Chidambaram's parlous plight

What happened to P. Chidambaram? He was once considered quite brilliant. Now he babbles about 'Might and Plight on display' in the Indian Express. It is clear that some nasty Modi has stolen his brains (all Modis are thieves- don't you know?) and replaced it with a steaming pile of poo. 

Act I: Might

Mr Kiren Rijiju, Honourable Minister of Law and Justice, uses every opportunity to emphasize that he and his government do not interfere — and have never interfered — with the independence of the judiciary.

They may want to, but they can't. My good friend Honeytits Modi tried to steal independence of Judiciary but CJI caught her and slapped her bum. She cried and cried.  

As a citizen and a practicing advocate, I would like to believe him.

But nobody believes you because you are an advocate. Also, Honeytits Modi stole your credibility while you were sleeping.  

I was happy to hear Mr Rijiju re-state the position of the government in a recent interaction at the India Today Conclave.

Midway, he delivered a thunderbolt. He said, and I shall quote his words: “I feel this is the most important topic for me, for the nation. …There is a calibrated effort to undermine Indian judiciary. That is why they say, day in and day out, they are saying that government is trying to take over Indian judiciary. …In a way, it is a sinister design…The anti-India forces in India and outside India, they use same language… The same eco-system is working inside India and outside India also… We will not allow this tukde tukde gang to destroy India’s integrity and our sovereignty…

Because that is what we elected you guys to do. It is your fucking job to protect India. If you don't do it properly we will vote you out. 

“Recently, there was one seminar in Delhi. Some retired Supreme Court judges, some senior lawyers, some people were there. The topic of the seminar was ‘Accountability in Judges Appointment’. But the discussion whole day was on ‘how government is taking over the Indian judiciary’… it is a few of the retired judges, few may be three or four, few of those activists, part of the anti-India gang, these people are trying to make Indian judiciary play the role of Opposition party…

These senile cretins were telling stupid lies to gain same advantage for themselves. It is Rijuju's jobs to tell them to go fuck themselves. If he won't do that job he is welcome to resign. It must be said, a lot of Indians have to come to feel great respect for him because he is sticking his neck out to defend national interests.  

“Actions will be taken, actions are being taken as per law, but if I say that I will take action…The agencies will take action as per the provisions of the law. Nobody will escape, don’t worry, nobody will escape. Those who work against the country will have to pay a price for that…”

Only if they are held to account. If Rijiju can do a better job in this respect, voters will reward his party.  

It was an unambiguous statement. What was on display was the might of the State through its Law Minister, no less.

What the Law Minister should say is 'please shit on India. Commit any offenses you like. I promise that you won't be prosecuted. India has zero power. It is a fucking shithole.'  

The mighty State was saying that if the government comes to the conclusion, subjectively, that there is a tukde tukde gang or that any person is part of the anti-India gang, be forewarned that action will be taken against any one who speaks or plays the role of the Opposition.

No. Rijiju only spoke of taking action as per the law- which is a wholly objective, not subjective, matter. The problem is that Rahul- who says India is not a nation- is now very much part of the tukde tukde gang. Perhaps, Chidu too favors secession for Tamil Nadu. That didn't end so well for the Sri Lankan Tamils- did it? 

We know who the ‘agencies’ are. We know what action they will take. We know what price the person will pay. We also know that the process is the punishment.

And, we- the people of India- approve just as we approved of Manmohan trying to crack down on NGOs which were using foreign money to try to stop economic development in India.  

Many have criticized the statement of the Honourable Minister of Law and Justice and its chilling effect on free speech.

Just as jail sentences for murder have a chilling effect on homicide. Since the First Amendment it has been obvious that India has no 'chilling effect' doctrine whatsoever. Why pretend otherwise? It is a separate matter that malicious prosecution may occur- as it certainly did when Manmohan was in power and BJP politicians were targeted.  

In my view, it was a display of the raw power of the State and provides sufficient evidence that democracy is in danger.

But your view is that the sun shines out of Rahul's backside. Fuck off.  

Act II: Plight

Move over to another organ of the State: the judiciary. At the apex of the judiciary sits the Supreme Court of India, sometimes described as the most powerful court in the world.

which is why it is called the apex court. Fuck is wrong with Chidu? Where else does he think a Court called 'Supreme' would sit?  

On March 21, 2023, a three-judge Bench delivered a judgement in the case of Satender Kumar Antil vs Central Bureau of Investigation. Noting its earlier judgement in the same case passed in July 2022 on the issue of ‘bail’, the Court said, and I shall quote its words:

“Counsels have produced before us a bunch of orders passed in breach of the judgement in the case of Satender Kumar Antil vs CBI & Anr only as samples to show how at the ground level, despite almost 10 months passing, there are a number of aberrations…This is something which cannot be countenanced and, in our view, it is the duty of the High Courts to ensure that the subordinate judiciary under their supervision follows the law of the land. If such orders are being passed by some Magistrates, it may even require judicial work to be withdrawn and those Magistrates to be sent to the judicial academies for upgradation of their skills for some time.

“Another aspect which is sought to be pointed out… is that not only is there a duty of the Court but also of the public prosecutors to plead correct legal position before the Court as officers of the Court.”

This is purely procedural. It is obvious that in a country with a ramshackle judiciary with poor quality judges at the bottom of the pyramid, that a Bench which is overactive in everything save putting its own house in order and streamlining the judicial system will vent its frustration in this manner from time to time. So what? We all know the solution to the problem- viz setting up an administrative cadre and simplifying judicial processes. Why not get in 'Expert System' AIs to assist in clearing the back-log of cases? Instead the Bench will keep taking up non-issues- e.g. should girls in a girls school be allowed to wear hijab inside the classroom. 

Just as ‘free speech’ is guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India, ‘liberty’ is guaranteed under Articles 19 and 21. Both are basic, unalterable features of a democracy. The anguish expressed by the Supreme Court illustrates the plight of the law caught in the middle between overbearing investigating agencies and an indulgent subordinate judiciary (with notable exceptions).

Nonsense! The Bench refused to put its own house in order and is shifting the blame to those lower down. It has not said that investigating agencies are 'overbearing'. All it said was that they should collect evidence expeditiously- which is all very well if they have plenty of resources. They don't. India is very very fucking poor.  

Act III: Might & Plight

On March 23, 2023 Mr Rahul Gandhi was convicted by a Magistrate’s Court on a complaint (by a BJP functionary) of the offence of defamation under Sections 499 and 500, IPC for certain words uttered during a political campaign/interview. He was convicted and sentenced to 2 years’ imprisonment. The lawyers representing Mr Gandhi have found fault with the judgement of the learned Magistrate on grounds of lack of jurisdiction, procedural errors and manifest injustice.

