In an interview given to First Post, Subramaniyam Swamy has said
I have done a lot of research on Gandhi’s assassination. I don’t think the time is right for me to file a case on that. But this much is certain that the pistol with which Gandhi was killed was never found.
The Beretta used was found and its chain of ownership was established.
Nathuram Godse said he fired two bullets, the public prosecutor said he fired three, and the Hindu newspaper and The New York Times reported quoting eyewitness accounts that four bullets were fired. How many bullets were found in Gandhi’s body?
There were three bullet wounds with one bullet remaining in the body.
The person who saw this closest, Abha and Manu, on whose shoulders Gandhi was walking, wasn’t even called for interrogation in the court.
There was no need.
My assumption is that the bullet that pierced Gandhi’s heart was a shot by a sharpshooter — and I strongly believe that the real killer was Mountbatten’s sharpshooter
for Heaven's sake why? Gandhi was making things easier for the Brits. He got the Indians to release money for Pakistan. Some of that money was needed to pay British soldiers in the Pakistani Army and to procure munitions from British arsenals.
— while Godse would have shot him in his stomach, arms.
Indians are too useless even to shoot a defenseless old man. Only a British aristocrat's 'sharpshooter' can be trusted to finish the fellow off.
What heightens my suspicion is that Gandhi wasn’t taken to a hospital immediately after the shooting.
Because dead people don't really gain any benefit from being admitted to hospital.
The police were there but they didn’t register an FIR.
An American grabbed Godse and others helped hold him till the police arrested him and took him to Parliamentary Street Police Station where he was interrogated for three days. The police needed Godse to implicate others- more particularly the RSS so as to justify banning it. However, it was the Mahasabha which was revealed as being tied to Godse. But the Mahasabha wasn't banned. The fear was that it had support from Hindu princes. The new Government wasn't securely enough in the saddle to risk antagonising a powerful group of Hindus.
In fact, strangely, the FIR was filed by the owner of the Marina Hotel, where Godse had stayed.
This is not strange at all. The FIR gave testimony from Hotel employees regarding the people who had been with Godse. Catching them helped the prosecution.
What’s even more farcical was that Godse was not immediately arrested.
He was detained immediately and taken to a police cell. His interrogation began soon after.
Morarji Desai wrote to Jawaharlal Nehru saying Godse had returned to Bombay (now Mumbai) and whether he should be arrested. Nehru said no. Godse came back to Bombay after the assassination via aircraft.
All this is nonsense. Godse was in the Parliamentary Street Police lock up. He wasn't flying around the place. Morarji was a cretin- he had ignored a warning from a benefactor of Madanlal Pahwa- one of the conspirators- but he couldn't tell Nehru that Godse had flown to Bombay because everybody knew the guy was languishing in a Delhi police cell.
It is difficult to understand why Swamy would regale an interviewer with such arrant nonsense. I suppose Swamy identifies himself as devoted to the Truth and, in some mysterious manner, similar to the Mahatma in that respect. His own political career had gone off the rails some thirty years ago for a reason that remained mysterious to him. Perhaps some high and occult force had intervened- a 'Mountbatten sharpshooter'- whereas the truth is that Swamy had been played by his pal Rajiv while, at a later point, the widow Sonia simply found him repellent.
As for the killing of the Mahatma, the truth is Savarkar was behind it. That's why he couldn't be prosecuted. The RSS was made the fall guy which suited Savarkar. Then Shyama Prasad Mukherji quit the Mahasabha and founded the Jan Sangh with RSS help. Savarkar was left out in the cold. Swamy too has inherited oblivion save in so far as he can make a nuisance of himself through the Courts.
Christophe Jaffrelot is a Visiting Professor at the King's College India Centre in London. Does he actually know anything about India? Let us find out. Below is an article he published recently in an Indian newspaper. My remarks are in bold.
'Recently, the National Council of Hindu Temples (NCHT) and the Hindu Council UK criticised the British government’s call for a public consultation on caste. UK’s citizens have till September 18 to reflect if caste should be banned by law or not.'
Untrue. Britain is not deciding whether or not to 'ban caste' by law. It is deciding whether it should adopt caste discrimination laws similar to India. Since conditions in Britain are wholly dissimilar to conditions in India, the British Hindu community naturally thinks this is a stupid thing to do. It is like Scotland introducing a 'Food Security Bill' on the Indian model even though Scotland is rich and most of India is very poor. The Scots are pretending that evil Tories are starving wee Scottish bairns. Similarly, in England, we have already seen a suit brought by a Pakistani cook belonging to the Arain caste against his employer who also belonged to the same Muslim Arain caste. The Tribunal decided that the whole case was nonsensical. The cook was fired because customers didn't like his food, not because he was low caste.
'In a report released by Subramanian Swamy in London, the NCHT ascribed this initiative to a “colonial conspiracy”.'
Really? Does Swamy believe England still rules India? Nope. He may have a PhD in Econ from Harvard, but even he isn't that stupid. Swamy says some Christian missionaries supported Colonialism and sought to inflame hatred between Hindu communities so as to gain converts whom they themselves discriminated against. Swamy seeks to tar some elderly Bishop or such like with the same brush. The joke is that it is Pakistani chefs who will be suing their employer under this silly legislation. Hindus, by contrast, are doing well because they are well educated and forward looking.
'This report is in tune with the views of UP Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath who has declared, “Castes play the same role in Hindu society that furrows play in farms, and help in keeping it organised and orderly”.
Really? Is a Rajput politician really preaching Casteism? Are the OBC and SC voters in U.P really so stupid that they voted for a guy who thinks his people are superior to their people? Wow! What an amazing discovery! This Jafflerot dude must be real bright! Let's look at the evidence-
Fast forward to 1.25 on the video.
