Socialism, Judiciary, and Activism

In a recent judgment the Supreme Court has spoken profusely on the activism shown by the judiciary. The judgement came on a PIL filed by an NGO, National Campaign for Dignity and Rights of Sewerage and Allied Workers, highlighting the frequent deaths of sewage workers trapped in manholes.

The court pooh-poohed the allegation of judicial activism.

The court said it is praised when it gives judgments in favour of the rich but condemned with a “theoretical debate raising the bogey of judicial activism” when it gives relief to the poor on a PIL.

A Bench of Justices G S Singhvi and A K Ganguly, in a 45-page judgment, said

the highest court will be failing in its constitutional duty if it does not accept genuine PILs and “those who are decrying public interest litigation do not seem to realise that courts are not meant only for the rich and the well-to-do, for the landlord and the gentry, for the business magnate and the industrial tycoon but they exist also for the poor and the down-trodden, the have-nots and the handicapped and the half-hungry millions of our countrymen”.

However the court did not specify what it thought to be its constitutional duty. Prior to the 42nd amendment India was not a Socialist country. So, do we assume that the obligations of the court changed after this amendment?

The court ensuring that everyone is equal before the law can be a constitutional and legal obligation. It is correct in saying that the law exists for all, both the rich and the poor.

However,

In a startling observation, the bench said that “so far the courts have been used only for the purpose of vindicating the rights of the wealthy and the affluent.”

This is an observation which smacks of socialist activism. We need to notice the obvious and realize that Affirmative Action and Social Justice, especially when coerced by the state are unfair actions primarily aimed at redistribution of wealth, where the state robs the haves for the sake of havenots while constantly increasing its own (the state's own) power over the people.

We, as the peoples, are facing a dual crisis. One of inaction by the legislative and the executive, and the other of socialistic activism by the judiciary.

We need to make it clear that we are not opposing the protection offered by this judgment to the workers. We are appreciating the fact that the rights of the people are upheld. What we are criticizing is that the court is failing in its duty while it refuses to chastise the government for not leaving domains where private enterprise can offer services on a competitive basis and under consumer protection laws. Also the judiciary exceeds it boundaries when it identifies itself with statist socialistic activism.

Why has the Supreme Court not given a similar ultimatum to the government for increasing the number of courts and judges?

Further, notice the court statements:

1. “It is only these privileged classes which have been able to approach the courts for protecting their vested interests. It is only the moneyed who have so far had the golden key to unlock the doors of justice,”

If it is only the privileged classes who had the access to justice, whose fault is it? What is the corrective action being recommended by the Supreme Court?

2. “There is a misconception in the minds of some lawyers, journalists and men in public life that public interest litigation is unnecessarily cluttering up the files of the court and adding to the already staggering arrears of cases which are pending for long years and it should not therefore be encouraged by the court. This is, to our mind, a totally perverse view smacking of elitist and status quoist approach,”

Isn't the SC itself being elitist? Isn't it even being status quoist if it has not given a similar ultimatum to the government for increasing the number of courts and judges?

3. “If the sugar barons and the alcohol kings have the fundamental right to carry on their business and to fatten their purses by exploiting the consuming public, have the Chamars belonging to the lowest strata of society no fundamental right to earn an honest living through their sweat and toil?”

Terming voluntary exchange between the manufacturers of a commodity and consumers of the commodity as exploitation the SC has betrayed its Social Engineering proclivities. It assumes that the rich exploit and the poor toil. It refuses to see the glaring facts that affirmative action is exploitation as well. The courts exist not only for protecting citizens from other citizens, but also for protecting the citizens from the state, especially a state which is a commission agent of wealth redistribution.

4. The most unfortunate part, the court said, is that when the judiciary issues directions for ensuring the right to equality, life and liberty of those who suffer from the handicaps of poverty, illiteracy and ignorance, “a theoretical debate is started by raising the bogey of judicial activism or judicial overreach”.

Is equality the equality of opportunity or equality of result? These two hugely differ in their meanings. The former is fairness while the latter unfair.

Conclusion:

1. While there is large scale apathy and inaction in the Legislative and the Executive, it is encouraging to see action on part of the judiciary.

2. However, the action is not well guided, however well intentioned it may appear to be. Further, the misguided action can be counter-productive and worse than status quo!

3. Let there be change for the better, for we must remember that not all change is necessarily good!

4. If the SC reveres the constitution then it must forsake activism but if it wants to be active for the upholding of justice and fairness in a larger perspective then it must open itself to questioning of unfairness in the constitution itself. Otherwise this selective activism betrays prejudice which is the worst form of injustice and unfairness.

Culture, Language, Region and Linguo-Culture political parties

Shiv Sena, Maharashtra Navnirman Sena, and all such parties, including those in Tamil Nadu, fall into the category of Linguo-Cultural identity parties. And yet, if you take a closer look, their confusion comes out.

Firstly, we need to point out that this article is not against Marathi or Tamil or any such language. Rather we want to call the bluff on the confusion in their understanding of themselves.

