Judicial Appointments-Is the discourse itself misconstrued?

On 16th October 2015, Hon. SC exercising its power of judicial review struck down the 99th constitutional amendment. The 99th constitutional amendment sought to establish the National Judicial Appointment Commission(NJAC) for the purpose of appointing judges to the higher judiciary. The Hon. Supreme Court declared this constitutional amendment ultra vires.
Now let's examine the context in which this judgement was delivered. Appointment of judges to higher judiciary is governed by article 124 & article 217 of the Indian constitution. The language & the interpretation of the text is simple & lucid. Its natural interpretation implies that the judges would be appointed by the President of India in consultation with the Chief Justice of India. This procedure was followed quite effectively in the 1st two decades post-independence. But the autocratic & dictatorial mindset of the Indira Gandhi Govt in 1970s developed a sense of mistrust between the judiciary & the executive. I regard the mid 70s era as the darkest period of indian judiciary. In the emergency imposed by Mrs. Indira Gandhi, the Hon. SC literally surrendered itself to those in power at that time. But paradoxically, we owe our freedom & literally our democracy to 1973 Keshwanand Bharti Case. This case established the 'Basic Structure Doctrine' of the Indian Constitution & it effectively curtailed the absolute power of parliament to amend the constitution. That case established the supremacy of indian constitution. But a spate of dubious judicial appointments made in 1980s, awakened the conscience of indian judiciary. And in 1993 we had the 1st judges case, where the SC reinterpreted article 124 & article 217. It effectively made consultation process a binding one wherein the supremacy of Chief Justice was established over the executive in judicial appointments. And in 2nd judges case in 1998, Justice JS Verma developed the 'collegium system'. The role of the executive in judicial appointments was significantly reduced, almost nil.
The above mentioned is the brief history of how judicial appointments' procedure evolved in India. In its pristine form, article 124 & article 217 leave no iota of doubt that in the appointment of judges, supremacy of the judiciary is unquestionably the most important aspect. But how fair is the process of appointment when 5 people sitting inside closed doors decide as to who should be a judge or who shouldn't be a judge? What is the objective criteria while deciding who should be a judge? Who is accountable for non-meritorious appointments? And most importantly, can a sitting chief justice overrule the president of india? Is the power to appoint judges solely the prerogative of the judiciary?
While the NJAC sought to bring in more transparency & accountability in this entire process, it also brought along with it the dangers of the past. The fear of executive interference in judicial appointments was the main reason why NJAC was struck down by the Hon. SC. So have we reached a state where there is so much of mistrust between the two pillars of our democracy? Well, personally I feel SC struck down this provision out of fear of executive interference rather than strictly on judicial grounds.
The solution to this issue doesn't lie in introducing some other provision or legislation, but in restoring the credibility of the people at the helm both in the judiciary & the executive. Another wrong proposition in this entire debate is whether it's about the persons appointing the judges or about the criteria involved in appointing the judges. The entire debate is revolving around who will appoint the judges rather than on what basis they should be appointed. Again we must not forget the fact that finally any system is as good as the persons operating it. Some of the finest judges which indian judiciary has seen were appointed prior to 1993. Justice HR Khanna(the only dissenting judge in habeas corpus case) is an example of what fearless & independent judiciary is all about. This entire incident has exposed the open secret about immense mistrust between the two pillars of our democracy. In a healthy democracy, a sense of mutual respect is essential between these two pillars. And mutual respect doesn't imply concurrence on every issue, they must respectfully disagree with each other. Judiciary at loggerheads with executive is a sign of healthy democracy. But trust deficit between these two institutions exposes the systemic disorder in our democracy.
And as an ordinary citizen of india, I feel as long as these two institutions uphold & safeguard the rights of the individuals, everything else is secondary.
Finally, let's remember this is an emerging democracy so such agreements & disagreements are a part of it. Let's enjoy this entire evolutionary process of our indian democracy.