But the complainant had twice taken recourse to the High Court to quash orders by the then CJM who was blatantly favoring Rahul. The new CJM followed the High Court directions and quickly convicted Rahul for his blatant act of 'collective denunciation' and criminal defamation of a type which the Supreme Court had twice warned him against.  

They also viewed the punishment of 2 years’ imprisonment (the maximum under the law) as unusually harsh.

Or unusually salutary if you don't happen to think the sun shines out of Rahul's arse.  

Robust political discourse is the essence of democracy.

Dynasticism is essentially antithetical to democracy. Why is this cretin so besotted with the Clown Prince? Is it because Honeytits Modi stole his brain?  

On deeper analysis, it will be evident that the law was set in motion to silence a leading voice of the democratic Opposition.

Who is so only by virtue of being the heir by primogeniture to the autocrat, Indira.  

Noisy appreciation of the ‘might’ of the law must be tempered by calm introspection on the ‘plight’ of democratic voices.

Dynastic voices. Rahul's plight is of his own making. The might of the law has expressed itself in conformity with directions of the Gujarat High Court not the Law Minister. Calm introspection would lead Chidu to go to Rahul and demand that he shit into his open and eager mouth. Nothing less will do to reward this loyal slave of the dynasty. Sadly, Honeytits Modi may have already stolen any turds Rahul might otherwise produce. This is the reason for Chidu's parlous plight.  

Chidambaram misunderstanding Parliamentary Democracy

Chidambaram has a very high IQ. In addition to a Harvard MBA, he is one of India's best lawyers. Sadly, servitude to the Dynasty has rotted his brain. He writes in the Indian Express

If 15 states are ruled by one party and if that party (and its steadfast allies) are able to elect 362 members of the Lok Sabha and 163 members of the Rajya Sabha, nothing will stop India from becoming another “People’s Republic”. Mercifully, that dreaded prospect is some distance away but it cannot be ruled out altogether

Chidu forgets that his party- which is wholly dynastic- already turned India into a 'secular, socialistic' Republic- like Saddam's Iraq or Assad's Syria. 

Both Houses of Parliament are forums of debate.

No. They are forums for the framing of Laws where questions re. Government policy and actions can be raised. A forum of debate may have the objective at arriving at a consensus or changing its participants' views. This may happen in a House of Parliament but there is no such general expectation.  

Great debates have taken place in the Parliament of India. The China-India war of 1962 in which India suffered a humiliating defeat was debated. 

It was discussed. Questions were raised. Views were aired. But no consensus was reached. The definition of 'parliamentary debate' is 'a formal discussion of a particular proposal'. What was the proposal debated in 1962? We don't know. Vajpayee, a member of the Upper House, got Nehru to agree to an open debate on the crisis. Nehru had a two thirds majority. Why did he agree to the 'debate'? The answer is that he was showing his own people that they were shit at debating. He himself was very old and was making disastrous decisions. Still, he was better than anyone else on his front bench.  

Readers can add their observations to my short list on how India’s parliamentary democracy has been diminished.

Indian Parliamentary Democracy was diminished when the INC became dynastic, corrupt and incompetent. 

 

Here is my list:

1. Rule 267 of the Rules of Procedure of the Rajya Sabha (the Lok Sabha has a similar rule) is invoked by members of the Opposition to raise a discussion on a matter of urgent public importance. In the last several months, the rule has been invoked in both Houses numerous times in order to discuss matters of urgent public importance — ranging from the Chinese incursions into India to the report of Hindenburg Research LLC. The Chair has rejected every motion.

Quite rightly. Nehru only agreed to the '62 debate because he wanted to show that his colleagues were shit. Obviously, 'the Chair' in those days had no fucking authority. The current situation is quite different. We can all predict the stupid nonsense these donkeys will spew up. The public interest will not be served. China will get the wrong message- viz. the Indians don't want to fight. Wall Street will get the message that it is open season on Indian Corporations. 

By contrast, the Lok Sabha Speaker should permit a motion barring the cretin Rahul from Parliament. That would send a clear message to the world. Rahul said India is not a Nation. It is like the EU. States are welcome to 'Exit'. This is treason. Kick the cunt out of the Lok Sabha before the voters of Wayanad do it for you. 

Conclusion: as far as India’s Parliament is concerned, there is no matter of “urgent public importance” that requires to be discussed setting aside the business of the day.

Quite true. Stupid donkeys braying won't improve the military situation. As for the Adanis- it appears they have bounced back while 'woke' Banks in West are crashing. Credit Suisse was busy finding fault with the Adanis but it is they who are on the rocks. 

You have to believe that the Indian people are so safe, secure and content that nothing that concerns them merits an urgent discussion in Parliament.

Nothing merits any discussion in which this corrupt cretin features.  

2. The Prime Minister, if he is a member of the Lok Sabha, is the Leader of the House. Prime Minister Modi is the leader of the 17th Lok Sabha. He is rarely present in either House. He replies to the debate on the Motion of Thanks to the President’s Address every year. I cannot recall any other major intervention by him.

Because Parliament is shit. We have all had ample opportunity to see this for ourselves. Modi looks and sounds good when he appears in the Lok Sabha. Rahul looks like an overgrown child.  

PM Modi does not answer questions in Parliament; usually a minister speaks on his behalf. (I wish we had the Prime Minister’s Question Hour like in the House of Commons every Wednesday.)

Britain does not have any hereditary politicians since the reform of the Upper House. On the other hand, it must be said, there is great disenchantment with Parliamentary debate. Consider the Brexit issue. Amazing to recall, all parties (save the SNP!) supported the 2015 Referendum Bill. There was hardly any debate. The plain fact is, everybody thought Cameron would win and thus marginalize UKIP and his own rivals in the party. Expectations matter- even if they are misguided. Debate- not so much. 

Mr Modi’s approach to Parliament is very different from the approach of, for example, Jawaharlal Nehru,

who was shit 

Dr Manmohan Singh

who was utterly shit 

or A.B. Vajpayee.

who was senile by the time he got the top job. 

The prime minister has become ‘presidential’.

Chidu's 'president' is Kharge- but it is Sonaiji and Rahulji whom he has to suck up to.  

If prime ministers remain presidential and act presidential, not for long will India be a parliamentary democracy.

Why? This does not follow at all. Modi adds value for BJP candidates but if they are shit they still won't get elected. This suits Modi fine. He can get rid of the incompetent because his party depends on him. If he were crap, he'd have to accept crap colleagues- as Manmohan had to. 