As examples, we take the parties from Maharashtra. Both the Shiv Sena and MNS claim to follow Chhatrapati Shivaji. Was Shivaji for Hindu pride or Marathi pride? To make the distinction further clearer, let us sub-divide and use the terms culture, language and region independently. Please note that the same confusion can be generated in relation to Sanatana Dharma, Sanskrit and Indian-subcontinent.

Let us consider a few examples, all of these are hypothetical and we hope no situation mentioned in these examples ever happens, and yet our answers to the questions posed in these examples will help us clarify our understandings about these terms.

For example, if we were Marathi, we would identify ourselves with the culture propagated by the philosophical writings of Sant Dnyaneshwar (Gyaneshwar), Sant tukaram, Samarth Ramdas, and their ancestor sages. The vehicle of the communication has been Marathi language, and the peoples upholding this culture have for long resided in a region now known as Maharashtra.

Now, let us try and answer a few hypothetical questions:

1. There are two groups of people, one group reads and practices Dnyaneshwar, Ramdas and others through English, and another group which reads and practices Karl Marx in Marathi. Who will you identify with?

Our answer is, we identify with Dnyaneshwar in English rather than Marx in Marathi.

2. There are two groups of people, one group from Maharashtra naturalized citizens of UK, working in London, and another group from America, naturalized in India working for Maharashtra. Who will you identify with?

Our answer again is obvious.

3. God forbid, tomorrow if China annexes the region of Maharashtra and hordes of Chinese thrive in Mumbai while crores of Marathi speaking people are languishing in Africa, who will we support? The region or the people?

Our answer is again obvious.

There can be many such questions. And similarly a Tamilian has to find from himself if he prefers people following Periya Puranams in English or those following the Koran in Tamil.

We have nothing against language or sub-region and so on. However, these leaders and their followers must understand that if they are not clear, they will do disservice to their own cause. We also do not claim that this article makes all aspect clear and provides a final understanding. However, what we emphasize is that such questions must be asked and answered in sufficient details so as to attain clarity of understanding without which the leaders and their followers remain eternally confused and thus move about meaninglessly in circuits.

Media Syndicate on Mumbai Blasts and Terror

In a recent article Media Syndicate has presented an analysis for the July 13 blasts in Mumbai. Then in a subsequent article Media Syndicate proposes a way to prevent future terrorist attacks. The analysis and recommendations are a mixed bag. The generality of the analysis has obscured some very fine and important points that have been made. Occasionally confusing phrases like "war on terror" and "fighting terrorism" have been used. We have drawn from the above articles while preparing this summary:

Multiple leaders have spoken irritatingly stupidly after Mumbai Blast (See here, here, here, here and here). Any adequate response can come only after a clear understanding of the situation. Unfortunately, as a nation we are clueless on this front.

1. The most important point to remember about terrorism in general is that it is a tactic. It’s not a cause, not a movement, not an enemy. It’s a tactic, which terrorists use to make things so ugly, to scare people so much that they hope to win their point. In short terrorism is a tactic to terrorize people. Advancing an ideology, whether that belief is political, philosophical or religious in nature, is the ultimate goal of a terrorist, whether that individual is acting in a group or alone and carries out those acts domestically or in foreign lands.


Thus war on terror and fight against terrorism are misleading terms. It is as if we could wage a war on suicide bombings, or war on trench warfare! It's not about being politicall­y correct. It is about being accurate, and using the proper words to describe what is going on.


2. The enemy are those who have an ideology and are using the tactic. What is the ideology behind the tactic and who are the perpetrators? The ideology is Islam. Remember it is not Islamofascism, not radical Islam, not fanatical Islam, not fundamentalist Islam. It is Islam, plain and simple. There is no moderate Islam. Many Muslims may be moderate, but there is no moderate Islam.


There may be Kashmiri separatists or Pakistan sponsored insurgents or whatever. The culprit is Islam. Recall that Pakistan was demanded in the name of Islam! That there are some militant organizations hostile to India does not put the finger on the nub. Incidentally, the Media Syndicate article correctly points out that the long term goals are extending Sharia, the Islamic law across India, eventually across the whole world. And here we need to understand that thus the attacks are not on India, as it ias falsely understood, it is on non-Muslims, and in the case of India, it is on Hindus.

Thus Hindus need to understand that Islam is at war with them, as it has been for past 1400 years. We may want peace, co-existence out of our own stupidity masquerading as generosity. We may not be at war with them, but they are at war with us. It does not need a genius to notice this simple fact. In fact it needs a cunning and evil design to obscure this obvious fact. And this has been done by Mohandasian suicidal principles, Jawaharian inverted policies and Romila Thaparian distorted history education. The Secularists as well as the Pseudo-secularists, the Communists as well as the Socialists, the Congress-persons, the Third (rate) Front persons, all have been spreading lies to obscure simple facts.


But now, things must change quickly and radically. We, Hindus must wake up. Islam is using, as always and as many others, terror against us. Hindus need to rise and save themselves and their civilization.

