The Jan Lokpal Bill, Anna Hazare, and Baba Ramdev

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 04 Jul 2011 20:47

^ perhaps they can find hidden Hindu wealth there

sanjeevpunj · Post by **sanjeevpunj** » 04 Jul 2011 21:46

You will find bones surrounded by gold ornaments perhaps.

Sushupti · Post by **Sushupti** » 04 Jul 2011 23:17

http://ibnlive.in.com//videos/164982/is ... money.html

Vishwabandhu Gupta was on IBN live with Rajdeep. Is there a message being sent to Dynasty?.

somnath · Post by **somnath** » 05 Jul 2011 07:16

Interesting history of "civil society"..

http://www.indianexpress.com/news/the-m ... y/812667/0

“Implicitly, there is a claim that it acts to represent the people, not just to produce accountability. That is a new and question-begging claim,” he says, because “for good or for ill, politics is the only process by which we can decide the representation claim.” Mehta also sees as worrisome the “non-negotiability” of the demands put forward in the name of civil society today —“If you don’t agree, I go on fast.”

This is worrisome...

sumishi · Post by **sumishi** » 05 Jul 2011 07:17

The Hindu: 05/07/2011
Supreme Court forms SIT on black money

The Supreme Court on Monday pulled up the Union government for not “showing seriousness” in bringing back black money stashed away abroad, and constituted a Special Investigation Team (SIT) to take steps to bring back unaccounted monies.

Passing an interim order on petitions filed by the former Union Law Minister, Ram Jethmalani, and others, a Bench of Justices B. Sudershan Reddy and S.S. Nijjar, expressed serious concern over the magnitude of the problem and the threat black money posed to the country's economy.

The SIT will function under the chairmanship of the retired Supreme Court judge, B.P. Jeevan Reddy.

The court directed the government to issue a notification forthwith regarding the appointment of the SIT and ordered that the government machinery cooperate with it.

Centre's view rejected

Writing the order, Justice Sudershan Reddy rejected the government contention that since a high-level committee (HLC) was set up there was no need for a SIT.

The Bench said: “The volume of alleged income-taxes owed to the country, as demanded by the Union of India itself, and the volume of monies, by some accounts $8.04 billion, and some other accounts in excess of Rs. 70,000 crore, are said to have been routed through various bank accounts of Hassan Ali Khan and Tapurias. Further, from all accounts it has been acknowledged that none of the named individuals has any known and lawful sources for such huge quantities of monies.

“All of these factors, either individually or combined, ought to have immediately raised questions regarding the sources being unlawful activities, national security, and transfer of funds into India for other illegal activities, including acts against the State. It was only at the repeated insistence by us that such matters have equal, if not even greater importance than issues of tax collection, has the Union of India belatedly concluded that such aspects also ought to be investigated with thoroughness. However, there is still no evidence of a really serious investigation into these other matters from the national security perspective.

“HLC insufficient”

“The fact remains that the Union of India has struggled in conducting a proper investigation into the affairs of Hassan Ali Khan and the Tapurias. This highly complex investigation has in fact just begun. The formation of the HLC was a necessary step, and may even be characterised as a welcome step. Nevertheless, it is an insufficient step.”

Besides the HLC members, the SIT will have the Director of Research and Analysis Wing as a member. The former Supreme Court judge, M.B. Shah, will be its vice-chairman.

Sushupti · Post by **Sushupti** » 05 Jul 2011 07:50

Modhwadia says Asaram speaks language of murderer and tapori

It seems controversial saint Asaram bapu is angry on Sonia Gandhi these days. Yesterday in Bhopal, when he was questioned about his recent remarks on Congress party’s President Sonia Gandhi, he said that the media exaggerates whatever he says. He further said that he never told Sonia Gandhi to leave the country. He added that he could live with snake, what big to live with Sonia Gandhi in the country.

Pinpointing again towards Sonia Gandhi, he added that if Sonia Gandhi suffers even a minor injury in her finger, then the ‘Madamvadis’ turn it into national sensation. But why were the ‘Madamvadis’ quiet when several women and children were lathicharged in midnight in Delhi’s Ramlila ground.

He also blamed that the ‘Madamvadis’ were responsible for thriving corruption and increasing prices. Asaram Bapu also said while talking to a newspaper that because of the lathicharge at Ramlila ground many women are still in the I.C.U.

Asaram bapu stated that Mahatma Gandhi started the ‘Hind Chhodo andolan’; such a protest should also be done against the ‘Madamvadis’. He said that English and foreign companies are ruining India.

When a local newspaper asked Gujarat Congress President Arjun Modhvadiya to react on Asaram Bapu’s remarks on Sonia Gandhi, Modhwadia was quoted as saying “Such language is used by Murderers and ruffians”.

Modhwadia was further quoted as saying that the Asaram Bapu’s use of words for Sonia Gandhi was not appropriate.” This is not the language of a Sant, but is of a ruffian or a murderer”.

http://deshgujarat.com/2011/07/04/modhw ... nd-tapori/

sumishi · Post by **sumishi** » 05 Jul 2011 08:01

^^ Nice term, ‘Madamvadis,’ a subset of 'Mainovadis'

Dhiman · Post by **Dhiman** » 05 Jul 2011 08:24

shyam wrote:
National Conference chief Farooq Abdullah sought to drive home the point that money is needed to contest elections. “Everybody needs money. Why didn’t political parties tell Ramdev and Hazare to go to hell?” he was reported to have said.

Can somebody explain the point that Abdullah was making ? Was he justifying corruption as long as it was for party purposes ?

What he says is that democracy has corruption built into it.

It means that if corruption is seriously investigated and curtailed, then the entire top political establishment of this country will collapse and go to jail. Corruption is deeply ingrained into Indian economy which will no doubt take a massive hit as well. Real estate will crash for sure (perhaps permanently) and along with that the stock market will take a massive hit. Many companies will go bankrupt and will be unable to sustain themselves.

However, the short term damage to middle class economy will pale in comparison to the longer term damage that corruption has been and will have if left un-prosecuted.

All this mumbo-jumbo regarding "policies" and "system" is a pure distraction towards preventing the corrupt from going to jail.

Pranav · Post by **Pranav** » 05 Jul 2011 09:03

Sushupti wrote:http://ibnlive.in.com//videos/164982/is ... money.html

Vishwabandhu Gupta was on IBN live with Rajdeep. Is there a message being sent to Dynasty?.

Gupta mentioned that as per the agreement signed with Switzerland, accounts that existed before 29th June 2011 cannot be investigated. He said this is linked to the recent surreptitious trip to Switzerland by the 2G's.

VinayB · Post by **VinayB** » 05 Jul 2011 21:10

Dhiman wrote: However, the short term damage to middle class economy will pale in comparison to the longer term damage that corruption has been and will have if left un-prosecuted.

All this mumbo-jumbo regarding "policies" and "system" is a pure distraction towards preventing the corrupt from going to jail.

It is a distraction, but there is more than going to jail.

in some TV debates, opposition parties used to be admonished for politicising issues - terrorism, price rise, inflation, kashmir - in all of this, the opposition was told not to politicise. Suddenly they are finding merit in the 'political process'

There is a simple test for those who are in it to distract. Which is -
1. do you believe there was corruption in 2G, CWG,
2. if you do, what do you think about cancelling licenses, and how do you think it should affect your voting choice in 2014.

if you hear 'mumble mumble yeddy yeddy', scoot.

vijayk · Post by **vijayk** » 05 Jul 2011 21:59

http://expressbuzz.com/opinion/columnis ... 90317.html

A well-scripted SMS circulated in the social networks describes the state of the nation under the Congress-led UPA rather eloquently. “Gandhis on silent mode, allies on mute, Digvijay in vibrator mode, voter outrage on speaker mode and governance is on call divert to SC.”

ShauryaT · Post by **ShauryaT** » 06 Jul 2011 02:56

brihaspati wrote:SC would be a good line of defense. Think of the likes of V.K.Iyer acting in the future too - not revealing their ideological colours while in chair, and masking their rulings in legal terms.

