Delhi and why Mr. Deb is so off the mark!

(Bias Declaration : Staunch BJP supporter and member. Unwavering loyalty to Sri. Narendra Modi. Nationalist) 

Since Sri Narendra Modi came to power as the first democratically elected Prime Minister of India, I have had the misfortune of reading a plethora of biased propaganda driven articles. Some were ridden with liberal propaganda. Some with pure venom. The one in question here however, is neither. It doesn't reek of hatred or propaganda. What it does reek of, is unbridled misinformation and sarcasm gone horribly wrong. 

Mr. Sadipan Deb, in this ill researched article riddled with terrible retort, has made some swooping assumption, baseless allegation, and downright ridiculous analysis that I wish to refute. 

(Link to original article : http://swarajyamag.com/politics/delhi-polls-bjp-needs-to-decide/ ) 

1. The two sides of BJP. Versions or sides of the same coin? 

"In the Delhi assembly elections, the two sides of the BJP met head-on, and the better side lost." 

Here, Mr. Deb, like many others has drawn an eloquent contrast between BJPs Development and Hindutva agenda. The question it pegs is ofcourse, are they mutually exclusive? or are they just different sides of the same coin. 

To understand this, we will have to go back about a year in time. 

During Lok Sabha 2014, the appeal of Narendra Modi was a conundrum to many. He ignited a fresh ray of hope of a different developed India. But is that all he offered? His appeal was not merely of a forward looking development oriented leader, but that of a development oriented Hindu leader. 

That Sri. Narendra Modi focussed on the development plank for the greater part of his campaign is a given. But, if we look at BJPs Lok Sabha manifesto closely, the issues of Ram Temple at Ayodhya and the Implementation of Uniform Civil Code are etched as the two blaring pending Hindutva issues. (Though calling UCC a hindutva issue is erroneous, since all personal laws would be abolished. However, it has been one of the greatest demands of the right wing)

During his campaigning, he vehemtly attacked the UPA regime over its meat export policies, specially in relation to Cow Slaughter. 

NDA got 159 seats in 2009 Lok Sabha, and 336 seats in 2014 Lok Sabha. Assuming that the entire swing in seats is solely owing to the development plank or the hindutva plank is a huge error. An unprecedented majority, with the largest seat wing in history, has to be a culmination of the two pronged road map that BJP offered. 

Now, in 2015, if anyone is assuming, that elections are going to be won only based on development is either fooling themselves, or is undeniably someone who wants to see the BJP lose, and lose miserable (As in Delhi). Compromising either agendas, be it development, Ram Mandir, UCC, or cow slaughter, is like signing a death warrant for the party. These two planks are not mutually exclusive, but mutually indifferent agendas, that have to be met in parallel. 

Other than the electoral aspect, I have a bone to pick with the author as he implies that focusing on the Hindu agenda, means writing off the development plank. I would love for Mr. Deb (or anyone else who holds the same view) to explain to me, how focusing on Ban on Cow slaughter, or UCC, or the Ram Temple would affect the development of the Nation? How would it effect police reforms, agriculture revolution, infrastructure etc? 

Mr. Deb also talks of all the Hindutva driven controversies that BJP seems to be getting into since coming to power. Im assuming he is refering to 

1. Religious Conversions 

2. Have x number of children 

About Religious Conversions : 

BJP has made its stand extremely clear. That it respects and honors every religion in the country. And to protect the religious rights of every individual, an Anti Conversion Law is an imperative. What astounds me, is that all opposition parties and our liberal media, wants BJP to stop Gharwapasi. But at the same time, they are conveniently mum on issues of Conversion to Islam and Missionary conversions in India. Surprisingly, it took Gharwapasi (Later found false) to get the entire liberal mechanism to start talking about the troubles of forced conversions and conversions due to incentives, intimidation etc. This can be attributed either to Hindu Hatred, or Minority Appeasement. But basically it just has "the stench of a rancour that can only come from a deep-seated inferiority complex masquerading as swinging dicks" To assume that the average BJP voter that gave it a thumping majority isn't aware of this shameless pandering is underestimating the voter. 

About having x number of children: 

I think its ridiculous. I as a hindu woman would never fall for that nonsense. But, the current TFR of Hindus being substantially lower than Muslims is something that can't really be ignored in the larger interest. Is this the solution that elected representatives should talk about? Absolutely not. Also, let me be a liberal for a moment. If all the imams and other religious leaders have Freedom of Expression why doesn't a Hindu Sadhvi? I thought we were a nation that values equality? In all this talk of equality, I wonder the quantum of protest from the liberal community when Dr. Manmohan Singh said that "Muslims have the primary right on the nations resources". I wonder if that statement was less damaging to the nation and its secular fabric than the Sandhvis comments. 

One of the things that costed BJP some votes in Delhi 2015 Vidhan Sabha, is that BJP became all about innocuous statements on Hinduism and delivered nothing as far as hindutva is concerned. There was no progress on any of the Hindutva poll promises. That's what is costing BJP more than these statements. 

BJP needs to simultaneously deliver on its promises of Hindutva, and Development. Choosing one will lead to a poll disaster as in Delhi. As also, for Atal Bihari Vajpayee who unfortunately traded cultural nationalism for liberal appreciation. Anyone suggesting otherwise, is akin to a Kulkarni of the Modi Government. 



2. Vote Shift from BJP to AAP owing to Hindutva "Swinging Dicks" 



Now, If we were to take this allegation seriously, the underlying assumption would be that staunch voters of BJP who voted for them in hopes of development, deserted the party and voted for AAP because of (As Mr. Deb eloquently puts it) Swinging Dicks. Before I comment, I will present some numbers. 