Prosperity to Procrastination-68 years of volatility

As we celebrate our 69th independence day tomorrow, it is imperative that we make a holistic assessment of our journey through these years. As an Indian, I refuse to accept the proposition that we were born as a nation 68 years ago. Indian civilization lives past any documented history of civilisations. As a civilization we're the oldest ones & along with greece we're rightly called as 'the cradle of civilization'. If we meticulously study the history of nations who were colonised & subsequently who attained independence, we will realise that we are the only ones who have distinctly maintained their cultural & ideological identity.
So the aforementioned facts provide us with the context in which I wish to discuss our post-independence era. Yes we were ruled by foreigners for nearly 800 years who looted the rich & wealthy indian society with all the might at their command. When we finally got independence in 1947, we were undernourished, impoverished & literally bankrupt economically. In the post-independence era, through the 60s & 70s we adopted the soviet model of governance. From purchasing a telephone to obtaining the ration practically everything was government regulated. Back then the political landscape was heavily dominated by leftist ideology. Being affluent in that era was considered a national crime. Socialism had brainwashed the minds of Indian politicians. Obsession with socialism was not without a cause. The alarming poverty levels & other social indicators had made it essential for the government to distribute freebies & subsidies. And doing these things also generated rich political harvest. So no wonder that 'Garibi Hatao' slogans dominated the 70s. Essentially Mrs. Indira Gandhi could sustain her political charm in the 70s with these catchy slogans without actually eliminating poverty. In those days, poverty had become a national obsession, the government almost fell in love with poverty that they never eliminated it. All the anti-poverty measures had a tremendous impact on the public exchequer & we were a high-tax regime. Inflation in double-digits had become a natural phenomenon. This reckless freebie culture ultimately had adverse fiscal effects which made India literally bankrupt in late 80s.
Essentially, we must thank our former PM P V Narasimha Rao who had the political will to take path-breaking policy reform in 1991. Notwithstanding the performance of Manmohan Singh, the Prime Minister we owe it to Manmohan Singh, the Finance Minister a deep gratitude for literally lifting India from deep financial criss in 1991. We moved from a controlled economy to a free market regime. The work done by the succeeding Prime Ministers Gowda, I K Gujral & AB Vajpayee was in the same direction. We didn't change our policy direction. In the UPA 1 era, the work done by Dr. Singh was also more or less in the same vein.
In the last 5-6 years a sense of despondency & frustration had gripped indian minds. We became aspirational as a society. And UPA 2 was still stuck in the 80s with its own political calculations & its own poverty obsessed mind. It failed to read the mind of Indian electorate. We have progressed in the last 60 years, it's an indisputable & undeniable fact.
But now we aren't satisfied as nation who is walking towards progess. We want to run, we want to shatter past all our mediocrity & reach beyond that last blue mountain. In the last 6 years we have seen enough of degradation in public life. From allegations of corruption to brazen misue of power, we have seen it all. The verdict pronounced by the Indian electorate in 2014, was essentially a development centric & aspiration based verdict. From caste combinations to religious polarisation we have moved on to development politics. Yes we had a lag phase which I call it as a sense of procrastination but we're now ready to take off & launch ourselves assertively in the global arena.
I have no doubts that we are here to make our mark. I have no doubt that from now development politics is the way forward. Only those who toil in their 5 year regime will get rewarded with a renewed mandate. And we must remember that a nation is not created by a government, a nation is created not by its intellectuals or academicians, neither is a nation really created by its corporates, a nation is created by that last man who stands in the queue. True development is not high GDP, low inflation or low interest rates, true development is when we don't spit on the roads, when we don't honk unnecessarily, when standing in queue comes naturally in us.
A nation is finally a manifestation of the inherent traits of its citizens. Insofar as India is concerned, it's a work in lightning progess. It's not a sloganeering anymore, it's a hardcore work in progess on-ground.
And guys finally we'll make it. No matter what anyone thinks.
Wishing all my countrymen a patriotic Independence Day.

