June 27, 2016
I’ve read Rana Ayyub’s book, Gujarat Files. She provides phenomenal corroborative evidence against Modi and his gang of criminals.
Let me first review Haren Pandya’s case.
I’ve dealt with Pandya on a number of blog posts, e.g.
- Modi is almost certainly the mastermind behind the murder of Haren Pandya: further proof
- Haren Pandya, Modi’s murdered minister, was no saint. Burnt shops, demolished tombs and 400 year old masjids.
- Why do we STILL not know about the killer of Narendra Modi’s Minister, Haren Pandya?
- How has N.Modi treated Jagruti Pandya, the wife of his murdered Minister?
The facts of the case have been brought out at great length by Rana Ayyub. There is absolutely no doubt that Haren had been killed somewhere else and his body brought to the Law Gardens of Ahmedabad in the car in which he purportedly was shot.
This is some more background regarding his murder (some of this has been cited in Ayyub’s book).
Any man shot through his scrotum, as Pandya was, is going to bleed profusely; the scrotum is an intricate web of blood vessels that control body temperature. Did Pandya bleed? Yes. Are there traces in the car? No. Pandya was shot through his scrotum, his neck, twice through his chest, once through his arm. The car should have been drenched, or at least his seat should have been. Yet forensic reports find no evidence of blood in the vehicle, save for a dab on the front passenger seat and another on the key chain (Central Forensic Sciences Laboratory report no. CFSL-2003/F-0232).
Forensic reports also do not record any gunshot residue inside Pandya’s car (report of Mobile Forensic Science Laboratory, Gujarat State). Five bullets, if not more, were fired into him, apparently while he sat in the car. Yet no bullet residue? [Source]
Now, YA Shaikh, the sub-inspector who conducted initial investigations into the Haren Pandya murder was “stung” by Rana Ayyub.
The information he provides solidly supports the allegation that many have made, including Haren Pandya’s father, that Modi was personally behind this murder.
Note that Haren Pandya was himself a communal field; no ideal hero was he.
But Modi did not (assuming that he did – if the allegations and circumstantial evidence is true) kill him because of that. There were direct political reasons. Among them, that Haren had been telling the truth about the 2002 riots.
She explained that her husband had deposed before the VR Krishna Iyer-led citizens’ inquiry into the Gujarat genocide of 2002. It was a secretly arranged deposition, but she believed Modi had found out about it. [Rana Ayyub’s book]
But also that Pandya was a political competitor.
Anyway, here’s what Shaikh said during the sting:
You know this Haren Pandya case is like a volcano. Once the truth is out, Modi will go home. He will be jailed, not go home. He will be in prison.
Rana Ayyub asks:
Q) So are you saying that Tarun Barot, Chudasama and Vanzara were complicit in this?
A) Yes. Kanhiayya just narrated that he was going in a car and he saw Haren Pandya lying in a car. Sushil Gupta the CBI officer approved the concoted story of the Gujarat police. Gupta resigned from the CBI, he is now a lawyer with the SC. He’s on the payroll of Reliance. Ask him why did he resign from the CBI. He sits in the Supreme Court. Meet him.
A) Everybody was involved. It was at Advani’s behest that the case was handed over to the CBI. Because he was Narendra Modi’s mentor. So to clear him, I mean, people will not buy the story of the local police but they will buy the story of CBI
Further Q by Ayyub: Whose role was there? Barot or Vanzara?
A) All three. Barot was somewhere else and Chudasama was brought on deputation. They had got Chudasama. He works for the government.
I think this is such strong corroborative evidence that the whole case should be reopened.
June 23, 2016
One fine day, not very far away now, religion will die. All religion – without a single exception.
Only the mentally sick and the dunces or the dupes still believe that religious texts are “true”.
But the question arises: how did these delusional texts become so powerful?
Initially, when man, the highly evolved monkey, became self-aware, he started asking questions about his origin. The mentally sick monkeys amongst us had some hallucinations about something they call “god”. That’s all a trick of a sick brain. (While “god” may well exist – there’s no way known to us to prove it; but anyone who has “sighted” or “spoken” with “god” or the “angels” was mentally sick, 100 per cent). Other mentally sick monkeys then decided to “believe” the other monkeys’ hallucination, without having seen it themselves.
There are over 100,000 different documented types of monkey hallucinations (religions).
Sooner or later, a “leader” monkey (i.e. king) was born who was either mentally sick or who – rationally – wanted to take advantage of a religious hallucination in order to gain personal power. And then that hallucination took off, it became “embedded” in society through the use of the leader monkey’s force.
