From corruption to transparency: Strife to Move from Murk to Limpid

Uttar Pradesh Vidhan Sabha
                                                                             Photo by author

Political patronages to corrupt and hardcore criminals, choosing them as party candidates to fight the election and inducting them in politics started gaining prominence. The country has seen ex dacoits, culprits and hoodwinkers as lawmakers who get police security at the cost of public exchequer.

Recent incidences in the country have thrown many quizzes on a custom (?) which albeit was apparent but accepted as a way of life by the people. Mingled with the social fabric, it was gradually being institutionalized. Considered a good evil, it is the corruption that ailed the society but could not be contained and people have obstreperously accepted it. One more link was added to the chain. Maharastra Home Minister Mr Anil Deshmukh resigned from the office on 05-April-2021, on the pretext of moral grounds but in reality on the grounds of corruption charges. He resigned following the Hon’ble High Court’s order of CBI enquiry on a petition filed by Ex-Police Commissioner Mumbai, Mr Parambir Singh. Hon’ble High Court order and the resignation has opened a Pandora’s Box, besides disturbing the hornet’s nest.

The incidence is not novel. The nation has witnessed many scams, corruption cases and related legal battles in past. There were cases involving scams in the defence deal, coal scam, spectrum distribution and so on. The list is long. Presently, a person who was holding a constitutional post has been implicated in money extortion through police. The incumbent minister represents people’s faith, expectations and aspirations. He takes an oath to protect and uphold the Constitution. His integrity ought to be unquestionable. The breach of trust is serious. Clean and effective leadership is key to efficient functioning and proper delivery. Corruption at the highest level corrupts the whole system and sinks it deep down in the cesspool. Constitutional machinery, the linchpin of the system, becomes a horrible cannibalistic tool when the key functionaries enter in nexus with criminally minded people to extract money by unfair and illegal means. It shatters the mass confidence leading to an anarchic situation. It is good that an unbiased CBI enquiry has been ordered by the court which would bring the facts to light and culprits to the book. 

The ailment of corruption is age-old and related to the individual psyche but the degree is controllable. Thinking about a corruption-free society, however, is a utopia. Considering it a potential threat to society and its functioning, corruption has since long been considered an offence. It has been viewed with disdain and people involved in it were considered criminal and penalized as per the law of time. Even today, some countries observing medieval feudal laws have stringent punishment provisions for proven guilty of corruption including amputations and/or blinding. 

People are taught since their childhood about the merits of honesty, dedication and sanctimony. They are expected to observe honesty since it was the best policy. Punishing and penalizing petty offenders and patronizing powerful criminals is discriminatory. Finding high profile criminals who are neck-deep in corruption roaming scot-free, people feel cheated and bewildered. It adversely affects security, safety and public order leading to chaos.

 

Majestic Dome of Vidhan Sabha
Picture by Author

India, as we all know, is a multi-religious, multilingual nation with diverse culture and customs. One thing which runs like a silver line is the feeling of one unison. It comes from the organic thought process of nationalism. Every Indian feel and own with proud in their nationality. Despite that country was vivisected on religious grounds followed by cataclysmic conflagrations, arson and massacre which led thousands to transmigrate from their soil, people wanted a society wherein everyone could get one's legitimate due as per their share and labour. We adopted a constitution and declared ourselves a democratic, secular and socialistic republic. After seven and half decades, in 2022, the nation would be celebrating the diamond jubilee of freedom. It is time to look back, introspect and evaluate our system and achievements vis a vis our goals and delivery. 

People while getting freedom have had aspirations. They wished to have a society free from oppression, discrimination, exploitation and disparity. Committed themselves to the cause of peaceful coexistence both in-house and in the matter of external affairs, people yearned for a fair and corruption-free system of their own. Have people’s aspirations fulfilled? Let us descry the incidences. 

People saw the gradual waning of systemic authority. The helpless and sometimes timid state was seen as ambivalent. Most decisions were heavily lopsided because of the corrupt practices and parochial motives. At the start, it was veiled but with time progressively gained prominence and now has occupied the centre stage. Corruption is not only about taking a bribe or monetary favour but it resides in the mind and thoughts as well. It, percolating down to the psyche and thought process, becomes disastrous. History testifies that empires were felled down because of this menace. 

