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?
My two cents to those voting the first time. Please put in the effort to know the candidates for your constituency. Their governance track record should hold precedence over everything else. Then move to the manifestos. Filter out the ideology related mumbo jumbo and see which party has a governance plan that serves your interests first and then the interest of others. If the candidates visit your home/ neighbourhood to pitch for your vote and there's confusion on which candidate to pick on the basis of the aforementioned criteria, take the trouble of asking them questions and pick the candidate who presents a answer that's rooted in earnest and common sense. Don't get swayed by BS. As lawyers, your BS filter should be better than your peers. Remember, the politician is a "service provider". Unapologetically, pick one the same way you choose a SIM card/ cellular service provider. There has been serious horse trading across political lines. These rogues don't have an ideology themselves; ideology is just trope for them to mobilise support. The ideology pitch is therefore bull 💩.
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/rahul-gandhi-vows-survey-for-wealth-redistribution/articleshow/109096058.cms#
Here's why I think there are challenges:
1. Logistically, one problem is that rich have assets either in immovable property or in banks abroad. How can one redistribute immovable property or confiscate money abroad?
2. Constitutionally, one can impose 80% tax of the richest 20% of India. It should also be fine to redistribute that wealth to the poor through cash transfers. However, if redistribution is only confined to backward castes and minorities, as his speech suggests, that may be constitutionally difficult. The creamy layer will have to be excluded and the poor among forward castes and non-muslim Minorities (Sikhs, Christians, Parsis and Jains) will have to be included as well.
3. Another issue is that of agricultural income. Will redistribution entail taking way wealth of rich farmers?
All in all, this is easier said than done.