Fake 'FAST UNTO DEATH' & how to effortlessly detect it

Dear Friends

The recent increase in the number of agitations in the name of ‘fast unto death’ is certainly a cause for concern for the Government.

There can be no doubt that the sacrifice of oneself for a cause is the highest human ideal. Satyagraha is therefore, the greatest form of protest available to an individual. The fact remains that India, our country, secured its political freedom from the British by a stead fasted adherence to the principle of Satyagraha.

Now, career politicians are increasingly threatening to ‘fast unto death’ for purposes that are not necessarily in anybody's interest except theirs. When a career politician sets out to ‘fast unto death’, the truthfulness behind such an agitation is rarely known to the world except to his close associates.

Yet, I am of the view that a Government should strive to ascertain if such agitations are ‘truthful’ at all. The Government ought to ask, ‘Has a fasting politician truly contemplated ‘death’?’

There is no greater dishonour for a country to witness an individual pretend to ‘fast unto death’ and compel his Government to accede to his demand in the absence of a moral foundation to the episode; the willingness of an individual to commit himself for a cause and the willingness of a Government to accede to his proposal on moral grounds.

A person who lives with a family and has secured material prosperity may not contemplate death with any degree of certainty. If he did, he would most definitely write a ‘will’ and execute it so as to meet his obligation to the members of his family.

Less than 1/10th of 1% of the population of India bothers to write and execute a ‘will’. The mainstream media is never tired of disclosing new episodes narrating the misfortune of the mighty and the wealthy who are driven to squabble on the streets largely because the family patriarch left no will or disclosed none to his family and a dubious will emerged from a stranger’s camp.

A career politician with substantial assets and a thriving dynasty who seeks to sacrifice himself to a cause will most likely write and execute a ‘will’ if only he is willing to move closer to ‘death’. As such, a career politician who threatens a ‘fast unto death’ may never need to be taken seriously unless he takes steps to write and execute a ‘will’.

Remember what U.G.Krishnamurthy, J.K.Krishnamurthi and Osho emphasised all of their life – the people of India aren’t spiritual at all; at least not as much as they claim. If they had no fear of death at all, they would never have surrendered to any power and yet, look to history and you will see that people were always willing and waiting to surrender to somebody or the other.

If you notice a career politician threatening to ‘fast unto death’, please do this country a favour. Ask that individual for a copy of his will. After all, if he has contemplated death with any degree of certainty, he should have authored and executed a ‘will’.

People with massive amounts of money in India rarely write a ‘will’. Why would they, anyway? It is easier to extract love and support from your loved ones by getting them to hope for a bigger reward in return for their love and support to you. Once you write and execute a ‘will’, your family members clearly learn how much they will receive upon your death and will therefore, see no need to disproportionately gratify you. If you are a career politician and have lots of ill-gotten wealth and plenty of family members who have their eye on your purses, the last thing you would want to do in your lifetime is to write a will and distance everybody from your life.

So, the next time a politician tells you that he will ‘fast unto death’, ask him for his will. If he has none, please publicise such absence to the world. You will be doing this country, a favour.

--
Regards,

K.V. Dhananjay.
Advocate, Supreme Court of India
+91-99029-09390

Is India, a marriage democracy?

Dear Friends
First came Shashi Tharoor. Now comes Jairam Ramesh. Should we all think that our Government should be administered as if it were a grand Indian marriage ceremony? That everybody will smile at everyone else and that, nobody will say anything to displease another?

Unfortunately, India seems to be moving towards a marriage democracy. Why should it matter at all that one minister does not have very nice words to say about his cabinet colleague? In saying what was said, did Jairam Ramesh physically prevent Chidambaram from transacting his business? Chidambaram has been in the Government for more than a decade and is a decade worth of valuable work vulnerable to some comment by another?

Obviously, No. Then, why cannot we be a democracy in which, each person will speak his mind and nobody will bother about what another says. After all, these are public offices and shall be remitted at the appointed hour. And space is very infinite and can hold unlimited opinions of each and every individual on this planet.

After having said all of the above, somebody should also be asking me - why should I bother in the first place? Can't I simply shut up and let the Government be run in any way that the netas please?

Good question and my answer would be, it takes one thorn to weed out another. Btw, I have no connection whatsoever to Jairam Ramesh. Have never met or spoken to him.
- Hide quoted text -



--
Regards,

K.V. Dhananjay.
Advocate, Supreme Court of India
+91-99029-09390

The President may only say 'YES' or 'NO'. Not 'CAN'T SAY' or 'DON'T KNOW'.

Dear Friends
It is somewhat expected that KASAB will be sentenced to Death by Hanging. Thereafter, the High Court of Bombay will hear his appeal on a mandatory REFERENCE. Thereafter, the Supreme Court is bound to hear him on an appeal whether preferred by him or by the State.

So, what about the President's current backlog of clemency petitions?

The President or the Governor, as the case may be, are not to disrupt the judicial power of the Government. When a Court of Law imposes a death penalty upon a convict, it becomes the duty of the Executive Government to execute such punishment except upon the intervention of the President or the Governor, upon a properly instituted clemency petition.

For the past two decades, what we are seeing in India is that the decision making by the President is wholly botched up by indecisiveness and political considerations. The President is required to answer, either 'YES' or 'NO'. Our Founding Fathers were not foolish enough to entrust to the President of India, a power to indefinitely hold up judicial orders by receiving clemency petitions first and by refusing thereafter to say, either 'YES' or 'NO'.

Over the past two decades, successive Presidents have instead been content to say 'CAN'T SAY' or 'DON'T KNOW', after they receive clemency petitions. What kind of Governance is this? This is utter mockery of our Constitutional jurisprudence.

Are the people of India opposed to the death penalty? Then, nothing is more simpler for the Parliament of India than to merely create a law, by a simple majority, to abolish all forms of 'death' penalty. Problem solved!

Is the President of India opposed to death penalty? Simple, indeed. Accept the clemency petition and grant 'pardon'.

But what on earth is it, to sleep over files like it is being done?

It is not like India alone is populated with people and the rest of the world is populated with monkeys. If 'death penalty' is abhorrent to many here, simply 'abolish' it. If not, keep it on the books. The President can still grant 'clemency' to whoever he/she pleases.

I think, the President's indecisiveness is making a mockery of our criminal justice system. And it may take KASAB to clean up this rot in the President's decision making. Is it too much to say 'YES' or 'NO'? Then, do not become the President of India - there are too many alternative avenues or job opportunities open in India. And the President of India should be the last person in the country to engage in political procrastination.

--
Regards,

K.V. Dhananjay.
Advocate, Supreme Court of India
+91-99029-09390