What Chidu isn't saying is that Manmohan, forget about being 'Presidential', wasn't even allowed to be a first among equals. Consider 'retrospective taxation'. Chidu and Sibal and Manmohan were against it. But Pranab went ahead with it anyway. To add insult to injury, Rahul tore up Manmohan's ordinance. This was a 'prone minister' not a Prime Minister. Congress paid the price and was destroyed at the polls. Now Chidu and his son are themselves fearful of ending up behind bars where, no doubt, they can debate with fellow convicts to their heart's content. 

3. The House of Commons sits on 135 days a year. In 2021, the Lok Sabha held 59 sittings and the Rajya Sabha 58 sittings. In 2022, there were just 56 sittings each of the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha. Many of the ‘sittings’ were washed out because of disruptions. Arun Jaitley famously said that “Obstructionism is a part of legitimate parliamentary tactics.” The whole Winter Session of 2010 was washed out on the demand for the resignation of a minister and the constitution of a JPC. In that session, the Lok Sabha used 6 per cent of the allotted time and the Rajya Sabha used 2 per cent. Of late, the tactics have been refined. In the current Budget session (second part), the Treasury Benches have led the disruptions every day. Few sittings and more disruptions will render Parliament sessions irrelevant.

Yet Governance has improved. There is a lesson here which, as the Mahatma was wont to say, all who run may read.  

Bills could be passed (as they have, on occasion, in the past) without a debate.

Why debate donkeys? 

We can begin to contemplate a time when Parliament will ‘sit’ on a few days a year, debate nothing, and pass all Bills amidst the din and the disruption.

Which is better than TV viewers having to watch a raucous bear garden every other day.  

Parliament sans Debate
4. Both Houses of Parliament are forums of debate.

No. Their primary purpose is to pass laws. This can be done without any meaningful debate.  

Great debates have taken place in the Parliament of India.

No. Shit debates have taken place- unless the PM was strong enough to dispense with the humiliating spectacle.  

The China-India war of 1962 in which India suffered a humiliating defeat was debated.

Because Nehru wanted to show his colleagues that they were shit.  

Allegations regarding LIC’s investment in the shares of Haridas Mundhra’s companies were debated.

Why? The fact is Nehru had said he wanted to retire. Newspapers had headlines to this effect in April of 1958. Congress was twisting his arm by threatening to bring in his daughter whose husband, Feroze, Nehru loathed. So Feroze led the charge on the Mundhra scam in the Lok Sabha. Nehru brought in his pal Chaghla to obfuscate the issue. But TTK did have to resign.  

The allegations surrounding the import of the Bofors guns were debated multiple times.

Because Congress was a house divided. People felt Sonia was eating too much and refusing to share. 'Andar Italian, bahar battalion' as Zail Singh had said. Jaipal Reddy got off the best zinger 'Our country is being ruled by non-resident Indians and resident non-Indians." Chidu watched all this but kept mum and thus the Dynasty rewarded him. 

The demolition of the Babri Masjid was debated.

What was the result? Terrorism in plenty till a bigger backlash. 

Invariably, debates end without a vote. In a parliamentary democracy, the government need not fear a debate because it will always have, or is presumed to have, a majority of the members on its side.

There is no point having a debate unless it serves the public interest. Currently, India should push back against Biden/Soros type meddling in our internal affairs. By banning Rahul from Parliament after a heated debate in which the boy is reduced to shitting his pants, India sends the right message to the world.  

Yet, the current government refuses to allow debates.

For the same reason it refuses to do stupid shit. Still, chucking Rahul out is a worthwhile cause 

There is an old truism: ‘the Opposition will have its say, the Government will have its way’.

Chidu does not represent opposition. He represents slavish devotion to a dynasty dying nasty.  

I am certain the government does not fear that it will lose its ‘way’. What the government fears is that the Opposition will bring to light uncomfortable truths during its ‘say’.

But anybody can do that on Social Media!  

Has India moved into an era of a Parliament sans debate? I fear so, and if my fear proves true we have to conclude that the ceremony to bid farewell to parliamentary democracy will begin soon.

Nonsense! You still have parliamentary government even if it is not worth bothering with having any debates. The plain fact is, countries whose parliaments had turned into bear gardens soon got rid of parliaments altogether. India only recently started broadcasting debates. The novelty has worn off.  

5. Imagine that a session of Parliament is called. Imagine that all the members gather at the Great Hall. Imagine that all the members vote to elect a leader as the President of the Republic. There are no votes opposing the candidate. There are no abstentions. In fact, there is no other candidate. The country celebrates the result as a victory of ‘people’s democracy’. Can this happen in India?

No. In every country where such a thing happened you already had an Army which was personally loyal to the Fuhrer.  

It can, because we are steadily on a course to one-party rule.

No. But Congress does have one-family rule. Shame on Chidu for his own role in promoting this wholly undemocratic outcome. 

Chidambaram on why Rahul's teddy bear must become President of Congress

The gorgeous, pouting, Chidambaram writes in the Indian Express-

There is an American colloquialism that reads ‘when the going gets tough, the tough get going’.

There is an Indian colloquialism that reads 'tough titty Chiddu that your party is stuck with the moon calf Rahul.'  

I have always wondered what is ‘tough’.

Have you also wondered what is rough- as in rough trade? Do thoughts about it keep you up night? 

The word has different meanings in different contexts. ‘Tough’ can mean determination; ability to endure hardship; difficult (as in a tough game); or obstinate (as in a tough nut). Tough can also mean a bully or a rough and violent person.

A bully or a violent person may be weak. But even a strong bully may be ill advised to pick on a tough guy. Chiddu, cretin that he is, doesn't get that people are impressed by Zelenskyy's toughness. This is not the time to say 'soft leaders'- like the moon calf Rahul- are better.  

Usually, a democratically elected leader, loath to step down after long years in power, becomes ‘tough’.

Is that what happened to Nehru? Did he provoke the China war? Is that what Chiddu is getting at? Or does he mean Indira got tough on the Sikhs because she wanted to cling on to power? Perhaps he thinks Angela Markel started kicking Putin in the balls and saying 'I dare you to invade Ukraine' because she wanted to cling to power.  

Hitler was before I was born. Growing up, I was dismayed to see Jawaharlal Nehru’s close friends turn from liberators into ‘tough’ leaders:

genuine liberators have to be tough. Nehru didn't liberate shit. Mountbatten was a great pal of his whom he begged to stay on as Governor General. 

Kwame Nkrumah,

didn't liberate shit. He'd spent 10 years getting degrees in the US and then moved to the UK where he was less successful academically. In 1946, the Brits gave Africans the majority on the Gold Coast Legislative Council. Nkrumah was hired by wealthy African businessmen to lead a party which would represent them. This was a big mistake. The guy was a crazy Commie. Still, they paid Nkrumah enough to get him to quit London and return to Accra. He set up his own party and after a brief period of imprisonment, the Brits passed power to him. He went down the one party road but the Ghanaians rebelled against him and he died in exile.