INC Stronghold constituencies 

Number of votes in 2013

Constituency	BJP	INC	AAP	BSP	JDU
BADLI	31263	54372	31098
CHANDNI CHOWK	18092	26335	15312
BALLIMARAN	24012	32105	13103	16267
MATIA	6061	19841	18668		22737
OKHLA	23358	50004	23459	20392

Number of votes in 2015

Constituency	BJP	INC	AAP	BSP	JDU
BADLI	28238	37417	72795
CHANDNI CHOWK	18469	17930	36756
BALLIMARAN	23241	13205	57118	438
MATIA	9105	21488	47584
OKHLA	39739	20135	104271	696

BJP Stronghold constituencies 


Number of votes in 2013 

Constituency	BJP	INC	AAP	BSP	INLD
KRISHNA NAGAR	69222	26072	17498
BABARPUR	34180	29673	25723
NERELA	54622	26311	24031	31077
NAJAFGARH	54358	10633	22798	6618	44590
TUGHALAKABAD	34009	9781	12465	28063

Number of votes in 2015

Constituency	BJP	INC	AAP	BSP	INLD
KRISHNA NAGAR	63642	6189	65919
BABARPUR	40440	9916	75928
NERELA	55851	4643	96143	1662
NAJAFGARH	39462	8180	55598	1108	54043
TUGHALAKABAD	30610	4269	64311	2015

Now, a simple glance through the number of votes cast for BJP in INC and BJP strongholds itself refutes Mr. Debs premise. Except Najafgarh, in all strongholds BJP has managed to either increase its voters, or get away with an exceptionally minor drop. So the premise that the BJP voters have shifted en masse to AAP, is a falacy. 

What is remarkable however, that even in INC strongholds, INC voters have shifted en masse to AAP. In Okhla, a traditional ideological stronghold of INC and JDU, they have magically managed to decimate themselves. Specifically in Okhla, here's the catch. Shoaib Iqbal who fought from JDU in 2013, fought from INC this time. Managed to marginally increase INCs vote share. JDU however, in its stronghold did not field a candidate. NO CANDIDATE IN A CONSTITUENCY THEY USE TO WIN. Thereby shifting all its vote to AAP. Whether this is a coincidence or a grand plan, im too irrelevant to comment. But one thing I can say with absolute certainty. That AAP is the ideological mirror of the Congress by design or purpose. That makes the AAP victory a huge national event that can potentially effect politics on a national level, not just in Delhi. 

Having said that, to imply that the BJP vote bank shifted en masse to AAP is a fallacy of elephantine proportions. AAP is the Congress mirror sans the dynasty. And to understand its victory, we need to understand how Congress shifted its votes to AAP and how AAP wooed the young new voter. Not the ideological base of BJP which is by all means intact. 



3. BJP, a baniya party lost its staunch baniya voters to AAP



I'l come to the ridiculous baniya bashing in a moment. Before that, let me talk facts. 

PREDOMINANT BANIYA CONSTITUENCIES Number of Votes in 2013 Delhi Vidhan Sabha
Constituency	BJP	INC	AAP	BSP	JDU
ADARSH NAGAR	36765	25467	26842	5640
ROHINI	46018	13954	47890
SADAR BAZAR	33283	31094	34079
CHANDNI CHOWK	18092	26335	15312		7032
MOTI NAGAR	42599	25393	26578
GANDHI NAGAR	31936	48897	16546

Number of votes in 2015 Delhi Vidhan Sabha 

Constituency	BJP	INC	AAP	BSP	JDU
ADARSH NAGAR	33285	15341	54026	679
ROHINI	59866	3399	54499
SADAR BAZAR	33192	16331	67507
CHANDNI CHOWK	18469	17930	36756		0
MOTI NAGAR	45002	6111	60223
GANDHI NAGAR	43464	16228	50946

I hate to do this to Mr. Deb, but the fact remains that BJP has managed to increase the number of votes in it's favor in all the Baniya dominant constituencies. The vote swing in these constituencies has mainly happened from Congress to AAP and perhaps of the new voter (Aged 18 to 22) that accounts for the deficiency after voters migrated to AAP. 

Delhi saw many new voters in 2015 Vidhan Sabha Elections. Now, lets assume a new baniya voter goes and casts her vote for AAP. Would we attribute that vote swing to the "disgruntled baniya community" or the appeal that AAP has to the new voter? 

Going by the numbers, it seems like the loyal voter base of BJP in Assembly is intact. The only logical explanation can be a swing of the neo voter that BJP failed to tap. 

4. Ah! The draconian baniya and how he was bashed. 

I think I have managed to prove substantially that the loyal Baniya base of BJP was intact through the Delhi elections. Other than the electoral aspects, Mr. Deb has audaciously made certain distasteful, and downright WRONG allegations on the Baniya community. As a Baniya myself, I'm enraged enough to write a long winded article defending my community against this colossal stupidity. 

A) "These are people with narrow interests and a conflicted ethical construct and we hate paying taxes"

Other than reeking of the typical 1970's left liberal nonsense, this statement is downright insulting. If we talk about the ethical construct, Baniyas have traditionally been traders with a strong code of traders conduct. We generally sell goods and services, not our souls. Maharaja Agrasen did penance so his entire community would prosper. He was known to stand up against Animal Slaughter which the community (And BJP) opposes unequivocally. We are the main employment generators in the country and we treat our employees well. We value our families and our society. Our ethical construct Mr. Deb, is fine. I question yours for your questionable casteist comments. 

