Wednesday 29 March 2023

Olusoga turning tricks for a niggardly Guardian

Why did China and Japan seek to greatly restrict maritime trade with Europe and America? One  reason was the slave trade. The Chinese and Japanese didn't want their own people to be shipped off to far away places to serve foreign masters.

Some Chieftans and other Rulers, however, actively encouraged the slave trade. One reason for this was that they needed to import weapons and trade goods so as to retain their independence or expand their territories.

The historian, David Olusoga, is of Nigerian descent on his father's side.  Yoruba people both profited from and were the victims of the slave trade. This means that whereas anyone directly from Nigeria may have enjoyed greater status and inherited wealth because their ancestors captured or transported and sold slaves to Europeans, it is certain that Afro-Caribbean or Afro-American people are undoubtedly the victims of that vicious and deeply repugnant type of commerce. 

The Guardian Newspaper is owned by a Trust founded by people who indirectly benefited from the slave trade. They did not capture or sell such slaves as their primary occupation. But they may have employed slaves or bought the produce of slave labour. The Guardian, with great fanfare and publicity, is devoting a niggardly sum to some supposed type of reparation to those of us who are descended from the people their ancestors referred to as niggers. However, one must distinguish between people of slave ancestry and others, who might look like them but who were never enslaved by Europeans. Indeed, they may have sold slaves to the White Man.

Olusoga, in a poetic essay to mark the Guardian's virtue signalling venture, writes of a trick. What trick might that be? Is it one whereby he ignores what his ancestors might have done in terms of capturing, transporting and selling African people? Or is he going to present us historical facts? Let us see- 

If you know how a trick is done, if you have peered through the smoke and looked past the mirrors, if you have figured out how the illusion is accomplished, surely you can no longer be fooled by it? Surely?

One is not fooled by a magician's tricks. We know David Copperfield can't actually make the Statue of Liberty disappear. What we pay for is the experience of not being able to detect quite how the trick is worked. Even if we know sleight of hand is involved, we will applaud and feel we have got our money's worth if our eye was not quick enough to detect the legerdemain. Thus professional magicians might compliment each other on their not being able to tell which method was used to pull off a deception. 

The smoke-and-mirrors trick I thought I had seen through sits at the centre of British history, how it is generally taught and understood.

Ideology is smoke and mirrors, rhetoric is smoke and mirrors, as is virtue signalling.  There is some obvious logical fallacy which is being covered over by the prestidigitator's patter. 

Like all the best illusions it draws your eye in one direction, away from the details the illusionist does not want you to see.

In this case, the African guys selling African slaves they had captured or transported 

It is carefully designed to frame and delineate our understanding of the past by focusing our attention away from certain linkages and connections.

People from Nigeria may have profited from the transcontinental Slave trade.  They weren't the victims of it. Indeed, if their countries lost independence as a result of the abolition of the trade, we might say they were the victims of Wilberforce and his abolitionist crew. 

The illusion in question works like this: it marginalises the histories of slavery and empire, corralling them into separate annexes.

The only people who do this corralling are stupid shitheads who teach a worthless subject. Don't teach History in Skool. Cretins teach it with the intention of cretinizing kids. 

What would be the point of turning people of West Indian descent against those of Nigerian descent on the grounds that the latter might have sold the former's ancestors to 'the Man'? There was plenty of animosity between the two groups when I was growing up. But that was based on the fact that Nigerians in this country were much richer, better educated, and were rising rapidly in any and every worthwhile field. Since then, however, people of West Indian origin too have risen rapidly. Thus it would be foolish to revive any sort of school-yard feud between the two. Perhaps the intention is to unite Black against White- but a lot of White kids must now be of East European descent. They had nothing whatever to do with the slave trade.  

It creates firewalls that neatly compartmentalise history,

Fuck history. Stop teaching it. The thing is a waste of time.  

rendering almost invisible the great flows of money, raw materials, people and ideas that moved, back and forth, between distant plantations on colonial frontiers and the imperial mother country.

Study economics by all means. Those flows are the datasets from which we estimate the parameters of our Structural Causal Models.

What happened in those colonies is either ignored or dismissed as insignificant, of interest perhaps only to a few minority communities or handfuls of historical specialists, with no broader importance.

We should be getting West Indian origin kids to stab Nigerian origin kids in the school yard. Whites will be left alone because it will turn out they are Irish or Polish or hopelessly working class.  

It conceals the history of slavery and the slave trade behind a distorted and exaggerated memorialisation of abolition and a select number of the leading male abolitionists.

We should be naming and shaming Yoruba chiefs instead and tracking down their descendants so wannable Yardies can get some practice in carving them up.  

It presents the Industrial Revolution as a phenomenon that sprang whole and complete from native British soil, but is suspiciously silent about the source of much of the capital that funded it and equally mute as to where certain key industrial raw materials came from and who produced them.

But there were Africans and Asians who had capital and who had key industrial raw materials. Why didn't they have an industrial revolution save by copying the UK?  The answer has to do with rising real wages which made substituting steam power for muscle power profitable. One reason for this was that Brits had gotten rid of serfdom or slavery centuries previously.  Another is that England was determined to defend itself from richer and more powerful Continental neighbours. As with West African states which used the Slave Trade to finance their own defense forces, so too with England. It engaged in repugnant types of commerce so as to be able to fight off those who might use that ill gotten wealth and power to conquer their island and impose their own religion and aristocracy upon it. 


Cotton Capital explores how transatlantic slavery shaped the Guardian, Manchester, Britain and the world.

It is stupid shit because it is based on lies, wokeness and fake outrage. Some Manchester merchant who bought cotton or insured shipping cargoes is not as great a villain as an African Chief who enslaved and sold fellow Africans. 

This smoke-and-mirrors trick sits at the centre of British history. It draws your eye in one direction, away from the details the illusionist does not want you to see.

Africans enslaved and sold Africans.  No doubt, some of them spoke Arabic- but they were still African. The only 'trick' here is pretending that some ship broker or manufacturer was actually kidnapping people and forcing them to work by whipping them.

The trick was constructed over centuries by politicians, lobbyists and journalists who sought to create a highly romanticised version of our national story.

Fuck off! Stories are for kids or kiddie-fiddlers. Narratives don't matter. Money does. Defeating your enemies on Sea or on Land and plundering their treasuries is profitable in itself. A couple of scribblers, and later on a couple of school masters, might make a slender living by praising those who made a lot of money and gained a lot of power by winning battles or creating business empires, but such pedagogues did not matter then and do not matter know. The Guardian may have some woke or virtue signalling narrative of its own. But it can be easily countered by a Tweet from QAnon. The point about stupid lies is that everybody can tell them. Professors of shit subject can't compete with yet sexier narratives involving shape shifting lizards and Illuminati.  

They were assisted in this task by generations of historians

i.e. low IQ pedagogues whom nobody gave a toss about 

who were equally determined to construct British history around the biographies of “great men” whose achievements, they believed, proved the nation’s supposed exceptionalism.

You can make a bit of money saying your country or religion or ideology is great. Saying you are shit and your country is shit and all its vaunted heroes sucked cock and shat themselves incessantly tends to be ill rewarded.  

The illusion is effective because we are all subconsciously schooled in it.

No. We subconsciously understand that England is better off than most parts of Africa because the English did smart things. That's why a lot of us darkies live here and don't want to return to where our parents or grandparents came from.  

It has long shaped the history delivered to us at school

Sensible kids spend their time masturbating or day dreaming about Princesses with big knockers during History lessons. My mistake was to also do this during Mathematics lectures.  

and, as we are not taught of the existence of the redacted and missing chapters,

e.g. those about African slave-raiders. They were very efficient. Indeed, I believe there are still plenty of efficient people smuggling operations in Africa. Come to think of it, when Olasugo was 3 years old MGM released 'Shaft in Africa' about an African-American detective who breaks up a people smuggling ring bringing Africans into Europe. I recall watching the movie in Kenya. It was not popular there. People already knew that they'd be better off emigrating. The movie even flopped in America. Blaxploitation must feature a super-rich 'Wakanda' not the impoverished reality of the mother continent.

I also recall an Indian scholar of French nationality who had researched the role played by his grandfather in getting France to surrender territory to independent India. He was invited to talk about this in that very place. Sadly, when his audience there found out that the man's grandfather was responsible for their losing the right to emigrate to Europe, they chased the fellow away. 

we have no reason to go in search of them. This approach to the past is so powerful that it is capable – as I recently discovered – of triggering a form of cognitive dissonance.

This guy has convinced himself that his father's people were victims, not possible beneficiaries, of the transatlantic slave trade. 

I had – presumptuously, it turns out – thought myself impervious to this trick because, over the years, I have given literally hundreds of lectures and talks about it. In those lectures, or in the question-and-answer sessions that follow them, I have appealed to audiences to recognise how the illusion operates.

They were laughing at you mate. You are complaining about what your father's people did to the ancestors of Afro-Caribbean and Afro-American people.

None of that prevented a sliding-doors moment, of something like cognitive dissonance, five years ago when I was asked to interview for a seat on the board of the Scott Trust, the owner of the Guardian. Despite having spent years making appeals for the histories of slavery and the British empire to be recognised as fundamental parts of our national story, I completely failed to recognise the crucial and obvious connections between the founders of the Guardian and the history of slavery.

Once offered proper payment for recognizing nonsense, the fellow had no difficulty doing so at all. That's how cognitive dissonance works. Give me enough money and my cognition changes to what you want it to be. Beating is equally effective. 

Because when approached about joining the Scott Trust my mind turned – subconsciously and exclusively – to one form of British history: the history of class, 19th-century liberalism and reform, out of which the newspaper emerged.

