Tharoor in a pseudo intellectual role till 2019

Mr Tharoor is a learned person...represented India in the UN ...lost the race to be its secretary general not because he was less competent but because India didn't have the numbers...

With such impeccable credentials, he says, "A chaiwala could become a PM because of Nehru." A few days ago, he argued, "Abstract notions of constitutional principle also have to pass the test of societal acceptance — all the more so when they are applied to matters of faith."

Hope someday, when he is not donning the hat of a politician but rather that of a scholar, he revisits those statements and realizes how they make mockery of his own erudition (social, political & constitutional)

For information: (1) Indian constitution (not Nehruvian constitution) specifies the eligibility criteria for prime minister. (2) Indian constitution was made by a body of learned people (constituent assembly) which included Nehru as well. Nehru was a great person, the architect of modern India; gave direction & leadership to India in 1950s and committed blunders too but even he, in his most exalted ego state, would refrain from suggesting that he made it possible for some chaiwala to be PM... It is due to the collective vision of the people of India who were at the helm when the constitution was being written. No single person can & should take credit for the constitution that came into being in full in 1950.
and
(3) Constitutional morality does not conform to societal morality.

Yeah, political compulsion & sycophancy may explain this, but if this coerces one to come to this level, then one must introspect what's the difference between him and the ones he has been fighting against? or should we assume that it's not the battle of ideology or the quest to do the right thing, but it's the battle of convenience whose ultimate aim is grabbing of power no matter what the means are... And, isn't it so obvious but our gullible hearts want to give him a benefit of doubt...

Regarding his liberal credentials, the opening lines of T M Krishna's (the same person whose concert was cancelled due to alleged pressure by right wingers) op-ed says it all...
(Rajiv Gandhi once played with that fire in Shah Bano case in 1985 and ended up strengthening the very forces, it wanted to counter... I sincerely believe supporters of Congress do not want it to be another BJP...)

मेरा देश महान

देखते पूछ कर तुम भी कभी,
अपने पडोसियों का हाल,
ये बिना फ़िक्र किये एक बार 
कि क्या है उनका मजहब
और क्या है उनकी जात
तो महसूस कर पाते तुम भी
उस सरजमीं को बार-बार
जहाँ ना है कोई पैगम्बर और ना ही कोई भगवान्
जहाँ ना है ऐसे जन्म
जो बांधें बेड़ियों से किसी के पाँव
बस इन्सां हैं, केवल इन्सां
और वही एक पहचान
ऐसा है मेरा सपना,
ऐसा है मेरा देश महान |

#All Men

Charles Dickens in the opening paragraph of 'A Tale of two Cities' wrote, "It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness...in short, the period was so far like the present period, that some of its noisiest authorities insisted on its being received, for good or for evil, in the superlative degree of comparison only."
That was in 1859 and almost 160 years later, it seems as contemporary as ever.Take for example the events of the last few days. Twitter is flooded with stories of harassment, misogyny, frustration, hypocrisy, accusations, counter accusations, and what not. What is remarkable is the way it transcends all boundaries be they political, religious, social, economic or anything else. We had never been so united not even when we fought against the British! (of course, it is a hyperbole comparison :) to make people sit up and take notice). Left, right and center, we are all united by our penchant to perpetuate abuse!!!
Persons taking moral high ground in the morning are taking shelter behind phrases like 'rule of law' or 'due process of law' in the evening because they or their closed ones stand accused of the same or similar charges levelled by someone either anonymously or in person. Such ephemeral has become their 'wokenes' which they painstakingly cultivated and polished using carefully crafted words, actions and theatrics in public sphere in yesteryear. Notwithstanding the relevance or importance the phrases quoted above hold in a just & fair society, it's astonishing how they are given lip service by these persons at times when they do not suit their interests.
To the point of sounding insensitive & disrespectful, twitter feed now-a-days looks more like pages of tabloids than a genuine medium of expression & prompt communication. This is so because of the curiosity it has started generating among its consumers about the unraveling of the skeletons hiding in the closet of ordinary and not so ordinary people.
However, we must take credit. From 'Not all men' to 'Almost all men' we have come a long way. Hopefully we will not stop until we remove even the faintest possibility, the doubt that lingers in the minds of many because 'Almost' says so. For the last time, let us put our heart & soul to make it 'All men.' Then shall we breathe profusely and bask in the glory of unbridled satisfaction.