Yes, the English translation is as Jafflerot says. But listen to the Hindi. The Yogi uses the word maiD- this is not a furrow but a raised portion of earth demarcating a parcel of land owned by a particular individual. He isn't saying 'caste is like a furrow'- that would be meaningless. He clarifies that he means boundary markers and not anything to do with the practice of agriculture. He goes on to say 'jati' (i.e. endogamous groups notionally linked to a particular occupation as imitatio dei) may be okay but discrimination on the basis of jati or its instrumentalisation for a political purpose is wrong. Economists believe that endogamous groups devise ways of spreading risk and thus have utility. Obviously, once there is a basic Social safety net and a well developed Insurance market, this utility declines and we are more likely to see assortative mating without endogamy. The Yogi hasn't mentioned 'Varna' (i.e. the four fold division of Society into priests, warriors, merchants and labourers) at all. He himself is head of a Sect which can have a leader from any jati. That's why OBC and SC voters plumped for him even though he is a Rajput.
'There is a long tradition behind this argument. Deendayal Upadhyaya, the Sangh Parivar’s influential ideologue, wrote in Integral Humanism (1965), “society is self-born’’ and forms an “organic unity” inherited from a caste-based antiquarian arrangement that should not be disturbed: “In our concept of four castes, they are thought of as an analogous to the different limbs of Virat-Purusha. These limbs are not only complementary to one another, but even further, there is individuality, unity. There is a complete identity of interest, identity of belonging”. Here he refers to the varna system as a social model and regrets that it has lost its fluidity with the multiplication of jatis.
Is this really true? Was Upadhyaya utterly stupid? Did he really think that something which is 'self-born' can also inherit something? How?
I've just checked. Jafflerot is telling porkies. Upadhyaya, being well versed in Hindu Scripture, knew very well that something which is 'Svayambhu' can't have samskars. Otherwise, Advaita is nonsense. Thus the words Jafflerot has interjected prove only his ignorance of Hinduism. They do not indict the Sangh Parivar.
Upadhyaya is saying that when we all work together harmoniously to promote Social Welfare, we don't care about our status or the type of work we do. The R.S.S gained in prestige because people said - 'the wealthy Seth takes his turn doing manual work. His superior may be a cobbler, but he takes orders from him. Not only do these people cook and eat together, they actually go as volunteers to do relief work when there is a flood or an earthquake.' Gandhi's Ashramites also went to do relief work- for example, during the Bihar famine. But, in the opinion of Kumarappa, a Chartered Accountant, they were useless. Kumarappa refused to pay them from the Relief Fund. Gandhi protested but had to tap some other fund for their benefit. I have read no similar story about the RSS volunteers being useless.
The Hindu reformers do want to do away with the notion of hereditary occupations monopolised by endogamous 'jatis'. The cobbler and the priest both want their sons and daughters to have a chance to become Doctors, or IAS officers, or Software engineers. They don't want the traditional Doctor caste, or the traditional administrative caste to monopolise those occupations.
However, Hindu reformers aren't advocating laws which prevent people marrying within their 'jati' if they choose to do so. Nor are the British. Jafflerot was lying when he said the Brits were thinking of banning caste.
I personally would be delighted if they do. Every time some beautiful Hindu girl gets married within her jati, I could bring a court case saying I'd been discriminated against solely on the grounds of my 'out-caste' Brahminbandhu status. English judges are very polite and would hesitate to throw out the case on the grounds that that I am very old and ugly and fat and stupid and no woman in her right mind would touch me with a barge-pole. Thus, wealthy families will just pay me a small amount of money to drop my suit so as to avoid a nuisance.
'Dayananda Saraswati, the founder of the Arya Samaj, was the first Hindu reformer who endeavoured to rehabilitate the Vedic caste system by endowing this varnavyavastha with meritocratic dimensions.
The first? My Arya Samaji friends make no such claim but rather refer reverentially to local precursors like the Parmansa Mandali in Mumbai or the Manav Dharma Sabha in Surat. However, there is an unbroken initiation from Sages behind the Arya Samaj which knits it together with other great traditions across the length and breadth of India. That is why the 'Sangh Parivar' ('family of Congregations') has an ecumenical appeal. We can see that a great Saint of our region is connected by deeksha to the lineage of the great Saint of another region. A South Indian, like myself, can overcome my suspicion of the (numerically preponderant) North Indian when these connections become clear. Nowadays, many of us have learnt some basic Hindi and can see for ourselves that people like Modi or Yogi Adityanath are not promoting 'Aryan' superiority against us Dravidians.
'He maintained that hereditary jatis did not exist in the Vedic times but children were placed in different varnas according to their qualities. Through such reasoning, he legitimised a hierarchy imbued with anti-individualistic values — once in a varna, a man and a woman remained in it.
Was Swami Dayanand Sarasvati ignorant of Sanskrit? Had he not even heard a recitation of the Ramayana or Mahabharata? Did he not know that Visvamitra, one of the greatest Vedic Rishis, changed his Varna?
What about the Punjabis who became devout followers of the Arya Samaj? The cultivator and the small shop-keeper were delighted to see their sons getting an education and becoming Doctors, Engineers etc. That is why the D.A.V schools started emphasising useful subjects rather than purely Religious studies. Not just men, women were able to rise thanks to the Arya Samaj and the Brahmo Samaj and the Ramakrishna Mission and many other similar Sanghas.
I may point out that non-Brahmins took the leading role though in some cases the impetus may have come from Brahmans.
'Unsurprisingly, the Arya Samajis joined the Sanatanists to form the Hindu Mahasabha in 1915, in spite of the latter’s social conservatism. One of them, M.M. Malaviya, the founder of the Banaras Hindu University, who was awarded the Bharat Ratna posthumously in 2014-15, aspired to restore the antiquarian system founded on heredity. “Functions assigned to each class as its jati-dharma, were specialised by different families as their kuladharma and were faithfully and efficiently performed for the well-being of the whole society, which was thus served by the classes and families composing it, as an organism is served by its constituent organs,” he argued.
