮ ಆತ್ಮ ಸಾಕ್ಷಿಗಳನ್ನು ಪ್ರಶ್ನಿಸಿಕೊಳ್ಳಬಹುದು.

writerpen12. DO WHAT YOU LOVE: Be passionate about what you choose to do. Remember: If  there’s no love in the kitchen, there is no taste on the table. Never reject the impulses of your youth. Be responsible for your life, don’t blame others for what you become or don’t become.  

11. WAKE UP ANGRY, AMBITIOUS: Get the fire in your belly to do something, set things right. Respond to injustice, inhumanity, corruption. Comfort the afflicted, afflict the comfortable. Don’t think it is somebody else’s job. Be the change you want to see.

10. DON’T BE THE LOYAL MEMBER OF ANY PARTY, GROUP, CLUB, NGO: Credibility is everything. Retain your independence, be skeptical not cynical. Don’t mortgage your integrity. It’s like virginity—once you lose it, you have lost it forever.

 9. BE CATHOLIC OF WRITERS AND WRITING: Read newspapers, magazines, books across the board. Admire writers/writing irrespective of ideology. In the age of the internet, you have no excuses for your ignorance.

 8. FIND YOURSELF A ROLE-MODEL/MENTOR: Have a hero or heroine who has been there, done that. Keep in touch with people who will help you achieve your aims. Meet at least one new person every day.

 7. BE A THRIVER, NOT A SURVIVOR: Don’t coast along, don’t be afraid to try out something new. Aim high, dream, have an ambition, set yourself a goal. Take a risk, think big, think differently, don’t be predictable.

 6. NEVER WORK WITH SUCCESS/ REWARD IN MIND: Work for fun and the satisfaction, the rewards will come on their own. Don’t fall for cheap praise and don’t be stalled by even cheaper criticism.

 5. WRITE, DRAW, SHOOT, CREATE EVERY DAY: Eventually your habits become you. Practics makes you perfect. Develop the three Ds—discipline, dedication, determination—and reward and recognition will naturally follow.

 4. KEEP LEARNING EVERY DAY: You cannot learn eerything in the classroom or the newsroom. It’s a constantly changing business, keep learning. Again, in the age of the internet, you have no excuse not to do so.

 3. FEAR NOBODY, QUESTION EVERYTHING: You are in the business to get the answers. Don’t be in awe of big names, power, reputations, status. This business is all about meeting total strangers and asking them questions you wouldn’t ask your parents.

 2. NEVER BE EMBARRASSED TO ASK STUPID QUESTIONS: There are no stupid questions, only dumb answers. Talk less, listen more. Be humble of your ignorance.

 1. CHASE YOUR DREAM: Stop living for others, avoid temptation, life is not all about money. Let your reputation never be under question. It’s true—it’s possible to earn decently and live honourably as a journalist.

And this half-rule

If POSSIBLE MARRY OUTSIDE THE PROFESSION: There’s nothing more boring and dreadful than waking up with somebody who goes through the same pangs and pangas as you.

***

(With grateful acknowledgement to Dr Ramachandra Guha, the eminent historian and writer, who delivered the convocation at the Indian Institute of Journalism & New Media (IIJNM), two years ago, from which this piece has been adapted and expanded)

Bleeding to Death?

(From Money Life)
TV18 is in a mess – business-wise and financially. Its March quarter numbers lay bare a horrifying story of cyclical revenues and non-cyclical costs. Things may only get worse argues Debashis Basu

Mix the following four elements and shake well: glamorous businesses, dumb institutional investors, ambitious promoter and market valuation (not cash flow) as the key management goal. You get a deadly cocktail that will boost your spirits for a while but could kill you in the end. This is the business of television channels, especially TV18. NDTV is another in the same class. Both the groups, run by ambitious promoters, have a clutch of famous ‘brands.’ But to maintain these brands, both are losing money profusely. Losses were a little lower when the economy grew by 9% and the market euphoria fetched the two groups newer dumb investors and more money to keep going. But now, both are nearing this endgame.
If it were simply a question of business cyclicality that is affecting, say, commercial vehicles, it would be one thing. But these two are in the glamour businesses. They are a trap for everybody. The promoter has to keep the show going and the music playing as investors change seats in a game of musical chairs. This means more acquisitions or expansions. This also means when promoters run out of equity money, they have to borrow. Glamour businesses can’ t cut costs beyond a point. Indeed, to keep the show going, costs can even rise in a downturn. Meanwhile, more competition and a slight downturn means slipping revenue growth. But there cannot be a slippage in costs. The show must go on. The result? Revenues may be cyclical and, therefore, variable. But the costs are fixed and growing. Large debts and huge losses can push a company to a now-or-never situation which is hard to decipher, looking at the glitzy exterior.

For this article, we are examining the situation at TV18 as reflected in its recent results. TV18 has conveniently stopped disclosing segment-wise results and has also not disclosed results for the March quarter. From what one could piece together, the March quarter has been horrible. Everybody knew that the March quarter was going to be bad. But what has come as a rude shock to analysts and fund managers is the sharp increase in costs. (It has not come as a shock to us because we have been repeatedly emphasising that the media and a few other businesses in India are run for the promoters’ egos and for overpaid employees, not shareholders.)

In March 2008-09, TV18 reported revenues of Rs136 crore and a loss of Rs120 crore. Just one quarter earlier (December 2008), the net loss was just Rs22.7 crore. The business has simply nosedived. While the mainstay of the company, news broadcasting, suffered a 36% drop in revenues, costs actually went up. This is the worst of both worlds. If a company has revenues of Rs136 crore and costs of Rs256 crore in just one quarter, it is in serious trouble.

TV18 has four broad lines of business: broadcasting (CNBCTV18 and CNBC Awaaz), web (a plethora of sites like moneycontrol.com, in.com, yatra.com, jobstreet.com etc.), news service (newswire18) and print (Infomedia). The last three lose money quarter after quarter – in a normal economic situation. Since the December quarter, all four are haemorrhaging. Look at the yearly performance of the four segments that we could piece together from TV18’s poor disclosures.

Broadcasting:
Revenues are down and profits have collapsed, thanks to higher costs. Analysts think this is due to the absence of new equity issues and a cut in advertising by banking, finance and insurance companies. The rot goes deeper than that. One reason why costs went up is the launch of ET Now, but more about that later.

Web:
Internet business revenues have grown by just 17% to Rs65 crore over the year but, in doing so, it lost about Rs66 crore. The big hit to profits came from the launch expenses of in.com and continuous high expenses in running the money losing showpiece, moneycontrol.com.

NewsWire18:
Its revenues are supposed to have doubled to Rs23 crore but at what cost? It claims to have raised its ‘market share’ and also expanded the market (for real-time news and data terminals). It claims that, in as many as 24 banks, NewsWire18 has more unit sales than its global competitors (Reuters and Bloomberg). These include 10 public sector banks, including the State Bank of India, eight private banks and one foreign bank. NewsWire also claims to have entered markets like Guwahati and Nagpur, cities where global competitors do not have a presence. Great achievement perhaps but it lost Rs8 crore last year.