There are two issues with this approach. The history of our constitution is littered with examples of judges over reaching and an attempt to control polity, when their powers are strictly to interpret and read our laws. They get these vast lee ways in the first place because the laws themselves are badly drafted and are full of contradictions. From the first amendment, which amended article 15/16 to create exceptions for the "needy", to the 25th in which parliament empowered themselves to change any part of the constitution, to the draconian 42nd, repealed largely by the 44th. There are examples galore of a dance between parliament and the courts - as it should be. The answer to the 25th amendment by the courts was the Keshavananda Bharti case where the SC introduced the concept of a "Basic Structure" that cannot be amended. They did this without definition of what the basic structure is. Since then in the Minerva case, Nani Palkhiwala, expounded some points on what is the basic structure of the constitution but there is a fundamental issue - the constitution itself does not recognize such a basic structure. As it should not. Conceding to this point, is like saying there is a larger undefined super constitution somewhere, and judges will determine, when and how to interpret them. This is not how it works. Judges have the right to only adjudicate and interpret the laws of the land - as intended in letter and spirit. They cannot go on to make their laws for this is the privy of the peoples representative - the parliament.

If power corrupts, then absolute power corrupts absolutely as in evidence during RG's super majority leading to the over turn of the Shah Bano verdict, with the Muslim Women Act of 86 and the "impotence of member of parliaments". i.e: the ant defection law of 1985.

The answer lies not with the judges (no matter how good intentioned) but with the people and its leaders.

The second issue with the judges and relying on their ideological bents is for every Iyer or Sharma you get a Beg and Ray. It is the executive that appoints them.

Pranay · Post by **Pranay** » 06 Jul 2011 03:46

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/indi ... 118733.cms

NEW DELHI: The Enforcement Directorate has launched an inquiry against yoga guru Ramdev who claims to have a turnover of more than Rs 1,000 crore and lords over half-a-dozen trusts and businesses associated with them.

The agency is looking into complaints of violations of foreign exchange laws and suspected money laundering, a senior official said. The ED has already written to the corporate affairs ministry and the Punjab National Bank to provide transaction details of all business ventures associated with the yoga guru and his close aide Balkrishna.

A senior ED official said they had also started overseas inquiries to verify details of Ramdev's investments abroad and channels of his fund raising.

The ED probe comes less than a month after the midnight crackdown on Ramdev's supporters at Ramlila grounds here after he refused to call off an indefinite hunger strike demanding a commitment from the government to bring back black money stashed abroad.

somnath · Post by **somnath** » 06 Jul 2011 06:28

ShauryaT wrote:The second issue with the judges and relying on their ideological bents is for every Iyer or Sharma you get a Beg and Ray. It is the executive that appoints them

Not quite, the superior judiciary is appointed by, well, themselves...Its an eggregious situation, and hopefully the new Judicial Acountability Bill will address that..

But the question of "ideologically bent" judges is a bit amusing..We heard something similarduring Indira Gandhi's time, when the talk was about "committed judiciary" or some such...We saw what happened out of the effort - the current anomalous situation of judges selecting their own is at least partially a blowback of the Executive over-reach during those days...

As far as corruption is concerned, what matters is the financial probity, not ideological bent...An upright judge, of whichver ideological predilection, will look to uphold the law..So all the concern about ideologically motivated judges is a huge red herring in the discussion on tackling corruption..

ShauryaT · Post by **ShauryaT** » 06 Jul 2011 07:28

Somnath: I was referring to appointment of judges to the Supreme Court. It is governed by article 124. The government decides - pleasantries of consultations/advice of blah and blah notwithstanding.

somnath · Post by **somnath** » 06 Jul 2011 07:54

ShauryaT wrote:Somnath: I was referring to appointment of judges to the Supreme Court. It is governed by article 124. The government decides - pleasantries of consultations/advice of blah and blah notwithstanding.

Refer to the 1993 SC judgement on Art 124 - all powers of appointment of judges was taken over by the "Collegium"..the PResident has no option but to agree to the recos of the Collegium (she can return the recos once, but not a second time)...Ergo, the collegium decides, and there is not even a pretense of "consultations" et al with the executive...

ShauryaT · Post by **ShauryaT** » 06 Jul 2011 08:22

somnath wrote:
ShauryaT wrote:Somnath: I was referring to appointment of judges to the Supreme Court. It is governed by article 124. The government decides - pleasantries of consultations/advice of blah and blah notwithstanding.
Refer to the 1993 SC judgement on Art 124 - all powers of appointment of judges was taken over by the "Collegium"..the PResident has no option but to agree to the recos of the Collegium (she can return the recos once, but not a second time)...Ergo, the collegium decides, and there is not even a pretense of "consultations" et al with the executive...

124 still stays the same, no mention of collegium - there never was an amendment. Looks like the judges have made their own law and the parliament takes this lying down...thoo. Someone has filed a petition now called Suraz India Trust's writ petition. Thanks for the correction.

Arjun · Post by **Arjun** » 06 Jul 2011 08:40

Between judicial over-reach, and executive appointment of judiciary - its a moot point as to which is the lesser evil. One alternative is the US system - which is legislative oversight of Supreme Court appointments. At the least, it would provide an opportunity for parliamentary debate about a judge's track record which would provide for some transparency to the public.

Arjun · Post by **Arjun** » 06 Jul 2011 09:03

Interesting opinion-piece from the TOI- Give referendum a chance

Give referendum a chance
Ashish Tripathi

Many countries including European ones have used it to take public mandate on crucial issues. In India, it was used in Raigad, Maharashtra, for setting up a special economic zone in 2008. Now, I think, it’s time for India to introduce the provision of referendum in the Constitution to ensure public participation in major legislations like Lokpal, particularly in a situation where the ruling party is trying to dislodge the anti-corruption campaign by misleading people that only elected representatives in a democracy have a right to decide the country's fate.

It’s true that in a democracy people elect a government to govern the country but in elections there are a number of issues before people -- bijli, sadak, pani, poverty, education, unemployment, etc. While muscle and money play a crucial role in elections, voting is also done on caste, communal, lingual and regional lines.

Corruption as an issue loses relevance at the very outset as political parties use corrupt ways to grab power, reducing democracy to a vote bank arithmetic. Over 70% of the population of this country is poor, worst hit by corruption. Butsurvival is a bigger issue for them. They only see the means of survival (schemes like MNREGA or loan waivers) put before them without realising that the real reason of their poverty is corruption. Had it not been for corruption, the countless rupees spent since independence on social welfare schemes would have eradicated poverty by now. The middle class is both a perpetrator and a victim of corruption but a majority vote on caste, religious, lingual and regional lines. Many of them do not vote at all. The rich and the elite know that in today's corrupt system money rules, no matter who in the power. In such a situation, we need to have a system of referendum where every person can give his or opinion on a single issue like how to control corruption.

The provision of referendum will not only provide people an opportunity to be a part of the decision making process but also correct their mistake of electing a government which is not working according to the mandate. It will not allow the political parties (as Congress is doing at present) to make an excuse -- democracy is under threat -- to block a strong Lokpal bill for weeding out deep-rooted corruption. It will also help the country know whether people like Anna Hazare have mass public support or not. Also, the political parties in the opposition will be forced to take a clear stand over an issue like bringing the Prime Minister and Chief Justice under Lokpal's purview. At present, the opposition is taking advantage of the government's discomfort but has not made its position clear. Some may argue that a referendum can destabilise a government and force a mid-term polls if it goes against the incumbent. But even in such a case, the money spent on the elections will be far less than what the country is losing due to corruption.

A referendum will also facilitate ‘political education' of the people. They can be educated about the pros and cons of a particular issue and will decide what is right for the country. In a democracy, educating people about their rights and duties as well as on political and social issues is the primary job of political parties but they have failed to do so. In a referendum, people would not be voting on caste or communal lines to elect representative but giving their verdict on a particular issue. They will be in a position to counter politicians like Congress spokesman Manish Tiwari that it’s true that "The democracy faces greatest peril from the tyranny of unelected and unelectable" but the threat is not from team Anna. The real danger is from the unelected corporate cronies of those in power, corrupt bureaucrats, corporate dalals and the media ready to be manipulated. This lot of unelectable are subverting democracy in connivance with the elected representatives and plundering India.

