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.
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.