The Jan Lokpal Bill, Anna Hazare, and Baba Ramdev

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 29 Jun 2011 00:55

I think the INC folks are putting in place structures to continue to rule by proxy even is they are thrown out of office. The INC-Hazare version of Lokpal, the NAC drafted communal law all are tools to keep the levers of governance in their hands.

IndraD · Post by **IndraD** » 29 Jun 2011 01:34

conditional support to ramdev

looks like some selective reporting by toi. But Anna seems to be nervous, doesn't want to be driven out of delhi in a similar way. BRD must take lessons from what happened and endorse steps to defeat the literati media in its own game .

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 29 Jun 2011 02:16

IMO Ramdev's vision is lot bigger than AH's activism. AH is handpicked by vested interests, where is he is trying to repeat Gandhi in British hands...

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 29 Jun 2011 02:56

ShauryaT wrote
If his primary premise is that the people are sovereign and not any representative (government) and that the people have a right to agree/disagree to a "contract" then I have no fundamental disagreement.

Isn't it a chicken and egg situation? Most people are born into a contract, a contract that they had no role in framing - but their ancestors supposedly did. The very right to "disagree" comes from an "inherited" continuity with accepting that contract which recognizes their right to disagree. But the Constitutional claim itself is based on a basic inviolability clause that those who want to change it or reject it has to do along forms demanded by the very Constitution itself.

However, by way of a democratic constitution and polity, the people have agreed to constitute for themselves a republic. Moreover, the right to change the nature of this democratic republic is always there. Not only that, the means through which this right is to be exercised is there too. The case for a violent overthrow collapses due to these broad rights with the people to change as they see fit.

No problem with the claim. But the reality is that the Constitution is virtually unchangeable. The question that we fail to grasp is not whether the right of people to disagree is formally accepted or not. The question is about the Constitutional claim as to what form that disagreement must take. It is the form and method that matters. The method may determine to a great extent whether special minority [in terms of proportion] subgroups get to entrench themselves in the rashtrayia power or not.

Now, one may argue based on the fact that the original representation of the constituent assembly was not through democratic means and hence the enforcement of this constitution on the people is illegal is another argument that goes to the heart of the debate on a unitary versus federal structure. The Indian constitution wants to be federal but retains all unitary powers. A unitary structure, as inherited through the colonial construct of 1935 does not require such an endorsement of its states. This is the reason, why the central government retains all rights to redraw state borders and split states, which are there only for administrative purposes - in the eyes of the current constitution.

The original constitution formation was democratic but of limited franchise. It was subsequently not given to a referendum to full franchise. What we also fail to recognize is that constitutional "coups" can be quite effective in changing direction of national politics, and may make the process irreversible. Certain policies or steps once undertaken under an initial "constitutional" coup, may prove impossible to unravel in the future - because they create their own lobby and support groups entrenched and enmeshed into the power structure. We have two important examples of this in our own constitution - the "reservations" provision, and the special love lavished on "reforming the Hindu onlee" while leaving all exclusivist claims intact for the Abrahamic.

The argument to change this unitary construct to a federal structure is legitimate. The argument to somehow deny that this constitution and its laws does not apply to the "people" and/or "society" is like closing our eyes and saying, I was born today and hence start from scratch. This is not practical. The concept of sovereignty in the modern sense of the term is tied to a certain land area, on which an authority has exclusive domain rights. What the poster is saying is possible only through a violent revolution - to what end, I do not know but I will not support it and is highly UNLIKELY in India.

The problem is not about unitary or decentralized federal structure. Even in a greater devolution of powers to "states" - the unitary structure can be reproduced in the states. Each state reproducing the unitary dictator just like at the centre. The question is about the legitimacy of authority. The process by which this happens is a two tier process, at least in India. Here, people play with candidates on certain issues. Restrictions of time and space and resources always constrains the issues that are placed on the agenda at this first level. Moreover the sheer economy of the process, pre-existing entrenched interests, all collaborate to make it impossible for a broader base of candidates to come forward covering a wider variety of issues as agenda - issues which however would get dealt with by those elected from within the candidates.

This second game is played within the elected candidates, who are now given powers to dabble in issues that they had not really placed before the electors, and also opportunity to barter and bargain this elector given power - with other electors, for issues, agenda and outcomes not necessarily under the radar of the electors.

Thus election becomes a kind of gamble, and an attempt at trust that the elected will at least deliver on the limited agenda that they promised and will not take steps that even if not covered in the initial agenda will still not jeopardize the limited agenda in the long run.

However, electoral system also ensures that the elected can use their powers at the second level to bring off constitutional coups - bills/policies that become irreversible in their outcomes and harmful for interests of the elector.

The word Dharma is rooted in the word "stability" or to hold firm. A violent revolution is its anti thesis, unless it is against Dharma. The Indian civilization is a mature and humane civilization that one can find on earth. Violent revolutions are for people, who do not know, who they are and what they are here for and what is their destiny. India works as a democracy because of its Hindu ethos. Take these ethos out and then all bets are off. A solution to our structural issues, have to comply to this ethos anything else and the Indian people will reject it.

I am not sure you really want to say this. I also see no protest as yet from those who persistently bash any claims that "Hindu" lies at the base of the national consciousness! I think people should come clear as to the real stand they take on this. When it becomes a case of ascribing "slow growth" for the entire nation - the mile-high club of "patriots" start inserting "Hindu rate of growth" in every alternate line of their post - implying thereby that the dominant force/drive/foundation of the nation is "Hindu" onlee! Similarly we are now seeing the claim that Indian "democracy" is a "Hindu ethos based democracy"? Moreover that ubiquitous "Hindu ethos" is to be identified only when there is tossing of the idea of "violent overthrow" of the regime or the system or the "rashtra"? That overwhelming recognition of the "Hindu" however is to be trashed and bashed and mocked when it comes to giving special treatment to the non-Hindu or when the Hindu itself needs to be mocked for its claims on national heritage and foundation? India is a country of "immense diversity", apparently, where no single "community", faith-system is supposed to dominate or influence or stake a claim at control - and if at all - all competing religions have equal claim, regardless of their proportions.