Josip Broz Tito,

war-time resistance leader. Always a tough guy. Indeed, he was so tough, he took an independent line from Stalin. 

Gamal Abdel Nasser

started tough and stayed tough. Was popular but had no time for Democracy 

and Sukarno.

A believer in 'guided democracy' who was proved right because Indonesia's first spell of Parliamentary government was chaotic. Incidentally, he sided with Pakistan in the 1965 war.  

Each one led the liberation struggle in his country, was elected by a popular vote, was admired by the people, but finally became ‘tough’ and buried democracy and his own legacy.

Chiddu does not seem to know that Britain unilaterally conceded Egyptian independence  around the time Gandhi called off the Non-Cooperation movement. Yugoslavia was already sovereign by then. The Brits had decided to transfer power in Gold Coast before Nkrumah returned there. Holland was foolish enough to fight to keep Indonesia but had to throw in the towel after the US threatened to cut of vital economic aid. 

However, unlike Nehru, none of the guys Chiddu names believed in Democracy. Sukarno was a figurehead President till 1955 and, because there was a hung parliament, he started grabbing power under the rubric of 'guided democracy'. 

Jawaharlal Nehru was the sole exception among the five signatories of Panchsheel.

Because the Brits had left Hindu India in good enough shape for Parliamentary Democracy to be viable. Nehru had risen to the top only because his party had won British organized elections in 1937 and 1946. Equally importantly, the Army stayed out of politics while the Commies preferred talking bollocks to spilling much blood. Admittedly, this was after Congress had given it a good kicking.

Every election under his Prime Ministership — 1952, 1957 and 1962 — was a truly democratic election.

The Brits gave Ceylon universal suffrage in 1931. India could have got it too, if the Muslims hadn't objected.  

His election speeches were lessons in democracy.

Though he later confessed, after the Chinese debacle, that he and his colleagues had been living in a fantasy land. 

The vast majority of the gathering did not understand English

Nehru spoke in Hindi. It was the language spoken at the family dinner table. Indeed, it was the only language his wife knew. Why does Chiddu think Nehru was talking to peasants in English?  

but sensed that he was talking about democracy, secularism, the difficult task of building a nation, eradicating poverty, the role of government and so on. Nehru was a loved leader, he never became ‘tough’.

But the Sardar was tough. Chiddu is conceding the BJP claim to Patel. They are welcome to keep this image of a frail, but loved up, Nehru who took Chinese dick up his arse and then died of a broken heart coz Mao didn't send flowers.

The present world is full of tough leaders. None of them, if a free and fair election were held today, would be elected. Prominent tough leaders are Mr Jair Bolsonaro of Brazil, Mr Recep Erdogan of Turkey, Mr Abdul al-Sisi of Egypt, Mr Viktor Orban of Hungary, Mr Alexander Lukashenko of Belarus, Mr Kim Jong-un of North Korea, and dozens of others who are not known outside their country or their continent.

What about Zelenskyy? He looks plenty tough. Would the Ukrainians really not vote for him? As for Orban, does Chiddu know something we don't? It looks like Orban will prevail in April. 

What is Chiddu's objection to Sisi? Does he prefer the Muslim Brotherhood- which supports Pakistan and is vocally calling for a boycott of Indian products? Perhaps. The Indian National Congress is now wholly anti-National. 

Mr Vladimir Putin is in a class of his own. So is Mr Xi Jinping.

While Rahul baba has a classroom of his own where he can do nice finger paintings while his diapers fill up with shit.  

Both are ‘tough’ leaders who plan to rule as long as they live. As I write, the tough Russian leader is raining rockets and bombs on a helpless Ukraine.

Just as tough American leaders rained rockets and bombs on Serbia and Iraq and Afghanistan and so forth.  

According to one count, there are 52 countries whose governments can be described as dictatorships.

There are none where the son of a PM who was the son of a PM who was the daughter of a PM who was the son of a Congress President is projected as a rival PM candidate to the incumbent. Such dynasticism is wholly Indian- but only because Congress is filled with corrupt careerists who haven't an ounce of integrity or patriotism.  

Mr Modi Prefers ‘Tough’

In the election campaign in Uttar Pradesh, Mr Narendra Modi spoke approvingly of the need to elect ‘tough’ leaders. At a rally in Bahraich, Mr Modi said “when turmoil is prevailing in the world, India needs to be stronger and for difficult times, a tough leader is needed (The Economic Times, February 23, 2022)”.

Other newspapers reported Modi as saying India had to get rid of 'parivarvaadi' (dynastic) leaders. One reason to do so is if they are milk-sops or moon calves.  

Incidentally, Bahraich is one of three districts in UP where, according to NITI Aayog, the poverty ratio is over 70 per cent.

What is Congress's message in Bahraich?  Who knows? Who cares? I think they sent Priyanka there last year. She looks a lot tougher than her brother. Ladki lad sakti hai. Ladka can do finger painting while his diaper quietly fills up with shit. 

Mr Modi clearly wanted the BJP’s leader in UP, Mr Adityanath, to be re-elected

The reason Chiddu feels he has to spell this out is because, in his party, it often happens that the High Command does not want the regional leader to be re-elected.  

presumably because Mr Adityanath is a ‘tough’ leader needed in these ‘difficult’ times. Mr Adityanath believes in enforcing law and order and brooks no opposition.

Whereas Congress believes in taking it up the arse and weeping copiously if no flowers arrive the next day.  

‘Encounters’ have official sanction. A criminal need not be brought before a court of law and punished, he can be shot down in an ‘encounter’. According to a report in The Indian Express (July 13, 2021), between March 2017 and June 2021, 139 criminals were killed in police encounters and 3,196 injured.

Which is the only reason Yogiji might get re-elected. Otherwise, Akhilesh has him beat on caste arithmetic.  

A favourite word of Mr Adityanath is ‘bulldozer’. On February 27, 2022, while addressing a rally at Karka Bazar in Sultanpur district, Mr Adityanath said, “we have developed this machine that builds express highways and also tackles the mafias and criminals. When I was coming here, I saw four bulldozers. I think there are five assemblies, we will send one to each, then everything will be fine” (India Today). In UP, to use bulldozers to raze buildings or vacate occupants (allegedly illegal), no court orders and no legal processes are necessary.

Congress structures in UP have been razed, Rahul Baba can't get elected from his ancestral seat- that's true enough. Yogiji may have bulldozers. Chiddu can only provide dozy bullshit.  

