Recusal

The Constitution vests a lot of power and certain amount of immunity in judges. Fairness and impartiality are the fundamental qualities to be possessed by a judge. Once it appears to the judge that he cannot deliver justice in an impartial manner, ethically he is expected to recuse. The right to recuse is given to the discretion of the judges. But the question that arises is whether such choices of significance be left to the prerogative of the individual judges. 

• Judges recuse themselves when they take no part in deciding cases that they would otherwise help decide. The judges to recuse themselves from cases where the judge has a financial interest in the case's outcome or where there is otherwise a strong possibility that the judge's decision will be biased. 
• Any party in a lawsuit may request that a judge recuse him or herself.
• This question is the pondering of circumstances where an act of recusal becomes a contravention to that judge’s legal responsibility and moral duty to hear a matter and deliver unprejudiced justice.
• Also, are the judges accountable for explaining the reasons for recusal to the concerned parties?
• The professional ethics behind recusal of a judge has to do with the opacity about the reasons as to which the recusal has happened. Since India is a liberal democracy, the citizens expect accountability from public servants. By not giving reasons to recusal the judge is putting herself under speculation by the public. 
• If a judge finds out that his brother/ sister judge recused for a specific reason, there could be an inclination from the new judge to give a favorable verdict for the party in whose favor the other judge recused.
• Recusal is not an instance where the judiciary is under threat as the aggrieved party would like to know why a judge has recused.
• Judges must give their reasons in writing for recusing themselves from specific cases.
• There has to be a requirement of statutory obligation on the judges to inform the litigants as to why there is a decision to recuse from hearing. Recusal should be used sparingly like the emergency provision in the Indian Constitution.

In a 1980 appeal against Shell and BP, in England, in which “the registrar of civil appeals was unable to assemble three judges who had no shares in either defendant.” Invariably, therefore, when a judge owns shares in one of the litigants what we expect is disclosure of the fact, and if neither party objects one might think it’s acceptable for the judge to hear the case. But in the absence of a well-defined rule that helps establish a basic standard, a decision of this kind can prove troubling somewhere down the line.

Independence and impartiality are the twin pillars without which justice cannot stand,
and the purpose of recusal is to underpin them - Sir Stephen Sedley

Nehru is the greatest PM India

The modern history of India cannot be analysed without understanding the decisive roles played by Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru and Indira Gandhi. These two leaders were the founders of modern India. Among the two, the contribution of Jawaharlal Nehru has been so significant that it will have an impact on generations to come. Nehru pulled India out of the economic crisis after Independence. As a result, India is almost at par with other industrialized countries of the world.