Now why should Indian democracy be ruled onlee by "Hindu ethos" which has been declared to be "non-violent onlee"? Isnt that a direct attack on "Indian diversity"? Why should not Indian democracy be equally ruled by Islamic ethos - which says that Jihad to overthrow an "oppressing" regime is perfectly okay, or that a regime which appears to oppress/restrict/does not submit to the "faithful" must be overthrown if necessary violently? Or for that matter Christian ethos - which has traditions of reconquista or crusade for regimes seen to be damaging/alien/hostile to the "community"?

devesh · Post by **devesh** » 29 Jun 2011 03:22

we see all these arguments of "Hindu ethos" defined as "peaceful and mature" and "non violent," and also as this "Hindu ethos" being the guiding force, only when a Hindu baba of mass following takes to the streets. in all other cases, "Hindu ethos" is non-existent or a "propaganda" perpetuated by "reactionaries," and "saffron brigade."

the glaring hypocrisy is astonishing to any unbiased observer and shameful on those who perpetrate it. suddenly now "hindu ethos" becomes the guiding force. and surprise-surprise -- "hindu ehos" is "mature" and "peaceful."

A_Gupta · Post by **A_Gupta** » 29 Jun 2011 03:58

The idea that a person, on one and the same day, may bow his head to Shiva here and to Allah there, and whisper a prayer to the Virgin Mary elsewhere, without anyone finding it weird, and without that person become Wajib-ul or other type of cutlet - is a very Indian. This idea of non-interference/indifference to the other's religious practice as an element of daily life, not just as a government policy is, IMO, the key part of the ethos, call it Hindu or something else.

devesh · Post by **devesh** » 29 Jun 2011 04:14

^^^
"Hindu ethos" is being used to justify the meekly existence of majority population. it is not about justifying genuinely secular behavior. it is about justifying biased anti-majority actions under the garb of secularism.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 29 Jun 2011 04:22

^^^Unfortunately, that is a modern claim and representation. It implies tolerance for anything and everything, especially atrocities coming from other religions - along the lines of certain propaganda lines given out by MKG for example - onlee to "Hindu" riot victims from Bengal. but massively OT. I only pointed out the absurdity with respect to discussions on democracy as continuing on this thread.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 29 Jun 2011 04:50

It is an interesting angle on BR though! I think, solidly on the lines of the previous persistent drum beat about the relevance of his supposed anti-gay position and supposed cross-dressing. Now additionally we also have evidence on his fondness for "female company" and "lingerie" and "western brands". What does it make him now - a bi-swinger TG? A club should be formed of all those who see male and female genitalia and hidden sexual inclinations onlee, specifically in symbols ascribed to Hindus or figures associated with Hinduism. It would be illustrious and illuminating too. I have a hunch that the club members will have interesting sexual tendencies in common too.

Anna Hazare ji should be included in this scrutiny too. I am sure his taste for the belt and leather and flogging would come in for interesting analysis. I am searching for, but not yet found, the alleged "turgid" scifi novel supposedly written by Prashant Bhushan as cited by Tehelka. Turgid - "swollen and distended" or "tediously pompous". I am curious as to which meaning was intended.

As for BR's supposed rendezvous with lingerie and females, can we have the date and time please? This can be checked with his schedule. Not that I mind at all if he really went there and did what he allegedly did. Suppose he did it really. Let us see how important it is for a thread on corruption.

First of all, he is supporting or recommending a secondary layer of clothing below the outer one. If he is committing a crime against anti-corruption, he is then hiding that which should not be hidden and must come under public scrutiny. So this implies that women's attempt at putting extra clothing hiding their erogenous zones is a form of corruption that hides things that should be open to public scrutiny and comes against transparency in public life by associating with female company in public.

Second, he is not observing rules required of public servants [isn't he a public servant by his aiming to serve the people] in dealing with female company. He should follow well-established precedence and procedure as in say N.D.Tewari, or Dhirendra Brahmachari (as alleged by Mathai) and deal with such female company in the privacy of his bedroom where all official rules and procedures can be properly employed - and here again he is breaking rules and committing crimes against anti-corruption.

Maybe the new belt-wielding Lokpal chair should make it the first item of business once he is installed? Or could the leather belt be taken as an icon of the Lokpal authority - like the Speaker's mace?

Manish_Sharma · Post by **Manish_Sharma** » 29 Jun 2011 04:54

hulaku wrote:
His personal lifestyle has not betrayed any hint of indulgence or opulence.
From the above post.

Couldnt help it.

A couple of months back saw Baba along with some women followers buying Lingerie at Debenhams at the Ambience Mall in Gurgaon. Saw it with my own two eyes.

Just another Baba I had thought

What is this? Somebody else may post on the lines of:

On my way to munich I stopped over at zurich and went to letchieruitaum bank or whatever, there I saw certain indian political party's leader talking to bank manager who said "don't worry, your 15 billion euros are safe with us nobody will know....." I saw my with my own two eyes and heard with both my ears, and everyone is supposed to just believe it? Great just great........

Pranay · Post by **Pranay** » 29 Jun 2011 05:22

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/indi ... 033338.cms

Anna Hazare on Tuesday said PM Manmohan Singh has kept mum on the issue of including the PM in the Lokpal ambit because "there is a remote control on him".

Speaking to reporters, Hazare said, "Personally, I don't think Manmohan Singh is scared to come in the Lokpal ambit. But then, there is a remote control on him. I recently wrote a letter to him asking him why he did not wish to come under the ambit of Lokpal. He did not reply to the letter. When I had met him, I had asked him the same question. I asked why a person like him who has a clean image and about whom people say good things did not want to come under Lokpal. He did not say a thing."

JwalaMukhi · Post by **JwalaMukhi** » 29 Jun 2011 06:43

brihaspati wrote: As for BR's supposed rendezvous with lingerie and females, .... Suppose he did it really. Let us see how important it is for a thread on corruption.