It was the vehicle of the Non-Conformist Mill owners who wanted an end to the Corn Laws, Slavery and so forth. If you are a cotton or sugar manufacturer in Manchester, you don't want slave labour in the Indies doing 'value adding manufacturing' in line with the 'gravity model'. 

An arena of domestic British history that – from when it was first taught to me at school –

nobody is taught history at school. You read a few books in the library, if that's what you want to do. I suppose there may be 'History Boys' who need to go to Oxbridge so as to come out of the closet and then join the BBC and marry Elton John or whatever but such people don't greatly matter- at least not to working class darkies like yours truly. I'm lying. I'm as jealous as fuck of them. But then blokes like me don't matter at all even in our own scheme of things.  

was presented as having no connections to histories that took place beyond Britain’s shores.

That's true enough. Manchester didn't really impact much on Indian or African history. In the former case its crowing achievement was the Mody-Lees agreement. That didn't last long.  

More than any other experience this failure has demonstrated to me the power of this form of historical myopia and our vulnerabilities to it.

But the quantum of that power was less than the wind energy generated by one of my less noisy farts.  


One possible reason why I failed to make the obvious connections relates to my family history and how it shapes my thinking. In 1819, the year the Manchester and Salford yeomanry charged their horses into the huge crowd of working people at Peterloo – the event that inspired John Edward Taylor to found the Manchester Guardian

This cretin has confused the Manchester Observer, which Taylor was opposed to because of its stand on Peterloo, with the Guardian which only came out after its competitor was suppressed. This is a story about the wealthy pursuing what they wanted- viz. getting more parliamentary representation and less agricultural protection (i.e. being able to pay lower real wages)- while abandoning the radicals, the Trade Unionists and the 'Chartists' who demanded universal suffrage.  

– my ancestors, on my mother’s side, were scraping a living from the fields outside the tiny town of Tranent, in the Scottish lowlands. Two decades earlier, in 1797, they had been living in Tranent when another cavalry unit, the Cinque Port Light Dragoons, had attacked another group of protesters. The people of Tranent had been protesting against the conscription of local men into the British militia during Britain’s wars against revolutionary France. The number of people killed in what became known as the Tranent massacre is uncertain. Estimates range from around 12 to 20, a death toll comparable to that at Peterloo. Some people in Scotland regard the massacre at Tranent as that nation’s equivalent to Peterloo.

Meanwhile, some Yorubas were selling others into slavery. Consider the following letter written by a Nigerian historian- Dear Yoruba people, my name is Professor Banji Akintoye. This letter comes to you as an overdue apology from the several generations of the Yoruba race that are dispersed around the world. This is not an ordinary letter; it is an epistle borne out of deep revelation and shared by many children of God of Yoruba extraction all over the universe.

“Predating colonialism and slavery in Africa in the 18 and 19 centuries, the Yoruba race had engaged in internal conflicts, resulting in marauding, intra-tribal and internecine warfare. Historians mostly agree that such civil unrests did not result in commercialisation of human captives until the era of colonialism and slave trade on the African soil.  Yet, we have to agree that foreigners did not do this without the cooperation of some of the indigenous people, the Yoruba.
“According to the revelation referenced above, a segment of the captive Yoruba sons and daughters hauled into slavery looked back and placed a curse on the land and the people that violated their humanities by selling them into slavery. Furthermore, Holy Spirit revealed that some among the Yoruba captives committed suicide by jumping off the captive ships into their deaths deep into the Atlantic Ocean, while others simply placed the curse and endured the shame by continuing the captive’s journey. For this, the need for reconciliation and unreserved apologies is real and past due.
“Against this backdrop of atrocity of historical proportions unleashed against the peoples of Black Africa, which escalated into the full-blown slavery, the current generation of the Yoruba seeks to tender an unreserved, heart-felt apology on behalf of our past generations of forefathers, monarchs and chiefs who participated in slavery.”

I suppose one could blame the pre-Trans Atlantic slave trade on Arab Muslims. Yet there was a steady supply of Sub-Saharan slaves before the birth of Christ. But then state-formation or defence in many parts of the world, from at least the time of the Assyrians, was based on enslaving and transporting vast numbers of people.
This working-class history of political protest and the struggle for rights is every bit as personal to me as the history of imperial expansion that, a century after the Tranent massacre, saw my Nigerian ancestors forced into the British empire – literally at gunpoint.

The Brits gave the excuse of ending the slave-trade to take over Yoruba land.  The problem was that the increased market for cash crops itself motivated an internal slave trade. It must be said that West Africans rose very rapidly in education, commerce, the Church and the professions. The likely future success of the people of that region was already apparent.  Thus 'Scientific Racism' against Africans was completely unempirical and relied on 'phenomenological' arguments. Sadly, in the thinking of people like Pearson, Statistical methodology became infected with that Teutonic type of stupidity.  

And it was the working people killed at Tranent and Peterloo to whom my mind rushed when approached by the Scott Trust. At that moment I fell – utterly and completely – for the exact same trick I have spent years urging others to guard against. The knowledge that the cotton that enabled John Edward Taylor and his fellow investors to found the Guardian was produced by enslaved people in the American south remained sealed away in a separate compartment, overwhelmed by an involuntary and unexamined synaptic rush.

Isn't it wonderful what a little money from a Trust can do?  

When we do take a moment to think about the horrors of American slavery we rarely make connections to the mills of Manchester.

Indians make it to their own cotton boom which led to mills in Mumbai and Ahmedabad and the financing of the Mahacrackpot.  

Knowing how a trick is done did not – it turned out – render me in the least immune to its power, I am embarrassed to say.

Prostitutes are said 'to turn a trick'. The changing hands of money is the only magic here.  

Indeed, I didn’t recognise any of this until the summer of 2020, when Alex Graham, then the chair of the Scott Trust, asked me to help set up a research project on Taylor and the 11 Manchester merchants who founded the Guardian and their links to slavery. At that moment I instantly saw the connections my mind had, somehow, bypassed three years earlier.

The same thing would happen to me if they paid me.  

The historians who were later appointed to carry out research into the finances and business dealings of the Guardian’s founders found evidence that nearly all were connected to slavery.

If paid enough, they'd have found that nearly all were connected to sucking off homeless Nigerian dudes on a planet far far away.  

Monday 27 March 2023

Is Kapil Sibal completely senile?

Apropos of the  Rahul defamation case: Kapil Sibal- that soothsaying Sybil of Stupidity- suggests that India needs to Amend law to protect MPs, MLAs

This is strange. MPs and MLAs, by the nature of their jobs, must understand the need to use parliamentary language and the necessity of avoiding defamatory language or hate speech. Why should the law be amended to protect only those who have a higher duty of care with respect to what they say? There is no 'chilling effect' on alethic or good faith speech concerned with public policy or the conduct of the administration. 

Why is Sibal making such an absurd demand? The answer, no doubt, is that some Modi has stolen his brain.

The substantive issue is whether such a law, which results in disqualification of a Member of Parliament, requires to be amended to provide safeguards to a sitting member.

Why not give legislators immunity from arrest? Oh. Criminals would get elected so as to kill their rivals with impunity. 

Rahul Gandhi’s speech in Kolar, Karnataka, led to his conviction by a Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM) in Surat, Gujarat. He was sentenced for two years in a proceeding for criminal defamation. The process which led to his conviction and the conviction itself have raised issues that need to be addressed both from the point of view of law and politics.

Nonsense! Rahul had been admonished by the Supreme Court against 'collective denunciation' in 2016 but just went ahead and did it anyway. The only real issue here is why Rahul- who has been an MP for 19 years- can't control his tongue. Why does he babble actionable nonsense? 

Before delving into any of these issues, let us first understand what Rahul Gandhi said on April 13, 2019, while addressing a rally in Karnataka: “I have a question. Why do all of them—all of these thieves—have Modi Modi Modi in their names? Nirav Modi, Lalit Modi, Narendra Modi. And if we search a bit more, many more such Modis will come out.”

This isn't jus defamatory. It is hate speech. The hereditary leader of a party with 45 million members and which rules States like Rajasthan has told his acolytes to discriminate against and show hostility towards people with the surname Modi. Since it is well known that there is also a caste of that name, Rahul has targeted people of a particular caste by stigmatizing them as likely to be thieves. Incidentally, Narendra Modi is not a thief. Rahul's family may have looted the country. Modi has not done so.  

For what he said, a former Gujarat minister and BJP MLA, Purnesh Modi, chose to prosecute him for criminal defamation on April 16, 2019. On the face of it, the statement cannot be regarded as an affront to the entire “Modi community”.

Yes it can. Substitute 'Khan' for Modi and 'terrorist' for 'thief' and see what you get. Recall Shahrukh's film 'My name is Khan and I am not a terrorist'. The thing speaks for itself.  

Rahul Gandhi merely asked why all those alleged “thieves” have “Modi” attached to their names.

Similarly we may merely ask why all rapists who butcher and eat the children they have molested are known as Kapil Sibal. We may also ask why nobody who cares about children is not beating Kapil Sibal to death. Indeed, while stabbing him, we ourselves may be merely pursuing an inquiry into the question 'how do you like being stabbed you fat tub of lard?' In all these cases, can the mere raising of an innocent question be legally actionable? 

The answer is 'yes'. Section 499 spells the matter out.  

Nirav Modi and Lalit Modi are known to be on the government’s radar. Both have chosen not to come back to India. Rahul Gandhi did not say that every Modi is a thief. He only asked why “these thieves” have “Modi” attached to their names.