Political patronages to corrupt and hardcore criminals, choosing them as party candidates to fight the election and inducting them in politics started gaining prominence. The country has seen ex dacoits, culprits and hoodwinkers as lawmakers who get police security at the cost of public exchequer. Not only this, they take part in voting on vital issues and participate in law-making activities in parliament. Some of them, though, have been acquitted but most of them are convicted with cases pending against them in serious sections of law books. 

Corrupt politicians, bureaucrats and police personnel are not in singularity. The increasing numbers of elected members having criminal records point out this stark reality. "The Hindu" in its 26 May 2019 edition had reported that 43% of newly-elected Lok Sabha MPs had a criminal record, that is, about half the number of elected members are tainted. The trend has seeped into services as well. The involvement of the members of bureaucracy in corrupt practices is increasing exponentially. The magnitude is such that those who want to play fair are sidelined, frequently transferred or punished in frivolous charges. In reply to a question asked in Lok Sabha, Mr Jitendra Singh Minister of State for Personnel said in the House that a total of 753 complaints were received against the IAS officers in 2019-20 and 643 in 2018-19. The number has progressively increased from 380 in 2015-16 to 623 in 2017-18. The number of corruption cases is on rising in every other All India Service cadres including IPS. The waning premier services, considered to be the backbone of Indian bureaucracy, is the testimony of the decaying system. 

The frequent whimsical transfers of government officers had since long been an open secret. It had taken as a source of easy money and a way to mint money by all concerned. It is rather a state policy. Despite having a perennial detailed transfer policy, the industry (!) used to mint money, flouting the norms and taking advantage of the saving clause. 

The growing corruption in electoral politics is the outcome of lust for power. The candidates used to pump money in the process to get votes. The illegitimate money was used in bribing people and the system. The inflow of money has had a system of funding circulated in the system created the notion of development. The use of money and muscle power vitiated the whole system, affected the works. The rampant corruption not only ails but also gnaws away the legitimate right of genuine beneficiaries as well. Thanks to the Election Commission of India and The Supreme Court which put up hurdles in the path of galloping corruption in electoral politics. A lot more still to be done.  

The nation pays the cost of corruption dearly. It reflects in every walks of life. Irregularities in government constructions, medical facilities and tangential favour to private hospitals are among several such examples. It hits hard to not so well off people.  

  

In ongoing state elections of Bengal, Tamil Nadu, Kerala, Assam and Pudducherry, corruption figured prominently. Words 'Tolabaazi' and 'Cut Money' has frequently been used to expose the degree of corruption in the government machinery. It was institutionalized, and the musclemen of local political parties were press in to collect illicit money. It hinders the development prospects of the country. Late Sri Rajeev Gandhi, the then Prime Minister of India, had pointed it out in 1985. Speaking in Kalahandi, he had said that of every rupee spent by the government, only 15 paise reached the poor. It had been the degree of corruption.

Electoral politics rely on votes. In a country like India that is vast, populated and diversified it is an uphill task to have a unitary system of elections. The election process is vast and lengthy. The political parties, vying for votes, try every tact to garner votes and seats. In the rat race, they try to catch hold of every opportunity to win a seat. They prefer candidates who can win by their qualities of religion, caste, money or muscle power. Ostensibly, money or muscle power is a clear winner of the race. The desired or able candidate loses the battle, and thus corruption goes on.

Who will bell the cat, then? The onus is onto us. It is strife, nay, armageddon. The war against corruption is tedious but not difficult to win. Determined WE THE PEOPLE would win it.  

                                                                          Picture by Author

Secularism: Reality or Rhetoric

Photo: by Author

The concept of governance that advocates and aims to implement equality and justice for nationals of a country, irrespective of their religion and caste, secularism and its way of implementation is under the scanner. India is a declared 'Secular' country. Objectively speaking, with a highly complex brain and society, the near ultimate outcome of organic evolution Homo sapiens ought to be equal. They must not be discriminated against on religion, ethnicity, skin colour et cetera. It would be misbegotten to confine them in religious and sectarian compartments. It is, therefore, imperative that the state should be non-aligned to religion; untouched by religious dogma. Law of the land ought to be equal for all its citizens. The theory appears rosy but is it the ground reality too?

Yogi Adityanath, the Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh said that the word secularism was the biggest threat to develop India's prosperous traditions and give it a spot on the global stage. Speaking on the occasion of the first launch of the edition of the Global Encyclopedia of Ramayana on 06-March-2021, he was referring to the way of using the principle in the past. The supposedly 'unconstitutional' remarks, however, received severe criticism from Asaduddin Owaisi, head of All India Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen (AIMIM), a party that draws its nourishment from sectarian ideology in the name of secularism. The words like 'Secularism', 'Secular Forces' and 'Communal' et cetera have been the favourite catchwords for politicians who often use it to create a bogey of communal spectre and polarization of votes.

