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

Come on Ms.Ayuub!!

On 9^th of July, an article by Rana Ayuub and its consequent censorship by DNA sent the whole twitter world in a tizzy. Now, though I don’t support any form of censorship of the written word, I do have issues with a vindictive venom spewing article based on lies and misrepresentation. Hence, I am going to attempt to refute the said article to the best of my abilities.

Now, this of course will be a slightly long winded article as I quote her and refute so bear with me.

“Late last week, a special CBI court adjourned the bail application of Amit Shah in the Sohrabuddin and Tulsi Prajapati fake encounter cases, accepting his excuse that he was engaged in political work in New Delhi”.

A man out on bail, wouldn’t apply for a bail application. So, at the very onset, it is hard for me to trust the credibility of the article.

“Shah, 49, the first serving Home minister of a state to have gone behind bars in a criminal case of murder and conspiracy”

I can’t refute this on facts. Yes, he was in jail for charges of murder, conspiracy and extortion among other charges in 2010. But let me clarify, he was charge sheeted based on preliminary investigation. The case is sub judice and the charges haven’t been proved yet so declaring him a criminal before the court does, is over enthusiastic journalism. Whatever happened to INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY?

“.... the man who waved the magic wand for BJP in Uttar Pradesh, the PM’s confidante and the number two in the government now takes over the reins of the party”

Whooaaa!! Number 2 in the GOVERNMENT? If Ms. Ayuub said number 1,2,3 in the PARTY, I would have gladly accepted it. But in the government? I don’t think Mr. Jaitley, Mrs. Swaraj or Mr. Rajnath would take very kindly to that statement. Wishful thinking Ms. Ayuub?

“Amit Shah had twice in the past sought exemption from personal appearance citing political work, but the then CBI judge JT Utpat had found his excuse inadequate for the court to grant him relief. On June 20, while hearing the application, Utpat allowed the same but made a scathing remark “Everytime you are giving this exemption application without assigning any reason,” he told Shahs counsel”.

Exemption from personal appearance, is an extremely routine affair. Wonder why Ms.Ayuub was so hell bent on making it sound like he was evading the law. Also, let’s give the judiciary a little credit here, if the judge had found the “excuse” so very inadequate, he wouldn’t grant the exemption no? Plus, at this point, i’m still wondering what application are we talking about here? The bail application of a man out on bail, or the exemption from personal appearance application?

“In less than a week, Utpat was transferred to a Pune court before he could preside over Shahs discharge application. Shah managed his way out with a tried and tested formula of transferring judges, practiced brazenly in his home state of Gujarat through his tenure as Home Minister.”

Ok then! This here might take a little explaining. Let me first go on a little definition expedition.

Bail Application :  "procure the release of a person from legal custody, by undertaking that he/she shall appear at the time and place designated and submit him/herself to the jurisdiction and judgment of the court." and an application for the same is a BAIL APPLICATION

Discharge Application: Section 239, Crpc when accused shall be discharged. - (1) If, upon considering the police report and the documents sent with it under Section 173 and making such examination, if any, of the accused as the Magistrate thinks necessary and after giving the prosecution and the accused an opportunity of being heard, the Magistrate considers the charge against the accused to be groundless, he shall discharge the accused, and record his reasons for so doing.

As evident, the two concepts are extremely different. If I safely presume that a man out on bail wouldn’t apply for bail, I can also assume that it was a DISCHARGE APPLICATION hearing. This by default means, they were contesting that there isn’t the charges are groundless. I think Ms.Ayuub needs to do her research before writing. The “power of the pen” will be exponentially multiplied then.

Now coming to Amit Shah with a Harry Potter wand transferring judges ad nauseum. (Brazenly I might add)

The High Court has made it mandatory for judicial officers to be transferred every three years, usually to happen in the summer vacations.

Also, according to several newspaper reports the Bombay High Court had "acceded to a request made by Utpat" for a transfer to Pune because of his daughter's education.

I find it a little suspect when Ms.Ayuub conveniently forgets to mention that in her eloquent article.

Besides, let’s not get into how many judges are transferred annually in every state. I wouldn’t want to sermonise a brilliant journalist.

“...If the SIT verdict on Narendra Modi’s role in the Gujarat encounters is to be held as the final word, by virtue of it being monitored by the apex court, it is baffling then that Narendra Modi who promised clean and transparent governance to this country and setting up fast track courts to look into cases of criminal charges against politicians has turned a blind eye to Shah’s criminal past.”

Come on Ms.Ayuub! Your article is fast going from the bizarre to ridiculous!

Again, Definition :

SIT: SPECIAL INVESTIGATION TEAM. It is a civilian agency responsible for investigating circumstances involving police and civilians that have resulted in a corruption, misuse of power, death, serious injury, or allegations of sexual assault. However all full-time SIT investigators are former law enforcement personnel or have worked for law enforcement agencies.

In which parallel universe do you consider that SIT has the power to deliver VERDICTS? You cant cloak your lack of research by simply adding a line that starts with “by virtue...”

“With Shah’s induction on the national scene first as the General Secretary of the BJP and now as the BJP President, Modi has risked his own political image for the sake of his ally and friend who has put to shame the best political pundits and strategists from North India with his shrewd manoeuvring.”

So, by your argument, if modi’s political image has been compromised since Amit Shah was inducted as the general secretary of BJP, pray tell, how did he win a sweeping majority in 2014 elections? Or are we not to consider that as a yardstick for his political image?

As far as SHREWD MANOEUVRING goes. That’s politics honey. And if you don’t agree with his methods, by all means, write an article explaining his shrewd manoeuvres and critique. If you can’t, your statement is moot and baseless.