Malaviya was from a traditional priestly Brahman family and it is true that he felt obliged to argue that young Brahmans should keep up their Vedic studies in addition to more useful and remunerative types of education. This was because traditional Brahmins like himself were needed to keep the Religion alive and free from superstitious practices or unscrupulous charlatans. Orthodox Jews similarly encourage their children to attend Hebrew School. This does not mean (except in the case of the Haredis) that they neglect Scientific studies.
However, non-Brahmins did not believe that Malviya really wanted the children of other occupational groups to stick with their ancestral profession. That's why non-Brahmins felt comfortable in financing the Benares Hindu University and sending their own progeny there.
'This discourse reflects an organicist worldview which has informed the Hindutva social project — but it was not confined to the Sangh Parivar and the Hindu Mahasabha (an organisation that was a part of the Congress till the late 1930s). Mahatma Gandhi’s views on caste were very similar in the 1920s. In 1920, he wrote in Young India, “Caste has saved Hinduism from disintegration. But like every other institution it has suffered from excrescences. I consider the four divisions alone to be fundamental, natural and essential. The innumerable sub-castes are sometimes a convenience, often a hindrance. The sooner there is fusion the better… Interdrinking, interdining, intermarrying, I hold, are not essential for the promotion of the spirit of democracy”.
Jafflerot first says that there was a 'Hindutva Social Project' and that it had 'an organicist world view'. He mentions the 'Sangh Parivar' as though it were coeval with the Hindu Mahasabha. Clearly, this brilliant Professor has gone far beyond Einstein and has discovered that things which happened later actually happened sooner. Wonderful! What a prodigy we have here! Time may indeed be like a Moebius strip. But, as far as the Social Sciences are concerned, Time still has to be linear. If you say there was a Hindutva Social Project and World View and it was the same as the Gandhian Social Project and World View, you are either saying they were the same or else admitting that you have been talking nonsense. You have made a distinction without a difference for no good reason.
'Gandhi’s subsequent views on caste varied, but his initial take on the subject gave conservative Congressmen room to manoeuvre at the expense of progressive minds. In the 1920s, in Gujarat, Vallabhbhai Patel countered Indulal Yagnik when the latter asked Congressmen to work for Dalits.
Oh! So Patel was Hindutva! Okay. Makes sense. Why mention Yagnik? He was a Nagar Brahman. M.C Rajah, by contrast, was an actual Dalit. He made a pact with B.S Moonje who was Hindu Mahasabha. During the course of the Thirties, even Ambedkar came to appreciate that the RSS was sincere not just in 'inter-dining' but doing socially useful work.
'Another Congress conservative, K.M. Munshi, eulogised the varna system through his Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan. In 1950, he declared, “We, who are blinded by an admiration of the social apparatus of the West, fail to realise that chaturvarnya was a marvellous social synthesis on a countrywide scale when the rest of the world [was] weltering in a tribal state”.
So, Congress- not the RSS- was casteist. That explains why Dalits suffered under the yoke of the (Brahman) Nehru dynasty.
'Soon after, C. Rajagopalachari claimed that jati (not varna) was “the most important element in the organisation of our society” and argued that professional mobility would destabilise the complementarity of social functions at the village-level, making economic development more difficult Another contradiction in the legitimation of caste pertains to the untouchability question: It makes the fight against this social curse more difficult. At the Nagpur session of the Congress in December 1920, during which Gandhi seized power over the party, a resolution condemning “the sin of untouchability” was passed for the first time because of the Mahatma’s determination. But no action could be taken because of resistance within the party. The conservative Congressmen did not support Swami Shraddhanand’s ambitious initiative on that front in the 1920s and in 1929, the party gave Malaviya the charge of reflecting upon the issue of untouchability. Three years later, Gandhi had to return to it in reaction to Ambedkar’s growing influence.
Rajaji was originally supposed to be Gandhi's successor. Thus Jafflerot is showing that it was Gandhi and Congress which believed in 'varna'. Swami Shraddhananand was an Arya Samaji. Why is Jafflerot mentioning him in a creditable light here?
'The Mahatma rejected one of the provisions of the 1932 Communal Award that Ambedkar had obtained from the British — a separate electorate for the Dalits. For Gandhi, such a scheme would break the unity of the Hindu society: “[The Harijans] are part of an indivisible family… There is a subtle something, quite indefinable in Hinduism which keeps them in it even in spite of themselves. And this fact makes it imperative for a man like me, with a living experience of it, to resist this contemplated separation, even though this effort should cost life itself,” he said. Gandhi did not ignore that the social integration of the Dalits in the caste system was taking place “in spite of themselves” and was hierarchical, but he saw these dimensions of society as late perversions of an ancient order that could be restored to purity by social reform.
So Gandhi was a casteist.
'The fact that even Gandhi was not prepared to support Ambedkar’s fight against untouchability is a reflection of his deep attachment to a form of social organicism.
Not just a Casteist with respect to Hindu Society; Gandhi, as a votary of 'social organicism', wanted to spread untouchability all over the earth. He refused to 'support Ambedkar's fight against untouchability'. Nehru was even less interested in the issue. Thus, according to Jaffrelot, the INC isn't just Casteist, it actively promotes untouchability even where that institution does not exist. Thus Iqbal was right to demand Pakistan. Indeed, every State or Union Territory of India should immediately secede if this Casteist party which promotes untouchability ever comes to office again at the Centre.
'But the poor record of the Congress’s fight against untouchability after the Poona Pact had also much to do with the resistance of the declared conservatives. In 1933, Malaviya fought against a bill on the opening of temples to the so-called untouchables.
But Malaviya was President of the Congress, not the Mahasabha, when he did this. By this time, the RSS had been formed and was going in a different, more positive, direction in terms of battling hereditary occupational discrimination.
