Congress, CBI and Scams

While debate about CBI’s independence has come to fore again in the context of alleged massive coal scam’s investigation, there are other pressing questions pertaining to integrity and honesty of this premier institution and also Government of India which needs answers. It is not reasonable to find an equivalent for every issue with previous governments. For all recently unearthed scams Congress/Government maintained that it merely continued previous government’s policies or it did with the concurrence of state governments, the ones we are talking about is 2G Scam, Chopper deal and Coalgate scam.

In a country where political & bureaucratic corruption is rampant, CBI understandably is a last straw of hope to uphold the very notion of Justice. At least from the time we know about 2G scam, strategy of the government seems to have been to first deny any wrong doing, then become silent and make the whole issue disappear in the name of an enquiry. We can recall how in 2G scam Kapil Sibal propounded a baseless zero loss theory to see himself that around 122 2G licenses were cancelled and court ordered for re-auction. The moment they realized that re-auction did not generate the revenues of what has been claimed by CAG report on 2G allocation, congress spokespersons wasted no time to drumbeat that whole loss figure arrived in CAG report is mythical. Failing to realize that Indian citizens are now a days have become more proactive and their common sense and IQ levels have been improved much when compared to as citizens of British India or of 1947. The whole loss was specific to a particular time only. At a time when we have already immersed ourselves in 3G and are marching towards embracing 4G technology, what revenue a 2G re-auction would generate?

In my opinion the counsels must have argued for a different deal instead of a simple re-auctioning, ie., in future generation technology auctions (3G,4G) etc., those who have bought 2G spectrum in throw away prices must pay more than the new entrants and that amount must make up to the lost revenue. Because this is a peculiar case and you cannot just makeup for the losses by re-auction because it (the technology) is outdated already. And allegedly there has been an attempt by vested interests to weaken the whole investigation. Truth must prevail.

But in case of Coal scam there is a possibility to make up for revenue losses highlighted in CAG report probably through re-auction unlike 2G spectrum. Because coal is a coal, a natural resource. Congress to get rid of pressure it is facing tried to pass the buck to BJP claiming that it was states that approved or concurred with giving licenses to respective players. But people of India are not witless mortals to accept that untenable argument. Because state government’s view is only ‘Recommendatory’ in nature and are not binding on Government of India and that is why we have a central government department called as Coal Ministry. Even if for the sake of argument let’s assume that a state government has recommended an undeserving player to be allocated a coal block, is it not the responsibility of the Coal Ministry (GOI) to detect that player or company in question and say that he is not suitable for allocation and henceforth reject it? So arguing that all is done at the behest of state governments is not an alibi at all, and will collapse like a house of cards in a legal scrutiny. To be on a safer side to project that current government is not the only one to be called in for shots it released a report rubber stamping it by a parliament standing committee, which says that all allocations from 1993 to 2008 needs to be reviewed, exactly as in 2G Scam it said that it just followed previous government’s policy.

It is only after an enormous opposition pressure GOI gone in for a CBI enquiry. It has to be noted that this time around BJP did not insist on JPC because it has learnt its lessons through the JPC formed on 2G Scam and insisted on independent enquiry. Now the only way the government can manipulate truth is through coercing CBI.

A layman would understand that CBI is a part of the government; we never needed a lesson from either the current CBI Director Ranjit Sinha or from Government of India. Are we to assume that the current CBI director has a plump post like governor of a state is waiting for his retirement life as a quid pro quo to his loyalty to congress? It is an open truth that CBI has a functional autonomy (at least that is the statutory intention). It is only administrative control which government holds something like approving leaves and allowances? But it can never and it should never interfere with the ongoing cases which CBI is investigating. After the appointment of former CBI director Ashwini Kumar as Governor of Nagaland, it makes one to think how effectively CBI has been utilized? Should we call it as classical utilitarianism? Jeremy Bentham would be appalled. If CBI’s Motto is Industry, Impartiality, Integrity it must seem to be. But you will not get that feeling if you read this report

The recent incident which came to light where Government intervening in CBI’s investigation by trying to tweak a status report which CBI has to submit to the court is a telling example of how notorious the government is in saving its face from the onslaught of scam revelations. And it is both shocking and laughable to listen to government’s defense that law ministry intended to correct grammatical mistakes in CBI’s report. Who will accept such a callous argument? It is quite natural that Justice Jodha frowned up on the government counsel, see his comments.

