RIGHT TO FOOD.

It would be perfectly willing to match wits and join issues with a vegetarian or a vegan who questions my desire to eat beef. I might even be convinced if he proved that a single malt tastes better with vegan ham (made out of coconut) or dhokla. But if a law is enacted that bans beef-eating in my home because the state believes it has the right to tell me what my diet should be, I would challenge it. Such a law was enacted by the Maharashtra government called the Maharashtra Animal Preservation (Amendment) Act, 1995, and I did precisely that and invoked the extraordinary powers of the Bombay High Court to strike down this abominable affront to my right to choose my food.

The Act contained some opprobrious provisions such as making consumption of the meat of cows, bulls and bullocks a non-bailable offence which permitted the police to enter my kitchen and arrest me on suspicion that the meat that was my dinner could be beef and then put me behind bars thereby substituting my gournet meal with jail food.

To make matters worse, the offence being non-bailable, I could be stuck with jail food for a long time and at the trial I would have to prove my innocence, so to speak. Few people are aware that this has been the law since 1995 but for 20 years was not brought into effect. On 04th March, 2015, our die-hard non-vegetarian President gave his assent to the Act and made it enforceable. I remember being terribly agitated and when I reached office I asked my young associates to research the law on the subject to examine the constitutional validity of these provisions. The team acquainted themselves with all judicial pronouncements on the subject. The Supreme Court in State of Gujarat v. Mirzapur Moti Kureshi Kassab (1998), had upheld the validity of legislations banning cow slaughter in all its dimensions. The general approach of the Supreme Court was that any enactement banning cow slaughter would be declared valid on economic grounds and virtually gave the government the right to legislate on this field unhindered by any constitutional restraint. We decided to focus on the prohibition on consumption of beef for that was an issue unrelated to any economic welfare programme that a government wished to promote and on the basis of which cow slaughter was justified. We felt that a petition to challenge the ban on consumption would be sustainable on the touch-stone of the right to privacy which included permitting an individual to choose his own diet so long as what he ate did not violate any law. The logic that we followed was that the right to choose one's diet is an aspect of one's right  to live life the way he wishes and thereby live a life of dignity. Our petition was grounded in Article. 21 of the Constitution which provides that no person shall be deprived of his life and liberty except by due legal process. I honestly believed that the state, by bringing into effect a law that had come into existence 20 years earlier, was acting with motive which was aimed at the minorities - Muslims and Christians in particular. But in drafting the petition, we stayed clear of this angle as we felt confident that our challenge on the ground of right to life was solid and uncomplicated.

The 247-page judgment rendered by Justices A.S. Oka and S.C. Gupte vindicated our stand completely. The case was superbly piloted by senior counsel and good friends Aspi Chinoy and Navroz Seervai, assisted by my young, brilliant and enthusiastic team. In summary, the judgment laid down the following:

• That the right of privacy of an individual is a fundamental right emanating from the right to life guaranteed by the Constitution.
• That Section. 9(b) which required an accused to prove his innocence was declared illegal, and struck down.
• That if a person was found transporting meat which was suspected to be contraband, it was for the state to prove that he knew that the meat was in fact contraband.

All in all, the judgment restored dignity to the individual in matters which were personal to him. I cannot help but rejoice over the fact that none of the opponents' arguments in response to my petition were accepted by the Judges and it doesn't surprise me. For instance, when counsel appearing for the state was asked why buffaloes were excluded from the Act and allowed to be slaughtered, he said "they are lazy".

For me, the real heart-warming takeaways from this entire episode are as follows: First, that the right of privacy is now unquestionably a fundamental right; Second, that the phrase "rule of law" which we use almost by rote is demonstrated by this ruling to be a living democratic philosophy which distinguishes us from totalitarian regimes that pretend to operate under a democratic Constitution; and, Finally, that the judiciary is an institution is the most reliable bastion of democracy where judges who believe in their oath will uphold constitutional principles unmoved by extraneous considerations. Our legal heritage is rich, profound and steeped in an innate sense of justice. I say this because in my experience as a lawyer, I have on occasions appeared before lower placed judicial officers in terms of their hierarchy in remote parts of our country and have come across individuals (perhaps a Mamlatdar) whose integrity all the money in the world cannot dent. It's true that we as a society nurture  this invaluable cultural heritage which has such deep and inalienable roots in this sub-continent. --- Based on an article by Haresh Jagtiani, senior counsel and head of Oasis Counsel and Advisory (a law firm). The article was published in The Times of India dated 09th May, 2016 (Monday). Courtesy: The Billion Press. ---  

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------    

-SOMETHING'S ROTTEN IN THE ENVIRONMENT.