• At the time of independence, India is saddled with poverty, illiteracy and distressed farmers. Hence Nehru prioritized development. His policies always kept the poorest sections of society in mind. He allocated the nation’s wealth without ignoring the poor.
• India was never a poor country. Its wealth was drained after 200 years of colonial rule. 
• After Independence, Nehru wanted the direct involvement of poor people in the process of development. This way their lost self-esteem and pride could be restored. He had a conflict of interest with other party leaders regarding the establishment of parliamentary democracy in India. There was a point where he stood against his father Motilal Nehru’s Swaraj Party.
• India today is just a glimpse of Jawaharlal Nehru’s foresight.
• Some critics hold Nehru responsible for the Kashmir issue. But they forget that Jammu and Kashmir was a princely state. It was Maharaja Hari Singh of Riyat who expressed his desire to join India when Pakistan invaded the princely state.
• It was the education system created by Nehru that enabled students from ordinary families to reach extraordinary heights. Nehru also strengthened the health services like the AIIMS. But today we have destroyed Nehru’s legacy by turning educational institutions as well as hospitals to mere money-making machines.
• Nehru ultimately passed away one and a half years after China’s betrayal in 1962, shaken to the core.
• Indira Gandhi also faced severe economic crisis after the death of Lal Bahadur Shastri. But she tackled it by devaluing the currency for the first time. Indira Gandhi showed that the Partition of Pakistan in 1971 was a political ploy in the name of religion. 
• V.P. Singh who took Indians one step backward as a civilisation by dividing them on the basis of their caste, creed and ethnicity. The country’s economy had already been eroded to a great extent by the policies of V.P. Singh and Chandrashekhar. 
• Notwithstanding the contributions of PV Narasimha Rao and Manmohan Singh in saving India going bankrupt in 1992 with liberalization, Rao has been the weakest and most inefficient prime minister of this country by far. He opened the markets to foreign investors which in turn robbed the hard-earned wealth of Indians. Narasimha Rao nervously opened the Indian market to foreign companies and agreed to put off foreign exchange payoff. Narasimha Rao completely destroyed the secular heritage by letting Babri Masjid get demolished in front of his own eyes. This has led to communal tensions in the country. 
• Atal Bihari Vajpayee’s government ruled for six years. In spite of this, it could not reduce financial scams in the country. He formed a new disinvestment ministry to sell off government assets. Vajpayee used humour to further parliamentary democracy. Yet to a great extent, he has kept the spirit of Nehru alive in his policy decisions.
• Charan Singh, Deve Gowda, IK Gujral and Manmohan Singh had been ‘accidental’ Prime Ministers. It is not known why Morarji Desai was honoured with Pakistan’s biggest national honour of “Nishan-e-Pakistan”. 

Read the source article by Ashwini Kumar Chopra, Resident editor,

Punjab Kesari and a BJP MP. (Translated by Gaurav Kumar)

Today, I find many people who criticize Gandhi, Nehru, Indira Gandhi etc as the cause for what ever problems we face today but I have no doubt to categorize them as ignorant, blind and mad. It is not our culture to criticize our great grand father's for what they have done or haven't done. It won't be easy to imagine the situations or dilemmas they might be facing at that time given the paucity of knowledge, talent & resources.

Why do we need economic growth?

Most things don’t grow forever. If a person grew at the same rate for his whole life, he’d become gigantic. Yet most economists are united around the idea that the economy needs to grow, always. And at a high rate, for the good of the country and its people.

• Economic growth is the increase in the goods and services produced by an economy, typically a nation, over a long period of time. It is measured as percentage increase in real gross domestic product (GDP) which is gross domestic product (GDP) adjusted for inflation. The economic growth every year is essential to a country’s stability and prosperity. But some economists argue that it makes more sense to focus on measures of well-being than growth.
• Maximizing growth doesn’t necessarily help people, but also that rapid growth can itself come at a cost, such as when the pursuit of growth is used to push through policies that are expected increase the GDP but may have negative consequences for millions.The pursuit of growth can be quite dangerous. The welfare of a nation can scarcely be inferred from a measurement of national income.
• For a developing economy where the basic need isn’t met and growth is necessary for more food. Economic growth in a developing economy can go a long way to improving living standards. When people are living in poverty, they experience a deprivation of basic human needs, such as food, shelter, education, basic health care. Economic growth can enable many of these basic needs to be met and this economic growth can radically increase living standards among those countries.
• It's an election winner. Politicians see growth as very important. Elections are won or lost on the state of the economy. Look what happens if growth disappears and recession looms. People get very concerned about falling incomes and rising unemployment. 
• If poverty is to be relieved and the rich are not to be made poorer, then growth is necessary. Making the poor richer is not easy and there are many political obstacles in the way. But at least growth makes it easier.
• When real incomes are already quite high, economic growth can have a marginal impact on living standards. There is a strong diminishing marginal utility to extra income. 
• Economic growth is driven by technological improvements, which reduce the costs of production and enable more to be produced. This technological progress in many ways feels an inevitability. How could you stop this technological progress? Technological improvements have particularly improved the productivity of agriculture and manufacturing. This means we can support ourselves with a smaller % of the workforce on agriculture and manufacturing. Many of new jobs are in service sector.
• In theory, economic growth should enable people to work less, enjoy more leisure time and would enable to retire earlier, if they are able and willing.
• Increased GDP offers the potential for higher living standards but certainly doesn’t guarantee it because of uneven distribution and how it is used. GDP measures activity in the economy, but there’s no way to know whether that activity is actually good for society. The BP oil-rig explosion, which killed 11, and the subsequent spill, which leaked 3 million barrels of oil into the Gulf, actually lifted GDP because of the amount of money spent cleaning it up.
• Economists often say that without growth it will be impossible to address income inequality. But even with growth, there’s no guarantee that inequality will decrease. The economy’s current trajectory is of increasing inequality. Economic growth leads to the depletion of resources - a problem that's likely to get worse as world population and world consumption grows.
• One of the biggest sources of rising expenditure in western economies is health care. There are simply more things that can be treated. Also, there is the irony of having to treat diseases of affluence (such as obesity, heart attacks, cancer etc).
• Economic growth will not solve the fundamental problems of human psychology / behaviour. It can increase sense of inequality. Growth will not reduce the incentives to cheat and steal. It does not make people more charitable and good-natured.
• Environmental problems facing humanity, economic growth could exacerbate these issues and reduce living standards.
• Some of the most content people in the history of the world got by on a lot less. Some saints have argued they were much happier when they forsook their wealth.
• Rather than worrying about increasing real GDP, we could spend time promoting greater social harmony.
• The point is that life is a struggle for most people in developed economies, and technology and increased efficiency has not done much to fix that over the last 40 years. No doubt there are a few that have enjoyed increased leisure time, but at the expense of the masses.