As far as narrow interests are concerned, we are nationalists. we have our "tentacles" in every conceivable industry that runs the WORLD. Not just the country. From production, to manufacturing to packaging to service industries. Not just business, we do exceedingly well in the professional streams as well. Ever wonder why so many baniyas are Chartered Accountants and lawyers? 

As far as limited interests and not paying taxes are concerned. Here's an interesting list of the top 100 marwari owned companies features in the Forbes 

Why don't you sir calculate the quantum of taxes paid by these companies. 

Consider this too, there are about 4.2 Million Baniyas in Uttar Pradesh and that Income Tax collected from UP averages Rs. 2964 Billion. You think if 4.2 MILLION BANIYAS refused to pay their taxes, the state would clock that average? No? I thought so. 

B) "They are all also devout Hindus, keeping utterly blameless people awake all night with their Vishal Bhagwati Jagrans (all-night musical devotional gatherings equipped with very powerful amplifiers; no one—and I mean no one—can sleep that night in that neighbourhood, unless you are stone deaf)."

Yes. Our Jagrans can be a pain in the neck for our neighbors. But unless you are surrounded by only Baniyas who take turns every day 365 days a year doing jagrans and keeping you awake every single day, I think you should cut down on your complaining. When you complain about our Jagrans, you will be expected to complain about how loud certain other communities are multiple times a day and I dont think you can do that. Its our faith. We do it once in a while. DEAL WITH IT. 

C) "Their weddings are a huge urban traffic issue (I suffered through it night before last, travelling through Ghaziabad, a city right next to Delhi, and part of the National Capital Region), because the groom, on a horse or in a horse carriage, is accompanied by a band, and scores of relatives, friends, well-wishers and unconnected drunks, who dance the last mile, taking up half the road—even if it is part of the Golden Quadrilateral of highways—and then they are met by the bride’s party who dance with them, taking up the other half of the road, thus bringing the GDP to a halt (trucks carrying stuff have to wait for hours), seriously subverting citizen rights (I want to get home to my family, but I can’t because Mahesh is marrying Pinky), and possibly causing many deaths (why should ambulances have a privileged status?)."

Yes. we love our weddings. we love our grooms on the horse. The band wallas love it (and get paid handsomely), our relatives love dancing like boneless amoebas, we welcome the unconnected drunks to dance with us because we aren't arrogant morons and the brides party dances with us because they know their daughter will be treated well. You are entitled to crib about it. But make sure you crib about Ganesh Chaturthi, Eid, Namaaz on the roads, Durga Puja et all. If you cant, leave us be. We contribute to the GDP heftily, and if it stops because of us for a few minutes, so be it. 

Also sir, CAUSING MANY DEATHS? The death rate per 100000 populations for road traffic accident has increased from 16.8 in 2009 to 18.9 in 2013. India accounts for about 10% road crash fatalities wordwide. That's TEN PERCENT WORLDWIDE. I couldn't really find any statistics titled "deaths due to baniya baraats". I would be incredibly obliged if you could send me a link. 

D) "Of course, Kejriwal hasn’t talked about the traders paying taxes, or about VAT. That would have scared the owners of Harbanslal Bangali Sweets, or Assured Male Child: Meet Dr Agarwal."

There are two issues that I have with this preposterous statement. 

1. Mr. Deb just said that Kejriwal hasn't spoken about traders paying taxes or VAT. If that's the case, why did the BJP loyalist Baniyas vote for AAP? Considering we were only interested in evading taxes by not voting for the task master Kiran Bedi. (A premise I have proved incorrect ofcourse) 

2. How in satan's name is taxes related to "Assured Male Child: Meet Dr. Agarwal"? If it isnt related, was it only your casteist Baniya hate that compelled you to write this nonsense? Considering that the highest Baniya population of 4.5 Million is found in Rajasthan and the sex ratio there is 928 with a abysmal literacy rate of only 66.11% in contrast to a place like Chandigarh where the Baniya population is substantially low with a high literacy rate of 86.05% and a sex ratio of 818? Female Foeticide is a widespread social evil. It is a crying shame that you used it to spew venom against one particular community (without merit I might add). 

5. The Kiran Bedi Factor 

Mr. Debs first mention of Kiran Bedi is when he says the following : 

The car crash happened on one of Delhi’s broad avenues, when Kiran Bedi was selected as the Chief Minister designate. 2015 clashed with  1001, when Mahmud of Ghazni made his first successful foray into Hindustan. Did Kiran Bedi represent the 22nd century? Not really. If she represented anything, it would be efficiency, competence, a no-nonsense approach to administration. Which has been pretty much Narendra Modi’s theme as Prime Minister.

And then when he said : 

The baniyas don’t want a Kiran Bedi. She would crack down tight on Inspector Raj corruption, but she would also be in hot pursuit of sales tax. They don’t trust a sardarni who went to the extent of giving a parking ticket to India’s Prime Minister (Indira Gandhi) and lathi charging lawyers. In Delhi, lawyers are also traders, they just dress differently.

Now, what he has said is so riddled with contradictions that I don't even know where to begin. Firstly, I don't even know who he is referring to as Gazhni. Because if its Kiran Bedi, he wouldn't later say that she represents efficiency, competence and a no nonsense approach. And if he in fact is, I wouldn't be too surprised since generally people have a ridiculous habit of being in awe of the muslim invaders. 

