Women Empowerment?
New Speaker also Controversial
False affidavit slur on Speaker
; Statesman News Service
NEW DELHI, 5 JUNE: Lok Sabha Speaker Mrs Meira Kumar, daughter of the late Babu Jagjivan Ram, has been accused of submitting a false affidavit aimed at "usurping family property" by her niece. At the heart of the allegation is 6.5 acres of agricultural land worth millions at Palwal in Haryana that belonged to Mrs Kumar’s late mother Indrani Devi.
On 15 May, a little over two weeks before Mrs Kumar made history for being elected the first woman Speaker, Mrs Medhaavi Kirti, grand-daughter of Jagjivan Ram, and her mother, Ms Kamal, wife of Mrs Kumar's deceased brother Suresh Kumar, filed a criminal petition in the CJM's court in Palwal charging that Mrs Kumar had allegedly usurped their one-half right over this piece of land by allegedly submitting a "false affidavit" before the Palwal Tehsildar while getting the land mutated in her name in March 2003.
Contesting Mrs Kumar's claim in the affidavit staking full rights over Indrani Devi’s land on the grounds that she was the "sole heir", the petitioners also challenged the mutation documents which stated that Suresh Kumar had died without an heir. Describing Mrs Kumar’s move as "deliberate, illegal, malafide and a criminal offense", the petitioners have pleaded for a thorough investigation into the case, registration of an FIR against Mrs Kumar under various sections of the IPC, and her prosecution. The hearing in the case is scheduled for 10 July.
On her part, Mrs Kumar has said that such allegations levelled in the past various courts by Mrs Kirti and her mother ~ the property dispute is a longstanding one ~ are "false and baseless", and has asserted her claim to absolute ownership of Indrani Devi’s properties claiming the petitioners are "neither the heirs to her nor her successors". The battle over the Palwal property, though, is a new development.
Since December 2006, Mrs Kirti and her mother have been crying foul, and have submitted letters to Palwal revenue officials and Faridabad police and administrative authorities on the issue. They have essentially highlighted that Mrs Kumar’s affidavit and application before the Palwal Tehsildar on 14 March 2003 to "usurp" Indrani Devi’s land was allegedly "false", claiming that they too were her "legal heirs" and should therefore get half share of the property by way of inheritance following her demise.
The complainants have also sought to pinpoint the mention of Suresh Kumar as "having died without any issue" in the mutation documents, alleging that the Palwal revenue officials had
"colluded" with Mrs Kumar to transfer the land to her.
Although Mrs Kumar had made no mention of her mother’s Will in her affidavit, close on the heels of the complaints, she submitted, in December 2006, a review petition before the Palwal Tehsildar stating that the land in question mutated in her name by way of inheritance was "not based on facts" and that it should have rather been mutated in light of her mother’s Will. Mrs Kumar has maintained that Indrani Devi’s Will, dated 15 January 1988, and a Codicil, dated 18 March 2002 (she died on 14 April 2002), bequeaths the latter's entire property to her. Moreover, she has asserted that the Palwal land was jointly purchased by her mother and herself.
Mrs Kirti and her mother, while claiming that Indrani Devi died intestate (without a Will) have alleged that the Will produced by Mrs Kumar was "manufactured and doctored". Mrs Kirti, incidentally, is, like her estranged sister-in-law, a politician albeit a minor one not affiliated to any major political party. She had briefly been a minister in the Haryana government in 1991.
As part of the protracted legal battle involving the two sides to gain control of Jagjivan Ram’s and Indrani Devi’s properties across India, Mrs Kirti and her mother had also moved Palwal civil court in December 2006 to stake their half-share claim over the Palwal land, plead for setting aside its mutation as "null, void and illegal", and seek injunction to restrain Mrs Kumar from alienating their inheritance rights through disposal of the land. The court granted an injunction but vacated the stay on 16 January 2009 while refraining from pronouncing on the genuineness or otherwise of the Will as well as the final merits of the case. But, subsequently, when the petitioners challenged this order, the Faridabad district court on 17 January 2009, while noting their allegations that Mrs Kumar had allegedly sought to "conceal" their inheritance rights to get mutation of Palwal land, again restored the injunction.
The Statesman today faxed a questionnaire to Mrs Kumar’s residence and reached her staff to get her fresh reaction on the 15 May petition moved in the CJM court, Palwal. There was, however, no response till the time of going to Press.
Why does there have to be a controversy that leaves a bad taste in the mouth, every time the Congress party selects a woman for an important post.
Earlier when Pratibha Patel was chosen to be President of India, there were many discordant notes sounded regarding the illegal activities of her family. These were all swept under the carpet and she was selected in place of a people's President, an honest and able Dr. A P J Abdul Kalam.
Now, when Mrs Meira Kumar has been chosen as Speaker of the Lok Sabha another controversy rakes its head for her illegal land transactions.
With 120 crore population in India, can't the Congress party appoint people to important posts who are pure as Caesar's wife.
In public life, you must not only be honest but also appear to be honest.
With these controversial people there, the general mass cannot give them the respect due to them. At the back of their minds, that doubt is always there, is this person honest? Is he/she speaking the truth?
We chose the women concerned not because they have any extra-ordinary qualifications or abilities but because they are subservient to the powers that be. So it is not women empowerment but rather belittling a woman.
It is not that the Congress party have not appointed emasculated men to the post of President.Two names come to mind. Giani Zail Singh and V V Giri.
They have also appointed towering personalities like Dr. Rajendra Prasad and Dr. S Radhakrishnan.
But that was before the advent of Mrs Indira Gandhi.
She preferred to be surrounded by impotent, yes men and women.
