Pratap Bhanu Mehta, president of the Center for Policy Research, is without question one of our better political thinkers. (Not just because he resigned from the Knowledge Commission on the quota issue.) And he can write.
"Just think of how we have bought into the distinction between the PM’s office and the rest of the government, as if government as a whole is not responsible for what it does… Exonerating individuals has become more important than the principle of collective responsibility."
Here's a good example:
churumuri 
Mr. Mehta’s article is stimulating and good to see some one calling a spade a bloody spade.
But what caught the attention was the statement attributed to that flamboyant Politician Late Pramod Mahajan. How well said! It is not just politicians but even 99 % of Indians would have seen, touched or read even a single page of Indian Constitution.
Telling of absolute lies starts at the preamble of the Indian Constitution:
Quote:
We, the people of India having solemnly resolved to constitute India into a Sovereign SOCIALIST SECULAR democratic republic and to secure to all its citizen:
Justice, social economic and political
Liberty of thought expression, belief, faith and worship
Equality of status and of opportunity
And promote among them all;
Fraternity assuring the dignity of the individual and unity and INTEGRITY of the nation;
In our constituent assembly this twenty sixth day of November 1949 do hereby adopt, enact and give unto ourselves this constitution.
Unquote:
Phrases in CAPITAL LETTERS were not part of what was enacted on 26=11=1949. They were introduced by the 42nd amendment in 1977. We all know ho was the PM then.
But any one who reads the above preamble without the above information will think it was what Constitution assembly adopted as the English does not give room to any such ambiguity.
But the irony is that SC in the famous Keshavananda Bharati case says that objectives specified in the preamble contain basic structure of the constitution and cannot be amended by the exercise of the Art.388 !
Then what is the truth?
SC has a masthead, which says ” yathO dharmaH tathO jayaH”
But the SC has said that court cannot concern itself with moral aspect of any amendment by the Parliament as it is the will of the people expressed through parliament!
We do not have a plebiscite like say in Swiss for any amendment, we do not have a compulsory franchise, and we have just a first past the post system. How can SC arrogate the Parliament the moral power to legislate even if it is immoral act and shirk its own avowed Goal?
SO it is a JUNGLE RAJ . God save us
LikeLike