When the whole investigation is to find out whether government of the day is involved in any wrong doing and investigation is under the nose of highest court, how can the accused verify a report before it is submitted to court which could possibly implicate him? How can the government be a judge in its own cause, there by violating fundamental principles of natural justice and moral sanity? As leader of opposition, Rajya Sabha claimed that the “government is caught when its pants are down” that is indeed true. Unless arrogance of the two power centers- congress president and prime minister is so hardened, it is time for the head of government to dissolve the parliament and go for elections or just resign, only and only if he has any semblance of morality left in him.

My Question to Jay Ulfelder - The Political Scientist

My Question to Jay Ulfelder about the study of political science and how to approach it.

This shall help many others whose interest lie in Political Science, hence posting it here. And I thank Jay for his valuble insight.

My Question :

Hello Jay,

I have been trying to ask few academic questions to political scientists. And about few times I ended  up asking the wrong person or my question did not fall with in the ambit of 'Area of Interest\Expertise' of the one to whom I have directed this question. But I am hopeful that I am talking to the right person this time around.

As a one who is interested in the discipline political science in general and International Relations in particular, I have always had this doubt of how to acomodate unrealistic interests of knowing everything under the sun. My interest lies in Area Studies - South Asian Studies indeed. Now under this leg what should I study about or in otherwords where should my starting point be? In myriad dimensions like History,Politics,Foreign Policy,Economy,Law,Cultural studies etc., how to begin with has become a pressing question for which I could not find an answer yet. Apparently I intend to apply to an American University in the future not too far from now. I am worried that my unguided reading could end up learning some thing that might not be considered as pre-requisitie/s for the course/degree I am going to apply in US. The truth is I am lost. And that is why I thought I must write this to you and seek clarity. Thanks for giving it a thought.

Jay's Response :

My main recommendation would be not to worry quite so much about it. You can't know everything, so start by trying to push that idea out of your head and focusing on something more realistic. For area studies, that usually means 1) knowing one or more relevant languages, 2) knowing the history of the area reasonably well, 3) being familiar with important cultural elements (e.g., literature and art) from the area, and 4) being conversant in the major political issues of the present in that area. If you want to go further than that before starting a program, I'd recommend picking one issue area in which you're especially interested (e.g., international relations theory or international law) and doing more advanced theoretical reading on that topic that is not area-specific. The rest should follow from course work and your own evolving interests. Good luck! -Jay

My comment on Matt Dickenson's Blog on US Border Restructuring

My comment on Matt Dickenson's Blog on US Border Restructuring


Ever heard of state re-organization commision of India? which was formed immediately after she acheived her political independence. States were formed based on linguistic lines. As you know there are myriad languages and cultures and a culture is synonymous with language so it was easy to put people in one basket who spoke the same tongue. And this linguistic based idea was touted as a greatest invention of that time, though it was the exaggeration of the ruling party.
But in recent years the psyche has been under the process of evolution where we are now talking about re-structuring states based on its backwardness, development etc., But understandably US does not have a problem in dealing with cultural complexities, with that being the case re-structuring the boundaries based on economies is such a noble idea that it deserves an applaud. May be redrawing states based on equal proportion of population could have reason to an extent, but doing it based on economies is much saner.

Thanks
Sathyanarayanan D

Panchsheel & Utopianism

Every country’s path to progress and the decision taken at important junctures of history are based on its leader’s ideological inclination and based on his upbringing and cultural orientation. When we trace our origins of foreign policy moorings in post independent India the only torch bearer was our first Prime Minister. Who is understandably involved in freedom movement and European educated who knew to an extent how the nations were conducting themselves when it comes to dealing with other nation states.

