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.

Wednesday 18 November 2015

The needless Tipu controversy generated by the Congress Party to create communal division. I had predicted this way back in April 2014

The tenor and content of the Congress Party's election campaign seems to be getting increasingly gory and savage as the election is winding its way across the country. Not merely in terms of imagery, but actual vocabulary. Blood seems to have become the word and weapon of last resort that the Congress, its communal allies, and its secured media allies have reserved for hurling against Narendra Modi. This dangerous weapon is being used abusively and irresponsibly, by shooting off inflammatory, divisive accusations against Modi and the BJP, completely without reason, logic or evidence, and with absolute impunity.

Is it just a coincidence that the linguistic pattern of the Congress, its political allies, and its "intellectual" cronies is getting more and more identical — irresponsible abuse, and yes, repeated language that suggests instigation of communal violence? Having tested the potential of communal violence instigated at Godhra as a weapon for destruction of a political rival, the Congress probably sees it as their last weapon of vengeance against Narendra Modi, like Hitler's V1s and V2s.

As the saying goes, "Once is chance; twice is coincidence, but three times is enemy action." Let us take a look at the election blood language as it has been developing. Start from Digvijay Singh, who says in July 2013 that BJP was planning to instigate communal riots in Congress-ruled states ahead of the 2014 Lok Sabha elections as part of its "sinister" design to win the elections, by "communalizing" the political atmosphere. This is typical Digvijay Singh, speaking out the mind and intent of his handlers through an imaginary proxy, in his routine sycophancy drill of which the nation has had a surfeit.

Soon after, Karnataka Congress Chief Minister Siddaramaiah takes the cue, and states quite outrageously in November 2013 that there would be bloodshed if Modi becomes PM. How and why he reached his prophetic conclusion, he does not explain. But he seemed certain that "there will be bloodshed if he (Mr Modi) becomes Prime Minister," and urged the people not to give room for that to happen. "It is everybody's responsibility to oust BJP, save India," he said. Perhaps he believed that by echoing the statements or intent of his benefactors, he would acquire greater security of office.

Rahul Gandhi decided to adopt the same blood fetish in his Dehra Dun speech in February 2014, as his campaign by then had turned fairly hopeless, and he had no other weapons he could turn to. He accused the BJP, without an iota of reason or evidence, of practising the "politics of blood" by pitting one religion against another and one caste against another to come to power at any cost, generally summarising the divisive caste and communal policies that the Congress has been practising for decades. This is what he said: "It (BJP) practises the politics of blood. They don't see anything but power ... power at any cost. They can pit communities and castes against each other, they won't hesitate in spilling blood if they find it necessary to usurp power." Childishly transferring his own ideology to the BJP, he knew full well that he as role model was confirming the right trend of slander and incendiary, unsubstantiated accusations. And he was not wrong.

Not far behind, Congress spokesperson Abhishek Singhvi, well known for his contribution to the Congress for activities other than of a spokesperson, added in April 2014, "I would like to say that when BJP talks of minority welfare, it sounds like Dracula taking over as the head of the blood bank." Really, Mr Singhvi, I had no idea that you had so much blood imagery in your mind. Is it merely a blind repetition of the hopeless propaganda that your peers and bosses have been shouting, or does the repetition also contain a threat of intent?

Amarinder Singh picked up the general discourse, and recently turned soothsayer predicting that there will be riots within six months if BJP prime ministerial candidate Narendra Modi comes to power. Again, he gives no reason or justification for his prediction, or why he fixed a time period of six months.

I have already written about the Economist, which sold its intellectual respectability to unknown sources in adopting the astrologer's role and predicting blood: "Mr Modi might start well in Delhi but sooner or later he will have to cope with a sectarian slaughter or a crisis with Pakistan..." The Economist, with all its intellectual heritage, neither informs us of the basis of its astrology of "a sectarian slaughter", nor why there would be a crisis with Pakistan, from where we are already hearing conciliatory comments. As I have said earlier, there can only be two explanations for this — that the Economist has either lost its journalistic standards of excellence, or its intellectual integrity.

Judging from the consistent substance of what the Congress has been speaking, there appears to be high credibility in the whispers going around that their final weapon of mass destruction during or after the general election is to instigate communal riots in the country, especially in the Congress ruled states. They do, indeed, have a proven record of doing this. Many of my younger readers may not be aware of the communal riots that were instigated in Channapatna, Karnataka in 1990, when Rajiv Gandhi, Congress president, wanted to oust Karnataka Chief Minister Veerendra Patil, only because he did not conform to the Congress principles of subservience to the party high command. Well, communal riots were organised, just about a week after Veerendra Patil suffered a stroke, and were used as an excuse to dismiss him as Chief Minister at Bangalore airport, just before Rajiv Gandhi was about to board a plane for Madras. With such versatile hands on experience with communal riots, the Congress is adept at keeping its communal powder dry, and has no compunction at using it whenever it considers it necessary for its sectarian interest.