Having said that, was Kiran Bedi a right choice for BJP? Perhaps not. She might have been had the elections not been delayed so much and Bedi had got more time to connect with the neo voters and BJP loyalists alike. She was perhaps bought in too late in the game. And her elevation as the CM Designate might have disgruntled some senior members in waiting. It was a calculated risk, that clearly didn't pay off as expected. 

(I'm not going to dignify the rants on why the Baniya community didn't want Kiran Bedi as the CM. I think I have successfully established the authors Baniya hatred early on in the article) 

6. Disgruntled Central Government staffers: 

Now this is one point that I don't totally disagree with. Yes, many staffers were use to lolling around in parks, harassing citizens for trivial jobs, passing the grief around and yes, accepting bribes too. Sri. Narendra Modi has changed that. He indeed has deprived many government employees of their "lolling on grass in winter sunshine". 

My only concern is, in a place like Delhi with over 1.2Cr. Voters, how much of an electoral impact would the staffers voting for AAP really have? Considering that they aren't first time voters, and the BJP vote share stands intact, I can only assume that these staffers were either earlier voting for Congress and have now shifted to AAP, or, voted for AAP in 2013 in any way. Hence, this point in my very honest opinion doesn't exactly provide a plausible explanation to the BJP loss. 

Having said all of this, I'm dismayed to say that this article hasn't managed to provide even one plausible reason for the poll debauchery that BJP experienced in Delhi. 

As an amateur and a staunch BJP supporter, here are my pointers as to what could have gone wrong in Delhi for BJP: 

1. The delay in polling costed BJP dearly. It gave AAP ample time to campaign. Also gave the people enough time to forget the "Bhagauda Kejriwal" theater. 

2. Kiran Bedi was perhaps brought into the game a bit too late. She needed more time to connect with the BJP fence sitters and the neo voters. Also convince those who vote for Lok Sabha differently than they vote for Vidhan Sabha. Convince them that BJP would do as much good at the state level as at the national level. 

3. The MCD corruption and slow progress costed BJP dearly. 

4. The Development work that's being done at the center level is perhaps not being communicated to the nation appropriately. The opposition narrative is winning in this regard. The fact that inflation and food inflation is at an all time low. India is now officially the fastest growing economy etc is not reaching the last man on the ground. 

5. The hindutva plank is as important as the development plank. But BJP needs to control its motor mouths from making loud unnecessary statements and start the process on delivery of poll promises such as Ram Mandir, UCC etc. Atleast the discourse needs to start. 

6. Imports from other parties costs BJP. The average voter expected a "Party with a difference" and perhaps imports who are not ideologically rooted in the party hurt the party image. 

7. Boots on the ground. BJP needs to mobilize its cadres to connect with the last Middle class and Low income group voter. Mann Ki Baat et all is great, but nothing replaces on ground contact with core voters. 

8. The Main Stream Media is NEVER going to forward the BJP narrative. For example, BJP won a thumping majority in the Assam Civic Polls today. NOT A PEEP. BJP needs to stop falling for the MSM narrative and use alternate media more efficiently like it use to pre lok sabha. 

9. GET OUT OF THE OPPOSITION MODE. BJP needs to deliver on a few radical changes that it had promised its voters in essence. Perception matters. While working in silence for the country is excellent, the good needs to be communicated and few radical thoughts implemented to maintain perception. 

10. Lastly, BJP needs to deal with the fact that minorities are seldom going to vote for BJP. In its quest to get the minority vote, BJP shouldn't alienate its Hindu vote bank. Remember, Lok Sabha 2014 was won based on Hindu consolidation of votes. 

My final word to Mr. Deb. Sarcasm and retort is all well and good, but it has to be backed by facts to make an impact. Empty hate driven retort is baseless. 

P.S. I will admit I am no psephologist. I'm only an average voter and a Right Wing Nationalist. 

Vande Mataram. 

Thursday, February 12, 2015 7 comments

Let's talk facts Ms. Rajyasree !!

Bias Declaration: A strong NaMo supporter. Generally have strong opinions on “journalists” and “columnists” who consider their word to be the gospel truth though even a box of hair would be able to sniff out the arrogance and propaganda in half the things they write

The original article has been quoted in bold, and my subsequent rebuttal in black.
The link to the Original Article

It was a quiet peaceful day at work, when to my dismay I came across a moving piece that underlined the nuances of the relationship that Narendra Modi shares with his mother. Why someone would write such an article to begin with, is of course a matter of debate. Since his personal relationships aren't a matter of national concern and is in no way ANY journalists god forsaken business. I would however, like to focus on its content as far my my article here is concerned. The columnist in question here, very eloquently starts her soul stirring article with these lines :

“I’m assuming Modi-ji has not watched "Kabhi Khushi Kabhi Gham". Despite it starring his state’s brand ambassador, Amitabh Bachchan. Otherwise, he would have known that it’s all about loving your family. Or whichever remnants of it, you’re still speaking to. Call me old fashioned, but I’m of the belief that you must meet your parents often and you must try and make their lives as comfortable as possible, if you have more means than them. But it seems that Mr Modi doesn’t share the same sentiment as I do.”

Well, I have watched "Kabhi Khushi Kabhi Gham" and let me jog your memory just a tad bit. That movie was, if I recall correctly, about an adopted son, being a complete “Ehsaan Faramosh”. Abandoning his old parents, who did everything for him, for a random girl. It was about someone, who didn't meet his brother for years for his massive gigantic ego. And, it was also about a chauvinistic husband, who treated his wife like absolute dirt. Remember that dialogue.. “Bol Diya Na...Bas” So I truly don’t know what Rajyasree is implying or endorsing here by quoting that movie.