Being a country which recently got a political independence with a shattering economy, I say shattering because British’s systematic plunder of India made national treasury dry and nothing is left for Indians. When the whole world divided itself in to two camps - capitalism V/S communism, India had no base to take a stand. In this background with the intention that India should not be seen as a country which is siding with any one camp few proactive ideas were floated and adopted like Panchsheel, Non-alignment etc., though it’s relevance in 21^st century is a topic which requires an intense debate with keeping in mind the current day realities. We shall focus on Panchsheel at the moment.

Though India is similar to China to an extent in its land mass and other aspects, its diversity has always played a spoil sport. Myriad cultures, languages & customs etc., and on a relative basis this was not a challenge for China at all. It is often said that if you have power, then control, if not get controlled. This was the situation of India at that time ie., it had no power to control the events, at the same time we never wanted to be seen as a weakling. And to preemptively capture the moral high stance we spoke about Panchsheel.

But what we have never realized was Panchsheel is against the very basic tenets of communism. Let’s speak of one virtue one of the five principles – peaceful co-existence. When the very idea leftism/communism is about turning the whole world in to communist ghettos apparently through aggression, isn’t a misnomer to talk about peaceful co-existence with communist China? But Nehru’s utopia has demoralized the whole country, the rest is history especially after 1962 china's agression on India.

Communists have no regard for the peaceful co-existence.The recent events of border incursions by Chinese army in to our territory just prove that, the irrelevance of Panchsheel with China. I am not sure if Nehru thought this would appeal to china because China is a Buddhist country and borrowing principles from Buddhism will make sense, what he failed to realize that godlessness is at the core of what communists actually are. Even as a fellow communist sympathizer he never realized this fact.

It is said that on every year for the past few years or more, there has been an alarmingly increase in Chinese incursions, and GOI is waging a war with media to manage the reportage and there is no substance in the outcome of negotiations with China. In a face off for India with China it will only be a situation of asymmetric warfare. So statements like taking China and Pakistan head on at a same time is apparently baseless and is considered to be unreal. And there is no reason for us to celebrate because we have defeated Pakistan for more than few times in a conventional war, but in fact we actually are losing in a different theater i.e., the proxy wars.

Hind-chin bhai bhai propagated by Nehru has absolutely no relevance within the context of South Asian affairs. It is time to strengthen our defenses, but from where would the money come from? Good question. Money and resources are there. But it is whisked away by Politicians. We are losing on every front because of Political Corruption. But then who will rein up on these crooks? Don’t think, it is none but us.

Why Miranda of India is no match to the Miranda of USA?

Whenever there is a terrorist attack or incident, or say for that matter a heinous crime committed. As a common citizen we expect the guilty to be hanged instantly. Oh! Come on isn’t that a genuine feeling? Which every morally upright mortal must have? But when the justice is delivered by courts they are obliged to give fair hearing to the one who is accused of committing heinous crime, this is to make sure that the notions of “Principles of Natural Justice” are upheld and not to mention the notions of civilized society.

I would call it is as a journey to justice delivery? From the moment of crime committal till conviction it is a journey indeed, at the heart of this journey to justice the role of police/law enforcement personnel is indispensible, whose job is to gather independent witnesses against the accused and prosecute him. Because statements of the accused cannot be used as the only evidence to prosecute. Independent, corroborative evidence is essential.

In terror crimes often accused will admit that he is committed the crime, because terrorists want some publicity. If Alqueda attacks America, India or Israel they want to boast that in the name of Allah they have done it. But the challenge will be who influenced or what him to commit it, case of 2008 Mumbai attack? For example in Parliament attack case of 2001 the main accused Afzal Guru has accepted that he has committed the crime, read my write-up. But it is understood that to find out the immediate motives it has taken time.  The constitution guarantees “Right against Self Incrimination” to the accused who may choose to remain silent, but this is not the best in world at least not a best one than US. In America police officers have to read out the rights an accused has before arresting or while interrogating him. Can you imagine that happening in India? In a land mark case Miranda v/s Arizona the Supreme Court consolidated and upheld the rights given to Americans by fifth and sixth amendment, from then on it was called as Miranda warning.

