Friday 25 December 2015

The Government cannot gag Kirti Azad because it is embarrassed by what he confided to the nation


Aristotle proclaimed proudly that man is a political animal. Were he witness today, as we in India, to the behaviour of one of the most powerful political animals of our country, he would undoubtedly have done further analysis regarding different categories of political animals, and the most bestial in the herd.

People of this country must realize that we are not merely a democracy, but a democratic republic. The difference between the two is profound and crucial, which many informed citizens, or even the intelligentsia may not be aware of.

In a democracy, a majority of the elected representatives are the custodians of human freedom and all political power. In a republic, it is the ‘people’ who are sovereign. They are free to speak up, and even if they are wrong, they can be corrected by wiser citizens, and the will of the majority will prevail. Even a Parliament, almost wholly controlled by one political party, cannot suppress free speech. Yes, free speech can be subjected to some restrictions, but they have to be extremely reasonable.

Unreasonable restrictions can be struck down as unconstitutional, and become unenforceable and void. It is a primary constitutional requirement that restriction on free speech should be for promotion of carefully formulated objectives, expressly sanctioned by the constitution. In addition, they must be reasonable, and are liable to be struck down, if the courts find them excessive in their reach.

No political party can suppress free speech of its members merely on the ground that it is ‘embarrassed’ by what is openly spoken and declared. Yes, it has a right to protest against a corrupt minister, or even a minister reasonably suspected of being corrupt, or a minister having corrupt antecedents. Democracy must not tolerate powerful ministers who are reasonably suspected to bear a questionable character. Only those persons about whose moral character and integrity the people are completely certain, must be put in responsible positions of power

Our Finance Minister proved long ago that he did not bear this impeccable moral stature. What Kirti Azad is stating vocally today is what he has been repeating during the last 10 years. No denial, much less a reasoned refutation, has been attempted by the gentleman, who now belatedly protests his innocence.

The recent statement of the Prime Minister is certainly not a certificate of good character for the Finance Minister; it is only a hope that he will survive as LK Advani once did. Many saw a sting in the tail in Modi’s ambiguous statement involving LK Advani. But, Modi was not prepared to assert that everything alleged by Azad is false, or even just wrong. The hint to the Minister is to resign as Advani did want to when I initially refused to appear for him.

I may not be in Modi’s ‘who is who’ list, but that does not mean I do not know what is what. I have seen Arun Jaitley’s whole career based on backbiting, secret scheming and dirty conspiratorial fabrications, against those whom he sees as obstacles to his political ambitions. Friends without mind, who do not mind following his diktat are available aplenty.

Well, all political animals play the same game of political cards, and of course, the most coveted card is the joker. And that is what the Finance Minister is looking more and more like, as each day passes. When the time comes for his future journey, he will have a terrific advantage. He will only have to go downhill. This wont take much time - fortunate for him in a way.

The earlier definition of an honest politician was one who when bought remained bought. Unfortunately, some today do not even have this basic qualification. They can be bought often. And the world is not round anymore. It has turned immensely crooked.

I have over the last decade closely watched and written extensively about India’s fraudulent ratification of the UN Convention against Corruption in 2011, a good 7 years after we signed it; our complete indifference and lack of political will to obtain the list of Indian black money holders from Germany, even after Germany offered to provide the information. That was the Sonia - Manmohan-Chidambaram Government.

Even after the Supreme Court ordered that the correspondence with Germany on this matter be released to me, all I got after a delay of 3 years, were unrelated 17 letters dealing with DTAT, with names and addresses of correspondents blacked out by indelible black ink. This was the Modi- Jaitley Government

Clearly, the present Finance Minister is in conspiracy with the previous one. He has made no effort to approach the German Government, as was confirmed to me when I visited Germany last year.

The blacked out letters, after some scrutiny, indicate that two officials are involved in this corrupt operation. Anita Kapoor, former Chairman CBDT, is said to have landed a cushy job in the same Finance Ministry after retirement; KV Chowdhery, also former Chairman, CBDT, after a criticial visit to Paris, was appointed CVC by a fraud on the Constitution and the Court. This will soon be reported to it. The continuity in the Finance Ministry after Chidambaram remains, thanks to Jaitley. I do not have to prove this obvious fraud.