I am talking about a political education which would enable an illiterate villager to question finance minister Pranab Mukherjee's statement in which he said "there is growing trend of undermining the democratic process and extra-constitutional authority might lead to complete collapse of democracy." He was referring to the institution of the Lokpal. Imagine an illiterate villager asking the finance minister about democracy within his party. Can backdoor entry of the Prime Minister through Rajya Sabha be described as truly democratic? What type of democracy it is which binds MLAs and MPs to vote in the legislative assemblies and Parliament as per the whip of their respective party? Why an elected representative is not free to air his or her views and vote as per conscience? Why political parties lack inner democracy? Why most parties work as family businesses? Why parties select candidates on winnability factor and not by their character and service to the society?

Sibal says that there will be a constitutional crisis if a sitting prime minister is chargesheeted for corruption by the Lokpal, which will destabilise the government and entire nation. Will Sibal tell the nation what happens when a prime minister dies while in office. A caretaker head of the government is appointed till an elected one takes charge. Gulzari Lal Nanda twice served as officiating prime minister of the country -- for 13 days when Jawaharlal Nehru died 1964 and again for 13 days when Lal Bahadur Shastri died in 1966. So, Mr Sibal, if a sitting prime minister is chargesheeted, which means that charges against him have been found to be prima facie true, he or she should resign. No crisis can be bigger than a corrupt person heading the government. Further, if a government loses trust vote in parliament, the Constitution provides for mid-term elections under a caretaker government. There have been several such mid-term polls in the country and in various states.

Union law minister Veerappa Moily says that the Lokpal as suggested by team Anna will create a government outside the elected government with no accountability to the people. Moily has perhaps forgotten that even in the present set-up, prime ministers, chief ministers, ministers, MPs and MLAs can be tried in the law courts for offences and judges can be impeached by Parliament. The Constitution provides for checks and balances. A similar arrangement can be worked out for the Lokpal. Parliament makes laws and the Supreme Court has been given the right by the Constitution to review the constitutional validity of the laws. Similarly, a judgment passed by the court can be overturned by Parliament by amending the law. Rajiv Gandhi did so in the Shah Bano case. And, it was Indira Gandhi who as prime minister refused to abide by the court verdict cancelling her election in 1975, leading to imposition of Emergency in the country. That was the biggest constitutional crisis India has faced since Independence.

Responding to Anna's announcement of a hunger strike if a strong Lokpal system is not formed by August 15, P Chidambaram argued that he has not heard that laws are made by fasting anywhere in the world. He should recall that the British rulers introduced separate electorate provision for dalits in the country. Gandhi was in jail then. He went on a hunger strike against the move as he felt that it would divide the Hindu community further as it was in the case of separate electorate for Muslims. The moral pressure mounted by Gandhi led to signing of Poona Pact between Gandhi and Ambedkar in 1932. The pact, which later became a law, prescribed reservation in the elected body of representatives. Though Gandhi saved the country from a crisis, Ambedkarites still call him a villain and anti-dalit despite the fact that Bapu did so much to awaken the conscience of the people to shun untouchability. On the other side, Bapu's campaign against untouchability made him an eyesore of upper-caste Hindus as well.

Sibal, Chidammbaram and Moily are leading advocates of India and are most vocal in describing the Jan Lokpal as a threat to democracy. I would like to make them remember an advocate whose ideology Congress claims to follow. In 1928, in ‘Young India’, Gandhi said "Corruption will be out one day, however much one may try to conceal it. The public can, as its right and duty, in every case of justifiable suspicion, call its servants to strict account, dismiss them, sue them in a law court, or appoint an arbitrator or inspector to scrutinize their conduct, as it likes". On limitations of parliamentary democracy, in ‘Hind Swaraj’ Gandhi wrote "An elected government should be working for the people without any pressure but we have seen that members of parliament are hypocritical and selfish. Prime ministers are more concerned about their power and party. They may not be taking bribes but are open to subtler influences and in order to gain their ends they certainly bribe people with honours."

In "Constructive Programme: Its Meaning and Place" in 1941, while supporting people's right to protest if elected bodies are not working as per public will, Gandhi wrote "We have long been accustomed to think that power comes only through legislative assemblies. I have regarded this belief as a grave error brought about by inertia or hypnotism... we think that all power percolates to the people from parliament. The truth is that power resides in the people and it is entrusted for a period of time to those whom they may choose as their representatives. Parliament has no power or even existence independently of the people...Civil disobedience is the store house of power. Imagine, a whole lot of people unwilling to conform to the laws of the legislature, and prepared to suffer the consequences of non-compliance. They will bring the whole legislative and executive machinery to a standstill. No police or military coercion can bend the resolute will of a people out for suffering to the uttermost."

Gandhi's observations makes it clear that public is supreme and not Parliament and people have the supreme right to appoint a Jan Lokpal to monitor the conduct of public servants (legislature, executive and judiciary). Going by Bapu's observations, it is also clear that Prime Minister Manmohan Singh might be honest, but by appointing corrupt ministers and overlooking corruption (taking excuse of compulsions of coalition politics) also amounts to dishonesty. Gandhi also said that in matter of conscience, law of majority does not apply, which means that if all the students in a class cheat in exam, it does not mean that cheating is correct and should be allowed to continue. Similarly, if parliament is full of corrupt members or leaders of political parties are corrupt, they will never allow a legislation for a strong Jan Lokpal. But, this does not mean that we should tolerate corruption and allow it to continue. In such a situation, it will be better to take a public opinion through referendum.

However, introducing the system of referendum will take time. The question is, how to make the government constitute a strong Jan Lokpal. For answer, I will again refer to Gandhi. In 1948, a few days before his death, he said, "Corruption will go when a large number of persons given to the unworthy practice realize that the nation did not exist for them, but that they do for the nation. It requires a high code of morals, extreme vigilance on the part of those who are free from corrupt practices and also have influence over corrupt servants. Indifference in such matters is criminal.” Gandhi also said that as are the people, so is their parliament. Hence, today we all need to come out in open and pressure the government and its arrogant ministers that people will not tolerate corruption any more. Many of us may not agree with Anna's working style but we should not allow our disagreement to become a tool in the hands of the UPA government to divide people and dislodge the formation of a strong Jan Lokpal.

Remember, monetary corruption is also behind communalism and casteism in politics and is responsible for criminalisation and commercialisation of politicians.

Chinmayanand · Post by **Chinmayanand** » 06 Jul 2011 11:58

Got this in mail :
------------------------------------------------

Subject: WHY IS CONGRESS SCARED OF GETTING BLACK MONEY BACK?

It took them an year to act against Raja, 6 months to arrest Kalmadi and 1 day to detain Ramdev!!
Irony is PM had TONS of Evidence to enforce arrests.detain RAJA and KALMADI and NONE against RAMDEV.
A civilian who tried hitting a minister (June 6th) with a shoe is sent to TIHAR JAIL IN A DAY.
And when 5000 Policemen beat up peacefully protesting civilians, Lathi charging them, the PM defends the action as NECESSARY!!
Sending a Person for hurling a Shoe in Tihar Jail. TIHAR JAIL!! in 14 day Judicial Custody!!!
and Ex Telecom Minister, Dayanidhi Maran against whom the CBI sent the following report to the Secretary Telecom for an alleged fraud of 440 crores in SEP 2007, He wasn't even questioned once in44 MONTHS, until the following article by S. GURUMURTHY.

SEE CBI REPORT: http://dinamani.com/Images/article/2011 ... letter.jpg

MR. GURUMUTHY's ARTICLE: http://expressbuzz.com/biography/centre ... 80258.html

One day to take action against Ramdev and that shoe guy.
And AFZAL GURU ( 2001 Parliament attack accused) whose DEATH PENALTY was upheld by Supreme Court is still alive. There govt. says, "His Mercy Petition is Pending!"

In a shameful irony, Now Enforcement Directorate is being directed to probe Ramdev.
The same ED which was questioned by Supreme Court for going easy on HASAN ALI ( $ 8 Billion tax offender) months back, where SC criticized the UPA's Inertia to investigate against Hasan Ali and said, " WHAT THE HELL IS GOING ON IN HIS COUNTRY! There are instances when minor offenders are shot down for violating section 144 CrPC, but you don’t take action against these people [black money hoarders]. We are very sorry. All these people [black money hoarders] are now free"

http://www.dnaindia.com/india/report_wh ... rt_1515201

WHY DID ED GO EASY ON HASAN ALI IS ANYBODY'S GUESS!!!!!