Divine Justice-A Historic Illusion

While traversing through any unknown terrain or any unknown domain our biggest fear is 'the fear of unknown'. We think & speculate more about the situations or circumstances which have never occurred in the past. Basically, our fear is lot more speculative & imaginative in nature with no substantial evidence to back our fear. Now looking at the heading of this blog, one might wonder what has fear of unknown got to do with divine justice?
As humans we always feel a sense of insecurity about what some believe , is divine' and what others believe it 'to be evil'. We consider divinity as a force to reckon with in our crises hour. Now whether divinity actually helps or not is something subjective & personalised phenomenon. But it essentially provides a mental cushion & strength to tide over some stormy winds.
If we meticulously examine the history of mankind then we'll inevitably arrive at one conclusion that we're greedy, selfish & conquering by nature. If there aren't any proper checks & balances then a small breed of selfish man can potentially destroy the entire human species. We've seen the examples of fascist dictators. It documents the fact that how pathological hatred for jews killed more than 5 million of them.
I'm sure of the fact that atleast 90% of those who were killed believed in the concept of 'divine justice'. But did it provide them with any tangible relief?
Basically injustice is the norm. If divine justice did exist in reality then the sharp divide between the rich & the poor wouldn't have existed. In my view, inequality & injustice are complementary to each other. If subsidies are given to the poor so as to achieve equality then essentially it's also injustice to the rich people. The previous statement may seem to be harsh but if we examine the concept of inequality & injustice in absolute terms then we'll definitely arrive at this conclusion.
Concept of 'Divine Justice' is essentially a self-created phenomenon without any substantial material evidence to support it. But this concept thrives among the masses because as humans we need a sense of security. We want to believe that some divine figure does exists who looks upon us in our hour of crises.
With all certainty at my command I can say that this illusion has survived until now & it'll survive eternally. Because we're fragile as species & insecure as society.

Ek Saal Modi Sarkar

All these days news channels have literally gone crazy with their surveys, polls, debates, roundtable talks, etc. All of them are reacting to this event as if for the 1st time any government has completed one year in office. Hardly anyone cares what these news channels boomerang about, In my opinion these news channels make anything but sense. Their absurd debates are really a source of envy for cartoon channels.
So before anyone judges this government, it's important to look at the premises & the context in which this government came to power. This government came to power at a critical juncture where our nation was sans any leadership & suffering from acute policy paralysis. Bureaucrats were confused whether they need to report to 7, RCR or 10, Janpath. Nation required eagle's ears to listen to their prime minister & still they weren't sure if they could listen to him or not. An environment of doom & gloom had taken over India in the last 2 years of UPA-2. It is important that we look at this government's performance in contrast to the previous UPA dispensation.
Now let's assess the present day government realistically. Though one may legitimately say that Modi had raised the bar of expectations to an unrealistic levels. So it was bound to face some flank. But the flip side is that had he not done so, Modi would've never got such a resounding mandate. The biggest achievement of Modi Government is that it has brought governance & policy as a central agenda. The national discourse has shifted from political statements to policy analysis. People are now ready to vote in & vote out any government on the basis of its economic performance. That's the biggest political change that we've seen & it is heartening to note. The dole & freebie culture can't ensure you another term but an 8 % growth does ensure it. Looking at the macroeconomic parameters, economists are of the opinion that Indian economy is getting back on track. Now the assessment of an economist often doesn't match with that of an aam aadmi. An aam aadmi doesn't look at CPI or WPI to gauge inflation or price rise. His definition of price rise is the cost at which he purchases 1 kg onion. But the trickle down effect of economy is yet to be seen. So hopefully even an aam aadmi's economic assessment will match with that of a renowned economist. As far as other economic issues are concerned, be it taxation policy, investments, trade, etc. the real assessment can be done only when the steps taken by the government culminate into tangible results on the ground. So people complaining about 'zameen pe kuch nai hora'  are right in a sense that medicine takes time to act. And giving steroids is not the permanent solution to any disease.
One thing in which Modi's harshest critics will agree is that this man works tirelessly. There can be no doubts about the efforts put in by this government. We may disagree about the effects yielded but we all will agree that there hasn't been any compromise in the efforts put in by Modi & his cabinet. Finally the proof of this government working is the fact that we're scrutinising this government endlessly.
One big change which we're seeing is that social media has become the voice of the people. Main Stream Media has by & large lost its credibility. Their integrity is highly questionable & their clout in Lutyens' Delhi has been demolished. Mr. Modi broke all the power circles & made governance a transparent process. So MSM not being happy is something quite understandable as they were the main middle-men or power brokers in Delhi.
Finally let's remember that Mr. Modi had asked for 60 months & not 12 months. So let's have the trust in him. His record in gujarat definitely points to some 'Ache Din' ahead. And my personal sense about Mr. Modi is that he's much smarter than what everyone thinks.
It's 5 saal Modi Sarkar so have patience.