Would you describe yourself as an "environmentalist"? I would, mainly to annoy greenies, but also because its true. If your definition of an environmentalist is someone who loves immersing himself in the natural world, makes a study of its ways and cares deeply about its future, I am at least as much of one as English broadcaster and naturalist David Attenborough. But I can see why many fellow nature lovers might balk at the term. That would explain the recent Gallup poll - it was taken in the US but I suspect it applies to Britain too - showing how dramatically this label has plunged in popularity. In 1991, the majority of Americans self-identified  as environmentalists - 78 percent of them. Now, it's just 42 percent: less than half.

Why has the term so fallen out of favour? Well there's perhaps a clue in the fact that the decline has been far more precipitous among Republicans (down to 27 percent) than among Democrats (down to 56 percent). In other words, where 25 years ago the environment was considered everyone's domain, it has since been hijacked by the Left.

If you believe the greenies, the blame for this lies with an intransigent right so imprisoned by ideology that it stubbornly denies "the science". Actually, though, I did say it has more to do with the militant left using environmentalism as a cloak for its war on liberty, and small government.

Note the tactics. Like the Viet Minh or the Taliban, the environmental movement has become hugely skilled in the art of asymmetric warfare. The number of true believers is much smaller than you did think - but they have managed in recent years to punch massively above their weight by infiltrating all the key positions.

challenge the "consensus" - whether you are a scientist like Willie Soon or even a cuddly TV presenter like David Bellamy or Jhonny Ball - and these people will stop at nothing to try to destroy your career. This is the tactic that the Marxist urban revolutionary Saul Alinsky advised in his manifesto Rules for Radicals.

Which goes some way towards explaining, I think, why in private people tend to be more vocally sceptical about stuff like global warming or the pointlessness of recycling or carbon taxes, etc. than they are in public. No one wants to be caught speaking out of turn by the green Stasi, for fear of the consequences for their reputation or their job prospects.

Look at what happened to Matt Ridley when he applied for the chairmanship of the Natural History Museum. A distinguished, Oxford-educated scientist and a brilliant communicator, Ridley would have been perfect for the job. But Ridley's mild climate scepticism ruled him out. 

When you write about this sort of thing, you run the risk of being tarred by the green lobby as a paranoid conspiracy theorist. Again, this is very much part of the environmentalist modus operandi. Activists like Bob Ward of the Grantham Institute and Richard Black of the Energy and Climate Intelligence Unit are paid handsomely to pour ridicule on "deniers", make noisy complaints to the press regulator Independent Press Standards Organisation (IPSO) and concoct letters like the one recently sent to the editor of the Times warning that by giving voice to sceptics he was turning his paper into a "laughing stock".

The letter was signed by no fewer than 13 members of the House of Lords, several of them scientists, who had held offices ranging from Astronomer Royal and president of the Royal Society to chairman of the Financial Services Authority. Any casual observer might naturally assume that such pillars of the establishment must have a point. 

It's only if you are familiar with the territory that you realise how often the same names - Lords May, Rees, Stern and Deben; Sir Crispin Tickell; Sir Paul Nurse, et al - recur with regularity. Probably in their fields they were once rather good. But since then prestige has gone to their heads and they have turned into professional political activists. 

This is precisely the strategy that one of the progenitors of cultural Marxism, Antonio Gramsci, was advocating when he talked about the "long march through the institutions". In order to dominate the political argument, he realised, you don't necessarily need to be in government. You just need to make sure you have nobbled all the influential posts in academe, the media, the arts and big business.

Not all these figures are on the Left. Nor are they all necessarily political. Some are in it for the money, some are in it because all their mates are; some because they have taken the environmentalists at their word.

But regardless of their motivation, the result is always the same; bigger government, higher taxes, less freedom. Ordinary people can smell a rat. They just know something's rotten in the state of environmentalism; they don't want to be tainted by it. -- Based on an article by James Delingpole published in The Times of India dated 09th May, 2016, By arrangement with the Spectator -- 

NEHRU - GANDHIS AND POVERTY.