I never said Kapil Sibal rapes kids. I merely asked why every cannibal who devours the flesh of the children he rapes is called Kapil Sibal. Admittedly, Kapil Sibal is not a cannibal. But then Narendra Modi is not a thief. For that matter, neither are Nirav or Lalit. Whatever charges they may face, theft is not one of them.  

Any conviction on the basis that Rahul Gandhi defamed the entire “Modi community” is suspect.

No it isn't. Look at the two High Court orders in the case. If the thing is 'suspect', then only the Supreme Court can offer relief.  

Besides, there is no such identifiable “Modi community” which could be aggrieved by what Rahul Gandhi said.

Yet Rahul's own lawyer said he was himself a Modi. Moreover, most Modis supported the BJP. Thus there was an identifiable 'Modi community' and Rahul felt animosity towards them because they generally supported a rival party.  

Rahul Gandhi appeared for the first time before the CJM’s court in Surat on June 24, 2021, to record his statement in person.

The CJM favored Rahul. He excluded electronic evidence improperly. The complainant was within his rights to get Rahul to either testify re. that evidence or let the Court draw its own conclusions from a refusal to offer such testimony. This was clarified by the High Court order which quashed certain decisions of the CJM 

In March 2022, the complainant requested that Rahul Gandhi be summoned again. The court, rejecting the request, insisted that the complainant proceed to address the court on the merits of the case.

But the Court wrongly held certain evidence inadmissible. The High Court order quashed this and sent the matter back to the trial court. Since the CJM was partial they granted a stay so the matter could be taken up a new judge. There is nothing mysterious about this at all. Perhaps Congress had bribed the original CJM or he was biased in their favor. What is certain is that the new CJM, mindful of the High Courts orders, disposed of the case with alacrity.  The trouble with bribing one judge is that another may be appointed by and by. 

Interestingly, the complainant rushed to the high court and sought a stay of the proceedings before the trial court.

This was granted because it was obvious that the CJM was biased if not bribed. Sibal has been a lawyer long enough to know how these things work.  

On March 7, 2022, the trial was stayed. It is rare that a complainant, who seeks to prosecute, rushes to the high court to have the trial stayed unless he believes that there is little likelihood of his succeeding before the trial court.

Because the Judge is biased or has been bribed. Things like this happen all the time. The superior court naturally wishes to avoid scandal so this is how such matters are resolved. Congress may have bought one judge but not all judges are corrupt.  

The trial remained stayed for about a year.

Because the CJM- whether biased or bribed or simply stupid- remained in place.  

Curiously, the complainant withdrew his petition before the high court.

Because the new CJM had a reputation for honesty. 

Immediately thereafter, the trial resumed on February 27, 2023; this time, before another CJM, H H Varma. In between, Rahul Gandhi had been targeting a particular businessman, who has become the subject of controversy for his phenomenal rise as a businessman, and the wealth his companies have accumulated is allegedly attributed to his proximity to the prime minister.

Rahul had joined certain foreign groups with an interest in bringing down Adani. This is because Rahul is anti-national. But this does not alter the fact that the case was registered in 2019. Adanis don't belong to the Modi caste. 

On March 8, 2023, Rahul Gandhi’s counsel challenged the locus of Purnesh Modi, claiming that Rahul Gandhi’s impugned speech targeted individuals and not the so-called “Modi community”.

A couple of weeks later that same silly man- Panwala by name- asserted that he himself was a Modi but, unusually for one of his caste, he was anti-BJP. 

The quick withdrawal of proceedings in the high court, resumption of the trial, timing of the proceedings and sudden hearing of the matter raises questions, which in time, may perhaps be answered.

The question is whether CJM Dave was bribed, biased or just plain stupid. We don't greatly care to know the answer. Justice has been done- though a superior court may reduce the quantum of punishment.  

Admittedly, Rahul Gandhi does not reside in Gujarat.

Admittedly, he travels there frequently and no great hardship was incurred by him by attending court.  

Criminal defamation should, if at all, have been filed in Karnataka.

The High Court clarified that 'inherent power' meant jurisdiction was irrelevant so long as the interests of justice were served.  

Purnesh Modi chose Surat perhaps with the expectation that he would be able to persuade the CJM to convict Rahul Gandhi.

He lives in Surat. How was he supposed to know which CJM was on the Congress pay-roll? Judges don't advertise such things.  

The procedure to be followed in matters where persons reside outside the jurisdiction of the court requires the magistrate to hold an inquiry before issuance of summons or for the CJM to direct an investigation. Neither was done.

If so, why did Rahul's lawyers say nothing? Was it because they had bribed the Judge? Did they hope that getting the case dismissed in Surat would cause the quashing of a similar case in Bihar?  

Besides, the Supreme Court itself has frowned upon using criminal defamation as a measure of harassment.

The Supreme Court has frowned on Rahul's reckless disregard for the truth and habit of 'collective denunciation'. Here, the punishment is the process. Either Rahul learns his lesson or else he will have to go on appearing in umpteen courts on umpteen such charges. Now the Adanis have turned the corner, they may themselves pursue Rahul through the courts for civil defamation. Indeed, this can be done in other jurisdictions where Rahul has assets. Who knows where all that might be?  The problem with going after a big beast is that you must be sure of putting it down permanently. Otherwise it may come after you. 

The substantive issue is whether such a law, which results in disqualification of a Member of Parliament, requires to be amended to provide safeguards to a sitting member.

No. The substantive issue is whether any such amendment would violate the 'Basic Structure' of the Constitution. It is not the case that legislators can have a superior immunity with relation to the criminal law of the land. Sibal is strangely ignorant of Constitutional Law. 

Even in the context of corrupt practices indulged in by candidates during electoral processes, the law allows the candidate to file an appeal but does not allow disqualification before the decision in the appeal.

Nonsense! Justice Sinha, when disqualifying Indira, gave her party 20 days to replace her. That was an ad hoc grace period. The Supreme Court stayed the order 12 days later. Since 2013, the law is clear. Disqualification is immediate if there is a conviction and a sentence of two or more years in prison. Corrupt practices may attract such a penalty. It depends. 

One can understand an MP or MLA being deprived of his membership if he is convicted for the offence of murder, which might visit him with a sentence of life imprisonment, or such other offences which are serious in nature for which the sentence provided is more than seven years.

Whereas saying 'all Modis are thieves' or 'all Khans are terrorists' or 'why are all cannibal child-rapists named Kapil Sibal?' is perfectly fine. BTW Hitler never killed anyone with his own hands. He merely raised questions about why all thieves are Jewish and other such matters.  

There, too, the law must provide for an opportunity to the convicted candidate to seek stay of conviction within a certain period, during which his or her membership of the House should not be subjected to disqualification.

The law does provide this opportunity. As a matter of fact, an MP accused of murder has had that conviction stayed. It is likely he will be readmitted to Parliament. The same may happen in Rahul's case. Why bring in a new law when an avenue of redress already exists? 

An ordinance in 2013 sought to provide for a period of 90 days within which the convicted MP or MLA can seek stay of conviction to protect his or her seat in Parliament or Legislative Assembly. The ordinance did not become law

thanks to Rahul. But, the fact is, the ordinance may have been struck down as against the 'Basic Structure'.  

and consequently, there are no safeguards for MPs or MLAs being convicted on the basis of frivolous cases.

MPs and MLAs have the same safeguards you or I have. Most importantly, if you didn't do the crime, you won't do the time- unless, of course, Congress has bribed the Judge.  

Recently, Abdullah Azam Khan lost his seat in the Uttar Pradesh Legislative Assembly pursuant to being convicted for a period of two years on the ground that he along with his father, Azam Khan, violated Section 353 and other provisions of the Indian Penal Code by sitting on dharna on a state highway in January 2008, thereby deterring the public servants from discharging their duty.

Azam Khan is not a dreaded gangster. He does not have more than hundred criminal cases registered against him. He is an angel in human form. Sadly some Modis stole his good name. It is those same Modis who stole the good name of Osama Bin Laden. Ask Akhilesh bhaiyya. He will tell you. 

In case of Rahul Gandhi, the magistrate knew that any sentence of less than two years would have saved his membership of the Lok Sabha.

and thus the silly boy would see no reason to mend his ways. Disqualification is a wake up call. Let us see if the mooncalf takes heed.  

The law needs to be amended.

To protect corrupt, brain-dead, dynasts- sure. But will the Bench permit the destruction of the Basic Structure?  

Not protecting an MP or MLA for a frivolous conviction like the one in the Rahul Gandhi case is grossly unjust.

Because MPs and MLAs are very poor and ignorant and feeble minded. They must get special privileges unavailable to ordinary people. This is because their brains and integrity have been stolen by people surnamed Modi. Meanwhile, we may well ask why only those named Kapil Sibal are cannibalistic pedophiles?

Today and since 2014, laws are being used for political ends and to settle political scores.

Sibal was part of an administration which tried to prosecute imaginary 'Hindu terrorists' 

That is a matter of concern not just with reference to Rahul Gandhi alone. Democracy can be subverted in many ways.

Dynasticism is one such way. Sibal is now the serf of a Yadav, not a Gandhi, dynasty.  

Throwing out elected governments is one such way.

Voters throw out elected governments, if- like Sibal's UPA 2- it is utterly shit. This is very unjust- according to Sibal. 

Using judicial processes is another.