The idea that religion should neither be a guiding principle nor should it interfere with governance fits well with secularism. In 508 BC, when the concept of democracy was introduced in ancient Greek, people except women and slaves were given voting rights. Each citizen had had a single vote. The society was predominantly theistic that gave priority to religion and social status. The ancient states were not indifferent to religion. Tabernacles, lofty temples, synagogues, churches and mosques were patronized and often constructed by states. Talking or preaching against the beaten principles of religion was considered blasphemy and the culprits were brutally executed. The concept of secularism albeit occupied the thought process of early Greek and Roman philosophers, it is not antediluvian. Relatively new, the term ‘Secularism’ was first used by British writer George Holyoake.  

With the growing prominence of intellect, the Age of Enlightenment started in 17th and 18th century Europe. The advocacy for the separation of religion and church from the governance started gaining ground. Thoughts accorded a sovereign status and the perception considered as the only valid source of knowledge. The changing perceptions were bound to develop cracks in the bastion of the intolerant, religion-based political system wherein the king was supposed to be the representative of God and the clergy as his aides. The opposition of the system was unacceptable and used to be brutally crushed.

In the Indian thought process, Charvaka were the main exponent of philosophy who put thoughts and perception on a high pedestal. Religious tolerance gradually made inroads. In the 3rd century BC, Ashoka the Great appealed to his subjects to follow religious tolerance and treat other religions with respect (Rock Edict - XII). In the 19th century India, devout Sikh emperor Maharaja Ranjeet Singh honouring other faiths had soldiers of different religions in his legions.  

                                                 Photo: by author

The medieval period of Indian history witnessed a watertight and intolerant system of governance of monarchs. They invaded and looted India. Some established their kingdom. Invaders became emperors who happened to be dynastic, wishes of whom used to be a command. Proselytization was a state policy. Non-muslims and Hindu natives were considered inferior subjects. Their faiths were corrupted, routed and trampled; the ‘jizya’ tax was imposed on them. In northern India especially, Hindu temples were desecrated, idols of deities were beheaded and temple materials were used to construct mosques deliberately on the fallen temple spots to trample the self-esteem of Hindus. The opposition was dealt with brutally and the 'culprits' were tortured to death. Rulers like Akbar, portrayed as a tolerant monarch, were religious bigots for a fairly long time.

Photo: by author

The divide on religious lines was distinct during the British empire in India. They encouraged religious intolerance and created a furrow between Hindus and Muslims to establish and strengthen their rule, especially post-1857. In an upheaval against the British East India Company, both Hindus and Muslims participated in the joint operation and courageously fought the first war of independence in 1857, termed ‘mutiny’ by Britons. Even though that the upheaval was crushed and henceforth governance was taken over by the British crown, Britons sensed the threat of joint native force. Slowly and meticulously divide was created to appease a section of society. In 1909 an Act was promulgated to constitute a separate electorate for Muslims. Later it was furthered to include other communities as well by the Government of India Act, 1919. Cracks started appearing between Hindus and Muslims - the communities that fought as one in the first combat against foreign rule. The foundation of the Muslim league in 1906 ensured the divide on a religious basis culminating in India's vivisection in 1947. 

Party spearheading the freedom movement in India sans Muslim League had been in favour of collective fight without any discrimination. Many illustrious leaders like Khan Abdul Gaffar Khan, Maulana Abul Kalam Azad and Rafi Ahmad Kidwai contributed positively to the fight for freedom. Gandhiji wanted a wholly tolerant India with its religions working side by side with one another. However, there was a section of society that had a different ideology. Muslim League, which was constituted with the sole aim to garner the support of the Muslim population, started demanding a separate state for they could 'not live with Hindus'. They propounded “Two Nation Theory” and impetuously worked on it. Fierce communal riots were instigated, causing panic and colossal loss of lives and properties. People started transmigrating well before the actual vivisection of India. They were aghast, did not know as to why they were being displaced from their soil.