Has dynastic politics kept India poor? This appears to be an unstated assumption of a speech in the month of March, 2016 by BJP President Amit Shah to the party faithful and the stated view of many in his party. As the formulation goes, after being ruled by the Nehru-Gandhi-dynasty for most of the past seven decades India remains poor. Give BJP 25 years and it will turn India into "Vishwa Guru", or teacher to the world. Take BJP boasts with a large grain of sale, but there's more than a kernel of truth to the idea that the Nehru-Gandhis are responsible for India lagging much of East Asia. The continued hold of the dynasty prevents Congress from fully owing the reform programme that it authored in 1991, and inclines the party towards political postures that hinder development. As long as Sonia Gandhi or Rahul Gandhi remain at the helm, the odds of Congress emerging as a champion of reforms remain exceedingly slim.

In the fever swamps of the far right, many people believe that the Nehru-Gandhis deliberately kept India backward in order to nurture a poor and ignorant vote bank. But you need not buy crackpot conspiracy theories to make a more prosaic point. Between them, Jawaharlal Nehru, Indira Gandhi, Rajiv Gandhi, who ruled India for 37 of its first 42 years of Independence, presided over one of Asia's greatest economic flops. In contrast, neither of post-1991 India's reform heroes - P.V. Narasimha Rao and Atal Behari Vajpayee - belonged to the dynasty. Indeed, in practice, if not always in rhetoric, both Rao and Vajpayee generated prosperity by dismantling the economic pillars of the Nehruvian project: mistrust of trade, contempt for the profit motive, and faith in state planning rather than in the invisible hand of the market.

Nehru's flawed ideas - in particular his infatuation with Soviet-style planning - ended up doing India grave harm. But though a few prescient gadflies, most famously the classical liberal B.R. Shenoy and future Nobel laureate Milton Friedman, raised early alarms about India's chosen path, for the most part Nehru was simply following the conventional wisdom of his time. As New York University Professor William Easterly details in "The Tyranny of Experts", it took decades to discredit the statist development model touted by such luminaries as Gunnar Myrdal and Arthur Lewis. Indians were not alone in suffering. Millions of Africans, Latin Americans and fellow Asians kept us company.

The true villain of modern Indian history, dooming millions of Indians to poverty, was Indira Gandhi. Instead of acknowledging a flood of evidence that state planning was not working, Gandhi doubled down on her father's dubious legacy. In 1966, the year Gandhi took power, the average Indian earned about four-fifths as much as the average South Korean. By 1990, on the eve of the balance of payments crisis that forced India to reform, the average Indian earned only half as much as an Indonesian and less than one-sixth as much as a South Korean. More than half of India's then 870 million people lived on less than the World Bank's current estimate for extreme poverty of $1.90 a day.

Why does this potted history still matter? After all, since 1991 India has gone from being seen as a black hole of despair to a bright spot in the global economy. Thanks to the growth spurred by reforms, only about one-fifth of Indians live in extreme poverty today. Soon enough, that figure will likely be reduced to zero. In a normal political system, Congress would have elevated Rao to sainthood and quietly banished the discredited ghosts of the Nehru-Gandhis. Instead, party leaders twist themselves into pretzels to retroactively give the dynasty credit for reforms, or pretend that the economic disaster they presided over was in fact a great launch pad for what followed.

To be fair, the current crop of Nehru-Gandhis no longer quotes Lenin, as Nehru did when he famously declared that the public sector would occupy the "commanding heights" of the economy. But in general the family's impact on economic policy remains negative. Contrast, for instance, Manmohan Singh's record under Rao with his record under Sonia Gandhi. As Rao's finance minister, Singh boldly unshackled the Indian elephant. As Gandhi's prime minister, he burdened it with too many wasteful welfare programmes and too few growth-inducing policies. Meanwhile, Rahul Gandhi's somewhat forgettable political career has been marked by consistently anti-business rhetoric. In 2010, he scuttled Vedanta's $1.7 billion bauxite mining project in Odisha. The young Gandhi's rhetoric about "two India's" and bizarre animus towards people who "drive big-big cars" suggest a diletantish preoccupation with inequality rather than serious focus on eradicating poverty. Though the Modi government is responsible for its own tepid reform effort, there's no question that Rahul's jibe about the prime minister heading a "suit-boot ki sarkar" has helped vitiate the policy-making atmosphere.

So yes, the critics are right about dynastic politics helping keep India poor. Without the Nehru-Gandhis in charge, Congress would have no need to deify some of the worst economic managers in post-colonial history. India would find it easier to get on with the important work of catching up with all those that have left it behind. -- Based on an article by Sadanand Dhume, Resident Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute in Washington, DC, Published in The Times of India dated 28th March, 2016 (Monday).

