Or the OP understands how the system in the country and in almost all parliamentary democracies in the world today actually works. See the Norwegian election that happened yesterday (the 13th) or the Canadian election scheduled for the 21st or the German election scheduled for the 26th. The PM/chancellor candidates are very important in driving electoral choice. For instance, the selection by the ruling CDU/CSU of Armin Laschet to be their chancellor candidate instead of Markus Soder is considered to be a key factor in them trailing the SPD in the polls. All of this is more important in India as the anti detection law makes our Parliamentary democracy a farce. Your conscientious MP has no option but to tow the party line or face disqualification. And who decides the party line? The party leadership.

Then you don't really have any knowledge of those schemes other than superficial ones. The ujjwala scheme for example has been a miserable failure with rural households actually needing the fuel being unable to afford the rising LPG price and mostly stopping to buy the cylinders after getting connection through the first one. Plenty of reports exist about such failures including those by Amartya Sem's Pratichi Trust. Similarly, the Ayushman Bharat scheme isn't anything new. Several regional equivalents exist across several states already.

1. We all know how this government manipulates stats, so it's really their fault if we don't believe official stats anymore.
2. Disposed of the appeals doesn't mean allowed the information to be released, does it now?
3. There are also several reports which say how the CIC position lies vacant across multiple states.
4. Anybody managed to find out the PM's degrees yet?

Well, I can also respond with unsubstantiated arguments, but I would let the figures do the talking here.

https://cic.gov.in/sites/default/files/Reports/CIC%20Annual%20Report%202019-20%20-%20English.pdf

See PDF Pg12 - Compliance by Public Authorities which stood at 89% in 2005-06, dropped to 68.84% in 2011-12, has been close to 95% consistently since 2015-16.

See PDF Pg19 - Percentage of Rejection vis-ã-vis Number of RTI Requests Received during the Reporting Year (%) which stood at 13.9% in 2005-06, dropped to 8.2% in 2011-12, has been close to 5% consistently since 2015-16.

The best part @ PDF PGg33 - During the reporting year, 387 appeals were filed before the First Appellate Authority of CIC u/s 19(1) of the Act which comprised around 18.08% of the total RTI applications received. The First Appellate Authority of CIC disposed of all the 387 first appeals during the reporting year.

Very important to pick your battles. :-)

Just shows your bias that you are attacking the foremost lawyers in India, even Harish Salve and Pink Anand. Also, JSD is not some "random" lawyer. Even the SC judges praised his arguments in Sabarimala.

https://www.firstpost.com/india/a-lawyer-for-lord-ayyappa-advocate-sai-deepak-turns-heads-in-supreme-court-arguing-for-sabarimala-deitys-right-to-celibacy-4859291.html

The problem is that anti BJP people judge a person who supports BJP! That said, I won’t say I am a Bhakt or that I blindly support the government. However, on the Election Day - I cast my vote thinking who is best suited to become the PM of India. Now, if you think that Rahul Gandhi can lead India - am sorry then I doubt your legal education. Even his own party ppl don’t seem to think that way. Other options like —AAP, TMC or even NOTA according to me are meaningless as I think Khidchi govt serves only interest of the coalition.

Am sure there are many others like me - we are not Bhakts, not against Muslims etc. Yet on Election Day I vote and I will vote for BJP because I am aware that at ground level BJP has done some great work - you and I (and privileged ppl going to NLU) will not understand the importance of a toilet (swach Bharat) or a gas connection (Ujwala) or free medical aid (Ayushman).

At the end of day no party/no person/no government is perfect. Yet we have to choose one party/person on Election Day.

As regards ideology, let me ask you do u condemn the Shiv Sena and Congress alliance in Maharashtra? For I don’t think any party is more communal or hindutva driven then the Shiv Sena.

Strengthening the RTI? Please take a look at the thousands of appeals that have been left rotting. Most of the questions that can expose the powerful are never answered. Including the ones asked of the PM. As for the digitisation of the services, I agree that to the people who can access it, this move is a beneficial one. Not so much for those who cannot, yet have no other choice with the social welfare measures increasingly being mandatorily digitised. And the sheer list of bad things that have happened over the past 7 years directly because of government policy, negligence and folly will be many times longer than the one you made of the pros. So sure, if people support BJP even after all this, it is their choice. If I call them out for their choice, then that is my choice.

So this is the problem. When people support Modi / BJP, it is their choice. Don't associate it with anybody's morality. If you want to look at politics from a moral lens, not one party is going to be able to pass the muster.

2014-2021 has seen unprecedented reforms, a lot of which are things which we are taking for granted.

Biggest among them is Strengthening RTI and Digitisation of services.

Many people from our generation don't realise the importance of this, but ask any person about how it used to be.

For lawyers:

Biggest advantage is that we now have orders being updated online (offices used to pay bribes to get orders - orders which are now being uploaded online for free. The system had always been there, just that there was no push).

There are so many things!!

Unfortunately the echo chamber of FB, IG has forced us to ignore every good thing and start blaming 'the Supreme Leader' even if it makes no sense. All of us saw people blaming Modi for Ford's exit!! That is the level of discourse we have right now.

