Cow vigilantism makes India vulnerable to violence

A 45-year-old man was beaten to death and another was injured allegedly over rumors of cow slaughter in Hapur district of western UP on June 18, 2018 evening. The family of the dead man, Qasim, a 45-year-old cattle trader, says that he had set out when he heard about the possibility of cattle being on sale, and the next thing they heard was that a mob had set itself upon him, killing him. Sameyddin’s relatives say he had been out getting grass for his cattle when he spied the mob attack on Qasim — he tried to run to safety, but was beaten up nonetheless. 

• The objective of 'cow vigilantism' seems more to target Muslim traders and citizens than rescuing cows. 
• Gandhi wrote: “As I respect the cow, so do I respect my fellow-men be a Mahomedan or a Hindu. Am I, then, to fight with or kill a Mahomedan in order to save a cow? In doing so, I would become an enemy of the Mahomedan as well as of the cow. Therefore, the only method I know of protecting the cow is that I should approach my Mahomedan brother and urge him for the sake of the country to join me in protecting her.”
• Gandhi urged for persuasive approach, the Hindu right believes in creating a climate of fear and intimidation.
• The Hindu right has campaigned for cow protection as a Hindu-Muslim issue, as if Muslims took to beef eating only to humiliate Hindus. 
• Muslims eating beef is not with any intention of humiliating of Hindus.
• Dalits too eat beef and this is a Dalit issue as well. Only Hindu upper castes are worried about cow slaughter. 
• Despite vigilante violence, Muslims have conducted themselves with remarkable dignity, showing their unwavering trust in India’s constitutional polity. Dalits, on the other hand, came together in massive protest after the Una flogging, forcing the PM Modi to make a statement on August 6, 2016. 
• When Mohammad Ali Jinnah campaigned for Pakistan, Muslim settlement in “geographically contiguous areas” was a favourable factor for Muslim separatists to argue for their cause. 
• B.R. Ambedkar could not make a similar case for a Dalit homeland because he did not have the argument of “geographically contiguous areas”. Hence, he upheld the message, “educate, organise and agitate”. The Dalit uprising post-Una is a glorious tribute to that message of Ambedkar.
• The Muslim food habits, particularly beef eating, could be a major impediment to harmonious life in a free India was foreseen by Muslim separatists. Jinnah made a categorical argument that a separate homeland was necessary on account of Muslim food habits, among others. 
• Not convinced by the assurance that Indian Muslims, as a religious minority, would get all the freedom that they could possibly enjoy in future Pakistan, Jinnah gave a new twist to his campaign by saying, “Musalmans are a nation according to any definition of a nation, and they must have their homelands, their territory, and their state”, and opposed the tag of Muslims as religious minorities. 

It would undermine Indian democracy if the cow vigilante violence against Muslims serves to project those fears of Jinnah and other Muslim separatists as legitimate. The continuation of vigilante violence would only make India even more vulnerable to violence.

Read the source article

Whether the lynchings are due to fear of kidnappings or deliberate acts by cow protection vigilantes, the authorities should not treat the crime of murder and the allegations that enrage a mob with the same equivalence. Murder is murder, but the killing of another human being by a murderous crowd out to enforce mob justice or avert an imagined crime takes an extraordinary toll of the civilities of wider society. The police must make it clear, by word and action, that murder and mob violence will be strictly dealt with. The apathy of UP Police by apologizing first and then arresting just two people, so far indicates their unwillingness to do what is right.

Emotional Speech by Asaduddin Owaisi on Hapur Mob Lynching

Modi's speeches - style without substance UNLIMITED

Modi’s penchant for talking big and doing nothing has a chilling similarity with Mussolini’s Fascist Italy is that in the Mussolini regime, politics starts to be less concerned with the act of governing people in an efficient way, for instance, in solving their economic problems. Instead, it is focused more on the spectacle of power, on the visual and impressive display of symbols, myths and rituals and impressive speeches. In terms of everyday life this takes the shape of a domination of form of visual appearance, effects over the content. It also means that politics ceases to be measured by political criteria. Politics itself assumes the form of an artistic act; to govern means to Mussolini to create a new Nation and a new Empire and Mussolini views himself as the creative soul of the nation, the propeller of new ways of living.

What Modi has talked about is not understandable to me despite being highly educated. What ever he has talked for somebody else should do it but not himself. He has done different things and none of the anything he spoke - during his past 4 years as PM and 14 years as Gujarat CM. Modi thinks something, speaks something else and does altogether differently being a hypocrite by default. India has no future with this type of emotionless hypocrites at the top. Writing about him goes on and on for several pages and endless and not worth it. 