“It was under his tenure as Home Minister that the Gujarat police went on a spree of fake encounters in the state – holding regular press conferences for the media with the bodies of the alleged assassins on display. The officers would claim that the Gujarat CM was under threat from jihadists who were out to assassinate the man who brought back Hindu asmita in Gujarat.”

Sohrabuddin Sheikh was accused of possessing 40 AK-47 assault rifles that were recovered from his house in Jharania village of Ujjain district in 1995.At the time of his killing, he also had more than 60 pending cases against him, ranging from extorting protection money from marble factories in Gujarat and Rajasthan, to arms smuggling in Madhya Pradesh, to murder cases both in Gujarat and Rajasthan. Sheikh was a notorious underworld criminal with links to the Sharifkhan Pathan alias Chhota Dawood and Abdul Latif gangs, and with Rasool Parti and Brajesh Singh, both known to be close to India's underworld kingpin Dawood Ibrahim.To escape the police, Sheikh fled with his family from Gujarat to the city of Hyderabad in the state of Telangana.

(source : Wikipedia)

Yes, the police do claim that the then CM was under threat from Jihadist forces. Are you telling me that 40 AK47 assault weapons were Christmas gifts from Sohrabbudin and Kauser bi for their children?

Let me clarify, I don’t support so called “fake encounters” because I trust the legal system. But I would want to ask you a simple question. If u had to stand in front of the barrel of a gun, would you rather have the police holding it, or sohrabbudin? While you fight and weep for the human rights of terrorists, a small mention of the lives they were out to destroy would have been appreciated.

“Minister of the state was using state machinery to snoop on innocent civilians, monitoring their moves. In this particular case, a young woman whose movements, including aspects of her personal life were being reported to the CM on a daily basis.”

 "I was satisfied with the safety measures taken by the Gujarat Government when my lives were under threat and when I am not complaining what happened in 2009 there is a sinister campaign to target my reputation and of my family,"

Again, I respect the judiciary too much to comment here. But if YOU must, maybe you should mention ALL the details. Not the ones that perhaps suit your agenda best.

“But even if one were to dismiss these actions against officials, lawyers, judges who played significant roles in the criminal justice process involving Amit Shah as conjectures, will it not be pertinent to suggest that by appointing Shah as the BJP President, Modi has acted in contradiction to his promise of a free and fair government, which will have no space for vindictiveness. Hasn’t Modi and the BJP under the guidance of the RSS just made the first attack on the principle of clean governance on the basis of which the party came to power?”

I think I have already refuted Ms.Ayuubs point about transfers etc. I wouldn’t repeat myself like Ms.Ayuub unfortunately does.

When you suggest Ms. Ayuub, that by appointing Shah, Modi has acted in contradiction to his promise of a free and fair GOVERNMENT, well, Shah is not a part of the GOVERNMENT. He will be once he is exonerated. But not just yet. So I have to wonder what you are going on and on about here.

(I won’t write an essay on how the concept of “vindictiveness” makes absolutely zero sense in the given context also “Guidance of RSS”- Back to cocktail journalism are we?)

“Prime Minister Narendra Modi needs to answer this one.”

This has been a general contention from all commies and leftists. Sadly, that’s not about to happen any time soon, since your questions are ultimately as baseless as your article.

Note: In my fervent rebuttal, I have tried to not comment on the merits of the ongoing cases. As a citizen, I think it necessary to let the judiciary do its job and not assume the role of the judge. I stand firmly against Media censorship, but I stand firmly against trial by media too. Also, I just wouldn’t give Ms. Ayuub the satisfaction that her article got the ball rolling for a ridiculous media trial. 

Rebuttal Sunday, July 13, 2014 15 comments

Rantings of a Feminist

But why can’t he do it?

She woke up and cooked? Never mind that she does all of that and rush to work. That isn’t a sign of feminism. I mean, who doesn’t work? But why cook for god’s sake? And cook for a man? Oh she must be a push over. Doesn’t have pride in being a woman at all. I mean, why can’t her husband cook? Why can’t he clean? Or iron? Or bear a child? Or get periods? Never mind that he treats her with respect. Loves her. Honours her. Cherishes her. Feels pride in her success. Encourages her ambitions.

That isn’t supporting feminism at all! What is feminism if not being a man? Men don’t stay at home to care for the house. If they do, they are impotent. Can’t provide for the family. If a woman stays at home, she’s a not a feminist at all. She should be out there. Working. Earning. Ruling the world. So what if she doesn’t want to? So what if she wants to mother a child and turn him into a man? That isn’t her choice! Feminism isn’t a womans choice! She’s got to be a feminist. And that of course means to hell with everything else. She has to go out and prove her worth. Prove that she’s better than a man. Mothering a child is so passé. And staying home to take of that child?? Oh heaven forbid! What would people think? Or say? That she’s just a woman who takes care of the family? Oh that is just so downright disrespectful. That doesn’t prove that she’s better than a man. So what if she’s doing something no man can do? So what if she wants to raise a man? Feminism is BEING a man, not RAISING one. Feminism isn’t about choices either. Whoever said women should have the freedom of choice was an idiot. There is just one choice. BE A MAN! Yes yes, let’s not all get alarmed here. She can still put make up and wear anything she wants, infact she is encouraged to be as feminine as she can possibly be. Helps the cause you see. Feminism is dressing up like the sexiest woman alive, but not giving anyone the right to call u sexy, because that is so chauvinistic of course. You see, women need to look like women. But be men. Because that’s what proves that we are women who are better than men. Because if u aren’t a man, how would a man possibly treat you as an intellectual and social equal? If she doesn’t abuse, how would he possibly know she can be a better man? That she’s better? Oh no no no, she needs to be a MAN. BE A MAN. BE A MAN FOR GODS SAKE!

Social Sunday, July 06, 2014 3 comments