A comfortable old age is the reward of a well-spent youth

The excesses of our youth, are drafts upon our old age, 

payable with interest, about thirty years after date ... CC Colton

The Supreme Court's directive to complete the conspiracy trial against BJP leaders accused of conspiracy to demolish the Babri Masjid could mean the deserved denouement of Lal Krishna Advani's career. Advani's career was built on Babri Masjid, on the saugandh that a Ram Mandir would be built in its place and nowhere else. If Advani gets indicted for the demolition of the structure in Ayodhya, life would have come full circle for him.

There shouldn't be an iota of doubt that Advani, now 89 years, was the architect of the movement that led to the demolition of the disputed mosque on Dec 6, 1992. His rath yatras led to mass hysteria that mobilised thousands of youth for the sectarian movement. It is for the courts to decide if Advani, Murli Manohar Joshi, Uma Bharti, Kalyan Singh and other BJP leaders accused in the case actually conspired to get the structure razed or not. But, none of them can escape the moral and political responsibility of their failure to control the monster they unleashed on India and in Ayodhya.

Advani has always denied that he was aware of plans to forcibly demolish the structure. He has claimed that the sight of lumpen kar sevaks pulling the structure brought tears to his eyes. Other versions suggest that they are in fact tears of joy when their conspiracy came to fruition on Dec 6, 1992. Advani played up the kamandal card ruthlessly throughout the tumultuous period between 1989 and 1992. He was single-handedly responsible for taking the BJP from 2 seats in 1984 to 117 in 1991 and his ambition to become the prime minister is clear.

For the BJP, the SC order could be a blessing in disguise. To the party it could mean an opportunity to keep the Hindutva pot boiling and serving the Ram Mandir issue hot in the 2019 elections. The trial is bound to get a lot of attention and in the end turn out a PR heist for the Hindutva brigade. In the dusk of his life, he could become the rath on which his party could ride to the next electoral victory. Just that, like in the 90s, he might not be the beneficiary of his final yatra, either to jail (if he is indicted) or to freedom (if he is found not guilty). Wouldn't that be adequate punishment for Advani's karma that led to the bloodshed every time he roared: Saugandh Ram ki khaate hain, mandir wahin banayenge?

A comfortable old age is the reward of a well-spent youth ... Maurice Chevalier

My View:
The fact that BJP etc have given written assurances that they would not demolish Babri Masjid for obtaining permission to conclude 'Rath Yatra' in Ayodhya and failed is one aspect. The other aspect is that gigantic structure demolition and removing debris using construction equipment would have taken few days where as 'Kar Sevaks' using hand tools only have demolished the structure, cleared debris and installed make shift 'Ram Mandir' in flat 6 hours, without any causalities, indicates the well designed, equipped and rehearsaled conspiracy, with secrecy well maintained, speaks volumes about the criminality of the issue for which LK Advani, Murli Manohar Joshi, Uma Bharti, Kalyan Singh and other BJP leaders can't be absolved of their crime and must be punished. However after 25 years, mobilising witnesses for their trial is no easy task for CBI and with Modi & BJP in power at Centre and also in UP, it is quite possible that the trial will end up as a farce. However Advani will go down in history as destroyer of Babri Masjid and pushing secularism into peril and paving way for Hindutva, much to the discomfort of minorities.

Post independence in India, Hindu population is growing arithmetically where as Muslim population is growing geometrically and by 2051/61 Muslim population will surpass Hindu population in India. Then what?