Bji,
Please do not throw a monkey spanner in the works of uber elite, who have managed the discourse for various communities for many many years. The uber elite have tried to be mullahs without the responsibility of being one. They have coached how and why the minorities have been shafted and being shafted by majority. They have coached grievances and how a good minority should behave and demand for his/her rights.

Now, they have turned towards hindu babas and are prescribing how a hindu baba should be. Poor, hungry, powerless, funless: in short be a village idiot so the baba can be object of ridicule for the uber elite.
Now, whenever the baba/babas deviates from being poor, hungry and powerless, that causes enormous takleef. Being opposite of that is the privilege and prerogative of uber elite. How come the baba is not a naked fakir without Nehru topi (Nehru cap), but is seen with a lingere? Tauba, tauba, please pass a fatwa on the baba soon.

Pranav · Post by **Pranav** » 29 Jun 2011 06:46

hulaku wrote:Just ruffled a lot of feathers here it seems.

And a lot of people here to be really sensitive about a crorepati Baba. Been called a Madrassa student, a mainovadi, an anti-Hindu in the matter of two posts. Keep going on.

You come up with a cock and bull story, and expect to be taken seriously? The problem is not with being a "Madrassa student" - it is a rabid form of idiocy that is the issue.

Pranav · Post by **Pranav** » 29 Jun 2011 06:56

Another humungous megascam - the 85,000 crore coal ripoff: http://articles.economictimes.indiatime ... government

We are losing track of all the Mainovadi bloodsucking.

Pranav · Post by **Pranav** » 29 Jun 2011 06:58

Centre shells out funds to NGOs in hurry, repents at leisure - http://www.vigilonline.com/index.php?op ... 5&Itemid=1

Pranav · Post by **Pranav** » 29 Jun 2011 07:11

I will talk to RSS: Hazare

Staff Reporter

Pune: In an observation that could raise the eyebrows, social activist Anna Hazare on Tuesday said he had agreed to talk to the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh after it approached him to extend its support to his anti-corruption movement

This was a step in getting the entire country together, and to create ‘one India' to fight corruption.

“The Sangh has sent a message, and I will definitely talk to them. This movement goes beyond religions, castes and political parties. I will also talk to Muslim and Christian leaders,” he said in an interaction organised by the Pune Union of Working Journalists.

http://www.hindu.com/2011/06/29/stories ... 741600.htm

ShauryaT · Post by **ShauryaT** » 29 Jun 2011 08:16

brihaspati wrote:
ShauryaT wrote
If his primary premise is that the people are sovereign and not any representative (government) and that the people have a right to agree/disagree to a "contract" then I have no fundamental disagreement.
Isn't it a chicken and egg situation? Most people are born into a contract, a contract that they had no role in framing - but their ancestors supposedly did. The very right to "disagree" comes from an "inherited" continuity with accepting that contract which recognizes their right to disagree. But the Constitutional claim itself is based on a basic inviolability clause that those who want to change it or reject it has to do along forms demanded by the very Constitution itself.

Not necessarily. The form itself can be changed, if a super majority (constitutional amendment) agree to such a measure. Now the heart of the question is, it is almost impossible to get a super majority of this kind, in the fractured and broken polity, we have and hence the need for some external events along with astute leadership would be required to propel meaningful reforms of laws and our governance structures.

No problem with the claim. But the reality is that the Constitution is virtually unchangeable. The question that we fail to grasp is not whether the right of people to disagree is formally accepted or not. The question is about the Constitutional claim as to what form that disagreement must take. It is the form and method that matters. The method may determine to a great extent whether special minority [in terms of proportion] subgroups get to entrench themselves in the rashtrayia power or not.

Well, virtually unchangeable, except 108 times! If there is political disagreement on core fundamental structures and its purpose, you are left with two choices. 1. Work with the system you have and seek to change it from within (Long, hard, not efficient, not satisfactory, full of compromises, etc). 2. Step outside the system and seek to overthrow it.

IMO, for good or for bad, option 2 is not an option in India and NONE of the political parties will endorse it. Yet, through circumstantial events and leadership option one can bring in meaningful and lasting reforms.

The original constitution formation was democratic but of limited franchise. It was subsequently not given to a referendum to full franchise. What we also fail to recognize is that constitutional "coups" can be quite effective in changing direction of national politics, and may make the process irreversible. Certain policies or steps once undertaken under an initial "constitutional" coup, may prove impossible to unravel in the future - because they create their own lobby and support groups entrenched and enmeshed into the power structure. We have two important examples of this in our own constitution - the "reservations" provision, and the special love lavished on "reforming the Hindu onlee" while leaving all exclusivist claims intact for the Abrahamic.

No doubt and yet, here we are - a "socialist" model of development virtually abandoned, a strong nationalist oriented main opposition in power in multiple large states and a diversified polity catering to every interest group possible - with some of them in power in some states. Evolution works in strange ways. What seems a tough road can change, at least that is my hope and prayer and god willing effort.

The problem is not about unitary or decentralized federal structure. Even in a greater devolution of powers to "states" - the unitary structure can be reproduced in the states. Each state reproducing the unitary dictator just like at the centre. The question is about the legitimacy of authority. The process by which this happens is a two tier process, at least in India. Here, people play with candidates on certain issues. Restrictions of time and space and resources always constrains the issues that are placed on the agenda at this first level. Moreover the sheer economy of the process, pre-existing entrenched interests, all collaborate to make it impossible for a broader base of candidates to come forward covering a wider variety of issues as agenda - issues which however would get dealt with by those elected from within the candidates.

This second game is played within the elected candidates, who are now given powers to dabble in issues that they had not really placed before the electors, and also opportunity to barter and bargain this elector given power - with other electors, for issues, agenda and outcomes not necessarily under the radar of the electors.

Thus election becomes a kind of gamble, and an attempt at trust that the elected will at least deliver on the limited agenda that they promised and will not take steps that even if not covered in the initial agenda will still not jeopardize the limited agenda in the long run.

However, electoral system also ensures that the elected can use their powers at the second level to bring off constitutional coups - bills/policies that become irreversible in their outcomes and harmful for interests of the elector.