Mr Adityanath is so tough that Mr Siddique Kappan, a journalist from Kerala

Kerala, eh? Isn't that where the most extreme Islamic militants have set up the 'Popular Front'? Come to think of it, Rahul's seat is in Kerala. No wonder Chiddu does not mention that the people arrested with Kappan were from the Popular Front. 

covering the Hathras case of rape and murder, has been kept in jail since October 5, 2020. According to The Wire, since Mr Adityanath became chief minister, a total of 12 journalists have been killed, 48 physically assaulted and 66 booked for various charges or arrested. The tough chief minister persuaded his party not to give a ticket to a Muslim in any of the 403 constituencies, although Muslims constitute 20 per cent of the state’s population.

But the BJP has alliances with parties like Apna Dal which do field Muslim candidates. So what? Congress is tied up with Shiv Sena in Maharashtra.  That's an organization which is plenty tough.

Under the tough leader, UP is poor, the people have become poorer and 40 per cent has been added in five years to the state’s debt, that stands at a humongous sum of Rs 6,62,891 crore.

The dynasty used to get elected from UP. No wonder it is poor.  

Gentle and Wise

I think gentle leaders are the best. They are wise, speak softly, listen to the people, respect institutions and the law, celebrate diversity, work for harmony among the people and leave office quietly.

This is a description of Manmohan Singh. Why was he not the PM candidate in 2014? If he was too old, why not bring in Montek? What about Pranab? Come to think of it, Chiddu himself would have put up a better fight than the moon-calf.  

They make the people’s lives better. They provide jobs, better education and healthcare. They are against war and address the challenges of climate change. There have been — and are — such leaders in the world.

But not in the Congress party.  

The incomparable Nelson Mandela was one.

Nehru wasn't. He presided over the biggest massacre of Muslims in Indian history. Nor was Indira. She clapped her opponents in jail.  

Other examples are former Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany, Prime Minister Jacinda Adern of New Zealand, Prime Minister Mark Rutte of Netherlands and a few others.

Wealthy well protected countries may have very sweet and gentle leaders. But then, they'd still do well if they had no political leaders whatsoever. Bureaucrats could discharge routine functions. A ceremonial head of state could handle the P.R side of things. 

I don’t know what kind of leader UP, Uttarakhand, Punjab, Manipur and Goa will elect. If I had a vote in any of those states, I would vote for a gentle and wise leader.

Rather than the Congress candidate. Fair point, Chiddu. Now if only you could persuade Rahul Baba to let his favorite teddy bear take over the presidency of the INC, Indian voters would have the option of voting from a wiser, if not more gentle, candidate than that moon-calf.  

Chidambaram as andolanjeevi

P. Chidambaram was born into the purple of commerce. He was bright- returning to India with a Harvard MBA in 1968. Sadly, he didn't use his inheritance and his education to make the country richer by creating jobs and finding export markets. Instead, having inherited wealth, he became a woke virtue signaling cunt.

In fairness, as a member of Manmohan's cabinet, Chidu did take a dim view of foreign funded NGOs and the various agitations they sponsor. His endorsement of draconian action against the anti Nuclear movement in his native Tamil Nadu is still remembered. 

Strangely, he is now pretending that agitations are a good thing no matter how much they are against the National interest. 

Writing in the Indian Express, he tells us-

On the day in 1970 when the Supreme Court struck down the Executive Order withdrawing privy purses given to former rulers of princely states, another young advocate and I ‘joined’ the Youth Congress in Tamil Nadu.

It was not yet wholly dynastic. 

We joined by being part of a Youth Congress-organised protest against the judgment near the statue of Lord Munro in Chennai. We were arrested and released shortly afterwards. When privy purses were finally abolished by an amendment to the Constitution, we believed that our protest (and arrest) had led to the amendment and we had been vindicated!

This is utterly mad! Indira issued the Executive Order and then amended the Constitution. Why? It was a populist measure in keeping with her lurch to the left. Chidu asks us to believe that a smart guy with a Harvard MBA thought that his shouting slogans caused the hereditary privilege of the Princes to disappear! How stupid and ignorant does he think we are?  

Our protest was a dissent to the judgment of the Supreme Court.

No. It was something organized by the Youth Congress so that a couple of people could get to say they 'courted arrest' and that 'Madam' had responded to their anguish by changing the Constitution.  

There were similar protests at many places in the country. The Supreme Court did not haul us for contempt of court;

Hilarious! The Bench was groveling at Indira's feet!  

no one labelled us as anti-national; and no police agency charged us with sedition. Bless them.

Because that is what Madam wanted. She would later suspend all Constitutional rights and jail and torture anyone she pleased. Chidu, however, had ensured his own safety. But Stalin Karunanidhi was tortured.  

A dissenting mind belongs to a thinking person.

Only to the extent that an assenting or cowardly mind does so too.  

Great judges have been great dissenters: Justice Frankfurter, Justice Subba Rao, Justice H R Khanna and others.

A Judge who has a 'dissenting opinion' in a particular case is not a dissenter. Only if a Judge resigns because he or she feels the Basic Structure of the Constitution has been tampered with could such a person be called a dissident or a dissenter. 

Frankfurter was called a radical, not a dissenter. It is true he wrote more dissenting opinions than concurring opinions but this was because he was generally concurring and someone else was writing the opinion. 

Subba Rao wasn't on the Bench long. He resigned to run for the Presidency on a united Opposition ticket. Indira got rid of his pesky Golaknath decision soon afterwards. It is not clear why Chidu, who was against Privy Purses, brackets Subba Rao with Frankfurter. H.R Khanna is a different kettle of fish. But he resigned on being superseded rather than supinely hanging on while Sanjay and his Youth Congress thugs ran amok.

The dissenting judge, sometimes joined by other judges on the Bench, writes a minority judgment that was described as “an appeal to the brooding spirit of the law, to the intelligence of a future day”.

Or the reverse. Dissenting opinions can be very stupid indeed.  

In the field of sports, dissent is expressed by raising a clenched fist.

No. It is represented by beating the shit out of the umpire and any one else who gets in your way. 

In a business enterprise, dissent takes the form of work-to-rule or a strike.

Nonsense! It takes the form of a law suit or a demerger. A strike is not dissent. It is a threat point in a bargaining game.  

In politics and public life, dissent is expressed as a protest.

Not necessarily. Dissidents may simply retreat from public life and refuse to serve the Administration. By contrast, as in India, 'protests' may be orchestrated by the ruling party for a cosmetic purpose. Chidu protesting re. Privy Purses is a classic example. It wasn't dissent. It was sycophancy or careerism.  

Some protests garner widespread support and become an agitation, sometimes drawing thousands into the agitation. All ‘agitationists’ are passionate about the ‘cause’, many are willing to suffer and make sacrifices, few are selfish, and only a handful formulate the strategy. The last-named are the andolanjeevis, christened as such and denounced by the Prime Minister on February 8 while speaking in the Rajya Sabha.