'The text of a bill on temple entry, also submitted in 1933, was never put to vote. Similarly, when Dalit members of the Madras Legislative Council introduced a Temple Entry Bill in 1938, Rajagopalachari, the Congress chief minister, asked them to withdraw it.
Yet Rajaji was appointed Governor General when Mountbatten left. Who appointed him? Was it Congress or the Mahasabha?
'Sixty years later, in spite of the Constitution, democracy and reservations, the hierarchical view of society finds expression in the defence of caste and reassertion of categories like pure and impure. Yogi Adityanath ordered shuddhikaran (purification) of the CM’s office in Lucknow before entering it and Musahar Dalit families of Kushinagar received soap and shampoo to clean themselves before attending one of his meetings.
The CM's office was a den of corruption. Yes, it was purified. But that has nothing to do with caste.
The Yogi did not ask Dalit families to 'clean themselves' before attending his meeting. Some government officials did so. But those officials were following a practice established before the BJP took office. How is it the Yogi's fault if a humiliating practice instituted by other parties was kept up after he took office?
'And 6,000 km away, in London, the Hindu Council UK partly attributed the initiative of the British government mentioned above to the Indian Christian Dalit lobby in the country.'
Quite true.The credit for this initiative does, quite genuinely, go to the Christian Network Against Caste Discrimination and the Voice of Dalit International, UK. Nothing wrong in that. They are raising their profile and showing their effectiveness. The fact is Dalit Christians in India, despite being the majority, are discriminated against by the High Caste Christians who control the Churches and Colleges. Christians of Dalit origin in the UK- some of the smartest, most educated, most entrepreneurial people here- are using this issue to help redress the balance of power for their own people back in India. I don't see why any Hindu should object. Well, actually, that isn't true. There are some gangster types here in the UK and they will find any excuse to harass people- more particularly in the case of 'inter-caste' marriage. Shockingly, even some educated young men act like this. By all means, punish hate crimes based on caste because then the Police can take action more easily. Thus, if my neighbour calls me a 'Paki' and punches me, the Police treat the case very seriously because there is a racial motive.
Similarly, if my son marries a Jat or a Yadav or whatever and the girl's brothers decide to beat him up, then a Police complaint will be acted on immediately.
I met my father's paternal aunt- Smt. Gowdamma Iyer- in the winter of 1968. She told me the story of Bhima and Hanuman. I requested her to repeat the story to me but placing more emphasis on the role played by Tarzan, Lord of the Jungle. Sadly, it was never to be. On the excuse of going to Matunga to buy katrika, she escaped my vigilance and went gallivanting off to become the first female Prime Minister of Israel.
I salute you, Godwdamma Iyer, you are the greatest Tam Bram ever.
Well, you would be if you could kindly stop bombing Lebanon and just fucking kill Subramaniyam Swamy already.
There's a cunt makes us all look bad.
Further to my last- the question troubling me is how fucking stupid are Indian lawyers actually? Stupid enough to be misled by the specious arguments of Dr. Subramaniam Swamy it would appear.
Take a gander at this-
'Former attorney-general Soli Sorabjee told The Telegraph that the Italian ambassador did not enjoy any diplomatic immunity from contempt proceedings.
“If you read the Vienna Convention, there is immunity from criminal, civil and administrative actions. But the diplomat is facing contempt of court proceedings; it is not criminal proceedings. There is no immunity from contempt proceedings. Even if there is immunity, the Italian ambassador, by approaching the court, has waived the immunity,” Sorabjee said.
Is Sorabjee right? Are contempt proceedings neither criminal, civil nor administrative but some totally novel species of beast which the drafters of the Vienna Convention totally forgot to stipulate against?
What does Indian statute law have to say in this matter?
The Contempt of Courts Act of 1971, divides Contempt into two types- Civil and Criminal. In other words, the offence of Contempt is not something different in kind from Civil or Criminal actions but can be divided into precisely those two categories. Thus, contra Sorabjee, there definitely is immunity from contempt proceedings for the Italian Ambassador. What about Sorabjee's claim that he waived his immunity? The answer is, according to the Geneva Convention, he did not have the right or the power to waive his immunity against any sanction of the Court. Only the Minister of Foreign Affairs of his Country had that power and that right and even then the waiver had to be given explicitly- something which has not happened.
Conclusion- Sorabje is talking through his asshole- something in which he has had much practice because he is a former Attorney General.
Under what Statute is the Supreme Court authorizing itself to impose a curb on the Italian Ambassador's freedom of Movement?
Presumably, it is Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act of 1971, where civil contempt has been defined as wilful disobedience to any judgement, decree, direction, order, writ or other process of a court or wilful breach of an undertaking given to a court.
In this connection, Rajeev Dhawan, 'an expert on international law', said: “There is some diplomatic immunity for the State and not the diplomat. Where the diplomat has rendered himself to the jurisdiction of the court with the consent of his State, we must assume that he has submitted himself to its jurisdiction.
“No doubt, the Vienna Convention says that the giving up of immunity must be through an express act. However, we can treat this act of invoking the court’s jurisdiction as an express act by the diplomat and the State to waive the immunity.”