I know what you mean but the root of the problem is the ability to get these type of sweeping things passed in the first place. In a federal structure and presuming that a federal government starts playing a limited role (only to the extent of those delegated by it constituent states), it becomes far more difficult for a government to make these type of sweeping changes, that can result in virtual constitutional coups. A limited role of government automatically acts as a check on the powers of government. At some level though the sovereignty of the people has to be vested into a common authority. I personally feel, in India, keeping this power with the states is at the right level. Further more, devolution of powers raise taxes and provide effective local administration, should further devolve to a third tier of governance at the district and city levels and then maybe a fourth tier, which will literally cater to your streets and is the interaction layer with the people at the Panchayat and Wards.

Legitimacy of authority is greatest the closer the government is to the people.

I am not sure you really want to say this. I also see no protest as yet from those who persistently bash any claims that "Hindu" lies at the base of the national consciousness! I think people should come clear as to the real stand they take on this. When it becomes a case of ascribing "slow growth" for the entire nation - the mile-high club of "patriots" start inserting "Hindu rate of growth" in every alternate line of their post - implying thereby that the dominant force/drive/foundation of the nation is "Hindu" onlee! Similarly we are now seeing the claim that Indian "democracy" is a "Hindu ethos based democracy"? Moreover that ubiquitous "Hindu ethos" is to be identified only when there is tossing of the idea of "violent overthrow" of the regime or the system or the "rashtra"? That overwhelming recognition of the "Hindu" however is to be trashed and bashed and mocked when it comes to giving special treatment to the non-Hindu or when the Hindu itself needs to be mocked for its claims on national heritage and foundation? India is a country of "immense diversity", apparently, where no single "community", faith-system is supposed to dominate or influence or stake a claim at control - and if at all - all competing religions have equal claim, regardless of their proportions.

Now why should Indian democracy be ruled onlee by "Hindu ethos" which has been declared to be "non-violent onlee"? Isnt that a direct attack on "Indian diversity"? Why should not Indian democracy be equally ruled by Islamic ethos - which says that Jihad to overthrow an "oppressing" regime is perfectly okay, or that a regime which appears to oppress/restrict/does not submit to the "faithful" must be overthrown if necessary violently? Or for that matter Christian ethos - which has traditions of reconquista or crusade for regimes seen to be damaging/alien/hostile to the "community"?

I have been saying this from day one, I have joined this board and am on good legal ground to say it that this country's ethos is primarily Hindu or Hindutva. Furthermore, I think our spiritual genius of a Dharmic civilization should be embedded in our preamble and the two inserts of the 42nd amendment discarded to make it a Sovereign, Dharmic, Democratic, Republic. ANY ideology, which is the anti thesis of these concepts of the preamble, ought to have no place in the polity of India, be it Marxism, Islamism, which in my view are totalitarian, exclusivist, discriminatory, unethical, claim to be complete and completed, lack spiritual and compassionate approaches and are violent war manuals against people, these should be suppressed, in a dharmic and democratic republic. If these proven characteristics are dropped by these ideologies, Hinduism will be the first to protect and welcome them, for whatever good they represent for its peoples.

India remains diverse because it is Hindu. However, such diversity has to follow a prime directive. In that, the same diversity that groups enjoy cannot use this "privilege" to work against its core principles. We would be fools to do so, as represented in articles 29 and 30 of the current constitution.

Faith is personal and there can be no bar on what your faith is. For every so called diverse group there are 1000's of such sub groups, within the vast ocean of Hinduism itself with a diversity that borders on being virtual contradictions. Yet , there are certain common humane pre-conditions between them, the prime among them being that they recognize the "right" of the other group to exist.

To build a nation-state however, we need more unity. This unity is essential so that this nation-state can serve the common needs of its constituents, the prime amongst these needs, is the need for security - especially against those who would be opposed to the principles of our preamble.

So, let there be diversity but this diversity has to be "in" unity. Nation building is a continuous work in progress and for India to thrive integration of its constituent parts into an assimilative culture that unites is the need of the hour. Some think, this new culture is deracination for they know in their hearts the the concept of a "multi" cultural nation-state is dead.

Dhiman · Post by **Dhiman** » 29 Jun 2011 08:17

ShauryaT wrote: A revolution could mean a drastic change, which I believe is what all of us want and could mean a violent overthrow and everything in between. If we discard the other extreme then most of us will quickly agree. Damn the English language

True, a revolution could be violent as well. To be more specific violent because a corrupt government subverting and abusing the rights and wealth of people would abuse the state security apparatus to violently crush not just a peaceful uprising, but even a peaceful protest. Isn't that the way violent revolutions usually start?

harbans wrote: I don't want it fixed in a life time or 10 years, i want it done by the weekend.

Don't mock me Sir.

Not realistic given the current corrupt government establishment. I am not joking when I talk about "revolution".

harbans wrote: Most of the reforms suggested for various ministries are already on the table.

I know, take the Jan Lokpal Bill for example, has been on the table for decades.

harbans wrote: It would take a few hours in Parliament to push them through maximum. I agree most of our politico's are old and have risen on the basis of status quo'ist positions. That rankles a lot of people as they feel changes don't come fast enough. That is completely true and even i am intrigued by the lack of pace of pushing policy reforms in.

This is what happens when the corrupt are running the system. They will delay the process as much as humanly possible because at the very least it allows them to redeploy, rearrange, and reinvest their ill-gotten loot before it is too late do so - you know for the benefit of their nalayak children who can't bear to sleep on the streets like like a major chunk of the population these idots pretend to govern.

harbans wrote: However i notice you want a change in Governance..and i assumed you imply 'revolution' in those terms. I too would like a change in Governance, but i am saying that happens through Reforms/ Policy changes.

Thats fine too from my side, but don't mind me while I attempt to instigate a revolution - to be followed by a massive witch hunt and open tribunal to put the corrupt in jail.

harbans wrote: I assumed good governance == good policy reforms being pushed in.

No Sir. It's never that simple. Please think in a more holistic sense.

Aditya_V · Post by **Aditya_V** » 29 Jun 2011 10:01

Pranav wrote:Centre shells out funds to NGOs in hurry, repents at leisure - http://www.vigilonline.com/index.php?op ... 5&Itemid=1

The article says the funds were dispersed urgently in 2007-10 period? When were the elections Held- May 2009.