Ever watched the movie Phone Booth? In that movie Forest Whitaker will read Miranda rights to the alleged accused Collin Farrell. Easy to understand Miranda rights by watching that movie.

1. They have the right to remain silent

2. Anything the suspect does say can and MAY be used against them;

3. They have the right to have an attorney present before and during the questioning

4. they have the right, if they cannot afford the services of an attorney, to have one appointed, at public expense and without cost to them, to represent them before and during the questioning

There seems to be a public safety exception, there seems to an intense debate after the Boston bomb blast on this exception, in my opinion the Boston bomb suspect’s case falls within public safety exception. Once resorted to this exception and if it’s necessary is upheld, enforcement officers chose to ignore Miranda warning or the accused cannot ask to suppress his statements. When there is an imminent threat to public safety, Miranda warning is certainly not necessary. Otherwise the expectation from courts is that statements made by accused should be voluntary. If the element of voluntariness is not established they are assumed to be statements acquired through coercion which cannot be considered as evidence and the police must be ready for strictures.

Just like in India confessions acquired through coercion are considered as no evidence to incriminate someone.

In an underdeveloped (with respect to people’s activism per se) country like India accused neither know what their rights are against self incrimination nor told what they are by police though they are entitled to. Often the illiterate innocents are punished by confessions acquired deftly by crooked police. And there is no way for the judge to establish whether a particular statement was given voluntarily by the accused. He may ask him orally, for which the hapless would say, yes. Because this is perfectly stage-managed by police. While most of the Miranda’s elements of India and US match, the only component that seems to stand out is letting the accused know their rights understandably do not happen though the accused has a right to know. And this must be strictly imposed on Indian police who should be made to read accused their rights before arresting him or at the time of interrogation. Convictions rates might fall?

Indian Evidence Act 1872 : Bias & Burden of Proof

Burden of Proof

When news channels report few ongoing cases they might have used a word “Burden of Proof “or “Proving the guilt beyond reasonable doubt” etc., though it might sound like plain English, they are indeed terms in legal parlance. Our interest here is confined to “Burden of Proof”. Which is nothing but if I claim that Utkarsh caused a severe injury to me and I want the court to punish him for that, I have to prove that Utkarsh did hurt me beyond a reasonable doubt, i.e., burden of proof lies with me. If not proved he can walk free.

But do you know there is a travesty of justice (we can call it) when it comes to the fact that the court can resort to certain assumptions, while dealing with offenses against state and dowry related death and/or Marital related offenses. But yes we are not going to talk about offences against state for now.

113 A - Presumption as to abetment of suicide by a married woman

“ When the question is whether the commission of suicide by a woman had been abetted by her husband or any relative of her husband and it is shown that she had committed suicide within a period of seven years from the date of her marriage and that her husband or such relative of her husband had subjected her to cruelty, the court may presume, having regard to all the other circumstances of the case, that such suicide had been abetted by her husband or by such relative of her husband “

When the co-relation between death and cruel treatment is not established how can we assume that specific act of cruelty has abetted the suicide?

Stand taken by the trial court in this case with respect to 113A is telling. Where the appellants ie., those who are accused of wife’s death were asked to prove the innocence, giving much primacy to 113A. This proposition to me sounded like a stunning contradiction. I agree with the fact that the courts have full discretion interpreting the statutes and also can set the precedents. But in the first instance itself equal opportunity must be provided to the accused thereby in a way giving a meaning to the principles of Natural justice if not applying the maxim of prosecution to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt instead relying on assumptions. Yes. I agree facts and circumstances of each case would differ. But that should not come in a way to uphold equality before law.

Though Art: 14 of Indian constitution talks about Equality before law, Art: 15(3) mandates or talks about showing leniency towards women and children who in Indian society are considered as oppressed. And even in cases of adultery which is offense as per Sec: 497 IPC, leniency is shown towards women.

And another provision which has a scope for abuse is 113B of Indian Evidence Act – Presumption as to dowry death which must be repealed. It is said that these specific provisions were included in 1983; it is 30 years since then. And this is mainly abused by literate urban women to harass men. And the subordinate courts are left with no choice but to either follow the precedents set by the superior courts or follow the statute literally.