Infomedia18:
TV18 has bought a 44% stake in Infomedia18 and promptly lost over Rs50 crore. It has scaled down Infomedia18’s ambitious business and ended its collaboration with Reed Elsevier. It is now focusing more on business directory services.
TV18’s financial situation today is the result of accumulated sins of the past couple of years:

Furious expansion of web-based businesses, creating newer properties with no profitability in sight.

Massive expansion of Infomedia’s businesses which are now being rolled back.

Increased pressure on all its broadcasting businesses – CNBC, Ibn18 and CNBC Awaaz.

Huge expenses on staff, including stock options.

For this adventure, TV18 has added debt in spades.

Net debt is about Rs850 crore.
No wonder, the group has lost Rs138.99 crore on revenues of Rs266.55 crore during the second half of 2008-09. Will its troubles go away, now that the Sensex is back at 15,000 and all is supposed to be well with the economy? Unlikely. The problems of TV18 have just started, because the economics of the business has changed. Its flagship business comes under two kinds of threat— eroding revenues and higher costs. CNBCTV18 has just started making losses but CNBC Awaaz and associate company IBN18 (CNN IBN, IBN Lokmat, IBN7) have always been losing money.

This will only get worse as ET Now adds to competitive pressures. ET Now has been a disaster till now (for instance, its Dow and S&P500 closing price was running a day old in early July; it is not available on DTH and it does not have a website yet!). We don’t think ET Now will take away CNBC’s leadership position but that is irrelevant. Business-news broadcasting has just got more competitive in an insidious way. CNBC TV18 will be a leader with neither price nor cost advantage.

Until now NDTV Profit and UTVi have not been able to dent CNBC TV18 because they couldn’t compete on the sheer muscle power of money, nor did they have a domineering presence in the media space with powerful brands like Times of India and The Economic Times. ET Now has both these strengths (money and powerful presence).

The Times group works like a giant machine sucking up the entire ad budget of a client, if possible, according to the CEO of one mutual fund company. This raises the stakes much higher for TV18. It means two major problems for it, both permanent. One, ET, Times, ET Now present a formidable offering for advertisers that will eat into the revenues of TV18. Two, with lots of money to blow up on talent, ET Now will make sure that TV18’s cost structure remains permanently bloated – staff costs make up 39% of revenues. We simply cannot see how the flagship business of the TV18 group can ever get back into profits that would service its continuously widening equity base.

The competition will probably get more intense. Very soon, UTVi may announce its tie-up with Bloomberg TV. For a long time, fund mangers have bet on CNBC TV18 as a leader in a niche genre that is relatively safe from competitive pressures. But the cost of maintaining that leadership has just become too high.

Finding New Cash?
The big issue for TV18 is exactly what hit NDTV a few quarters earlier: how to keep funding the losses? One way out is taking on more debt hoping that the businesses would revive. But TV18 is already groaning under large debt. Its net debt of Rs850 crore is 20 times and interest cost is 2 times the expected operating profit of 2010. Meanwhile, money has to be found to fund the losses of other businesses. The option? More equity capital. The game of musical chairs starts again. But will institutional investors bite or will it be only retail investors? TV18 is talking of making a rights issue of Rs500 crore. That’s fair, in a way. Raghav Bahl and others who have a large stake (51.77%) in the company will have to bring in their share of the rights issue funds. Will the stock shoot up to make the rights attractive? It would be a great time to exit.

There is one other way to fund the losses, a route NDTV took a few quarters ago, when the going was good: get foreign media companies to buy your story. NBC Universal has pumped in hundreds of crores into London-based NDTV Networks. The money has made its way into Indian units of the group.

Like NDTV, is there any value that CNBC TV18 can unlock to get out of the current mess? We don’t know where investors can find value. Certainly not in the Web properties. Web 2.0 seems to be going the same way Web 1.0 – very useful for the users but burning up money for the owners, because nothing is a pay-per-use model. Even if there is any value in some parts of the group, Raghav Bahl has locked up that value in a complicated group structure that got created when he funded these businesses as a network of entities, not independent businesses. So, squeezed between competition on one side and cash crunch on the other, the endgame for TV18 begins.

More Light, Please
While the CNBC TV18 is often exercised about management practices, market regulator’s role and government policies, it has taken a giant leap backward in its disclosure for the March quarter 2009. It has not published the March quarter results and, even for the annual results, there are no segment-wise details of broadcasting, web businesses, print and newswire. It has got an exemption from segment-wise details, arguing that all these businesses fall under the broad category of ‘media’. This makes a mockery of ‘segments’.

According to one research report, one– time expenditure during the quarter includes Rs20 crore towards ESOP re-pricing and Rs10 crore towards bad debt. None of this is visible to the investors looking at the printed results. The accounts have also attracted qualifications from the auditors. Most remarkably, other operating income includes loans and receivables of Rs27.22 crore, repaid by a subsidiary. This huge amount was earlier written off. Writing off a loan, that too from a subsidiary company, is not an easy decision. It is taken only when the parent company is convinced that the amount is really irrecoverable. Having taken that decision (and presumably got an income tax benefit) how did TV18 manage to get it back? There is no disclosure about this subsidiary company and how could such a large amount miraculously become a good loan.

Self-Goal in Valuation Game
TV channels are a glamour business. Businesses like these may lose money but these are always kept alive and kicking by retail investors and equity placements to dumb institutional investors. When they run out of cash, like in a game of musical chairs, more dumb institutional investors step in to take their seats. Promoters like Raghav Bahl and Prannoy Roy know this and so they are ever ready to spin a new story: a new round of expansion, frenetic acquisitions and, when things go wrong, restructuring. It is called the valuation game. As long as you can spin a yarn to keep the market value high, you can get intelligent people from smart business schools fooled for a long time.

But what if the promoter himself believes in this game and tries to play it? Indeed, one of the key elements of the valuation game is that promoters are trying to make money by the preferential allotment route. They do this by issuing themselves warrants to buy shares at a certain price. The expectation is that the market price would go beyond a certain level and they can cash in on their warrants and get shares cheaper. This route was quickly turned into ‘heads I win, tails I don’t lose’ by ingenious Indian promoters. If the market price goes up, they convert their warrants into shares. If it doesn’t, they let them lapse. The regulator stepped in last year and plugged this abuse by asking promoters to put some cash upfront for the warrants. If they let the warrants lapse, the cash paid upfront is forfeited. The rule has had a tragicomic outcome for TV18 group. In the March quarter, for instance, a big element of loss for TV18 was Rs12 crore as provision against lapsed warrants in Infomedia18. Translated, this means that TV18’s (unnecessary) valuation punt on Infomedia went wrong and it had to forfeit the betting amount. Sadly it is the shareholders of TV18 who had to pay for this gamble, instead of the promoter alone.

