----- Original Message ----- From: "Frederick Noronha (FN)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, May 30, 2004 2:02 AM Subject: [Goanet]Stray cattle and alleging bias (Was Re: WAKE UP CHIEF MINISTER ... )
> > Message: 8 > > Date: Sat, 29 May 2004 08:02:17 +0530 > > From: Floriano Lobo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Subject: Re: [Goanet]Re: WAKE UP CHIEF MINISTER ! STRAY CATTLE ARE BACK > > > Very intriguing comments by Fred, Mervyn and Gabe. > > And not to be left out on this interesting topics and especially the > > comment by Fred about politicians being more animal friendly, I must say > > here that Municipal laws do not allow the residents to keep any animal > > other than pet cat and dog, that too under licence. If only our > > politicians would learn to read the laws, rules and regulations which are > > printed in these various Acts such as Municipal Act, Panchayat Raj Act > > etc, nothing would be more satisfying. If I may say so, even a Municipal > > Corporator in Goa may be milking and rearing cattle heads of his/her own > > which are being fed and sheltered by the public. > > We must ask our POLITICIANS to repeal the Govt. laws, rules and > > regulations which are not being followed and adhered to and the world will > > be a pleasant and orderly place to live in where every one, including the > > animals will be respected. > > Floriano > > goasuraj > > www.goasu-raj.org > FN: Floriano, What is legal is not necessary ethical *or* fair to all parties > involved *or* even in the best interest of society. FL: Well Fred, you have just re-invented the theory of "Anarchy". Yes, some laws are bad such as tenancy Act. This particular Act has seen to it that Goan agriculture is dead twice over. Land to the tiller has seen that cultivable agricultural land is now growing cement products everywhere and will grow, believe me, until we get chocked on them. But a law remains a law until it is repealed. When the law is in place, one cannot disobey it because it is unethical. Look at POTA. The new dispensation is scrapping it. Certainly, it was unethical. But it was legal while it was in force. People have gone to prison, rightly or wrongly, because of it. FN: At one time, it was legal to own slaves -- in the US, in British India, and > in the Estado da India. Was that fair? It is still legal for Swiss banks to > stash up all the slush money that corrupt Third World despots have scraped > together at a immense cost to their citizens.... FL: Ah ! Slaves!. Surely it was unethical. That is why America fought a bloody battle against it and won. But before that, it was legal to buy and sell humans as slaves. Why talk of Swiss laws and Swiss Banks? Sukram was found with illegal crores of rupees in his very possession in his own house. Still he is very much the leader in Indian politics. FN: As long as there are pressures from the vehicle-owning middle-classes and > the affluent, the interests of the agrarian economy on this issue will take > the back-seat. Has anyone ever asked for 'caution: cattle ahead' signs to be > put up along the main points where the animals congregate mainly at night? > Wouldn't better illuminated roads also be one part of the solution? FL: I do not see any link with vehicle owning middle class, the affluent v/s interests of the agrarian economy. Look at the US of A. It is the granary of the world. USSR tried to fight and/or compete with the US in arms superiority and went empty stomach and ultimately died, whereas US had the best of both at all times and could feed the entire USSR if it needed to be fed in its death throes. They couldn't eat those plentiful guns and missiles. Coming to "caution, cattle ahead signs" where shall we start? The Sai Service, Porvorim? New Assembly complex area? O'Coqueiro? Ashwin Garage? Gandhi Chowk in Mapusa? Aldona Prassa? At every garbage bin in the Mapusa city? Mapusa Market? Well, we would need a mobile squad to shift these caution signs as according to the whims and fancies of the cattle. In the US there are no more slaves and their cattle grazes on vast grazing fields. Likewise in most developed countries. I didn't spot a single cattle head on roads in Delhi during my recent visit there. We don't see cattle in Panjim City. We don't see cattle on the Mumbai roads. You mean to say that in Goa the vehicle owning middle class are driving their vehicles in the green fields and on hill slopes?. And that is why the cattle is grazing on the tarred roads and rummaging the garbage bins? And yes. Better illuminated roads would be a part of the solution. But vehicle drivers would still not know the difference between a full-beam and a dipped-beam. And all the efforts to illuminate the roads would be in vain and a pure waste of good tax-payer's money. FN: You can't argue that: the law says it, so that's the final word. What any > legislator (or potential legislator!) needs to do is to ask whether the law > is practical in the first place. And, if it is failing, why is that so? FL: If a smart alec legislator wants to challenge the law, he can do so in the corridors of the legislature. But he cannot defy a law. A law is a law as long as it stands, and it is the FINAL WORD. Disobey it at your own risk. It is not left to the discretion of a smart alec legislator or smart alec anyone to question the practicality of the law by defiance. FN: This is not to argue that only those laws which 'will work' ought to be > passed. Nonetheless, a badly flawed law, which is destined to flop, > obviously has some loopholes somewhere. Or, is patently unrealistic. One > good example is the Official Language(s) Act, which was programmed to fail. > Likewise, the plethora of laws and rules against corruption, or in favour of > granting citizens a Right to Information. FL: I believe that elected legislators are paid to pass laws that will 'WORK'. And they must enforce these laws until they work