The PM's political career began with the Nav Nirman agitation. The destruction of the Babri Masjid too was 'agitational'. These are the things which enabled the BJP to come to power. But both agitations happened long ago. The BJP saw that 'andolans' aren't popular. Good governance is what wins votes. Modi is saying Congress can't govern for shit. All it can do is sponsor 'andolans' which, however, cause them to lose votes. 

The Great Agitator

The quintessential andolanjeevi in the first half of the 20th century was, without question, Mahatma Gandhi.

Every single andolan of his- unless it was cosmetic, as in Champaran, and intended to draw attention away from what was really happening - failed completely and utterly. That was a remarkable outcome. After Independence, the Indian State didn't think it worthwhile to save him from an Assassin's bullet. Indeed, Godse is now more popular in some circles than Gandhi.  

He instinctively picked the right causes — indigo cultivation and salt tax.

But indigo cultivation would have collapsed anyway. It couldn't pay for itself. Still, the real reason Gandhi was in Bihar was so as to disguise the fact that the Hindus were attacking the Muslims and forcing them to give up cow slaughter.

The salt tax, as Chidu knows, is still with us. Clearly Gandhi picked the wrong causes. 

He was a wordsmith and invested words with powerful messages — satyagraha and Quit India.

But the Brits didn't quit India till America refused to finance the Raj. Still, Nehru begged Mountbatten to stay on for at least another 6 months. As for 'satyagraha'- everybody could see it was based on stupid lies- e.g. the notion that Hindus would die in the cause of Khilafat. 

He believed in the power of symbols — a fistful of salt and khadi (hand-spun and hand-woven) clothing.

But the salt tax remains. Khadi of Gandhi's sort has disappeared. He objected to handloom weavers producing luxury items they couldn't wear themselves. But that is the only kind which is economically viable.  

He forged new weapons in the struggle for Independence — indefinite fasting and Dandi Yatra.

But fasting did not influence the Brits at all. They had already shown they could use forcible feeding and 'cat and mouse' tactics to defeat hunger strikes by Suffragettes. Gandhi used fasting only against Indians- e.g Ambedkar- who had reason to fear evil consequences if that old hypocrite died. Anyway, Godse got rid of that nuisance and thus has earned a place in the pantheon of Indian nationalism. 

Chidu could have abolished the salt tax when he was Finance Minister. Why did he not honor 'Dandi Yatra' then?  

He used soft power — bhajans and prayer meetings.

He was shot at one such. The assassin was captured by an American. It seems the Indian Government was not greatly concerned with protecting the life of that old coot. Interestingly, 3 people with the surname Gandhi have been assassinated despite being entitled to high level security. No wonder Rahul doesn't want to step up to the plate.  

A lot of thought must have gone into crafting and leading the struggle for Independence.

But that thought must have been very stupid indeed if India did not get in 1922 what Ireland and Egypt and Afghanistan got.  

He was the original andolanjeevi; we are proud to call him the Father of the Nation.

To be fair, Gandhi's salience was as much associated with his ability to call off andolans and to surrender unconditionally as it was to doom them from the start by his stupidity. 

On the other hand, Gandhi was very good at begging for money and posing as a holier than thou cunt. India under Nehru adopted begging bowl diplomacy and a defeatist military doctrine. Blaming Bapu for this was a sound move.  

Dissent has shaped the history of nations, dissent has given birth to new religions, dissent has liberated millions of people.

No. History features dissent and assent and absence of mind and everything else. New Religions pop up because some guys get to thinking God is talking to them. Liberation is about the cost and benefit of Coercion. Often, it is merely cosmetic.  

Lenin revolted against the provisional government installed after Tsar Nicholas II had abdicated, and the first Communist nation was born.

Because Lenin, whom the Germans had sent to Russia to undermine the Allied War effort, promised peace and land. He broke both promises. Lies, not dissent, birthed the first Communist nation.  

Siddhartha Gautama, Martin Luther and Guru Nanak dissented from the religious order in which they were born and founded a new reformist religious order.

Nonsense! Gautama was a student of Kapila. What he dissented from was the 'Sangha' of his Tribe. Briefly, he didn't want to fight in a war against a stronger tribe. So he promised he wouldn't aid the enemy but just get on with attaining Moksha or whatever. He was not dissenting against Brahminism. On the contrary, one particular sect of Brahmins were admitted to his Sangha purely by virtue of birth. What he did repudiate was a particular type of Shramanic ascesis which he considered too harsh. 

Luther could be said to be a dissident. He could also be said to be an antisemite and a guy who wanted the Princes to crush the peasantry. Still, he had a point. Monks should marry Nuns and leave the buttocks of little boys alone. 

Nanak lived under Muslim occupation. His importance lies in the fact that the sect he created took up arms against Muslim rulers and established their own Empire. 

To them we owe the birth of Buddhism, Protestantism and Sikhism.

Buddhism spread untouchability to Japan. By contrast, Bali has Brahmins but no untouchables. 

 Buddhist 'dissent' is based on the notion that Buddhist monks are superior to all other beings. We have no reason to give credence to this view.

Protestants have persecuted both Catholics as well as other Protestants. In English the word 'Dissenter' originally meant a Protestant whose form of worship was not acceptable to the Established, Anglican, Church. 

Sikhism too has a history of factional violence and ethnic cleansing.  

Martin Luther King Jr’s dissent on the prevailing social order — and the movement that sprung from his dissent — liberated millions of black Americans, something that a civil war could not do. His passionate cry “I have a dream” was an appeal to the conscience of Americans.

But MLK was supporting, not dissenting, from the existing tendency of Federal Legislation. Malcolm X could be said to have been a dissenter. Then he was killed by members of a rival faction.

There were at least three watershed years in India in the first half of the twentieth century: 1920, 1930 and 1942.

And in each case there was a big andolan which back-fired completely. It was left to the Brits to decide the pace and shape of reform.  

Each one of the years was marked by a nationwide agitation that seamlessly became a movement and transformed into a struggle for freedom.

But which fell apart and increased communalism and reduced the role of the Indian National Congress.  

The non-cooperation movement evolved into the civil disobedience movement and culminated in the Quit India movement, which was the final blow to the imperial power of Britain.

But Britain survived that blow. It beat the Japanese with American help. Had Truman been willing to finance the Raj, they'd have stayed till the Seventies- as Nehru predicted. 

On the other hand, mutinies in the Armed forces did concentrate British minds. However, if they could have raised the pay of Naval ratings etc- i.e. if Uncle Sam stumped up cash- then they could have ridden out the problem.  

The true meaning of andolan is not ‘agitation’ but ‘movement’.

Like a bowel movement.  

