Cause of the protests in France, and India's story since 2014.

 Cause of the protests in France:

Rising cost of living.

Rising prices of essential goods.

For that single reason alone, the people have risen up, are questioning the government forcefully, and are shaking it.

And in India?

Just think back on India's story since 2014.

In India, the prices of essential goods, the cost of living, and taxes have doubled and tripled.

In this period, the only things that have become cheap in India are human beings, lies, and hatred.

Yet no matter how much the cost of living, prices, and taxes rose, India did nothing but sit and endure. There was not so much as a stir of protest.

The main reason India doesn't shake is that Indians, historically and by caste, are a people who carry a mind that submits to domination and tolerates everything without questioning.

That is why Indians won't react, won't rise up in protest, and won't question and shake the government the way the French and other Europeans do.

Generally, Indians are unable to react or protest.

Renunciation (sanyasa), meditation, yoga and the like are also the beautiful names Indians have given to running away because they are unable to react or protest.

Demonetisation was the episode through which this regime tested and learned that Indians would not react, that they would lie like corpses in shavasana.

It was the only programme that harmed everyone alike, without doing any good, and dragged them onto the streets.

It was the event that underlined and proved that Indians are people who accept everything, suffering like slaves no matter how hard it gets.

That is the regime's courage (confidence).

On the strength of that, it later made people queue up on the streets even for votes and citizenship.

That is how it came to be that, instead of the people choosing and frightening the government, the government now chooses and frightens the people.

And that is also why the ruling group is not afraid even if some people in India do react and protest.

Why is the government not afraid even if some people in India react and protest?

1. Because the size of India gives them the confidence that no protest or reaction will go anywhere. The confidence that India's size gives the ruling group room for any manipulation and trickery.

2. Because the ruling group is confident it can use India's very size to keep any protest or reaction from going anywhere.

3. In a country as big as India, and among so many people, large resources are needed to make any protest or reaction succeed.

4. The ruling group, which has seized all the wealth and resources, is confident that an organically arising protest will not have, and will not get, the wealth and resources needed to move and spread across all of India.

5. Hence, the firm confidence that every protest and reaction in India will die on its own, suffocating and parched, without and unable to get the resources to sustain it, the "air to breathe and water to drink." This too is the firm confidence of the ruling group that has hoarded all wealth by selling off and plundering the country.

6. The Indian people are ignorant, starving poor, steeped in superstition. Therefore, the ruling group can easily mislead these poor Indians in any way it likes, using its resources, wealth, and news media.

7. Unlike European democracies, democracy in India exists only as the mere impression of voting. Therefore, all democratic institutions in India are beyond the reach of the people. All investigative agencies, courts, police, army, and news media have been sold to, and are owned by, the ruling group. And because of this all forms of reaction and protest can be eliminated through various means, this is the confidence of the present-day Indian ruling group.

The sin that democracy does not apply to courts and judges.

What Court? What Supreme Court?

The courts in name only. A Supreme Court in name only.

Beyond the name, the courts and the judiciary have become nothing but a fence that eats the crop and a chain that has gone mad.

Looking from the side of justice and truth, the Indian judiciary is dead.

Looking from the side of the people, the courts and their judges have become unprincipled scoundrels.

Courts and judges have been granted permission and protection to remain scoundrels, totally in defiance of democracy.

Courts and judges have become just part of a deep state spread out by ruling fascists.

What we have here is a judiciary and judges to whom accountability and responsibility do not apply, who cannot be questioned in any way.

A judiciary and judges who cannot be questioned in any way, who do not regard answering as an obligation in any way, are a dead judiciary.

Democracy is the people's trust, and is in the state in which people are able to question.

The issue here is not merely that people have lost their trust in the courts and their ability to question them.

If trust in the courts is lost, anarchy is what we must fear.

Because in a democratic process, courts are the last hope and the last refuge.

The courts, which are supposed to correct the errors of democracy, are themselves soaked in errors, and have become part of a deep state prepared in advance by the ruling establishment.

The very protection that nobody can question or punish the court has made the courts no longer courts and the judges no longer judges.

When courts stand shielding the excesses of executive rulers, there is no democracy left in that country. The fence has eaten the crop.