According to RAMDEV, "I was forced to give a letter of consent in the hotel during the meeting with govt representatives which said that I will call off my fast by June 6. ALL MY DEMANDS EXCEPT FOR BLACK MONEY WILL BE CONCEDED TO!."

[http://www.expressindia.com/latest-news ... on/799619/]

Welcome to the biggest DeMOCKERYcies in the world: INDIA

WHY IS CONGRESS SO SCARED?
The total wealth of both Gandhis, as per their election returns, is just Rs 3.63 crore, and Sonia owns no Car!!!!
May be that's why Pranab Mukherjee is so scared of making the names of Swiss Bank Account holders public!
Following are a few compelling reasons why Congress would go out of the way (including arresting people who stage peaceful protests) to make sure BLACK MONEY never comes back...

1. FIRST FAMILIES SECRET BILLIONS!
In 1991, The effects of License Raj, reached a Flash Point.
India’s fiscal deficit was 8.5 percent of GDP. The country faced a huge “Balance of Payments” crisis.
and was heading towards a default, and the Reserve Bank refused additional credit.
India had to mortgage its gold deposits to raise money from IMF.
In other words, Indian Economy stared at Bankruptcy.
Foreign reserves barely amounted to $ 1 billion. (only worth one weeks of Import)
At that time, RAJIV GANDHI HAD 2.2 BILLION DOLLARS IN THE SWISS BANK.
[SEE ANNEXURE 10]
When the countries, foreign reserves were a mere 1 Billion Dollars!!!!
RAJIV GANDHI had more than twice the amount in his personal accounts!!!
RAJIV GANDHI was rightly given the BHARAT RATNA for dwarfing the country’s reserves.. .How many of us can do that ?
For he literally had more Ratna’s in a personal account than the entire nations Forex Reserves!

Who was the beneficiary of all that amount after Rajiv Gandhi’s Death?
SONIA GANDHI

2. Gandhi Family benefited from the RUSSIAN SPY OUTFIT, KGB, says book
According to the archives of the Russian spy outfit KGB, Gandhi family has accepted political pay-offs from the KGB to fund their election campaigns in India, Infact they were regular recipients of KGB Money — a clear case of treason besides bribe.

SEE ANNEXURE 12: News Clipping from Times of India 27.6.92 and Hindu dt. July 4, 92 regarding receipt of payment by Rajiv Gandhi & family from KGB..

Dr. Yevgenia Albats, an acclaimed investigative journalist, appointed by then President Yeltsin to investigate KGB affairs, mentions in her book, The State with in the State : “A letter signed by Victor Chebrikov, then KGB Chief who stated : ‘‘The USSR KGB maintains contact with the SON of the Premier Minister Rajiv Gandhi (of India). R Gandhi expresses deep gratitude for the benefits accruing to the Prime Minister’s family from the commercial dealings of the firm he controls in co-operation with the Soviet foreign trade organizations. R Gandhi reports confidentially that a substantial portion of the funds obtained through this channel are used to support the party of R Gandhi’.”

Furthermore, In December 2005, KGB chief Victor Chebrikov had asked for authorization from the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, “to make payments in US dollars to the family members of Rajiv Gandhi, namely Sonia Gandhi, Rahul Gandhi and Ms Paola Maino, mother of Sonia Gandhi.”
The spokesperson defended such financial payments as necessary in “Soviet ideological interest"
Part of the funds were used by the Maino family to fund loyal Congress party candidates in the General Elections.
[SEE ANNEXURE 13]

3. BUSINESS CONNECTIONS of SONIA GANDHI ( Antonia Maino) with SADDAM HUSSAIN
The Maino family have had extensive business dealings with Saddam Hussein.
[See ANNEXURE-18]

4. ACCOUNT IN TAX HAVEN, CAYMEN ISLANDS
RAHUL GANDHI expenses and tuition fees, when he was at Harvard, was paid from that Cayman Island account.
[SEE ANNEXURE 17]

5. FINALLY 2G SCAM KICKBACKS
Here is a curious account of Dr. Manmohan Singh's behavior....
November 2007, The PM, objected to the Raja Model of not auctioning Spectrum and asked him to be transparent.
Raja: “I am only going by the policy (of the previous government) in force”

January 3, 2008 ( a month later), The PM, quite intriguingly, just ‘acknowledged’ Raja’s letter — virtually giving a go-ahead to Raja.

October 28, 2009, When CBI raids Raja’s Office, He retorts, “why should I resign? I had done everything in consultation with the PM”.

THE PM DIDN’T DENY THAT STATEMENT

Dr. Subramaniyam Swami writes to the PM highlighting the Fraud.

May 24, 2010, the PM admitted that Raja had told him that he was only following the policy laid down previously — virtually approving the fraud.

Dr. SWAMI writes again 5 times to the PM seeking sanction to prosecute A Raja (with sufficient prima facie evidence). NO REPLY!!!

FRUSTRATED BY PM's INACTION, DR. SWAMI MOVES TO SUPREME COURT

Nov 2010: SC asks why the PM took 11 months to respond to a request by Subramaniam Swamy that asked for Telecom Minister A Raja to be prosecuted for the 2G scam.

The PM’s OBJECTION in November 2007 turned into NO OBJECTION in January 2008 and finally became his APPROVAL in May 2010.
WHO MADE THE PM DO THAT IS ANYBODY'S GUESS!!
Where did that money go?? Not to the Prime Minister Relief Fund, I suppose.
So Mr. Mukherjee whenever you dodge the question of bringing the Black Money back to India by saying, " We have to respect International Commitments!"
Do INTERNATIONAL COMMITMENTS refer to commitment to your GODMOTHER SONIA GANDHI ?

PLEASE ANSWER A FEW QUESTIONS MR. PRANAB MUKHERJEE

1. Why did you reject Germany's open offer to give names?
In early 2008, Germany’s Intelligence bribed — bribed? Yes — an informant in LGT Bank in Liechtenstein and got a CD containing the names of some 1,500 tax dodgers, and raided half of them, who were its citizens. It also offered, free of cost, the names of citizens of other countries.
Many accepted the offer gratefully. NOT INDIA?
Why Mr. Mukherjee? Why did Indian Government not take the data when it was offered?????
Which International commitment would that have broken????
Instead you went on an signed a Tax Treaty with Germany which requires you not to disclose the names of the people.
Then you went and signed a pact with Swiss Bank in 2010, according to which, only the money which will be deposited post this treaty is signed can be gotten back..

http://www.deccanherald.com/content/928 ... cover.html

If Swiss Govt. is ready to give information on future dealings, why not past dealings???
Also Information for the same can’t be shared with anyone, not with Enforcement Directorate, not even the Parliament.
No wonder you want PM out of the LOKPAL BILL. SO THAT POWERS COULD BE CONTINUALLY BE ABUSED.

2. Why was UBS (Leading Swiss Bank) given an INDIAN BANKING LICENSE?
RBI was against giving banking licenses to UBS. ( One of the top SWISS BANKS which holds Black Money)
Because UBS bank had not helped track to track the alleged money laundering by Hasan Ali Khan.
Why was then the UBS granted a Banking License to operate in India in 2008?
Ironically enough, That was the first time since 2002-03 that RBI has issued a new licence to a FOREIGN BANK
What a great PICK!!!

At one hand you say, SWISS BANKS don’t cooperate with us, at the other hand you grant the BIGGEST OFFENDER an Indian Banking License..
What is going on Mr. Mukherjee ?
Should we not read between the lines? {No, if you do , you are communal and RSS agent}

3: KINDLY EXPLAIN THE SHAMEFUL SILENCE AT G-20
When, in the G20 preparatory meeting at Berlin, Germany and France were threatening to blacklist Swiss and other secret tax shelters (US eventually got the list by filing a Law Suit against the same bank, UBS) Indian representatives, Montek Singh Ahluwalia, along with Dr Rakesh Mohan, did not utter a word in support of Germany and France. India, a principal victim of banking secrecy, should have been leading the war cry against it.
So much for the promise you made before 2009 Elections. " That if elected we will bring back the black money in 100 days!!"
2 Saal to ho chuke hain!!!
This is how you betray the Indian Public.