Modi, the worst PM

Deccan chronicle | Feb 9, 2018 | Page 10

• Modi forgot that he was in Parliament where he was duty bound to answer the questions / concerns raised by members unambiguously. 
• On an election rally, the diatribe against Congress would have sounded fit but in Parliament, Modi’s outbursts sounded awkward and outlandish. The intensity of the denunciation hinted at feeling threatened. This speech coming in the aftermath of BJP's Rajasthan bypolls humiliating defeats in the hands of Congress and such a litany of charges had the air of a litany of woes.
• Suddenly blaming Congress for partition of India sounded desperately anachronistic. Highlighting imaginations again and again leads him to nowhere and reflects only loss of sanity of mind.
• Dissing the Congress was country’s favourite spectator sport in 2014 but such a litany now, when the country is not impervious to the slings and arrows is vulgar.
• He forgot that, in 2014 elections BJP's vote share was just 31.00% against Congress party's 19.31% even though seats won was 282 & 44 respectively.
• He lacked sense to treat opposition leaders with respect and his pretenses that he is the only patriot and all others as traitors holds no water and is unacceptable nonsense.
• Talking bad about Gandhi, Nehru, Indira Gandhi etc and praising Sardar Patel, Ambedker  ... who are all dead long ago and most respected leaders in the world speaks very poorly about his education and character.
• Distorting history for political mileage is another worst aspect.
• He forgot that whole nation is watching live on TV and his histrionics are at their worst and BJP is bound to lose may votes in the forthcoming 2019 general elections. Elections can't be won projecting others in bad light, all the times.
• Above all, he has not answered any of the concerns expressed in parliament in gross violation of principles of democracy and constitution.
• With all round worst performance, there is no way he can win 2019 elections only on oratory skills and campaigning lies, abuses and arousing Hindutva passions. 
• Recent Gujarat assembly elections, Rajasthan & West Bengal bye poll results clearly indicates that people of India can't be fooled all the times.
• In no uncertain terms Modi as PM betrayed people of India by abdicating his duties, not being truthful, transparent and accountable apart from squandering away public funds on reckless adventures. 

A company's CEO while handing over gave charge to his successor gave two sealed envelopes to be opened only when facing crisis. After first crisis the CEO opened first envelope which read 'blame the predecessor' and that worked. After second crisis he opened second envelope which read 'prepare two envelopes'.

Modi doesn't know that Gandhi, Nehru & Patel were well in harmony. Gandhi chose Nehru as PM because he was young and popular with people of India where as Patel was old and having significant following in Congress. In addition Nehru had excellent relationship with Britain and many other countries and was truly secular where as Patel lagged these traits and has pro Hindutva inclinations and 19% of population of India are non-Hindus and their rights can't be undermined. And there is no reason to believe that Patel is taller than Nehru in any sense. Without doubt Nehru stands tallest among all the Congress leaders after Gandhi. Referring to past and belittling Nehru and his family at the fall of hat to gain political mileage and to cover his own failures works only one time but not after 4 years. Modi with worst performance as PM, not only made him self a laughing stock but effectively paved way for Rahul Gandhi to become PM in 2019, in just 4 years, which Sonia Gandhi couldn't achieve in 20 years.

With Modi’s latest speech, cartoonists have had the last laugh

Jammu & Kashmir: Instrument of Accession & Article 370

Jammu and Kashmir had a 77% Muslim population in 1947 and many people in Pakistan expected that Kashmir would join Pakistan. But J&K National Conference was secular and was allied with the Congress since the 1930s. So India too had expectations that Kashmir would join India. The Maharaja Hari Singh was faced with indecision. On Oct 22, 1947, rebellious citizens from the western districts of the State and Pushtoon tribesmen from the Northwest Frontier Province of Pakistan invaded the State, backed by Pakistan. The Maharaja initially fought back but appealed for assistance to the India, who agreed on the condition that the ruler accede to India. Maharaja Hari Singh signed the Instrument of Accession on Oct 26, 1947 in return for military aid and assistance, which was accepted by the Governor General the next day with a gratuitous condition that after peace returned to the state, the people’s wish would be ascertained on the issue of accession. This was just a wish in view of the belated accession, not a precondition for accession.