Do we need economic growth? Not really. But, if managed well, it doesn’t have to do any harm and gives the potential to make improvements in our material well-being. Needless to say, economic growth is far from the panacea to make society better. It is a neutral component of human well-being. There’s nothing wrong with targeting economic growth as long as you are aware of its imitations. Governments and society need to be judged on so much more than simply whether their economies are growing.

We have to find a way to make the aspects of capitalism that serve 

wealthier people serve poorer people as well.

If money is your hope for independence you will never have it. 

The only real security that a man can have in this world is a reserve of 

knowledge, experience, and ability ... Henry Ford

Money has no utility to me beyond a certain point ... Bill Gates

For India with large number of unemployed youth, economic growth is the only way to create enough jobs and security. The present phenomenon of jobless growth is unsustainable. The current trends of economic growth are also associated with increased pollution, over exploitation of non-replenishable natural resources, destruction of ecology etc is a destructive growth. Additional wealth created is grabbed by top 10% wealthiest people. The disparity between rich and poor is widening. This kind of growth is absurd. In an ideally developed world all people should be equal, even though perfection is unachievable. We need to grow to accommodate ever rising population.

Nehru becomes PM of independent India in 1947

Rajagopalchari summed it up pretty well:
'When the independence of India was coming close upon us and Gandhiji was the silent master of our affairs, he had come to the decision that Jawaharlal, who among the Congress leaders was the most familiar with foreign affairs, should be the Prime Minister of India, although he knew Vallabhbhai Patel would be the best administrator among them all. Undoubtedly it would have been better if Nehru had been asked to be the Foreign Minister and Patel made the Prime Minister. I too fell into the error of believing that Jawaharlal was the more enlightened person of the two. A myth had grown about Patel that he would be harsh towards Muslims. This was a wrong notion but it was the prevailing prejudice.'

The simple reason as to why Nehru became PM was that he was, by far, the Congress’ most popular politician, after Gandhi. Right from the 1937 provincial elections, Nehru was the party’s star campaigner, enthralling crowds with his Hindustani oratory. Patel had an iron grip on the Congress party itself but he was many miles behind Nehru as a popular leader. The Sardar himself conceded this: at a massively attended Congress rally in Mumbai, he told American journalist Vincent Sheean, “They come for Jawahar, not for me."