Published in: on August 1, 2009 at 2:01 am  Comments (3)  
Tags: , , , , ,

ವಾಟ್ ಇಸ್ ರಿಯಲ್ ದೇವೇಗೌಡ?

election5ಮೊನ್ನೆ ದೆಹಲಿಗೆ ಬಂದಿದ್ದ ಸಿದ್ಧರಾಮಯ್ಯ ಆರಾಮವಾಗಿ ಮಾತಿಗೆ ಸಿಕ್ಕಿದ್ದರು. ಮದ್ಯಾಹ್ನ ಊಟ ಮಾಡುತ್ತ ಜೊತೆಗಿದ್ದ ಪತ್ರಕರ್ತರಿಗೆ ಕೆಲ ಸ್ವಾರಸ್ಯಕರ ಘಟನೆಗಳನ್ನು ಹೇಳುತ್ತಿದ್ದರು. ಅವುಗಳಲ್ಲಿ ಒಂದು ಇಲ್ಲಿದೆ.

ಅದು ದೇವೇಗೌಡರು ಪ್ರಧಾನಿಯಾಗಿದ್ದ ಕಾಲ. ಇಬ್ರಾಹಿಂ ಕೇಂದ್ರ ಸಚಿವರಾಗಿದ್ದರು. ಅಮೇರಿಕಾದಿಂದ  ನಿಯೋಗವೊಂದು ಬಂದಿತ್ತು. ನಿಯೋಗದಲ್ಲಿದ್ದ ಹೈ ಕಮೀಷನರ್ ಒಬ್ಬರು ಇಬ್ರಾಹಿಂ ಜೊತೆ ಲೋಕಾಭಿರಾಮವಾಗಿ ಮಾತನಾಡುತ್ತ ದೇವೇಗೌಡರ ಬಗ್ಗೆ ಇನ್ನೂ ಹೆಚ್ಚಿನ ಮಾಹಿತಿ ತಿಳಿದುಕೊಳ್ಳ ಬಯಸಿದರಂತೆ. ಇಬ್ರಾಹಿಂಗೆ ‘ವಾಟ್ ರಿಯಲಿ ದೇವೇಗೌಡ ಈಸ್’ (ನಿಜಕ್ಕೂ ದೇವೇಗೌಡ ಅಂದರೆ ಏನು?) ಎಂದು ಕೇಳಿದರಂತೆ. ಅದಕ್ಕಇಬ್ರಾಹಿಂ ಅದನ್ನ ಅಷ್ಟು ಸುಲಭವಾಗಿ ಹೇಳಲು ಆಗೋಲ್ಲ. ರಾತ್ರಿ ಡಿನ್ನರ್ ಪಾರ್ಟಿಗೆ ಬರ್ತೀರಲ್ಲ, ಆಗ ಎಕ್ಲ್ಪೇನ್ ಮಾಡ್ತೀನಿ ಅಂದ್ರಂತೆ.

ರಾತ್ರಿ ಡಿನ್ನರ್ ಪಾರ್ಟಿ ಶುರುವಾಯ್ತು. ಮೊದಲೇ ನಮ್ಮ ದೇವೇಗೌಡರ ಡಿನ್ನರ್ ಪಾರ್ಟಿ! ವಿಶೇಷ ಖಾದ್ಯವಾಗಿ ಮುದ್ದೆ ಮಾಡಿಸಲಾಗಿತ್ತು.  ಹೈ ಕಮೀಷನರ್ ಇಬ್ರಾಹಿಂ ಬಳಿ ಬಂದು ಮುದ್ದೆ ತೋರಿಸಿ  ವಾಟ್ ಈಸ್ ದಿಸ್ ಎಂದರಂತೆ. ಇಬ್ರಾಹಿಂ ಟೇಸ್ಟ್ ಇಟ್ ಅಂದರಂತೆ. ಹೈ ಕಮೀಷನರ್ ಗೆ ಮುದ್ದೆ ತಿನ್ನುವುದು ಎಂದು ತಿಳಿಯಲಿಲ್ಲ. ಪ್ರಶ್ನಾರ್ಥಕ ಚಿಹ್ನೆಯಂತೆ ಮುಖ ಮಾಡಿಕೊಂಡು ಇಬ್ರಾಹಿಂ ಕಡೆ ನೋಡಿದರಂತೆ. ಸಮಸ್ಯೆ ಅರಿತ ಇಬ್ರಾಹಿಂ ಮುದ್ದೆ ಮುರಿದು ಬಾಯಿಗೆ ಹಾಕಿಕೊಂಡು ಹೀಗೆ ಎಂದರಂತೆ. ಸ್ಪೂರ್ತಿ ಪಡೆದ ಹೈ ಕಮೀಷನರ್ ಅದೇ ರೀತಿ ಮಾಡಿ, ಮುದ್ದೆ ಮುರಿದು ಬಾಯಿಗೆ ಹಾಕಿಕೊಂಡರು. ಆದರೆ ಎಂದೂ ಮುದ್ದೆ ತಿಂದು ಅಭ್ಯಾಸವಿಲ್ಲದ ಅವರಿಗೆ ಅದು ಗಂಟಲಲ್ಲೆ ಸಿಲುಕಿತು!

ಇಬ್ರಾಹಿಂ ಕಡೆ ನೋಡಿ, ದಯನೀಯ ಸ್ಥಿತಿಯಲ್ಲಿ, ವಾಟ್ ಈಸ್ ದಿಸ್? ದಿಸ್ ಇಸ್ ನೈದರ್ ಗೋಯಿಂಗ್ ಇನ್ ಸೈಡ್ ನಾರ್ ಕಮಿಂಗ್ ಔಟ್! (ಇದೇನಿದು? ಇದು ಒಳಗೂ ಹೋಗ್ತಿಲ್ಲ, ಹೊರಗೂ ಬರ್ತಿಲ್ಲ) ಎಂದು ಕೇಳಿದರಂತೆ.

ಆಗ ನಸುನಗೆ ಬೀರಿದ ಇಬ್ರಾಹಿಂ ‘ದಿಸ್ ಈಸ್ ರಿಯಲ್ ದೇವೇಗೌಡ’  ಅಂದರಂತೆ.

ಈ ಪ್ರಸಂಗವನ್ನು ಇಬ್ರಾಹಿಂ ಕೆಲ ಭಾಷಣಗಳಲ್ಲೂ ಹೇಳಿದ್ದರು ಎಂದು ನಗುತ್ತಾ ಸಿದ್ಧರಾಮಯ್ಯ ತಮ್ಮ ತಟ್ಟೆಯಲ್ಲಿದ್ದ ಮುದ್ದೆ ಮುರಿದು ಬಾಯಿಗಿಟ್ಟುಕೊಂಡರು.

ಆದರೆ ಅದು ಗಂಟಲಲ್ಲಿ ಸಿಲುಕದೇ ಸೀದಾ ಒಳ ಹೋಯಿತು.