Blame whatever is wrong, but be fair and objective in your criticism. Stop with the namecalling and hatemongering. I know that this post will invite a lot of hatemongers. If anybody wants to make a wisecrack, come at me. I am right here.

I can't think of any reason why BJP should be voted for by a person who has received real education and has got basic decency. Calling the people out for doing that has got nothing to do with intolerance. Stopping them from voting thus is intolerance. As is jailing the critics of the current government on trumped-up charges. BJP's position on Muslims is not a matter of the past, it is very much present in all corners of the country even now.

Yes lot of lawyers and even highly educated people support BJP. It is not a sin. To classify people who support BJP as if they are sinners is actually a classic case of some one becoming what they started criticising at the first place.. i.e. INTOLERANT. So even though I support AAP, I tolerate people supporting BJP or Communists or whatever..they are not essentially bad people...and it is not like they are "ALL" anti-minority or china supporters (the two most blatantly irrational tags associated with them respectively)...It is not black and white...there is lot of grey. By your definition knowing BJP's past stand on Muslims ("alleged") one would assume Lawyers would ideally not support BJP (yet many do) by same logic knowing Congress's past on Sikhs one would again assume Lawyers/educated individuals will not support it (yet many do)..you talk about basic rights and being tagged anti-national or security threats while 66A of IT act was vehemently used in UPA regime..so why BJP only?..by your logic no one should support Congress too..Basically by this stupid logic you have actually covered 90 % of the voters..and it would mean that almost every voter is so "flagrantly wrong.....that I think if the impropriety thereof needs to be explained to a person with a legal education"...blah blah. By this logic voting for any party should become "flagrantly wrong". No political party is holy. You also seem to have a lot of free time. Which is great! I envy this.

Ok..so? How does that mean anything?

Also, is this

1 - Mahesh Jethmalani, the son of the guy who was law minister in the previous NDA regime,
2 - Harish Salve, India's foremost individual practice who stands to gain a lot more by favouring the regime, and also could face a lot of "inconveniences" (tax issues etc.) by speaking out against the regime?
3 - Pinky Anand, a longtime BJP supporter, who also is not that "big", and just another senior advocate in Delhi?
4 - Vikramjit Banerjee, a literal BJP stooge appointed to his post solely based on his BJP support?
5 - J Sai Deepak, a random lawyer who suddenly gained prominence through WhatsApp for his bullshit defences of the NRC/CAA coated in random legalese that all the right wing janata of the country could forward on WhatsApp and feel happy about?

is this the "cream"?

the "cream" of BJP supporting lawyers is the entire judiciary that has been bought out by the BJP government.

You could have simply stated that bjp's base policy is Hindutva, trying to make India a religiously polarized Hindus-only country. Anybody that's okay with discriminating against minorities, even well-educated "nlu" lawyers are absolute (....) who don't deserve even an ounce of respect. Period.

The essence of this post was initially one of the points of a reply to a post that expressed disappointment that Ms. Tibrewal from Hazra Law College, Calcutta University was selected as a candidate for a certain seat for the West Bengal by-elections over certain NLU graduates who are affiliated to the BJP.

However, after writing it, I realized I was genuinely curiously about the thought process of lawyers who support the BJP.

So for your consideration is the below:

1. I initially framed my thought on the lines that people at law colleges are liberals given their education, and would not support the BJP given their stances on say beef, imposition of Hindi, sidelining of Muslims, etc. (I like to believe that my legal education has taught me to concede that issues such as the farm laws, CAA/NRC, Art. 370 are complex issues, and that one could have arguments on both sides irrespective of what I think personally, therefore, not including them in the list. However, even if one were to "both sides" these complex issues on a policy level, observing the BJP's statements (official press conferences, tweets from official accounts, statements from the Home Minister at multiple political rallies and elsewhere), statements from ministers and party spokespersons, etc., the BJP definitely seems to lack bona fides). I instantly realized that no such pattern exists and several people in liberal colleges adore the BJP. I have several acquaintances who graduated from top engineering, arts, MBA colleges in India such as the IITs, IIMs, SRCC, etc. as well as several acquaintances who are lawyers (obviously, given my educational background), and quite a few of them are very fond of the BJP even today, i.e. 2021. I refrain from calling them friends because thankfully I have managed to find kindred souls in life to befriend, and while we may disagree on several issues, all of them hold values I feel strongly about such as transparency, honesty, freedom, equality, cynicism about authoritative power structures, etc., equally close to heart. To be fair the acquaintances I speak of a few sentences prior, I was not particularly close to them even before the BJP came to power in 2014. The only dissonance due to the rise of BJP, and the polarisation due to political leanings, is with certain family members including my parents sadly. But while I may disagree with my parents without refrain on most issues concerning the BJP, again I know I will always be there for them and they for me, when the need arises. Plus come to think of it, I was quite an ass as a child, and they never stopped trying, so at the very least, I need to return the favour 😉. Besides, my parents were always respectful of authority, and attempted to imbibe values such as parents are always right, and know what is best for you, laws are meant to be followed even if you think they are wrong, younger people know less than older people (while to be honest I often get frustrated with the impatience and misplaced confidence of a lot of people younger than me, I never forget that I was similar at that age, and they could still be correct because age is not a metric of anything but age itself and definitely not a metric of intelligence, honestly, morality, ability, etc.). Therefore, I am not sure if they are true BJP supporters in the sense that I remember them being equally respectful of UPA governments. Also, some credit must be given to them as despite their attempts to imbibe these values in me, they let me develop views to the contrary and support the choices that I made.

