Why limit the government?

Why limit government? Why not?! 

• We do a better job describing Hell than Heaven. 
• We want to limit government, because we are opposed to excessive government. 
• We want to limit government because we support freedom and the free society.
• We want to limit government because we want to maximize opportunity, enterprise and creativity.
• We want to limit government because we want to permit individuals to go as far as their talents, ambitions, and industry can take them.
• We want to limit government because we want people to dream and to have the room to bring those dreams to fruition -- for themselves and their families.
• We want to limit government because we want to strengthen the institutions of civil society that tend to shrink as government grows. Institutions such as the family, church, synagogue, mosque, community, and the many voluntary associations are the bedrock of liberty and self-reliance.
• We want to limit government because it ought to be confined to certain minimal, but critical, functions and otherwise leave us alone.
• Government has nothing to give anybody except what it first takes from somebody, and a government that is big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take away everything you've got.
• The political process is no way to run a business or almost anything else. The deficiencies, absurdities, and perverse incentives inherent in the political process are powerful enough to frustrate anyone with the best and most altruistic of intentions. It frequently exalts ignorance and panders to it. 
• A few notable exceptions aside, the political process tends to attract the most mediocre talent with motives that are questionable at best. Government runs on the political process and all of the problems endemic to politics show up in what government does and doesn't do.
• Politics is a serious business because it's the part where coercion puts flesh on the rhetorical bones.
• What makes a politician a politician and differentiates politics from all other walks of life is that the politician's words are backed up by his ability to deploy legal force on their behalf.
• Mutual consent encourages actual results and accountability, the political process puts a higher premium on the mere promise or claim of results and the shifting of blame to other parties.
• In the marketplace, you always pay for what you get. In politics, the connection between what you pay for and what you actually get is problematic at best.

Limiting government is a lofty endeavor. It's good, honest work. It's a powerful message when presented well.

Read the source article

Politics may not be the oldest profession, but the results are often the same.

Government is not reason. It is not eloquence. It is force. 

Like fire, it can be a dangerous servant or a fearful master - America's Founders

Religion - Swami Vivekananda Quotes

Swami Vivekananda was religious, but never a superstitious person. 

• All religion is to be based upon morality, and personal purity is superior.
• All religious superstitions are vain imaginations. 
• Beliefs, doctrines, sermons do not make religion.
• Believe in the doctrine, and you are safe.
• Circumstances can never be good or bad. Only the individual man can be good or bad. What is meant by the world being good or bad? Misery and happiness can only belong to the sensuous individual man.
• Despondency is not religion.
• Experience is the best source of knowledge. 
• First bread and then religion.
• Great is the tenacity with which man clings to the senses.
• In religion lies the vitality  of India.
• Intellectual assent and intellectual dissent are not religion.
• It is an insult to a starving people to offer them religion.
• Mere believing in certain theories and doctrines will not help you much. 
• No destruction of religion is necessary to improve the Hindu society.
• One religion cannot suit all.
• Religion is the greatest and healthiest exercise for the human mind.
• Religion requires hard and constant practice.
• Religion is a necessary thing to very few, and to the vast mass of mankind it is a luxury.
• Religion is the retaliation of Spirit as Spirit; not Spirit as matter. Religion is a growth. Each one must experience it himself. 
• Religion has no business to formulate social laws.
• Religion is not in doctrines, in dogmas, nor in intellectual argumentation;
  it is being and becoming, it is realization.
• Religion is manifestation of the Divinity already in man.
• So long as even a single dog in my country is without food,
  my whole religion will be to feed it.
• Talking is not religion.
• The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom.
• The goal of all religions is the same, but the language of the teachers differs.
• The greatest religion is to be true to your own nature. 
• The ideal of all religions is attaining of liberty and cessation of misery.
• The man who is frightened into religion has no religion at all.
• The proof of one religion depends on the proof of all the rest.
• The very rich can understand truth much less than the poorer people. The rich man has no time to think of anything beyond his wealth and power, his comforts and indulgences. The rich rarely become religious. Why? Because they think, if they become religious, they will have no more fun in life.
• True religion is entirely transcendental.
• Try to be pure and unselfish— that is the whole of religion.
• We must not only tolerate each others, but positively embrace them, and that truth is the basis of all religions.
• We must not judge of higher things from a low standpoint.
  Everything must be judged by its own standard. 
• You are what you make yourselves. 
• You are religious from the day you begin to see God in men and women.