• Maharaja Hari Singh sought urgent military aid on Oct 24, 1947, the cabinet had refused to send troops unless the Maharaja acceded. This was the idea of Governor-General Mountbatten, who chaired the Defence Committee of the Cabinet.
• At the Cabinet meeting on Oct 26, 1947, Nehru insisted that the accession must have the people’s backing. So, Sheikh Adbullah sent in a quickly scribbled note on behalf of the National Conference. He was sitting in the next room, having brought his family down to Delhi.
  Sheikh Abdullah was an Indian politician who played a central role in the politics of Jammu and Kashmir. The self-styled "Sher-e-Kashmir" (Lion of Kashmir), Abdullah was the founding leader of the National Conference. He agitated against the rule of the Maharaja Hari Singh and urged self-rule for Kashmir.
• On the morning of Oct 27, 1947, Dakotas flew the Sikh regiment to Srinagar. The place was in limbo, the Maharaja having left Srinagar for Jammu in a long convoy at 2 am on the night of Oct 25,1947, a few hours after signing the Instrument of Accession (IoA).
• The Instruments of Accession were cyclostyled documents — the one signed by Raja Hari Singh was no different from the one signed by other princes. So the document executed by Raja Hari Singh was just another Instrument of Accession with no special concessions or reservations.
• The dramatic events of that day have left a legacy of divergent narratives. Each seems unreasonable to the other. That of course is a recipe for deadlock and increased resentment. A common impression among many Kashmiris is that the army’s arrival on this day that year was a temporary measure, meant only to save Kashmiris from the tribesmen.
• The real differences are that this one was conditional (only for defence, external relations and communication), and this Maharaja did not follow up with an instrument of merger. That means that the state of Jammu and Kashmir continues to have a legal standing. 
  On the eve of India and Pakistan becoming separate dominions, rajas and maharajas of British India were given three options: become part of India, become a part of Pakistan or remain independent states. Within the specified period — between August 15 and October 6, 1947 — 560-plus erstwhile rulers signed documents with the title “Instrument of Accession”, and thereby agreed to become part of the dominion of India. This was to be followed by instruments of merger, thereby becoming part of India and ending the original identity of the princely state — many princes executed both the documents one after the other, while some had hesitation to sign the merger treaty.
• The merger of J&K with India should have taken place before October end. But Nehru's complaint to the UNO and its intervention, prevented it. The merger had to be postponed until the dispute was settled — and that dispute is still pending.
• At the insistence of Nehru, Article 370, according special status to J&K, was added at the fag end of the deliberations of the Constituent Assembly. While B.R. Ambedkar opposed the idea and refused to take part in drafting Article 370, the other members of the Constituent Assembly condescended to this “gift from Nehru to his friend Sheikh Abdullah” in the firm belief that this was a temporary measure.
• Regarding Article 370, most Kashmiris insist that 370 is a permanent part of India’s constitution, the hinge upon which the state’s relationship with the Union is based.
• The Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir establishes the framework of government at state level in Indian state of Jammu and Kashmir. The present constitution was adopted on Nov 17, 1956, and came into effect on Jan 26, 1957. 
• The state’s constitution clearly states that it is an integral part of India. Union Home Minister GB Pant used that term for the first time in Parliament in 1958, soon after the state’s constitution took effect on 26 January that year. Once the state’s constitution was in place, it dictated how much control the Union would have.
• Sheikh Abdullah was the Prime Minister of the state of Jammu and Kashmir after its accession to India in 1947 and was later jailed and exiled. He was dismissed from the position of Prime Ministership on Aug 8, 1953 and Bakshi Ghulam Mohammad was appointed as the new Prime Minister. The expressions ‘Sadar-i-Riyasat’ and ‘Prime Minister’ were replaced with the terms ‘Governor’ and ‘Chief Minister’ in 1965. Sheikh Abdullah again became the Chief Minister of the state following the 1974 Indira-Sheikh accord.
• RSS activists tend to confuse it with Jana Sangh founder Syama Prasad Mookerji’s ek nishan, ek vidhan, ek pradhan campaign of 1952-53. Mookerji’s campaign was specifically against the New Delhi agreement of 1952, negotiated by committees headed by Maulana Azad on behalf of the Union and Sheikh Abdullah on behalf of the state. And that agreement was in the same bracket as Article 370. It was meant to determine this particularly prickly Centre-state relationship until the state’s constitution was ready.
  Jana Sangh founder Syama Prasad Mookerji was Nehru's cabinet minister which finalized Article 370.
• As long as the fundamental difference in perspective exits, one can go round and round in circles arguing about each of the above points whether one wants to interpret all that happened as meant to pave the way for Kashmir’s inclusion in India, or as meant to open doors that might lead to its independence is a matter of time.

J&K part of India ... Dr. Karan Singh

The state had acceded to India and not merged with it and that it why it has its 
own separate constitution and special status ... Dr. Karan Singh S/o Maharaja Hari Singh

Long after Modi government is a distant memory, either J&K won’t be part of India 

or Article 370 will still exist ... Omar Abdullah, ex CM, J&K 

(Even though it is height of ignorance & audacity, undercurrents are real)

Today Kashmir valley has over 96% Muslims. Post 1947 events have diluted the natural order of Kashmir becoming part of Pakistan mainly due to its incursions. Even Muslim people of Kashmir valley face dilemma - while they feel alienated and want to secede from India, they are not sure to get better treatment in Pakistan and being a land locked hill state with population of less than 10 million can't survive as an independent nation. In the meantime, Kashimris are suffering with militancy and terrorism and is deprived of development which the whole world is enjoying. What India should do is to try to win the co-operation of the Kashmiri people and politicians and MPs from the rest of India to suitably amend and attenuate Article 370 instead of repealing it. Hopefully, Kashmiri people would forgot Article 370 with political engagement and development, in due course of time.