The whole nation has heard Amit Shah, and his famous ‘election jumla’ statement regarding repatriation of black money. Modi has not repudiated it. I had to buy space in the Indian Express in April 2015 to inform the people of these criminal conspiracies.

How this crooked political mafia could swing the suspension of Kirti Azad, who is speaking the truth, is yet another shocker. They appear to have forgotten their humiliating defeat in Bihar all too soon.

But the question on everyone’s mind is – did Kirti Azad’s suspension have approval from the man above? I hope his words will be free from any ambiguity.

Thursday 10 December 2015

Pakistan and Us


The Modi Government has never shown any consistency in dealing with Pakistan about the Kashmir problem which Pakistan obstinately claims as the unfinished agenda of India’s partition. Our leaders, the old discarded ones and the ones installed in office last year are equally incompetent in handling it. They neither understand the strength of India’s case nor are they able to silence Pakistan’s persistent propaganda painting India as an unlawful occupant of the state which Pakistan owns. This piece is intended to put an end to Pakistan’s false and wholly unbelievable claim for all time and to educate those whose job it is to expose. Pakistan’s mendacity and the hollowness of its propaganda. 


We must go back to the late forties to understand the Muslim League behaviour when the nation was facing the prospect of Partition of the country. One of the subjects discussed was the fate of ‘Paramountcy’ enjoyed by the British Crown in all the princely states of India numbering hundreds. The Muslim League had its eyes on Hyderabad ruled by the Nizam who enjoyed full nominal sovereignty but controlled by the Paramountcy of the British Crown. Hyderabad was a Hindu majority state but ruled by a Muslim King or Prince and supported by his small army and of course the Razakars. The Indian National Congress committed to democracy of the British model wanted Paramountcy to vest in the people of the State. The Muslim League rejected this and won. Paramountcy was to devolve on the ruling prince or King. Pakistan’s plan was to secure Kashimr by force and Hyderabad by the Nizams Paramountcy. A fully armed section of the Pak army disguised as tribal’s invaded the state and almost – reached the outskirts of Srinagar the capital. In this emergency the ruling King acceded to the Union of India. Both under the Constitution as well as International Law the whole of Jammu and Kashmir became fully a legitimate part of sovereign India. The Indian forces succeeded in driving back the attacking tribals and they would have been thrown out of every inch of the state territory but the foolish Nehru accepted an armistice and a part of the state territory remained out of Indian control only de facto but not de jure. Make no mistake: by law domestic and international the title of India to the entire territory of the state of J&K (including what we call Pakistan Occupied Kashmir, POK) is unchallengeable in law.


​Yes the United Nations did call for a plebiscite in the state but on condition that every tribal who participated in the illegitimate invasion of the state or who had just entered the state from outside was to quit, a condition never complied with by Pakistan. 

Today it is Pakistan who under the Law of Nations is in unlawful occupant of a part of J&K and is under a legal duty to quit. Due to the long lapse of time the United Nations will not enforce a plebiscite the condition precedent to which was that the plebiscite will be a peaceful democratic operation under the de Jure and de facto rule of India with the Indian Flag being the only flag flying. India today is under no obligation to hold the plebiscite and Pakistan is legally bound to vacate the POK, every square inch of it. If Pakistan is agreeable India should be prepared to have the legal contention decided by the International Court of Justice once for all. India will doubtless win.


​Now we turn to some matter of even greater relevance and conclusive effect. In 1965 Pakistan again resorted to an illegalwar to conquer the Indian part of the state by armed force. Pakistan miserably failed in this war of pure aggression and it has justly earned the contempt of civilized nations of the world. It ended by the Tashkent Declaration under the influence of the friendly Russians and the benign Saintly Prime Minister of India the late Lal Bahadur Shastri. Pakistan must be eternally grateful to the great and forgiving Indian. Its essence is in two promises:

(i) Neither Party shall change the present status quo by force or violence or war;

(ii) Neither will carry on any propaganda for changing it.