Freedom came staggering; India was freed but paid a heavy price. The nation was lacerated, wounded and vivisected. Rampant communal conflagrations started on the call of "Direct Action" by the Muslim League. Large scale arson, loot and violence had left people in the lurch. Newly established Pakistan chose to be an Islamic state, but India opted for a secular structure. Religiously intolerant Pakistan became hellish for non-muslims. In India, however, Nehru was for a robust system indifferent to religion. The first Prime Minister of free India, Pt. Nehru was a visionary. He was an atheist but not anti-religious. For a country like India, which is pluralistic and varied with many cultures, languages and religious practices, secular democracy was the option that aligned to many west educated Indian leaders of the time. The Constitution, adopted in 1950, guaranteed the citizens a society free from religious interference but simultaneously gave them individual freedom of religious practice. It had to be a harmonious society. Article 14, 16, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29 and 30 of the Constitution ensures freedom of expression, worship, and work. There is no state religion. Article 25 of the Constitution ensures “Freedom of conscience and free profession, practice and propagation of religion”, while Article 26 gives the right to establish, manage and maintain every religious denomination or any section thereof. These provisions ensure individual freedom which aligns with Nehru’s thoughts. Later, with an amendment in the Constitution adopted in 1976 (42nd Amendment Act, 1976), “We The People of India” resolved “To constitute India into a Sovereign, Socialist, Secular Democratic Republic”. India was now a ‘Secular’ country not tangentially but directly.  

Coming to the point of implementation, it is limpid that the Constitution and its provisions ought to be followed in its letter and spirit. Interpretation of the Constitutional provisions is under the purview of the judiciary. Interpretations and explanations of the constitutional provisions have been done by the judiciary from time to time. The Hon'ble Supreme Court upheld that preamble was part of the Constitution and could be amended. Secularism became a cromulent state policy after its inclusion in the preamble, therefore, it has to be observed diligently. In practicality, however, a deviation is witnessed. 

The electoral politics of India is a complex process. In a society with different languages, groups and sub-groups, customs and practices amalgamated with diversified regional patterns, an absolute system are difficult, if not impossible, to have. The number of votes and the ability to convert votes into seats is the crux of forming the government. The political party or the conglomerate of parties that gets majority seats can form the government. Ostensibly it is the vote which is a decisive factor in government formation. Political parties in India started eying on en bloc vote-share of minority voters. In all practicality, political parties prefer to choose their candidates based on religion, caste, creed and influence in elections occurring after lustrum.

In the rat race of getting votes, the political parties started making alliances ignoring the fundamentals of ethics and compromising ideology. The ‘Grand Old Party’, Congress, having the onus of carrying the torch of Nehruvian secularism, showed the inclination for ‘Vote-bank Politics’. They enter into alliances with sectarian regional parties which have been vocal against the majority sentiments and lopsidedly critical to them. Congress allied with Indian Union Muslim League (IUML) in Kerala, All India United Democratic Front (AIUDF) in Assam, and Indian Secular Front (ISF) in Bengal for parochial motives. Parties vying for Muslim votes are seen in the mad race to show themselves as their Messiah, shunning secularism and following preposterous appeasement policy. In the over-enthusiasm for appeasement, they even declared that minorities, particularly Muslims, have the first claim on the government resources while some claimed that they would strife and die for the Muslim cause. People of the country saw that Puja in Bengal was banned while religious processions of minorities were permitted. Iftar parties organized by the Chief Ministers of States and at the President House happened to be the ludicrous show of appeasement blatantly flouting norms of the Constitution. 

The dent in the secular philosophy which started appearing in the period of Late (Mrs) Indira Gandhi, deepened when the then Prime Minister late Mr Rajeev Gandhi, yielding to the clergy pressure, turned turtle the verdict of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Shah Bano case and later tried to pacify majority by letting open the gates at ‘Ram Janmabhoomi’. Vexed, especially after December 1992, the issue of 'Ram Janmabhoomi' has now been settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court after a very long legal battle. Numerous communal conflagrations took place which shook the very root of the system. People are now witnessing the pantomime of temple hopping and flaunting ‘Janeu’ by leaders of political parties ostensibly to balance the act of appeasement and to lure majority voters. 

Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath was probably referring to fake secularism in practice. Appeasement of a section of society was nothing but lip service. It harmed the minorities who had been kept frightened and lured with freebies. They went up to an extent of disintegrating the social and national unity by favouring those who are a potential threat. The support for Rohangiyas and eyebrow-raising on the Army actions are but few instances. Muslims feel cheated and cornered except for those who are getting a major chunk of the cake. The people are smart, they understand the acts. 