Selfishness is the chief sin, thinking of ourselves first. The unselfish man says, 'I will be last, I do not care to go to heaven, I will even go to hell if by doing so I can help my brothers.' This unselfishness is the test of religion. He who has more of this unselfishness is more spiritual and nearer to Shiva.

मातृदेबो भब पितृदेबो भब, दरिद्रतृदेबो भब, मूर्खतृदेबो भब

The poor, the illiterate, the ignorant, the afflicted -- let these be your God. 

Know that services to these alone is the highest religion ... Swami Vivekananda

Delhi archbishop warns of threat to India's secular fabric

 

The archbishop of Delhi has called for a prayer campaign until the next general election in an unprecedented political intervention, citing a threat to the country’s secular fabric, triggering angry reactions from the ruling Hindu nationalist party. "We are witnessing a turbulent political atmosphere which poses a threat to the democratic principles enshrined in our Constitution and the secular fabric of our nation," Archbishop Anil Couto wrote in a letter issued this month to all parish priests and religious institutions in the archdiocese of Delhi.

• Christians constitute less than 3 percent of Hindu-majority India’s 1.3 billion people. India is officially secular, but four-fifths of its population profess the Hindu faith.
• The BJP said the letter was akin to calling people to vote along communal lines, and that it was unfortunate. The next election has to be held by next May.
• The Archbishop’s secretary, Father Robinson Rodrigues sad that such prayer campaigns took place before every general election, but the exercise was being politicised this time.
• The spokesman for the Delhi Catholic Archdiocese, Father Savarimuthu Sankar, said the archbishop only called for a prayer campaign not an election campaign. He said the letter, the first of its kind from Archbishop Anil Couto since he was installed in 2013, was prompted by continued violence against Christians over the past four years and following attempts to bring back to Hinduism people who converted to Christianity. We try to influence at least those people who are educated, who are balanced. So far we have been saying these are fringe elements who are behind the attacks. But there is a danger that fringe elements may become the mainstream. To some extent they are succeeding also.
• Responding to questions about the letter, Minister of Home Affairs Rajnath Singh told reporters that minorities are safe in India and that no one is allowed to discriminate on the basis of caste and religion. Between 2014 and 2015, Couto and other Christians in the national capital region of Delhi told Rajnath Singh how violence had picked up after Modi came to power, detailing at least five cases of attacks on churches in New Delhi following which extra police had been deployed to protect 240 churches in the capital.
• The prayer for our nation says, “Let the dreams of our founding fathers and the values of our Constitution – equality, liberty and fraternity – be always held in highest esteem. Let the people of all castes and creeds, all denominations and persuasions live in harmony and peace steering far away from hatred and violence." The prayer also focuses on the poor and the marginalised, saying, “Let the poor of our country be provided with the means of livelihood. Let the dalits, tribals and the marginalised be brought into the mainstream of nation building. Let justice and integrity prevail in every sphere of our life.”
• The prayer further says, "Protect our legislature as a place of discerning minds. Raise our judiciary as the hallmark of integrity, prudence and justice. Keep our print, visual and social media as the channels of truth for edifying discourses. Protect our institutions from the infiltration of the evil forces.” 

While the letter and prayer has no inflammable content, the underpinning is very clear that minorities have apprehensions about their safety, rights and privileges compromised. They are all living with their mouth shut for the last 4 years, with fear gripping them choking. Now that Modi & BJP got weakened, vulnerable and uncertain of wining no more elections owing to his worst performance in all fronts, it is natural that all suppressed sections of people will speak out their mind ventilating their grudge reflecting their anger. With minorities at 20%, dalits at 18% thoroughly alienated, there is no way BJP can win 2019 general elections unless oppositions parties fail to put up common candidates. But with Karnataka episode, Modi has himself united all the opposition parties, underwriting his own defeat. 

The insanity of endless growth

Almost all governments, business, media and both the political ‘left’ and ‘right’ are busy extolling endless growth on a planet which is finite. Clearly endless economic growth is impossible, and its pursuit unsustainable and unethical and such destructive pursuit of the impossible is insane. Humanity is totally dependent on the biosphere and it is degrading. Hence society needs to realize that we are way past sustainable ecological limits. 