​Pakistan should be grateful for Indian magnanimity. Virtually India has made a moral promise not to claim any part of POK. But this assumes that Pakistan will never make any claim even to one inch of Indian Kashmir. If Pakistan repudiates by word or deed any part of the Tashkent Declaration, Indian claim to POK will remain fully alive and enforceable before any International Tribunal. 


​The full text of this document dated January 10, 1966 is appended hereto.( http://mea.gov.in/bilateral-documents.htm?dtl/5993/Tashkent+Declaration )


​Now we got to another important event in the history of Jammu and Kashmir. The Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir was not framed by the Constituent Assembly which framed and promulgated the Constitution of India. The state of J&K acceded to the Union of India by an Instrument of Accession, Clause 8 of which provides: 


​“Nothing in this Instrument effects the continuance of my sovereignty in and over the State, or save as provided by or under this Instrument, the exercise of any power, authority and right now enjoyed by me as Ruler of this State or the validity of any law at present in force in this State.” 


Article 2 of the Constitution of India reads as under:


“Parliament may by law admit into the Union, or establish new States on such terms and conditions as it thinks fit.” 


​Article 370 of the Constitution of India was a temporary provision but became a permanent feature by reason of the Constitution of J&K framed by its own Constituent Assembly and not by the Indian Parliament.


​The J&K Constituent Assembly worked from November 1951 to November 1956 and the Constitution came into force on 28.11.1957. It expressly adopted some provisions of the Constitution of India which by Article 147 are not amendable.


​In my opinion the Government of India has no power to change or amend the Constitution of the State. India cannot by any power lawfully vested in it can alter the boundaries or the Constitution of the State. India is in no position to accede to any Pakistan demands. India is not in unlawful occupation of any part of the state; even the POK is in law territory India can claim it for itself .


The Preamble of the free Constitution of Jammu & Kashmir states:


‘We, the people of the State of Jammu & Kashmir, having solemnly resolved, in pursuance of the accession of this State to India which took place on the twenty-sixth day of October, 1947, to further define the existing relationship of the State with the Union of India as an integral part thereof, and to secure ourselves:- 

Justice, social, economic and political;

Liberty, of thought, expression, belief, faith and worship;

Equality of status and of opportunity, and to promote among us all; 

Fraternity assuring the dignity of the individual and the unity of the nation;

In our Constituent Assembly this seventeenth day of November, 1956 we do hereby adopt, enact and give to ourselves this constitution.’


​The State of J&K is primarily governed by its own Constitution, unlike any other State in India, and Kashmir has voluntarily become part of a free, progressive, secular republic. That is azaadi, the highest political freedom a citizen can hope for. People who are blessed with genuine democracy, with constitutionally protected rights and duties of individuals, and an independent judiciary to enforce them, have attained true azaadi. Any violent action to secure more of it, or of a different kind or content, is a crime of terrorism and treason or both. 

​In 1971 Pakistan lost a very important part of what was collectively the whole of Pakistan. There could not be a stronger bond than simultaneous birth of both the western and eastern parts of Pakistan a unified state based on the bond of religious affinity. This entity broke up in hatred, violence and war. Bangladesh is now an independent friendly neighbour of India and our relations are Cordial in the real sense. Is it not such a different entity now with the eastern part wholly gone from Pakistan. The glue of the religious bond has not protected Pakistan’s territorial unity and constitutional oneness. By what rational argument is Pakistan now having some claim to J&K?

​The State of Kashmir is not only the valley but Jammu and Ladhak too. The religious equation is entirely different in their vast areas. What then is the moral and political strength of Pakistan’s demand for more Muslim Majority territory when Islamabad could not hold on to Dacca. The history beliefs and religious practices of Sunni Pakistan have no resemblance to the Islam of the Kashmir valley. Even Sindhi Muslims have a strong movement for secession from Pakistan; many of them according to the will and testament of their deceased leader the late G.M Syed are keen to join secular India. Pakistan cannot just ignore the annual meetings that take place in Europe and U.S.A wanting secession from Pakistan. 