The warnings are sinister and the writing is clearly inscribed on the wall. Judging from the recurring vocabulary of the Congress, and whatever subliminal messages it conveys, and also information from the field, there is every possibility of the Congress engineering communal riots, and bloodshed, especially in Congress ruled states, where they control the machinery of government, mainly the police.

I would expect that the most vulnerable period would be the small interregnum that would exist just between the announcement of election results and the formation of the new government. In all probability, it will be a BJP-led government with Narendra Modi as Prime Minister. The interregnum normally witnesses the victors' euphoria, jostling for positions, with the new dispensation not quite in place. It is this small window that would be most exploited for mischief by the losers, particularly communal riots that all Congress honchos have been categorically and consistently forecasting; in other words, what they will attempt, just as they did in Godhra, after Modi's victory in his Rajkot byelection in Gujarat with Muslim support.

The BJP states need to remain acutely vigilant and take every precaution during this period, using their police and intelligence agencies, and their own grassroots networks at village levels to thwart any such malicious attempt at communal riots. In Congress ruled states and states ruled by other parties, the BJP, as the opposition party must use all its resources for precaution and must remain extremely vigilant regarding what is transpiring from grassroots up to the state level about possible communal mischief caused by the Congress or other parties opposed to Modi. They must be in constant contact with the constitutional and statutory authorities, should they apprehend or suspect any attempt to disturb communal harmony, which appears to be the design of the anti Modi communal parties to malign his name, and prove their point. Because their language clearly speaks that there is blood on their minds.

Thursday 12 November 2015

MODI ' S MAN KI BAAT - A RECIPE FOR DISASTER


Never has one man thrown away so much in such a short time. I speak of Shri Narendra Modi, the no longer respected Prime Minister of India. I have been his greatest supporter in the dark years of UPA II which used all their might of state power to assassinate him politically, and also his trusted aide Amit Shah.

The people of India showered him with their trust that he was the great Messiah, who would retrieve India’s lost pride after a decade of the Congress led plunder of India and communal divisive politics aimed at the majority community. They gave the BJP an unprecedented majority, and then expected him to start delivering his election promises to improve the lot of the common man. As Chief Minister of Gujarat for fifteen years, they expected a sage statesman, who had conquered all tendencies of megalomania, narcissism and arrogance, who would carry the country with him - Sab ka Saath, Sab ka Vikaas.

But what they saw were some hitherto unknown facets of his personality, which well informed citizens are aware of and comment about quite openly now. And I' m not just talking about his sartorial obsessions, which the world is seeing with some amusement, but about something more fundamental. And that is, his great capacity of amnesia towards all his well wishers who stood by him, who supported and helped him overcome his own dark days, when the entire might of the Government of India was baying for his blood, by every possible device.

Let me assure my readers that I am not speaking about myself. I speak of the thousands of BJP workers of Bihar who worked tirelessly during the 2014 elections, and enabled the BJP to win 22, and the NDA to win 31 of the 40 Parliamentary seats from Bihar. Many of them were side lined and felt terribly hurt about it. In the recent elections, BJP candidates were given tickets according to the wishes of the coterie controlled by Amit Shah and Arun Jaitley. Does it seems surprising then that the cadre based B.J.P with a committed vote bank was sent to such shameful oblivion. This is just a repeat of Delhi when the BJP workers at ground level decided to teach the BJP satraps a lesson. How else does one account for the reduction of Bihar’s BJP’s 29.4% vote share in the 2014 general elections to 24.8% in the recent assembly elections?

This article is a very polite and almost friendly criticism and advice, both of which you hardly deserve. I will wait for a while for how you respond not personally to me but the people of India and in particular your own colleagues in B.J.P. I have a long charge sheet against you and your favourite cabinet ministers and bureaucrats. You are entitled to dismiss this as an empty threat; but you have been warned. I have done my duty. I hope you have known of Tunku Varadrajan a distinguished writer and scholar from the United States who has been writing his weekly column for the Indian Express. In the last week’s issue he wrote "India needed a leader of the nation; instead, it got the leader of a party". Even he went wrong in the second half of this revelation. If the BJP leaders had courage of their convictions they would have long ago publicly shared this conclusion; " Increasingly it seems that we were swindled". I admire his unnecessary politeness.

I was invited to speak in Bihar. I spoke twice for a few minutes only. I made a public confession of my stupidity despite all my education and seventy five years standing at the Bar. The BJP President Amit Shah, a Modi nominee has publicly confessed that all the off repeated promises of Modi of getting back the stolen wealth of India and even putting fifteen lakhs into the poor man's kitty was an election gimmick (Jumla). "I have without meaning it, helped Modi to cheat you; do accept my apology and grant me your forgiveness that I seek". I hope Tunkuji has already forgiven me.