If protests and dissenting voices are not heard, the only outcome is that a people grown desperate will drift toward anarchy.

In India, almost every hope and refuge has been lost.

What lies ahead is an anarchic India that can never be recovered.

The character of courts has become undemocratic, both inwardly and outwardly.

Democracy has become something that does not exist in any way within courts.

The lawyers who must stand with folded hands before judges signal something other than democracy.

Every lawyer displays the mentality of a slave and a subordinate who retains a sense of the master.

It is this same slave-subordinate mentality toward judges and the court that has made it so that judges must not be questioned, judges are not bound to answer, and judges face no punishment or trial even for their intentional errors as judges, and must not.

So how could the democratic character, which should be visible in properly hearing those who go seeking justice and in delivering just verdicts, possibly come from the courts?

What is the evidence?

Why say this?

Any ordinary will ask these questions.

There is only one answer: democracy means sovereignty of the people.

The sovereignty of the people is visible when, whenever any of the branches that make up a democracy fails to do what it should in the way it should, the people can question it and correct it. When there is a mechanism to question and correct in that way.

Democracy becomes right, becomes healthy, only if democracy, its institutions and its people have a bodily mechanism like an immune system, which defends itself, avoids disease and treats it.

Democracy also means that whoever errs in their work, whoever neglects their duty, whoever fails to do their job properly must be questioned and must be bound to answer.

Judges, who receive salaries and comforts in return for the work they do, must therefore also be questioned and must be bound to answer.

Because the people alone, at their own expense, gave them power in the name of employment, those in power are bound to answer.

In a democracy, everyone must be accountable:

Accountability means being bound to answer (liable to respond = response-liability).

It does not mean being able to answer (able to respond = response-able) but choosing not to.

Accountability is the state in which giving an answer (speaking in response) becomes an obligation.

Democracy is not "everyone must answer, except the court, except the judges." Democracy does not grant courts and judges that kind of arbitrary freedom.

The fact that the court, and judges who deliver wrong verdicts in court, cannot be questioned in any way is what gives the political leadership the justification and the means to influence courts and judges, demand whatever verdict it wants, and exploit them.

This is the curse, the sin, of the greatest anti-democratic tendency that Indian courts sustain, that the Indian people face through Indian courts, and that has been visible recently even through Chief Justices of the Supreme Court.

The sin that democracy does not apply to courts and judges.

The sin of using that sin against democracy, against the people, against basic human rights and against the Constitution.

The curse, the sin, that accountability does not exist for courts and judges, must not exist, does not apply.

മോദിയുടെ വെല്ലുവിളി: രാഹുലിനോട്. തന്റെ കുടുംബസമ്പത്ത് മുഴുവൻ രാഹുലിന് കൊടുക്കാമെന്ന്.

മോദിയുടെ വെല്ലുവിളി: രാഹുലിനോട്.

തന്റെ കുടുംബസമ്പത്ത് മുഴുവൻ രാഹുലിന് കൊടുക്കാമെന്ന് മോദി. 

പകരം, രാഹുൽ തന്റെ കുടുംബസമ്പത്ത് മുഴുവൻ മോദിക്ക് കൊടുക്കുമോ എന്നും മോദി.

നല്ല വെല്ലുവിളി. പക്ഷേ, ചോദ്യം ഇത്രയേ ഉള്ളൂ. 

മോദിയുടെ കുടുംബസമ്പത്ത് എന്ന് വെച്ചാൽ അദാനി-അംബാനിമാരുടെയുംആർഎസ്എസ്സിന്റെയും ബിജെപിയുടെയും സമ്പത്തല്ലേ? 

അങ്ങനെ മോദിയുടെ കുടുംബസമ്പത്ത് എന്ന് വെച്ചാൽ അദാനി-അംബാനിമാരുടെയുംആർഎസ്എസ്സിന്റെയും ബിജെപിയുടെയും സമ്പത്ത് എന്ന് തന്നെയല്ലേ മോദി ഉദ്ദേശിച്ചതും നമ്മൾഅർത്ഥമാക്കേണ്ടതും?