Gandhiji had made his choice known in the favour of Jawaharlal Nehru on 20th April, 1946. This was not the first time that Gandhiji spoke about his choice of Nehru; even before the process of election was set in motion. He had been speaking about it from the last several years.

Maulana Azad expressed his desire for the re-election. This has been accepted by Azad himself, in his autobiography “ ... a general demand arose that I should be selected President for another term…. There was a general feeling in Congress that since I had conducted the negotiations till now, I should be charged with the task of bringing them to a successful close and implementing them.” Maulana’s move agonized his close friend and colleague Jawaharlal who had his own expectations. It upset Gandhiji and on 20.04.1946 he wrote to Maulana Azad, who had already been President of Congress for the last six years: “Please go through the enclosed cuttings.… I have not spoken to anyone of my opinion. When one or two Working Committee members asked me, I said that it would not be right for the same President to continue…. If you are of the same opinion, it may be proper for you to issue a statement about the cuttings [the news item Gandhiji had sent him] and say that you have no intention to become the President again…. In today’s circumstances I would, if asked, prefer Jawaharlal. I have many reasons for this. Why go into them?”

Despite Gandhiji’s open support for Jawaharlal Nehru, 12 out of 15 Pradesh Congress Committees, nominated Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel. No Pradesh Congress Committee proposed the name of Jawaharlal Nehru.  J.B Kripalani took the lead in finding the proposers and seconders for Nehru’s candidacy, in deference to Gandhi’s wishes, during the Working Committee meeting on 29.04.1946 in New Delhi. Kripalani succeeded in getting a few Working Committee members and local members of AICC to propose Nehru’s name for the post. However once Nehru was formally proposed by a few Working Committee members, efforts began to persuade Sardar Patel to withdraw his nomination in favour of Jawaharlal. Patel sought Gandhiji’s advice who in turn asked him to do so and “Vallabhbhai did so at once.” Only after Gandhiji was informed that “Jawaharlal will not take the second place” he asked Patel to withdraw. Dr. Rajendra Prasad lamented that Gandhiji “had once again sacrificed his trusted lieutenant for the sake of the ‘glamorous Nehru’. 

PCCs who voted for Sardar to elect him as the Congress President, not the Prime Minister of India. Pradesh Congress Committees don’t elect Presidents, delegates of the All India Congress Committee do. Moreover, Nehru was not the Congress President when India gained independence, JB Kripalani was elected Congress President for the crucial years around Indian independence in 1947. 

Gandhi was always impressed with the modern outlook of Nehru. In comparison Sardar Patel was a little orthodox and Gandhi thought India needed a person who was modern in his approach. But more than anything, Gandhi always knew that Sardar Patel and would never defy him. Gandhi wanted both Nehru and Patel to provide leadership to the country. Gandhi feared delay in India’s independence, if Nehru was not given the chance to become Prime Minister. Sardar Patel was close to 71 and Nehru, then 56 only. Despite all this Patel accepted to take a second position because of two reasons: firstly, for Patel post or position was immaterial; and secondly, Nehru was keen that “either he would take the number one spot in the Government or stay out. Patel shrank from precipitating such an outcome, which would bitterly divide India.” Eminent historian Rajmohan Gandhi, who is the author of the most authoritative biography of Patel, says that had it been left to the people of India, Jawaharlal Nehru would’ve been elected as the Prime Minister.

Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel was the most powerful man of his time. The Mahatma was the most respected, Jawaharlal Nehru the most loved and Subhas Bose the most longed-for. But in terms of the iron control he exercised over the largest political apparatus in the country and the grip he had on political currents and cross-currents in virtually every province in India, the power wielded by Patel had no match. Gandhi loved Jawaharlal, trusted Prasad, admired Rajaji, esteemed Azad. But Patel, he leaned on and laughed with. Patel regarded Gandhi as his mentor, his leader.