The first thing you Modiji should have done is to make essential commodities like cereals, dal, cooking oil, and vegetables affordable for the common people. Do you know their current prices in the markets? What was the point of raiding hoarders or importing dal just a week before the elections? Your government should have known long ago the distress it is causing to the common man. Do you need to be educated that rising prices of essential commodities are a result of hoarding by middle men and traders made so much easier by the digital revolution that you keep harping about. Why can't you set up a Cell in the PMO to monitor prices of cereals, pulses and vegetables across the country, and ensure that they are not manipulated through hoarding and profiteering. Indira Gandhi did it in her 20 Point programme and succeeded. If the BJP really wanted to woo the common man in the immediate term, all they had to do was reduce the prices of food items, and they would have earned their electoral gratitude.

The BJP Government and Modiji were seen at their clumsiest worst while mishandling the One Rank One Pension issue, which was an election promise. The dithering Prime Minister disgraced himself by breaking his word, and humiliated our loyal armed forces, by forcing them into a long dharna, that brought ignominy and disaffection to his government throughout the country.

I would next publish the two letters that I have written to you Modiji. One on the night immediately after my meeting the Jawans and a fragile old one who on hunger strike unto death was almost dead, and second after your most corrupt and illegal actions in appointing a new C.V.C. which may well end up in court action against you and your conspirators.

Mr Prime Minister, you must realize that you must carry the people of India with you, the people who placed so much love and trust in you in 2014. Silence and aloofness do not add to political, philosophic or bollywood stature. Remember, the country criticised Manmohan Singh on this same count. But he at least had an alibi, that he was being remote controlled. You have none. Your silence towards critical issues and controversies that are destructive of the nation is seen at best as lack of concern, and at worst as approval. Agriculture is a mess, farmers are committing suicide because of indebtedness and poor harvests. Have you met with any of the Chief Ministers regarding this or visited any rural areas to talk to farmers? No wonder, the perception is growing that you are only a friend of rich industrialists and not of the common man of India. When so called artists and intellectuals defamed our country by calling it 'intolerant' , (orchestrated by the Congress Party, as it may have been), did you take any steps to protect our country' s reputation by addressing them frontally? Rather you preferred to outsource it to respected civil society members. But even that came too late to counter the perceptional accusations against your government and our country. When certain irrational, anti-national and bigoted BJP parliamentarians made hate comments about the Muslim community in our country, or lynched a man to death, why did you not sternly condemn them and control them immediately? Instead, you have made the cow and beef your agenda for 21st century India, while we see India as a world power.

Ancient Rishis recommended beef as remedy for many ailments. You are too educated not to know this. Now dear Modiji, I hope Bihar has hit you hard, and you are introspecting seriously about your shortcomings. As an elder and not long ago a great supporter of yours, I can only advice that you must change your style of functioning. Get rid of coteries and yes men, and establish a direct contact with the people of India. Bihar should teach you that you are not infallible and are no Pied Piper or have solo magical powers that make people vote for you.

And lastly, Remember that the last year elections do not make you an infallible all knowing intellectual scholar. Do not convert all your well wishers into ill wishers. You have a few weeks to mend your ways, and if you want to regain the people's trust and confidence, you must make the right statements to them, make yourself more accessible to them, hear their problems and listen to their Man Ki Baat. Or else, you will become just another foot note in our history, who betrayed the trust of the people of India.





Thursday 5 November 2015

Open Letter to Finance Minister Shri. Arun Jaitley on his attack on the Judges.


You could not respond with courtesy and respect due to the judges of the Supreme Court in your puerile attack on the Judgment dated 16th October , 2015 declaring your favorite National Judicial Appointments Commission Act of 2014 ( the NJAC for short) void and unconstitutional. While you concede that independence of the Judiciary constitutes the basic structure of the Constitution of India as an unquestionably correct proposition you accuse the court of ‘transgressing into erroneous logic.’ 

Yes the judges were wholly right in their aversion to a law minister and two ‘ eminent persons’ without any precisely defined qualification except their approval by two politicians both unhappy with judges not being subordinate to the executive. You conveniently forget that Article 50 of the Constitution was intended to exclude all executive interference in judicial appointments. Today the executive is the biggest threat to the fundamental rights of citizens and the government and its appointed bureaucrats are the biggest litigants defending the irregularities, corruption and unconstitutional actions calculated to injure and impoverish the common citizen. You have totally forgotten the 1993 judgment of a nine judge bench particularly the judgment of Justice Pandian. This was binding on this bench and you are too small a person to ignore it and find fault with the judges who are and were bound by it. After describing the Prime Minister and Law Minister as the priceless gifts of providence to India. You will be plucked by any examiner in a LLB examination if you exalt your Law Minister representing a key basic structure of the Constitution.Having flattered the Prime Minister and Leader of Opposition who helped you to get this awful Act passed in Parliament you paid your respectful homage to Parliamentary sovereignty. Your whole piece is just plain legal gibberish and poppycock. I am avoiding the term which many persons will use for it: Bullshit. 