Demonetization 2016 and its effetcs

• There were no immediate gains to be seen from the Demonetisation 2016. The benefits, if any, they are to be had only in the long term. 
• There was one immediate outcome and this was the colossal amount of hardship experienced by the citizens of India. That most of the affected people did not openly express their unhappiness at having to bear this hardship does not reduce its severity.
• Indian economy had experienced significant damage from which recovery would be slow. As of mid-February, there was no evidence of any bounce back, but even if that happened, why cause a dislocation in the first place?
• All the disruption and distress, to what purpose? When assessed in terms of the objectives of Demonetisation 2016, the outcome was unclear.
• Dealing with counterfeit currency did not require the suddenness and consequent harshness of a design and implementation as contained in Demonetisation 2016.
• Demonetisation has not, as promised, turned ‘worthless’ the black money held in high denomination notes. By December 2016 most of the currency had already entered the banking system. Very little seemed to have been held back by holders of black money scared to enter the banking system. It can have no effect on the future flow of black money in the form of new currency notes. No strategy can succeed without proper systems in place.
• The new amnesty scheme, PMGKY, did not yield declarations running into lakhs of crores (trillions) of rupees. Now we are entering an era of tax harassment as government agencies set about trying to prove that Demonetisation 2016 was a major success in unearthing black money and improving tax compliance.
• An argument is that Demonetisation 2016 was not a good idea.
  (1) Very little of black money is held in the form of cash.
  (2) Even if the government did want to track down unaccounted cash, the best way would have been to collect, analyse and follow up on information on large cash withdrawals from banks and thereby identify possible flows of unaccounted cash.
  (3) In spite of all the risks and limited chances of success, if the government still wanted to go ahead with demonetisation, then the manner in which Demonetisation 2016 was designed and implemented was neither the only option nor the best one. There were other less destructive options available.
• ‘Formalisation of the informal’ emerged as a new rationale for Demonetisation 2016. Demonetisation and digitalisation might have dragged real estate, retail and wholesale trade, and professional services & economic agents into the formal sector leading to greater tax compliance. But much larger informal sector that ekes out its livelihood on the margins does not avoid paying taxes, it just earns too little to fall into the tax bracket. Formalisation of tiny enterprises in industry, road-side service establishments, and by small- and medium-sized farmers would not lead to any gain to society. It would, in fact, put an additional burden on these producers who are already struggling by earning low incomes.
• It was said that Demonetisation 2016 was war on wealthy & criminals hoarding black money. But wealthy & criminals did not experience any pain. It was those who had least capacity to cope who bore the entire burden. The colossal distress that Demonetisation 2016 caused will make it impossible for any future government to embark on a more serious war on black money. No society will be able to go through this suffering once again. The black money will remain in place.
• Some weeks after demonetisation was announced, its failure was confirmed and goal posts shited to digitalisation and cashless transactions. The focus now is on how to accelerate the adoption of electronic payments at all levels, from households upwards despite infrastructural and economic constraints. The main issue is, did the economy have to be put through the demonetisation wringer in order to drive it towards digitalisation?
• Digitalisation of payments is not a new invention by Modi boys. It has been underway in India for more than a decade and made considerable progress in transactions in the organised sector and among those comfortable with electronic/on-line forms of payment. The larger population is, however, right now outside the scope of digital payments. Major constraints in infrastructure and also issues relating to a lack of familiarity and unaffordability tell us that digitalisation cannot be hurried without running the risk of exclusion. Yet, the one major agenda that the government has been driving since Demonetisation 2016 has been digitalisation.
• The holders of black money will have experienced such a major shock but almost the entire stock of demonetised currency had entered the banking system showed the ease with which such individuals and organisations could get the better of the system. It also reflects the confidence they have of subsequently managing the system, in case there are to be investigations in the future.
• The psychological shock was a harmful one. The upheaval caused by the removal of 86% of the currency in circulation had unnerved ordinary people, the honest citizens. The trust they had reposed in the currency issued by the central bank and the government had been shaken. This is an unhealthy development in a modern economy.
• Soon after demonetisation had been announced, it was pointed out by many that this action by itself would do little to destroy black money and do even less to end the future generation of black money. The government in response said that demonetisation was neither the first nor the last measure to be taken to destroy black money. More steps were to follow in what was promised would be a larger war. 
• With out removing systemic pain that causes creation of black money by hiding legitimate transactions to avoid high taxes, attempts to eliminate black money by harassment of people would be futile.
• There was little of that kind to be seen in the next three months, save the limited measures on political party finance announced in the Union Budget for 2017–18. It appeared as if the promised action was not to follow. 
• The government is left with no option but to ensure an increasing supply of cash to quell the retail corruption while keeping a check on the discretionary power of tax and banks bureaucracy to avoid further damage to its credibility.