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------       

IS CIVILISED DEBATE ON NATIONALISM POSSIBLE?

Events being triggered from the JNU campus in February, 2016 are leaving the country in turmoil. It is unlikely that even an interim calm can be restored unless Kanhaiya Kumar, the student union president who has been thrown into jail on the charge of sedition, is honourably set free. Even the report of the police now appears to suggest that he had not made any so-called "anti-national" speech, not that such a speech category exists in our laws. If anything, the impassioned and well-rounded speech Mr. Kumar made when some others were raising offensive slogans was in defence of the Indian Constitution, and was in the nature of throwing a challenge to the idea of nationalism embedded in Hindutva. This was in keeping with his CPI affiliation. Nevertheless, JNU students and teachers, as well as Delhi journalists, were physically assaulted by a group of BJP-oriented lawyers at the Patiala House Court where they had peacefully assembled in connection with the sedition case, and the police mutely looked on. A Delhi BJP MLA was also among the assualters, who were encouraged by the police's inaction.

The following day, Mr. Kumar was himself badly beaten up by the Hindutva-oriented goon squad of lawyers when he was brought by the police to appear before the Court. The police had been admonished by the Supreme Court in light of the previous day's event and charged with maintaining order in the district Court premises. But it remained impassive as BJP's goons ran amok. A committee of top-motch lawyers sent by the Supreme Court to Patial House Courts for a report were also showered with abuse and chased away by the Hindutva Lawyers.

These shameful happenings were taking place in the heart of New Delhi, a stone's throw from Parliament House. From the first day when trouble erupted in JNU until the physical attack on Mr. Kumar, the police has given the impression of doing the bidding of the BJP government at the Centre. Eventually, the Supreme Court said Mr. Kumar's safety in Tihar Jail would be the personal responsibility of Delhi police commissioner B.S. Bassi, whose conduct so far suggests that his agenda is to ingratiate himself with his political masters.

So repugnant to the idea of civilised debate on nationalism have recent goings-on have been that three leaders of the ABVP, RSS' student wing, in JNU have resigned in protest. They have asked some basic questions. Meanwhile, unrestrained by any sense of politicl morality, a Delhi BJP MP has called for the removal of Congress Leader Rahul Gandhi, CPI leader D. Raja and CPI(M) leader Sitaram Yechury from Parliament for supporting "anti-national" students. On the same ground, a Rajasthan BJP MLA has asked for Mr. Gandhi to be 'hanged' and 'shot'. Why is the BJP leadership silent?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

BEARDS MAY BE MORE HYGIENIC THAN SHAVEN SKIN.

Beards may contain bacteria which could potentially be developed into new antibodies, a study has found. Researchers found that clean-shaven men are likely to harbour infection-causing bacteria resistant to antibiotics when compared to bearded men. The study published in the Journal of Hospital Infection, tested swabs from the faces of 408 hospital staff with and without facial hair. According to the results, clean-shaven men are more than three times as likely to carrying Methicilin-Resistant Staphauerus (MRSA) on their cheeks as their bearded counterparts.

Clean-shaven men were also more than 10 percent more likely to have colonies of Staphylococcus aureus on their faces, a bacterium that causes skin and respiratory infections, and food poisoning.Researchers suggest this may be due to micro-abrasians caused by shaving in the skin, "which may support bacterial colonisation and proliferation". The report reads "Overall, colonisation is similar in male healthcare workers with and without facial hair, however, certain bacterial species were more prevalent in workers without facial hair".

Dr. Adam Roberts, a microbiologist from University College, London, was able to grow over 100 different bacteria from beard swab samples in a separate analysis. Among the petri dishes, he found the presence of a microbe that appeared to be killing the other bacteria. Dr. Roberts isolated the microbe and tested it against a form of E. Coli that causes urinary tract infections, and found the microbes killed the bacterium efficiently. He told BBC Radio 4's Today presenter Mishal Husain that this analysis does have potential for further research for the future. The current stock antibiotics is quickly becoming ineffective, with antibiotic resistant infections killing at least 7,00,000 people a year. No new antibiotics have been released in the past 30 years. 

Dr. Roberts compared the findings to Alexander Fleming's success with penicillin, which was discovered by chance when a fungus spore was accidentally blown into his lab onto a petri dish. Fleming noticed the bacteria he was growing in the dish had died around the area the spore had landed, and subsequent research led to penicillin as it is known today. -- Source: www.independent.co.uk  

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

C.S. Chakravarthy

H. No. 12-13-301, St. No. 9,

Lane. No. 1, Flat. No. 203,

Satya Classic, Tarnaka, 

Secunderabad- 500 017

Telangana State

e-mail: chakkuresearchscholar13@gmail.com

            chakku1968@gmail.com

Cell: 09985732397.