Again this is simply cock-eyed. States don't have diplomatic immunity, they have Sovereign immunity. Diplomats have diplomatic immunity. The law says no diplomat can give up his immunity w.r.t any civil or criminal or administrative proceeding against his body BY ANY ACTION OF HIS OWN. An explicit waiver from the Foreign Minister of his Home Country is required. Think about this for a second and it will start making sense. Suppose, like a recent Burmese Ambassador to Sri Lanka, our Envoy to Islamabad takes it into her head to beat her spouse to death. She knows, if she returns to India, she will have to do Jail time coz Soniaji is very strict about that sort of thing so as to encourage Rahul Baba to take the plunge and just get married already. So she says to the Pakistanis 'look, I waive my immunity. You try me here and keep me in a nice ISI bungalow- with a good supply of Hindu males to beat to death- and I will tell you all India's secrets.' Why can't this happen? Well, the Geneva Convention permits India to say- She has no right to waive her immunity. Only we can do that. You bloody well declare her persona non grata and expel her across the border otherwise we will let your Ambassador in New Delhi waive her diplomatic immunity for sodomizing Subramaniyam Swamy- which is contempt of Court coz the Hon'ble Bench thinks Sun shines out of his arse dontchaknow.' You see, Diplomatic immunity isn't about Diplomats having impunity- it's about their being subject to the discipline of their home country. It's like when your wife or g.f. sends you over for a spot of Guy Time watching the Test Match with me. My g.f. isn't allowed to beat you if get tiddly on the Babycham and suggest I grow out my moustache. Under Behenji Geneva Convention, she can only communicate news of your horrible crime to your Mem Sahib who will inflict proper punishment on you once you get home.
Is the Italian Ambassador guilty of Contempt of Court?
Let us take up another question. Suppose, unknown to us all, the Foreign Minister of Italy got drunk and gave an explicit waiver to Sonia Aunty such that his Head of Mission in India's diplomatic immunity has been explicitly waived. What? It could happen! Italians are all terrible drunkards. Probably he was weeping into his Chianti and saying 'Sonia, bella, please come and be our Prime Minister and save us from Berlusconi.' Soniaji immediately said 'First waive Mancini's diplomatic immunity, then I'll think about it.'
"Done!' says the Italian Foreign Minister, 'But please be telling Rahul Baba to shave. Chee Chee, he is looking like low class rowdy, I say.'
"Khabardar' shouted Soniaji, "mere bete ki dhadhi Laqa ki jaisi hogi! Jaa, jaa- tu manhoos- teri nazar na lagne doonga mere laadle pe! Chashme buddoor.'
Anyway, even if all this happened, the Italian Ambassador still would not be guilty of Contempt of Court. Why? He gave his undertaking BEFORE the Court said 'Govt. is dragging its feet, hence Italian Marines are denied speedy trial'.
The moment the Supreme Court uttered this statement, the Ambassador's undertaking was null and void because it was not in his power, nor that of his Govt, to force the Marines back to India. Why? European Human Rights Law takes precedence over Italian Law. The Marines, by the admission of the Indian Supreme Court, were being denied the Human Right to a fair and reasonably speedy trial because the Special Court required to adjudicate the matter did not then, nor does it now exist nor shows any sign of coming into being any time soon.
What the Italians did wrong
Employ stupid, self-serving, Indian lawyers. I recall many years ago, when I was married to an Italian and we were living in Delhi and when some small marital spat occurred, the Italian Embassy's Indian legal advisor told my then wife to prosecute my parents under some antiquated Victorian Law for restoration of conjugal rights or something of that sort. It's true, I was young, but I was not an imbecile or a minor or some other such person of diminished capacity. It was not in my parents power to force me to have sex with that woman. Yet this is what the Indian Lawyer advising those idiots at the Italian Embassy had her petition the Court to accomplish. I was all like 'babe, you know you got unrestricted access to my junk.' And she was all like 'yeah, well, I want like Kama Sutra shit. And the right to shove my finger up your ass to hurry things along.' And I was going- No way you take my anal cherry bitch- I'm saving that for Manmohan Singh- I'll see you in Court! Mummy, help!, she's touching my no-no place!' Anyway, that's why I decided to quit India and return to London. At least we gotta European Court of Human Rights here. Aint no fucking Supreme Court Bench can tell me I'm in Contempt unless I lose my anal cherry to some random I-talian with wicked finger-nails. Mind it kindly. Nuff said.
Can an Ambassador waive immunity?
No. The Geneva Convention is clear. A diplomat can't waive his immunity by any action of his own. Only his Head or Mission or his country's Foreign Ministry can do so and that has to be an explicit not an implicit waiver. Thus, for example, if you rent a property to a diplomat who agrees to waive his immunity with respect to any civil matter arising from that transaction, though he may then sue you for some breach of contract- and to that extent any counter-claim by you will be offset against the damages awarded to him- nevertheless he has the following asymmetry in his favor- viz. your action to evict him for non-payment of rent will fail because he did not have the right to waive his immunity. Only if his home country steps in and voids his immunity can you get the slimy little shit out of your house.
Thus, though it is true that a diplomat can waive his immunity with respect to some judicial proceeding, still, it remains the case that at the time of execution of judgement- i.e. enforcement- a second waiver, from his home country is needed.
A little thought will show that the Geneva Convention can have no other interpretation. Diplomats routinely enter into contracts for all sorts of things which come under the jurisdiction of Courts other than their own. If it is the case that they waive their immunity, without any limitation, every time a tort or breach of contract arises and the matter comes before a foreign Court, then they are subject to dual jurisdiction. But, if this is the case, they have a divided loyalty or responsibility. The condition of being diplomatic envoys of a Sovereign Power is violated.
The Indian Supreme Court, however, has upheld a novel argument put forward by, non lawyer, disgraced Harvard Economics Professor, Subramaniam Swamy, such that the Italian Ambassador to India, unknown to himself or his Ministry back in Rome, somehow managed to do something the Geneva Convention specifically says he can't do- viz. waive his immunity and become subject to the displeasure of the Indian Courts. This is despite the fact that the Ambassador is the Servant, not the Master, of the country that he represents. According to the old English pun 'he lies abroad for his country'. His word, however mendaciously given, can't bind his Master, nor put his own body in danger of legal action at the hands of the foreign power to whom he is accredited because, as the representative of his Sovereign Master, he enjoys immunity.
Yet, in a truly bizarre twist, the former counsel to the Italian Embassy, Harish Salve, is now saying that the Indian Supreme Court would be within its rights to jail his former client.
