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?
Recent political posts have also shown that. Maybe I should stop correcting them because fools will remain fools no matter you educate them
.
.
.
Q ki kal subha panvel nikalna hai
Come out of it
your ideology does not match's that's why you hate others
Lmao
That guy is no intellectual
India proved its ability to conduct UAF elections in 1952, and quite successfully at that.
Palkhivala’s writings are also very average and full of elitist boomer Savarna rants: no to reservation, no to corruption, yes to free markets etc. That’s not how things should work. It is better to have a government headed by Lalu Yadav or MK Stalin with corruption verses a Savarna government headed by the BJP with no corruption, because promoting social justice and secularism is the need of the hour. Also, if you only allow educated people to vote for other educated people, the Lok Sabha will only have the Savarna class and not have enough Muslim, Dalit and tribal MPs. You might as well hand over the government to the Tatas and Ambanis in that case.
IMO law students should stay away from Palkhivaka’s writings and law school libraries should not even keep them. It’s time we discard these irrelevant boomer writers and look towards exciting new writers, like Gautam Bhatia or Suraj Yengde (even though he’s not a lawyer).
He is mass leader who is popularity unparalleled and he has clarity intellectual and civilizational like Savarkar.
He is our Indian Ataturk.
What Palkhivala was essentially saying is that India is unfit to be a democracy because we send corrupt and uneducated people to Parliament. Is he really wrong? Both NDA and INDIA voters for corrupt criminals and murderers, just because of caste and religious loyalties.
"We are not made for democracy. We are made to be ruled by a strong man. Like Kemal Ataturk. I have said repeatedly that India needs a strong man, not adult franchise. I haven't seen anyone yet. I hope it does happen in my lifetime."
"I am totally disillusioned. I don't believe in adult franchise at all. We have no reverance for our Constitution. We have no distinction between ordinary and Constitutional law. We are third rate, unfit to be a democracy."
"You cannot remove 370, because that was a condition Kashmir became a part of India. If Article 370 is removed, I don't see why Kashmir should continue to be a part of India."
"The third suggestion would be to alter Article 75 to provide that every one of the 26 states of India should be entitled to send two representatives to the Lok Sabha who would not be elected on the basis of adult franchise, but would be elected by universities and professional bodies. A similar provision should be made to have one representative so elected from each major Union Territory. This way we would have about 52 MPs who would represent the professions and the faculties and would be able to improve the tone and standard of debate in Parliament. "
*"*There are four advantages in having the presidential system patterned on the liberal, democratic model:
First, it enables the President to have a cabinet of outstanding competence and integrity, since the choice is not restricted to Parliament. A wise President can substitute excellence for the deadwood which passes for government today.
Secondly, since Cabinet ministers are not elected, they are not motivated to adopt cheap populist measures which are so costly to the country in the long run. For instance, they would not resort to nationalisation which is the last refuge of inefficient administrators.
Thirdly, the presidential system permits Cabinet ministers to be absorbed in the job of governing the country, instead of wasting their time and potential in endless politicking.
Fourthly, it would stop defections and desertions on the part of legislators, which are in most cases motivated purely by thirst of power and hunger for office."
https://m.rediff.com/news/1998/jul/14nani.htm
[Mod note: Edited to make less trollish]