Just like Sec: 498a of IPC some of the provisions such mentioned are abused frequently. And the abuse is equated with legal terrorism by the Supreme Court recently.

Way Out?

In that last 30 years the situation of women has changed especially with urban class. It will be meaningful to repeal the assumptions from Indian Evidence Act and make it even, ie., the burden of proof. Probably there should be a provision for a woman who claims discrimination shall go ahead for a lawyer of her choice, not necessarily through legal aid stationed in High courts but anyone else (emphasis added). And state shall bear the expenses.

Views expressed here are personal

 

My comment on "" The Quixote, er, Magnitsky Act Kicks In "" by Jay Ulfelder

My comment on "" The Quixote, er, Magnitsky Act Kicks In "" by Jay Ulfelder
==========================================================================

I think time has come for both the dwindling juggernauts to think that collectively did they do any good to this world? It is always a zero sum game when it comes to Russia V/S US. If we have to understand that it is always about capitalism fighting communism or vice versa why the situation has not been improved. I agree that for Russia it is a way to go for democratizing many things. But If US has to claim that it has the moral authority to push its style of democracy, openness and liberalism etc., It should not chery pick Russia alone but it must risk it doing with Islamic countries for whom even semblance of democracy is too remote and foreign to accept.

I always feel that for super powers there are always two choices, National Interest and Global Interest, and they must strike a balance between them without a over emphasis on any one thing. The term National Interest means at times anti others which will directly take a toll on Global Interest. Britain has to go down the annuls and is no more a super power because it treated everybody else as just resources with no respect for other’s right to lead a dignified life. Only those leaders who had the ability to harmonize these two conflicting terms could take the human race forward. Woodrow Wilson succeeded to an extent and I think no one else has met the bench mark he has set. And the current leaders of both these countries (US,Russia) have kept the Global Interest in aloof and fueled the rivalries. Suddenly it seemed that the whole US campaign of Reset with Russia was a bluff.

Should I thank the God? May be yes. For giving us the Nuclear weapons, thereby avoiding a third World War? Time to think rationally for both US & Russia and prove Herbert Simon wrong.

========================================================================

Legal Heir V/S Nominee: Who should get the primacy?

Do you re-call that when you open an account in any bank irrespective of whether it is a nationalized or a private, while filling up the application form you are asked to select the nominees? Now who is a nominee? It is as we all know if the account holder expired suddenly or deceased untimely, a nominee can claim the money the amount lying in the account if it is a bank account or if it is a locker he claim the articles.

Sec: 45ZA of Banking Regulation Act 1949 requires all the account holders to nominate persons who could claim ownership of the amount in the absence of account holder ie., after his death. The generally impression for a lay man is however is (which is contrary to the legal expectation) appointing a nominee for his account means he (the nominee) will be sole owner of deposit in his account after his death. But it might be surprising to hear that nominee cannot claim an undisputable ownership of deposit when the account holder is deceased. Because legal heir takes primacy over nominee and the later is relegated merely to the position of collection agent. This has led to a tremendous confusion and is apparently against the intentions of the account holder, because he wanted the money to be distributed among his heirs he would have selected his/her legal heirs why would he select others as nominee. The precedence given to legal heir is because of Hindu Succession Act 1956. And we have Indian succession and Muslim succession acts for Christians and Muslims.

The deposit in the account is considered as a property and the one claims ownership should be legal heir only. Though as per the Hindu succession act priorities may differ. Hence they are classified as Class I, Class II, Agnates and Cognates as per order of precedence. This is for intestate succession. It means when the owner dies without explicitly writing a will. And will can be written if it is not an ancestral property.

Recently I was stumbled by a case in which one of my friends Shalini was involved. To his relative Kumar she has given an amount of Rs 100,000. Since Kumar is very old say beyond 80 and his wife Kamu who is at her late 70’s. As they have no other source of income Shalini has been taking care of both of them. Though Kamu had a sister and their children all adult males in a good earning position nobody cared to look after this old couple.