I will concentrate on one line in your piece to show how little you know of the Constitution of India and law in general. That line is “The majority opinion was understandably concerned with one basic structure – Independence of the Judiciary – but to rubbish all other basic structures by referring to them as ‘politicians’ and passing judgment on a rationale that India has to be saved from its elected representatives: the judgment has upheld the primacy of one basic structure – Independence of the Judiciary – but diminished five other basic structures of the Constitution namely Parliamentary Democracy, an Elected Government, the Council of Ministers, an elected Prime Minister and an elected Leader of the Opposition.” 

I am concentrating on only your greatest error – a manifestation of your total ignorance of Constitutional law i.e. ‘Supremacy of Parliament’. You have accused the majority judges of practicing ‘tyranny of the unelected’. 

This is abuse amounting to contempt. The majority judgment in this case has been attacked on television as well as in other media. It is not that Hon’ble Judges have faced elections and have failed. It is the Constitution which has consciously rejected election as the method of selecting judges and the expression ‘unelected’ conveys a false impression and is intensely insulting. 

The further insinuation is that the judgment is a deliberate act of cruelty against the people of India. Whether or not this Hon’ble Court takes appropriate action under the Contempt of Courts Act, I don’t care. But it may not be a bad idea to remind you that having fought an election and having lost by margin of over one lakh votes you should have been more careful and humble in making the kind of criticism that you have indulged in. 

The system of elected Judges has been tried elsewhere and I believe that it has produced some good jokes. The most prominent joke going around is that in a certain state, the Democratic Party found a judge who was paralysed from the waist downwards and invariably, in election, he won the sympathy vote. He triumphed in four successive elections, but on the fifth, the manager of the Republican Party walked up to his boss and said, ‘Sir we have found a solution to our problem’. He asked, ‘what is it?’ ‘Sir , this time we have found a judge who is paralysed from the waist upwards’.” In an article written by me in 1999 I have referred to this current joke and the Article is at Page 97 of my book Conscience of a Maverick. Even a LLB student, and I claim to be in touch with many students in India and abroad, knows that the old thesis of Professor Dicey written in 1885, that the Parliament of England is sovereign is no longer accepted whole heartedly even in England. A leading judgment of the House of Lords in the case of Jackson vs. Attorney General reported as 2005 UK HL 56 has held that Dicey statement of law has been considerably modified. Though all the challenges posed against the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty are for the most part self imposed and therefore open to reversal, this is a somewhat weak ground for saving the doctrine even in England. But so far as India is concerned it is very clear that the doctrine does not exist at all. In an article from Wikipedia, which is appended hereto (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliamentary_sovereignty),after discussing cases from UK, Scotland, Australia and Canada reference is made to the current position in India. So far India is concerned the doctrine is held as totally out of place. Everyone knows that under the Constitution of India, Parliament cannot impose any unreasonable limitations on the fundamental rights of a citizen. The Parliament of India, except in some very rare situations cannot legislate at all on matters in the very long list of State subjects in the relevant schedule of the Constitution. The judiciary has the right to annul laws which are not in conformity with the Constitution. Thus Parliament of India is a non-sovereign body. It is entitled to respect but it does not have the supremacy which you have chosen to attach to it. Moreover all laws which are in conflict with rights of citizens under Article 19 are void if adjudged unreasonable or not advancing certain declared objects. 

Please understand that a Parliament whose legislation is expressly made subject to Judicial Review is not like the British Parliament of which Prof. Dicey was speaking in the last century. Grow up and learn Mr. Jaitley.

Friday 16 October 2015

Press Statement on National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) Judgement


Today’s Judgement delivered by the Hon’ble Judges of the Supreme Court of India striking down the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) as constitutionally ultra vires and invalid raise our respect and gratitude for the Judges as defenders of the constitution our panoply of human rights and democracy has gone up sky high. The nation owes them its heartfelt gratitude.

I am glad I was on the right side of this controversy but our forensic success is mainly the achievement of my colleagues Fali Nariman , Rajiv Dhawan , Anil Divan , Arvind Datar and many assisting juniors. We are all enjoying the success and are proud of it.

Now some comment for which I alone am responsible. This must bring some shame and remorse to the Prime Minister and his advisors. His crime serious enough is ignoring leaders of the Bar and well known constitutional experts in the field of law practitioners and teachers and preferring mediocrities with no distinguished record of protection of civil liberties and the core India’s constitution. To atonefor this grave crime against the nation the Prime Minister and those who made him adopt this horrid piece of legislation must resign office.

The Prime Minister of course has a very plausible double defence of being a constitutional ignoramus and busy with world jaunts of course of no value to us at all. Democracy will have its revenge if you continue to weaken its foundations.

Wednesday 14 October 2015

Antrix Devas Scam continues: What I predicted in 2013 has happened.