ZERO TOLERANCE TO CORRUPTION OR ZERO CREDIBILITY
SONIA G has been vocal about Zero Tolerance to Corruption, “elect us, we will investigate into black money, UPA is committed to Zero Tolerance for Corruption".
Really? Let's look at the track record !!

1.KILLING KGB INVESTIGATIONS
Russian Government was ready to give all the documents citing your families, KGB connections, provided CBI gets a Letter Rogatory for which an FIR is a prerequisite. Why was CBI not allowed to file that FIR ???

2.HELPING BOFORS ACCUSED QUATTROCCHI ESCAPE LAW
In June 2003, Interpol found that Quattrocchi ( BOFORS accused) and Maria had two accounts, bearing numbers 5A5151516L and 5A5151516M in the London branch of the Swiss bank BSI AG with Euros three million and $1 million.They were frozen on CBI’s request.
British courts later repeatedly turned down Quattrocchi’s several appeals to de-freeze the accounts.

But, on December 22, 2005, the Congress led UPA government U-turned. H R Bharadwaj (Now Infamous Karnatka Governor), the law minister, got the additional solicitor general of India, B Dutta, to go to London to do the dirty job of releasing the amounts.

Then in 2009, UPA government had shamelessly let Quattrocchi off the hook by removing his name from global red alert. Because of the red alert he was always in danger of being caught and sent to India.

Why did the BOFORS accused, Quattrocchi got away eventually due to lack of a case is anybody's guess...
Why would the Black Money never come back now is anybody's guess..

A HUMBLE REQUEST DEAR FINANCE MINISTER
With Zero Expectations, I have a small request though Pranab Da, Next time when you are asked about why Black Money can't be brought back to India. Please don’t BULLSHIT us on National T.V with your answers like, " We have international commitments! We can't force a Sovereign Nation to give details..."
Say you DON'T WANT TO.
Because US and GERMANY GOT THE NAMES FROM THE SAME BANKS, BECAUSE THEY WANTED TO.
So please don't mislead people with technicalities.
.... for one, it insults our Intelligence!
and two, It looks like an obvious case of KISS ASS! Or as they say in Congress, "ITALIAN KISS"
and I say that with all due disrespect to you Mr. Pranab Mukherjee!!

WHY WAS BABA RAMDEV'S ARRESTED, AND PEACEFUL PROTESTERS LATHI CHARGED?
Ironically India's SARAH PALIN, Digvijay Singh had said couple of days ago, " If we were afraid of Baba Ramdev, We would have ARRESTED HIM!"
What is congress afraid of is any body's guess....

Furthermore, According to Subramaniyam Swamy : Sonia Gandhi ordered Home Minister P Chidambaram to act against Ramdev at 10.20 PM ( June 4) Saturday night saying "Show that half naked Mendicant, what sbe is!"

THANK YOU SONIA G FOR SHOWING THAT HALF NAKED, AND THE ENTIRE COUNTRY. WHO YOU ARE!

TO SUM UP, this is what happened...
Sonia Sonia.....Yes Baba ,
Doing corruption ..... No baba,
Having Black money ..... No baba,
Show me ur account ..... Bhaad me Jaa ..

YOURS SINCERELY,

REQUEST 1: CAN SOMEBODY PLEASE TRANSLATE IT IN REGIONAL LANGUAGES. OR IF YOU KNOW SOMEONE WITH THAT ABILITY, KINDLY MSG ME ON FACEBOOK.

P.S: Everyone is free to share this article on FB. If you choose to Email, Please don't copy paste the contents,
MAIL THE FOLLOWING LINK INSTEAD
http://www.facebook.com/notes/nitin-gup ... 7636763841
because the formatting of the Article is often lost in copy paste, also people don't bother to attach the requisite Annexures. So the Article becomes becomes less readable and less credible.
Futhermore, the articles risks misrepresentation in a copy paste formats!

-------------------------

sumishi · Post by **sumishi** » 06 Jul 2011 16:11

Chinmayanand wrote:Got this in mail :
------------------------------------------------
......

P.S: Everyone is free to share this article on FB. If you choose to Email, Please don't copy paste the contents,
MAIL THE FOLLOWING LINK INSTEAD
http://www.facebook.com/notes/nitin-gup ... 7636763841
because the formatting of the Article is often lost in copy paste, also people don't bother to attach the requisite Annexures. So the Article becomes becomes less readable and less credible.
Futhermore, the articles risks misrepresentation in a copy paste formats!
-------------------------

Well, the facebook link is unavailable!! What happened? Wrong URL, or complaints by kangres to FB citing "National Security" and blah..blah. OR does it need a login?

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 06 Jul 2011 17:02

Seeing "ergo" so frequently on the forum finally jolted my memory - "But I pray you, ergo, old man, ergo, I beseech you, talk you of young master Launcelot?" - Merchant of Venice, Act 2, scene 2. I remember most of the play, word by word. But what I finally remembered was the comment made by a well-known playwright who taught us, about why "ergo" was used so - by Shakespeare in the character of Launcelot - to point out and mock the fops who made a show of learning using "Latin" (this particular Latin is however vulgar Latin, a kind of 14th century crushing up of ex rogo) indiscriminately to impress less fortunate folks.

The casual use of "ergo" where "therefore/hence" would have sufficed reflects a peculiar tendency of people who are crusading overtly -as to where things are really wrong with the whole debate about corruption. The tomfoolery about "upright" judges upholding the law regardless of "ideological bent"- is of a similar casual use of terms and "linguistic" expressions without having any real comprehension of what the terms really mean or imply in this context. The statement of a law is of necessity incomplete - because it cannot foresee all the possible ways and eventualities where it might be called upon to be applied. Hence in modern court systems, [and even in pre-modern ones] there is inevitably an accumulation of elaborations/precedences/case-examples/clarifications pertaining to a particular "law" - which have to be/are taken into account [hopefully] by the judges. But that very process indicates that the judges have a space in which they can freely interpret and subtly add to or change the direction in which that accumulation takes place.

It is here, that the hidden ideological affiliations of a judge will come to play. A judge can interpret a law in favour of Maoists out of a variety of reasons - and could come from both extremes of ideological bent, sympathy in one case and guilt in another. It could also come out of hatred of the preceived ideological affiliation of the apparent opponents of the Maoists. The way some judges and some court decided to define "Hinduism" as "tolerance centric" in a way that amounts to declaring it tolerant of everything and anything thrown at it - where no such statements issue from the same divine and sublime sources on Islam or EJism - is significant.

The logic that often seems to be emanating out of the topmost layer of sublime judges - have very strange analogies - which often border on enforced syllogies. "If a person has works of Gandhi at his home that does not necessarily make him a Gandhite - hence carrying works of Mao does not make one a Maoist". The thing is that this sublime logic fails to notice that keeping Gandhis works does not rule out the person being a Gandhite. Using that both-possibilities argument is at best an analogy when compared to the maoist context. But the sublime brain has made it into a syllogy - by selecting only one of those possibilities as the first premise, and using that first premise to justify the second premise.

It has been argued on this thread before - that what one person does/states in not directly related areas, for example BR's apparent position on homosexualism or cross-dressing or his extensive trusts - is most important in assessing that persons behaviour/motivations in other areas, in this case corruption. By the same logic -not an analogy or syllogy, what the judges have already shown in their logical profile is highly significant for potential effects of ideological affiliations.

As has been pointed out by me elsewhere, about "arming tribals" may lead to "tribals turning against the state" logic being peddled - is significant. I would have expected the sublime to not be so conscious of distinctions of "tribals" and "people" and use the word "people". Moreover by giving such statements they also reveal an underlying thought process that can only be interpreted as a perception of the Indian rashtra being anti-people and can only maintain itself in power by keeping the people unarmed and physically defenceless against rashtryia violence. If this is the thinking - it does speak of serious problems of "ideological bent".