Privacy is a fundamental right

• A nine-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court on August 24 unanimously ruled that right to privacy is “intrinsic to life and liberty” and is inherently protected under the various fundamental freedoms enshrined under Part III of the Indian Constitution. SC overruled previous judgments on the privacy issue that ruled that privacy is not a fundamental right.
• Justice Chandrachud in his judgment for himself, Chief Justice Khehar, R.K. Agrawal and S. Abdul Nazeer said that privacy is a concomitant of the right of the individual to exercise control over his or her personality. Natural rights like privacy are inalienable because they are inseparable from the human personality. To live is to live with dignity. Privacy with its attendant values assures dignity to the individual and it is only when life can be enjoyed with dignity can liberty be of true substance. Privacy ensures the fulfillment of dignity.
• The judgement also stated that - Like other rights which form part of the fundamental freedoms protected by Part III, including the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21, privacy is not an absolute right. A law which encroaches upon privacy will have to withstand the touchstone of permissible restrictions on fundamental rights. In the context of Article 21 an invasion of privacy must be justified on the basis of a law which stipulates a procedure which is fair, just and reasonable. 
• The Union government had argued that privacy is a common law right. The government argued that right to privacy is not expressly included in the Constitution as the founding fathers rejected or jettisoned the idea of inclusion of privacy as a fundamental right. The centre had termed privacy as a "vague and amorphous" right which cannot be granted primacy to deprive poor people of their rights to life, food and shelter.
• The earlier Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi rejected suggestions that Indians could refuse to provide their iris scans or fingerprints to the government, telling a court "the concept of absolute right over one's body was a myth".
• The judgment will have a crucial bearing on the government’s Aadhaar scheme that collects personal details, biometrics to identify beneficiaries for accessing social benefits and government welfare scheme.
• A bunch of petitions were filed in the Supreme Court in 2015 challenging Aadhaar as a breach of privacy, informational self-determination and bodily integrity. The petitioners argued that Aadhaar enrolment was the means to a “Totalitarian State” and an open invitation for personal data leakage. 
• The government claimed Aadhaar was a panacea to end corruption in public distribution, money laundering and terror funding.
• Attorney general K K Venugopal had argued that right to privacy cannot be a fundamental right has now welcomed the SC decision. He said that whatever the 9-judge bench says is the correct law.
• Three days ago, PM Modi hailed the SC judgement on triple talak as "historic" and said it grants equality to Muslim women. Today on Privacy rights judgement of SC, he maintained stoic silence so far. He is yet to respond. Why?
• Finance Minister Arun Jaitley said that the apex court has accepted the government’s argument that privacy is a fundamental right, but it’s not an absolute right but will be subjected to restrictions which will be fair, just and reasonable. He blamed that the privacy matter went to the Supreme Court because the UPA government brought about Aadhaar without a law. It is too late to contend that privacy will not be a fundamental right.
• Law Minister Ravi Shankar Prasad made a somersault by welcoming the judgement but said should have "reasonable" restrictions. 
• Mukul Rohatgi said that the government should not have diluted their stand in court because the inclusion or exclusion of fundamental rights is only the proviso of Parliament. It is a very unsatisfactory resolution of the dispute. His view is that the framers of the constitution did not intend to make privacy a fundamental right. He said “The fact is, we haven’t won this case. The eight-judge bench of 1954 has been overruled and the Aadhaar issue has been left unresolved. So where is the question of winning?” Had he still been in office as Attorney General, he would have admitted that the government had lost the case.

Today's verdict is a major setback for the government, which had argued that the constitution does not guarantee individual privacy as an inalienable fundamental right. The verdict however does not comment on whether the government's demand for Aadhaar to be linked to all financial transactions amounts to an infringement of privacy. There are fears that the data could be misused by a government that argued Indians have no right to privacy.

Aadhaar has its uses, but it is also an instrument of control and manipulation. It must be only optional, not mandatory. Aadhaar had already violated the privacy rights with the vast majority of the population already enrolled, their information held in insecure databases, and linked to public and private services. Ambedkar's fears of abuse of constitution without amending it are coming true in Modi's India. In a democracy, ruled by majority, it is the duty of majority to uphold the rights & dignity of minorities. Ambedkar also remarked that democracy in India is only a top-dressing on an Indian soil, which is essentially undemocratic. Unfortunately Modi & co believes that minorities must toe line with majoritarian wishes with no individual rights etc.