Published in: on July 26, 2009 at 4:42 pm  Comments (9)  
Tags: , , , ,

ಒಳ್ಳೆ ಗಂಡಸಿನ ಲಕ್ಷಣಗಳೇನು?

cartoon_cutting_onionsನಿನ್ನೆ ರಾತ್ರಿ 11.30 ಕ್ಕೆ ಯಾವುದೋ ವಿಷಯ ಮಾತನಾಡಲು ಕನ್ನಡಪ್ರಭದ ಹಿರಿಯ ಪತ್ರಕರ್ತ ಮಿತ್ರರಾದ ಉಮಾಪತಿ ಸರ್ ಫೋನ್ ಮಾಡಿದ್ದರು. ಸುದ್ದಿಗೆ ಸಂಬಂಧ ಪಟ್ಟದ್ದು ಮಾತನಾಡಿದ ನಂತರ ಅವರು ‘ನಾನು 10.30ರ ಹೊತ್ತಿಗೆ ಫೋನ್ ಮಾಡಿದ್ದೆ. ನಿಮ್ಮ ಮೊಬೈಲ್ ಬ್ಯುಸಿ ಇತ್ತು. ಆಮೇಲೆ ಮತ್ತೆ ಮಾಡ್ದೆ. ರಿಂಗಾಯ್ತು. ನೀವು ರಿಸೀವ್ ಮಾಡ್ಲಿಲ್ಲ. ನೀವು ವಾಪಸ್ ಫೋನ್ ಮಾಡ್ದಾಗ ನಾನು ಆಟೋದಲ್ಲಿದ್ದೆ. ಆಗ ನನಗೆ ರಿಸೀವ್ ಮಾಡ್ಲಿಕ್ಕೆ ಆಗ್ಲಿಲ್ಲ’ ಅಂದ್ರು. ‘ಇಲ್ಲ ಸಾರ್, ಆಗ ಅಡುಗೆ ಮಾಡ್ತಿದ್ದೆ. ತರಕಾರಿ ಹೆಚ್ತಾ ಕೂತಿದ್ದೆ’ ಅಂದೆ.
‘ಓ ಮನೆಯವ್ರು ಇಲ್ವೇನು?’
‘ಇಲ್ಲಾ ಸಾರ್. ಊರಲ್ಲೇ ಬಿಟ್ಟು ಬಂದಿದ್ದೀನಿ. ಸಿಕ್ಕಾಪಟ್ಟೆ ಬಿಸಿಲಲ್ವಾ…’
‘ಹಾಗಾದ್ರೆ ನಿಮ್ಮದೆ ಅಡುಗೆ ಅನ್ನಿ…’
‘ಹೌದ್ ಸಾರ್, ಹೊರಗಡೆ ತಿನ್ನೋಕೆ ಆಗೋಲ್ಲ. ಆ ಪರೋಟ ತಿಂದು 100 ರೂ. ಕೊಡ್ಬೇಕು. ಸಮಾಧಾನ ಬೇರೆ ಆಗಲ್ಲ. ಅದಿಕ್ಕೆ ಒಂದು ಸಲ ಸಾರು ಮಾಡಿದ್ರೆ ತಂಗಳು ಪೆಟ್ಟಿಗೆ ಕೃಪೆಯಿಂದ ಕನಿಷ್ಟ ಎರಡು ದಿನ ಚಿಂತೆ ಇರೋಲ್ಲ. ಬರೀ ಅನ್ನ ಮಾಡ್ಕೊಂಡ್ರೆ ಆಯ್ತು. ಹಂಗಾಗಿ ನೀವು ಮೊದ್ಲು ಫೋನ್ ಮಾಡ್ದಾಗ ತರಕಾರಿ ಹೆಚ್ತಿದ್ದೆ. ಎರಡನೇ ಸಲ 11 ಗಂಟೆಗೆ ಫೋನ್ ಮಾಡ್ದಾಗ ಪಾತ್ರೆ ತೊಳಿತಿದ್ದೆ’ ಎಂದು ನನ್ನ ಬಗ್ಗೆ ಆದಷ್ಟು ಅವರಿಗೆ ಕರುಣೆ ಬರುವ ಹಾಗೆ ವಣರ್ಿಸಿದೆ. (ಒಂದೆರಡು ನಿಮಿಷ)
ಪಾಪ ಅವರೂ ಅಷ್ಟೇ! ‘ಛೇ!! ಇಡೀ ದಿನ ಸುದ್ದಿ ಹಿಂದೆ ಸುತ್ಬೇಕು. ರಾತ್ರಿ ಬಂದು ಅಡುಗೆ ಮಾಡ್ಕೋಬೇಕು. ನಮಗಿಂತಾ ನಿಮಗೆ ಹೆಚ್ಚು ಟೆನ್ಷನ್ ಬೇರೆ. ನಿಮ್ಮದು ಪ್ರತಿ ಸೆಕೆಂಡ್ ಜರ್ನಲಿಸಂ…’ ಎಂದು ಸಂತಾಪ ಸೂಚಿಸಿದರು.
‘ಹೌದು ಸರ್. ಆದ್ರೆ ಸ್ವಲ್ಪ ಅನ್ನ ಮೊಸರು ತಿಂದ್ರೂ ಸಮಾಧಾನ ಅದ್ಕೇ ಅಡುಗೆ ಮಾಡ್ಕೋತಿನಿ. ಆದ್ರೆ ಎಲ್ಲಾ ರೀತಿ ಅಡುಗೆ ಮಾಡೋಕೆ ಬರೋಲ್ಲ. ಎಷ್ಟು ಬೇಕೋ ಅಷ್ಟು’
‘ಗುಡ್… ಅದು ಒಳ್ಳೇ ಗಂಡಸಿನ ಲಕ್ಷಣ’ ಅಂದ್ರು!
ತಮಾಷೆ ಮಾಡ್ತಿದಾರೆ ಅನ್ಸಿ, ‘ಏನ್ಸಾರ್, ಅಡುಗೆ ಮಾಡೋದು ಒಳ್ಳೆ ಗಂಡ್ಸಿನ ಲಕ್ಷಣವಾ’? ನನ್ನ ಅನುಮಾನ ಮುಂದಿಟ್ಟೆ.
ಹೌದು ಶಿವು! ಮತ್ತೆ! ಅಡಿಗೆ ಮಾಡೋಕೆ ಬಂದ್ರೆ ಎಲ್ಲಿ ಬೇಕಿದ್ರೂ ಬದುಕಬಹುದು. ನಾನು ತಮಾಷೆಗೆ ಹೇಳ್ತಿಲ್ಲ! ನನ್ನನ್ನೂ ಸೇರಿಸ್ಕೊಂಡು ಈ ಮಾತು ಹೇಳ್ತಿದ್ದೇನೆ. ಏಕೆಂದ್ರೆ ನಂಗೂ ಅಡುಗೆ ಮಾಡೋಕೆ ಬರುತ್ತೆ. ಹಾಗಾಗಿ ನನ್ನನ್ನು ಸೇರಿಸ್ಕೊಂಡು ಈ ಮಾತು ಹೇಳ್ತಿದ್ದೇನೆ’. ನನ್ನ ಅನುಮಾನ ಬಗೆ ಹರಿಸಿದರು. ಗಂಭೀರವಾದ ಧ್ವನಿಯಲ್ಲಿ ಹೇಳಿದ ಈ ಮಾತು ಕೇಳಿದ ನಂತರ ಇಬ್ಬರೂ ಹ್ಹ ಹ್ಹ ಹ್ಹ ಎಂದು ನಕ್ಕೆವು.
ಆಗಲೇ ಅವ್ರಿಗೆ ‘ಸರ್, ಇದ್ನ ಒಳ್ಳೆ ಗಂಡಸಿನ ಲಕ್ಷ್ಷಣಗಳು ಎಂದು ಬ್ಲಾಗ್ ನಲ್ಲಿ ಹಾಕ್ತೇನೆ’ ಅಂದೆ. ಎಲ್ಲರೂ  ನಮ್ಮಂತೆ ಒಳ್ಳೆಯವರಾಗಲಿ. ಎಂಬ ಸದುದ್ದೇಶ ನನ್ನದಾಗಿತ್ತು.
ನನ್ನ ಸದುದ್ದೇಶ ಅರಿತ ಉಮಾಪತಿ ಸರ್ ಮತ್ತಷ್ಟು ನಕ್ಕರು.
* * *
ಈಗ ನೀವೂ ಸಹ ಒಳ್ಳೆಯ ಗಂಡಸರಾಗಬಹುದು. ಅದಕ್ಕೆ ನೀವು ಮಾಡಬೇಕಾಗಿರುವುದಿಷ್ಟೇ.
1. ನಿಮಗೆ ತೋಚಿದಂತೆ ಒಳ್ಳೆ ಗಂಡಸಿನ ಲಕ್ಷಣಗಳನ್ನು ಇಲ್ಲಿ ಪಟ್ಟಿ ಮಾಡಿ.
2. ಈಗಾಗಲೇ ಒಳ್ಳೆಯ ಗಂಡಸಾಗಿರೋ ಮಿತ್ರರು, ತಾವು ಯಾವಾಗ ಅಡುಗೆ ಮಾಡೋ ಮೂಲಕ ಒಳ್ಳೆ ಗಂಡಸಾಗಿದ್ದು? ಅದರ ಪರಿಣಾಮಗಳು? ಬೇರೆಯವರ ಮೇಲೆ ಮಾಡಿದ ಅದ್ಬುತ ಪ್ರಯೋಗಗಳಿದ್ದಲ್ಲಿ ದಯವಿಟ್ಟು ಹಂಚಿಕೊಳ್ಳಿ.
ಎಲ್ಲಾ ಕೆಟ್ಟ ಗಂಡಸರಿಗೂ ಇದರಿಂದ ಅನುಕೂಲ ಆಗೋದಾದ್ರೆ ಆಗಲಿ!