This simply isn't true- the only value of this Senior Advocate's statement lies in the glaring light it throws on the parlous condition of legal thinking in New Delhi.
What then is true position?
The answer is that this is all a storm in a tea-cup- mere saber rattling- a giant hissy fit on the part of the Judges.
It is precisely because they have no jurisdiction over the diplomat that they can afford to say anything that comes into their heads to register their rancor against him. In similar fashion, the U.S. Supreme Court is perfectly at liberty to find that the Queen of England is a dolphin recently escaped from Miami Sea World and require that she should kindly swim back there or be held in contempt of court. Since the American Supreme Court has no jurisdiction over Her Majesty, no legal consequence follows from their ruling- though it would certainly embarrass the U.S. Ambassador to the Court of St. James.
Suppose, in the Indian case, this problem with the Italian Ambassador went down to the wire- what would happen?
Well, the Supreme Court can institute proceedings for contempt of court on any Indian citizen or other employee or Agent of the Govt. who fails to prevent the Ambassador leaving the country- as per its order- though by that same action India violates the Geneva Convention and makes itself a pariah state. Should the Supreme Court direct the arrest of the Ambassador, then it issues an illegal order because it breaches both International Law and the Law of the Land. The President of India might then be required to take action- by declaring a State of Emergency and/or impeaching the Bench under Art.142 (4) for incapacity by reason of stupidity- such that the Govt. and People of India were no longer in breach of both International Law as well as the properly constituted Law of the Land.
In other words, what the Supreme Court has done is embarrass the Govt. by a willful and tendentious misreading of an unambiguous non obstante Law-perhaps in revenge for the Govts dragging its feet in complying with the Court's earlier order in connection with establishing a Special Federal Court to rule on Jurisdiction in this case. The Supreme Court's own manner of proceeding, however, was highly questionable in Law and had the effect of substantially weakening the Indian case. Essentially, the Supreme Court denied that the Kerala High Court had properly exercised its authority, as a matter of Indian, not International Law, though its proceedings were in line with the principleaut dedere aut judicare and it had established, as a matter of fact, not law that it had all that was requisite to proceed to trial- viz. evidence, witness statements, and custody of the accused. True, the Supreme Court had the right to over-rule the State High Court- but why did it do so? The crime of unlawful slaying had occurred. The State High Court had secured everything needed to conduct a trial- jurisdiction had been de facto established. The Marines had a right to a speedy trial and if there were any doubts on points of law then the case could have been transferred to the Supreme Court to do as it pleased. To compound its error, the Supreme Court then called for the setting up of a Special Federal Court, despite being aware that the Govt. of India does not and probably can not act with dispatch on any matter that requires the application of intelligence and adherence to proper form. Having dug itself into a hole, the Supreme Court just kept digging itself in even deeper error by releasing the Italian Marines on parole to allow them to vote in their home country while simultaneously issuing a statement indicting the Indian Govt. for 'dragging its feet' in the matter of the Marines' Human Right to a speedy trial. This meant that the Marines could approach the European Court of Human Rights for protection from being sent back to India on the grounds that the Apex Indian Court had itself admitted that 'the Indian Govt. was dragging its feet' and thus their Human Rights had been violated. Since European Law is higher than Italian law, the Italian Ambassador had no right to give an undertaking that his country would perform an ultra vires and illegal action by compelling the return of people whom the Indian Supreme Court itself said were not getting a speedy trial by reason of the Govt. dragging its feet.
One other point, the Ambassador's affidavit (which is the basis of the charge of contempt of court against him) was issued before the Supreme Court stated that the Marines were not getting a speedy trial, by reason of the Govt's dragging its feet. This materially altered the facts of the case in such a way that the Ambassador's affidavit was nullified because it introduced a new fact such that it became clear that the Marines' Human Rights were being violated.
To give an example, suppose I stand surety for an accused and the Judge in the course of granting bail says 'of course, when you return for trial I can assure you that your Human Rights will be violated and you won't get a fair hearing'. In this case, if the accused chooses to flee, I am in foro conscientiae, released from my pledge of surety and a legal defense can be sustained for me in this regard.
To this day, it remains the case, though more than a year has gone by since the shooting at sea, that the Special Court to determine whether India has jurisdiction simply does not exist.
Italy does have jurisdiction. India says it may do so but wants to detain the Marines anyway. How is this not a violation of the European Charter w.r.t the right to a fair trial within a reasonable period?
Essentially, the Supreme Court has defeated its own claim to adjudicate in a manner that respects the Human Right to a fair and speedy trial and thrown doubt on the Govt. of India's willingness and ability to provide any such thing by explicitly accusing it of 'dragging its feet'.
Now, to make itself even more ridiculous, the Supreme Court, having listened to the opinion of the worthless fuck-wit, Subramanian Swamy, is indulging in barbaric saber rattling such that it has cut off the most powerful diplomatic sanction the Govt. possesses- viz. expelling the Italian Ambassador for his lying to the Supreme Court- by insisting the Govt. prevent the Envoy leave India.
This is lunacy piled on lunacy.
To summarize, the low I.Q but arrogantly activist Indian Supreme Court and the low integrity, virtually brain dead, Indian Government, who between them have already vitiated Justice for the slain fishermen, has now plumbed a further nadir of absurdity which gratuitously exposes India's dirty laundry in a manner which deals a blow to India's credibility and bargaining power in World forums. This is typical of the sort of mischief Dr. Swamy- the Narada Muni of Indian Politics- aims at through his bizarre Public Interest Litigation based on warped reasoning and a reckless disregard for the Truth.
Politically, the good news coming out of all this is that Italy won't now have to reveal all sorts of damaging information about bribery in billion dollar arms deals which would be embarrassing for the present Administration.
How did this happy coincidence come to pass?