I learn from the newspapers that an international arbitration court has directed Antrix, the commercial arm of Indian Space Research Organisation (Isro), to pay $672 million, (Rs 4,435.20 crore), in damages to Devas Multimedia for "unlawfully" cancelling a contract four years ago, and unanimously ruled "that Antrix is liable for unlawfully terminating the Devas-Antrix agreement in February 2011."

The tax payer of India is being mowed down yet again with another huge financial liability, a payment unwarranted and unnecessary, made possible only due to intentional collusion by the top brass of ISRO and Antrix with Devas, clearly blessed by criminal misdemeanour and corruption of the previous regime and its dispensation in the Space Department. But what is shocking is the inability of the present regime to have rectified it, even though the arbitration proceedings were on going for a good one year after it took charge.

I have been writing about this scandal ever since it came to light, more so, because it was happening right under the nose of the then Prime Minister, who was also the Minister for the Space Department and ISRO. I had predicted the fate of the Arbitration way back in 2013, after witnessing the completely anti-national and corrupt decisions being taken in the Department of Space.

Let me recall to my readers the history of this scam. On 24 December 2004, Madhavan Nair, Chairman of Antrix Corporation, a public sector undertaking under the Department of Space, approved a contract with Devas Multimedia at a board meeting, leasing 90% of S-band transponder capacity of two geostationary satellites to be produced and launched by ISRO, for 12 years. On 28 January 2005, the same Madhavan Nair, in his capacity as Secretary of Department of Space approved the contract. He then submitted the proposal for production of GSAT to the Space Commission, of which also he was chairman, not disclosing that in his capacity as chairman of Antrix, he had already concluded a deal with Devas in December 2004 or that Antrix was committed to giving away 90% of the transponder capacity of GSAT 6 without factoring in the launch and spectrum costs in the financial estimate. Having the approval of the Space Commission, Nair now put on his fourth hat as chairman of ISRO and commenced the process of production of GSAT 6. So a private player, Devas, walked away with a financially succulent contract, the burden of which is now being borne by the taxpayer. It later emerged that Devas was a company comprising of former ISRO employees who managed to pocket precious S-band spectrum for a song for their company.

However, it is said that this innovative Antrix Devas scam soon became a reference point for Raja’s own 2 G scam, and it wasn’t long that the media soon got a whiff of it. What followed was public outrage pertaining to a Department falling directly under the Prime Minister at having violated all financial and administrative procedures before taking this decision. By now, Dr K Radhakrishnan had become Secretary, Space Department and Chairman, Space Commission, consisting of the MoS in the PMO, Principal Secretary to the PM, National Security Adviser, Cabinet Secretary, Finance Secretary, and other eminent space scientists.

In July 2010, the Space Commission, directed ISRO (also headed by Radhakrishnan) to terminate the contract. The matter remained shrouded in secrecy until February 2011, when finally, the Cabinet Committee on Security (CCS), based on a Note submitted by Radhakrishnan, decided to direct the Space Department to ‘annul’ the contract, by invoking force majeure. The government had suddenly realised that the spectrum allocated to Devas was required for the nation’s genuine and urgent social and strategic objectives! 

Let me reproduce what I wrote in the Sunday Guardian and the New Indian Express in August 2013. My words hold good as on date:

“ISRO’s confidentiality immunity was unable to contain the public exposure of the scam, and risks for the PM as Minister for Space, were intensifying. Hence, a corresponding process for building an effective firewall around him was set in motion through the standard operating procedures -- setting up inquiries headed by cronies, selecting convincing scapegoats, and most importantly, drawing up an innovative post-facto blueprint for salvaging some of the losses of the aborted deal at the taxpayers’ cost. This hidden post-facto segment of the scam resonates of the Bhopal compensation case, where through deliberate, calibrated errors and omissions, state power conspired with the culprits to appropriate maximum compensation for common benefit, from India’s unfortunate taxpayer.”

Devas had claimed in the Antrix-Devas Contract of January 2005 (Clause 12 b) that it had the ability to design Digital Multimedia Receivers (“DMR”) and Commercial Information Devices (“CID”) and had the ownership and the right to use the intellectual property, viz. SDMB technology, involved in their designs. Allegations regarding the deal started mounting, including to the Space Department Vigilance Officer, who in his preliminary findings submitted to Dr.Radhakrishnan, intimated that the IPR of technology which Devas said will use, was highly suspect. This was in 2009. Perhaps to scuttle this, the ISRO chairman in December 2009 appointed B N Suresh, a senior retired scientist, to report on the technical, legal and financial aspects of the deal, which Financial Advisor G Balachandran was asked to examine in June 2010.