Given the fact that has come to light before the TN elections that NGO/NGO workers were caught on Camera disbursing money to potential voters from poorer sections of society.

Is this a new tactic for Election Funding being used??

Arjun · Post by **Arjun** » 29 Jun 2011 10:55

Hi Shaurya, the issue you raise regarding appropriateness of the means in 'changing the system' is an important one. But is there any logical way to rationalize the non-usage of certain means, if the cause or end-goal is agreed to be of paramount importance? I am speaking in purely conceptual terms here - lets not look at things from an India prism.

The constitution and laws of a nation are supposed to be derived from certain universal fundamental rights and values. If due to whatever circumstance the fundamental rights and values are subverted - what means can and should the populace be allowed to have in order to restore these rights?

Anybody who has given serious thought to this matter has concluded that there are certain fundamental rights and values that are worth defending - without any restrictions on means. The founding fathers of the US debated on precisely the same matter - and reached the only logical conclusion possible - that the means cannot possibly be restricted if the situation is extreme and the directive fundamental values subverted.

I certainly think India is quite far from any situation calling for violent revolution - at the same time it is equally irrational to categorically rule out the possibility as one that would never apply to India or any given nation for that matter.

The flowchart or touchstone from my perspective would be - what is the end-goal or cause that is being fought for and how compatible is it with fundamental rights and values of the country? If the end-goal is an authoritarian system of governance, for example, it is obviously not compatible with basic liberal principles.

If the cause passes this test, the next question would be - is this a cause that can be fought for within the political system & inside the democratic framework of the country? The vast bulk of causes CAN indeed be addressed within the political framework and therefore there is absolutely no justification to go 'outside the system'.

But are there causes that cannot be addressed within the 'political system'? Again, it would not be logical to categorically rule out the possibility. When basic rights and values are subverted and the political system fails to deliver the right results, there may be a case for utilizing all possible means - AFTER all attempts have been exhausted for genuine redressal of the grievance by working 'within the system' within a reasonable timeframe.

The question could be, how is it possible for a democracy not to be able to address all issues of liberal rights within the system? And the answer - because there is some degree of distinction and difference between 'liberalism' and 'democracy'. There is a reason many countries use both these words ('liberal democracy' ) to describe themselves - democracy does not automatically imply liberalism. The founding fathers of the US were aware of this conundrum. Many aspects of the constitution are derived from 'liberal' principles that have precedence over and above 'democratic' vote.

An example would be - lets take the hypothetical situation that the percentage of Muslims rises to 30% spread evenly across India. Say Muslims demand that Sharia law be implemented as the basic law of India, not just for Muslims but across the board - and based on vote-banking and splintering of votes, certain parties include this as part of their policy. This is just a hypothetical situation - and one that is extremely unlikely. However the constitution must be robust enough to take care of all eventualities. The point is that there can exist the possibility of tension and conflict between 'liberal' principles and 'democratic' principles - and in such an eventuality its the former that has to have precedence.

If 'democratic' principles result in a conflict with the basic 'liberal' principles of this country - there could potentially be a case where obtaining redressal 'within the democratic system' might not be feasible.

Dhiman · Post by **Dhiman** » 29 Jun 2011 11:19

Arjun wrote:I certainly think India is quite far from any situation calling for violent revolution

I think so too and ALL objective observations point to the fact that Anna Hazare, Ramdev, et. al. are doing their best to stay within the constitution and the law by mounting peaceful protests in the best political traditions of this country.

At the same time ALL objective observations point to the fact that this corrupt government HAS and WILL abuse its powers to violently suppress a peaceful protest (let alone a peaceful uprising) as in the Ramdev case.

So when we talk about "violent revolution", what needs to kept clear is that the risk of violence here is from the corrupt government abusing its powers, but not from the people (who unlike the government have definitely shown responsibility).

Arjun · Post by **Arjun** » 29 Jun 2011 11:35

Dhiman wrote:I think so too and ALL objective observations point to the fact that Anna Hazare, Ramdev, et. al. are doing their best to stay within the constitution and the law by mounting peaceful protests in the best political traditions of this country.

At the same time ALL objective observations point to the fact that this corrupt government HAS and WILL abuse its powers to violently suppress a peaceful protest (let alone a peaceful uprising) as in the Ramdev case.

So when we talk about "violent revolution", what needs to kept clear is that the risk of violence here is from the corrupt government abusing its powers, but not from the people (who unlike the government have definitely shown responsibility).

The communal violence bill, the crackdown on Ramdev etc are strong indicators of an extremely unhealthy streak in this government - that is against the liberal principles that the country stands for.

One cannot rule out that a tipping point will be reached at some juncture, if this situation continues.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 29 Jun 2011 12:50

Let us never forget the "mother" of it all, literally as in the first scam which was so obviously pulled on the nation.

=====================

Trust BC to say the entire story in few pithy well expressed words. Now thats talking....

India’s tangled web of public deception on the nuclear deal with the U.S. unravels: My op-ed on myth of a "clean" waiver

http://t.co/ofl2V1w

More fundamentally, the deal has come to symbolize the travails of the Singh government—scandals, broken promises, malfeasance, poor public accountability, and the resort to casuistry to camouflage reality. The cash-for-votes scandal in Parliament set the stage for the other scams that have followed.

sumishi · Post by **sumishi** » 29 Jun 2011 13:12

From The Hindu:
India asked Google to block content critical of government June 29, 2011

Are Indians allowed to use the Internet to criticise politicians and officials? If Google's latest ‘Transparency Report' is any indication, the police in some States don't seem to think so. In the last six months of 2010, law enforcement agencies across India asked the web search company to remove YouTube videos and a blog “that were critical of Chief Ministers and senior officials of different States.” Google says it did not comply with these requests.

In all, Google received 67 content removal requests from India between July and December 2010, covering a total of 282 items. Six of these requests were from courts and the rest from the executive, police and others.