• The most drastic effects of the rise of economic growth are the impoverishing of democracy, the loss of liberty, and the abandonment of equality. We must subject the economy to the ideals of democracy, liberty, equality, and unity. The drivers of free-market system are causing interrelated problems and if we are to turn our nation from this path of folly, we must first abandon the faulty assumptions that drive our thinking. The four pillars of capitalism - endless economic growth, ever-increasing productivity, accelerating technological advances, and self-interest must be abandoned. Economic insanity challenges people to stop looking for answers within the system and look instead to changing the system.
• The reality is that endless economic growth on a finite planet is unsustainable, especially if society has exceeded ecological limits. There are ‘limits of growth’; and the ‘endless growth mantra’ within society is unsustainable. The three main drivers of ‘unsustainability’ are overpopulation, over consumption and the growth economy. 
• The ‘decoupling’ strategy by switching over to renewable sources of energy etc has its merits and limits, and at best a partial solution to the problem. The key social problem is denial of our predicament along with the contribution of anthropocentric modernism as a worldview that aids and abets that denial. At best attempts at decoupling slow down the rate at which things get worse. Talk of 100% decoupling is likely to be merely a wishful thinking.
• Human population growth and the concomitant increase in the consumption of resources would exceed planetary limits around the middle of the 21st century, causing societal collapse. The Global Ecological Footprint now stands at 1.6 Earths. The Living Planet Index has declined by 58% between 1970 and 2012.  The species extinction rate is at least 1000 times normal. At least 60% of ecosystem services are degrading or being used unsustainably. We are bankrupting nature and consuming the past, present and future of our biosphere.
• Economic growth is seen as the panacea for almost all societal ills. Commitment to growth is being promoted in the guise of free trade, competitiveness, productivity – or even as sustainable development which is an oxymoron. Sustainable development requires a GDP growth rate of 5%, doubling output every 14 years. Economic growth can't be the cure for poverty, unemployment, debt repayment, inflation, population explosion, and so on.
• The idea of benefits of growth would trickle down and alleviate global poverty has failed. The verb ‘to grow’ has become twisted; its original meaning is to spring up and develop to maturity, a steady state. To grow beyond a certain point is disastrous. It is possible to develop scenario where full employment prevails, poverty eliminated, people have more leisure, and greenhouse gases drastically reduced, with low or no economic growth. It is a mistake to assume that economic growth is a necessity for full employment.
• Once we have exceeded ecological limits, growth will make us worse off with uneconomic growth. Products scarcity leads to advocacy of even more growth. This becomes a death spiral. Healing our world requires accepting the reality that the economy cannot grow forever. 
• A dismissal of ecological limits and the rapidly worsening environmental crisis indicates many are still in denial of the insanity and unsustainability of endless economic growth. Many things change and solutions become easier if we change our worldview and ethics. Society needs to return to ecocentrism and adopt an Earth ethic and undertake the work of repairing the Earth and changing to a worldview of ecocentrism to step on the path to a sustainable future.

We have been locked into an insane growth fantasy for two centuries, but the past does not mandate the future. It is time now to grow up. We need to acknowledge the scale of the problem, abandon denial, and move towards a major shift in worldview. This is a big task, but also an exciting, positive challenge – one nobody should deny.

Read the source article

Four Earths would be needed if everyone lived like Americans.

All progress is precarious, and the solution of one problem 
brings us face to face with another problem ... Martin Luther King, Jr.

Growth mantra has simply made rich much richer while poor remained poor. The disparity between rich and poor has widened like never before. This trend can't go on forever. In order to retain our humanity in the face of ecological limits, we would have to confront inequality head on. If wealth were divided equally among the all the people in the world, the per capita material affluence would drop significantly. Global society has already entered the phase where the capacity to grow, to generate real new wealth, is declining. When growth stops, tensions mount. Only the tyrannical state, with its monopoly on violence, its enormous bureaucracies, its tentacles reaching into every facet of life, will have the power to save us from the stupidity called the freedom to grow forever. 