As far as PM MODI not sharing the same “old fashioned” sentiment as you my love, I would like to bring your kind attention to the oath the PRIME MINISTER OF INDIA has to take on induction :

"I, name , do swear in the name of God/solemnly affirm that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of India as by law established, that I will uphold the sovereignty and integrity of India, that I will faithfully and conscientiously discharge my duties as prime minister for the Union and that I will do right to all manner of people in accordance with the Constitution and the law, without fear or favour, affection or ill-will"

As I have highlighted in red (for your convenience of course) the PRIME MINISTER OF INDIA swears in the name of god, to do right to ALL MANNER OF PEOPLE. That is a duty, a little greater than meeting his mother on a regular basis. (Though I still don’t know how that is any of your business, but I like to indulge)

“This virtue though, seems to fall to the wayside whenever it comes to his mother. A mother who is 90-plus years old, frail, needs help to walk and lives away from Modi in Gandhinagar."

I find it staggering how the strongest believers in Feminism are the ones who conveniently paint a beautiful “abhla naari” picture of women just to suit their agenda. This time, its just a little worse since she has tried to paint the MOTHER OF THE PRIME MINISTER OF INDIA in that light. I for one, might not be a feminist, but I would personally whoop my sons behind, if he became the PM of the country, and left his job of you know... running the country... to help me walk.

Also, (though again.. none of my business), as a woman, I have always been proud of how well our previous generations still live with dignity. With lesser or more means. So when u, Rajyasree, say “give them a better life if you have more means than them” are you implying that

1. More money is necessarily equal to a better life? In which case, your world view is too narrow to be a writer, journalist, or a woman.
2. All the means that Mr. Modi has to his disposal right now, is HIS TO SPEND? In which case, you don't realize that it is of course the tax payers money and you don’t have the world view to become a writer or a journalist.

"Let’s revisit the last few times we’ve heard of her before and since he became PM. We got to see an extremely thin and not very mobile Hiraben taking an auto to cast her vote before the elections. Why did her son not provide her with a car? Did he not have the means to do so? Or did she refuse to take a favour from him? If it is the latter, I find it a little hard to believe because if I was her child I would have insisted that she take a taxi or hired cab whether she liked it or not. Parents are easy to arm-twist, especially when it comes to their safety. The video of the frail woman being helped out of an auto into the voting booth, while her son and his peers were zipping around in their fancy Ambassadors, was disturbing on many fronts. What it did underline was that she was someone who did not have much money, and definitely very little family support"

Oh my. This is going to need bullet points!

1. I find it strange that you can feel pity when the nation was feeling proud. The pride of a 90 year old woman, honoring democratic traditions. Exercising her fundamental right of casting a vote. This lady, my love, has seen the rise and fall of Britishers. The struggle for the simple right to cast her vote. Your PITY won’t take that away from her.
2. You keep talking about “means” at PM Modis disposal. As I have established before, you don’t differentiate between a public servants “own means” and “tax payers money
3. Umm... “Parents are easy to arm twist”? well.. If those are your “traditional views” you have some introspection to do. They aren’t chickens you know? They might be old, but they still have their FREE WILL AND SELF RESPECT. A concept you clearly have MUCH to learn about.
4. “while her son zipped around in FANCY Ambassadors”? HER SON was the CHIEF MINISTER of a state. It wasn't like a spoilt brat was zipping around in a fancy new Lamborghini while his mother was travelling by auto. So simmer down will you? Also... FANCY Ambassadors? FANCY? (hehe)
5. Stop with the “she didn't have a lot of money”. She bought up a man who grew up to be the PRIME MINISTER OF INDIA. And she lived to see it. She is the wealthiest woman in the world. (Feminism huh?)

"Unlike Mahatma Gandhi, Modi does not travel by third class train"

oh toto! I think we are back in lala land again!

• Firstly, I don’t think Mahatma Gandhi would be allowed to travel first class. The Britishers were pretty uptight about Indians travelling with them. READ UP
• Secondly, If you must compare, do find a modern day CM in India, among the junket mongering ones, who travels third class and then compare.

(Comparative study 101: Samples need to be homogeneous)

"Cut to her next appearance. Modi becomes the Great Gujju Hope and is voted PM. The same man who is allergic to the media today, reaches his mother’s house with a retinue of media in tow to capture for posterity images of him touching her feet and taking her blessings and some mithai"

So here when you say Mr. Modi became the great GUJJU HOPE, unless you consider Gujarat a separate country with NaMo as Gujrats elected Prime Minister, your argument falls flat.
Also, “and taking her blessings and some Mithai” is incorrect sentence construction. “AND” is a conjunction which you never use twice in the same sentence. (Just clarifying since I remember you lamenting that Sanghis who troll you have horrible language skills J)

Once again, I don’t know about you, but if I were meeting my mother after months, I’d like the meeting to be private. As would she and Hiraben, I presume. But different strokes for PM’s folks.

I have an extremely simple question for you here. How many journalists/citizens hound you for photo ops when you walk on the road? None? Well.. Since he is the PRIME MINISTER OF INDIA, camera wielding cockroaches do follow him around. What would you have him do? Physically heckle them and break their cameras? So later your ilk can churn out venom spewing articles? Can’t have your cake and eat it too.