LPG Reforms: Give Credit to PV Narsimha Rao as well

Yeah PV Narsimha Rao too and not our MMS only... PVR was the PM & the cabinet minister for industry in 1991. He signed the papers liberating India from licence raj not MMS. MMS definitely played the role of the finance minister, and a thinking one too. But the driving force was PVR. MMS gave us Indo-US nuclear deal when he was the PM and he must be credited for putting his foot down and risking his govt. when the left threatened to walk and did walk away from the coalition. But to say that the decision as big as LPG was taken by MMS is to simply ignore the fact that in parliamentary democracy, PM is the leader and in this case, he also happened to be the cabinet minister for industry.

"At about 12.50 p.m., P.J. Kurien, the Minister of State for Industry and now the Deputy Chairman of the Rajya Sabha, got up in the Lok Sabha and read out a brief statement: “Sir, I beg to lay on the table a statement (Hindi and English versions) on Industrial Policy”. That was it: a bland statement to usher in a radical transformation of Indian enterprise and open up a whole new future for Indian entrepreneurs. The statement made a bonfire of all licensing controls..."
https://www.thehindu.com/…/Twenty-five-…/article14504910.ece

Supreme Court should not be the court of first appeal for the privileged few, not even under the guise of Art. 32

CJI Misra, love the way you ensured that the bleeding heart new age Iyer J (read here Chandrachud jr J) doesn't bleed justice in the process. Most of your judgements were expected, but today was a special one. You weren't swayed by the absurd logic that being born in the US and spending time in the remotest part of the country makes you 'eminent' and gives you the licence to undermine everything.
Let the trial court sift facts from fiction as is done in every other case. There are millions in this country who require immediate justice. Hope the battery of lawyers who moved with the speed of light in this case take even one such case and demonstrate that their action was anything but a publicity gimmick. And for the romantics of a banned movement, please note the top court is not only watching and but also taking actions.

PS: By the way, Sabrimala judgement is icing on the cake. Religion can't be an excuse to discriminate (Art. 15).

Liberal or otherwise

In the Judge Loya death case, Chnadrachud Jr. J. verdict was not as per the expectation of some people. So, his action has been described like this, "One case that remains Justice Chandrachud’s Achilles’ heel is his judgment in the case around the death of CBI Judge BH Loya, who was presiding over the Sohrabuddin trial. Along with the bench, Justice Chandrachud dismissed a probe to investigate CBI Judge BH Loya’s death, who died under suspicious circumstances, according to The Caravan’s report."

Achilles' heel!!!! Seriously??? If he has delivered other judgement correctly, we can have faith in him here as well and if he is wrong here, how is he the champion crusader? Only a few days ago, he was heavily criticized for his judgement and now he being hailed a hero!! Selective amnesia or cherry picking?? Interestingly, this is how Chandrachud Jr. J. himself describes the action of petitioners in the judge Loya death case, "The conduct of the petitioners and the intervenors scandalizes the process of the court and prima facie constitutes criminal contempt." There are other interesting and scathing comments as well. You may read those and also find out who were the petitioners in the case. You may also argue, hey, every judgement is an independent one and he might be right in all or wrong in all or right in some and wrong in some. That's exactly the point.

So, in this "post truth era which has a certain cut-off date because before that we were actually analyzing policies and thereafter only making informed choices and we were certainly not driven by emotions and our commitment to constitutional values was impeccable (Wikipedia defines Post-truth politics as a political culture in which debate is framed largely by appeals to emotion disconnected from the details of policy, and by the repeated assertion of talking points to which factual rebuttals are ignored), the question that we should be asking ourselves is, "Are we applying our mind to the facts presented before us from all angles and then taking a call or are we just cherry picking facts/opinions to suit our narrative?

Please note that whether you are on this side of the divide or that side of the divide, you are guilty (हिंदी में एक कहावत है- "इस हमाम में सभी नंगे हैं |"). Though, you would like to debate who is more guilty and thus decide the punishment accordingly, but then while trying to ascertain who started this nonsense first, remember that the history of this country goes back to at least 5000 yrs and most probably everyone will have a claim that it's the other side that started the nonsense first.
My only suggestion is before we form an opinion, we must weigh both sides. If we follow say something like "The Wire" , then we must follow something from the other side of the spectrum as well and vice versa.

Dig in, find out the real stuff and then choose your side because you then will have the real conviction based on concrete facts and not hearsay. However, do watch out for fake sources. Argue ferociously but listen to other side as well. Also remember that some people do carry self serving agenda. You might be thinking that you are serving a great cause, but it might be that you are instead serving someone else agenda.