Read the exhaustive article on the judgement

India's Freedom & Liberalisation

• India was at a crossroads 70 years ago when it made choices that were enshrined in the constitution, so that its workers and peasants were freed from class and caste oppression.
• Nehru said at the midnight when India woke up to freedom. “To bring freedom and opportunity to the common man, to the peasants and workers of India; to fight and end poverty and ignorance and disease; to build up a prosperous, democratic and progressive nation, and to create social, economic and political institutions which will ensure justice and fullness of life to every man and woman.”
• The zamindars and landlords finding that open defense of landlord's interest was no longer feasible, switched over to communalism for their class defense.
• Pakistan's falsity of religion-based nationalism and a state was founded on theocracy. It was one area where the Hindu right-wing emulates its sworn enemy and India was sought to be converted into a theocratic state called Hindu Rashtra. 
• M.S. Golwalkar, RSS supreme leader for more than 30 years minced no words: “The non-Hindu peoples in Hindusthan must either adopt the Hindu culture and language, must learn to respect and hold in reverence Hindu religion, must entertain no ideas but those of glorification of the Hindu race and culture…. In one word, they must cease to be foreigners, or may stay in the country, wholly subordinated to the Hindu nation, claiming nothing, deserving no privileges, far less no preferential treatment—not even citizen’s rights.”
• It is no accident that the Hindutva forces had nothing to do with anti-colonial struggle and independence. Infact, the RSS chief M.S. Golwalkar had so little sympathy for the anti-colonial struggle that he thought that the British would have to be invited back shortly after Independence in order to govern India. Today they laud Ambedkar today for sheer opportunistic reasons.
• The first major victim of this narrow cultural nationalism of the Indian right-wing was the Father of the Nation. After being driven to the margins of Indian politics in the wake of Mahatma Gandhi’s assassination, the right wing RSS and its latest political incarnation, the BJP, is at the helm of India, now.
• The slide started post-Nehru and was complete in 1991, when the Congress went back on its promises and ushered in the neoliberal order. The Congress ceased the cause of workers and peasants ostensibly called national interest, but in reality for the material prosperity of the merchants and manufacturers. Now with the BJP unburdened by the legacy of any egalitarian struggle, the free people of India are under the onslaught of neoliberalism and rabid communalism.
• Ambedkar argued that the political equality, guaranteed by the constitution, would get jeopardised if there was no corresponding movement towards social and economic equality. The first setback to independent India's was its inability to carry out any significant land redistribution. The top 15 per cent of landowners continued to hold the same percentage of land area as before. Dalits, the landless class, who had been denied the right to own land under the old system continued to remain landless and therefore both socially and economically disempowered. By the end of the 1950s, Jawaharlal Nehru was worried about growing wealth and income inequality in the country, he has to set up the Mahalanobis Committee to inquire into it.
• The per capita annual foodgrain availability, which had been around 200 kgs at the beginning of the 20th century in “British India” declined to 148.5 kgs during the 1939-44 and even lower to 136.8 kgs in 1945-46, was pushed up close to 180 kgs by the end of the 1980's. It has since declined, over the neoliberal period, reaching 163 kg for the years 2012-14.
• The spontaneity of capitalism was breaking the bounds set by state control. And soon it was to jettison the institute a regime of neoliberalism, under which the domestic corporate-financial oligarchy got closely integrated with globalised finance capital.
• The economic travails of the dirigiste regime arising from the sluggish growth of the home market owing to growing economic inequality, its loss of social support among the people for the same reason, and the big bourgeoisie’s wish to break out of it has contributed towards effecting a transition from dirigisme to neoliberalism.
• Neoliberalism greatly accentuated the increase in economic inequality, though it accelerated the growth rate in the tertiary sector. The acceleration in growth rate was resolved through larger exports of services, larger elite consumption of luxury goods, and the effects of asset price bubbles. The top 1 per cent of households in India currently owns 60 per cent of the country’s total wealth puts India with the fastest increases in asset inequality.
• The process of primitive accumulation of taking over of peasant's land 'for a song' for corporate projects and squeezing the peasants through higher input prices, by withdrawing subsidies and the drying up of institutional credit, but without commensurably higher output prices. These output prices, especially of commercial crops are allowed to fluctuate widely with world market prices. Even phenomena like Demonetisation and the GST are also mechanisms for imposing primitive accumulation upon the petty production sector. 
• A tragic consequence of this primitive accumulation at the expense of peasant agriculture has been the suicides of over three lakh peasants over the last two decades. And large numbers of peasants have left agriculture and migrated to cities in search of jobs, which are not being created to an adequate extent despite the apparently high GDP growth. The net result has been a proliferation of casual employment, intermittent employment, part-time employment and disguised unemployment. The growth in the casualisation of employment and privatisation of public sector units have weakened trade unions. While capital is international, workers are still organised along national lines, making national unions ineffective.
• The middle-class segment that has done well out of globalisation, owing to the outsourcing of services from the metropolis, and owing to the rise in the share of surplus which supports a range of activities from finance to advertising, has expectedly belonged to the upper castes which have been privileged enough to acquire the skills to make use of the opportunities that have been opening up. Since these beneficiaries attribute their own success not to their privilege but to their talent, the inevitable conclusion is drawn that those who are excluded from such jobs are untalented. An impression spreads that children from the oppressed castes do not make it because they lack talent, which boosts casteist prejudice.
• Development in India started on a wrong foot by eschewing land redistribution and the pursuit of capitalist development contributed to growing socio-economic inequality, that got a free run under neoliberalism. The adherents of Hindutva in power this social counter-revolution is being carried forward with a vengeance. India is not a fascist state, but the growing socio-economic inequality is destroying the constitutional provision of political equality.
• Fascism arises when the system besieged by crisis is challenged by a threat from the revolutionary forces whom fascism is used for eliminating. Fascism grows when the system is at a dead end and when the working-class movement is not in a position to mount a challenge. That is when large sections of the people flock to fascist movements, not because it provides a credible way out, but because it projects a messiah, it resorts to flamboyant but meaningless rhetoric, it appeals to unreason, and it holds not the system but the “other” (the Jews or the Muslims or whatever) as responsible for the travails of the people.
• It may seem intriguing that neoliberalism has reached a dead end, Modi promises even greater neoliberal reforms while a Trump rails against neoliberalism. But this contrast between two current manifestations of fascism arises because neither has a coherent programme anyway for overcoming the crisis and the frustration gripping the people. Both are essentially purveyors of unreason for whom the economic agenda as a thought-out rational programme is incidental.
• The corporate-financial oligarchy adopts the fascist movement, finances the fascist movement, and promotes the fascist movement, which exists independently of it. Fascism provides “stability” and also an ideal ideological prop for neoliberal capitalism. Fascists in government represent, in the Indian context, an alliance between corporate capital and Hindutva. The fact that capital is globalised while the state remains a nation state entails that even a fascist nation state must abide by the wishes of globalised capital (to prevent capital flight) and this fact restricts its ability to overcome the crisis.
• At peril are the gains and achievements made by the movements for national independence, socialism and social justice. India is once again is at crossroads where the choices it made 70 years ago are being undermined.