one hundred percent. I do not understand how legislators can pass laws that will not work, or purposely twist them so they do not work. If that is the case, then the legislators and law makers must be out, pronto and looking for jobs elsewhere, sooner than the law finds itself in the dust-bins. FN: We do need a deeper understanding of where the problem lies. FL: Yes, indeed. Look for it in the implementation of the laws. FN: Nothing intriguing about it. I would like to (i) challenge people like you > to rethink your assumptions about what seems to be a very logical point of > view, but, in fact, is filled with assumptions, if not biases, that we keep > making all the time (ii) question those who see every policy -- or failure > of a policy -- as a result of communal thinking. Some are, no doubt. But > not, as far as I can see, the failure to act on "stray" cattle, a problem in > Goa as long as I could recall, whoever ruled this state. FL: Fred, please do me a favour. If you are holding a brief for Manohar Parrikar, so be it. But I don't want to hear of it. I see communalism and rank communals and recognize them pronto just like I will recognise a snake when I see one. And I do not mix governance with communalism. I never have. I don't see any RSS type communalism in every stray cattle head on our roads. I only see insensitive, bad governance. I don't see communalism in the devastation of Panjim City for IFFI. I only see a lot of greed and favoritism to make a lot of money at the cost of Goa and Goans. I don't see any communalism in the promulgation of the "Ordinance- 2004" which has made us challenge it, even to the extent of knocking at the doors of the Supreme Court. I only see a subtle design to undermine the Written Constitution of India by charlatans, that include Manohar Parrikar and Kidarnath Sahani who want to fling dust in the eyes of the people who value and respect the Constitution of India and who have taken an oath to defend it at all cost. FN: Not for a moment am I saying that the BJP is a pure-white > secular party. Their record is there for all to see. More openly in places > like Gujarat; more subtly in places like Goa. FL: In Hindi there is a word. "NA MOOMKIN" Even to utter the word "Secular" w.r.t. the RSS-BJP is to degrade the term "Secular" , much less calling it Pure-White or Lilly-White. "Saffron is the word" And the Election-2004 has rubbed this "saffron" off the faces of the fascists Advani and Vajpayee and into the sacred red soil of Secular India. Now don't tell me that Vajpayee is different. That he is a moderate. That he is a gentleman. Yes. I consider him to be a gentleman to the extent that he will swallow whatever that is pushed down his throat and not complain about it. More than that, he is a Jana Sanghi at heart who does not know the meaning of SECULARISM. And I will bet all my 57 years on it. FN: But for heaven's sake, don't ruin your own case by reducing just about > everything down to an issue of 'communalism'. Next, we might be arguing that > the Goa government's miserable failure to control the malaria problem is > surely linked to the communal mindset of some politician, or his religious > background. FL: Take heart, Fred. I have never ruined my case.Nor am I likely to do so in the future. I am a fighter. And I do not fight to show people that I am fighting to get to places. As I have said earlier, Communalism for me is communalism. And I say this now, without any reservations as I will say it a thousand times that Manohar Parrikar + Kidarnath Sahani (who is the Governor of Goa) = Communalism at its worst. All that Kidarnath Sahani has done in Goa is to visit the various temples and talk insignificant sanskriti crap. And even if the malaria laden mosquitoes sing "Vande Mataram" a la RSS-BJP, they will be, for me, simple non-communal and non-secular mosquitoes to be swatted and killed. FN: Also, it would help to strengthen the cause of secularism if other forms of > less-overt communalism, by politicians from every community including -- and > specially -- the minorities, were highlighted pointed out to. Are we willing > to concede, for instance, that both the MGP *and* the UGP were communal or > sectarian in their own ways? Or are we just intent on faulting 'the other > side'? FL: In Goa, and I can speak only for myself, there has never been a question of secularism or communalism. It has always been pure business. Politicians have played their sectarian cards to be in power to make money and bring this God's own Paradise to this present miserable state of affairs. Only the insensitiveness and utter lack of governance has led to polarization of the different communities. You mean to say that I want to call myself a secular or a communal? No Sir. I have always called myself a human being who may or may not like to worship my God. But if I do choose to worship Him, I like to do so in the confines of my very own heart, for I do not need a Church, a Temple or a Mosque to do so along with a large congregation to see me do it, because I believe from the bottom of my heart that God is miles away from the glittering Churches, Temples and Mosques. And more importantly, it does not bother me at all if the whole world worshipped their Gods in Churches, Temples, Mosques, under the trees or wherever, provided that they do so without disturbing my peace of mind. And this right is given to me by the Constitution of this great Nation, India, where I choose to live and make my life. with best regards Floriano ########################################################################## # Send submissions for Goanet to [EMAIL PROTECTED] # # PLEASE remember to stay on-topic (related to Goa), and avoid top-posts # # More details on Goanet at http://joingoanet.shorturl.com/ # # Please keep your discussion/tone polite, to reflect respect to others # ##########################################################################