ಮಿಥಿಕ್ ಸೊಸೈಟಿ 100 ಹಾಗೂ ಪ್ರಶಸ್ತಿ

ಶತಮಾನೋತ್ಸವ ಆಚರಿಸಿಕೊಳ್ಳುತ್ತಿರುವ ಮಿಥಿಕ್ ಸೊಸೈಟಿ ಇದೇ ಮೇ 3 ರಿಂದ 5 ನೇ ತಾರೀಖಿನವರೆಗೆ ಮೂರು ದಿನಗಳ ಸಮಾರೋಪ ಸಮಾರಂಭ ಆಚರಿಸುತ್ತಿದೆ.

ಈ ಸಂದರ್ಭದಲ್ಲಿ ವಿವಿಧ ಕ್ಷೇತ್ರಗಳಲ್ಲಿ ಸಾಧನೆ ಮಾಡಿದ 7 ಜನ ಹಿರಿಯರನ್ನು ಹಾಗೂ 7 ಜನ ಯುವ ಸಾಧಕರನ್ನು ಗುರುತಿಸಿ, ಪ್ರಶಸ್ತಿ ನೀಡಿ ಗೌರವಿಸಲಿದೆ. ಯುವ ಸಾಧಕರ ಪಟ್ಟಿಯಲ್ಲಿ ನನ್ನ ಹೆಸರೂ ಇದೆ.

ಉಳಿದಂತೆ ಎಲ್ಲಾ ಪ್ರಶಸ್ತಿ ವಿಜೇತರ ಪಟ್ಟಿ ಹಾಗೂ ಕಾರ್ಯಕ್ರಮದ ವಿವರಣೆ ವಿಜಯ ಕರ್ನಾಟಕದಲ್ಲಿ ಪ್ರಕಟವಾಗಿದೆ. ಅದರ ಸುದ್ದಿ ತುಣುಕು ಇಲ್ಲಿದೆ.