The judiciary are not really mediators between the people and the rashtra, especially where relations of power are concerned. A mediator cannot be part of any of the sides it mediates between - whereas the judiciary is a wing of the rashtra. This is what the judiciary revealed in their comments about tribals turning against the rashtra. The judges should not be allowed to worm their way into domains of power that is only a matter of direct negotiation between the people and rashtra.

Sushupti · Post by **Sushupti** » 06 Jul 2011 20:24

Airbus's secret past

India ink
What about cases where police have carried out investigations? In March 1990 India's Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) filed a first information report (FIR). It was investigating allegations that Airbus had bribed highly placed public servants and others to induce Indian Airlines (IA) to order its aircraft.

In March 1986 state-owned IA had ordered 19 Airbus A320s, worth $952m, with an option for 12 more, later exercised. This was despite the fact that, when IA set up a committee in 1983 to recommend replacement aircraft for its ageing Boeing fleet, the A320 was not considered—it had not then been launched or flown. With approval from the Indian government, IA had in July 1984 paid Boeing a deposit for 12 Boeing 757s, large narrow-bodied aircraft.

Several civil servants and IA officials were named in the FIR. One name not on the list was that of Rajiv Gandhi, India's prime minister in 1984-89, who was killed in a bomb explosion in May 1991.

How has the CBI's investigation progressed in the intervening 13 years? Hardly at all, despite the hounding on public-interest grounds of the CBI in Delhi's High Court since 1998 by B.L. Wadehra, an anti-corruption lawyer based in Delhi. The Economist has examined the publicly available court documents—the CBI's status reports on its investigation are secret— from Mr Wadehra's litigation.

These papers allege, first, that in October 1984, weeks before Mr Gandhi, a former pilot, succeeded his mother, IA received an offer from Airbus for A320 aircraft, a smaller and less expensive plane than Boeing's 757. It required urgent attention. Second, that in November, the aviation ministry gave IA just three days to appraise the offer for Mr Gandhi's office.

Much later, in 1990, Indian Express, an Indian newspaper, reported a leaked manuscript note which showed that Mr Gandhi had decided at a meeting on August 2nd 1985 that IA “should go in for Airbus A320 aircraft”.Rajiv Gandhi decided in 1985 that Indian Airlines “should go in for Airbus A320 aircraft”. His correspondence file on the deal mysteriously vanishedMr Gandhi's correspondence file on the deal mysteriously vanished. The court papers show that civil servants reconstructed 29 pages of the missing file for the CBI by obtaining copy correspondence from government departments. Remarkably, this task took seven years—and even then the reconstruction was only partial. After the green light from Mr Gandhi, approvals from IA and government bodies were a formality. For instance, the IA board approved the Airbus order at a meeting on August 30th 1985, which started at noon. The quality of the analysis presented to the board on the competing offers was pitiful. The board considered only one criterion—comparative fuel efficiency. Even for that, the data were incomplete. The A320 with the engine chosen by IA had yet to be tried and tested anywhere; provisional data only were included in the report for Boeing 737s “since no technical data supplied by the company”.

But Boeing had not been asked for any. This was because two hours before the board meeting, at 9.50am, IA's managing director, who is named in the FIR as an alleged recipient of kickbacks, received a letter from Richard Elliott, then Boeing's regional sales director. Boeing offered to supply up to 35 of its 737 aircraft, its narrow-bodied rival to the A320, with a discount of $5m per plane. This would reduce IA's investment in new planes by $140m, stated Mr Elliott. IA's board brushed the offer aside on the grounds that “if Boeing was [sic] too serious...they [sic] could have made the offer earlier”.

The Delhi court has a withering opinion of the help Airbus has given the CBI. It allowed Mr Wadehra to add Airbus's Indian subsidiary to his action on the grounds that Airbus in France was not co-operating. Airbus told Mr Wadehra that French law forbade it from answering his questions. “[Airbus] sells its aircraft on their merits,” the firm insisted.

The court has castigated the CBI for its dilatory approach. It took the Indian authorities until 1995 to contact Airbus for information, only to be told that such requests should be routed through the French government. The CBI told Mr Wadehra, despite trying Interpol and diplomatic channels, it was not getting any help from the French government. The French embassy in Delhi in effect told Mr Wadehra to get lost when he wrote to ask why France was not co-operating.

Mr Wadehra's case is now topical. This is because in March last year, IA's board approved an order for 43 Airbus planes, worth around $2 billion. The order now needs government approval. However, in September 2000, the Delhi court ruled that the Indian government should not approve further purchases from Airbus until the CBI had obtained the information it wanted from the French.

The upshot of the IA story is that no serious attempt has been made to establish whether or not Airbus paid kickbacks to Mr Gandhi and associates. The CBI has not answered our written questions.
http://www.economist.com/node/1842124?Story_ID=1842124

Chinmayanand · Post by **Chinmayanand** » 06 Jul 2011 21:23

VinayB · Post by **VinayB** » 06 Jul 2011 22:24

brihaspati wrote:... The statement of a law is of necessity incomplete - because it cannot foresee all the possible ways and eventualities where it might be called upon to be applied. Hence in modern court systems, [and even in pre-modern ones] there is inevitably an accumulation of elaborations/precedences/case-examples/clarifications pertaining to a particular "law" - which have to be/are taken into account [hopefully] by the judges. But that very process indicates that the judges have a space in which they can freely interpret and subtly add to or change the direction in which that accumulation takes place.

It is here, that the hidden ideological affiliations of a judge will come to play.

Splendid.

One should read through the judgments on reservation to appreciate this.

One could argue that in corruption cases, there is less room for interpretations, but in cases that involve higher levels of Government, that does not look all that certain.

rajsunder · Post by **rajsunder** » 07 Jul 2011 00:50

Chinmayanand wrote:Got this in mail :
------------------------------------------------

Subject: WHY IS CONGRESS SCARED OF GETTING BLACK MONEY BACK?

P.S: Everyone is free to share this article on FB. If you choose to Email, Please don't copy paste the contents,
MAIL THE FOLLOWING LINK INSTEAD
http://www.facebook.com/notes/nitin-gup ... 7636763841
because the formatting of the Article is often lost in copy paste, also people don't bother to attach the requisite Annexures. So the Article becomes becomes less readable and less credible.
Futhermore, the articles risks misrepresentation in a copy paste formats!

-------------------------

This one forgets to mention the licenses given to 4 Italian banks to set up in India

ShauryaT · Post by **ShauryaT** » 07 Jul 2011 05:34

Arjun wrote:Between judicial over-reach, and executive appointment of judiciary - its a moot point as to which is the lesser evil. One alternative is the US system - which is legislative oversight of Supreme Court appointments. At the least, it would provide an opportunity for parliamentary debate about a judge's track record which would provide for some transparency to the public.

One of the key things lacking in the Indian system is a clear separation or a formal means of oversight and concurrence by Parliament ,over the executive. Further more, the system has become such due to a combination of vote banks, the level of education/impoverishment of the electorate and some laws, such as the anti defection law - the power of MP's has greatly reduced. Parliament itself has become redundant and it is reflected in the level of debate on bills and a sense that what they do in Parliament - does not matter in the real world. In the real world, what matters is how they manipulate the local population and hence towards that bills such as the NREGA, the upcoming food bill and MPLADS funds help a lot more than systemic reform. The level of apathy is so great that an external body such as the NAC has the responsibility for "drafting" bills and through the power and hold of the party a non-executive member of parliament (and this may not be so) can essentially dictate what will happen, when and how.

The ability to have an "appointed" executive further delegitimizes the immense power that our executive enjoys within our system, with little formal checks and balances. This executive in chair now is truly a "Prime Minister" not to the people, but to a monarch. The PM serves at the leisure of the monarch - and this is no insult, it is a self acclaimed fact. If Sonia Gandhi were to ever become the President, this monarch relationship would almost become dejure.

The way out is a separation and formalization of this separation of the executive and the legislature. An elected executive - even if through indirect means is a necessity. Legislature oversight and the power of the MP's needs to be restored (NCRWC had some provisions). An elected President is one way out. The Rajya Sabha should be turned into a body of intellectuals and my personal preference is for states to elect these men with some criteria laid by law. If this body provides a measure of equality between large and small states then, it will go a long way towards building some equity and balance in the system.