Selective Freedom of Speech - Hypocrisy of Liberals

These days topics like 'Freedom of Speech & Right to expression' have gripped the national discourse. In the background of Honourable Supreme Court of India striking down section 66A of the IT Act, I would like to raise a few points. That the section was archaic & it curbed the freedom of speech, this point is beyond any doubt or neither is it a point of debate.
But the point is why are we so selective in our understanding of the concept of Freedom of Speech?
Separatists are allowed to make anti-india statements in the name of Freedom of Speech. When adultery is promoted by heroines saying 'Mah Life Mah Rules' then everyone supports it in the name of Freedom of Speech.
But when some fringe elements make obnoxious statements like 'Hindus should have 5 children' OR when someone says 'India is a Hindu Nation' then why do people go berserk in criticising it & demand judicial action?
I do not agree with such statements but then even they've the Freedom of Expression. Yes India is a secular country, but that doesn't mean only liberal left wing intellectuals have the right to expression. The laws are equal & both the sides have equal right to speech & expression. They must realise that freedom of speech & Right to expression are fundamental rights given to every indian citizen by the constitution. It's not the sole proprietary of these so called liberals. They're trying to build up a narrative as if they've sole proprietary over these rights.
We may not agree with someone but we can & we must always agree to disagree. Let's not have a nation where few TV panelists dictate the national discourse in the name of 'Freedom of Speech'. The hypocrisy of left wing liberals needs to be exposed. People must not be swayed away by the so called TV debates.
Indian polity & policies have always been dominated by the leftist thoughts. One of the biggest impediment to our development was the Nehruvian socialism. Be it the Communist party or the Congress they've always been out of sync with the aspirations of the nation. Wearing the mask of socialism, they've divided Indians economically & socially. Be it reservations or subsidies, it's nothing but any attempt to divide the society & engineer electoral victories.
Freedom of Speech is just a small hypocritical facet of these liberals but their hypocrisy transcends every aspect of their thoughts & actions.
People do think over it!!

Parliamentary Obstructionism

Deliberations & discussions lie at the core of parliamentary conduct & proceedings. Engaging the opposition & giving reasonable consideration to the counter view, these are the basic tenants of any democracy. The parliament represents the will of the people of the country. Parliament is the forum where topics relating to governance & policy are discussed in depth. It's the role of the opposition to hold the government accountable. It's a forum where legislative business is carried out & laws are framed.
In a democracy, it's the sovereign right of the opposition to question the government of the day. The beauty of democracy is in its opposition within the constitutional framework. In Indian context, the opposition often tends to deviate from the constitutional role assigned to it. Here in india we see that it's not opposition but it's obstruction. Political considerations often undermine national considerations in the Indian context. The insurance bill introduced by the UPA was opposed by the BJP. Now the same bill is opposed by the Congress when BJP has introduced it. The same case goes with the Land Acquisition Act. In the 13th, 14th & 15th Lok Sabha, opposition to any legislative business has purely been on political grounds. Literally the sessions of parliament have been washed off. Thanks to few rowdies who create pandemonium in the well of the house. Creation of Telangana, which was a major political issue, finally was formed after a bitter display of political fighting where pepper was sprayed in the house. Land Acquisition Act of 2013 is considered to be a major hurdle by the defence & corporates. But the opposition to it is being done on political grounds & not after meticulous examination of the bill. Insofar as this bill is concerned, a lot can be said for & against but finally it's the experience of 2013 bill which has raised questions about the suitability of this bill. The amendments sought in this bill may not necessarily make it a class act but it surely promises to undo the damage inflicted to investment by the current bill.
The fundamental point here is that opposition in india is often driven by political considerations than national considerations. More or less both the national parties are equally a party to this tradition. But here too, we've seen exceptions where the opposition & the government have worked hand & hand for the larger national interest. The passage of the Lokpal Bill (though under the pressure from civil society) is a laudable example of it. Vajpayee representing India at the UN as the Leader of Opposition is also a high point in our indian parliamentary democracy. But these are just a few stray examples & not the tradition.
It would sincerely be in our national interest that bills are opposed or supported by judging its merits rather than the petty political dividends which the parties may get. It's essential that the decorum & protocols are maintained. Indian parliament represents the conscience of the people of india. The disconnect between the people & the parliament has raised a question in my mind. Is Indian mentality reflected in parliament OR is the parliament a representative of the Indian mentality?
Think over it!