Democracy and its Perils

• Democracy is a political system which combines the elements of fairness, legitimacy and effectiveness. It is the least worst system. 
• Democracy is imperfect and, when misapplied or incorrectly interpreted, can be saddled with flaws and weaknesses. 
• Democracy is the most expensive & inefficient form of governance.
• A democracy is not a democracy unless it has independent and strong institutions that help facilitate good governance and right thinking citizens demanding accountability and transparency.
• Proper democracy is far more than a perpetual ballot process. It must include deliberation, mature independent institutions and checks and balances. It may include educated citizens, strong civil society and strong laws.
• Freedom is an essential part of democracy. Freedom is essential for both the ruled and the ruler.
• Unfettered freedom brings with it its own hazards that would undermine the institutions that help sustain democracy.
• The victim of democracy is the politics itself. Politics in a democratic set up tends to be looked upon with contempt by the people. It is much maligned and abused field in all the democracies.
• Politicians once elected to power become the custodians and abusers of power.
• Bad politics leads to corruption. As the people responsible for corruption are ‘enabled’ to loot the exchequer either by the loopholes in the laws or indifferent ‘people’ who form the very basis of democracy.
• Corruption has reached gargantuan proportions, because of the indifferent attitude of the people and enabling environment provided by democracy for the corrupt to practice their art. 
• Democracy aides both the individual and the ‘corrupt’ authority. Democracy with weak institutions gives them free hand to run the government, they tend to err, and err with impunity.
• Criminalization of politics is the biggest peril of democracy. With it comes misuse of position and authority. It inevitably leads to corruption.
• Corruption directly brings underdevelopment and spawns poverty. In India poverty is the major benefactor for the politicians. As long as poverty is sustained, they can amass wealth – always unaccounted.
• Democracy promotes capitalism which in turn results in uneven wealth distribution. Rich becomes much richer while poor remain poorer.
• Risk of capitalism is usually socialized while profits gets privatized.
• Democracy in itself is not a threat, but any weak link within it is bound to weaken the whole structure.
• Democracy has become synonymous with elections and is reduced to the process of elections.
• In democracy poor people vote, and the elected become rich at the cost of the poor. It’s a government of the rich, for the poor to sustain the poverty. This sounds cynical, but hard facts vindicate the statement. If 70% of India’s population still earns less than Rs 50 per day, even after 70 years of independence, should we compliment ourselves or introspect?
• Development has suffered more in democracy than in other forms of governments. Though it is fashionable to say that democracy is better than despotism despite lack of development, does it do justice to the vast millions who go to sleep hungry?
• Within democracy, we need a change of mindset both of the people and politicians in their attitude towards development. We are witnessing the loot of our resources by the powerful few who are covertly supported by the government machinery. Every penny that’s put to improve the lot of this country is unaccounted for. The crux is lack of accountability.
• Education of the masses and strong institutions is a solution to most problems in India.
• Institutions which are not pestered and interfered by the ruling classes perform better. The fear that these institutions if given complete autonomy would grow as a threat is unfounded. The Supreme Court of India and Election commission of India are governed by bureaucrats, not by the elected politicians. These institutions function well within the scope of our constitution.
• Our military has gained reputation for being fair to its people and the constitution. Where there is no interference by the politics, the institutions serve well. For a democracy to thrive and bring development to the masses, we need independent institutions to act as check and balances on the government.
• We need universities which are not at the mercy of government; we need public service commissions not interfered in their functioning by the government; we need a strong Lokpal to punish the corrupt; strong local governments to bring development at the bottom; independent CBI and a police force which is pro-people; the list goes on.
• These changes are not difficult to bring on. It is the will which is missing, lest it affects the power of few to amass the wealth. Perils of democracy are the result of loopholes within it. To plug them, we need to fight. Of course, non-violently.
• A blanket endorsement of it as a convenient panacea will do more harm than good.
• There are very few nations on this Earth, which openly reject the notion of democracy. Most countries espouse it, or at least offer it lip service.
• Myth #1: The people can do no wrong.  The legitimacy of majority rule with no reservations or caveats raises the issue of sub-units within the voters viz territorial, cultural, ethnic or religious. What happens if the people change their minds? Democracy cannot be just if it is not just over time. Does a coalition automatically legitimize the action of individuals or groups or nations without regard to higher principles of morality or ethics? The doctrine of popular infallibility can be kept as a useful reference point but must not be abused or overextended.
• Myth # 2: Direct  democracy is always better than representative democracy. Given the volatility of public opinion, the complexity of social psychology and the possibility of inter generational conflicts, the representative democracy is often superior to direct democracy, with the representatives acting as buffer. Mistakes can then be attributed to representatives and not to the people. The conventional assumption is that the will of the people should always trump that of the elites. The principal arguments against leaving too many decisions to the direct appreciation of the masses can be summarized as follows: (1) Uninformed or insufficiently informed electorate (2) Influence of money and media (3) People changing their mind (4) Contradictory Referenda (5) Deleterious effect on public policy.
• Myth #3: Democracy trumps all other social goals. The backlash against Dumb Democracy is the realization that democratization, although a valid goal, is not the only desirable one that a Society can legitimately aspire to. The following compete for priority with democracy. (1) Peace (2) Justice (3) Liberty & Freedom (4) Security (5) Good governance (6) Escape from extreme poverty (7) Public Vs Private goods (8) Good health (9) Traditional values (10) Climate change and sustainable development. 
• Myth #4: Democratic countries will never go to war against each other. There is a frequent assumption that once a country becomes democratic it will renounce violence, avoid going to war especially against other democracies, and try to resolve outstanding problems by peaceful means. Experience shows that the relationship between democracy and war is actually very complex and far from straightforward. 
• Myth #5: National democracy automatically leads to global democracy. Will a world composed of democratic nation-states automatically mean that it will also be democratic? This question is as complex and there are no simple answers. The UN Security Council, with coercive powers, is composed of five permanent members with veto powers who appointed themselves to that position. The other non-permanent members are elected by the UN General Assembly, but do not have veto power. The elected President of United States has real authority over the whole world by virtue of the overwhelming military power, which it has used in Iraq and threatens to do so elsewhere. There is a serious democratic deficit where 2% of the world’s voting population manages to have a determining influence on the entire world.
• There is no formula of global democracy and every formula suffer from inefficiencies and conflict of goals. The attempted simple transition from national to global democracy without a lot of preparation and adaptation is therefore destined to fail unless treated with a more sophisticated analysis.
• Other than democracy, there are no other known political alternatives which will work in the long run.  There is no permanent security in tyrants and the checks and balances of democracy make it the only sustainable political system, which can claim both long-term efficiency and legitimacy. Democracy must prevail because of mounting global interdependence requiring team responses and collective decision-making. A leader has to motivate his troops and keep their confidence. No single individual holds absolute power anymore, and everyone has to report to some group or a parliament, all leaders are accountable to some committee of peers, which makes democracy sustainable, indispensable and inevitable. 
• The modalities of this accountability have to be modulated and perfected.
• The construction of a democratic state must be gradual and well planned. It can rarely be imposed by non-democratic means. Democracy by force of arms is self-defeating. 