​Lastly, the moderate element in J&K has taken a rational and practical decision. It is no use some Pakistan leaders constantly describing their Kashmir struggle as the unfinished business of partition. This just makes no sense. It must be recognised that even in 1947 the Muslim majority states were not as a whole allowed to secede from India and join Pakistan. The provinces of Punjab, Bengal and Assam had to be sub-divided. It is more than clear that the inhabitants of Ladhak, a region which is almost two-thirds the area of the whole state, the inhabitants of Jammu and the inhabitants of Baltistan want passionately to remain united with India. They are completely opposed to joining Pakistan and have no desire for independence. The real dispute ultimately boils down to the Kashmir Valley, an area approximately 84 miles in length and much less miles in width, as against Ladakh, which alone is about 33,500 square miles. Although it sounds like a petty dispute on the face of it, the overtones and emotions are so strong that the Kashmir valley has been the cause of three wars between Pakistan and India during the last 50 years; strains of violence that explode every now and then, recurring cross border terrorism, and incalculable human and economic loss. 


​My work in the Kashimr Committee of which I am a founder member entered into a dialogue with important Hurriyat leaders. After prolonged meetings and discussions we reached an agreement with five salient features which need to be repeated. These have been published in my writings and books many years ago. These features are five:


1) Terrorism and violence are taboo.

2) A lasting and honourable peaceful resolution must and can be found. 

3) The resolution must be acceptable to all political elements and regions of the state.

4) Extremist positions held by all for the previous five decades have to be and will be abandoned.

5) Kashmiri Pandits will be rehabilitated with honour and rights of equality.


​A careful understanding of the five points of the agreement show that abrogation of Article 370 of the Constitution of India on the one hand and secession on the other were consciously and finally abandoned. The polestar of the peace process would thereafter be the legitimate interests and rational expectations of all elements and regions in the composite state.

​This agreement brought joy to every Indian and to most Kashmiris. The moderate section of the Hurriyat had repudiated the extremists and, at the same time, carried on talking to the Kashmir Committee with the full concurrence of the Pakistan authorities. It is tragic that the usual wooden-headedness of the Government of India blocked a formal solution. At the International Kashmir Peace Conference held in Washington, my friend Ashraf Jehangir Kazi, the distinguished ambassador of Pakistan to the United States argued that the Kashmir Committee had initiated a process of acceptable change. If anyone refuses to accept this, it would only show that he is an enemy of peace, regardless of his pretended postures and rhetorical assertions. Since then, the state of Jammu and Kashmir has held elections, which , unlike the earlier ones, were acclaimed by the entire International community as free and fair following which a democratically elected government has functioned in the state, doubtless causing frustration to the sympathisers of Pakistan, overt and covert. An all party parliamentary delegation toured the state and revived the dialogue in 2010. 


The problem has now been solved more than four times. Pakistan has no claim to any part of the state. It will even lose POK in a legal battle in an international forum. Let us all forget any serious changes in the state and whatever is good for the inhabitants of the state in both parts of it must be done in peaceful consultation and cooperation.

Monday 7 December 2015

A Requiem for the Karnataka Lokayukta

A governance crisis has been unfolding in Congress-ruled Karnataka since July this year, which is steadily leading towards the murder of the institution of Lokayukta by the present incumbent, and his political masters. The original Karnataka Lokayukta Act of January 1986, gave suo motu powers to the Lokayukta to investigate any action taken by the Chief Minister, Minister, Member of Legislature, or any public servant. However, by June 1986, the Lokayukta Act was amended, and suo motu powers were withdrawn. The Lokayukta could only investigate cases referred to it by the State Government. This was the first state initiative to curtail the Lokayukta.