Delhi Elections - Vibrant Democracy

The spectacular & landslide victory of Arvind Kejriwal has many messages which are to be read between the lines. Keeping aside the sarcastic & confrontational election campaign, the elections were the 1st real challenge to the Modi-Shah duo. The Modi juggernaut which seemed invincible & unstoppable had to bite the dust. Haryana, Maharashtra, Jharkhand & JK were won handsomely mainly on two factors, Anti-Incumbency & Modi mania. In all of these elections, BJP simply banked on Modi's face. The local leadership was irrelevant. BJP could raise it's voteshare by 10-15% & could win the elections with comfortable majority.
Well the analysis given above doesn't excite the common man, it's of more interest to the TV Channel Political analysts. But the main clinching point here is that Modi-Shah duo got the message that public opinion cannot be taken for granted. The trust which the public has on the government is governed by the principles of mutuality. The trust has to be reciprocal. 10 months back BJP had lead in 60/70 Assembly segments. So something must've definitely changed that the results have just become opposite. Political analysis will go on but the point here is that Modi Government got a message that public trust is always subject to governments' actions & not its speeches. In a democracy, we've no option but to respect public mandate but my personal opinion is that I think people are unnecessarily getting impatient & restless. In my opinion, victory of AAP signifies win of populism over governance. AAPs freebie culture is in stark contrast to the principles of sustainable governance.
AAPs win has exposed the fragility of our democracy. With the same vote share as that in 2013 assembly elections, BJP got decimated & reduced to 3 seats. This fragility was also exhibited in LS Elections where BJP swept UP with 73 / 80 seats by having just 40% voteshare. This means in layman's term that with same number of people trusting you, your electoral presence in parliament can vary drastically.
So to conclude, the biggest takeaway of this election was that our democracy is very much vibrant. But it is too fragile because of its voteshare-to-seat conversion volatility. Let's just hope that these anomalies will be corrected in the future. And we get rid of this freebie culture. The ultimate aim of democracy is sustainable governance & rule of the people. I'm sure we'll achieve it.

Purpose of Life - An Unending Quest.

"Even stones, trees, rocks, etc. come into existence & wither away. What's the difference between you & them? If you're born as humans then leave some mark behind." - Swami Vivekananda

These sharp, stinging & penetrating words have had a profound effect on my mind. If we examine this quote, undoubtedly we will arrive at a conclusion that in spite of all advancements & technological progress we haven't been able to find the purpose of our life. According to Evolutionary biologists & Anthropologists, the only purpose of life is to proliferate your species & ensure their continuity. According to different religions, purpose of life is to attain divinity & to attain salvation of our soul. Different sections of human society will answer this question in different ways.

The answer to this question is a complex product of our socio-economic & political background. For someone born in a troubled tribal society or in a nation facing armed rebellion, the purpose of life cannot be the same as that of a person born in lutyens' delhi or las vegas. If we aren't driven by something then even a blow of wind can drive us somewhere. The whole purpose of life isn't about reaching somewhere or getting something. In my opinion, the only purpose of life is to be in control of your life. It's about tightening the grip of your life. The targets which we set for ourselves are nothing but an instrument to drive inspiration for ourselves, perennially.

While answering the question about the purpose of our life we think of it as an objective issue. If having someone in our life gives you a sense of fulfillment then it's not because of that person but it is due to our perseverance & your efforts to be with him/her that you have that fulfillment. If possessing few academic laurels gives you a purpose then it's your efforts in achieving it that gives you a purpose.

By painting life with different colors & giving it a anthropological or a religious color we will be doing gross injustice to it. We would be belittling life if we think of it or look at it through the narrow prism of achieving this or that.

The whole purpose of life is about being in control of it rather than being controlled by it. If we're able to work the levers of ourselves then rest all things are secondary. But for that 'If' we all would've had a clear cut purpose of our life. Maybe some day we all will be able to get away with that big fat 'IF'.

Reflections- A look back at 65 years of republic india...