Balachandran’s findings, submitted to the ISRO chairman in January 2011, apart from revealing the absence of due diligence in the scrutiny of the contract, also revealed some shocking new facts. On December 2, 2010, the Financial Advisor had submitted a note to Radhakrishnan, based on the findings of a leading ISRO scientist, which stated, inter alia, that the SDMB technology claimed by Devas in the Antrix-Devas Agreement to be used by it is not a confidential and proprietary technology held by Devas. The note recommended that the ISRO chairman should get this confirmed by Antrix and if confirmed these facts should be intimated to the CCS and the contract should be cancelled on the grounds that Devas had given false information when signing the contract about its ownership and right over the technology and intellectual property. Balachandran reiterated his recommendation twice in January 2011 that this vital fact be incorporated in the Note to the CCS, so that the Contract/Agreement can be terminated on grounds that Devas had acted fraudulently.

This clearly reveals that the contract was induced by fraud and misrepresentation and was void. Stating this as a reason for cancellation would have greatly strengthened the government case against Devas in arbitration and compensation claims.

However, Radhakrishnan disregarded this unimpeachable advice of his Financial Advisor and concealed these facts from the CCS. On the basis of his misleading note, the CCS decided to ‘annul’ the contract in February 2011 and informed the Space Department that in view of the “increased demand for allocation for national needs and having regard to the needs of the country’s strategic requirements, the government will not be able to provide orbit slot in S band to Antrix for commercial activities, including for those which are the subject matter of existing contractual obligations for S Band.”

The government thus manipulated its own record to show that the contract was breached by it for its own needs and without lawful justification. The people of India, who were actually the plaintiffs were converted into defendants by the government. A red carpet was being spread to legally enable Devas’ sure success in the expected arbitration and extract maximum reparation.

The people of India are entitled to seek answers from the Hon’ble Prime Minister, also Cabinet Minister for the Department of Space:-

i) What was the compelling reason for Radhakrishnan to scuttle the vigilance enquiry in the Space Department, and constitute the Suresh Committee?

ii) Is it a fact that Secretary, Space, Radhakrishnan ignored without any credible reason, the advice of his Financial Advisor supported by the note of a senior Space Department scientist, that the DVB-SH/SDMB technology claimed by Devas in the Antrix-Devas Agreement, was not its confidential and proprietary technology?

iii) Is it a fact that Radhakrishnan concealed these facts from the CCS in his note in February 2011, which annulled the deal on a non-existent ground that it had no spare S Band spectrum to offer?

iv) Why was the real reason, that the Antrix-Devas contract had been induced by fraud and misrepresentation, excluded from our case as a ground for terming it null and void?

iv) What action is proposed to fix the responsibility on the then Secretary, Space Department for concealing the crucial and vital facts from the CCS, the consequences of which are going to cost the taxpayer several billion dollars in the near future.

v) Devas demanded around $2billion in damages and Deutche Telecom, which purchased a good chunk of the Devas shares after its Antrix contract separately demanded another $1 billion, amounting to Rs 19,500 crore (@Rs.65/USD) that the country would have to shell out, if the government lost the arbitration, a highly likely eventuality, judging from the government’s actions.

I had asked the then Prime Minister to appoint a panel of legal experts to put the Department of Space on the right legal track to safeguard national interest and the taxpayers’ money. Legal amends could still have been made to save the nation and the taxpayer from being robbed of the damages which were sure to come by way of the Arbitration Award. But, of course, nothing happened.

Well, the Arbitration Award of $672 million, (Rs 4,435.20 crore) has been ordered, just as I had predicted. Because the Space Department, still under direct charge of the Prime Minister, did nothing to rectify the wilful fraud on the people of India, regarding the closure of the contract, even though it could have.

More so, I learn that Antrix did everything possible not to win the case.

i) Even after Space Commission directed in July, 2010 that the contract be terminated, Antrix continued to write to Devas about the preparatory steps that are being taken to get the satellites ready for handing over to Devas. Radhakrishnan was Chairman of Space Commission and Antrix. How is it his right hand and left hand were taking different directions?

ii) Again, Antrix even failed to nominate an arbitrator to the arbitration tribunal and to have a say in fixing the terms of reference. Rather, it chose to petition the Supreme Court to commence a separate arbitration against Devas, an appeal that failed. In June 2011, when Devas commenced arbitration seeking specific performance of the agreement or a claim of damages, Antrix refused to participate. On August 19, 2011, when the ICA announced its decision to go ahead with the arbitration, Antrix did not send its nomination, which forced the ICA to nominate, on its own, Justice A S Anand. Who was responsible for this deliberate sabotage? 

May I ask the Prime Minister what action he plans to take on those who were at the helm of affairs both in the Department of Space and the PMO, for their misrepresentation to the Cabinet Committee on Security for terminating the Antrix Devas Contract in a manner that has caused this great financial loss to the nation? And against those who allowed the Arbitration to proceed in a manner which spelt sure failure for the Government?

The present NSA is a person of unimpeachable integrity and patriotism. How did he allow affairs to drift to this stage, so that the corrupt intentions of his predecessors were allowed to bear fruit, at the cost of India’s tax payer?

Saturday 10 October 2015

My second set of questions to the Hon’ble Prime Minister.