Land-Line: 040-27006517

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

CLUELESS AND 21.

Turning 21 is quiet a big deal. You get to earn your own money, some of you live on your own, and most importantly, you finally become an adult. But let's be honest, it also means no more afternoon naps. Or bunked lectures. Or 3 PM breakfasts. The twenties are your most formative years, and while we are all for making the most of them, we are also okay about bending the rules a bit to suit ourselves. Here are ten things that are more or less on the cards, you wonderful adult, you; but honestly, you don't need to accomplish them on a deadline. Take it easy...

Dream Job: In an ideal world, you did have a job right out of college. But it's okay if you are not too sure of what you wish to do. Or, if you are stuck with a bad job. Seriously, there's no harm in those coffee runs and working overtime. You will actually get to learn a lot more than way.

Moving Out: The best part of being in an Indian family is that you can move out in your twenties, or not move at all till your thrities, and there's no one to judge you. So, don't stress out about having your own place until you are absolutely ready.

Borrowing Money: Moment of truth: sleeping hungry can be a real pain. Instead of trying to be all grown up and responsible, accept that you messed up (Charles & Keith non-sale shoes, we are looking at you) and ask your parents for help. Word of caution though, better to not make it a habit. And of course, you are going to pay them back, right? RIGHT?

Having The Perfect Relationship: If she/he ain't worth it, dump her/him. Move on. Period. No point breaking your heart trying to make it work simply because you have to follow an arbitrary rule someone, somewhere decided to make. Many more fish in the sea, in fact, far better ones.

DIY Sundays: We all love the idea of being a desi Martha Stewart - prepare perfect Indian meals now that we are adults, DIY everything in the house to impress parents, friends... While that's great, learn to CHILL. Yes, you are 21, but it's still okay to take a break (or breaks) and move at your own pace. Or do nothing.

Healthy Lifestyle: Poached eggs in the morning, salds at night don't even sound like fun... on paper. We don't promote fries for Friday dinner (okay, maybe we do), but don't beat yourself up if you eat that extra slice of pizza. The whole point of being in your twenties is that higher metabolic rate! Now, where's that pizza outlet menu?

Queen Bee: The FOMO syndrome (if you don't know what that means, consider yourself lucky) is the biggest curse of your twenties. But if you don't really care about your social status, that's okay too. Miss out on that party that everyone HAS to be seen at. Welcome to team 'Netflix and Chill'. We have cookies.

Non-Toxic Friends: We all want healthy relationships but 21 is probably not the ideal age to be able to tell the nice ones from the not-so-nice ones. So if you end up with a horrible friend whose only good quality is her awesome makeup bag, we promise we won't judge.

Doing What Our Parents Did: We have all had that talk. Most of our parents were busy becoming super productive adults at 20 while we did rather eat a pizza and hate people. Did you just nod, too? It's okay. You will get there, at your own pace.

Becoming A Morning Person: It ain't gonna happen. We know the perks of being a morning person, but hey, quick outfit decisions and managing to do your entire makeup in the cab, are essential life skills too.

---Based on article by Ainee Nizami, published in The Times of India dated May 01, 2016. 

C.S. Chakravarthy

H. NO. 12-13-301, St. No. 9,

Lane. No. 1, Flat. No. 203,

Satya Classic, Tarnaka, 

Secunderabad- 500 017

Telangana State

e-mail: chakkuresearchscholar13@gmail.com

Cell: 09985732397.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

INSTIGATING A CONTROVERSY.

Is it compulsory for every citizen of India to chant "Bharat Mata Ki Jai"? Obviously it is not. As Asaduddin Owaisi, the ebullient and often provocative leader of the All-India Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen (AIMIM), says, this is not a condition called for in the Constitution. In that narrow, technical sense he is right. Yet, it is not the language and precise wording of that sentiment that is the only issue of relevance today. The Constitution obligates every citizen ("We, the People of India...") to a certain commitment to India - the nation, the country, the collective, the Republic, the civilisation, call it what you will, of which that Constitution is an embodiment. Some choose to express that commitment by using "Bharat Mata Ki Jai", a simple yet evocative phrase that has resonance for many thousands and millions of Indians and goes back to the freedom movement and the larger enterprise of nation-building under the Mahatma.