The left and democratic forces can have an alternative agenda that promotes equality, that strengthens democracy, and is willing to withdraw from the neoliberal regime. They should for instance have an agenda of introducing a set of universal, justiciable economic rights, to supplement the political rights that the constitution guarantees. These can include the right to food, the right to employment, the right to publicly-funded free and universal quality health care, the right to publicly funded free and universal quality education up to a certain level, and a right to adequate old-age pension and disability benefits. The implementation of these rights together would cost less than 10 per cent of the GDP annually, which the country can easily afford. 

There comes a time in the life of every nation when it stands at the 

crossroads of history and must choose which way to go ... Lal Bahadur Shastri

Globalization benefits just minuscule percent of population to prosper, who are rich, educated and with access to power & resources. Trickle-down theory that says benefits for the wealthy trickle down to everyone else is unacceptable nonsense. In a large populous country like India, where most people are illiterate & poor, governments ignoring their welfare and chasing money making machines is nothing but abuse of principles of democracy and Constitution of India. Globalization is a concept propounded by developed & educated western countries to expand their reach for marketing their products and services rather than extending helping hand for upliftment of suffering masses in the world. India blindly embracing it for monetary gains, is not only height of insanity but also detrimental to its large segments of population. Development is not facilitating educated and/or rich people to prosper but enhancement of living standards of all classes of people simultaneously.

GST and KCR's outbursts

• In November 2016, KCR was the first non-BJP/NDA chief minister to support Modi's demonetization move. Telangana was the first state to pass the GST legislation on Apr 16, 2017. TRS extended unconditional support to BJP's  Ramnath Kovind as NDA's Presidential nominee and Vice President candidate.
• The dalliance between the ruling TRS and the BJP has practically ended with the completion of elections of the President and the vice-president. While the change in tone of KCR may appear at the outset to fight the GST, the battle between the Modi and TRS governments is about much more than what meets the eye. 
• GST Council has already lowered GST rates on  public utility and infrastructure projects from 18% to 12% as requested by several states in its first meeting. The Telangana state government has been asking the Centre not to levy 12% GST on the public utility and infrastructure projects. Telangana wants these projects to be taxed at 5%. 
• Under GST, the tax rate on cement, steel, and concrete — all key ingredients for the projects — has been reduced. This benefit will be pocketed by EPC contractors.
• Due to GST @12% in place of VAT @5%, Telangana government will have to bear the additional burden of Rs.19,500 on all ongoing public utility and infrastructure projects which are worth Rs.2.30 lakh crores.
• Telangana CM K Chandrasekhar Rao declared Goods & Services Tax (GST) is a failure in several Nations. He made it clear success of GST in India depends on how well Centre handles the concerns.
• Now the CM KCR decided to write to Prime Minister Narendra Modi to reduce 12% GST on the ongoing projects. Rao held that since the project estimates have been prepared keeping in view 5%  VAT, it is not possible to change them. He had "threatened" that the state government would engage in a "legal battle" in Supreme Court against the union government over the issue.

KCR walking extra miles to please Modi, devoid of merit and for unknown reasons, in matters of demonetization, GST, President & Vice President elections and expecting all he wants from Modi is not only naive but also stupidity. Modi is only a taker but never a giver. Ask Naveen Patnaik how much he got extra for Odisha from Modi, during past 3 years. Literally zero. The impacts of GST and its rates were well known in advance. Going forward states will become like municipalities of centre with very less freedom to mobilize funds. Centre will become extremely powerful with no direct responsibility of people welfare where as states will become extremely powerless and saddled with total responsibility of people's welfare. This is in contradiction of federal polity of our constitution. Ambedkar's fears of abuse of constitution without amending it are coming true in Modi's India.