Banning of cow slaughter by state

Many people proclaim that it is the infringement of their fundamental right to religion if a state proceeds to ban cow slaughter. This issue comes to limelight now and then and people from both sides further their arguments as to why this action by the state is justified or why it is not. This issue is not at all new although many have this perception that this trend started with the current BJP govt. in power.
Here is a case: Mohd. Hanif Quareshi and Others Vs. State of Bihar, AIR 1958, SC 731.
A writ petition under Article 32 was filed questioning the validity of three legislative enactments banning the slaughter of certain animals passed by the States of Bihar, Uttar Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh respectively. One of the submissions raised by the petitioner was that banning of slaughter of cows infringes fundamental right of petitioner to sacrifice the cow on BakraId.
Supreme Court Observations:
"What then, we inquire, are the materials placed before us to substantiate the claim that the sacrifice of a cow is enjoined or
sanctioned by Islam? The materials before us are extremely meagre and it is surprising that on a matter of this description the allegations in the petition should be so vague. In the Bihar Petition No. 58 of 1956 are set out the following bald allegations: That the petitioners further respectfully submit that the said impugned section also violates the fundamental rights of the petitioners guaranteed tinder Article 25 of the Constitution in-as-much as on the occasion of their Bakr Id Day, it is the religious practice of the petitioners' community to sacrifice a cow on the said occasion.
We have, however, no material on the record before us which will enable us to say, in the face of the foregoing facts, that the sacrifice of a cow on that day is an obligatory overt act for a Mussalman to exhibit his religious belief and idea. In the premises, it is not possible for us to uphold this claim of the petitioners.”

Clearly, the case highlights that the state is within its right to ban the practice of cow slaughter and it does not infringe anyone's fundamental right to practice religion. Besides, livestock falls under state subject under the head- "Preservation, protection and improvement of stock and prevention of animal diseases" Therefore, cow slaughter is banned in some states and not in many. It's the choice of a particular state. If you are not happy with the current legal status, ask your state to change it. However, it's clearly not a matter of infringement of fundamental right of any person, be they of any religion.
PS: I am not aware of any judgement which has overturned this. Would be happy to know if any counter judgement exists.

Reservation in Promotion: Analysis of Constitution bench decision given in 2018 read with earlier (Nagraj) judgement of 2006

The State is not bound to make reservation for SC/ST in matter of promotions. However if they wish to exercise their discretion and make such provision, they don’t need to collect quantifiable data showing backwardness of the SCs and the STs, since their inclusion in presidential list itself is such indication. The state, however, has to collect quantifiable data showing inadequacy of representation of that class in public employment in addition to compliance of Article 335. Quantifiable data shall be collected by the State, on the parameters as stipulated in Nagaraj on the inadequacy of representation, which can be tested by the Courts. This data would be relatable to the concerned cadre. The test for determining adequacy of representation in promotional posts at all stages of promotion will not be the proportion of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes to the population in India since as the post gets higher, it may be necessary to reduce the number of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in promotional posts keeping in view the efficiency of administration. The state will also have to see that its reservation provision does not lead to excessiveness so as to breach the ceiling-limit of 50% or obliterate the creamy layer or extend the reservation indefinitely. Creamy layer among SC/STs will be excluded from availing the benefit of reservation.

You taste good

Not because you are

But because you are forbidden

From aspiration to obsession

And then fatal compulsion

That engender an instigation

Even with faint presence

To my senses

And tempts

To know you and yet not

As I try

To acknowledge and still feign ignorance

To yearn and still be indifferent

But such are you potent

That every time I feel you

It takes away my patience

And you continue to be

The hardest addiction.

कभी सोचता हूँ
समेट दूँ
तुम्हारी दास्ताँ कागचों पे
अपने शब्दों के सहारे
पर बैठता हूँ जब
लिखने तुम्हें
तो रुक जाता हूँ
अब तुम ही बताओ
सत्ताईस सालों की ख़ुशी
मुझसे भला
नज़्मों में बयां हो पायेगी कभी !

अब तो वक़्त भी पूछता है बेझिझक,
कब हुए हम बेइंतेहा से बेसबब !

इतने सलीके से,
जर्रे को आसमां बना देते हो !
तुम क्या खुदा हो?
जो जाहिल को लम्हों में,
इंसान बना देते हो !