Photo: by Author

Secularism is not about appeasing a group or two. Appeasement is discriminatory and is against the spirit of the Constitution. The law of land treats everyone the same. Fruits of development are for all. A socialist, secular and democratic setup is unitary, not only in words but also in full practicality. The step-motherly treatment towards the majority section of society gives way to social discontent, which is detrimental to the nation. Each citizen contributes their share for the emancipation and development of the nation. It is equally important that the majority population have a tolerant and compassionate attitude towards minorities. There is no place for fear, haterade and suspicion among the sections of the society. Mutual trust, understanding and respect are the keys to harmonious coexistence. This is the essence and spirit of the Constitution that the eminent members of the constituent assembly envisaged while preparing the voluminous and exhaustive document which is the sole source of governance in free India. 

                                       Photo: by author

Social Media: Boon or Bane

Recently, Social Media attracted eyeballs. The alleged biased attitude of Facebook, famous social networking site was in the eyes of the storm. The government was charged for ostensibly misusing the platform for their selfish motive. The issue raised a furore. Government and the ruling party were under heavy shelling of opposition. Heated arguments and counter-arguments put forth about the Social Media platform. Ironically, the mainstream media which obtain their substantial quota of scoops from Social Media were the front-runners in the race of scathing.  

The present time is an era of information. The society is running on information superhighway wherein delivering and receiving contents is fast, secure and on a real-time basis.  It has opened up an entirely new vista. Like Hide Park of England, it is a platform where anyone can vent out oneself. Till recently unaccustomed to such freedom, people seem bewildered and startled. Know not how to use it effectively, they are experimenting in rather a different way. More often than not, people are using the new technology ludicrously not the way it should be. Though misused, social media has helped to unearth many hitherto unknown facts.

With computers getting smaller, lighter, powerful and easy to carry the content production, their upload and retrieval have also become fast and convenient. The Smart-phone technology has augmented the spread of Social Media by shortening the cumbersome process of content creation, processing and transmission to a great extent. The reduced data cost has added its share in the exponential growth of Social Media Platform. 

Social media has emerged as a powerful tool. With the army of individual users, it becomes all the more powerful. It helps to reach a large number of audiences and affect their viewpoints. Political parties use it for canvassing and proliferation of their ideas. Various media houses find it easy to promote their medium and get large viewership. In the recent past, it was grossly misused for rumour and hate-mongering to disrupt public order and creating anarchy as well. Albeit it is difficult to ignore the ever-evolving social media platform, but it needs to be regulated by law. 

A convoluted society like ours is a motley aggregation of people where every individual has something to say. Asking questions is the key to a free and frank society where every citizen has the right to express their views guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India and Section 10 of The Human Rights Act 1998. People, however, tend to thrust their views onto others which culminates in a heated discussion. Such is the hardening of attitude that they behave like a bigot and intolerant. To make an argument heavy(?), use of abusive language is becoming frequent. It is unacceptable in a civilized society. However, it is not only so-called Social Media which is to be blamed, increased acrimony and use of choicest words on TV debates are also gaining currency. Unexpectedly, TV channels promote filthy languages and loose-talks apparently for their TRPs. The deterioration in quality is frequent and rampant. 

A healthy discussion is an indication of sound knowledge, and a deep understanding of the topic panellists have. It is, therefore, imperative that the participants adhere to those qualities. Lopsided and unfounded arguments cause infuriation. At times during the discussion, commotion and a tug-of-war like situation occur among the panellists. Nevertheless, it does not give a person to use offensive language. The discussions would be decent and fruitful only when the arguments are courteously put forth, respecting sentiments of all. Contrarily, a steep decline in the quality of debates on TV and social media platform is becoming recurrent. It affects daily lives as well. 

The growing resentment against the social media platform is because of the increasing verbal duets, use of abusive language and unwillingness of participants for a mic drop.  People are part of society. The individual behaviour affects society in general. It is, therefore, incumbent upon the individual to use this technology judiciously. With logical concept-formation buttressed by reasoning and observing restrain, the use of social media can be made more effective. 