"And just to show her how special she is to him, Modi didn’t think it was important to invite her to his inauguration ceremony. Oh yes, it must be because he didn’t want her to feel uncomfortable in the heat. She must have been there at the dinner at Rashtrapati Bhawan afterwards, right? Wrong. She’d served her purpose and done her bit for god, country and the photographers. So there was no need for her to be brought out of Gandhinagar to share this moment with her son"

I am principally against using LOL in my articles, but this paragraph right here was a real ROFLMAO moment for me. Journalists seem to have a penchant for twisting facts, and of course writing baseless venom spewing nonsense.

“Prime Minister Narendra Modi's mother Hiraba could not control her tears while his wife expressed happiness as they watched on TV the swearing-in ceremony on Monday, unable to attend the event at Rashtrapati Bhavan Due to her age and health reasons, Hiraba couldn't not travel to Delhi and watched the live telecast on television at her younger son Pankaj Modi's house in Gandhinagar along with Pankaj's family and many other relatives.

Read more Here

As it turns out, it was her health and nothing else that stopped her from a ceremony she was invited to by the way. But please, don’t let my facts ruin your parallel universe hate speech party. (Also, if NaMo was hankering for photo ops, the inauguration ceremony, would be the perfect opportunity. He wouldn't have missed it )

"Let’s cut to yesterday. It was Modi-ji’s 64th birthday. There was a super big bash planned with chief guest Xi Xi Gabor and wife. And as expected, Modi’s mother was trooped out once again. Not to meet the good folks of China-land. But to meet Beta No 1 and the good folks of Media-land. Now this is the first time Modi was visiting his mother after he became PM in May. One would think he’d want to spend some time alone with her. Think again. She was made to meet him outside the house in the little portico, in the heat of Gandhinagar, sitting on a plastic chair. After all, if they’d met inside the privacy of her house how would the coterie of reporters – TV and Print and Digital – Modi had taken along with him, have photographed him touching her feet, eating mithai AND then announcing that she’d given him Rs 5000 for the J & K Relief Fund? Why was this a public announcement? Because what’s the point of doing the trek to meet your mother if you’re not going to get some PR mileage out of it"

Our primadonna journalist Zsa Zsa Gabor here has a habit of repeating herself. I understand her predicament as biased propaganda is a tough sell, especially with silly points. But, without repeating myself, I would just say that her crying ad nauseum about this isn't really making an idiotic point look valid.

Just a couple of quick points though

1. “ Reporters Modi had TAKEN ALONG WITH HIM” – Proof? Can you give us an undertaking from all the journalists that were there, that Modi had personally requested their presence while he met his mother? No?
2.  “trek to meet your mother” come on man! You said it yourself earlier that he zips around in FANCY ambassadors and jets? Where is the question of a trek? Stop contradicting yourself will ya? (Dont get happy that I missed that JK donation bit, Im coming to it)

Moving on..

Would you take money – and Rs 5000 is a lot of money – from your mother, who isn’t exactly swimming in wealth? Or would you thank her for it and say that you’ll make the contribution on her behalf? And would you then take this private gesture and announce it to all the media who’d come along for the party? And if you did do all of the above, wouldn’t you at least invite her for your birthday party with your new best friend Xi Xi?

So Gabor, when you say “would you take Rs.5000 from your mother” are you implying that NaMo took it for himself? And if he did, how is that your business then?
OR are you implying that NaMo “arm twisted” his mother to pay that amount towards the flood relief?

The problem with primadonna critics like you is, that you know the price of everything, and the value of nothing. You have proved, that you have no idea, that when you contribute for the betterment of another human being, however small or big the contribution is, it’s the feeling that matters.
Also, If it was my mother, who had limited means, the self respect to live happily off it, and yet have the heart to donate for the betterment of the JK flood affected, I would stand on a mountain top and scream to the world that my mother is an angel. That’s Love. That’s pride. That’s celebrating your mother’s gorgeous soul. But let me not bother you with such “traditional” views.

Lastly...

"Well, it seems mummy-ji is fine for photo ops but not for meeting beta’s friends. For all the mocking of Rahul Gandhi and Sonia, you have to give them credit that their private meetings have always remained so – and they actually do spend time together, other than in front of the media. I suppose this is another way of taking forward BJP’s ma behen agenda. Troop out the womenfolk when the cameras are on, and send them back as you’re done with them. I, at least hope, Hiraben was asked to share a recipe or two for the 150 dish feast which she wasn’t invited to attend. Nothing like ma ka haath ka khana after all – but only if the photographers are in attendance"

(yes! Rahul Gandhi was mentioned in bold in her article. The font size was a notch bigger.)
So, after all this raving, ranting, repeating and vomiting venom, Primadonna FINALLY reveals her true purpose.Hail Rahul beta and Sonia Mummy!

P.S:

1. Enough with the recipes already! You tweet them, don’t start writing about them too.
2. Somewhere in that trash you call an article, u mentioned “his right wingers” – Ownership of supporters and slavery is the principles of other parties. WE RIGHT WINGERS are not for sale. Are not owned. WE SUPPORT BECAUSE WE BELIEVE
3. Buy Wren and Martin.
4. You were so transparent there.
5. BAZINGA

Rebuttal Thursday, September 18, 2014 26 comments

When it's my time to go

Bias Declaration: An inclination towards legalization of active and passive Euthanasia in terminally ill patients subject to control of misuse.

As I sat going through the 84 pages of research on the subject of Euthanasia, certain questions started plaguing my objectivity. The research was mainly about the legalities of Euthanasia, the social and religious acceptance, and the how the misuse of such a practice, is something that the system will be unable to have power over.