 In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great 
difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; 
and in the next place oblige it to control itself ... James Madison

The Perils of Dumb Democracy


Ambedkar described constitution as a fundamental document stated that the purpose of a constitution is not merely to create the organs of the state but to limit their authority because if no limitation was imposed upon the authority of the organs, there will be complete tyranny and complete oppression. The legislature may be free to frame any law; the executive may be free to take any decision, and the Supreme Court may be free to give any interpretation of the law. It would result in utter chaos. 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. Demonetisation has negated the fundamental and constitutional rights of Indians. By forcing every Indian, and not just the black marketers and counterfeiters, to stand in queues to withdraw hard earned money, our elected government has insulted all. Citizens have been temporarily deprived of property by a single fiat, even though the constitution says this can only be done with the authority of law. Countless have died, been rendered jobless, hungry and homeless. Is this a democratic act? RBI has been reduced to cipher. Fiscal policy has become political and the finance ministry redundant. The parliament and the cabinet have been turned into a mere formality. Judiciary appears seriously weakened. It is not easy for the victims of police and investigative agencies to get any relief against wrongful detentions and prosecutions. But it is the concerted attack on institution after institution by the Modi government that raises serious concerns. Bhakti in religion may be a road to the salvation of the soul. But in politics, bhakti or hero-worship is a sure road to degradation and to eventual dictatorship. India has moved away from constitutional democracy to populist democracy. Ambedkar is losing. Modi is winning.

Is privacy a fundamental right?

The government is pushing for Aadhaar but critics say it violates privacy, is vulnerable to data breaches and helps government spy on people. The Centre has maintained that right to privacy is not a fundamental right and citizens are not guaranteed the right to privacy under the Indian Constitution. The petitioner’s counsel in the Aadhaar case, has compared the situation to one under a totalitarian state where people were being forcefully tagged and tracked by the Centre. The Supreme Court’s nine-judge constitution bench would revisit its rulings that said the right to privacy was not a fundamental right and then hear petitions against the 12-digit biometric identity number.