The search engine said that 22 per cent of removal requests were fully or partially complied with, and the rest declined. It also received 1,699 “user data requests” from the government — euphemism for the police wanting a peek into the search and usage habits of targeted individuals — and complied with 79 per cent of these. However, no details were given.

Giving the break-up of the “content removal requests” from India, the search engine said that of the 50 requests for removal of items from its web search, 15 pertained to defamation and 16 to national security. It was requested to remove one item from Google Images and two from Google Profiles which pertained to *****. From YouTube videos, the search engine got 199 removal requests.

A comparison of requests received by Google from other countries during the same period shows the number of content removal requests increased by 83 per cent from Argentina as compared to the previous reporting period.

While the number of user data removal requests from India increased by as much as 123 per cent, Australian requests went up by 72 per cent and Hong Kong's by 80 per cent.

From Italy, the search engine received a request from the Central Police for the removal of a YouTube video that criticised Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi and simulated his assassination with a gun at the end of the video. Thailand asked Google to remove 43 pieces of content “because they were mocking or criticising the king in violation of Thai lèse-majesté laws.” The company restricted Thai users from accessing these videos.

nikkap · Post by **nikkap** » 29 Jun 2011 13:48

symontk wrote: In the example you quoted above about car, I will add one more thing. If the Dist. Collector of your dist decides that all cars in the dist is required for national duty, he/she can do with that a simple signature of his/hers. You need drop your car (whether its a BMW or Maruthi) near the next police station

no Dist. Collector of my dist will only have authority over vehicles which are registered under MOTOR VEHICLE ACT of my state.if i am not in contract with my state nobody has authority over my car.

ShauryaT wrote: However, by way of a democratic constitution and polity, the people have agreed to constitute for themselves a republic. Moreover, the right to change the nature of this democratic republic is always there. Not only that, the means through which this right is to be exercised is there too. The case for a violent overthrow collapses due to these broad rights with the people to change as they see fit.

After ramlila maidan incident when I saw govt beat children & women I said to myself enough is enough it’s time to tell govt that their masters are back.

In plain English both of you agree that our relationship with govt is of master – servant then how can servant beatup his masters like ramlila maidan incident & moreover how can servant order his master to pay this tax & that tax because we agreed to it.GOVT exist by the CONSENT of the governed. Take away the consent & govt have no more authority over you this is the key & that is the point I am putting across. You think our forefather’s wil not give us a remedy when they designed the system. they must have thought what if people come face to face with a dictator type of govt at center then what is the solution.

Solution is take away your consent immediately you don’t have to wait 5 years for that.change the govt in 2014 is not the Solution we have to do something now need is now. Taking away consent means you don’t have to pay income tax , no more driving license/registration means traffic cops will not be able to challan/issue ticket to you just few examples.are you getting the picture here just stop feeding the system which turned out o be a oppressor/dictator.

You can do all this lawfully in court of record infront of a judge without any violence.govt will have no authority over you period this is soverginity.i know my culture from my childhood my elders has always told me help the needy,have compassion towards humanity & I know most of us got the same teaching this is the Indian heritage. ask people around you given the choice will they (1) pay taxes to this govt (which is corrupt & dictator in nature) or (2) give away this money as charity to someone in need.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 29 Jun 2011 17:27

ShauryaT ji,
you have missed the crucial point I made - that "constitutional coups" can have a pre-emptive role. I gave two specific examples - one that of reservations based on created/imagined subidentities and the other that of special protection of exclusivist claims of the Christian and the Islamic while "reforming" the Hindu. Once managed through the initial Constitutional coup - when all non-Congress [even Congress elements not licking Nehruvian boots] forces were practically eliminated from politics by a strange coincidence of selective repression and focused Islamist violence on regions most likely to challenge Nehruvian authority - these two things were done within the "legal/constitutional" framework you mention.

But having done that, it set up an irreversible process of hardening of new identity subgroups that helped to permanently fracture Indian polity, in its turn creating captive entrenched interest groups that have been successfully used by the Congress and allied Leftist forces to dominate the rashtra. You can see that even your "nationalists" cannot really challenge this fracture, and have been forced to talk the "Congress" talk of tolerance of "diversity" which really is not about diversity.

It is not diversity because these political forces which dominate the rashtryia apparatus - only selectively bashes the Hindu or perceived Hindu infrastructure, but never ever any bashing of the two proselytizing branches of the Abrahamic. You can even see that on the forum.

So constitution could be a form of a legal-pretension coup by a small subgroup that simply creates new fractions and sets in processes which are irreversible in the sense that they can never again really be challenged within the "constitution". In that sense it therefore may clash with democracy and democratic reflection of the values of a country or a civilization.

rajeshkathiriya · Post by **rajeshkathiriya** » 29 Jun 2011 17:32

http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/new ... 036915.cms

[quote][/quote]NEW DELHI: Dismissing talk that he is a "lameduck" Prime Minister, Manmohan Singh on Wednesday said he has been entrusted with the job by the Congress party from which he has not heard "any contrary view".

Terming the perception that his government had gone "comatose" and was "lameduck" as clever propaganda of the Opposition "to which some sections of the media had lent ear", Singh asserted that "truth will prevail" and his performance will speak.

Singh spoke of "maximum possible cooperation" that he was getting from Congress President Sonia Gandhi whom he met one-on-one every week. He had never felt that she was an "obstacle".

During a 100-minute interaction with five editors at his official residence, a relaxed Prime Minister confidently fielded questions on a wide range of issues including the talk that Rahul Gandhi should take his place, the Lokpal Bill, corruption and relations with neighbouring countries.

Sonia Gandhi had done a "superb job" as Congress President for nearly 15 years now, he underlined.

Asked about occasional statements from party functionaries that Rahul Gandhi should become Prime Minister, Singh said that the Congress Party and its President had entrusted him with this job and he had not heard any contrary view from the Congress high command.

"In fact, the Congress high command has always been most supportive, particularly Mrs Gandhi," the Prime Minister said.

He went on to add, "Personally, if you ask me, the general proposition that younger people should take over, I think, is the right sentiment". Whenever the party "makes up its mind I will be very happy to step down, but so long as I am here I have a job to do".