Nehru and Patel were in fact not rivals but comrades and co-workers. They worked closely together in the Congress from the 1920s to 1947; and even more closely together thereafter, as prime minister and deputy prime minister in the first government of free India. Independence and Partition, Nehru and Patel worked shoulder-to-shoulder in building a united and democratic nation. Nehru and Patel shared a deep love of their country, an abiding commitment to its unity, and, not least, a sense that they owed it to the memory of their common Master, Mahatma Gandhi, to work together, and to work ferociously hard too. AS Iyengar remarked: “Both are untiring workers, allowing themselves practically no rest, either physical or mental.” Patel represented Indian nationalism's Hindu face, Nehru India's secular and also global face. Their partnership, necessary and fruitful for the country, was a solemn commitment that each made to the other.

Last but not the least, we must not forget why Gandhi had chosen Jawaharlal over Patel: appeal among all communities and groups, international stature, moderation, age, health etc. Patel himself wrote in 1949 that it was fitting that Nehru came to head the country after Independence:

'The sincerity of his convictions, the breadth of his outlook, the clarity of his vision, and the purity of his emotions – all these have brought to him the homage of millions in this country and outside.It was, therefore, in the fitness of things that in the twilight preceding the dawn of independence he should have been our leading light, and that when India was faced with crisis after crisis, following the achievement of our freedom, he should have been the upholder of our faith and the leader of our legions. No one knows better than myself how much he has labored for his country in the last years of our difficult existence. I have seen him age quickly during that period, on account of the worries of the high office that he holds and the tremendous responsibilities that he wields'.

In 1951, First General Elections were held in India, Indian National Congress won the election, winning 364 out of 489 seats, i.e.75%. Hence being the ruling party it was totally an internal matter for the Congress for so as to whom to choose the Prime Minister. Nehru being on height of his popularity, it was a unanimous vote in the Congress to make him the Prime Minister.

Choosing the First Prime Minister of India

My View:
Only Nehru-Gandhi baiters, especially with RSS inclinations, argue that Patel would have made better PM than Nehru for independent India. The Nehru baiters have known very less about Nehru & Patel and nothing about Gandhi while doing so. The truth remains that Nehru was the most popular Congress leader among the people of India, next only to Gandhi, during 1930's & 40's, the fact which was conceeded by Patel himself. PCC's can only file nominations for Congress President position to be elected by AICC delegates but not the position of Prime Minister. Nehru's goodwill with Mountbatten's had its effect on smooth transition of power at the time of independence. Despite certain short comings, Nehru could lay solid foundation for building institutions for modern India, project its secular & non-aligned approach in the bi-polar world etc. Subsequently corruption, social degradation etc pulling down India's progress can't be blamed on Nehru.

Word War II accelerated India's Independence

By 1945, Britain was exhausted and bankrupt, and lacked either the will or the resources to maintain its empire. Realizing that we had lost any remaining vestiges of control, on the afternoon of 20 February 1947 the new prime minister, Clement Attlee, announced before Parliament that British rule would end ‘no later than June 1948’. 

The war flattened out the pretensions of empire, making ceremonial and ritual excesses look archaic, challenging old compacts between king-emperor and the landed elites…. It heightened nationalism, both in Britain and India, so that older forms of transnational solidarity became dated and obsolete. The Raj was left in debt, morally redundant and staffed by exhausted administrators whose sense of purpose could not be sustained…. Ultimately, the war delivered decolonization and the partition of 1947 — neither of which was inevitable or even foreseen in 1939.

The second world war is one of the most written-about episodes in all world history: every month sees a dozen new titles published. The two million Indian troops — changed the course of the war, and of how the war irrevocably changed India’s future.

More than 100,000 Britisher's were in India administering the colony before the beginning of second world war in 1939, and due to fear of security and safety many have gone back to England and by the time war ended in 1945 their numbers were just 4,000 with families already sent back to England, confined to Delhi, Calcutta, Bombay and Madras, anxiously waiting for approvals to return back to England.