• An eight-judge bench in 1954 and also by a six-judge bench in 1962 ruled that privacy is not a fundamental right in the constitutional provisions. Textually it is correct today that there is no right to privacy in the Constitution. Even freedom of press is not expressly stated but courts has interpreted it.
• Whether there is any “right to privacy” guaranteed under our Constitution or not and if such a right exists, what is the source and what are the contours of such a right as there is no express provision in the constitution.
• Supreme Court in case after case realised that the rights to liberty and freedom of expression cannot survive if the right to privacy is compromised. Privacy is crucial in digital age. A democracy cannot exist without the Right to Privacy.
• Without right to privacy, the fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution of India and more particularly the right to liberty under Article 21 would be denuded of vigour and vitality.
• Privacy can reside in several articles. Lack of privacy can have a chilling effect, triggering freedom of speech protections under Article 19(2). The question of protecting privacy could not depend on first determining the location of the right to privacy. History teaches us that without privacy, the consequences are unimaginable.
• The relationship of the right to privacy with Aadhaar enrolment is what complicates everything. The government is pushing for Aadhaar, saying it is necessary to plug leakages in subsidy schemes and to ensure benefits reach those targeted but critics say the move violates privacy, is vulnerable to data breaches and helps government spy on people.
• If the object of Aadhaar is smoothly functioning government benefit schemes, why give law enforcement agencies or indeed anyone else access to the database at all?
• The Aadhaar Bill has been passed with no public consultation about the privacy safeguards necessary for such a database and no provision for public or independent oversight. The rights to liberty and freedom of expression cannot survive if the right to privacy is compromised.
• Allowing Aadhaar to go ahead unchecked in the manner, seeking linking aadhaar to almost every transaction and aspect in life, is effectively reducing the citizen into a 12-digit number and transforming the country into a concentration camp for the citizens.
• Aadhaar has had an invasive and controversial presence well before the government’s attempt to legitimise it. Our Attorney General (funded by our taxes) has argued that we have no right to privacy. Attorney General KK Venugopal argument that the framers of India’s Constitution “consciously omitted” privacy as a fundamental right is his imagination in wrong direction. Any version of the Aadhaar Bill would have been subjected to close scrutiny. The Bill was deliberately mislabelled as a money bill to avoid scrutiny by Rajya Sabha creating even more suspicion.
• Privacy is an amorphous term which is not absolute and cannot prevent the State from making laws imposing reasonable restrictions on citizens. Attempting to define the right to privacy may cause more harm than good.
• In order to recognise privacy as a right, it would have to be defined first. But this would be a near impossible task as an element of privacy pervaded all fundamental rights enshrined in the Constitution.
• Right to privacy is a pre-existing natural right which is inherent in the Constitution, even though it is not explicitly mentioned. The right to privacy is recognised as a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution. The concept of privacy is embedded in liberty as well as a person's honour.
• Even if the court now finally finds that Aadhaar violates the right to privacy, the damage is already done with the vast majority of the population already enrolled, their information already held in insecure databases, and linked to public and private services. We should all, of course, be praying that the court finds that there are 40 years of consistent judicial support for a fundamental right to privacy, and this cannot be taken away by the government so callously.

Privacy is essential to autonomy and the protection of human dignity. Privacy enables us to create boundaries and protect ourselves from unwarranted interference in our lives. Privacy protects us from arbitrary and unjustified use of power by states, companies and other actors. It lets us regulate what can be known about us and done to us, while protecting us from others who may wish to exert control. Privacy is a fundamental human right. Over 130 countries have constitutional statements regarding the protection of privacy. Despite international human rights law, it’s all too common that privacy is violated by states and companies. While we should continue to fight for our privacy under the law, the best thing we can do as users to who value our right to anonymity, is to use internet tools. 

My View:
This BJP/NDA government headed by Modi by aggressively promoting expensive cashless transactions with artificial cash shortage is just like sales chief of those companies rather than leader of the nation. He has no respect for rights of citizens. His aim is to increase revenues not by promoting economic activity but by tracking almost all transactions and arm twisting people and collecting more taxes for funding his trophy projects and worthless ideas while leaving poor & peasants in distress. Can you imagine leader of largest democracy in the world arguing in Supreme Court that citizens, who elected him, have no right to privacy except what ever is granted by his stupid brains? His thinking doesn't understand that privacy is fundamental right of humans and doesn't require any constitution or laws for recognizing this.