When a citizen brings a criminal case against a politician, that politician may be sent to jail and disqualified. How is this compatible with democracy? Do such things happen in Yurop/Amrika? No! If Presidentji sodomizes and strangles members of Public in Oval Office is he arrested? No! Some evil people are saying 'Nixon broke the law. So he had to resign to get Presidential pardon and avoid Jail time'. This is totally false! US Supreme Court came to Nixonji and offered themselves for punitive sodomy and strangulation on Network TV itself! This was to show that in a true Democracy even a shitty little nominated member of the Upper House is not just above the Law- he or she is the LAW! Mind it kindly. Aiyayo, some nasty Modi has stolen the loud fart I was about to emit so as to show my condign appreciation of Sibal's great legal acumen.  

    Christoper Jaffacake & Rahul's balls

    France is in flames. King Charles had to cancel his visit. Will Macron back down on Pension reform? Perhaps. What about India? Will Congress protests over Rahul's disqualification bring the country to its knees? No. Don't be silly.

    The always silly Christopher Jaffrelot writes in the Wire- 

    India’s political trajectory is completing the cycle I expected.

    Did Jaffacake expect Rahul's disqualification? No. Nobody did. 

    In Modi’s India (Westland 2023), I studied the transition from national populism to electoral authoritarianism,

    which is what obtained when Congress was not helmed by a moon-calf 

    a phase marked by the capture by the executive of key institutions (including the Election Commission) and the domestication of “mainstream” media with the help of crony capitalists.

    Why not just say that the RSS has seized power and has set up concentration camps for those from Semitic Religions, Communists, Trade Unionists, Homosexuals and Liberals?  

    During this moment that other countries have experienced too, elections are still taking place because the supreme leader needs the legitimacy of a popular mandate for prevailing over other power centres (including the judiciary), but elections are not a level playing field anymore, not only because of the media’s bias, but also because of the saturation of the public space that big money permits (hence electoral bonds etc.).

    Very true. That is why Biden will permit elections. Macron, on the other hand, will take France down the road to a Sixth Republic after carrying out a coup d'etat using Algerian troops.  

    A new sequence has just started. When institutions of the Republic are captured by the ruling party the way they are in India today, the opposition is forced to find alternative ways and means.

    Indeed. They are having to resort to fellatio and cunnilingus because they are not receiving any nice Electoral Bonds from Adani.  

    Rahul Gandhi invested first in parliament, where he denounced attacks against democracy and the nexus between the Modi government and new oligarchs, but that was clearly not enough: not only has parliament been emasculated (to such an extent that some of the debates which took place there during the Emergency compare favourably with what we see today), but Lok Sabha speeches are not reported in the “mainstream” media anymore.

    Because they are shit. Jaffacake thinks Rahul is Joan of Arc. First she invested in the Dauphin in her crusade to rid France of the English. Then she got cozy with Giles de Retz. The English burned her at the stake.  

    The leader of the opposition

    isn't Rahul.  

    needed to go to the people, to interact directly with those who otherwise would continue to ignore reality because of constant disinformation.

    Very kind of Rahul to interact with those who ignore reality. Soon it will be Jaffacake's turn. After all, he has been ignoring Indian reality longer than most Indians have been alive.  

    The Bharat Jodo Yatra was also a way to remobilise the Congress cadres in the wake of the recent party elections. In spite of very poor media coverage (qualitatively as well as quantitatively), this 4,000-km-long yatra has been a success: Congress was on its way back to its pre-independence roots, as a social movement bringing together all kinds of people, when the dominant majoritarian doxa tends to exclude so many citizens from the official nation.

    Very true. The BJP was marginalizing the billions of Gay, immigrant, Muslim swineherds who ignore reality by populating Indian banlieues in Jaffacake's sad excuse for a brain.  

    The next moves

    The next step was predictable: Rahul Gandhi “had” to be neutralised.

    Jaffacake means 'neutered'. Sonia had that puppy spayed- right? Why else is the dynast unable to have an heir of his own?  

    The pretext that has been used – defamation of the Modis of the world – is the only thing one could find. It sounds paradoxical given the kind of sarcasm Narendra Modi himself resorted to vis-à-vis “Pasta behen”, the “Jersey cow” and “Maun Mohan Singh”.

    None of which is 'collective denunciation' or 'criminal defamation' in the eyes of the law.  

    But there was no better alibi available. It was useful simply because MPs sentenced to two years of jail can be disqualified – and the objective was to remove Rahul Gandhi from parliament.

    No. The objective of the CJM was to discourage Rahul from criminally defaming large groups of people. If he expresses contrition, a higher court may reduce the quantum of punishment.  

    This move reflects the extreme nervousness of the rulers who clearly apprehend new discussions on the relations between Gautam Adani and Narendra Modi in parliament, at a time when the business community, in India and abroad, is holding its breath.

    No. The Adanis have turned the corner. Had Rahul not been disqualified, the Speaker may have had to allow a motion excluding him from Parliament. As things stand, the Government passed its budget. Its own MPs have the upper hand in Parliament and can always cause an adjournment.  

    Moves of that kind are always Plan Bs – to avoid the worse. But this exercise in damage control will have adverse consequences.

    No it won't. Rahul's lawyers will get the quantum of punishment reduced on appeal. On the other hand, Kharge may win big in Karnataka. But Congress is still rejecting a 'third force'. All the offer is an alliance of crooks complaining that investigative agencies are preparing criminal cases against them for a variety of misdeeds.  


    First, opposition leaders are not sentenced to jail for minor crimes like this one in liberal democracies.

    Yes they are- if such is the law of the land. Even ex-Prime Ministers can be sent to jail. Narasimha Rao was sentenced to three years in jail for vote buying. The French, of course, have their own way of doing things. You can rape kids and get off with a slap on the wrist. 

    India, therefore, is weakening its claim of being the “mother of democracy” and the “Guru of the word”:

    Sonia is the true mother of democracy. Rahul is the Guru whose wisdom the world stands in need of today 

    the country is diluting its soft power six months before the G20 summit when it was supposed to promote this image.

    The image India needs to promote is as a country which defends its corporations the way the Swiss defends its Banks.  

    Secondly, like in Turkey, Israel, Hungary and Poland, radical moves like this one foster the unity of the opposition.

    This cretin doesn't get that, in the countries he has named, power remains far from that opposition.  

    Rivals of Rahul Gandhi, including Arvind Kejriwal, are now realising the existential risk that this regime is representing for all dissenters – including them, something the arrest of Manish Sisodia had already made clear.

    Crooks must form an alliance to close down the Courts and Investigative Agencies.  

    When opposition leaders close ranks, the task of authoritarian leaders become more complicated: their polarisation strategy, in a way, boomerangs.

    But nothing of the sort has happened in Poland, Hungary, Turkey etc. Netanyahu is back in power in Israel though he is likely to back down in his fight with the Judiciary. Modi was too wise to get into any such tussle. It is the court which has disqualified Rahul.  

    This new situation “forces” them to become even more illiberal, except if they can co-opt new supporters: whether the Jyotiraditya Scindia’s “model”/syndrome can be replicated will be an important variable to factor in for assessing India’s political situation in the coming weeks and months.

    Nonsense! In Karnataka, kleptocrats who left Congress for the BJP are now switching back to the Mothership of corruption.  

    But leaders of state parties, not only in Delhi and Punjab, but also in Bihar, in UP (where Mayawati may return to active politics one day),

    most foolish prediction ever!  

    West Bengal, Odisha, Jharkhand and Kerala may join those of Maharashtra and Tamil Nadu because the order of the day may now be to close ranks.

    Nothing wrong in that. We'd like to see a good clean fight between two credible candidates in 2024. An alliance of crooks against the Courts is not in the Nation's interest. It will be wiped out at the polls. The fact is, Modi has clean hands. His family is not enriching itself. He is a good orator. He wins if 2024 is about Mr. Clean vs Crooks Consolidated.  

    The results of the coming elections in Karnataka (and then in Madhya Pradesh, Chhattisgarh and Rajasthan) will of course also determine the scenario of the 2024 Lok Sabha elections.

    No. The new State government in Karnataka will have just enough time to fuck up before the General Election.  

    Lastly, the disqualification of Rahul Gandhi (and his possible imprisonment) may be counterproductive for the country’s rulers.

    The country's rulers are the voters. If RaGa is out of the picture, they get a better choice menu. Sadly, a higher court is likely to reduce the quantum of punishment and so he will remain in Indian politics.  

    In case he is jailed, it may result in the shift of the victimisation repertoire from one side of the political spectrum to the other.

    Nonsense! Once a dynast is jailed, a host of fresh charges against him and his cronies gets filed. The aura of invincibility gets dented. There is a classic prisoner's dilemma type scenario. Everybody wants to turn approver so as to escape jail or get a reduced sentence.  

    Since 2002, Narendra Modi projects himself as a victim of the establishment represented by the “liberals”, “Lutyens Delhi-ites”, the “Khan market gang” and their spokespersons (including the NDTV of yesteryears).

    This only matters to people who know who 'Lutyens' was. Rahul played into Modi's hands by attacking all Modis- some of whom, it appears, are OBC. That's quite enough to be getting along with.  

    He claimed to embody the suffering of the plebeians who are also the direct casualties of these elite groups, as a “chaiwallah” and an OBC.

    A claim less ludicrous than that Rahul is a plebian suffering the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune just like any chai-wallah or rickshaw-wallah.  

    This repertoire may not be audible anymore if the real victim is none other than Rahul Gandhi, the great-grandson of Jawaharlal Nehru who spent more than nine years of his life in jail and made many sacrifices for the cause of India’s freedom.

    But Rajiv and Sonia cashed in that legacy to put billions in their own pockets through Bofors and a host of other scams.  

    But in case Rahul is not sent to jail, he will continue to be on the street.