Deterioration in the Lokayukta continued over the years, partly due to the character of the persons who came to occupy the Ombudsman, and mainly due to political determination to emasculate the institution. As the institution evolved, it was becoming the norm for certain incumbents to repeatedly indulge in publicity stunts, storming public offices or institutions, accompanied by TV channel crews, rebuking and shaming public servants, and then returning to their offices, doing no follow up.

The political class did not resent the Lokayukta hogging prime time media limelight. They were happy that he was keeping himself busy with publicity at the cost of concentrating on anti-corruption work. Besides, the politicians by now had mastered the art of protecting the corrupt by ensuring that timely sanction for prosecution was never given, and by ‘punishing’ the corrupt public servant by something called a ‘transfer’, which in actual fact was redeployment of his talent and potential to a more lucrative assignment. The Lokayukta in Karnataka has now turned into a full blown scandal. News had been filtering into the media since July, 2015, that the son of the present Lokayukta, one Ashwin Rao, was running an extortion racket in the very residential and official premises of the Lokayukta, summoning government officials being investigated for corruption and demanding protection money from them.

After detailed information compromising his son started making sensational headlines, the Lokayukta, as an honourable gentleman, should have tendered his resignation. However, he stuck to his chair. The politicians were delighted. Now, they had a real partner to work with, and the pastures for corruption quid pro quos had turned much greener and wider. But the heat kept increasing as sordid details of Ashwin’s extortion started with names and places appearing daily in the local press. Ashwin was arrested on July 27 near Hyderabad. His father, the Lokayukta, fled from Bangalore to another destination without handing over charge, granting month after month of ‘leave’ to himself.

With the institution of the Lokayukta completely disgraced, the Government realised it was an ideal time to strike. They decided to give an Independence Day gift to the people of Karnataka, bringing into effect on August 14, 2015, the Karnataka Lokayukta (Amendment) Act, 2015 – that in view of recent developments, “It is considered necessary to make the following amendments to the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984,” inter alia, “to revise the procedure for removal of the Lokayukta or Upalokayukta;” and “to preclude the Lokayukta or Upalokayukta from discharging his duties during the pendency of the motion for his removal before the House or the Houses of the State Legislature;”

Section 6 of the original Lokayukta Act of 1985, had stipulated that the Lokayukta/Upalokayukta could only be removed by the Governor on the ground of proved misbehaviour or incapacity, “after an address by each House of the State Legislature supported by a majority of the total membership of the House and by a majority of not less than two thirds of the members of that House present and voting”, after following the procedures prescribed in the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968.

This Section was replaced by a new Section 6 which states in sub-section (2) that a notice of motion for removal of Lokayukta or an Upalokayukta may be given in writing to the Speaker of the Karnataka State Legislative Assembly or the Chairman of the Karnataka State Legislative Council, duly signed by not less than one-third of the total membership of that House. Sub-section (14) of Section 6 contains the lethal killer dose — “The Lokayukta or Upalokayukta, as the case may be, against whom a motion is moved before the House or the Houses of the State Legislature for his removal, is precluded from discharge of his duties during the pendency of motion for his removal before the House or the Houses of the State Legislature.”

The implications are clear. Just one-third membership of either House was required for removal of Lokayukta/Upalokayukta, something any ruling government can muster. Thereafter, the Ombudsman is completely precluded from discharging its functions until the entire process of referral to the Chief Justice and enquiry is over. This is a perfect Damocles sword in the hands of the Chief Minister whenever he apprehends any action by the Lokayukta on any serious charge of corruption against his government. 

After details of the Lokayukta scandal stared surfacing in July this year, the opposition parties, (not the government) after much struggle, were able to give a notice to the Speaker for the Lokayukta’s removal on November 19. On November 27, the government struck back by giving a notice for removal of the Upalokayukta, an appointee of the previous government, making rather vague and unsubstantiated allegation against him, not yet released to the public or even given to the sitting MLAs. So, the Congress-ruled Karnataka today has a Lokayukta, who is a deserter on ‘leave’ since July 2015, and non-functional in view of the motion of removal having been admitted against him by the Speaker, and an Upalokayukta who has also been rendered non-functional by way of the notice for his removal given to the Speaker by Congress legislators on November 27.