ಗಮನಕ್ಕೆ: ದೊಡ್ಡ ಇಮೇಜ್ ಗೆ ಫೋಟೋ ಮೇಲೆ ಕ್ಲಿಕ್ ಮಾಡಿ.
20090502a_0051010031

ವೇರ್ ದ ಮೈಂಡ್ ಇಸ್ ವಿಥೌಟ್ ಫಿಯರ್

tagore-einsteinಎಕ್ಲ ಚಲೋ ರೇ ಗೆ ಬಂದ ಪ್ರತಿಕ್ರಿಯೆ ನನ್ನನ್ನು ಅಚ್ಚರಿಗೆ ದೂಡಿದೆ. ಈ ಹಾಡು ಅನೇಕರನ್ನು ತಟ್ಟಿದೆ. ಹಾಗೆಯೇ ಇಲ್ಲಿ Chitto jetha bhayashunyo ಅಂದರೆ Where the mind is without fear ಪ್ರಕಟಿಸಬೇಕೆಂದಿದ್ದೆ. ಉಮಾಪತಿ ಸರ್ ಅದರ ಚರ್ಚೆಗೆ ತಮ್ಮ ಕಾಮೆಂಟ್ ನಲ್ಲೇ ನಾಂದಿ ಹಾಡಿದ್ದರು. ಆದರೆ ನನಗೆ ಈಗ ಇಲ್ಲಿ ಬಂದಿರುವ ಕಾಮೆಂಟ್ ಗಳನ್ನು ನೋಡಿದಾಗ Where the mind is without fear ಗೆ ಕನಿಷ್ಟ 4-5 ಕನ್ನಡ ಭಾವಾನುವಾದಗಳು ಇರುವ ಹಾಗೆ ಕಂಡು ಬರುತ್ತಿದೆ.
Where the mind is without fear ಇದನ್ನು ರವಿಂದ್ರರು ಸ್ವಾತಂತ್ರ ಪೂರ್ವವೇ, ಜಾಗೃತ ಭಾರತ ಹೇಗಿರಬೇಕು ಎಂದು ಧ್ಯಾನಿಸಿ ಬರೆದಿದ್ದರು. ಮೂಲ ಬಂಗಾಳಿ. ಅದನ್ನು ಸ್ವತ: ರವಿಂದ್ರರೇ ಇಂಗ್ಲಿಷ್ ಗೆ ಅನುವಾದಿಸಿದ್ದರು. ನಂತರ ಅದು ಬಹುತೇಕ ಜಗತ್ತಿನ ಎಲ್ಲಾ ದೇಶಗಳ ವಿವಿಧ ಭಾಷೆಗಳಿಗೆ ಅನುವಾದಗೊಂಡಿದೆ ಎಂದರೆ ತಪ್ಪಿಲ್ಲ. ಮೂಲ ಬಂಗಾಳಿ ಕವನ 1912 ರಲ್ಲೇ ನೋಬೆಲ್ ವಿಜೇತ ಕೃತಿ ಗೀತಾಂಜಲಿಯಲ್ಲಿ ಸೇರ್ಪಡೆಯಾಗಿತ್ತು.
ಈಗ ಇಲ್ಲಿ ಬಂಗಾಳಿ ಮೂಲ, ಇಂಗ್ಲೀಷ್ ಅನುವಾದ, ಶ್ರೀ ಕಳುಹಿಸಿಕೊಟ್ಟಿರುವ ಅನುವಾದ ಹಾಗೂ ಉಮಾಪತಿ ಸರ್ ನೀಡಿದ್ದ ಕಾಮೆಂಟಿನಲ್ಲಿದ್ದ ಅನುವಾದದ ಒಂದೆರಡು ಸಾಲುಗಳಿವೆ. ರವಿಶಂಕರ್ ಸಹ ವೆಂಕಟೇಶ ಮೂರ್ತಿಯವರ ಭಾವಾನುವಾದದ ಬಗ್ಗೆ ಉಲ್ಲೇಖಿಸಿದ್ದಾರೆ. ದಯವಿಟ್ಟು ಯಾರಿಗಾದರೂ ನಿಜಕ್ಕೂ ಎಷ್ಟು ಅನುವಾದಗಳಿವೆ? ಅವುಗಳ ಪೂರ್ಣ ಪಾಠ ಇದೆಯಾ? ಇದ್ದರೆ ದಯವಿಟ್ಟು ಇಲ್ಲಿ ಪೋಸ್ಟ್ ಮಾಡಿ. ನಾವು ಅನೇಕರು ಅದರ ಸಶಕ್ತ ಭಾವಾನುವಾದ ಓದಲು ಕಾಯುತ್ತಿದ್ದೇವೆ. ಅಲ್ಲದೇ ಒಂದೇ ಕವನ ಹೇಗೆ ಬೇರೆ ಬೇರೆ ಭಾವಾನುವಾದಗಳಲ್ಲಿ ವಿಭಿನ್ನವಾಗಿ ವ್ಯಕ್ತವಾಗಿದೆ ಎಂದೂ ತಿಳಿಯಬಹುದು.

The English version is:
Where the mind is without fear and the head is held high;
Where knowledge is free;
Where the world has not been broken up into fragments by narrow domestic walls;
Where words come out from the depth of truth;
Where tireless striving stretches its arms towards perfection;
Where the clear stream of reason has not lost its way into the dreary desert sand of dead habit;
Where the mind is led forward by thee into ever-widening thought and action …
Into that heaven of freedom, my father, let my country awake.

The original Bengali version is:
চিত্ত যেথা ভয়শূন্য উচ্চ যেথা শির, জ্ঞান যেথা মুক্ত, যেথা গৃহের প্রাচীর
আপন প্রাংগণতলে দিবস-শর্বরী বসুধারে রাখে নাই খণড ক্ষুদ্র করি,

যেথা বাক্য হৃদযের উতসমুখ হতে উচ্ছসিয়যা উঠে, যেথা নির্বারিত স্রোতে,
দেশে দেশে দিশে দিশে কর্মধারা ধায় অজস্র সহস্রবিধ চরিতার্থতায়,

যেথা তুচ্ছ আচারের মরু-বালু-রাশি বিচারের স্রোতঃপথ ফেলে নাই গ্রাসি –
পৌরুষেরে করেনি শতধা, নিত্য যেথা তুমি সর্ব কর্ম-চিংতা-আনংদের নেতা,

নিজ হস্তে নির্দয় আঘাত করি পিতঃ, ভারতেরে সেই স্বর্গে করো জাগরিতচিত্ত যেথা ভয়শূন্য উচ্চ যেথা শির, জ্ঞান যেথা মুক্ত, যেথা গৃহের প্রাচীর
আপন প্রাংগণতলে দিবস-শর্বরী বসুধারে রাখে নাই খণড ক্ষুদ্র করি,

যেথা বাক্য হৃদযের উতসমুখ হতে উচ্ছসিয়যা উঠে, যেথা নির্বারিত স্রোতে,
দেশে দেশে দিশে দিশে কর্মধারা ধায় অজস্র সহস্রবিধ চরিতার্থতায়,

যেথা তুচ্ছ আচারের মরু-বালু-রাশি বিচারের স্রোতঃপথ ফেলে নাই গ্রাসি –
পৌরুষেরে করেনি শতধা, নিত্য যেথা তুমি সর্ব কর্ম-চিংতা-আনংদের নেতা,

নিজ হস্তে নির্দয় আঘাত করি পিতঃ, ভারতেরে সেই স্বর্গে করো জাগরিত ||

ಶ್ರೀ ಕಳುಹಿಸಿರುವ ಎಂ.ಎನ್ ಕಾಮತ್ ಅವರ ಅನುವಾದ:

ಎಲ್ಲಿ ಮನಕಳುಕಿರದೋ ಎಲ್ಲಿ ತಲೆ ಬಾಗಿರದೋ
ಎಲ್ಲಿ ತಿಳಿವಿಗೆ ತೊಡಕು ತೋರದಿಹುದಲ್ಲಿ
ಎಲ್ಲಿ ಮನೆಯೊಕ್ಕಟ್ಟು ಸಂಸಾರ ನೆಲೆಗಟ್ಟು
ಧೂಳೊಡೆಯದಿಹುದೋ ತಾನಾನಾಡಿನಲ್ಲಿ
ಎಲ್ಲಿ ಸತ್ಯದಗಾಧ ನೆಲೆಯಿಂದ ಸವಿವಾತು
ಸಲ್ಲಲಿತ ನಡೆಯಿಂದ ಮುಂಬರಿವುದಲ್ಲಿ
ಎಲ್ಲಿ ದಣಿವಿರದ ಸಾಧನೆಯು ಸಫಲತೆಗೆಡೆಗೆ
ತೋಳ ನೀಡಿಹುದೋ ತಾನಾನಾಡಿನಲ್ಲಿ
ಎಲ್ಲಿ ಸುವಿಚಾರ ನಿರ್ಮಲ ಜಲದೊಸರು ಹರಿದು
ಕಾಳರೂಢಿಯ ಮರಳೊಳಿಂಗಿ ಕೆಡದಲ್ಲಿ
ಎಲ್ಲಿ ನೀನೆಮ್ಮ ಚಿಂತನವನುದ್ಯಮವ ಸುವಿ-
-ಶಾಲತೆಯ ಪೂರ್ಣತೆಗೆ ಮುಂಬರಿಸುವಲ್ಲಿ
ಅಲ್ಲಿಯಾ ಬಂಧನ ರಹಿತ ಸುಖದ ಸ್ವರ್ಗದಲಿ
ಪಾಲಿಸೈ ಪಿತ ನಮ್ಮ ನಾಡೆಚ್ಚರಿರಲಿ !
ಹೀಗಿದೆ. ಕರ್ನಾಟಕದ ಶಾಲೆಗಳಲ್ಲಿ ಇದು ಪ್ರಾರ್ಥನೆಯಾಗಿದ್ದಿರಬೇಕಲ್ಲ?