    Unless Khalistanis kill him. Don't forget, they helped the Tigers get Rajiv. Them guys are just stupid enough to think the fellow is on the road back to power and thus they have a narrow window of opportunity to bump him off.  

    After the Yatra that took him from Tamil Nadu to Jammu and Kashmir, another one can now take place between Gujarat and the North-East, via strongholds of BJP, including UP.

    Nothing wrong with going walkabout for half the year, every year. After all, it was Murli Manohar who did the first 'Ekta Yatra' more than 30 years ago.  

    The Congress can now rely not only on party cadres, but also on sympathisers who are identifying its chief as the alternative to Modi.

    Which is excellent news for the BJP.  

    Here is another lesson of the disqualification move: till recently, the BJP leaders congratulated themselves to have to fight against Rahul Gandhi, whom they considered as weaker than Mamata Banerjee or Arvind Kejriwal. Times are changing – because of his stamina that has endowed him with some new charisma,

    the guy has a Saddam type beard. Cool.  

    but also because of the way the BJP leaders have targeted him: paradoxically, the rulers of the country are actively participating in the making of their challenger.

    How is that a paradox? Everybody wants to run against an unelectable moon-calf- not a smart dude.  

    The road ahead

    Whether Rahul will be finally convicted will depend on the role that the judiciary will play. Recently, Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud described the basic structure of the Constitution as the North Star of India’s democracy. Will the Supreme Court fight again to defend it?

    Indira's goons tried to get his daddy impeached coz he sent Sanjay to jail over Kissa Kursi ka. Jaffacake is talking bollocks. If the case winds up before the Supreme Court, Singhvi will ask CJI to recuse himself. But the alternative may be worse. The Judiciary will want its revenge for what Indira did to it back in the Seventies. If a mere CJM can sentence Rahul, imagine what the CJI can do! Instead of criminal defamation, Rahul could be accused of hate speech like Azam Khan. An SIT to probe the family's wealth may be constituted. Vadra goes to jail. Priyanka goes to jail. Sonia could be spared for health reasons.  

    If so, after more than six years of mostly complacent verdicts – or abstention of any verdict – the court would be back on the forefront of public life and that may not be good news for the country rulers either.

    It may be very very fucking bad news for the Dynasty.  

    To sum up: Rahul Gandhi’s disqualification may be a turning point,

    fuck off! It is a storm in a teacup. A superior court will reduce the quantum of punishment. This is fake news. 

    but the ball is in the court of the opposition, of the judiciary – and in the court of Rahul himself!

    but not in Jaffacake's court because nobody wants to play with himself and so he plays with himself instead. Sad.   

    I do not expect any reaction from the West

    though it would be nice if Macron came and handled one or two of Jaffacake's balls 

    whose priorities are not articulated in terms of democratic values anymore

    nor in terms of Jaffacake's neglected balls 

    and whose presence in the debate may be counterproductive anyway: the syndrome of the “foreign hand” – that Indira Gandhi used during the Emergency

    when, if not chopping off balls, she was forcibly vasectomizing hundreds of thousands of people 

    – remains very strong, as the uproar caused by Rahul’s recent speeches in UK have shown.

    Meanwhile, it is France which has gone up in flames. The FT has a headline asking if France is on its way to a Sixth Republic. Meanwhile India is still on its first and only Republic. Jaffacake has a lot of balls to write condescendingly about India while his own country totters between La Pen and Pension reform. 


    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.  

    Wire's mis-reporting of Rahul defamation case

    The Wire has sought to suggest that the defamation case against Rahul was wrongly decided

    The case was filed on April 16, 2019 and Rahul Gandhi appeared in the court of the then CJM, Surat, A.N. Dave on June 24, 2021, to record his statement in person.
    The CJM passed judgment favorable to Rahul. Complainant approached the High Court (Purnesh Ishvarbhai Modi vs State Of Gujarat on 17 August, 2021) who quashed the impugned order and an sent the matter back to the trial court with a direction to be mindful of the decision in Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao re. admissibility of electronic evidence. The effect of this is to lower the burden of proof for the complainant.
    In March 2022, when the complainant’s request for Rahul Gandhi to be summoned again was rejected by the CJM who insisted arguments commence immediately, the complainant rushed to the high court and sought a stay on the trial’s proceedings. This was granted on March 7, 2022.

    Why? It was because the Magistrate refused

    1) to let the accused testify re. the video material of his speech or else 

    2) to adjourn the matter so the petitioner could move the High Court

    Thus the complainant went to the High Court himself and gained a stay. The following was cited (Dharnidhar v. State of U.P. & Ors., (2010)) “29. The proper methodology to be adopted by the Court while recording the statement of the accused under Section 313 of the CrPC is to invite the attention of the accused to the circumstances and substantial evidence in relation to the offence, for which he has been charged and invite his explanation. In other words, it provides an opportunity to an accused to state before the court as to what is the truth and what is his defence, in accordance with law. It was for the accused to avail that opportunity and if he fails to do so then it is for the court to examine the case of the prosecution on its evidence with reference to the statement made by the accused under Section 313 CrPC.” 

    After a hiatus of 11 months, the complainant went back to the high court on February 16, 2023, seeking vacation of the stay, pleading that “sufficient evidence has come on record of the trial court and the pendency of the present matter delays the trial”.

    Also, there was a new magistrate. It is perfectly natural that if you have twice had to go to a superior court to quash decisions of a particular Magistrate, that you will wait till a new judge is appointed.  

    Though no new evidence had come on record since the stay and the “pendency of the matter” was entirely at his own instance, the complainant was granted the relief he sought.

    Because CJM A.N Dave not once but twice passed orders which were quashed by the High Court. Clearly it was better to wait for a more sensible fellow who would take cognizance of the High Court's directions.  

    Purnesh Modi’s decision to restart a trial he had himself put on hold for a year came barely a week after Rahul Gandhi had launched a sharp attack on Narendra Modi in parliament over his links to controversial businessman Gautam Adani.

    When is Rahul not running off at his mouth against Modi? The plain fact is that two different politicians named Modi, one in Gujarat another in Bihar, filed defamation charges against Rahul much before he started bleating about Adani. 

    The trial resumed on February 27, 2023, this time before another judge, CJM H.H. Varma.

    In his arguments on March 8, 2023, Gandhi’s counsel submitted that Purnesh Modi had no locus to claim defamation as the target of the Congress leader’s impugned speech was Narendra Modi.

    Yet, everybody surnamed Modi has a locus if it is asserted that all Modis are thieves or catamites or terrorists etc.  

    “In the entire complaint, there is only one allegation that is not against Narendra Modi,” the Times of India quoted Gandhi’s lawyer as arguing, which was ‘How come all [these] thieves have the same name, Modi?’. “For this too, Purnesh Modi has no right to complain as the allegations are not against any caste or community… And even if the allegations are against those with Modi surnames, then there is no association of those holding Modi surname,” the lawyer said.

    Yet the same lawyer has said he himself is a Modi by caste! 

    Arguments concluded the following week and CJM Varma reserved judgment. On Thursday he pronounced his ‘guilty’ verdict and sentenced Gandhi to the maximum punishment of two years imprisonment.

    Because Rahul had ignored repeated warnings from the Supreme Court.  

    Was the Surat judge right in proceeding against Gandhi without a preliminary inquiry?

    There was a preliminary inquiry. The High Court directed the CJM to be mindful of Arjun Pandit case. This meant admissibility of the electronic record. Rahul had indeed said what the video showed him as saying. He was guilty.  

    Rahul Gandhi’s legal arguments initially focused on the key question of jurisdiction under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which specifies the process a court must follow if it is proceeding against someone outside its usual territorial jurisdiction.

    The High Court had clarified that inherent power of the Court permitted the case to go ahead. Why pretend that Rahul is an indigent fellow who can't travel to Gujarat?  

    While upholding the constitutional validity of criminal defamation (Sections 499, 500 IPC), the Supreme Court in Subramanian Swamy vs Union of India held that there is a heavy burden on the trial court judge to scrutinise the complaint from all aspects.

    There is also a duty to observe the directions of a higher court.  

    The judge must also keep in view the language employed in Section 202 CrPC, which deals with how to proceed when the accused is resident at a place beyond the area in which the trial court exercises its jurisdiction. “Application of mind in the case of a complaint” is imperative in deciding whether the ingredients of Section 499 IPC are satisfied, it added.

    Application of mind showed that Rahul could easily attend court not just in Ahmedabad but also in London, Monte Carlo and Phuket in Thailand.  

    Section 202 deals with the issue of process by a magistrate. As amended in 2005, this provision says that it is mandatory for a magistrate to postpone the issue of process against an accused person who is residing outside the territorial jurisdiction of the magistrate till such time he concludes an inquiry into the charges.

    This was done. The issue was admissibility of electronic evidence. High Court directed that the precedent in Arjun Pandit should be followed. It is foolish to say that unless this official or that official certifies authenticity of a video it should be inadmissible. Rahul's counsel wasn't saying the thing was a 'deep fake'. They had simply tried a legal trick to get their client acquitted due to lack of evidence.  

    “Rahul Gandhi is a resident of Delhi, which is outside the jurisdiction of this court,” his lawyer submitted before the CJM on March 7, “For such an accused, the law requires the witnesses to be examined, and the matter enquired. The court is then required to give the reason on whether to issue the summons or not. No such thing was followed,” the Times of India quoted him saying.

    What is the point of making such a claim after Rahul had in fact shown up and given his testimony?  

    In Vijay Dhanuka and Others v Najima Mamtaj and Others (2014), the Supreme Court has held that, it is mandatory for the magistrate to conduct an inquiry or direct an investigation before issuing process when the accused person resides beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the magistrate.