Dear Reader, I know the Hon’ble Prime Minister is busy with Bihar elections and is devoting a part of his time to Bihar elections.

He is concerned the whole world is waiting to have a glimpse of him and Bihar elections involve a great sacrifice on his part. He has a brilliant galaxy of ministers and beaurocrats making his stay in India wholly dispensable.

My questions are primarily intended to allow him to stay far away from home. A few minutes about two per question should be enough; of course that is feasible when the answer is nothing but plain truth. Concocting plausible lies does take some time even for the unusually bright Prime minister of India.

In this set of questions I am concentrating on the gross misfeasance of the Prime Minister, his colleagues and the Party as a whole with our Army jawans, again a case of cruel breach of faith insulting and hurtful to those who lay down their life for the security and survival of India as a Vibrant free Nation.

Question 1: Since when in the history of India has the demand popularly summarized as ‘One Rank One Pension’ been vociferously raised by the brave jawans of India? Surely long before you thought of being India’s Prime Minister an unusual raise from a one State Chief Minister of Gujarat to the Prime Minister of 29 States constituting the Indian Nation. Is it not true that all that this demand of India’s defenders and their widows is just a few thousand crores in Indian Currency.

Question 2: When you decided to wage an almost impossible battle for becoming India’s Prime Minister, you did realize the importance of the votes of our jawans and their pending demands?

Question 3: Did you at any time either in your election manifesto or oral speeches tell the jawans that you will not accept their demands in full. In fact you promised full satisfaction. Your manifesto amongst ten items under the heading External Security mentioned ‘implement One Rank One Pension’ without any qualification.

Question 4: Did you in your Red Fort Speech on August 15th, 2015 declare that the demand has been accepted in principle?

Question 5: Did you by any clear words even hint that your declared acceptance is subject to veto by the Finance Minster declaring that the cost is too heavy for his Government?

Question 6: Did you use the following words which were heard by one Veteran who was on fast until death- “let me assure all veterans- we are committed and we are in final stages of deciding”?

Question 7: Some veterans were aghast at your lack of complete clarity in one or two sentences and they expressed their resentment. Did you tell them that your demand will be met only if Finance Minister is able to find 10,000 Crores more in his kitty?

Question 8: Do you admit that in a speech delivered by you on September 15th at the Ex-Servicemen Men’s rally in Rewari you proudly proclaimed – “ this land has always created a centenary of martyrdom whether it was the war of Thrissur or of Kargil…No one can imagine this land is of such brave men and heroes!!”

Question 9: Did you then praise and thank god for having given you an opportunity to be in the midst of the jawans: “it is some sign from god” you said.

Are you not embarrassed that now you will cause misery to those great children of India because your Finance Minister can’t find the 12000 crores to pay our defenders?

Question 10: Has not the great social worker and moral leader Anna Hazare complained to you about your unfair dealings with the jawans. In no ambiguous words he has accused the BJP of reneging on the poll promise of implementing the One Rank One Pension. Do you require a more respectable yet polite citizen of India to tender you good advice?


Question 11: Has he not drawn your attention to what even the UPA government at a high level meeting of Defence officials on the 26th February, 2014 decided to accept and implement this demand in full. Did we commit a mistake in substituting you in their place? By the way there are two ministers in your cabinet whose integrity I fully accept. One is Suresh Prabhu our Railway Minister and the other Shri. Manohar Parrikar our Defence Minister. I would like to hear what they have to say on your surrender to a Finance Minister who has allowed (six thousand three hundred ) 6300 crores of black money in cash to be sent out of India through the Ashok Vihar Branch of the Bank of Baroda to a bank in Hong Kong. It all started in July 2014 after Amritsar defeated Arun Jaitley became our Finance Minister. Thanks to your irrational fondness for him. More about this later!!

Thursday 8 October 2015

Open Questions Addressed to the Prime Minister



Dear Prime Minister,

You are now busy capturing the votes of the adult population of Bihar. Your flattering supporters are expecting what they call the ‘Modi Magic’ to capture the votes of Biharis for you. I have experienced Modi Magic once and badly burnt my vitals. I do not wish to repeat the performance. My vote capturing ability has no comparison to yours but it the duty of every citizen even the humblest of them is to declare the truth and share it with the voters. It may bear no fruit but the duty to the nation requires it. I am convinced that if I do not speak up and sink into silence instead, providence and the people will not forgive me. I propose to ask you through the available media some questions every day. I do not mind if your Finance Minister or some other subordinate answers them. But I hope you will speak the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

1. You are doubtless aware that the German Government took an extraordinary step of securing the 1400 names in Liechtenstein Bank of illicit account holders majority of whom were probably Indians by rewarding an employee of the Bank. The German Government offered publicly to share the information with every friendly Government including India without cost or condition. Yet the previous government took no steps to secure the relevant information obviously because it wanted to shield those who controlled it. The German government was wanting to stop the customer confidentiality practices of Banks in notorious tax havens an object fully legitimised by the United Convention Against Corruption signed by India in 2005. Did you ever read the Supreme Court judgment obtained by me and my co-petitioners which rejected the untenable and antinational stand of the Congress government that they could get this information only under the DTAT with Germany as also the contention they made that the secrecy clause of the DTAT prevented disclosure of the identity of the criminals. It is a reasonable expectation of the people of India from your government which made removal of corruption and recovery of Black money stashed in tax havens abroad its main declared objective. You had declared often that you would not only recover this stolen wealth but put 15 Lacs Indian Rupees in the pocket of every poor family of India? How come you did nothing of the kind!!