Hindu Raj: Ambedkar’s warning

• Proponents of Hindu supremacy knew that democracy could be used to establish a Hindu Raj. They and their followers have sought to use the vote for ends of power using the Hindutva card.
• If Hindu Raj does become a fact, it will, no doubt, be the greatest calamity for this country.… Hindu Raj must be prevented at any cost - wrote B.R. Ambedkar in 1946. He was against majoritarianism, which in the Indian context meant unbridled rule of the majority community, the Hindus.
• Unfortunately for the minorities in India, Indian nationalism has developed a new doctrine which may be called the Divine Right of the Majority to rule the minorities according to the wishes of the majority. Any claim for the sharing of power by the minority is called communalism, while the monopolising of the whole power by the majority is called nationalism. Under these circumstances there is no way left but to have the rights of the Scheduled Castes embodied in the Constitution. 
• In the forties, even Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel was sometimes accused of being soft on the Hindu Revanchists, who believe in and practised tit-for-tat in that turbulent and fateful period.
• Patel’s retort to BM Birla on announcement of Independence: “I also feel happy that the announcement of June 3, 1947 at least settles things one way or the other. There is no further uncertainty. I do not think it will be possible to consider Hindustan as a Hindu state with Hinduism as the state religion. We must not forget that there are other minorities whose protection is our primary responsibility. The state must exist for all, irrespective of caste or creed.”
• Ambedkar was perceptive. It is not necessary to declare India a Hindu state formally by amending the Constitution and making Hinduism the state religion. The same result can be achieved by administrative measures. The Supreme Court has held secularism to be part of the basic structure of the Constitution which cannot be discarded even by constitutional amendment.
• Ambedkar thought that the elaborate constitutional provisions on administration would work. He told the Constituent Assembly on November 4, 1948, when he moved for the adoption of the Draft Constitution: “While everybody recognises the necessity of the diffusion of constitutional morality for the peaceful working of a democratic Constitution, there are two things interconnected with it which are not, unfortunately, generally recognised. One is that the form of administration has a close connection with the form of the Constitution. The form of the administration must be appropriate to and in the same sense as the form of the Constitution. The other is that it is perfectly possible to pervert the Constitution, without changing its form, by merely changing the form of the administration and to make it inconsistent and opposed to the spirit of the Constitution. Can we presume such a diffusion of constitutional morality? Constitutional morality is not a natural sentiment. It has to be cultivated. We must realise that our people have yet to learn it. Democracy in India is only a top-dressing on an Indian soil, which is essentially undemocratic”.
• The leaders of the Congress sought to inculcate secularism right from the first Congress held at Bombay in 1885. S. Srinivasa Aiyangar, president of the 41st Congress in 1926, articulated the credo of secularism very ably. So did Vallabhbhai Patel in the presidential address to the 45th Congress at Karachi in 1931. Hindu-Muslim “unity can only come when the majority takes courage in both hands and is prepared to change places with the minority. That would be the highest wisdom.”
• But by then, forces that did not share the Congress’ ideology, did not participate in the freedom movement and were charged with revivalist hate had come to the fore.
• Nehru once remarked that Hindu communalism was the Indian version of fascism, and, in the case of the RSS, it is not difficult to perceive certain similarities. The leader principle, the stress on militarism, the doctrine of racial-cultural superiority, ultra-nationalism infused with religious idealism, the use of symbols of past greatness, the emphasis on national solidarity, the exclusion of religious or ethnic minorities from the nation-concept—all of these features of the RSS are highly reminiscent of fascist movements in Europe.
• With an RSS pracharak, Narendra Modi, known for his antipathy towards Muslims, as Prime Minister, and Yogi Adityanath chosen by him as Chief Minister of India’s largest State, Uttar Pradesh, we have crossed the threshold to a Hindu state. The BJP’s presidential candidate, Ram Nath Kovind, is “deeply rooted in the ideological stream of the RSS”. A brand new rubber stamp has been manufactured for the Rashtrapati Bhavan, 25 years after the last rubber stamp, R. Venkataraman.
• We now have a Prime Minister whose Hindutva puts Vajpayee’s Hindutva in the shade. Lynchings of Muslims has become common. So are cries for a Hindu state. Yogi Adityanath said on the Hindu Swaraj Diwas that no Indian should be hesitant about being proud of his or her Hindu identity.
• The drive will pick up speed. Modi made blatantly communal speeches during the Uttar Pradesh election campaign, as 65 former civil servants recalled in their open letter. He will do worse for the Lok Sabha elections in 2019. He aims to claim that he has fulfilled the BJP’s triple demand. His Kashmir adventure had “solved” the problem. For a uniform civil code, no other Prime Minister has so relentlessly campaigned for a reform of Muslim law. As far as the Ram temple at Ayodhya is concerned, he will say: “have patience, I have crossed the threshold to a Hindu state in India. Can’t you see the dread on the faces of Muslims, Christians, Dalits and other minorities?