    How is this relevant? It is obvious that the procedure was followed because Rahul himself turned up. If there was any procedural fault why did his lawyers not petition the High Court in the same manner as the complainant did- that too twice?  

    The apex court went one step further in Birla Corporation Limited v Adventz Investments and Holding Limited (2019), holding that the issuance of process should not be mechanical nor it should be made as an instrument of harassment to the accused.

    Why mention this now? Why did his lawyers not approach the High Court to have the proceedings quashed? Was CJM Dave in their pocket? Were they hoping to get a favorable ruling in Surat so as to stop similar proceedings elsewhere?  

    An issuance of process calling upon an individual to appear as an accused in a criminal case is a serious matter and if there is lack of material particulars and non-application of mind by the magistrate as to the materials, this cannot be brushed aside on the ground that it is only a procedural irregularity.

    Why bring this up only now after your client has been sentenced to two years imprisonment? Why was this not a 'serious matter' in 2021? How did it suddenly become serious only in 2023 after a new CJM was appointed? Did Congress have some sort of hold over Dave?  

    In Abhijeet Pawar v Hemant Madhukar Nimbalkar and Another (2017), the Supreme court held that if the mandatory requirement of Section 202, CrPC is not fulfilled by the magistrate before issuing process, it can direct him/her to take up the matter up afresh and pass appropriate orders in compliance with the provision.

    But it was the complainant who got the High Court to quash the CJM's orders! Were Rahul's lawyers really so greatly inferior to those of the complainant? Why did they sleep upon their rights? What has caused them to wake up only now?  

    Rahul Gandhi’s lawyers raised these questions before the CJM and in the appeal his team will file, his counsel have already indicated that one plank of appeal will be non-compliance with Section 202, CrPC.

    It will fail. The High Court has already given decisions on what compliance entailed. Only the Supreme Court can overrule the High Court.  

    Defamation of a group: What the Supreme Court’s guidelines say

    While politicians in India often resort to making fun of names in order to score points against their opponents, Rahul Gandhi’s attempt at humour has landed him in trouble.

    Because he is as stupid as shit. 

    Explanation 2 to Section 499 IPC says that it amounts to defamation to make an imputation concerning a company or an association or collection of persons as such. However, in a key 2010 case, the Supreme Court has laid down the conditions under which a collection of persons can allege defamation.

    Section 499 is clear enough. A bunch of people with the same name are 'identifiable' because...urm... that's how names work. The additional factor is that Modi is the name of a caste.  

    In S. Khushboo,v Kanniammal,

    some married Tamil women pretended that the statement that it was okay to have extra-marital sex meant that everybody would assume they were sluts.  

    it ruled that though Explanation 2 is wide, the only way a collection of persons ca demonstrate the offence of defamation is if they are an identifiable body – so that it is possible to say with precision that a group of particular persons, as distinguished from the rest of the community, stood defamed.

    Why the fuck did such a stupid case end up before the Supreme Court? Is it really the case that Tamil women are a species apart from the rest of humanity? Also if I were to say 'it's okay to fart while relieving yourself' will Tamil people claim that I have accused them of uncontrollable flatulence? Yes. I'm Tamil myself and I regularly accuse myself of the very same fault.  

    In case the identity of the collection of persons is not established so as to be relatable to the defamatory words or imputations, the complaint is not maintainable.

    How is this relevant? If you shout out 'Mr. Modi! Is there a Mr. Modi here? There is a visitor for Mr. Modi at reception' then only people named Modi will come forward. True, you might get an occasional Iyer who also comes forward because he is very flatulent and wants the visitor to smell his 'silent but deadly' contributions to Civilization. 

    In the Surat case, it is difficult to contend that those with the surname Modi constitute a community, which was distinct from others, and that Rahul Gandhi intended to defame such a community. In S. Khushboo, the Supreme Court held that in case a class is mentioned, the complaint cannot be entertained if such a class is indefinite. Furthermore, if it is not possible to ascertain the composition of such a class, the criminal prosecution cannot proceed.

    Then Rahul's lawyer started giving interviews where he claimed himself to be a Modi! 

    Had Rahul Gandhi asked why these thieves all wear the gown, it can’t be libel.

    Yes it can. Indeed, it could be hate speech or even part and parcel of a more serious conspiracy or even treason charge. We understand that some poor sod who has just lost his home and visitation rights might say 'all divorce lawyers are devils incarnate'. However, if that fellow is the dynastic head of a party with 45 million members and which rules over populous states and if lawyers are attacked or otherwise disadvantaged in some way, then the test of criminal defamation is met.  

    Similarly, the reference he made to the surname of three individuals – none of whom has alleged defamation – without elaboration of particulars, cannot constitute defamation, if Subramanian Swamy is an indication.

    Yes it can. He said that with a little digging, countless more Modis would be revealed to be thieves. His own lawyer said in an interview that most Modis support the BJP. He himself didn't but he was unusual in that regard. Also his surname was not Modi. Still, the lawyer had given a motive for Rahul's malicious remark. 

    Can Rahul Gandhi be disqualified as a Member of the Lok Sabha following his conviction?

    Yes. The thing is automatic. The Parliamentary Secretariat issues the order. This has nothing to do with any Ethics Committee. What follows is nonsense-  

    In January this year, the Lok Sabha MP from Lakshadweep, Mohammad Faizal of the Nationalist Congress Party, was disqualified after he was sentenced to 10 years imprisonment by a district court in an attempt to murder case. The Lok Sabha Ethics Committee decided to strip Faizal of his membership from the date of his conviction, i.e., January 11, 2023, in terms of the provisions of Article 102(1)(e) of the Constitution read with Section 8 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. The Ethics Committee decided this after receiving communication from the district and sessions judge, Kavaratti, informing them about Faizal’s conviction.

    The notice was issued by the Lok Sabha Secretariat.  It is a separate question as to whether the Ethics Committee can expel a particular MP for defamation. The matter is justiciable. 

    This disqualification is now de facto on hold after the Kerala High Court suspended the conviction and sentence of Faizal, after his disqualification. In the case of Rahul Gandhi, the Surat court itself had suspended his sentence, to enable him to appeal.

    It has not suspended the conviction. That is what matters. In the Faizal case, it may be that the man is innocent. In Rahul's case there is no doubt he is guilty. However the quantum of punishment may be scaled down on appeal at which point automatic disqualification will lapse.  

    Under Section 8(3) of the R.P.Act, an MP convicted and sentenced for two or more years invites disqualification. Although Faizal stands disqualified, the Election Commission withheld the Lakshadweep Lok Sabha by poll after the high court suspended his conviction and sentence. Although Faizal’s disqualification has ceased to have effect following the high court’s suspension of his conviction, there has been no formal revocation of his disqualification by the Lok Sabha speaker.

    The Secretariat is what matters. Faizal will get a court order in that regard. 

    The question of the procedure by which Rahul Gandhi may be disqualified from the Lok Sabha arises in view of the Supreme Court’s 2013 judgment in Lily Thomas vs Union of India, declaring sub-section (4) of Section 8 of RPA unconstitutional. Section 8(4) of the RPA said that disqualifications take effect only “after three months have elapsed” from the date of any conviction if, during that interregnum, the MP or MLA has not filed an appeal against the conviction or the sentence before a higher court. Section 8(4) extended immunity from disqualification even if the court had not disposed of such an appeal during that period of three months.

    In Lok Prahari v Election Commission of India (2018), the Supreme Court held that once a conviction has been stayed during the pendency of an appeal, the disqualification which operates as a consequence of the conviction cannot take or remain in effect.

    The effect of Lily Thomas and Lok Prahari will, therefore, be that the Ethics Committee of the Lok Sabha can take cognisance of Rahul Gandhi’s conviction and proceed to disqualify him from the Lok Sabha once the Surat court sends them a communication to that effect.

    This is nonsense. The Ethics Committee can expel a member but this is no bar on their seeking re-election.  

    Presumaby this is the basis for the Lok Sabha secretariat’s communication on March 24.

     No. Disqualification was automatic and on the basis of the Election Commission's legal advise. 

    However, if and when an appellate court stays his conviction and sentence, the disqualification will cease to have effect.

    The conviction has to be stayed. That is what matters.  

    The question to ask, however, is whether the Lok Sabha is right to disqualify Rahul Gandhi hastily without awaiting the outcome of his plea for stay of his conviction.

    No. The thing was automatic and followed Lily Thomas (2013) 

    Is the Lok Sabha speaker right to ignore the Surat court’s suspension of his sentence, on the grounds that in Lily Thomas, a conviction which carries a sentence of two years and above is sufficient to attract disqualification?

    The Speaker was irrelevant. The Secretariat had to act in conformity with the law.  

    In 2013, the United Progressive Alliance government had tried to circumvent the Lily Thomas ruling by enacting an ordinance. Ironically, Rahul Gandhi tore a copy of the ordinance at a press conference to express his protest against it, acutely embarrassing – and weakening – the then prime minister, Manmohan Singh.

    The moon calf is now hoist with his own petard. 

    An additional question is the procedure for disqualification of an MP specified in Article 103 of the Constitution:

    That question was resolved in 2013. The thing is automatic if a sentence of two years or longer is handed down.  

    103. Decision on questions as to disqualifications of members
    (1) If any question arises as to whether a member of either House of Parliament has become subject to any of the disqualifications mentioned in clause ( 1 ) of Article 102, the question shall be referred for the decision of the President and his decision shall be final
    (2) Before giving any decision on any such question, the President shall obtain the opinion of the Election Commission and shall act according to such opinion

    But Lily Thomas made the thing automatic. There is no discretion for the Speaker or the President or anybody else here. 