ಉಮಾಪತಿ ಸರ್ ಕಾಮೆಂಟಿನಲ್ಲಿರುವ ಅನುವಾದ: ಅನುವಾದರಕರ ಹೆಸರು ಗೊತ್ತಿಲ್ಲ. ಒಂದೆರಡು ಸಾಲುಗಳು ಮಾತ್ರ ಇಲ್ಲಿವೆ. ಪ್ರಾಯಶ: ಇವು ಹೆಚ್ಚು ಸಶಕ್ತವಾಗಿವೆ ಎನಿಸುತ್ತದೆ.
ಆ ಸ್ವತಂತ್ರ ಸ್ವರ್ಗಕೇ ನಮ್ಮ ನಾಡು ಏಳಲೇಳಲೇಳಲೇಳಲೀ…..
ಎಲ್ಲಿ ಮನವು ನಿರ್ಭಯದಿ ತಲೆಯನೆತ್ತಿ ನಿಲುವುದೋ..
ಎಲ್ಲಿ ಮಾತು ಸತ್ಯದಾಳದಿಂದ ಹೊಮ್ಮಿ ಬರುವುದೋ ಆ ಸ್ವತಂತ್ರ ಸ್ವರ್ಗಕೇ

ಇದರ ಪೂರ್ಣ ಅನುವಾದ ತಿಳಿದವರು ದಯವಿಟ್ಟು ಇಲ್ಲಿ ಪ್ರಕಟಿಸಿ.

Published in: on April 27, 2009 at 1:17 pm  Leave a Comment  

‘ಎಕ್ಲ ಚಲೋ ರೇ’ – একলা জ্বলো রে

tagore2005ರಲ್ಲಿ ಸುಭಾಷ್ ಸಾವಿನ ಸುತ್ತ ಪುಸ್ತಕ ಬರೆಯುತ್ತಿದ್ದಾಗ ‘ನೇತಾಜಿ ಸುಭಾಷ್ ಚಂದ್ರ ಬೋಸ್: ದಿ ಫಾರ್ಗಾಟನ್ ಹೀರೋ’ ಫಿಲಂ ನೋಡಿದ್ದೆ. ಅದರಲ್ಲಿ ರವೀಂದ್ರನಾಥ ಠ್ಯಾಗೋರರ ‘ಎಕ್ಲ ಚಲೋ ರೇ’  ಹಾಡಿನ ಒಂದು ಭಾಗವನ್ನು ಬಳಸಿದ್ದರು. ಆ ಹಾಡು ನನ್ನ ಮೇಲೆ ಸಾಕಷ್ಟು ಪರಿಣಾಮ ಬೀರಿತ್ತು. ಸ್ಪೂರ್ತಿ ತುಂಬುವಂತಿತ್ತು. ಅದನ್ನು ಪೂರ್ತಿ ಕೇಳಬೇಕು ಎಂಬ ಆಸೆ ಈಡೇರಿಲ್ಲ.

ಆದರೆ ಆ ಅದ್ಭುತ ಎಕ್ಲ ಚಲೋ ರೇ ಹಾಡಿನ ಮೂಲ ಬಂಗಾಳಿ, ಅದನ್ನು ರವಿಂದ್ರರೇ ಇಂಗ್ಲೀಷ್ ಗೆ ಅನುವಾದ ಮಾಡಿದ್ದು ಹಾಗೂ ಬಂಗಾಳಿ ಲಿಪಿಯನ್ನೇ ಇಂಗ್ಲೀಷ್ ನಲ್ಲಿ ಬರೆದದ್ದು ಎಲ್ಲವೂ ಇಂಟರ್ ನೆಟ್ ನಲ್ಲಿ ಸಿಕ್ಕಿತು. ಈ ಹಾಡು ನಿಮಗೆ ಇಷ್ಟವಾದೀತು ಎಂದು ಇಲ್ಲಿ ಮೂರನ್ನೂ ಅಳವಡಿಸಿದ್ದೇನೆ.

Tagore’s English translation
If they answer not to thy call walk alone,
If they are afraid and cower mutely facing the wall,
O thou of evil luck,
open thy mind and speak out alone.

If they turn away, and desert you when crossing the wilderness,
O thou of evil luck,
trample the thorns under thy tread,
and along the blood-lined track travel alone.

If they do not hold up the light when the night is troubled with storm,
O thou of evil luck,
with the thunder flame of pain ignite thy own heart
and let it burn alone.

In Bengali script
যদি তোর ডাক শুনে কেউ না আসে তবে একলা চলো রে।
একলা চলো, একলা চলো, একলা চলো, একলা চলো রে॥
যদি কেউ কথা না কয়, ওরে ওরে ও অভাগা,
যদি সবাই থাকে মুখ ফিরায়ে সবাই করে ভয়—
তবে পরান খুলে
ও তুই মুখ ফুটে তোর মনের কথা একলা বলো রে॥
যদি সবাই ফিরে যায়, ওরে ওরে ও অভাগা,
যদি গহন পথে যাবার কালে কেউ ফিরে না চায়—
তবে পথের কাঁটা
ও তুই রক্তমাখা চরণতলে একলা দলো রে॥
যদি আলো না ধরে, ওরে ওরে ও অভাগা,
যদি ঝড়-বাদলে আঁধার রাতে দুয়ার দেয় ঘরে—
তবে বজ্রানলে
আপন বুকের পাঁজর জ্বালিয়ে নিয়ে একলা জ্বলো রে॥

In Bengali Romanization
Jodi tor đak shune keu na ashe tôbe êkla chôlo re,
Êkla chôlo, êkla chôlo, êkla chôlo, êkla chôlo re.
Jodi keu kôtha na kôe, ore ore o ôbhaga,
Jodi shôbai thake mukh firaee shôbai kôre bhôe—
Tôbe pôran khule
O tui mukh fuţe tor moner kôtha êkla bôlo re.
Jodi shôbai fire jae, ore ore o ôbhaga,
Jodi gôhon pôthe jabar kale keu fire na chae—
Tôbe pôther kãţa
O tui rôktomakha chôrontôle êkla dôlo re.
Jodi alo na dhôre, ore ore o ôbhaga,
Jodi jhôŗ-badole ãdhar rate duar dêe ghôre—
Tôbe bojranôle
Apon buker pãjor jalie nie êkla jôlo re.