Some of these hallucinations have now gone on for thousands of years because people were afraid to annoy the leader monkey (king).
But most children are born rational, even today. Society can’t operate if everyone hallucinates. These non-sick people always ask (when they are small) about proof. They ask: WHO in his right mind can possibly believe in these hallucinatory texts.
Hallucinations are flimsy imaginations that disappear through the sunlight of reason, through questioning. The thing (religion) is so pathetically weak in its foundations, it ALWAYS dissolves into thin air the moment people ask questions.
Religion therefore has NO HOPE. ALL children (excluding those who become mentally sick sometime in their life) will sooner or later reject it.
Islam is harder to kill, since it uses EXTREME FORCE to prevent people from leaving. But it, too, will ultimately die.
The day all people are liberated from religion, we can start living like humans for the first time, not like mentally sick monkeys.
June 23, 2016
This is an extract from George H. Smith’s The System of Liberty: Themes in the History of Classical Liberalism. It is particularly important as it shows the absolutely requirement for clarity of words in legal documents, such as a Constitution. Even the slightest ambiguity can be used to destroy the underlying intent of the framers of a document.
The “general welfare” clause (Article 1, Section 8) provoked strenuous objections by opponents of the Constitution (“Antifederalists”) that this gave to Congress a blank check to pass any legislation it deemed conducive to the public good. In response, James Madison and other defenders of the Constitution (“Federalists”) maintained that the general welfare clause is not a grant of unlimited power but merely a statement of the general purpose for which Congress could levy taxes. The powers of Congress, they insisted, are specified in the list of enumerated power that follows the general welfare clause. Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution begins as follows:
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;….
This clause ends with a semicolon, after which we find a list of the so-called enumerated powers granted to Congress, including “To borrow Money on the credit of the United States; to regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes; To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization,” and so on.
The basic point of contention was whether the grant of power of Congress to provide for the “general welfare of the United States” specifies the purpose of the enumerated powers, or whether it is a separate and distinct power apart from the enumerated powers – a power whose range would ultimately be determined by Congress itself.
Antifederalists protested that the general welfare clause would be construed as a separate and distinct power; since “general welfare” has no clear meaning, it would effectively nullify the enumerated powers by granting an undefined and therefore indefinite power to Congress. One Antifederalist, writing under the pseudonym “Brutus,” expressed this concern as follows:
It will…be matter of opinion, what tends to the general welfare; and the Congress will be the only judges in the matter. To provide for the general welfare, is an abstract proposition, which mankind differ in the explanation of, as much as they do on any political or moral proposition that can be proposed; the most opposite measures may be pursued by different parties, and both may profess, that they have in view the general welfare; and both sides may be honest in their professions, or both may have sinister views. Those who advocate this new constitution declare, they are influenced by a regard to the general welfare; those who oppose it, declare they are moved by the same principle; and I have no doubt but a number of both sides are honest in their professions; and yet nothing is more certain than this, that to adopt this constitution, and not to adopt it, cannot both of them be promotive of the general welfare.101
When one is confronted with a vague term such as “general welfare,” the key question is this: Who shall decide in what the “general welfare” consists? If Congress is vested with the power to decide this matter for itself, “it is a truth confirmed by the unerring experience of ages that every man and every body of men, invested with power, are ever disposed to increase it, and to acquire a superiority over every thing that stands in their way.”102
In The Federalist (#41), James Madison responded to the fears voiced by Antifederalists about the general welfare clause. Articulating the view that would later become a mainstay of strict constructionism, he argued that the power to provide for the general welfare was never intended to be a separate and distinct power granted to Congress, and that the meaning of the “general welfare” is confined to the subsequent list of enumerated powers.
Perhaps the most interesting aspect of Madison’s discussion is the contempt he expressed for those Antifederalists who warned that this clause would grant virtually unlimited powers to Congress: “No stronger proof could be given of the distress under which these writers labour for objections, than their stooping to such a misconstruction.”103 Madison claimed that the Antifederalist argument would be plausible only if the Constitution contained “no other enumeration or definition of the powers of the Congress.” However, this argument is not plausible, given that the general terms “common defense and general welfare” are immediately followed by a list of enumerated powers and are “not even separated by a longer pause than a semicolon.” It is not reasonable to suppose that “one part of the same sentence be excluded altogether from a share in the meaning,” and that “the clear and precise expressions” of the enumerated powers be denied any role in defining “the more doubtful and indefinite terms.” After all, why would the enumerated powers have been included in the first place – what purpose would they serve? – if they would effectively be nullified by a general, undefined, and indefinite grant of power to promote the “general welfare”?