The government solution to a problem 
is usually as bad as the problem ... Milton Friedman

My View:
Even though everyone knows demonetization doesn't solve any problems and its results are unpredictable, Modi, advised by some quacks, resorted wildest gamble only to win forthcoming elections in UP, Punjab etc, followed by Rajya Sabha, President & Vice President elections. Giving undue importance to secrecy and without any preparation for this gargantuan task, he announced demonetization like a dictator keeping aside all democratic processes, he shot in his foot and instantly landed in a ditch. What Modi has done is commit a massive theft of people's property without even the pretense of due process of law, a shocking move for a democratically elected government. One man is trying to deliver on something that is undeliverable, against the advice of everybody else. This demonetization will go down as one of the most naïve, least thought through policy decisions ever, a massive man-made disaster. It is time to withdraw massive executive powers with one man replace them with robust processes, except during situation of war & emergencies. Executive should not be allowed to incur expenses or impose taxes without prior legislature approval.

Babri case: SC restores conspiracy charges against Advani etc

Babri Masjid being demolished by Kar Sevaks on Dec 6, 1992

Apr 19, 2017:  LK Advani and other top leaders of the BJP including Murli Manohar Joshi and Uma Bharti will be tried for criminal conspiracy in the demolition of the 16th­ century Babri Masjid, the Supreme Court ruled today, agreeing with a request from the Central Bureau of Investigation or CBI in its case over the razing of the disputed mosque on December 6, 1992. The incident had sparked deadly riots across India that killed around 2,000 people. "We have allowed the CBI appeal against the Allahabad High Court judgement with certain directions," a bench comprising Justices PC Ghose and RF Nariman said.

Here are the top 10 points from the judgement in the Babri Masjid demolition case:

1. CBI's appeal in Babri mosque demolition case allowed, criminal conspiracy charge against LK Advani and other BJP leaders restored.
2. Two separate cases (in Lucknow and Raebareli) against LK Advani, Murli Manohar Joshi, Uma Bharti and unknown 'kar sevaks' in will be brought together in one trial.
3. The trial court in Lucknow must complete the hearing in two years and deliver a verdict.
4. Kalyan Singh (who was the chief minister of UP in 1992) enjoys constitutional immunity as Rajasthan Governor and can be tried only after he leaves office.
5. Lucknow court should conduct trial in these cases on a day­to­day basis.
6. No party shall be granted adjournments without the sessions judge being satisfied of the reasons for it.
7. CBI will have to ensure that at least one prosecution witness appears in trial court for recording of testimony.
8. Trial judge hearing the Babri mosque case shall not be transferred till the judgement is delivered.
9. Lucknow trial court to commence proceedings in four weeks and there will be no 'de novo' (fresh) trial.
10. Order should be followed in letter and spirit and parties involved have the liberty to approach the top court if its directions are not followed.

Here is the timeline to the dispute

Justice delayed is justice denied ... William E. Gladstone

Justice delayed will not only be justice denied, 

it will be the Rule of law destroyed ... Soli Sorabjee

My View:

There is no question that Ram Janmabhoomi is one of the highest sentiment for 84% Hindus in India, without exception. Muslims should have voluntarily given away the never used Masjid for Hindus for building Ram Temple, as gesture of good will. In return they could have extracted certain concessions, but both groups never came to negotiating table. Courts could not give its judgement because that piece of land of Babri Masjid is in possession of Babri Masjid Trust and at the same time Hindus sentimental right can't be undermined but can't be given away to Hindus unless Muslims agree to it. The dispute is dated back to 1853/1859. In 1992 Advani leading thousands of BJP+ Kar Sevaks, purely for political gains is only to counter VP Singh's Mandal card, resulting in demolition of Babri Masjid is patently illegal, undemocratic and unconstitutional and ruptures secular fabric of the nation. All culprits who ever have conspired and/or participated in demolition must be booked and punished as per laws of the land. Topping the list are LK Advani, MM Joshi, Uma Bharathi, Kalyan Singh and many more. At least after 25 years, SC ordered these culprits stand trial with 2 years deadline. Unless rule of the law is respected, we stand to lose democratic & secular character of our constitution.

However, SC has dealt a deadly blow to BJP & its associates stunning the master manipulator Modi affirming judicial independence and upholding rule of law. Any shame left, Uma Bharti and Kalyan Singh must resign their Minister & Governor positions and face criminal charges in their individual capacity. Ironically, Modi (with his CBI) has to prosecute his own gurus & compatriots of conspiracy & criminal charges. Landed in unenviable spot, Modi, who lectures on every issue, will maintain stoic silence on this matter.