The background to this contretemps is Italy's one great feat of arms since the Battle of Caporetto- viz. the courageous shooting of a couple of Indian fishermen by two Italian Marines on an Italian ship which, true to Italian tradition, proceeded to flee the scene as far and fast as it could.
Italy has embraced its two young heroes and refused to send them back to India, despite an assurance given by their Ambassador, because courage such as those two Marines have displayed is indeed a rare and precious commodity in the land of Berlusconi and it is totally unfair of the Indians to persecute them for killing Christian fishermen and then running away as fast as they could.
The Indians, for their part, had mollycoddled the two Italian heroes and let them go home not once but twice- once for Xmas and the other time to vote in the Elections coz though Italy allows postal voting these two sweet little boys could get a nasty paper cut when licking the envelope or else they might think the stamp was a Somali pirate and start shitting themselves uncontrollably and keep trying to run away except they would then slip on their own shit and fall down and hurt themselves and then die of the sulks coz their Mammas didn't come quickly enough to kiss away the boo-boo and buy them a gelato.
Clearly, these two young Italian military heroes should have got a sick note and submitted it to the Indian Court. Then, the Italian Ministry of Culture should have declared them living monuments to the great military tradition of that country and prohibited their export. This would have been a perfectly legal way for them to protect their priceless Heroes. Instead, the Italians chose to break the given word of their Ambassador to India. After all, if shooting people and running away is a sacred Italian military virtue, lying is no less a laurel wreath upon the brows of its diplomats and public officials.
As for the Judges of the Indian Supreme Court, they might try learning a bit of Law for a change. I'm not saying it will help them uphold Justice but the novel sensation may re-invigorate their sex-lives. What I mean to say is- okay we all know you have the hots for Subramaniyam Swamy but how about you just ask him out for a date already?
Subramaniyam Swamy is a Mathematical Economist. In other words, an idiot. Anything he writes about Politics or Culture or the Law is bound to be egregiously and recklessly false, mischievous, and fatal to any cause he holds dear.
Harvard has finally given him the sack over an article where he says-
'India that is Bharat that is Hindustan is a nation of Hindus and others whose ancestors are Hindus. Even Parsis and Jews in India have Hindu ancestors. Others, who refuse to so acknowledge or those foreigners who become Indian citizens by registration can remain in India, but should not have voting rights (which means they cannot be elected
representatives).'
There is only one person in India to which the above stricture applies- Sonia Gandhi. But, she has been popularly elected whereas Swamy has lost his seat. She has formed a Government which has been returned to power and whose legitimacy is unquestioned.
There is no Muslim who does not acknowledge that they are descended from idolators. According to Islam, the father of Abraham, himself, was an 'aatish parast' fire-worshipping idolator. Swamy knows all this very well. The Jews weren't always faithful to Jehovah- if not a Holy Cow, they had a Golden Calf. No Jew, and therefore no Christian, denies that he or she is descended from idolators. True those ancestors may have lived far away but, don't you know, entire world plus many other planets were conquered by Emperor Bharata? Francis Wilford said Britain itself was nothing but the Sweta Dwipa of the Puranas. Thus everybody in the world is descended from Hindus because G.o.I, as well as Swamy defines Hinduism as any and every species of animism, shamanism, idolatory or vodoo practised by anyone not of an Abrahamic Religion. That's why, BJP MP's have to convert to Islam just so as to legitimize their second marriage even though both Polygyny and Polyandry are normative within Hinduism.
Swamy knows all this. His brother-in-law is Jewish, his wife Parsi, his son-in-law Muslim and his sister-in-law Christian. Yet reckless disregard for the truth has become his trademark, his one asset. These supposed Mullahs who deny they are descended from Jahil idolators don't exist, not even in Swamy's fevered imagination. The whole thing is a rhetorical flourish. If he had written instead 'Only one person shouldn't hold elective office in India- Sonia Gandhi.' people would have laughed at him. After all, even if Sonia Ji weren't an MP, she'd still be running the Govt. She could get her maid-servant elected and save herself the bother of visiting her constituency.
Swamy is a Tamil Brahmin. This is what he proposes 'Implement Uniform Civil Code, make Sanskrit learning compulsory and singing of Vande Mataram mandatory, and declare India as Hindu Rashtra in which only those non-Hindus can vote if they proudly acknowledge that their ancestors are Hindus. Re-name India as Hindustan as a nation of Hindus and those whose ancestors are Hindus.'
Does Swamy seriously think that the people of Tamil Nadu will sit quietly by while some idiot Brahmin forces them to learn Sanskrit? Does he not remember how the Tamils in Sri Lanka reacted when their Govt. tried to make Sinhala compulsory? Is he utterly mad?
No. He's an economist from Harvard, They're all fuckwits who shouldn't be let out in public without a minder for their own safety.
Still, Swamy's sacking by Harvard may yet redound to his credit. Perhaps, we will now get some plain speaking from him about the scandal that is National Income Accounting and Developmentalist chicanery.
I've just found out that the Japanese banned meat- at least that of 4 footed animals- for almost a thousand years. Thanks to Buddhism, they concentrated on slicing each other up with Samurai swords rather than chomping down on steaks with a fork and knife. Then, as part of their post-Meiji westernization- which pretty much put the kybosh on their deeply spiritual cultivation of internecine bloodshed- they sought to popularize meat in a bid to improve the national physique.
I don't know whether Dr. Swamy eats meat- his unrelenting pugnacity suggests otherwise- but I do know he doesn't drink.
This I consider a national tragedy.
This was a very bright, very precocious, lad growing up in the arid atmosphere of post- Independence New Delhi's politico-bureaucratic wasteland, for whom drink was incumbent as a religious duty- like that of Balram, picking up his wine pot and his plough and walking away from the Kurukshetra conflict- except our hero never got that far into Hinduism, preferring a Harvard already utterly alien to true Purushartha, let alone Artha Shastra.