So obvious did this interpretation seem to Madison that he could not take the Antifederalist argument seriously. To claim that the enumerated powers should play no role in explaining or qualifying the meaning of “general welfare” can have no other effect than “to confound and mislead” the American people. Americans must therefore decide whether the framers of the Constitution deliberately set out to deceive them, or whether Antifederalists were deliberately distorting the meaning of the general welfare clause in order to inflame the deep-seated fear of a government with unlimited power. Of course, there was no doubt in Madison’s mind about the correct explanation.
Thus did Madison emphatically deny that the general welfare clause “amounts to an unlimited concession to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defence or general welfare.”105 As part of his argument that the term “general welfare” is simply a caption that is explained by the subsequent list of enumerated powers, Madison noted that the relevant terms were copied from the Articles of Confederation (Article III), which says that the American states have entered “into a firm league of friendship with each other, for their common defence, the security of their Liberties, and their mutual and general welfare.” And according to Article VIII of the same document, “All charges of war, and all other expences that shall be incurred for the common defence or general welfare” shall be “defrayed out of a common treasury.”106
How should these references to the “general welfare” in the Articles of Confederation be construed? Madison contended that the “general welfare” specified a purpose (along with the common defense) for which specific powers had been delegated to the Confederation Congress to serve as means. The general welfare, in other words, was not itself a delegated power, nor was Congress authorized to do anything it deemed appropriate to promote the general welfare. Rather, the Articles authorized Congress to exercise only those powers that had been expressly delegated to it, and the states had given this authorization so that Congress could advance the general welfare.107 Therefore, since the identical words appear in the Constitution, it is unreasonable to suppose that they mean anything other than what they meant in the Articles of Confederation.
Madison’s interpretation was echoed during the Virginia ratifying convention (June, 1788) by Governor Edmund Randolph (who, like Madison, had served as a delegate to the Constitutional Convention). After accusing Antifederalists of using highly colored rhetoric to exaggerate “the dangers of giving the General Government an indefinite power of providing for the general welfare,” Randolph insists that “no such power is given.” The “general welfare” is not a separate and independent power but merely specifies the purpose for which Congress is empowered to levy taxes. To interpret it as a grant of indefinite power is “absurd” – “treason against common language” – because it would make nonsense out of the subsequent list of enumerated powers.108
Despite Madison’s condescending attitude toward the objections of Antifederalists, and despite Randolph’s charge that their interpretation was “absurd” and “treason against common language,” it didn’t take long for the prediction of Antifederalists – namely that the general welfare clause would be construed as a grant of indefinite power to Congress – to become true. In late 1791, Alexander Hamilton (then Secretary of the Treasury in the Washington administration) produced his highly influential Report on Manufactures. In this detailed defense of governmental intervention to promote various industries in the United States, Hamilton defends bounties as necessary to make certain industries viable in America.
The problem for Hamilton was that the Constitution nowhere authorizes the payment of such bounties; indeed, to the extent to which bounties benefit particular industries at the expense of taxpayers, farmers, and other industries, they would seem to run afoul of the requirement that taxes serve the general welfare rather than special interests.
The first thing Hamilton needed to do was to argue that bounties, however much they may seem to benefit some people at the expense of others, are conducive to the growth of an economy and therefore further the general welfare. Even if we grant this, though, the problem remains that bounties are not included in the list of enumerated powers. Hamilton met this objection by outlining his broad interpretation of the general welfare clause – an interpretation that would later receive the sanction of the U.S. Supreme Court.
Hamilton maintained “the terms ‘general welfare’ were doubtless intended to signify more than was expressed” by the enumerated powers; “otherwise numerous exigencies incident to the affairs of a Nation would have been left without a provision.” Hamilton continues:
The phrase is as comprehensive as any that could have been used because it was not fit that the constitutional authority of the Union, to appropriate its revenues should have been restricted within narrower limits than the ‘General Welfare’ and because this necessarily embraces a vast variety of particulars, which are susceptible neither of specification nor of definition.
It is therefore of necessity left to the discretion of the National Legislature, to pronounce, upon the objects, which concern the general Welfare, and for which under that description, an appropriation of money is requisite and proper. And there seems to be no room for a doubt that whatever concerns the general Interests of learning of Agriculture of Manufacturers and of Commerce are within the sphere of the national Councils as far as regards its application of Money.