Political donations, a quid pro corruption

A political donation, in general is defined as, is a gift made to, or for the benefit of a: political party; third-party campaigner; or. person or entity who uses the donation to make another political donation, or who incurs electoral expenditure, or who reimburses a person who incurred electoral expenditure.

The political funding in India began in 1920s when Congress under leadership of Mahatma Gandhi began fund raising from business houses and individuals for freedom struggle. The companies and individuals donated generously for what they considered a “noble cause”. This practice continued even and became increasingly politicized.  The fund raised by political parties now was mainly to run everyday affairs of the party and to fight and win elections. All political parties today rely on both legitimate and illegitimate sources for money. While the practice of financing by corporate and businessmen continued, it was supplemented by kickbacks and commissions received from the foreign deals. In most cases, the beneficiaries were the ruling parties which struck these deals. 

The current Indian laws allow companies to contribute up to 7.5% of their average net profits in the last three financial years to political parties, and require they disclose the name of the political parties that have received those donations. The new amendments (of March 2017) seek to remove that limit, as well as do away with the requirement that companies disclose which political parties have received the funding. However, all the contributions to political parties by companies will have to be made only by a cheque, a bank draft or by other electronic means. Companies will also have to disclose the total amount donated. Any sum contributed, by non cash instruments, by an eligible assessee to any political party or Electoral Trust is eligible for deduction under Income Tax Act, 1961.

• Political donations corrupt democracy in many unimaginable ways.
• Why would a corporation, which is bound by law to pursue profits, make these donations?
• Most politicians enter politics for ideological reasons. They want to contribute and make the country a better place. However, the primary game of politics in a democracy is one of vote winning. You can’t implement your policies if you’re not elected and once elected the most important thing is to be re-elected so that you can continue your work improving the country. As a result, many politicians sell their soul in order to prolong their political careers. They face the choice of openly and honestly standing up for what they believe, or maximizing their vote. To put it bluntly, they either lie or they lose. Their contempt for voters and for democracy is a predictable product of the conflicting pressures politicians face.
• Representing voters interests is never a politician’s top priority. Politicians will only act on behalf of voters if no wealthy or powerful group objects when the party in question is boxed into a corner by a hung parliament or a combination of marginal electorates and strong community action.
• Politicians lie in many instances, they have no choice but to do so. The honest ones are highly unlikely to succeed in forming government. 
• Wining power through four principle strategies:
  (1) Lie about the record of the government they were trying to replace.
  (2) Make promises to the electorate they knew they wouldn’t keep.
  (3) Make promises to corporate donors they intended to keep.
  (4) Excuse breaking the promises to the electorate by inventing a debt crisis.
• Russell Brand in his interview with BBC, argued that we should not vote and that voting only legitimizes a fundamentally illegitimate system.

Russell Brand in his interview with BBC

• Sizable amounts are donated in cash i.e. tax evaded money or black money. This must banned altogether.
• Large businesses houses give away political donations to both opposing large parties, indicating that they are least bothered about political principles but only focused on policy favors from winning party for maximizing their profits.
• Foreign company donations are nothing but corruption money laundered back using hawala channels and is an anti-national, anti-democratic step. Hence must be banned.
• Every Re. 1 collected by political parties as donation will result in loss of more than Rs.100 to exchequer/nation with dilution of policies, inflating estimates, undeserving favors etc. 
• Hence any kind of political donation by business houses is corruption & quid pro quo and must be banned. 
• Any kind of concessions availed by political parties from businesses for campaigning or organisational expenses, in cash or otherwise, should be viewed as corruption and must be dealt with accordingly.
• Tax exemption for political donations should be removed. Donations from individuals from their tax paid incomes should be free of restrictions & obligations. 
• Parties running expenses and election campaign expenses, now a days, are huge and mind boggling primarily due to unbridled flow of ill gotten money from business houses. 
• Even a petty politician's life style expenses are few millions per month, these days. 
• With silly money at their disposal, political parties have increased their organisational & campaign expenses to unimaginable levels threatening the very survival of democracy. 
• Today politics have become out of reach for a common man and law abiding citizen. Most visible politicians are all criminals, extortionists, black market dealers, bootleggers, smugglers, money launderers, tax evaders etc either directly or through agents.
• Corruption and flow of ill gotten money can't be justified irrespective of the purpose it might be used for. It is the headache of political parties to mobilize funds for their legitimate activities within the framework of laws.
• BJP & Congress are most funded parties. While BJP donations are 90% from unknown sources/ voluntary contributions/ sale of publications etc, for Congress it is 55%. Political funding must be made transparent, uploaded in their website and audited by independent agencies.