Others may prefer "Vande Mataram" or use the Urdu "Madre Watan" instead. Still others may offer their "Salaam" to "Sar Zameen-e-Hindustan", or use the pithy coinage of Subhash Chandra Bose: "Jai Hind". A younger generation may get goose pimples listening to A.R. Rehman's electrifying "Maa Tujhe Salaam..." - composed and sung for the fiftieth anniversary of Independence in 1997. There could be those who may not use any of these terms at all but still show their commitment to India and the Constitution by simply and silently doing what they do best - working hard, paying taxes and living honest lives. Each one is free to choose. Having said that, while that commitment to India and its Constitution may not expressly demand that one stand up each morning and chant "Bharat Mata Ki Jai" - or any of the other phrases mentioned above - does it give anyone the right to deliberately mock those for whom such an expression is dear, revered and deeply felt? That is the key question, the answer to which must put Mr. Owaisi in the dock. He has been egregiously offensive and has manufactured and instigated a controversy where none existed, as well as sought to design a denominational quarrel on an issue that doesn't bother most ordinary Muslims at all. His unstated implication, that to have citizens who may be Muslim say "Bharat Mata Ki Jai" is an insidious attempt to force idol worship on them, is so ridiculous that even many of his co-religionists have been left exasperated.

Just what is a "Muslim Issue" - that is, a concern that genuinely affects religious sensibilities of Muslims and interrupts the manner in which they practice their faith? Let us go back 25 years, to the spring and early summer of 1991. India was preparing for a mid-term election, in the aftermath of the Mandal Commission announcement, the rath yatra and the Congress' decision to withdraw support to Chandra Shekhar's short-lived government. It was a pulsating political session that saw a genuine ideological context between very different concepts of India and nationhood. In the midst of all this, a Janata Dal politician - among the Asaduddin Owaisis of his age, if you get my drift - began a campaign to have the film Hum banned. A film that in effect began the second phase of Amitabh Bachchan's career - putting him in senior roles, rather than as the proverbial "Angry Young Man" - Hum had just been released and featured a popular and catchy song Jumma chumma de de... The song sequence had the hero serenading the woman he was wooing - she was called Jumma - and asking her for a kiss, as she had apparently promised, on Jumma (Friday).

Jumma or Friday is sacred in Islam and is the day of congregational prayer. According to that Janata Dal politician of 1991, the song was deeply offensive to Muslims and had caused outrage and anger in the community. As such it needed to be banned or acted upon in some manner by the government. His claim was absolute nonsense. This writer lived in Calcutta (now Kolkata) at the time, in a neighbourhood that had a substantial Muslim population. There were Muslims from a variety of social strata, ranging from the local paanwallah to a distinguished Professor of History at the University of Calcutta. The song was frequently heard in the neighbourhood (as were other popular songs of the period) and there was no sense of "anger" or "outrage". There is little reason to believe it was different in other mohallas elsewhere in the country. As can be expected, the silly controversy lasted only a few days. It gave the politician in question his 15 minutes of fame and then had him quietly moving on.

A film song and a slogan offering salutations to and expressing empathy with India are very different. It is not the intention to either compare these or place them on the same pedestal, not at all. However, the point remains that Muslim leaders like Mr. Owaisi do the Indian Muslim enormous justice by reporting to such gimmicks. In that he has been as dishonest as his Janata Dal predecessor of 1991. Mr. Owaisi is an articulate man and a frequent face on news television. Frankly, though, the national media tends to treat him with kid gloves. The inability to interrogate him or ask him harder questions has been disappointing. This may be due to absence of desire, or perhaps to an individual media person's inadequate engagement with history outside of a quick Google search.

Consider the contradiction. Mr. Owaisi attacks the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh and the Hindu Right, accusing it of 'forcing its ideology' on others. His intellectual auxiliaries make references to 70 or 80-year-old quotes of RSS personalities, which may appear angular and unacceptable in a contemporary context, and ask whether the current leadership of the RSS and the Bharatiya Janata Party believes in them. Fair enough. Has anyone cared to ask Mr. Owaisi whether he subscribes to the letter and text of Qasim Razvi, the founder of the MIM and commander of the Razakar militia, who can only politely be described as a bigot and a religious fanatic? Could Owaisi tell us if he is willing to repudiate Qasim Razvi? The response would be revealing . ---Based on an article by Ashok Malik published in Deccan Chronicle dated 20th March, 2016. The author is a senior fellow, Observer Research Foundation. He can be reached at malikashok@gmail.com---