In 1936, the broad interpretation of the general welfare clause that Madison contemptuously dismissed as a bogeyman of the Antifederalists was embraced by the U.S. Supreme Court. After summarizing Madison’s argument that the general welfare clause should not be construed as a separate and distinct power granted to Congress but instead “amounted to no more than a reference to the other powers enumerated in the subsequent clauses of the same section,” Justice Roberts, writing for the majority, goes on to summarize the broad interpretation defended by Alexander Hamilton (and later embraced by Justice Story in his celebrated Commentaries):
Hamilton…maintained the clause confers a power separate and distinct from those later enumerated, is not restricted in meaning by the grant of them, and Congress consequently has a substantive power to tax and to appropriate limited only by the requirement that it shall be exercised for the general welfare.
Roberts accepts this as the correct interpretation, which means that the power of Congress to tax is not limited to the specific powers enumerated in Article 1, Section 8, but is justified so long as it serves the “general welfare” – a term whose meaning is not confined to those enumerated powers.
June 23, 2016
The forces for liberty within the bowels of Western governments have become anaemic. The forces of group think are easily able to overwhelm liberal forces. If you are looking for justifications for extraordinary government interventions of grounds of climate change, obesity, shadows, sunlight and the wind, be prepared to be disappointed.
Bureaucrats and Ministers sanctimoniously “look after” our “welfare”, e.g. whether any shadow has crossed our path, whether we are eating the right number of calories. It is considered impolite to question their motives or even ask for evidence existence of the problem.
I can understand that they have no deontological commitment to liberty. But they should at least know that even utilitarians only justify attacking liberty where there is overwhelming proof of a net social benefit.
The cost benefit analysis has become a tool to kill liberty. The underlying method is to dramatically inflate the benefits. In real life, people have often voted with their feet **against** certain additional costs. Some CBAs also show that private benefits of a proposed government regulation are higher than private costs! One wonder why people are not investing such costs on their own. How can such failures of self-interest be justified?
A range of “willingness to pay” methods are generally applied but the result is remarkably uni-directional: that benefits of destroying liberty are huge. For some reason, the whimsy of bureaucrats and Ministers seems to ALWAYS translate into net benefit for society!
Liberty is attacked through a thousand small cuts by these CBAs. Liberty is slowly being boiled alive. It is almost as if a presumption now exists **in favour** of government intervention, instead of a presumption **against** intervention. There are now too many regulations and regulators.
Hayek looked at this issue and came to the view that a dogmatic defence of liberty is needed in the field of public policy, else the utilitarians will overwhelm liberty.
Two things are urgently needed:
a) a presumption against intervention, based on a dogmatic defence of liberty; and
b) honesty in cost-benefit analyses.
I had included a strong defence of liberty in the policy framework designed for the the SKC Federation (http://sonekichidiya.in/publications/policy-framework/). I think I need to shift liberty to the very first step.
The biggest “daddy” of them all: climate change, where the idea of assessing benefits is entirely foreign to policy makers, and where only costs (that too, grossly exaggerated) are on offer. [my comment on Cafe Hayek]
we also need to work hard on the methods of evaluating benefits. I’m truly disappointed at these methods and approaches. Since market valuation is not available, all kinds of proxies are used – and these can very seriously overestimate benefits. [my FB comment]
Donald Boudreaux has an excellent piece on CBAs.
June 22, 2016
I was asked a question re: SBP’s next steps. Here’s my response.
Establishment of basic systems
1) Finishing up a few outstanding issues on the website – and then we will create a full fledged system to communicate with members and volunteers. I hope to be able to start connecting with registered members and volunteers in a month – and have a full fledged version 2 of the website by the end of the year.
2) Completion of the translation of the manifesto into Hindi and a one page flyer into a few other local languages. Hopefully in a couple of months, we’ll have these products on our website.
3) Sorting out all compliance issues related to running a party. We are hoping to get a full time person soon, and then, that will allow the party to focus on party development.
Reaching out to people at the ground level and registering members
1) This has started on a very small scale already in one district in UP and in Hyderabad. There are a few logistical issues that have to be overcome. The idea is to create local teams across India as soon as practicable. For the next 1-2 years we need a concerted effort to enrol members and have them take the message of liberty to the people of India.
2) We are holding a 3-day conference for the party (mainly for the national executive members) in Delhi in July-end (next month) to discuss next steps.
Reaching out on social media, etc.
1) We have started issuing press releases on different topics, but that’s hampered due to limited resources. The idea is to ramp up the social media and media presence.