As we enter into the 66th year of indian republic, I share my thoughts about the same. The debate about what could've been achieved is futile & insult to what we've achieved till today. By refereeing to achievements, we must see them as realisation of the principles laid down in our indian constitution. The driving point here is whether we've manifested the goals & targets set by the constituent assembly while framing our constitution. Now I don't wish to go into knitty gritty of the directive principles of state policy. But my blunt & straight question is whether we are any better off, as Indians, as what we were 65 years back?
Purely from statistical point of view, our economy & social indicators have definitely shown positive signs & they're no doubt commendable & laudable. But the fundamental point is has the last man reaped benefits of our efforts & initiatives? In my opinion, indian growth story resembles a chemical reaction without a catalyst. We are on the cusp of a major revolution but we're yet to touch that pinnacle. Indian economy has continously demonstrated its potential barring last 4 years. The fact that we weren't affected much by the global slowdown of 2008 displays our strong financial infrastructure. India's innate ability to be a global power centre has never been questioned even by our harshest critics. But we're definitely being questioned about our ability to rise on to an occasion & encash our potential.
Evaluating our electoral & constitutional obligations I can proudly conclude that election after election we've matured as a democracy. Now no longer can leaders garner votes in the name of identity politics. Caste lines have begun to fade. The public discourse has shifted from narrow communal discussions to more governance centric discussion. Definitely these are signs of a maturing democracy. LS Elections of 2014 represent the earnest desire of Indians to grow & unleash our potential. After 30 years indian electorate has given a strong & decisive mandate.
But I still feel that we're yet to arive at the correct interpretation of article 19(freedom), 21(life & liberty) & 25(religion & conscience). We still haven't effectively lived the spirit of our constitution. Directive Principles of State Policy are yet to be fully implemented.
The above mentioned things are more technical in nature.
As an evolving democracy, we can't afford to have a deaf ear towards the youth of our nation. They represent the palpable beat of our nation. As young citizens we ought to develop the Indian spirit in us. We ought to develop that indianess in us. Nothing is above the well being of our nation. Sovereignty & Integrity of our nation is paramount to us. We need to live & realise that indian spirit in us.
I wish & I urge all my young friends that lets realise our potential. Whatever we're today we owe it to our nation, if not fully than partly. The affirmation in our preamble that 'INDIA IS A SOVEREIGN, SOCIALIST, SECULAR, DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC' must be realised in our spirit. Its mere presence in our books makes no sense. Lets redeem our pledge for a better india.
India is not a piece of land but it's an affirmation of spirit. We are that spirit. We represent that faith. India is an article of faith. Its a conscience which we abide by.
I hope that we'll live by that spirit & help India prosper economically, socially, politically & spiritually.
Wishing all my countrymen a very happy republic day. Ek Bharat! Shresth Bharat!

Changing Political Discourse of India

2014 witnessed a tectonic shift in the political history of india. Advent of Mr. Modi & his landslide mandate has invigorated new hopes & has made the environment euphoric. Political & Economic pundits have extensively commented on the agenda put forth by the new government. Those who understand the knitty gritty of economics have also started questioning Mr. Modi's ability to deliver. Political journalists are by & large awestruck with Mr. Modi's charisma & his vote catching potential. We'll not find a single day without some or the other news pertaining to Mr. Modi. Even for Electronic media, he turns out to be the TRP boosting machine. When there's no news suddenly we find a documentary on Mr. Modi.Economists, across the right & left political spectrum have been polarised about Mr. Modi's economic policies.
The most important change which has happened since Mr. Modi's advent is the change in the political discourse of India. This has largely remained unnoticed by main stream media. Discussion has shifted from narrow political statements to debates on policy issues. Never before has the post of RBI Governor been so keenly followed. Never before has the public discussion been so focused on hardcore economic & policy matters. The discussion has shifted from identity & so called secular vs communal debate to development & economics. Every word spoken by Finance Minister is closely scrutinised which reflects the changing political discourse of India. Never before has discussion on Fiscal deficit & fiscal consolidation dominated the prime time debates. Earlier it all used to be TV studio theatrics about he said & she said.
Now whether Mr. Modi actually delivers or not is a big question in everyones mind. I don't know if he'll really bring 'Ache Din' but at least he has definitely brought 'Ache Batein' in the political discourse of India.