    Since Gandhi’s disqualification is pursuant to Article 102(1)(e) – “disqualified by or under any law made by Parliament” – it is the president of India who must sign off on the disqualification, on the advice of the Election Commission.

    Nope. The thing is automatic.  

    It is not clear that this constitutional provision has been complied with.

    Yes it is. What is equally clear is that the Wire employs cretins and that it is incapable of balanced reportage or commentary of any type.  

    Kirit Panwala proves Rahul insulted all Modis

    It appears that Rahul Gandhi was poorly represented in the Surat defamation case. Print India has an interview with Rahul's lawyer- one Kirit Panwala who says that there is 'no Modi community' and then tells us that he himself belongs to it! Was the fellow a fool or a 'thief' bribed by the BJP to throw the case? Let us see what Panwala has to say for himself. 

    Mumbai: Rahul Gandhi’s disqualification from the Lok Sabha has created a sensation. It was a fallout of his conviction in a defamation case in a Surat court. The charges against Gandhi were defended by local lawyer Kirit Panwala.

    Congress should have brought out the big guns. At the least, Panwala should have immediately filed a review petition.  

    Panwala is a senior lawyer with 47 years of legal practice.

    He is 70 years old. His argument was that the Magistrate could postpone the case under Section 202 of the Crpc. This gives relief to people living in far off places. The problem was that Rahul was a frequent visitor to Gujarat. He wasn't a poor man who could not afford the price of a train ticket. 

    Panwala also said that Narendra Modi alone could bring the case. Yet Rahul had said that a little digging would show countless Modis were in fact thieves. Thus anyone by the name of Modi could bring an action under Section 499 of the IPC. Furthermore, the Supreme Court had admonished Rahul in 2016 against 'collective defamation'. 

    Panwala needed to take a different approach mindful of the fact that Rahul was not an indigent and, moreover, had already been reprimanded by the Bench. 

    In a telephonic interview, he explains the details of the case to ThePrint and why he thinks the line “all thieves have the common surname Modi” doesn’t deserve a harsh punishment.

    Kiritbhai, it has turned out to be an historical case. Were any of your arguments weak that they led to this judgment?

    I don’t believe that any argument was weak;

    Rahul is very poor. How he can afford train ticket! Don't you know the poor fellow had to walk all the way from Kanyakumari to Kashmir because his Mummy is not giving him any pocket money with which to buy bus or train ticket? 

    the arguments were extremely clear and the counter-examination was also conducted aptly.

    Moreover, the factual aspects of the case are not strong enough to invite deep thought. At the election rally, certain accusations were made against Narendra Modi and a sentence was casually spoken in the end i.e., – “Nirav Modi, Lalit Modi, Narendra Modi … how come all thieves have the common surname (of) Modi?”

    Rahul added that with a little 'search' hundreds more Modis would be seen to be thieves.  

    Actually, 90 per cent of the allegations made in this ‘defamatory’ comment are against Narendra Modi and the law dictates that if the allegations are against an individual, that person should file a complaint as the aggrieved party. In this particular case, Narendra Modi should be filing a complaint (which he hasn’t) and we have Purnesh Modi filing a case instead! How can he, when the law does not allow him to do so?

    Purnesh could bring in witnesses who said that hearing Rahul caused them to become suspicious of Purnesh. A little 'search' might show he was a thief. Why take the chance? 

    Purnesh Modi lodged the complaint because of the line “all thieves have the common surname Modi” . He himself is a Modi.

    In which case there is a Modi community. Those members of it who keep Modi as a surname will be lowered even in the eyes of their own jati as likely to be thieves. Panwala himself is an example. Since his own surname is different, he may gain an advantage over his caste-fellows thanks to Rahul's speech. This is contrary to Section 499.  

    A sentence of two years’ imprisonment over one line? I have researched many past judgments in similar cases and not a single upper court has sentenced an accused to a two-year imprisonment; they have either been let off with a reprimand or a nominal punishment or a penalty, nothing beyond that.

    Rahul was admonished by a two Judge Supreme Court Bench against 'collective denunciation' in 2016. Moreover, by reason of being a legislator his remarks carry more weight. He should have been more careful. He showed reckless disregard in this respect. 

    This particular case doesn’t even justify this because the quoted sentence – “how come all thieves have the common surname Modi” – refers to ‘Modi’; and people are presuming that it refers to the entire Modi community. Whereas actually, there is no reference to the community at all! The community does not come into the picture.

    But isn’t (there) the reference to the Modi community?

    We have proved that there is no Modi community, per se. We have Modh Vanik, Modh Ghanchi and so on, but no Modi community. And if there is no Modi community, how does the question of raising a complaint as a representative of this so-called community arise?

    So Modh Vaniks whose surname is Modi suffer in the eyes of their own caste fellows just for that reason because of Rahul's reckless statement. That violates Section 499. The fact that two different sub-castes may have the same appellation does not reduce the offence.  It was enough that Purnesh could easily bring witnesses to say they didn't vote for him because of Rahul's comment. 

    Secondly, let’s take up their representation on the grounds that Modi was being used as a surname and there are reportedly 13 crore people in India carrying that surname. According to the law, this group is considered as ‘loose and unidentifiable’

    No because Panwala himself has stipulated that there are at least two identifiable groups 'Modh Vainiks' and 'Modh Ghanchis' some of whose members use Modi as a surname. Not everybody with the surname Khan is Muslim. Yet to say 'all terrorists are Khans' is collective denunciation or defamation. It stigmatizes a particular cohesive and identifiable group. If I said 'all Susans are sluts' it is defamatory because we can easily identify people with the name 'Susan'. If I say 'all Fascists are sluts' this is not the case because there is no way of saying who is or isn't a Fascist in India because there is no Fascist party in the country.  

    and as per norms, one cannot lodge a complaint as a member of an unidentifiable group.

    Yet if you shout out 'Mr. Modi, there is a visitor for you' only people actually called Modi will respond. A surname is one of the most identifiable things about us. 

    The Supreme Court has passed many such judgments in the past in similar instances. For example, there was a case filed in Gujarat against someone who had termed lawyers as ‘dispute dalals/ brokers’; in response to which the court ruled that the term (dispute broker) was used for lawyers in general and not to any identifiable, definite and determinative group and hence, a case cannot be lodged against the person.

    This is clearly stated in Section 499. You can say 'all politicians are thieves'. You can't say only politicians named Modi are more likely to be thieves.  

    Similarly, there was a complaint filed against filmmaker Raj Kapoor for using a particular term for the scavenger community. The term was used by a Brahmin character in his film Ram Teri Ganga Maili. In that case also, the Supreme Court ruled that the particular term (now made illegal to use) is a loose, unidentifiable group, so the case doesn’t hold ground.

    Why bring this matter up? Society has moved forward a lot since then. At one time it would have been fine for Americans to call me a nigger.  Even saying, 'have you noticed dark skinned people are much more likely to be terrible Accountants' is defamatory because it is easy to identify people with that trait. 

    The court had made a similar ruling in a case filed against actress Asha Parekh for allegedly portraying lawyers in a poor light in one of her films.

    This man is utterly senile! Why bring up Raj Kapoor and Asha Parekh at this late hour? No wonder Rahul lost his case.  

    We can definitely say that there is no ‘maintainability’ in the complaint.

    Which is why the Court found RaGa not guilty- right? 

    Secondly, this line is a stray sentence in the entire speech. There is absolutely no intention to harm or even the knowledge that it will harm anyone.

    Nonsense! The intention was to harm politicians surnamed Modi by suggesting that they were likely to be thieves.  

    Gandhi was delivering a speech in Bengaluru where it is highly improbable that anyone with the surname ‘Modi’ was present in the audience;

    there are plenty of Modis conducting business in Bengaluru.  

    and no one has been able to provide evidence also on these lines.

    This senile fool doesn't seem to understand that we aren't living in the times of Raj Kapoor and Asha Parekh! Has he heard of Youtube and Twitter and 'viral videos'?  

    Their stand is that Modh Vaniks are the Modi community. Gandhi actually meant to say – This Nirav Modi, this Lalit Modi, this Narendra Modi…why is the surname of all THESE thieves Modi? But he made a slip of tongue by missing the word THESE which these people have caught and blown out of proportion.

    Why did Rahul not say this? He gave testimony to the Magistrate. Had he said 'I misspoke. I have the greatest respect for Modi community. I meant to say 'despite being Modis, these three people have been found to be thieves'. In that case, Narendra Modi alone could have brought an action for defamation but Rahul has a good faith defense. 

    Did you anticipate that this (conviction) would happen?

    If he says no then he is convicting himself of being a shit lawyer.  

    We have been arguing the maintainability of the case. There was a stay on the case. Later, Judge A.K. Dave was transferred and Judge Harish Verma came in his place. Meanwhile, the stay was withdrawn, the hearing started and the judgment followed.

    Abhijit Singhvi may be able to show that Verma is prejudiced against Rahul and thus get a mistrial.  

    Do you think the two-year sentence is too harsh?

    Yes. This is a case of 'the process being the punishment'. Rahul's sentence will be reduced or it will be suspended. But he should show some contrition. After all, he apologized to the Supreme Court for falsely attributing a statement against Modi to them.  

    That is my second point; my first point being that this case itself has no ground. Punishment just cannot be inflicted. Even if the court finds a person guilty, the sentence cannot be so long.

    Yes it can. Two years is the maximum. What if CJI takes over the case and lets the sentence stand? That is what should worry Rahul's lawyers.  