The tradition is carried on by those who have inherited her mantle.
; Statesman News Service
NEW DELHI, 5 JUNE: Lok Sabha Speaker Mrs Meira Kumar, daughter of the late Babu Jagjivan Ram, has been accused of submitting a false affidavit aimed at "usurping family property" by her niece. At the heart of the allegation is 6.5 acres of agricultural land worth millions at Palwal in Haryana that belonged to Mrs Kumar’s late mother Indrani Devi.
On 15 May, a little over two weeks before Mrs Kumar made history for being elected the first woman Speaker, Mrs Medhaavi Kirti, grand-daughter of Jagjivan Ram, and her mother, Ms Kamal, wife of Mrs Kumar's deceased brother Suresh Kumar, filed a criminal petition in the CJM's court in Palwal charging that Mrs Kumar had allegedly usurped their one-half right over this piece of land by allegedly submitting a "false affidavit" before the Palwal Tehsildar while getting the land mutated in her name in March 2003.
Contesting Mrs Kumar's claim in the affidavit staking full rights over Indrani Devi’s land on the grounds that she was the "sole heir", the petitioners also challenged the mutation documents which stated that Suresh Kumar had died without an heir. Describing Mrs Kumar’s move as "deliberate, illegal, malafide and a criminal offense", the petitioners have pleaded for a thorough investigation into the case, registration of an FIR against Mrs Kumar under various sections of the IPC, and her prosecution. The hearing in the case is scheduled for 10 July.
On her part, Mrs Kumar has said that such allegations levelled in the past various courts by Mrs Kirti and her mother ~ the property dispute is a longstanding one ~ are "false and baseless", and has asserted her claim to absolute ownership of Indrani Devi’s properties claiming the petitioners are "neither the heirs to her nor her successors". The battle over the Palwal property, though, is a new development.
Since December 2006, Mrs Kirti and her mother have been crying foul, and have submitted letters to Palwal revenue officials and Faridabad police and administrative authorities on the issue. They have essentially highlighted that Mrs Kumar’s affidavit and application before the Palwal Tehsildar on 14 March 2003 to "usurp" Indrani Devi’s land was allegedly "false", claiming that they too were her "legal heirs" and should therefore get half share of the property by way of inheritance following her demise.
The complainants have also sought to pinpoint the mention of Suresh Kumar as "having died without any issue" in the mutation documents, alleging that the Palwal revenue officials had
"colluded" with Mrs Kumar to transfer the land to her.
Although Mrs Kumar had made no mention of her mother’s Will in her affidavit, close on the heels of the complaints, she submitted, in December 2006, a review petition before the Palwal Tehsildar stating that the land in question mutated in her name by way of inheritance was "not based on facts" and that it should have rather been mutated in light of her mother’s Will. Mrs Kumar has maintained that Indrani Devi’s Will, dated 15 January 1988, and a Codicil, dated 18 March 2002 (she died on 14 April 2002), bequeaths the latter's entire property to her. Moreover, she has asserted that the Palwal land was jointly purchased by her mother and herself.
Mrs Kirti and her mother, while claiming that Indrani Devi died intestate (without a Will) have alleged that the Will produced by Mrs Kumar was "manufactured and doctored". Mrs Kirti, incidentally, is, like her estranged sister-in-law, a politician albeit a minor one not affiliated to any major political party. She had briefly been a minister in the Haryana government in 1991.
As part of the protracted legal battle involving the two sides to gain control of Jagjivan Ram’s and Indrani Devi’s properties across India, Mrs Kirti and her mother had also moved Palwal civil court in December 2006 to stake their half-share claim over the Palwal land, plead for setting aside its mutation as "null, void and illegal", and seek injunction to restrain Mrs Kumar from alienating their inheritance rights through disposal of the land. The court granted an injunction but vacated the stay on 16 January 2009 while refraining from pronouncing on the genuineness or otherwise of the Will as well as the final merits of the case. But, subsequently, when the petitioners challenged this order, the Faridabad district court on 17 January 2009, while noting their allegations that Mrs Kumar had allegedly sought to "conceal" their inheritance rights to get mutation of Palwal land, again restored the injunction.
The Statesman today faxed a questionnaire to Mrs Kumar’s residence and reached her staff to get her fresh reaction on the 15 May petition moved in the CJM court, Palwal. There was, however, no response till the time of going to Press.
Why does there have to be a controversy that leaves a bad taste in the mouth, every time the Congress party selects a woman for an important post.
Earlier when Pratibha Patel was chosen to be President of India, there were many discordant notes sounded regarding the illegal activities of her family. These were all swept under the carpet and she was selected in place of a people's President, an honest and able Dr. A P J Abdul Kalam.
Now, when Mrs Meira Kumar has been chosen as Speaker of the Lok Sabha another controversy rakes its head for her illegal land transactions.
With 120 crore population in India, can't the Congress party appoint people to important posts who are pure as Caesar's wife.
In public life, you must not only be honest but also appear to be honest.
With these controversial people there, the general mass cannot give them the respect due to them. At the back of their minds, that doubt is always there, is this person honest? Is he/she speaking the truth?
We chose the women concerned not because they have any extra-ordinary qualifications or abilities but because they are subservient to the powers that be. So it is not women empowerment but rather belittling a woman.
It is not that the Congress party have not appointed emasculated men to the post of President.Two names come to mind. Giani Zail Singh and V V Giri.
They have also appointed towering personalities like Dr. Rajendra Prasad and Dr. S Radhakrishnan.
But that was before the advent of Mrs Indira Gandhi.
She preferred to be surrounded by impotent, yes men and women.
The tradition is carried on by those who have inherited her mantle.
|
|