To a question about a possible reshuffle of his Cabinet, the Prime Minister said it was a "work in progress".

Asked if it could take place soon, Singh replied, "I cannot predict."

About Lokpal Bill, he said it was essential and desirable. The country needed a strong Lokpal although it is not not a "panacea".

He told the editors that he would try to find a way on the Lokpal issue and work for a national consensus. The government would reach out to the civil society but no group can insist that their views "A to Z" are the last word.

As for bringing the office of the Prime Minister under the purview of the Lokpal, the Prime Minister said that he has no hesitation in bringing himself under it.

However, many of his Cabinet colleagues were of the view that bringing the institution of the Prime Minister under Lokpal would create "an element of instability which can go out of hand".

In any case, the Prime Minister is covered by the anti-corruption act and is a 24-hour servant of the people, he said pointing out that a person holding that office can be removed by Parliament.

it is very sad that INC do not have any other capable leader than this.
PM's reply to just question regarding RG, and reply is only that he don't mind younger leader sucseed him, but sponsered media will project that MMS want RG as PM.
It seems question is fabricated and its projection also wheather it is told by PM or Not

IndraD · Post by **IndraD** » 29 Jun 2011 19:16

Anna to persuade Madam to include PM under faltu bill he is fighting for

OT..this lady's power is all pervasive and omnipotent.

rajsunder · Post by **rajsunder** » 29 Jun 2011 19:36

Pranav wrote:Another humungous megascam - the 85,000 crore coal ripoff: http://articles.economictimes.indiatime ... government

We are losing track of all the Mainovadi bloodsucking.

there is a minister responsible for this from Andhra Pradesh, who everyone knows before joining the ministry was about to go bankrupt. But all of a sudden after the first UPA term starts buying properties and making worthless movies. the rumor is that he made a lot of money while being in the ministry. BTW he was thrown out of ministry after 1st UPA term.

Manishw · Post by **Manishw** » 29 Jun 2011 19:43

From the link above:

NEW DELHI: The Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) on Monday accused the Congress-led United Progressive Alliance (UPA) government of corruption in the distribution of coal.

The BJP accused the Central government of causing losses to the tune of Rs.85,000 crore in the allotment of coal blocks between 2006 and 2009.

The UPA government had introduced the 'Mines and Minerals Amendment Bill' in 2006, which proposed auction in place of free allotment on first-come-first-served basis.
According to the BJP, witnessing the large rush for the auction, the government should have stopped the allotments till the successful passage of the Bill, rather than distribute the coal blocks to private parties.

Addressing a news conference in New Delhi, BJP leader Hansraj Ahir claimed that the Congress had indulged in financial malpractice in the process of allotting 73 coal blocks worth Rs.51 trillion to 143 private parties.

"The said coal is worth Rs.51 lakh crore. This is the real price of the 1,700 crore metric tonnes of coal that the government has given free of cost to the private companies. The government has indulged in corruption in distributing such a huge amount of the valuable resource to the private companies," said Ahir.

In a statement, the BJP revealed that 51 companies were allotted coal blocks in 2006, 19 companies in 2007, 41 companies in 2008 and 32 companies in 2009, at a rate of Rs.50 per metric tonne.

When calculated, the loss incurred by the exchequer due to the scam amounts to more than Rs.85,000 crore, the BJP claimed.

Ahir also criticized Prime Minister Dr. Manmohan Singh for allegedly 'facilitating' the scam, as he had presided over the Coal Ministry after the resignation of the then-Coal Minister Shibu Soren.

Singh was in-charge of the Ministry till Sriprakash Jaiswal took over in 2009.

Stressing on Singh's alleged culpability in the scam, Ahir demanded an explanation from the Prime Minister about his perceived involvement in the case.

"The entire scam has taken place under the supervision of the Prime Minister. Now he cannot wash his hands off the controversy by saying he was not aware, like he did in the telecom scam. The said transactions were carried out under the eyes of the Prime Minister, this is our party's allegation," Ahir said.

"So, we demand an explanation from the Prime Minister. Since this is not related to a ministry, he himself is involved in the case," he added.

Ahir wanted the Supreme Court to investigate the matter and urged the Comptroller and Auditor General of India to conduct an impartial audit into the case.

"Coal worth Rs.85,000 crore was sold at the rate Rs.50 per tonne to the companies. Corruption has indeed taken place. This is a very major scam by itself. This would be the biggest scam to have taken place since India's independence. We demand that the matter be investigated by the Supreme Court and a special audit must be conducted by the Comptroller and Auditor General of India ( CAG), so that people know how much money has been lost in the scam," Ahir said.
------------------------------------------------------------

Now who will investigate charges against Manniya PM or worse should he be in Tihar jail like Suresh kalmadi?

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 29 Jun 2011 20:43

Sanku wrote:Let us never forget the "mother" of it all, literally as in the first scam which was so obviously pulled on the nation.

=====================

Trust BC to say the entire story in few pithy well expressed words. Now thats talking....

India’s tangled web of public deception on the nuclear deal with the U.S. unravels: My op-ed on myth of a "clean" waiver

http://t.co/ofl2V1w

More fundamentally, the deal has come to symbolize the travails of the Singh government—scandals, broken promises, malfeasance, poor public accountability, and the resort to casuistry to camouflage reality. The cash-for-votes scandal in Parliament set the stage for the other scams that have followed.

NSG waiver was ambigous and India didn't care as the objective was to get out of Dodge. Now that the power plants come with Indian liability clauses the NSG cartel wants to interpret the waiver in their favor. However decade of 2010 is not 1970s. So relax and watch the nautanki.

The real scam was the Jeep purchases which started the process.

Manishw · Post by **Manishw** » 29 Jun 2011 20:55

rajeshkathiriya wrote:is a 24-hour servant of the people, he said pointing out that a person holding that office can be removed by Parliament.

The servant of the people ordered spines to be broken at midnight of a women leading to paralysis and has the temerity to brazen it out.With these fackers in power corruption in all forms is only going to grow.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 29 Jun 2011 21:17

Manishw wrote:From the link above:

NEW DELHI: The Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) on Monday accused the Congress-led United Progressive Alliance (UPA) government of corruption in the distribution of coal.