My View:
Democracy in its true spirit is rule by people. Among all models, the model of rule by majority is the most popular and probably the best. That doesn't mean that minorities can be thrashed out by majority. Rule of the law must prevail. This Hindutva philosophy will only lead to civil war, sooner or later. In a democracy, ruled by majority, it is the duty of majority to uphold the rights & dignity of minorities. Polarization of people on the lines of religion, caste or creed - is not democracy. It is only a distortion and perversion. In a society corrupted with religious extremism all constitutional provisions and laws of the land will not work properly and the country will be heading for anarchy. When constitution fails, it is mafia that rules and then nation will be heading for disintegration!

RSS hold on India is total

• Venkaiah Naidu's selection for Vice President is as per expectations because Modi's vision of India doesn't go beyond RSS.
• President, Vice President, Prime Minister, Home Minister, UP CM - all crucial power positions are now under the armpits of RSS.
• None of these people, other than their politics in RSS & BJP, have no accomplishments worth advertising! Of course they had the artistic gift of public speaking.
• Their contributions or sacrifices for nation, poor or peasants are none, so far.
• Minorities, especially Muslims and people from Southern and Eastern states be careful in their political, business and industrial activities. They have no love last for these people. Their vision is confined to North, West & Central India, the Hindi speaking belts.

Here are few important points about RSS:

• The RSS was banned once during British rule, and then thrice by the post-independence Indian government – first in 1948 when a former RSS member assassinated Mahatma Gandhi; then during the emergency (1975–77); and for a third time after the demolition of Babri Masjid in 1992.
• RSS founder KB Hegdewar was  a political protege of B. S. Moonje, a Tilakite Congressman. Hedgewar personally participated in the 'Satyagraha' launched by Gandhi in April 1930, but he did not get the RSS involved in the movement. 
• The Bombay government, in a report, appreciated the RSS by noting that the Sangh had scrupulously kept itself within the law and refrained from taking part in the disturbances (Quit India Movement) that broke out in August 1942. RSS assured the British authorities that it had no intentions of offending against the orders of the Government.
• The RSS initially did not recognize the Tricolor as the National Flag of India. The RSS mouthpiece, the Organiser, demanded, in an editorial that the Bhagwa Dhwaj (Saffron Flag) be adopted as the National Flag of India. After the Tricolor was adopted as the National Flag of India by the Constituent Assembly of India on 22 July 1947, the Organiser viciously attacked the Tricolor and the decision to adopt it as the National Flag of India. The RSS hoisted the National Flag of India at its headquarters in Nagpur, on 14 August 1947 and on 26 January 1950, but stopped doing so after that.
• The RSS initially did not recognize the Constitution of India, strongly criticising it because the Indian Constitution made no mention of "Manu's laws" – from the controversial ancient Hindu text Manusmriti, which had been said to denigrate the lower castes and untouchables in India. 
• The RSS criticised B. R. Ambedkar's public pronouncements that the new constitution would give equality to all castes. On 6 February 1950 the Organizer carried another article, titled "Manu Rules our Hearts", written by a retired High Court Judge named Sankar Subba Aiyar, that reaffirmed their support for the Manusmriti as the final law giving authority for Hindus, rather than the Constitution of India.
• The RSS' opposition to, and vitriolic attacks against, the Constitution of India and its author Ambedkar continued post independence, even long after Ambedkar's death. 

Reservations

After 70 years of independence, what good reservations have done to us. While crores of peoples in these categories exist, few hundreds are enjoying benefits of reservation from generation after generation as if it is their hereditary estate. A big nothing. On other hand it helped social divide which was been exploited by political parties with their vote bank politics. Reservations by its very definition is anti constitutional and violation of democratic principles, where merit is the the sole criterion.

Substandard people occupying important positions has resulted in national underachievement. This has also resulted in talent suppression, talent humiliation and talent migration detrimental to national interest.

Recently SC struck down promotions based on reservations as invalid and all political parties unanimously  passed constitution amendment for fear of loss of vote banks.

Ambedkar asked for reservations for SC 15% and ST 7.5% only for a period of 10 years, while drafting constitution, we have gone several steps ahead with caste, religion & region based reservation for indefinite period speaks volumes about our hypocrisy & selfish interests rather than any national good.

Caste based, religion based reservations and region based reservation are fundamentally flawed and will not be acceptable in any sane society and will be detrimental to unification of diverse India.

Today, in order to progress we must dismantle all types reservations except those of 30%, for women and protect economically poorer people irrespective of of caste creed or anything and provide them with free training & financial assistance to compete in the level playing field. Otherwise we won't be able progress as a Nation.

An Example: 
A candidate appeared for PG Medical Exam in AP some years ago. Even though he obtained 1st Rank, he could not get seat of his choice in the college he desired i.e. MD (Radiology) in Osmania Medical College due to rostering & reservations.