ರಾಮನಾಥ ಗೋಯೆಂಕಾ ಎಕ್ಸಲೆನ್ಸ್ ಇನ್ ಜರ್ನಲಿಸಂ ಅವಾರ್ಡ್

 Ramnath Goenka Excellence in Journalism Awards: ಪ್ರಾಯಶ: ಭಾರತದ ಪತ್ರಿಕೋದ್ಯಮದಲ್ಲಿ ಅತ್ಯುನ್ನತ ಪ್ರಶಸ್ತಿ ಎಂದರೂ ತಪ್ಪಿಲ್ಲ. ಎಕ್ಸ್ ಪ್ರೆಸ್ ಗ್ರೂಪ್, ತನ್ನ ಸ್ಥಾಪನೆಯ ನೂರನೇ ವರ್ಷದ ನೆನಪಿಗೆ, ಸಂಸ್ಥಾಪಕ ರಾಮನಾಥ ಗೋಯೆಂಕಾ ಹೆಸರಿನಲ್ಲಿ ಈ ಪ್ರಶಸ್ತಿ  ಸ್ಥಾಪಿಸಿತ್ತು.  ಪತ್ರಕರ್ತರ ಸಾಧನೆ, ತೆಗೆದುಕೊಂಡ ರಿಸ್ಕ್, ನಿಖರತೆ, ಅದು ಮಾಡಿದ ಪರಿಣಾಮ,  ಇತ್ಯಾದಿಗಳನ್ನು ಒರೆಗೆ ಹಚ್ಚಿದ ನಂತರ ಮುದ್ರಣ ಹಾಗೂ ದೃಶ್ಯ ಮಾಧ್ಯಮ ವಿಭಾಗದಲ್ಲಿ ಪ್ರಶಸ್ತಿ ನೀಡಲಾಗುತ್ತದೆ. ಈ ಪ್ರಶಸ್ತಿ ಒಂದು ರೀತಿ ಸಮಾಜದಲ್ಲಿ ಜನರಿಗೆ ಮಾಧ್ಯಮಗಳ ಬಗ್ಗೆ ಇರುವ ನಂಬಿಕೆ, ವಿಶ್ವಾಸಗಳ ಸಂಕೇತ ಎನ್ನಬಹುದು.

ಈ ಪ್ರಶಸ್ತಿ ಪಡೆಯುವುದು ಎಲ್ಲಾ ಪತ್ರಕರ್ತರ ಕನಸು. ಆದರೆ ಅದು ಎಲ್ಲರಿಗೂ ಆಗುವುದಿಲ್ಲ.  ಆದರೆ ಟಿವಿ9 ವಾರಂಟ್ ವಿಭಾಗದ ಮುಖ್ಯಸ್ಥ ಹಾಗೂ ಮಿತ್ರ ಎಂ.ಎಸ್.ರಾಘವೇಂದ್ರ ಇದನ್ನು ಸಾಧಿಸಿದ್ದಾನೆ. ರಾಘು ಕಳೆದ ವರ್ಷ ಮಾಡಿದ್ದ ಮಹಿಳೆಯರ ಮಾರಾಟ img_10992ಜಾಲ ಕುರಿತ ವರದಿಗೆ ರಾಜ್ಯ ಮಟ್ಟದ ಚಾನೆಲ್  ವಿಭಾಗದಲ್ಲಿ ಪ್ರಶಸ್ತಿ ಲಭಿಸಿದೆ. ನಮ್ಮ ತೆಲುಗು ಚಾನೆಲ್ ನ ಶೀತಲ್ ಎಂಬುವರಿಗೂ ಪ್ರಶಸ್ತಿ ಲಭಿಸಿದೆ.

ಉಳಿದಂತೆ ಈ ಸಾಲಿನ ಪ್ರಶಸ್ತಿ ಪಡೆದವರ ಪಟ್ಟಿ ಇಲ್ಲಿದೆ.

img_1108Awardees:

Ramnath Goenka Journalist of the Year – Broadcast
Karan Thapar

Ramnath Goenka Journalist of the Year – Print
P. Sainath, The Hindu

Prakash Kardaley Memorial Award For Civic Journalism – Print
Sayli Udas, The Hindustan Times

Ramnath Goenka Excellence in Journalism Awards for Uncovering India Invisible – Broadcast
Mridu Bhandari, CNN-IBN

Ramnath Goenka Excellence in Journalism Awards for Uncovering India Invisible – Print
Neelesh Misra & Nagendar Sharma, The Hindustan Times

Ramnath Goenka Excellence in Journalism Awards for Hindi – Broadcast
Umashankar Singh, NDTV

Ramnath Goenka Excellence in Journalism Awards for Hindi – Print
Punya Prasun Bajpai, Pratham Pravakta

Ramnath Goenka Excellence in Journalism Awards for Film and Television Journalism – Broadcast
Vaishali Sood, CNN-IBN

Ramnath Goenka Excellence in Journalism Awards for Film and Television Journalism – Print
Shoma Chauduhry, Tehelka

Reporting on HIV/AIDS – English – Print
Dnyanesh V. Jathar, The Week

Reporting on HIV/AIDS – Marathi – Print
Savita Vikram Harkare, Lokmat

Ramnath Goenka Excellence in Journalism Awards for Books (Non-Fiction) – Print
Ramchandra Guha

Ramnath Goenka Excellence in Journalism Awards for Regional Languages – Broadcast
M.S. Ragavender & Shital Morjaria, TV9

Ramnath Goenka Excellence in Journalism Awards for Regional Languages – Print
P.K. Prakash, Madhyamam Daily

Ramnath Goenka Excellence in Journalism Awards for Sports Journalism – Broadcast
Rudraneil Sengupta, CNN-IBN

Ramnath Goenka Excellence in Journalism Awards for Sports Journalism – Print
Sandeep Dwivedi, The Indian Express

Ramnath Goenka Excellence in Journalism Awards for Reporting from J&K and the Northeast – Broadcast
V.K. Shashi Kumar, CNN-IBN & Nidhi Razdan, NDTV

Ramnath Goenka Excellence in Journalism Awards for Reporting from J&K and the Northeast – Print
Muzamil Jaleel, The Indian Express

Ramnath Goenka Excellence in Journalism Awards for Environmental Reporting – Broadcast
Swati Thiyagarajan, NDTV

Ramnath Goenka Excellence in Journalism Awards for Environmental Reporting – Print
Sonu Jain, The Indian Express

Ramnath Goenka Excellence in Journalism Awards for Business and Economic Journalism – Broadcast
Abhishek Upadhyay, IBN7

Ramnath Goenka Excellence in Journalism Awards for Business and Economic Journalism – Print
P. Vaidyanathan Iyer, Business World

Ramnath Goenka Excellence in Journalism Awards for Foreign Correspondent Covering India – Print
Joseph Johnson, Financial Times

Ramnath Goenka Excellence in Journalism Awards for Political Reporting – Broadcast
Sreenivasan Jain, NDTV

Ramnath Goenka Excellence in Journalism Awards for Political Reporting – Print
Subrata Nagchoudhury & Ravik Bhattacharya, The Indian Express

Sanjiv Sinha Memorial Award for reporting
Smita Nair, The Indian Express

Priya Chandrasekhar Memorial Award for editing
Amrita Dutta, The Indian Express

 

Published in: on April 21, 2009 at 4:35 pm  Leave a Comment  
Tags: , , , , , ,