What Brihaspati ji says about "laws" will always be open to interpetation will always remain true. There will always be judges who will read the same law and come to different conclusions based on the law, context of a case, attitudes of society and previous judgments. Not only that, one can almost guarantee their views will change with time. Ideological affinity will always be a criteria in appointment - but in our case it looks like the Judges have usurped a critical part of the contitution that establishes the making of laws the exclusive preserve of the legislature in the current system and there is not even a whimper of protest.

Disclaimer: I live in the US and no doubt am influenced by the formal systems here and how they work. Wanted to put this out, before someone jumps on me.

somnath · Post by **somnath** » 07 Jul 2011 06:06

ShauryaT wrote:One of the key things lacking in the Indian system is a clear separation or a formal means of oversight and concurrence by Parliament ,over the executive

Actually barring some notable exceptions (intelligence being the most eggregious one), there is now a very large degree of legislative oversight over executive decision-making...The Parliamentary sub-committees, by all accounts, do a pretty effective job...(The ones on defence, for example have been scathing in the treatment of the Arjun tank by IA - arguably leading to its induction, finally)...

The real gripe is not lack of powers with the legislature, but its unwillingness to use them..With the Parliament being shut down on myriad issues, often pretty trivial, the level of accountability imposed on the executive is diluted...MPs argue, not completely without merit, that most of the work gets done in the sub-committees, that are not sht down when the Parliament is..

ShauryaT wrote:The ability to have an "appointed" executive further delegitimizes the immense power that our executive enjoys within our system, with little formal checks and balances. This executive in chair now is truly a "Prime Minister" not to the people, but to a monarch

Thats IMO a gross misrepresentation...SG isnt a "monarch", she is the leader of the party with the mandate - INC went to polls as SG as the leader...Whether we like it or not, they were returned to power, with an increased majority...The issue is whether the PM has "full" authority in a manner that most PMs in history have had..The answer is perhap no...But the situation's hardly unique - we had the same situation with the Deve Gowda, Gujral as well as the rump Chadrashekhar govts - where the PMs drew their political legitimacy from another, third party source...

Its not ideal, but in this case - its a chicken and egg...Many people (incl here on BRF) had an issue with SG as PM (foreigner etc)...Now if she was to not be the PM, someone had to be "appointed" in that sense...It happened to be MMS...I think BJP and a lot of others missed a long term trick by creating that shindig in 2004...It would hav been much better to let SG becoem the PM and be exposed to the full glare of accountability..who knows, she might not have come out as well as MMS clearly did in UPAI - and results in 2009 could have ben different!

ShauryaT wrote:What Brihaspati ji says about "laws" will always be open to interpetation will always remain true. There will always be judges who will read the same law and come to different conclusions based on the law, context of a case, attitudes of society and previous judgments. Not only that, one can almost guarantee their views will change with time

For interpretations of the Constitution, yes, ideological considerations play a role...For criminal cases? On corruption? Not really..there have been bad judges, those suspected of corruption, but have never heard of a judge letting someone free on "ideological" grounds...If people remember, the Jain Hawala case against LKA was dismissed by a HC judge who was muslim - this was just a few years after Babri...

Lastly,

ShauryaT wrote:Ideological affinity will always be a criteria in appointment - but in our case it looks like the Judges have usurped a critical part of the contitution that establishes the making of laws the exclusive preserve of the legislature in the current system and there is not even a whimper of protest

It is an anomalous situation..But its only a reaction to what happened in the '70s and '80s - where the executive played with gay abandon..A balance has to be found - and the Juducial Accountability Bill attempts to do that...IMO, it should get rectified in the next 2-3 years...

somnath · Post by **somnath** » 07 Jul 2011 06:36

Another "civil society" perspective on Lokpal..

http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/a ... epage=true

1. A Lokpal at the Centre and Lokayuktas only to target high-level political and bureaucratic corruption. In this category, complaints would be investigated against the Prime Minister, Central and State Ministers, legislators, councillors and Grade A officers.

2. A strengthened Central Vigilance Commission to tackle corruption in the lower bureaucracy.

3. A judicial Commission and the enactment of an effective Judicial Accountability and Standards Bill to cover judges.

4. A separate Act to enable the setting up of Lok Shikayat Grievance Redress Commissions at the Centre and the States. The Commissions would, through a decentralised grass-roots mechanism, address complaints and grievances of the larger public.

5. A comprehensive Act to protect whistleblowers

Pranav · Post by **Pranav** » 07 Jul 2011 08:24

somnath wrote:Another "civil society" perspective on Lokpal..

http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/a ... epage=true

1. A Lokpal at the Centre and Lokayuktas only to target high-level political and bureaucratic corruption. In this category, complaints would be investigated against the Prime Minister, Central and State Ministers, legislators, councillors and Grade A officers.

2. A strengthened Central Vigilance Commission to tackle corruption in the lower bureaucracy.

3. A judicial Commission and the enactment of an effective Judicial Accountability and Standards Bill to cover judges.

4. A separate Act to enable the setting up of Lok Shikayat Grievance Redress Commissions at the Centre and the States. The Commissions would, through a decentralised grass-roots mechanism, address complaints and grievances of the larger public.

5. A comprehensive Act to protect whistleblowers

^^^ This move to exclude low-level officers is highly condemnable. As far as the common man is concerned low level corruption is at least as pernicious as high level corruption. As a people who lose 95% of government funds to corruption, we need a whole anti-corruption infrastructure, with at least as many staff and resources as the Income Tax department.

Dhiman · Post by **Dhiman** » 07 Jul 2011 09:41

Pranav wrote: as the common man is concerned low level corruption is at least as pernicious as high level corruption. As a people who lose 95% of government funds to corruption, we need a whole anti-corruption infrastructure, with at least as many staff and resources as the Income Tax department.

Sir,

An anti-corruption infrastructure already exists. That is not the reason why LokPal (an "independent" body) is being proposed. The reason why there is pressure to create an "independent" LokPal is because people have lost faith in government's ability to deal with corruption.

And the reason why people have lost faith in government is because there is a close nexus between corruption, politics, crime, and businesses in this country where the corrupt are running the show.

Governance in India slowly appears to be shifting into the hands of independent body such as Supreme Court and the proposed LokPal. There is also talk of making CBI independent. This is because people have lost faith in government and the government itself acknowledges that it can no longer provide "good governance".

Arjun · Post by **Arjun** » 07 Jul 2011 15:25

ShauryaT wrote:One of the key things lacking in the Indian system is a clear separation or a formal means of oversight and concurrence by Parliament ,over the executive. Further more, the system has become such due to a combination of vote banks, the level of education/impoverishment of the electorate and some laws, such as the anti defection law - the power of MP's has greatly reduced. Parliament itself has become redundant and it is reflected in the level of debate on bills and a sense that what they do in Parliament - does not matter in the real world. In the real world, what matters is how they manipulate the local population and hence towards that bills such as the NREGA, the upcoming food bill and MPLADS funds help a lot more than systemic reform. The level of apathy is so great that an external body such as the NAC has the responsibility for "drafting" bills and through the power and hold of the party a non-executive member of parliament (and this may not be so) can essentially dictate what will happen, when and how.

Good points, Shauryaji.

It also seems to me that the difference in quality of governance between the US and India is to a significant degree due to strong fundamental clarity in the US regarding the core values and freedoms that America and her constitution are mandated to defend. In this, the founding fathers of the US did an exemplary job that is partly the reason why America is in the pre-eminent position that it is today.

America as a nation is founded on right-wing liberal principles...which have 'freedom of choice', fundamental rights of individuals & 'checks and balances on unrestrained power' as key foundational principles. A key aspect of these principles is that these are easy to define, objective measures that lend themselves to a certain level of logic in the process of expanding from the directive principles to detailed constitution and further on to laws. On the other hand - if you look at India, there is a very strong element of left-wing ideals that have crept in - and principles like social justice, socialism, tolerance have been brought in - which are not only poorly-defined but also breed dichotomies that cannot be gotten rid of easily.

Unless some of the basics of what our directive principles are are addressed and the nation signs up to these principles like the US does today - any amount of supposed checks and balances between the executive, legislative and judiciary is not going to help. India will always be hampered by the lack of clarity on core values and national objectives.