2. Still I would expect that a good legal education would teach people that information rights are supreme, and transparency is a non-negotiable in public office. Given the PM's hesitation with press conferences, the BJP's behaviour in the Parliament when the opposition questions them, ministers tagging people as anti-nationals for the slightest dissent, misuse of UAPA and sedition laws to harass dissenters with very flimsy evidence so that the process becomes the punishment even if they are proven innocent subsequently. Even a prima facie case is tough to make out in say the Umar Khalid detention, and the arrest of even Bhima Koregaon activists seems to be on similar lines. Another excellent example is the Disha Ravi case, which seems so flagrantly wrong that I think if the impropriety thereof needs to be explained to a person with a legal education, their views may be solidified in the matter, and no amount of debate or discourse may cause them to change their views.

3. I am ignoring the actions of their IT cell, proxy spokespersons like Anupam Kher, etc. since one could argue that they do not represent the BJP even though there is strong evidence to suggest a nexus (definitely stronger than the evidence that they have detained Umar Khalid on the basis of, where even a prima facie case seems to be lacking, and there seems to be good grounds to believe that the limited evidence itself is fabricated and that the source of the fabrication was Amit Malviya).

4. You can choose to think that Hindus are being oppressed, or that Muslims should be second class citizens. It sounds controversial but sadly democracy works in fucked up ways, and in my opinion if I were to say, pass a law that every person who holds such idiotic notions and votes on the basis thereof should not be allowed to vote, that law itself would be undemocratic in nature. For that matter, I would like to clarify that I am aware that my Hindu brothers do not have a monopoly on idiocy, and my Muslim and Christian brothers have equally idiotic notions they strongly believe in. I think that with all its pitfalls, democracy seems to be the best available option on a net basis, and we have to take the good with the bad. Of course, on paper, in a democracy, even if the populace manages to elect a party with a fascist agenda, the third leg of a democracy being the courts should be able to protect certain basic rights such as expressing your views no matter how controversial, preventing the incumbent government from harassing people who oppose. However, practically, it is the executive (which is formed by the party/coalition which has a majority in the Lok Sabha) who are in control. The executive can effectively do what they please against an individual because (i) the courts themselves are comprised of people with their own political biases and leanings; (ii) India’s legal framework and institutions are not very developed, and laws such as UAPA, sedition under the IPC, etc., are strife with potential for misuse; (iii) the executive’s control over the Income Tax department or Enforcement Directorate is strife with potential for misuse.

5. For that matter, on a slightly unrelated note, I must say that Income-Tax is such a convoluted matter because (i) the laws are convoluted and not well drafted, (ii) the onus on discharging the correct amount of tax is on the assesse who has to make subjective decisions on classification of different sources of income, claiming deductions, etc., (iii) most people are ignorant of the law and rely on a third-party being a Chartered Accountant, yet, given the competition and levels of income in India, CAs are paid a paltry amount for filing returns, and the focus of Chartered Accountants is on speed v. accuracy so mistakes are bound to occur. In light of the above, I am of the opinion that a case of tax evasion could be made out against literally everyone in this country. If collection of the correct amount of tax is so critical for a government, they should do it on a reverse onus basis, with the IT authorities computing my payable tax and sending me the ITR they have computed, and if they have made mistakes or not accounted for deductions I may have been entitled to, there should be a process for me to challenge/debate it. The government in India has sufficient details about my bank account, my accounts with depositories to reflect the securities I old, details about immovable property I hold, and more importantly, any payments greater than INR 50,000 requirements require a PAN to be mentioned. Further, I believe the world is moving towards digital payments, and with this government's very debatable demonetisation experiment, despite all the negatives, I personally feel the adoption of digital payments was accelerated.

6. I digress. As a lawyer, I am willing to concede that the world is complex and gray, and several of the policy issues the BJP has implemented or is in the process of implementing can indeed be debated from both sides. However, as a lawyer how do you (i) reconcile your support with the absolute lack of transparency and disclosure, (ii) ignore the fact that the BJP's primary focus seems to be media/information management.

This post turned out to be longer than I anticipated, and given my habit to digress, is wider in terms of the topics it touches upon than I initially wanted it to be. Still, I think after several posts about the NIRF rankings, senior-junior couples, “R” and his/her various virtues and failings, etc. folks might want to engage in a debate about something different.

To make it easier to comment on a particular aspect of my long rambling post, I have numbered the paras.