But then I stopped to think. What if I was the patient? What questions would I want addressed if I was in a terminally ill condition and wanted to end my suffering? The following came to mind.

Question 1: Who does my life belong to?

This argument rests of the assumption that every person has a right to make decisions about his or her life in absolute terms. If we consider a terminally ill patient with a family, the society conditions us to believe that the patient’s life also belongs to the family he leaves behind. But, in circumstances where the patient is the sufferer, what argument can we possibly give to negate the “sufferer’s autonomy”? Let’s take the example of a terminally ill patient who has cancer. In the last stages of his disease, when medicine gives up and cannot prolong his functioning life, who is to say that the patient needs to suffer endlessly, because the society needs him to? Assuming his family understands his will to die on his own terms, who else has the right to claim authority over whether he should suffer or not?
When a person is riddled with disease, in pain, and no medicine can provide respite, forcing a person to suffer because the society considers it morally correct, is a third party consideration that does not take the patients pain into consideration at all.

Question 2: Sanctity of life Vs. Quality of life.

The basic presumption of sanctity of life is that human life is made in god’s image that gives it the utmost sacredness. So basically, the whole concept of sanctity of life is based in religion and spirituality. Quality of life on the other hand is a more practical concept.
In a terminally ill patient, it should ideally be the patient who decides whether sanctity of life precedes quality of life for him. A deeply religious person may choose to suffer through the pain and agony to reach a natural end to his life. A person, who, on the other hand, is not as religious, may choose to terminate his life when he becomes completely dependent on care givers for basic daily needs. At the end of the day, shouldn't the sufferer be given the right to choose?

Question 3: Is the patient exercising his right to die mentally sound?

Simply put, no one can deny that careful assessment of the patient’s mental state is a must when talking of will to die. But since, we are talking about terminally ill patients only, I think a fair amount of depression can be assumed to be present in any case. What needs to be monitored here is whether the patients decision to end his/her life, is likely to change if they are given adequate counselling. If not, and if medicine indeed has no cure, the prolonging of life will in effect cause exponentially more mental agony than the willful termination of life.

So in the end, if I put myself in the shoes of a terminally ill patient, I would like the following considerations to be addressed.

1. That I was in complete control of my mental faculties when I decided.
2. That I was given multiple opportunities to withdraw my request.
3. That I was asked on multiple occasions with time lapses between assessments, to give me enough time to think over my decision.
4. That I was assured, that my decision to withdraw my request, would not invite any negative action.
5. That I received adequate psychological help, while I tried to process my decision
6. That the system ensured, that my family and care givers also got adequate psychological help in the process of decision making.

I understand that Euthanasia is a far more complex issue than just what the patient wants. There are several medical, legal and societal considerations which I plan to discuss in my subsequent articles. But It is an impossible task to take a stand on such a complex issue, without fully understanding the thought process of a terminally ill patient.

My friend’s grandfather was a patient of prostate cancer. Unfortunately, he was diagnosed extremely late in the disease. The doctors were extremely forthcoming, and told them that even if chemotherapy was administered, the extremely invasive and painful treatment will not be able to prolong his life for more than a couple of months at most. They were faced with a challenging decision. Should they put him through all that pain, so they can spend an extra couple of months with him? Or should they simply opt for symptomatic treatment to make sure he’s comfortable in the last few months of his life. It was not an easy decision. He was 70, he had lived his life well, but being their rock, it was difficult to let go.

So finally, they decided to ask him. Her father sat next to his frail ailing body, held on to his long now bony fingers, and slowly told him what the doctors had told them. Her grand father suddenly had a far off look in his eyes. He thought long and hard before he said to that he had lived his life to the fullest. That he had seen his kid, his grand kids, and the children of his grand kids. And that since it’s his time to go, and the doctors can do nothing to stop it, he would like to stay at home with his family and go in peace. Not lying in some hospital bed, in hopes of getting an extra few days to live.

It wasn't easy for any of them. Knowing what the future held. But at least my friend’s grandfather went on his own terms. Because apart from the emotional agony they were going through, the true sufferer was her grandfather.

I later asked my friend, that if euthanasia was legal then, and her grandfather had requested them to help him relieve the pain a little sooner than god had planned, would she be OK with it.

Her answer was an affirmative. She looked at me and said that it is so much more difficult to watch someone you love suffer while waiting for death, than to just give them peace.

Social Wednesday, July 30, 2014 1 comment

Uniform Civil Code - What does the Indian Constitution say?

The Uniform Civil Code (henceforth referred to as UCC) simply defined is a set of laws that will be applicable to all citizens of a country irrespective of their caste, creed, religion and color. The simple premise that UCC draws from is that there is no necessary connection between a citizen’s religion and the law that should apply to him. All matters of a “secular” nature should be ideally included in UCC, for eg. Marriage, Divorce, Maintenance, Inheritance, Adoption etc.

The much heated debate on UCC has many aspects to it. In this article however, I would like to focus on the constitutional arguments that can be made for the implementation of UCC.

K.M Munshi once addressing the Constituent Assembly said

“This particular clause which is now before the house is not brought for discussion for the first time. It has been discussed in several committees and at several places before it came to the house. The ground that is now put forward against it is, firstly that it infringes the Fundamental Right mentioned in Article 19 and secondly, it is tyrannous to the minority.”

Unfortunately, the political discourse hasn't changed much since then. Before we get into the constitutional nitty gritties, a brief legal analysis of religion is imperative.