The BJP accused the Central government of causing losses to the tune of Rs.85,000 crore in the allotment of coal blocks between 2006 and 2009.
[...]
Now who will investigate charges against Manniya PM or worse should he be in Tihar jail like Suresh kalmadi?

We should look for constructive solutions and not look back into the past all the time [except when it is needed to justify proposed policy already decided]. We should replace coal power with nuclear power, since coal kills millions more people. Corruption cannot be tackled unless you have good policy. Coal is environmentally damaging corruption inducing commodity. It should be banned and dropped from use. Have a good economic or financial policy measure like raising the price of coal immensely. Why blame individuals for corruption if they are not connected overtly to "Hinduism"? Thats not a policy way to go!

sumishi · Post by **sumishi** » 29 Jun 2011 21:19

Manishw wrote:
rajeshkathiriya wrote:is a 24-hour servant of the people, he said pointing out that a person holding that office can be removed by Parliament.

The servant of the people ordered spines to be broken at midnight of a women leading to paralysis and has the temerity to brazen it out.With these fackers in power corruption in all forms is only going to grow.

The 24-hour servant gave media briefing to Typewriters today to try to shore up something which cannot be shored up.

Manishw · Post by **Manishw** » 29 Jun 2011 21:26

brihaspati wrote: We should look for constructive solutions and not look back into the past all the time [except when it is needed to justify proposed policy already decided]. We should replace coal power with nuclear power, since coal kills millions more people. Corruption cannot be tackled unless you have good policy. Coal is environmentally damaging corruption inducing commodity. It should be banned and dropped from use. Have a good economic or financial policy measure like raising the price of coal immensely. Why blame individuals for corruption if they are not connected overtly to "Hinduism"? Thats not a policy way to go!

Great sublime post B Ji, the hindu bashers would be experiencing massive 'Takleef'.

symontk · Post by **symontk** » 29 Jun 2011 21:41

Solution is take away your consent immediately you don’t have to wait 5 years for that.change the govt in 2014 is not the Solution we have to do something now need is now. Taking away consent means you don’t have to pay income tax , no more driving license/registration means traffic cops will not be able to challan/issue ticket to you just few examples.are you getting the picture here just stop feeding the system which turned out o be a oppressor/dictator.

You are welcome to take that step. Taking away consent means you are no longer an Indian citizen, which only means you need a VISA to stay longer in India

Even if you are US citizen, you have to follow traffic rules in India, no way out sir

VinayB · Post by **VinayB** » 29 Jun 2011 21:58

RamaY wrote:IMO Ramdev's vision is lot bigger than AH's activism. AH is handpicked by vested interests, where is he is trying to repeat Gandhi in British hands...

AH has mentioned 'remote control' a couple of times, so it is not entirely clear that he is in foreign hands. Unless that too is a CT

But as possibilities, there are atleast 4

1. AH is a conspiracy. Like candles following 26/11 and 'not politicize terrorism' chant that confused a section of people. But such CTs may not work all the time, and will not work with rural foliks if they dont turn into undie tv. After Nira tapes and given the line up in Tihar, it will not work as well as it did before.

2. BRD is a conspiracy. This can actually be pretty bad for main opposition. A new political party that has Hindu icons + anti-corruption. That is like about a hundred MNS

3. BRD is a nationalist campaign with chanakyas behind. A few days back there was a report in Hindu from a congress beat journo naming names.

4. AH is also part of this nationalist campaign. I personally like this possibility. If it is a nationalist campaign, this idea looks brilliant.

Manishw · Post by **Manishw** » 29 Jun 2011 22:04

FWIW
Just saw Anna and his band on T.V, conspicuous by his absence is so called 'Swami' Agnivesh who is a wolf in saffron clothing and a well known shilll for the INC.

In any case as long as the general awareness of the Indics keeps on rising of the horrors inflicted on them, I have no problem who is doing what since new laws etc IMO are useless.My only beef is attacking Indic beliefs.

nikkap · Post by **nikkap** » 29 Jun 2011 22:10

symontk wrote:You are welcome to take that step. Taking away consent means you are no longer an Indian citizen, which only means you need a VISA to stay longer in India

Even if you are US citizen, you have to follow traffic rules in India, no way out sir

yes you are missing one thing when you are not CITIZEN then you are one of the people of india in soverign capacity & nobody can revoke that. following traffic rules is somerhing different.Do you think if i deregister myvehicle & surrender my license does that give me an authority to jump red light & speeding no it doesn't. in common law it boils down to liability.all i am saying is that they have no jurisdiction over me to issue me tickets/impose their taxes force me to pollution certificate , buy insurance every year,wear selt belt etc. india has a two tier system ( republic under common law democracy under statue law) as you previously said earlier DEMOCRACTIC REPUBLIC.

joshvajohn · Post by **joshvajohn** » 29 Jun 2011 22:12

Nearly 121 central government employees, including one from CBI, are under Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) scanner for their alleged involvement in corrupt practices.

Railway ministry topped the list with 23 officials under CVC scanner, 17 are from DoT, 12 from Bureau of Indian Standards, seven from Central Board of Excise and Customs, six each from DDA and MCD among others, a CVC report said.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/indi ... 039593.cms

The solution to corruption is self-evident in the formula. If we reduce monopolies, reduce discretion and increase accountability, corruption can come down dramatically. Demonopolization of the telephony sector shows how corruption has been eliminated in retail telephony services. The filing of e-returns for income tax, automatic assessments and sending of tax refunds directly to assessee bank accounts is an example of reducing corruption through the elimination of human discretion. Seen through the filter of this formula, the positioning of a strong Lokpal within an overarching anti-corruption system is in increasing accountability.

http://www.livemint.com/2011/06/2921393 ... ducin.html

"We have received complaints about inordinate delays on part of banks in clearing loan applications. There have been cases when such delays have resulted in unfair practices," said a senior finance ministry official explaining the move behind the decision.

http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/new ... 032603.cms