Raj Thackeray's Dhim-wit

Raj Thackeray split from Shiv Sens founded by his uncle Bal Thackeray and founded Maharashtra N Sena. Raj fell prey to Congress strategy. Of course the old man, Bala, was favoring his own son over his own nephew. But what was the cause and what was the effect has never been clear. Whether it was Raj's fissiparous tendencies that cause the older Thackeray favor his son or the other way round remains a matter of surmise.

Both Shiv Sena and MNS are parties with some sense and much non-sense. Demanding Mumbai/Maharashtra for Maharashtrians is like the SP-BJP talk of Indian Nationalism, calling India for Hindus. Both the groups are confused about their subject matter. Ask SP-BJP leaders who a Hindu is and they will tie themselves into knots. And ask Shiv Sena and MNS who a Maharashtrian is and they will tie themselves into more convoluted knots.

When Lalu Prasad was Railway minister, he ran special trains to examination centers from Bihar to facilitate the recruitment of Biharis in the Railways. And if Shiv Sena or MNS oppose that, it sounds sensible. But going beyond this is foolishness. Fairness must prevail.

One abominable fact is that Indian polity is so abysmally stupid. And an electorate with dim-wit (low intelligence) almost always have an extractive view of democracy. They do not ask their elected leaders to do what is right, rather they merely demand more as their rights! Vote bank politics of the past sixty years is a standing example. The large have-not vote-banks are voting for themselves the earnings of the haves, all this in the name of pro-poor and socialist affirmative action policies.

Shiv Sena, MNS, and such parties want linguistic vote-banks for themselves. This is not new. The old rat from Chennai, M Karunanidhi (dbuh) has been doing it for much longer. And they do the people of their states much disservice. Will Raj offer all Maharashtrians in the USA lucrative jobs if the Americans indiscriminately threw the Marathi-Manus out of USA?

This time the occasion is Mumbai Blasts. Raj made imbecile comments today blaming "immigration" for the blasts! This is not to say that Raj's criticisms of the Congress and the BJP are wrong. On the contrary, they are spot on. However, Raj besides being a dim-wit proved himself a dhim-wit by blaming the illegal immigrants from Bangladesh. Does it mean that legal immigrants from that place would be better? Was Mohammad Atta, who flew one of the planes into the twin towers on 9/11 an illegal immigrant to USA?

No Mr. Raj, and also Mr. Bal, for you will open your mouth shortly, you need to know better. Immigration may be a problem. But in this case, the diagnosis is simple. It is Islam stupid! No covering up of the facts will do. Pakistan is a problem, because of Islam, Bangladesh is a problem because of Islam, Muslims are a problem because of Islam. Speak that out! If you don't, and in stead of that if you talk of unrelated non-sense regarding immigration (which may be valid in some other context, we grant that to you), you are not only being a dim-wit, rather you are being a dhim-wit (dhimmi dim-wit).

P.S. dbuh = death be upon him.

Does Rahul consider assassinations of Indira and Rajiv within One Percent? Advocates Terror-Quota!

The blasts have happened and the dumb-fucks are at it again. DogVijay feels that India is better than Pakistan. This is false Mr. Singh. Pakistan is much much better, for they have no DogVijay Sing yapping all the time. They only have bearded men barking five times a day from minaret tops.

DS's disciple bettered his preceptor with his piece of wisdom. After applying his brilliant mind to the problem for a couple of millions of nanoseconds, the Bos (This is no spelling error, Bos = Bucket of Sh*t) opined: About 99% terror attacks have been stopped, and it is not possible to stop about 1% of them.

We guess, assassinations of Indira and Rajiv must be well within the available 1% quota. We are wondering whether he is contemplating allocating 1% quota for terrorists. If he ever had his say, he might amend the constitution to accommodate 1% of the terrorists!

However, what surprises us is that if Indira and Rajiv assassinations fall under that 1% quota, why did the Congress orchestrate riots against peaceful Sikhs in Delhi in 1984, and villified the LTTE in 1991? Is it that Indira and Rajiv are more valuable that the rest. Well Rajiv certainly opined so by comparing Indira to a huge tree! (See here)

"once a mighty tree falls, it is only natural that the earth around it shakes."

This summarizes the attitide of those who are entrusted with governing the country. Firstly they think of themselves as rulers. And they consider the ruled to be worms, which can be sacrificed for any whim and fancy of the rulers.

Jawahar sacrificed India for his policy of Panchasheela (leading to the debacle in China war in 1962). Then he screwed India's economy by his socialism. Indira institutionalized corruption, and Rajiv took off from where his mom had left. And yes, Rahul is proving himself to be a worthy element in this lineage.

Being Rahul's mentor, DogVijay Singh is equally worthy in the sequence, starting from Mohandas Gandhi. Everytime we imagine that it might be impossible to worse Mohandas and Jawahar, there come people like Rahul and DogVijay who remind us, that they can come quite close.