There are examples of agitations evolving into people’s movements in other countries as well. The anti-Vietnam war protests that exploded on university campuses across the United States (1968) exposed the lies of the US government and, in a few years, the US beat a humiliating retreat from South Vietnam, that led to a united Vietnam.

Why? Because the North Vietnamese were better fighters and had Chinese and Soviet support. There would have been no anti-Vietnam protest if there had been no draft. Indeed, if Irma Adelman's advise had been heeded- i.e. if America had financed land-reform so the peasants wouldn't have needed the Viet Cong to scare landlords away- South Vietnam could have prospered and arrived at a modus vivendi with the North. But South Vietnam's leadership was as corrupt and incompetent as Chidu's Congress Party. 

Some movements — the Velvet Revolution and the Romanian Revolution (both 1989) — succeeded in overthrowing longstanding authoritarian regimes (Czechoslovakia, Romania).

But all those regimes fell because Gorbachev listened to some silly mathematical economists and surrendered Party control of the Economy. This led to a scissors crisis. Soviet clients had to go it alone economically speaking. Only Cuba and North Korea held firm- though at the price of famine.

Some like Arab Spring in Egypt failed (2011). The enduring lesson of these movements is that the human spirit that seeks a change for the better can never be suppressed forever.

Does this man read over what he writes? He just said 'sometimes movements fail'. He could have added that often things get better without any movement whatsoever. Thus the 'enduring lesson' is 'movements in the human spirit' may or not be suppressed forever. What matters is whether a change is feasible. The Human Spirit has yearned for super powers since time began. There have been all sorts of crazy movements- e.g. the Boxer rebellion, or Maji Maji rebellion- where indigenous  people believed they could become invulnerable to Western bullets- but which failed in precisely the way Gandhian satyagraha failed. Magic does not work. 

There is an interesting correlation between citizens’ political rights/civil liberties and press freedom.

This has not been India's experience. The Press got freer while ethnic cleansing mounted. If you don't even have the right to life and property and must run away, how does it help you if you can publish an article critical of the powers that be?  

A country that ranks higher in terms of citizens’ rights will also have a better press freedom score.

No it won't. Rights are linked to remedies under a vinculum juris- a bond of law. If going to court for remedies to rights violations involves nothing but expense and delay and then, finally, a completely unenforceable judgment, we can't say citizens have effective rights. But the press may be completely free. Indeed, if the population is largely illiterate or has come to despair of the political process, why bother with it anyway?  

The conclusion is logical because it is the media that reflects and amplifies (or distorts and diminishes) the assertion of rights by citizens.

Not in a country with a lot of functional illiteracy and little purchasing power. 

Finland and several European countries are on the top in both scorecards.

But Jamaica scores high on press freedom while being the murder capital of the world.  

Near the bottom is China.

Because it is lifting hundreds of millions out of poverty and becoming a Global Super Power 

India is somewhere in the middle.

Because it is nowhere near as successful. 

The hope is India’s score will rise, the fear is it will slide.

Nonsense! Nobody gives a fuck.  

Ask the Editors’ Guild or the Press Club of India.

Why? They are a bunch of crooked tossers.  

Every 15 days or thereabouts they complain bitterly about accusations against or the arrest of a journalist or a raid on a media organisation but, in the end, they meekly surrender or become His Master’s Voice. Ramnath Goenka was the last fearless owner of a newspaper and an andolanjeevi.

He was a Marwari. Those guys did well out of their association with Gandhi, Nehru etc. But India did not. We'd have been better off either getting Independence in 1922 or keeping the Brits around till the Seventies so as to develop lots of Hong Kong type industrial centers.  

Andolanjeevis will ultimately prevail over those who will suppress speech, writing, expression, dissent, protests, agitations or movements

Only if poverty and economic stagnation prevails. Otherwise there is a trade-off between jailing nutters now and getting richer quickly as opposed to letting nutters roam free till we too have nothing else to do but join one such movement and go sleep on some road while being fed at a langar in return for feebly mouthing stupid slogans. 

China has already prevailed, though- no doubt- under Modi, India gave quite a good account of itself. This is not to the taste of the andolanjeevis whom, quite naturally, China is ready to finance.  

P.Chidambaram on the Student Agitation

P.Chidambaram, who was a Leftist once upon a time, was completing his MBA at Harvard in '68. He thinks there is some resemblance between what is happening in India now and what was happening then after the Summer of Love.

India in 2020 looks like the United States in 1968. France in 1968 was in a similar situation. My recollection of 1968 is that normal political activity in the US had failed and the ‘causes’ had passed to the hands of students in universities and colleges. The main cause in 1968 was the Vietnam War.

American kids did not want to get killed in a far off country.  Thus, their protests were rational and self interested. Moreover, the tax payer would be better off if they didn't have to pay for the quagmire in Indochina. Student protest didn't have much effect- they had deferments anyway- but conscription had to go because G.Is returned from Vietnam as either drug addicts or quadriplegics or drug addled quadriplegics.

The US was fighting a war in South Vietnam ostensibly to push back the advance of the Communists who controlled North Vietnam and to ‘save democracy’.

The US killed the crazy Catholic who was running things. But the puppet they put in was shit. 

In the aftermath of World War II, there was popular support for the doctrine of defending and protecting ‘liberal democracies’.

Fuck off! There was popular support for saving Western Europe from Stalin. 

The most visible battle line was drawn in Europe. There were the so-called Democratic countries and the so-called Communist countries.

Spain and Portugal weren't democratic. The latter joined NATO in 1949 while Spain had a military alliance with the US from the Fifties onward.  

Winston Churchill called the dividing line the Iron Curtain.
The US had a draft. Young men were obliged to serve in the defence forces. In the initial years of the Vietnam War, many volunteered to serve. As the war dragged on, and the lies of successive governments were exposed, support turned into scepticism; scepticism turned into suspicion; and suspicion turned into opposition.

This is misleading. If you volunteered there was a good chance you wouldn't be sent to Vietnam. The Army didn't want its future leaders to become junkies in a tropical shithole.  

It was the youth — especially students and the draftees — who first raised the voice of protest.

Actually, there had been protests against American policy in South East Asia as early as 1945 when the US Merchant Marine sailors protested use of American vessels to bring back the French colonizers. In the case of the Dutch in Indonesia, America did insist on a transfer of power to the 'natives'. Quakers too had become active in opposing American policy in the area in the Fifties and early Sixties. 

They asked, why is the US fighting a war in distant Vietnam? Why are young Americans dying in the hundreds? The political system failed to provide satisfactory answers.

No. What it failed to do was finance the war properly or come up with a strategy which might yield decisive victory. I suppose the truth is, no such strategy existed. Still, the war could have been fought with proxies. The South Koreans did particularly well in that theater.  