കാരണം, മോദി മോദി കഴിഞ്ഞ തന്റെ 25 അധികാര വർഷങ്ങളും ചിലവഴിച്ചത്അദാനി-അംബാനിമാർക്കും ആർഎസ്എസ്സിനും ബിജെപിക്കും സമ്പാദിക്കാൻ വേണ്ടി മാത്രമല്ലേ?

മോദിക്ക് രാജ്യവും അധികാരവും എന്നാൽ അദാനി-അംബാനിമാരും ആർഎസ്എസ്സുംബിജെപിയും മാത്രമല്ലേ?

അധികാരത്തെയും രാജ്യത്തെയും വിറ്റും വെറുതെ കൊടുത്തും മോദി അദാനി-അംബാനിമാരുടെയും ആർഎസ്എസ്സിന്റെയും ബിജെപിയുടെയും പേരിൽ മാത്രംസമ്പാദിക്കുകയായിരുന്നില്ലേ?

മോദി അധികാരത്തെയും രാജ്യത്തെയും അദാനി-അംബാനിമാർക്കും ആർഎസ്എസ്സിനുംബിജെപിക്കും തീറെഴുതിക്കൊടുക്കുമെന്ന കരാർ എഴുതിക്കൊടുത്ത വകയിൽ മാത്രംഅധികാരത്തിൽ വന്ന ആളല്ലേ?

മോദി അങ്ങനെ അദാനി-അംബാനിമാരും ആർഎസ്എസ്സും ബിജെപിയും പിന്നിൽ നിന്ന് അവരുടെസമ്പത്തും തെമ്മാടിത്തവും വെച്ച് നടത്തിക്കൊടുത്ത തിരിമറികളും കളവുകളും കലാപങ്ങളും വഴിമാത്രം അധികാരത്തിൽ വന്ന ആളും അങ്ങനെ മാത്രം അധികാരത്തിൽ തുടരുന്ന ആളുമല്ലേ?

എങ്കിൽ, മോദി അദാനി-അംബാനിമാരുടെയും ആർഎസ്എസ്സിന്റെയും  ബിജെപിയുടെയും സമ്പത്ത്മുഴുവൻ രാഹുലിന് കൊടുക്കാൻ തയ്യാറാവുമെങ്കിൽ എന്തുകൊണ്ടും രാഹുൽ തന്റെ കുടുംബസമ്പത്ത് മുഴുവൻ, വേണമെങ്കിൽ കോൺഗ്രസിന്റെയും മുഴുവൻ സമ്പത്ത് മോദിക്ക് കൊടുക്കും.

കാരണം, രാഹുലിന് ഒരൊറ്റ ആവശ്യമേ ഉള്ളൂ. എല്ലാം രാജ്യത്തിന് നൽകണം, രാജ്യനിവാസികൾക്ക് നൽകണം, രാജ്യനിവാസികളുടേതാക്കണം.

രാജ്യത്തെ വെട്ടിച്ചും കട്ടും വിൽപ്പന നടത്തിയും രാജ്യത്താകമാനം വെറുപ്പും കലാപങ്ങളും വിതറിയും മോദി വഴി അദാനി-അംബാനിമാരും ആർഎസ്എസ്സും ബിജെപിയും സമ്പാദിച്ച മുഴുവൻ സമ്പത്തുംരാജ്യത്തിന് തിരികെ കൊടുക്കാനും, രാജ്യനിവാസികൾക്ക് തിരികെ എത്തിച്ചുകൊടുക്കാനും , രാജ്യത്തിന്റെയും രാജ്യനിവാസികളുടെയും സമ്പത്താക്കി മാറ്റാനും , ദേശസാൽക്കരിക്കാനും രാഹുൽ ഗാന്ധി എന്തും ചെയ്യാൻ തയ്യാറാണ്, എന്തും നഷ്ടപ്പെടാന് തയ്യാറാണ്, ഏതറ്റം വരെയും പോകാൻ തയ്യാറാണ്.

എന്തേ മോദി നടത്തിയ വെല്ലുവിളി ഇങ്ങനെയൊരു വെല്ലുവിളി ആണോ?

എങ്കിൽ മോദി യഥാർഥത്തിൽ ഇങ്ങനെയൊരു വെല്ലുവിളി ഏറ്റെടുത്ത് നടത്തുമോ?