Pleased by the Shalini’s help Kumar has nominated her as a nominee for his bank account. Kamu died few years ago. Suddenly Kumar is also deceased. When as a nominee my friend Shalini claimed the deposit in Kumar’s account, her claim is disputed by Kamu’s sister’s children who are the right owners of the property legally.

But all the while were thinking that Shalini is the right owner because she has been nominated by the account holder out of his own will. He consciously made a choice that after his death the deposit should go to Shalini because she took care of him (Kumar). But law(and a latest judgment on this too) treats nominee as only collection agents and nothing more. It is clear that mostly we select our legal heirs as nominees but not always, there are few instances like my friend’s Shalini.

What should we do?

Testamentary succession is one of the less cumbersome transactions legally. Which means one writes a will when he is alive and this piece of paper (will) acquires power when the one written is deceased until then it is just a piece of paper. When a will has such a power why not a decision of nominee? The account holder/depositor out of his own volition picks up nominee and that nominee must be given primacy over legal heirs. The choice of nominee must be treated on par with will. Ie., if I am making some one as a nominee which means I am writing a will in which I am declaring that my nominee will have an undisputable right over my property, ie., money lying in bank account in this case. Because even when account holder knows about the existence of class I legal heirs but he chooses to ignore them and nominates others which means this must be treated as testamentary succession. Nothing but a will.

In a judgment (Ram Chander Talwar & another Vs. Devender Kumar Talwar & others Civil Appeal NOS.1684 OF 2004 Hon'ble Judge(s): AFTAB ALAM, R.M. LODHA Date of Judgment: October 06, 2010) Justice Lodha & Aftab Alam declared that section 45ZA of Banking Regulation act 1949 puts the nominee merely in the shoes of depositor’s after his death and he cannot claim any ownership of money lying in his account.

There is no way to resolve this conflict without the intervention of legislature. Hence there must be an inclusion of a clause which gives nominee’s primacy over legal heirs. And this is the only way we are going to respect the decision of depositor who out of his own will decided to nominate someone other than his legal heir, and the account holder never intended to make nominee as a collection agent.

Note: This is without any doubt is my personal view and this piece in no way questions or negates any body’s authority

Looking through Thane and beyond

It is often said that politicians are heartless and their only motivation to stay on with power is to nurture themselves or prey on the populace, most of the times I denounced such a blanket branding of ‘all’ politicians as crooks. Running a political party is no different than a running a for profit business, though this was not the original intention/goal but the idea of politics it was only used to empower people. The whole government machinery is designed in such a way that it benefits politicians and in most cases it becomes irrelevant whether the corrupt is in ruling or opposition party, state or national party etc.,

The recent loss of lives in Thane Maharastra in a building collapse is yet another telling story. Sacking politicians (corporators) after the mishap, suspending officers and booking cases all are meant for public consumption and the gullibility of public is so strong that they would never be able to see the actual intentions. What can we expect from a crooked class which talks about the urinating dams if no rains? This is generally the attitude of politicians whose only unstated goal in life is to amass wealth and nothing else (emphasis added). Now it seems that no group has a moral plane to ride on when it comes to acting with honesty while dealing with public money?

To the question why individuals need money? The answer is apparent. It is needed to retain the power. The means employed to earn the money is not that significant, unless it is questioned in courts or a media group covers it. If we in lay men terms analyze what are the departments (it is individuals in the department) which are mired with or thrive on this black economy are the departments which interacts/interfaces with public more in a relative basis when compared to other departments. It is plainly assumed that no government dept. is free from corruption or free from corrupt mortals. In my opinion there are more than few departments which would standout and they are common in any/all state/s government/s.

They are:

1.    RTO office – Office which handles vehicle registration and issuing the drivind licenses.

2.    Land Registry/Sub-registrar’s office – Where all land ownership transfer transactions and other related tasks are handled.

3.    Building approval dept – the likes of CMDA in Chennai etc.,

Though few departments are supervised by independent minister or IAS officer etc under state government, few are handled by city corporations too. In our case ie., in Thane it is city corporation. It seems that it has been confirmed that the construction was build in forest land and is a 7 floor storey. The begging question would be then what the heck the watch dogs were doing? Please do not tell me that they had a heavy dose of corruption pills and slept off. In a yet to develop city like Chennai itself when the demand for housing is skyrocketing, we can imagine how it will be in megapolis like Mumbai.