Had Swamy spent his adolescence getting into drunken punch-ups with all and sundry, his natural combativeness might have mellowed, permitting his undoubted talents to have had a less damaging impact on Indian politics. In saying this, I judge him on no evidence other than that he himself supplies on the Janata Party website.
Reading his articles, a picture emerges of a very bright, very brave, but fundamentally confused man who devoted his life to a style of politics that was but the sowing of a confusion worse confounded.
In vernacular Spiritual traditions, Narada Muni, the Sage Narada, is divinely gifted- in that he receives the vision of the Lord in youth- but this blessing is also a blight for he is doomed to remain without that vision for the remainder of his mortal span. This double aspect of Narada- precociously blessed to be but retrogressively blighted- is, perhaps, the source of the notion that Narada spreads mischief wherever he goes- as must any talent that too early and too consummately flowers- for, transcending its roots, it has no further function save as Eris's fruit.
This is not to say that Dr.Swamy was himself like unto that apple of discord for which the Hellenic Goddesses jealously contested- though to read his articles, Swamy, deems himself so- all yearn for him and disclose their true desire to him alone. Indira needs him as a sort of tutor to her kids, Kamaraj wants him for the Tamils, JP needs him as a way out of the dead-end of Sarvodaya and a return to politics, Morarji needs him as a counterweight to the drunkard Vajpayee, Charan Singh wants him because he wants to become a Brahmin, or at least get his book on the Harvard Econ Reading list, Chandrashekhar needs him because he wants to become Prime Minister and only Swamy can bring that to pass, Rajiv needs him because he needs to be defended against his cousin Arun and ... and...actually, it turns out, Rajiv needs Swamy to defend his memory against everybody, including that K.G.B agent, Sonia, and that L.T.T.E agent. Priyanka, and ...urm...everybody and everything because you see Rajiv wan't using Swamy- No! Perish the thought! In fact, nobody ever used Swamy. Not Deng Xiao Ping when he invited Swamy for a meeting in 1981- don't you know Deng only wanted to hear Swamy's beautiful Chinese phonetics (child's play to him because he'd learned how to say 'Aiyaiyo!' from his dear old Mum) & this had nothing to with China's recent drubbing at the hands of the Vietnamese, or their need for a Trade Deal and World Bank money and so on- no, it was to hear Swamy's- Aiyayo! so beautiful no?- Mandarin that Deng communed with him. But, you can be sure, Swamy was quick to squeeze Deng into the concession of a great strategic advantage to India- yes! permission for a couple of hundred Hindu pilgrims to make the trek to Mansorovar in Tibet! Don't you see, this was the greatest triumph of all! Every one knows Chinese are ruthlessly suppressing Buddhists, but see! this clever Brahmin has scored off against those silly Shramans like that Dalai Lama chap!
This wouldn't matter if Swamy had used his guanxi to make money promoting trade and industry and so on. But, Swamy tells us, he isn't into money. That's all very well, but those guys from the P.R.C, they are big-time.
The way the Chinese and the Indians start getting along is through guanxi- everybody making money- that factory owned by the P.L.A, this bogus Defense Housing Colony on our side- that's when you have an 'all weather' relationship- look at the guanxi integration of Musharraf's Pakistan and the P.L.A- the kidnap of some Chinese hookers triggers an Army raid on the Lal Masjid! (why? Its a guanxi network that runs from Generals to Triads to the local massage parlor or drug trafficking long distance truck driver) I know, the true story might be quite different- but the fact that the Chinese nationality of the hookers was played up as an explanation for Army action tells its own story.
I'm not saying opening up the Mansarovar teerth was a bad thing. In fact, religious tourism is something both countries can really work together on- precisely because of the quick profits from prostitution and fucking over those 'immoral' tribals in order to rape the environment and so on.
The fact is, China isn't in the business of giving India any thymotic breaks and will retaliate swiftly against pi-jaw- but corrupt guanxi relationships are a different matter.
But Swamy couldn't be the point of contact because (I believe) he is clean.
More is the pity. Ties between Nations arise in the same manner as Karmic ties- not by duty done and integrity maintained- but by lust and greed and intoxication and delusion.
But precisely because Swamy never got over his infatuation with the great pi-jaw peddlers Gandhi, J.P and so on- he never understood Artha Shastra- actual Political Economy. Nor, to my mind, did he understand what the Paramacharya was trying to open his eyes to.
What to do? Indians are like that only.
The irony is that, later on, China invited the next Kanchi Sankaracharya- an honor they denied even the Pope!- and the reaction was- See! Swamy has truly served Hinduism! You may say, he 'used' the Chinese- but, the fact is, he just so damn intellectually superior, it's like a law of Nature!
True, some ignorant fellows in South Block whine that it was a propaganda coup for the Chinese- they were showing how tolerant they are of all Religions- and, as for that invite to the Shankaracharya, that was the final straw which precipitated the crisis which put the fellow in jail- but, actually, that was all karma you know. Nothing to do with the Chinese being able to run circles around 'clever-clever' Brahmins like Nehru and Swamy- not at all. Why would you even suggest it? Oh, I see. You didn't get a PhD from Harvard at the age is 22. Well, you're just stupid aren't you? Shut up and go watch a Jayalalitha film.
It's still not too late for Swamy. Someone send him a bottle of black label and tell him its Ganga jal or cow's urine or whatever. Once he's had a few, mention to him that if Manmohan really didn't act malafide because, as an Economist, he didn't know from Law- then how is Raja guilty? The guy don't know from Econ, mechanism design- evolutionary game theory and Ken Binmore and such- which Manmohan does know about.
But Swamy's P.I.L and tactical slanders are nothing but 'champerty and maintenance' (okay, I know shite from Law), the arch-intriguer is intriguing again on the behalf of parties even more worthless than those he has previously, so futilely, served.
Fuck is wrong with him?
What's your verdict?
Nutjob or Narad Muni?