    How true is the story doing the rounds that Rahul Gandhi never took this case seriously?

    It is true. If you take a case seriously, you hire a top lawyer- e.g. Singhvi. Even Rahul isn't such a fool as to leave the appeal in the hands of Panwala.  

    This allegation is entirely baseless. The legal trial has been taken extremely seriously, no leeway was sought.

    He himself sought leeway on the grounds that Rahul would face difficulty appearing in court because he lived far away.  

    So are you of the opinion that Gandhi took this case seriously?

    Panwala can't say no. That would be to admit that he is a shit lawyer.  However, the rest of us can say 'Rahul, poor fellow, could never have foreseen that a mere magistrate would dare to jail a scion of the Dynasty'. 

    Yes, people have a wrong image of him and so does the media. I have found him to be a great democrat. He has never missed a single court hearing.

    because he is not actually an indigent who can't afford the price of a train ticket. 

    Two of his cases are going on in Ahmedabad; I need to go many times for the hearings and have noted that he comes on time and he respects everyone, including the court. In fact, he is closer to the ideal framework of our country which was drawn by our post-Independence leaders than Narendra Modi is.

    Because he the great grandson of Nehru.  

    Why didn’t he offer an apology?

    We tried twice to negotiate some kind of a mutual understanding. But the complainant wasn’t ready. In an SC contempt case, an apology can be offered but the situation is very different in a defamation case in a lower court. We were ready to give in writing that Gandhi respects all communities. But somehow, the complainant was not ready to accept that.

    Did the complainant also refuse to stick a pineapple up his own bum? How very unreasonable of him! 

    Why were the oral submissions not submitted in written form, like many others do?
    Gandhi has made written submissions too.

    They'd be worth reading. Why not publish them? 

    Probably, it wasn’t mentioned separately in the judgment because written submissions fall within the oral submissions segment, per se.

    Why did you not take a stay on the very same day that the judgment was passed?

    A revision petition should have been immediately submitted. Congress should have had teams ready in the Allahabad High Court and the Supreme Court so as to get relief or remedial action.  Pawan Khera's lawyers seem to have been quick off the mark to get him relief. Why was this not done for Rahul?

    According to Section 8 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, an MP/MLA convicted of any offence and sentenced to imprisonment for not less than two years is disqualified immediately from the date of conviction.

     It is the 2013 Lily Thomas judgment which is salient in this respect. 

    But the judge had given you time to approach the higher court…

    Yes, he granted a period of one month – but this was for appeal for procuring bail. The punishment has been postponed till then. But conviction and punishment are two totally different issues. A stay should be given on the punishment so that there is relief in the disqualification (from Parliament) element; if there is a stay on the conviction, then there is no relief.

    This is where the lawyers fell down. To be fair, we don't know the client's instructions. 

    Weren’t you aware that if Gandhi being an MP is sentenced to two years’ imprisonment, he will be immediately disqualified from his post?

    Of course, we knew this and we had also discussed (this) among ourselves in detail. But what precautionary steps could we have taken? Could we presume that ‘this person is going to be sentenced so let us take steps in advance’ — the law doesn’t allow this!

    Nonsense! The High Court could transfer the case because it was clear that appeal would be lodged if there was an unfavorable verdict. 

    And such steps are akin to defamation or contempt of court.

    Not if the thing were done properly. Only if you unfairly allege partiality against the Magistrate could this arise. 

    In fact, the Lok Sabha administration declared it the next day, but the disqualification took place the day of the judgment itself. Even if they declare this after five days, disqualification comes into effect the moment a lawmaker is convicted.

    Which was precisely the reason the transfer of the case would have been allowed.  Once the case was put on fast track, the attempt should certainly have been made as the High Court has a full docket and would be more likely to grant continuance if a very senior lawyer was employed who could show that he had conflicting obligations.

    What next?

    After reading this judgment and drawing relevant points, we will appeal in the sessions court for suspending punishment and also the conviction. We will appeal under Section 374/3 of the IPC. Within this appeal, we will apply for a stay on the punishment. We will seek suspension of the two-year punishment along with bail, and will try to procure orders on these lines. If we get the order, we can file an appeal. The result could be imprisonment or release.

    I suppose a superior court will alter the quantum of punishment to a simple fine. However the Supreme Court may take over the case. 

    Is the BJP losing ground as Gandhi is gaining public sympathy because of the verdict…what are your thoughts on this?

    Public sympathy is an offshoot of the entire proceedings. They had never in their wildest dreams imagined that something like this could also happen!

    Why not? The Supreme Court's admonitions to Rahul should have alerted his lawyers that imprisonment was an option.  

    The BJP treats the fourth estate as its property so they never thought that this case would attract so much publicity in the media and sympathy from the general populace. Apparently, the mindset of the public has changed slightly.

    This is nonsense. The BJP knows there are big media houses in non-BJP states which will give plenty of publicity to Rahul's 'crusade'. The alternative is getting beaten up by Stalin's or Mamta's goons. 

    In the scenario of Gandhi not getting a stay, will he have to go to jail immediately?

    Yes, and he has openly said, “I am prepared to go to jail.” Their intentions also are to imprison him. Else, even a layperson with basic common sense will wonder how a complaint was raised via WhatsApp in Surat against a slip of tongue by someone a thousand kilometres away, in Bengaluru, during an election rally where Modi was not even present. That too, in the context of highlighting issues such as unemployment, inflation and misgovernance.

    But laypeople in India know a lot about WhatsApp though they may not remember Asha Parekh.  

    Legally, an inquiry should be instituted into this complaint. There was an amendment in 2005 that a case cannot be filed against a person staying outside the area of jurisdiction and summons cannot be sent at all.

    Has Panwala been putting cannabis into his paan? There is no such provision in Indian law.  The plain fact is the victim of criminal defamation can bring a private suit in his local court. The Police had also registered a FIR. 

    The High Court clarified  Mr. P.S. Champaneri raised the substantial issue with regard to maintainability of present petition invoking extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and Section 482 of the Code. It is settled law that the remedy under Article 226 is discretionary remedy for doing complete justice and correcting injustice. So far Section 482 of the Code is concerned, if the high court finds necessary for securing the ends of justice, the section empowers the High Court to exercise its inherent powers and in that case, there can be no limitation in exercise of its power. Thus, noticing the facts of the present case and the way in which the impugned order is passed by the trial Court, this Court is of considered view that, the dismissal of the application at Exh:59 by the Court below is not in consonance with the object and scope, as prescribed under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C and dictum of law settled by the Apex Court. As a result, this Court finds that case is made warranting interference in the impugned Order. Hence, the impugned order dated 05.01.2021 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Surat, below Exh:59 in Criminal Case No.18712/2019 is hereby quashed.

    In view of the same, how can someone staying in Surat file a case against Gandhi who is residing in Delhi?

    In the same way that Bill Gates can bring a fraudster living in London to face trial in an American court.  

    The proper process is instituting an inquiry; but if they follow this procedure, then they cannot reap its benefits for the coming polls. Their strategy of gathering all the Modh Ghanchis and Modh Vaniks under the pretext of the ‘Modi surname’ case would fail.

    Rahul's lawyers threw doubt on the official videos of Rahul making the remark. The complainant got a stay on the proceedings so as to get more evidence. In February, the High Court vacated the stay on the complainant's petition. The Magistrate accepted the veracity of the evidence in line with the High Court's judgment to establish the truth by calling witnesses. Rahul had indeed make the objectionable remarks. That is why he was sentenced.  

    They served the summons without conducting an inquiry and initiated the case. If you delve deeper, there’s nothing in this case. People will wonder, “ What crime did Rahul Gandhi commit that he was given a two-year sentence?”

    His lawyers said he hadn't said what we have all seen him saying on Youtube. He was guilty though he had pretended not to be.  

    …If this angle is properly highlighted in the media, everyone will realise that there’s nothing in this case.

    Except what he actually said which he denied saying.  

    Is there any other such case filed in Gujarat?

    No, not in Gujarat; but similar cases have been filed against Gandhi in other parts of India.

    I mean over this particular reference of ‘Modi’?

    Yes, Sushil Modi in Bihar has filed a case. It’s an ongoing case.

    So, it is clear that a large class of people across the length and breadth of the country have been harmed by Rahul's defamatory remark. He could say 'everybody knows I am a cretin and a habitual liar. Thus nobody has been damaged.' The problem is that Congress is a big organization. It has 45 million members. It rules States like Gujarat and Himachal. Thus, even if everybody thinks Rahul is a lying cunt, still Congress members may act in a hostile and discriminatory manner to people surnamed Modi.  

    Are you a Modh Vanik too?

    I am of the same caste as Narendra Modi, I am also a Modh Vanik; we are also known as Modh Ghanchis.

    So, the cretin admits that there Modis are a community! He himself is one.  

    I am totally different from the people of my caste who are pro-BJP. I believe in secularism, I believe in democracy and I

    worship a dynast because democracy means licking the arise of the great-grandson of the first PM- unless his name is Varun.  

    also believe that in the rule of Narendra Modi, democracy is under threat as we are all under an autocratic rule… and the less said about secularism, the better.

    The less this man says the better for Rahul. He has asserted that he himself is a Modi but he is an unusual Modi who worships Rahul because he thinks 'democracy' means licking the arse of the dynasty.  Suppose Rahul says 'all people from Modi caste suck off homeless dudes' then he will be very happy. He will immediately start sucking off homeless dudes. The police will arrest him for public indecency. He will go to jail where he will be able to lick Rahul's arse to his heart's content- unless Singhvi can keep the mooncalf out of jail.