In 1952, during the course of election campaign for 1st Lok Sabha elections in Bihar, Nehru spotted a Congress candidate campaigning on bicycle without footwear and wearing soiled clothes. Moved by this, he gave Rs.25,000 for buying clothes, chappals and campaign expenses. The candidate won the election and met Nehru in Delhi and returned 24,000+ cash deducting expenses of one pair clothes and one pair chappals only. His total expenditure for winning MP seat was few hundred rupees only then in 1952 whereas the same could be anywhere up to Rs.100 crores today in 2017.

My view:
Government directly funding (up to 2/3rd of estimated normative expenses or actual expenses whichever is lower) national & state political parties and its contesting candidates is with least burden on nation. It also creates level playing filed for contesting candidates. Excepting individual non-cash donations from his/her tax paid income all types of donations/ concessions to political parties should be banned. Extravagant spending by candidates should be disqualified and parties penalized heavily. Also impractical bonanza dole outs should be declared illegal. Winning party must be compelled to fulfill its manifested poll promises with in the term. All convicted criminals, must be debarred in contesting elections. Any person facing criminal charges with liability in excess of 2 years imprisonment must be debarred in contesting elections, until absolved in court.

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.

Rule of the Law

The rule of law is the legal principle that law should govern a nation, as opposed to being governed by arbitrary decisions of individual government officials.

Definition of the 'rule of law' comprises the following four principles:

1. The government and its officials and agents as well as individuals and private entities are accountable under the law.
2. The laws are clear, publicized, stable, and just; are applied evenly; and protect fundamental rights, including the security of persons and property and certain core human rights.
3. The process by which the laws are enacted, administered, and enforced is accessible, fair, and efficient.
4. Justice is delivered timely by competent, ethical, and independent representatives and neutrals who are of sufficient number, have adequate resources, and reflect the makeup of the communities they serve.

Factors of the rule of the law index:

1. Constraints on Governments Powers is the extent to which those who govern are bound by the (a) fundamental law, (b) limited by the legislature, judiciary and audit, (c) sanction for misconduct and (d) transition of power is subject to the law 
2. Absence of Corruption in government agencies i.e. legislature, executive, judiciary, military & police. Bribery, improper influence by public or private interests, and misappropriation of public funds or other resources.
3. Open Government is that (a) shares information, (b) empowers people to hold the government accountable, (c) fosters citizen participation in public policy deliberations. Publicizing of basic laws & legal rights, information properly published by the government, requests for information are properly granted, effective civic participation mechanisms and bringing specific complaints to the government 
4. Fundamental Rights protects human rights. It is a system of positive law and is at best “rule by law”. It encompasses adherence to (a) enforcement of laws that ensure equal protection (b) right to life and security of the person (c) due process of law and the rights of the accused (d), freedom of opinion and expression (e) freedom of belief and religion (f) the right to privacy (g) freedom of assembly and association (h) fundamental labor rights of collective bargaining, prohibition of forced & child labor and elimination of discrimination.
5. Order and Security is how well the society assures the security of persons and property. Security is one of the defining aspects of any rule of law of society that is a fundamental function of the state. It is also a precondition for the realization of the rights and freedoms that the rule of law seeks. This includes various threats i.e. crime, political violence, and violence to redress personal grievances.
6. Regulatory Enforcement is the extent to which regulations are fairly and effectively implemented and enforced. Strong rule of law requires that these regulations and administrative provisions are enforced effectively, are applied and enforced without improper influence by public officials or private interests, administrative proceedings are conducted timely, without delays, due process is respected in administrative proceedings, and that there is no expropriation of private property without adequate compensation. This does not assess what government chooses to regulate and to what extent but examines how regulations are implemented and enforced. To regulate such as public health, workplace safety, environmental protection and commercial activity.
7. Civil Justice measures whether ordinary people can resolve their grievances peacefully and effectively through the civil justice system. The civil justice system should be accessible and affordable, free of discrimination, free of corruption, and without improper influence by public officials.  This also necessitates that court proceedings are conducted in a timely manner and not subject to delays. Recognizing the value of Alternative Dispute Resolution mechanisms, this also measures the accessibility, impartiality, and efficiency of mediation and arbitration systems that enable parties to resolve civil disputes. 
8. Criminal Justice is a key aspect of the rule of law, constituting mechanism to redress grievances and bring action against individuals for offenses against society. Criminal justice systems are capable of investigating and adjudicating criminal offenses successfully and in a timely manner, through a system that is impartial and non-discriminatory, and is free of corruption and improper government influence, all while ensuring that the rights of both victims and the accused are effectively protected.  The delivery of effective criminal justice also necessitates correctional systems that effectively reduce criminal behavior. The delivery of criminal justice should take into consideration the entire system including the police, lawyers, prosecutors, judges, and prison officers. 

