We want LI to be one of the friendliest places on the internet, where lawyers and law students help each other with their career related queries and occasionally discuss other stuff that might affect their lives too. In other words:
1. Be kind, respectful and helpful to each other.
2. Be bona fide, truthful, genuine and curious.
3. Assume the best intention of others.
Therefore, in using the site, you must agree to do your best to uphold these community guidelines.
Note that what you find here is written and moderated by anonymous people on the internet.
Therefore everything you read here is very likely unverified, rumour, speculation and/or downright false.
In continuing to read anything here, you must therefore agree not to take anything you read here as factual and that you will exercise due caution, diligence and common sense before acting on any information you may come across here.
You also agree to report any inaccurate or malicious comments with the buttons. Moderators take action within 24 hours, as required and appropriate under law.
Our full terms and conditions apply too.
Do you solemnly agree to all of the above?
OpIndia has given the best rebuttal to Chandrachud's lecture, compiling a lot of sources in one page and citing historical literature. But since the mod only trusts left-liberal sources I am also giving a link to an older article from The Telegraph (#1 anti-BJP and pro-TMC paper) which plainly says: "There was no such tax".
It is VERY dangerous and divisive when the CJI of a country makes such statements.
https://www.opindia.com/2022/12/cji-cited-fictional-story-of-nangeli-and-breast-tax-to-highlight-atrocities-against-lower-caste/
https://www.telegraphindia.com/culture/style/the-breast-tax-that-wasnt/cid/1803638
1. Your original claim in the headline is false: according to all references, even cited by OpIndia, at most it was a throwaway single comment in a long lecture, which no one seemed to have reported on because it was apparently so insignificant to the main points he was making.
2. The original comment, as tweeted by LiveLaw, makes it clear that he is explicitly mentioning that it's a legend, not a fact: https://twitter.com/LiveLawIndia/status/1603995360904765441
Quote: 3. The Telegraph article you cite, makes it very much clear that while there wasn't a 'breast tax' as such, lower castes (of both genders) were not allowed to wear garments without paying for it, which seems to have been DYC's exact point.
Quote: The story of Nangeli specifically, does indeed seem to be a legend, but going by the tweets there is no evidence that DYC ever claimed otherwise.
In conclusion, DYC seems to have made clear his story off protest masectomies was a legend in order to illustrate casteism fought by Ambedkar, all of which checks out.
More interesting than this actualy non-story would be, what do you / OpIndia have against DY Chandrachud? The fact that he comes from a family of judges, as do most senior judges, or is there something substantive about what he does or his views that bother you, any more than any other SC judge or CJ?
All the woke moral grandstanding coming from him - sounds the worst.
He also reopened the Sikh genocide case, and set up a SIT, while refusing to do so for genocide of Kashmiri Pandits.
He is the worst CJI we had in a long time.
The reason we were somewhat strict in moderating this attack in DYC is that in our mod experience, posts likes this are largely:
1. disingenuous, in that in our prior hard-won experience, they are never actually looking for a discussion or to engage constructively, and just throw their toys out of the pram or stoop towards ad hominem if you try to have a reasoned discussion or put up some contradictory points or fact check or ask them to justify their points (as evidenced in the dodging replies / lack of engagement to our mild fact check above in this thread),
2. orchestrated, in that they are rarely original thought but are just copy-pasta talking points from some trolls on Twitter, WhatsApp or random blogs intended to provoke outrage or shitpost.
Either of those two reasons should be reason enough to not publish a comment at all, though we still err on the side of freedom of speech (more often than we should perhaps) and publish such comments, but with a warning label attached, and if possible or required, with a fact check or counter-argument from mod, so LI does not become instrumental in the mindless spreading of shitposts.
https://www.newslaundry.com/2020/05/19/tough-on-modi-soft-on-mamata-how-telegraph-covered-covid-responses-by-two-governments
https://www.newslaundry.com/2021/05/04/tmc-vs-bjp-did-the-bengal-violence-find-space-in-kolkatas-english-newspapers
https://www.newslaundry.com/2022/08/01/trouble-in-the-tmc-how-did-telegraph-report-on-the-partha-chatterjee-controversy
And does that mean all media except Telegraph and Newslaundry and The Wire and Scroll are toeing the central government's line?
- Until the 1980s, the Statesman was pretty much the only English-language newspaper in Bengal, with the circulation of the now-defunct Amrita Bazaar Patrika being too small. The Statesman was opposed to the Congress because of the Emergency. CR Irani, cousin of Nani Palkhivala led the opposition in the English-language press (along with Ramnath Goenka of the Express). When the Left came into power, the Statesman also criticised Jyoti Basu and became an enemy of the Left.
- In the 1980s, the Telegraph was launched by Aveek Sarkar, with MJ Akbar as its editor. Akbar and Sarkar also strongly opposed Jyoti Basu, but unlike CR Irani they were fiercely pro-Congress and Akbar would eventually fight elections on a Congress ticket.
- In the 1990s, the Telegraph began to catch up with the Statesman in circulation, as it offered colourful supplements for a low price and devoted a lot of coverage to sports and movies, while the Statesman was seen as too old-fashioned and out of touch with the youth. By the late 1990s, the Telegraph moved ahead. In terms of ideology, the Telegraph continued to be critical of the Left and kept up its pro-Congress line, while the Statesman attacked both. Both newspapers also became strong opponents of the BJP. Post-Babri, MJ Akbar constantly attacked the BJP, while Irani and AG Noorani led the attack from the Statesman's side. The TMC only came into existence in the late 90s.
- In the 2000s, the gap between the Telegraph and the Statesman widened hugely and the Times of India (the new kid in town) eventually assumed second spot. The Telegraph was more or less neutral towards the TMC. The TOI was neutral and appeased the right people all around, across parties. The Statesman again made enemies across the board. Irani lost a defamation case filed by the RSS after an editorial accused the RSS of murdering Gandhi. Also, the deputy editor (Ravindra Kumar) was arrested by the Left front government after the Statesman reproduced an article, from the left-wing British newspaper The Independent, which advocated atheism and which Muslim groups found to be "anti-Islamic".
- By 2011, when Mamata came into power, the Telegraph was firmly the dominant player in town and the ABP group was also the dominant player in TV news through Star Ananda (now ABP Ananda). The Telegraph, ABP and Star Ananda shuffled between taking pro-Mamata and anti-Mamata positions, but by 2014 Aveek Sarkar became furiously anti-Mamata because of the RCGC issue (which I guess you know little about, if you are a Gen Z person). Aveek then acted behind the scenes to get the Left and Congress together during the 2016 election and supported the coalition wholeheartedly. But he got his fingers burnt as the coalition got thrashed. Aveek was then removed on Mamata's instructions and replaced by Arup Sarkar.
- As things now stand, Bengal is an industrial wasteland and papers rely on government patronage through ads. That's why the Telegraph has sold itself to the TMC, which even Newslaundry acknowledges to be pro-TMC and only TMC trolls like you don't. Arup Sarkar has given way to his son Atideb Sarkar, whose ethics are even worse. The Times of India tries to appease everyone, through pro-BJP reporters in Delhi and pro-TMC reporters in Bengal. Meanwhile, the Statesman (though still published) is nearly extinct. It is so debt-ridden that it has sold Statesman House in Chowringhee, one of the oldest and grandest buildings in Kolkata, to a property developer to turn into a mall. Also, MJ Akbar is now a BJP man.
That's the story of Bengal and its media.
Right wing hindu people hate it because they hate the lower caste asserting themselves and they are casteist as fuck.
If you guys can burn cars for Padmaavat, Chandrachud can recount a venerated legend.
OpIndia can suck it.