Protests on Citizenship Amendment Act: Fabricated or Genuine

Loss of life of a duty-bound policeman in an insane happening of indiscriminate firing by a group of miscreants in Delhi is shocking and needs strong condemnation. The aimless killing demands severe penal action against the guilty. Such people are not only miscreants but diabolic murderers as well who believe in anarchy and lawlessness. Unfortunately, they who belong to a group subsisted by few political parties are fanning communal rife for their parochial gains. It reminds the gory incidences during the time of independence when a similar situation had been created to prove the shallow but divisive "Two Nation Theory" and "Direct Action" was called by Muslim League. That led to widespread riots, arson, killing and loot causing a massive exodus of people who were uprooted from their soil and made to move. Pakistan was created on a religious basis and chose to remain an Islamic country. Contrary to it, we adopted to remain secular. However, the word 'Secular' was misinterpreted and grossly misused.

After the post-partition upheaval eased and dust started setting down, India and Pakistan signed a pact in 1950. The Nehru-Liaquat pact was aimed to address the plight of refugees and their belongings. The opening paragraph of the pact says:

"The Governments of India and Pakistan solemnly agree that each shall ensure, to the minorities throughout its territory, complete equality of citizenship, irrespective of religion, a full sense of security in respect of life, culture, property and personal honour, freedom of movement within each country and freedom of occupation, speech and worship, subject to law and morality. Members of the minorities shall have equal opportunity with members of the majority community to participate in the public life of their country, to hold political or other offices, and to serve in their country's civil and armed forces. Both Governments declare these rights to be fundamental and undertake to enforce them effectively. The Prime Minister of India has drawn attention to the fact that these rights are guaranteed to all minorities in India by its Constitution. The Prime Minister of Pakistan has pointed out that similar provision exists in the Objective Resolution adopted by the Constituent Assembly of Pakistan. It is the policy of both Governments that the enjoyment of these democratic rights shall be assured to all their national without distinction.
Both Governments wish to emphasize that the allegiance and loyalty of the minorities are to the state of which they are citizens and that it is to the government of their own State that they should look for the redress of their grievances."

The full text of the pact is here.

The pact was not honoured by Pakistan. Even after the pact, the exodus of minorities continued unabated from erstwhile East Pakistan. Answering a question in the Parliament, the then External Affairs Minister Sardar Swarn Singh had said that the instances of violations had started coming to notice almost immediately after the inception of the Pact. The treacherous act of theocratic states of Pakistan and erstwhile East Pakistan led to an unwanted situation wherein the religious minorities reduced to insignificant 3% during the past seven decades. The autocratic and intolerant attitude towards Hindus of Pakistan and East Pakistan(now Bangladesh) had left them in the lurch. With time, due to their persecution, the minorities in Pakistan progressively decreased and now they have almost wiped off from there. It was felt to do justice to such ill-fated minorities of Pakistan, Bangladesh and Afghanistan. CAA (Citizenship Amendment Act), as passed by both Houses of Parliament, has been enacted. The Act is intended to help those persecuted minorities who have come to India for safety and dignity losing everything including modesty of their families. It is not new. It was felt by previous governments as well but was not implemented but for the past few months, post-enactment of the Act, certain areas of the country are witnessing sectarian conflagrations. Organized violent protests started which spread like wildfire. The public order was thrown out of gear. Public buses were torched systematically and police stations vandalized. Police were attacked heavily. The opposition of CAA by the 'Grand Old Party' and some petty parties is beyond comprehension. It is all the more important because it was mooted out by them as well but now they are opposing it.

The way CAA is being opposed clearly reveals the vicious intention of its perpetrators. The arm-twisting stratagem was adopted which came out in the form of Shaheen Bagh. It was aimed to give a non-violent face to an otherwise violent act of stone-pelting and firing. The real intentions took no time to come out. The government has taken several decisions in quick succession. Abrogation of Article 370 in Kashmir and creation of two Union Territories, Tripple Talaq, Ayodhya verdict by Hon'ble Supreme Court are to name a few. The vexation infuriated them. It has tangentially been accepted by the protestors of Shahin Bagh as well.

A protest is intrinsic to a democratic society wherein people freely express their views, sentiments and/or apprehensions. It is a valid and effective means to register the opposition. It is a vital part of a healthy and viable democracy where every government decisions are put to rigorous grilling. It is right and it should be so. However, opposition for the sake of it, that too by adopting illegal means like road-block for a long time, is neither a valid means of protest nor should be encouraged. Torching buses, damaging public properties, disrupting public order in the name of democratic protest are illegal and cause undue public harassment. Those who are opposing CAA blindfolded are ignoring the basic facts and misleading the masses. Taking the shield of women and children, they are trying to play with the fear(?) and sentiments of a section. This must be stopped.