2. Are you aware that Admiral Tahiliani President of the Indian Chapter of Transparency International repeatedly referred to the Indian government’s failure to take the proper and easy course of getting the information by a simple approach to the German government to share the names publicly offered and promised by it ?

3. Did you once ask your two leaders of opposition at that time, whom later you have included in your cabinet , to approach the German government or even its Ambassador in India to provide us this information ?

4. Did you not read my repeated public complaints about the manner in which your election promise was being made to look like an act of deception and fraud on the people. Have you ever had the decency and moral courage to explain this gross misconduct of yourself and your Finance Minister.

5. You are aware that the appointment of CVC has been challenged in the Supreme Court and even though permission was granted by the court to make the appointment at the request of your government the appointment is subject to all the contentions raised which will now be decided by the Hon’ble Court. Do you know that this gentleman went to Paris to do some investigation in the Black Money case. Who made him advisor to the SIT, who sanctioned his visit to Paris, what was he required to do what did he did there, what places did he visit, whom did he contact, whom did he interrogate or question, what did he achieve, what places did he visit, what expenses did he incur and what report did he make on return? Do you know till today any of these things and whether they have relevance to his appointment as CVC? Are you willing to tell the people and me as one of them what did he achieve for the nation and what relevance did his actions have to the port of CVC which he got ,may be by way of reward. It is my duty to tell the people that both the Chairman and Vice-Chairman have told me that all these matters have been done and sanctioned without their knowledge or consent. No report of his activities abroad is available with the SIT. Obviously he did somethings  to secure his appointment as CVC.

6. Are you aware that under orders of the Supreme Court , the then government was ordered to disclose to me as petitioner all the correspondence that had taken place between the government of India and the German authorities. With great difficulty and persistence 17 letters between 27/02/2008 and 18/03/2009 were supplied to me under the Governments letter of 27th May, 2014. All the names of the writers and the addressees have been scored out by indelible ink. The excuse for this criminal behaviour is that this is in accordance with international practice. This is a fraud and a total falsehood. The last letter i.e. 18.03.2009 refers to some information enclosed. That has not been supplied. The correspondence is not with the German Government but a tax office which deals only with honest taxpayers who by the law of two or more countries have to pay tax on the same income. It has nothing to do with the dacoits of Liechtenstein. The blacking out of the names and identity of the writers and addressees of the letters has nothing to do with any international practice. 

These matters have been raised by me more than once. Has your Finance Minster or any one so far salvaged the information enclosed with the letter of 18.03.2009. The CVC appointed by you has everything to do these forgeries and falsehoods. Will you now seek and supply the information?


7. It appears to me that no explanation plausible and truthful is available with you or your Ministry of Finance. No wonder the newly appointed President of the B.J.P, obviously your choice ,has found an easy way to fool the people, “It was all a Jumla an election joke”. You have never repudiated this stunt and you are solemnly using this stunt master to get votes in Bihar. In your place I would have felt insulted if someone seriously lampooned me as a joker. 

8. Do you agree that a whole year has gone by and not a farthing has been recovered from the millions which the employee of the Liechtenstein Bank has disclosed to the German government. You have visited Germany after you became Prime Minister of India and the Hon’ble Chancellor of Germany was with us this week. Have you ever asked her or any other German authority to give you the names furnished by that employee of the Bank. If you don’t know ask Mr. Jaitley or the new CVC. Are you even now willing to make an appropriate and honest request to the government of Germany? Otherwise the people are entitled to conclude that you were party to a criminal conspiracy to defraud the Indian nation which you continue to do without any revolt or revulsion by your conscience. 

9. Lastly I must tell you and the people of India that I have personally been to Germany and was pained to hear that no request of any kind has come from the government of India or even the opposition which you did head at the relevant time. In paragraph 82 of its judgment the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India Held “We have perused the documents in question, and heard the arguments of the Union of India with respect to the double taxation agreement with Germany as an obstacle to disclosure. We do not find any merit in its arguments flowing from the provisions of double taxation agreement with Germany.”

Anyway the DTAT with Germany has nothing to do with the contents of the material supplied by the Liechtenstein employee.

10. You can mend matters by seeking the forgiveness of the people India and getting rid of your Minister of Finance.