Let us get down to real time scenario. If you are constructing a building, no matter what ie., even if you are doing after acquiring all the due approvals, you will still be intimidated by local corporators/councilors. (Recently CM Jayalalitha’s gag order to her party’s corporators was notable).If there is an illegality is involved, corporators are more than happy to help you (mostly well to do with and high profile builders) to flout the rules and laws, because only in such cases they could extract high fee. If the same construction is involving a high profile builder or constructions company it is a great feast for crooked corporators. They know very well that it is going to be a game of luck, unless and until some structure like the one in Thane is collapsed there would be technically no action, even if there is one that will only be a gimmickry.

We could see that the state government is simply washing off their hands by simply saying that corporation is not under their rule or control. Well! I would say gime a break! When these reckless politicians would act honestly. Then my question is how people friendly and no-nonsense is the approach to either get an approval to construct a building or how easy it is to get a license. Random public audits through NGO’s are the need of the hour on all such pending/rejected/awaiting to be approved plans to pin down the corrupt.

It is time for the Maharashtra public to urinate on corrupt politicians once, because these corrupt politicians have been urinating on them for generations.

Rahul Gandhi’s speech: A great stress buster

I often felt that I should not appear to be unrealistic though I am realistic when it comes to commenting on Rahul Gandhi’s ability steer this country in to abyss or greater heights. To be a leader you must be an orator and which language you use really does not matter, because it mostly depends on the audience. Let’s not be unfair to Rahul by calling him a great orator or leader for that matter. If congress supporters say that Rahul Gandhi is a messiah for India because they simply have no other option but to project, promote and ultimately if possible make him a prime minister, if it ever happened that would be a highest low point for India. But I am cent percent sure that all those praising him are smirking in private. “Look at this Idiot?”

Going back to oratory. Ram jeth Malani concluded that he is not even fit for a clerk job then how can he be the right choice for PM post, he must be feeling vindicated at the moment. When he chose to read prepared statements in parliament, he just stuck to his paper and rushed through to the end. Though he started off with reading out firstly CII, I think he was consciously attempting to maintain the eye contact. While he was making up with eye contact he lost track of the script? The moment he attempted extempore he was surely lost and it was all fun from then on for the audience and for those who watched him in TV. Now I realize why Dr.Subramaniam Swamy keeps calling him a buddhu, apt name indeed.

Rahul Gandhi is congress’s last straw in the dynasty, yes we have Priyanka and Vadra too, it is not their chance yet or they may not get it at all? Ever since the news broke out of his speech in CII, the whole propaganda machine was in full spin, services of NDTV and CNNIBN cannot be ignored. It was a great stress buster for me; I am sure for many it would have been including the hard core congress supporters just that they will not agree it in public but continue to claim that he is right opponent to Modi, my take is ‘please give Modi a good fight’. In North Korea if you did not cry for Kim’s death (the current leader’s father) you will be condemned, it is the same situation here. Same is here for congress supporters; if you do no pep up your master you could lose your points.

And the notorious anchors of few English channels based out of Delhi who covered this event extensively did not realize that for all the funding they got from clique they did more harm to Rahul Gandhi. Ie., by broadcasting his message. Few people have rightly asserted that do not injustice to RG by comparing with strong man Narendra Modi.

Another fact to be noted is how the whole corrupt system is under pressure to propel him further up. After his speech it is confirmed that Modi remains unstoppable. I agree to an extent with Modi haters that yes with diversified population and with complex regional interests and identities it is a tough task for him to convince some one in Kanyakumari for example, but he is surely working on it. It is unfair to pit RG against Modi. If few left inclined bigots say RG is greater than Modi then they are victimizing RG. They should stop it forthwith.

In the mean time Rahul Gandhi must attend spoken English and personality development classes, if he is already attending them, the training must be intensified or we are left to think that trainers are not effective. God Bless Raul Vinci.