Informal Justice concerns the role played by customary and ‘informal’ systems of justice including traditional, tribal, and religious courts, and community-based systems in resolving disputes. These complex systems often play a large role in cultures in which formal legal institutions fail to provide effective remedies for large segments of the population, or when formal institutions are perceived as remote, corrupt, or ineffective. The dispute resolution systems are timely and effective, they are impartial and free of improper influence, and these systems respect and protect fundamental rights. 

Seven deadly sins are:

Wealth without work, Pleasure without conscience,
Science without humanity, Knowledge without character,
Politics without principle, Commerce without morality,
Worship without sacrifice. – Mahatma Gandhi

My View:

In every aspect of 'rule of law', our country India stands abysmal. With information, awareness, transparency and education it is improving rather slowly. The irony is that while people at low end are uneducated, unskilled, poor but are good; people at high end are educated, skilled, rich but are bad. It is a catch 22 situation; unless politics change - people won't change and unless people change - politics wont change. In past 70 years after independence there is significant improvement but far less compared many advanced countries.

Service Tax increased from 15% to 18% immediately after passage GST bills.

The cash starved Modi administration, has simply raised Service Tax from 15 to 18% w.e.f. July 1, 2017, the date GST comes into force indicating many more tax increases to follow. Inflation would become run away and poor & lower classes will be hard hit. No explanation or justification for this steep rise. All the time prior to passage of GST bills - Modi, Jaitley & Co maintained that consumer prices will come down and simultaneously govt revenues will go up due to GST pushing up consumerism, but now after these bills are passed Modi & Jaitley made somersaults by announcing service tax steep increase through the mouth Revenue Secretary. This indicates their mismanagement of nation's economy, least regard for laws of the land, misuse of discretionary powers vested with executive.

The following are remedial measures to curb executive power abuse:

• No expenditure shall be incurred nor tax shall be levied without prior legislative approval.
• The only exception could be while dealing with war like situations or natural calamity or disaster relief operations.
• Budgets must be realistic and deviations must be quantified, explained and justified.
• Any additional expenses or levies must be in public interest with justification & reasons fully explained and must be based on experts detailed studies and reports suggesting such expenses or levies are in the best interest of nation as a whole especially poorer & rural people.
• Additional levies during middle of the year just to fill revenue & expenses gaps must be prohibited. Higher tax compliance and reduction of wasteful & expenses should always be explored first.

Democracy in its true spirit is rule by people.

Autocracy is rule by a single person with absolute powers.

My View:

Modi attempting large scale fiscal reforms only to appease FIs will only disturb on going economic activity, create confusion & chaos and could lead to economic destruction as well. Modi's aggressive attempts devoid of merit & justification only indicates his lust for propaganda and playing wild gamble without understanding or mitigating risk of what he is doing and how it will impact common man is nothing but suicidal for the nation's economy. Sanity of mind must prevail to ensure ongoing economic activity is not disturbed or destroyed and confusion & chaos must be eliminated no matter what it takes or costs. The prime principle of democracy is that no innocent person should be troubled for what ever is being done in the name of reforms and for intangible & unquantifiable future benefits, must never be ignored. Needless to say that Modi's wild dream of turning 'under developed India' with 120 crore population into a 'developed nation' by 2020 is simply unachievable and hurry will only end up in confusion, chaos & destruction.