The constitution of India uses but does not explicitly define the expression “religion”. Hence, going by the judgement pronounced in the SP Mittal v Union of India AIR 1983 SC 1 matter, in the background of the provisions of the constitution and judicial precedent, we can say that religion is a matter of faith. It is a matter of belief and doctrine. It concerns the conscience, i.e., the spirit of the man. It must be capable of expression in word and deed, such as worship or ritual.

A mention here of the fact, that while interpreting the meaning of religion, our courts have given it a spiritual definition and in no way, has religion been connected to parallel courts, laws based on religion or personal laws of any community whatsoever. It confines itself to faith, belief, worship and religious ritual.

Now, getting into the constitutional rationale.
Article 44 of the constitution clearly states that the State shall endeavor to secure for the citizens a uniform civil code throughout the territory of India. Unfortunately, this article comes under the Directive Principles of State Policy. The DPSP was supposed to be used as a yardstick by which the citizens could measure and rate the performance of the government. Hence, though not legally binding, it was suppose to be a guiding light for law makers. Over the years, it has lost its original definition and by virtue of not being legally enforceable, is not given much importance by our politicians.

It is a popular belief that UCC is only mentioned in Article 44 of the constitution. This is true. But, there are several provisions of the constitution, that don’t mention UCC, but justify it nonetheless.

Since, the greatest opposition to UCC is routed in “freedom of religion”, it becomes imperative to mention, that the constitution states the “religious freedom” cannot be enjoyed in and absolute and unrestricted way. There are certain lawful restrictions that are as follows:

ARTICLE 25 of the constitution states that the freedom of religion is, in general, subject to public order, morality, health and the other provisions of the constitutions.

Under Islamic law, it is still the privilege of the man to marry 4 women.Under the Hindu Law, a hindu woman is not entitled to claim a share in coparcener. And no right to partition of a dwelling house even if she is the legal heir. Congress leader Priya Ranjan Dasmunshi said the code could not be implemented in the present circumstances as the country's priorities were different. The implementation of such a code will divide the nation on communal lines, he warned.

I leave it up to you to decide whether these personal laws sound in tune with the morality and public order limitation to religious freedom.And whether the UCC in tune with the constitution would unite or divide the polity in India.

Article 25(2) states that despite the right to religious freedom, the state can pass laws providing for social welfare and reform and also to regulate or restrict any secular activity – economic, financial and political, etc. – even though it may traditionally be associated with religion.

Secular activities ordinarily include marriage, divorce, succession, adoption etc. But, even if one considers it to be traditionally associated with religion, the constitution provides for the state to reform and regulate such activities as mentioned in the stated provision. Hence, arguments on UCC cannot be of a religious nature at all – constitutionally speaking.

3. ARTICLE 51A(e) states that it is a fundamental duty of all citizens to promote harmony and the spirit of common brotherhood amongst all the people of India transcending religious, linguistic and regional or sectional diversities.

Though not legally binding, I have always wondered how common brotherhood and harmony transcending religious diversities is a possibility with different laws governing different religious groups. Also, is harmony truly achievable when the women of the community are oppressed behind the veil of personal laws?

After the commencement of the constitution, in the matter of Narayan Namboodripad v State of Madras AIR 1955 Mad 385 a court had examined the US principle of the “wall of separation” and concluded that in the Indian Constitution there are inconsistencies with the theory that there should be a wall separating the Church and the State.

Further in the matter of SR Bommai v Union of India (1994) 3 SCC 1 judges of the Supreme Court explained the concept of secularism in the constitution:
Excerpts of the judgement says: “When the state allows citizens to practice and profess their religion, it does not either explicitly or implicitly allow them to introduce religion into non-religious and secular activities of the state. The freedom and tolerance of religion is only to the extent of permitting pursuit of spiritual life which is different from the secular life. The latter falls in the exclusive domain of the affairs of the state.”

If we in totality consider Article 25(2) explained above and the Supreme Court judgements, it becomes extremely evident that to the constitution, it is irrelevant as to which activity is traditionally considered to be rooted in religion. It is also evident, that law, pertaining to ALL SECULAR ACTIVITIES as the state views it, which includes marriage, divorce, etc., is explicitly a state matter and not a religious one. When, the activity in question is not even considered to be a religious matter, personal laws are rendered useless and also unjustifiable.

It needs to be mentioned here, that the constitution also states that certain special provisions which have been made for backward classes are not to be touched unless it has been rendered redundant. UCC would in no way infringe upon the special privileges provided for the betterment of any backward class/section of society.

It would perhaps only mean that all citizens, irrespective of their religious background would be treated equal in the eyes of the law. Considering the very foundation of our country has been laid on the pillars of secularism, equality and liberty, UCC would be the most constitutional and moral code to be implemented in a country like ours.

In the world of Shri Alladi Krishnaswamy Ayyar:

“The article actually aims at amity. It does not destroy amity. The idea is that differential contributes to the differences among the different people of India. What it aims at is to try to arrive at a common measure of agreement in regards to this matter.... Today even without article 35, there is nothing to prevent the future Parliament of India from passing such laws. Therefore the idea is to have a Uniform Civil Code.”

The implementation of Uniform Civil Code is the right and the duty of every citizen of India which has been denied for a very long time. The preamble to our constitution talks of a secular nation and true secularity can only be achieved when religion and spirituality remains a personal matter that does, in no way, interfere with state affairs.

Legal Wednesday, July 16, 2014 4 comments