The Lokayukta in Karnataka has been killed by the Government. Thousands of complaints against corrupt officials are lying unattended. But, there is great relief and good cheer among politicians and public servants in Karnataka, and the corrupt are celebrating. Strangely, there has been no outcry in mainstream media or from national activists, who had once thronged Jantar Mantar, crusading for a strong Lokpal. Indeed, one of them has done his usual U-turn and is tabling a Bill for a Government-controlled Lokpal in Delhi.

Wednesday 2 December 2015

DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR; A SHORT TRIBUTE FROM A HUMBLE ADMIRER; RAJYA SABHA ON FIRST DAY OF DECEMBER, 2015


1. Hon’ble Deputy Chairman: Today is a great day in the history of our Parliament that we are meeting to recall the precious legacy of the illustrious Dr. Ambedkar - a priceless one ‘the Constitution of India’ for its eternal values and doctrines as also the great diction of its text which together qualify it for being called the sacred scripture of our constitutional text. I am not here to debate any part of it nor cross swords with anyone in this august House. I recognise the intellectual superiority if not at least the equality of every one present here. In the brief minutes allotted to me I wish to explain my own assessment and ideas about the great man and his great legacy to the Indian nation. I am proud of the man and his genius and the treasure he has left to us. These few minutes are terribly precious to me for this is a rare life opportunity to record my adoration of the great man in this august House of ours.

2. Sir, I believe that Dr. Ambedkar was one of the greatest constitutional experts that India has ever produced and a tribute to his linguistic facility and control is well-deserved by the fact that he was made the Chairman of the Drafting Committee of the Constitution. Sir, because he had that control over the language which the entire Constituent Assembly could not claim for itself in spite of the fact that there was a large number of highly erudite bureaucrats who were assisting the Constituent Assembly in drafting the Constitution. Sir, the Constitution that he drafted was the product of the great education that, unlike many leaders in this country, he had received at the University of Columbia for three years after which he came to India and launched into a teaching career. But the same University of Columbia after his work was over in our Constituent Assembly, invited him to come to Columbia all over again only to receive the honorary degree of Doctor of Laws from that very University. He gracefully accepted the degree conferred upon him. The greatest cause of that recognition and honour done to Dr. Ambedkar was the work which he had done on the drafting and promulgation of the Constitution of the Country; make no mistake. Years later Ambedkar wrote, “The best friends I have had in my life were some of my classmates at Columbia and my great professors, Jhon Dewey, James Shotwell, Edwin Seligman and James Harvey Robinson”.

3. Sir, within the little time that I have, I wish to talk about three main highly impressive features of our holy book of the Indian Constitution. The first and foremost in importance is, Secularism. Make no mistake it is not negation of religion. Secularism is ultimately the triumph of education over illiteracy, it is triumph of knowledge over ignorance; of reason over blind faith and the triumph of science over religion. It is so difficult to write all this in the text of the Constitution. That is why during the hated emergency also somebody thought that this word must be put in the Preamble of the Constitution. The Preamble of the Constitution containing a word does not change the internal contents of the text of the document at all; it is only an aid to construction. But secularism had already been declared in the Constitution of India. It was only made clear that secularism is a very, very important part of the Constitution of India, though not mentioned by name. Most of our personal laws are based on religion, but when he introduced article 44 which ordained that India would have a uniform civil code some day, he was telling the nation that our ultimate aim is to create uniformity of laws and override every religious text to the contrary. Religion was to be tolerated, but not to be encouraged or expanded in its sway over human action. I would request everybody to read a book if you can manage it. There is a wonderful book called ‘Religion Gone Astray’. There are three co-authors of the book. One is Pastor Don Mackenzie, the second is Rabbi Ted Falcon and the third is Imam Jamal Rahman. All these three great intellectuals have jointly composed it and which I suggest should be bought and distributed to every Member of Parliament whether in this House or in the other House, and must be made a compulsory textbook in every school and college in this country. This is the great tribute which I wish to pay to Dr. Ambedkar. Religion may have brought some hope and comfort to many suffering the slings and arrows of bad fortune and a cruel society but a more accurate comment on religion is that “all the ships of all the navies of the world can swim comfortably in the ocean of innocent blood that has been shed in the name of religion through the history of mankind.”