Pranav · Post by **Pranav** » 07 Jul 2011 18:44

Dhiman wrote: Sir,

An anti-corruption infrastructure already exists.

It is fragmented, under-resourced, non-independent and inaccessible.

Pranav · Post by **Pranav** » 07 Jul 2011 18:55

Lokpal: Will you join Anna Hazare on August 16?
Published: Thursday, Jul 7, 2011, 11:00 IST
By Mayank Aggarwal | Place: New Delhi | Agency: DNA

Expressing doubt about the government’s intention in tackling corruption, Anna Hazare has asked the people of the country to take to the streets on August 16.

Team Anna has decided to distribute a four-page pamphlet in the next couple of weeks throughout the country, urging people to show solidarity with Hazare if they want a strong Lokpal by coming out on the streets.

“In the battle against corruption, if we miss this chance, we don’t know when the next one will come?” Hazare has said in the pamphlet. “My associates and I are ready to sacrifice everything.”

The veteran Gandhian has said that he would not flee if the government uses lathis or fires bullets at them in an effort to stop the agitation.

“Every person will be a Anna Hazare. They can arrest one Anna Hazare but will they be able to arrest 120 crore Anna Hazares? They can impose section 144 at Jantar Mantar but can they impose it across the country? I must tell you that the police and army support our movement.”

Hazare has recounted how traffic policemen encouraged them on June 8, the day Team Anna went on a token fast at Rajghat. “Will you take a day off and come out on the streets on August 16?” he has asked. “This time the country would wait for August 16 and not 15.”

He said that his team did not want a change in the government but a changein the system. “We want an India free of corruption,” he said.

http://www.dnaindia.com/india/report_lo ... 16_1563100

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 07 Jul 2011 19:17

Dhiman wrote:
Pranav wrote: as the common man is concerned low level corruption is at least as pernicious as high level corruption. As a people who lose 95% of government funds to corruption, we need a whole anti-corruption infrastructure, with at least as many staff and resources as the Income Tax department.
Sir,

An anti-corruption infrastructure already exists. That is not the reason why LokPal (an "independent" body) is being proposed. The reason why there is pressure to create an "independent" LokPal is because people have lost faith in government's ability to deal with corruption.

And the reason why people have lost faith in government is because there is a close nexus between corruption, politics, crime, and businesses in this country where the corrupt are running the show.

Governance in India slowly appears to be shifting into the hands of independent body such as Supreme Court and the proposed LokPal. There is also talk of making CBI independent. This is because people have lost faith in government and the government itself acknowledges that it can no longer provide "good governance".

Which should also make it clear that - the power of governance is cleverly being shifted into institutions which are unelected, and which therefore actually go even further out of potential control by the people. Who populate these divine super-pure institutions ? people who think of themselves as sublime, who think that all people look up to them - elite factions who pretend or enlist popular grievance to surreptitiously worm into rashtryia power without facing administrative or economic duties and who will not sully their oh-so-pure hands with seeking popular mandate! This is the worst part of what we detest and accuse in so-called "forward caste" shenanigans or especially what we so frequently bash as "brahminism".

I had some sympathy for such institutional independence before. Seeing who are most active in pushing for such institutions, and what they leak out from time to time as to their inner thought process - these are people who think of themselves as an extra-special breed, beyond us normal human beings, infallible, "sublime", stationed so high that all else look up to them, pontificating with arrogance dripping from each and every word that they utter - and showing the vacuous logical brain from every line that pours out of such sublimity.

In our hatred for a corrupt polity we are making the same mistake that led many societies to give power to fascists - and fascism is a phenomenon, which can be as Left as as it can be Right. Allowing the SC or the Lokpal more such status and unaccounted power, will lead to unraveling of the rashtra. If that is what is wanted, fine - but it will then go through a phase of fascism under self-bloated elite factions that will only increase people's suffering.

Pranav · Post by **Pranav** » 07 Jul 2011 19:41

brihaspati wrote: Which should also make it clear that - the power of governance is cleverly being shifted into institutions which are unelected, and which therefore actually go even further out of potential control by the people.

Best would be to have an elected Lokpal.

Another way in which people's control can be strengthened is to have a mechanism for putting proposals on the ballot for referendum, as can be at the state level in the US.

ShauryaT · Post by **ShauryaT** » 07 Jul 2011 20:04

Arjun wrote: Unless some of the basics of what our directive principles are are addressed and the nation signs up to these principles like the US does today - any amount of supposed checks and balances between the executive, legislative and judiciary is not going to help. India will always be hampered by the lack of clarity on core values and national objectives.

My view on the values and principles discussion is, it is not so much about these values being coded in to the constitution but more about the constitution being in line with the values and principles of society. Example: A Christian protestant value system is inherent in US society. However, not coded into the constitution. But, the constitution, laws and polity is not against this value system. In fact they cherish these values. It is not so much on what has been written but also what is called the "unseen" constitution. In fact many of these concepts do not have a clear definition as they probably never will for they are context dependent.

What we have to do is to first affirm what are these principles that we all cherish and share and want to live by. What is the role of government that we desire and will work best in the Indian context. What has happened in India's case is a deracinated elite took the principles and laws as they learnt from our colonial masters and forced it down the throat of the population, just like the colonial masters but with more compassion and freedoms. No wonder this entire thing has back fired, 60 years down.

We should be careful not to do this again. If we spend the next 10 years simply debating and agreeing to these principles, instead of this bill here and this bill that, it will be time worth the effort. The US constitution was debated for the first 11 years before adoption and it took nearly a 100 more years for the first 10 amendments (bill of rights) to be passed by all the states.

It will be good to list these principles of debate.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 07 Jul 2011 20:17

Pranav, An elected Lokpal would be a parallel govt.
Makes it a demockracy.

harbans · Post by **harbans** » 07 Jul 2011 20:38

In our hatred for a corrupt polity we are making the same mistake that led many societies to give power to fascists - and fascism is a phenomenon, which can be as Left as as it can be Right. Allowing the SC or the Lokpal more such status and unaccounted power, will lead to unraveling of the rashtra. If that is what is wanted, fine - but it will then go through a phase of fascism under self-bloated elite factions that will only increase people's suffering.

Brihaspati Ji, thank you for saying something i have gone hoarse saying the last month or so. Some of my postings, stressing the possible dangers from almost a month ago:

It thus becomes important also in that context to question the credentials or at the bare minimum the public figures that take the name of removing corruption on what they seek really. That does involve the agenda's of their institutions/ villages they run/ their view on defining corruption and going about it.

We also don't want people to ride on the disgust people express and force in backward policies at some stage. Hitler came in power in Germany early 30's exactly on German peoples disgust at the Treaty of Versailles.

That's exactly how Hitler came into power. Riding on German outrage at the treaty of Versailles. Rest we know what happened in Germany. I mentioned the danger of this dangerous train of thought riding on the outrage and bringing changes that may set the country back decades. These are exactly the type of dangerous sentiments being given a free ride here too now.

If such people demand changes in legal structures, sure i and others do want to know what the **** they stand for. That's how some dictators have ridden into power, on the power of rhetoric and some genuine grievance people have.

I have already mentioned that the need is for people to be more specific. If some one is sitting and making a demand from the Government. Me and a billion others would like to know what is being demanded. What specific changes are being sought, how they intend going about it at least in some detail/ specifics. This is a very basic requirement.

All from separate posts almost a month back.

ShauryaT · Post by **ShauryaT** » 07 Jul 2011 20:41

Let me add to my post to provide an example, for which I will probably be skinned alive on the forum.

One of the reasons, I respect PRC of today (but painful how they got here) is they are not so emanored by western systems - names and sound bites notwithstanding. They seem to have found a balance, between the form and role of government their society is comfortable with. This balance is not perfect but is a study of its own in terms of how and why their society accepts their current form of governance. Once we go past the criticisms borne from the deracinated mind and see Chinese society for what they always were and the role that governments played in this society, you will start to appreciate their situation.

What we have to do is to come to the same balance. A balance borne out of values and principles and forms of governance that will work best for OUR society, in light of our own history and lessons thereof.