The elected representatives in the US Congress were late in catching the wind. When they did, successive US Administrations dug in their heels and vociferously defended the war. Whether it was Kennedy’s, Johnson’s or Nixon’s, the refrain was the same: victory is just one battle away.

This is misleading. Kennedy may have changed his mind had he lived. Johnson too was wrongly advised.  

Surprisingly, it was Richard Nixon — a hawk and resolutely anti-Communist — who sensed that the US was fighting a hopeless and unwinnable war and decided to pull out.

The kids knew why they were being sent to Vietnam. They did not want to go. That's it. That's the whole story. 

The ferment that we witness in the campuses of Indian universities and colleges bears a striking resemblance to the events of 1968.

Fuck off! There was no fucking 'ferment' in India in 2020.  

Students and youth have sensed that something is ‘terribly wrong’ in the way the country is being governed.

This is silly. American kids didn't want to get shot. American taxpayers didn't want their money to be wasted. The Generals realized the war was unwinnable. They'd made the same mistake as Truman had backing the corrupt KMT against Mao's Communists. So Nixon got the Pakistanis to open a backdoor to Beijing. 

Indian students know what is 'terribly wrong' with our campuses. There are too many stupid Lefties on them. 

There were many sparks like appointment of vice-chancellors with dubious credentials, unwarranted interference by bumptious governors/chancellors, flawed appointments of teachers, mismanagement in the conduct of examinations, restrictions on student union activities, fee hikes, etc.

All of which have always happened. But nobody cares. Why? Indian students are shit. So are their teachers. Higher Education is a white elephant. That is why Chiddu and his ilk send their kids abroad to study. 

Some university administrations were politically biased and favoured one political group of students over others and triggered clashes — the most notable was the administration of Jawaharlal Nehru University that openly encouraged the ABVP, the students’ wing of the RSS.

So what? Either the students beat the V.C or they get beaten. Nobody cares. 

Voices of protest were labelled the tukde tukde gang. Sedition cases were slapped against student leaders.

And Modi was re-elected. People now hate the students. They like seeing them in bandages. Mao realized this long ago. First he used the students against his opponents in the Party. Then he got the factory workers to enter the campuses and beat the shit out of the students. Those who survived were sent off to the villages. Chairman Xi was one such student. He learned his lesson well. Students should be beaten regularly- unless they are studying something useful in which case they should be forced to incur student debt so they'll get a paying job and enter the tax net. 

If the new ‘normal’ in universities was frightening, the ‘normal’ in the country at large was also oppressive. Every day brought more horror stories of rape and lynching, trolling and abuse, and arbitrary arrests.

Like Chidu being arrested on corruption charges.  He thinks the students are rallying to his cause. 

Mendacious boasts about growth, development and jobs

which Chidu made when he was in the Cabinet 

angered young men and women who were apprehensive about the future,

Chidu & Co were kicked out for their monumental corruption and incompetence 

especially about getting jobs. An observant student could discern that the force driving the new ‘normal’ and legitimising it was the majoritarian arrogance of the rulers that manifested itself in many ways: intolerance of dissent, contempt for other faiths, hard approach to enforcing law and order, censorship and other restrictions (such as shutdown of Internet), prolonged detention without charges, imposition of reactionary dogmas (‘inter-caste or inter-faith marriage will not be allowed’), etc.

Chidu is making a good point. Smriti Irani has had to divorce her husband because the BJP is opposed to inter-faith marriage. Indeed, she has been retrospectively stripped of her RSS membership because it turns out her parents were of different castes. Chidu knows all about this because he remembers being taught this at Harvard in 1968.

At the political level, the majoritarian arrogance was visible in the refusal by the government to engage with the Opposition and in rushing through controversial legislation in Parliament. Here is an example: Articles 5 to 11 of the Constitution of India deal with citizenship. The Constituent Assembly debated these provisions for three months before the Articles were adopted. By contrast, the Citizenship (Amendment) Bill 2019 was approved by the Cabinet on December 8, 2019, passed in both Houses of Parliament, and notified as a law on December 11 — all within 72 hours!

So what? The quality of debate has gone down a lot because people like Chidu say that BJP is preventing inter-caste marriage. Why not simply come out and say that BJP is flaying Tamils and making lampshades out of their skin? At JNU and Jamia Milia we daily see hundreds of millions of Tamils whose skin has been removed protesting vociferously. This also happened in '68 in America.

More than political parties — some of whom did extraordinary flip-flops — it was the students and youth who woke up to the real threat to India and the Constitution. They realised that the majoritarian arrogance and steps would lead to authoritarianism; more than that, it would divide India and pit Indian against Indian. Some Indians would become less than others in terms of rights, privileges and opportunities.

Currently, anyone can become head of the Congress party. If the BJP gets their way only Rahul or Priyanka will be allowed to head it after Sonia dies. 

It would be a catastrophic throwback to the India of 70 years ago and would erase the gains made since Independence.

One great gain has been power being concentrated in corrupt political dynasties- like the one Chidu has himself founded. Yet, back in the Seventies, this guy counted as a Leftist! Why didn't he just make money honestly like his ancestors or his fellow Harvard alumni?

The Citizenship (Amendment) Act has pierced the indifference and apathy of the younger generation.

Because they think it wrong for non-Muslims who have fled persecution from Islamic neighbors to get Citizenship. They should go back to where they came from and quietly change their Religion. 

The older generation has been put to shame.

Very true! We should have massacred those stupid Refugees ourselves. 

Thousands of young men and women have poured into the streets to protest, to march, to hold candlelight vigils, to wave the National Flag and to read the Preamble of the Constitution and reflect on its intangible but enduring values.

Like not letting in refugees from Islamic persecution. 

As expected, the ruling class has reacted with blind fury, bluster and banalities, but the rulers are nervous.

Of whom? The students? They will be beaten till they learn their lesson. That is what Mamta's did to the Jadavpur students back in 2014 when they were foolish enough to object to her goons grabbing girls on campus and taking them to their hostel room for a spot of r & r. 

The Prime Minister has allowed his Home Minister to assert that “we will not withdraw an inch from CAA”. It seems there is an irresistible force and an immovable block. Someone — or something — has to yield. On that will hang the fate and future of India. It’s an unhappy beginning to the New Year.

Chidu may be back in jail soon enough. This thought might be making him unhappy. Still, he sees a gleam of light on the horizon. The students will start beating all and sundry till the police and the army and the BJP runs away. The true meaning of the Constitution will then be made clear. Arbitrary arrests of Chidus for corruption must stop. Non Muslim Refugees must be kicked out. Only then will India become a true Democracy free of the taint of authoritarianism and those nasty non-Muslims who keep escaping from their persecutors across the border.