4. It is also true that Dr. Ambedkar himself opted for the religion of Gautam Buddha, a matter to which I will revert a little later.

5. From the draft of the Constitution he fashioned, it was clear that we had decided with a few significant changes to adopt the British model of democracy. To all superficial appearances it seemed that Judges in England were appointed by the Lord Chancellor who by a curious British paradox was not merely the Highest Judge but also the member of the British cabinet. No one grasped that judges in England were being appointed in fact by the highest Judge. Everybody assumed without proper study that the appointments were being made by a Minister of the Crown.

6. I believe that the system of appointment to the High Courts and Supreme Court of India by the executive was left intact without immediate change. But the change was ordered in the near future by Article 50 of the Constitution. Unfortunately under the brilliant light of Pandit Nehru and his ministers nobody thought of immediately changing the system. By 1990, however the Bar had seen a mandatory direction for change in the regime of executive supremacy in the matter of appointments. I and my illustrious colleagues discussed the unfulfilled mandate of Article 50 of the Constitution which reads:

“50. Separation of Judiciary from Executive.— The State shall take steps to separate the judiciary from the executive in the public services of the State.”

7. The nine-judge bench in its 1993 judgment namely, Supreme Court Advocates-on Record Association v. Union of India reported as (1993) 4 SCC 441, accepted the argument of me and my colleagues and the recent judgment of the Supreme Court in Supreme Court Advocates-on Record Association and Anr. v. Union of India in 2015 has only confirmed the earlier decision.

8. Dr. Ambedkar was not ‘unelected’ like the present Finance Minister of India whose abuse of the judges as ‘tyranny of unelected’ is a mean puerile Contempt of Court.

9. Let me now deal with his patriotism and respect for India’s culture. He was born in a backward caste the victim of centuries of ill treatment, denial of access to education and ­paying professions, condemned to humiliation and social contempt from more lucky sections of society; in short victims of cruel discrimination and dishonour. Still he never questioned the cultural unity of India. For example he refused to compare the fate of his low caste with the blacks of America originally called the Negros. It is only recently that the use of the word ‘negro’ is now treated as a punishable wrong in the U.S.A. He believed in the efficacy of the Indian democracy and was convinced that the democratic process of India will terminate the inferiority of his caste and its cultural unity will be intact and strengthened. He worked for erasing this black spot on the face of India without generating hatred, angry recrimination or violent activity of any kind. It was human misunderstanding but easily curable by better democracy and education, he firmly believed. Democracy without education he believed is a sham and hypocrisy without limitation. His mind never wavered nor thought of other forms of government like Marxism or dictatorship or even democracy without constitutional rights like freedom of speech and thought, and other rights which made the glorious Part III of the Constitution of India.

10. He finally opted for Buddhism. He asked his followers to go in for the religion of Buddha. But, Sir, one thing must be conceded that Buddhism is the only religion whose prophet founded that religion only for the salvation of humanity form pain and suffering. I would request everybody to read one great poem, ‘The Light of Asia’ written by Sir Edwin Arnold the last stanza of which poem reads:

“We are the voices of the wandering wind,

Which moan for rest and rest can never find:

Lo! As the wind is, so is mortal life,

A moan, a sigh, a sob, storm and strife”.


11. And, Sir, with that, he told us that the purpose of all law and legislation in Parliament is ultimately to reduce human pain and suffering and it is Dr. Ambedkar alone who stands out as a great lighthouse of knowledge and learning for us to follow.

12. With this last tribute I must end though I do it under great compulsion.

13. Even so I am grateful to you Mr. Chairman.