Bwahaha..Baba Ramdev was caught running away...

charvaka wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

charvaka wrote:

Rashmun wrote:All right, then, i find it difficult to believe that you would not support a crackdown by the govt

That's because I don't support "crackdowns" -- particularly if they are violent. Ramdev is violating the law, and there is a way to deal with that -- first file charges in a court of law, before beating up dozens of people! That is the rule of law; not midnight lathi-charges. Reposing power to crackdown on peaceful protestors in the government is something I am not comfortable with. Neither is the Supreme Court of India.

how should the govt. respond to Ramdev's announcement that he is going to create an army of 11,000 people ready to make the 'ultimate sacrifice'?

Watch what he does, not what he blabbers. If he does any thing illegal prosecute him.

Suppose the govt. determines that Ramdev has done something illegal, and the police is sent to arrest him.

Now suppose if Ramdev, instead of surrendering to the police, tries to evade arrest by concealing himself amongst his disciples who try to shield him and help him in evading arrest.

In such a situation, is it justified for the cops to use force to get to Ramdev and arrest him?

Again, stop jumping steps. Government does not need to arrest him if the only thing they can legally charge him with is violating the permit. That it is not a serious criminal offense that requires arrest. They should have filed charges and gotten a warrant before "using force."

Now answer me this. Why did the Supreme Court call the incident police brutality? If what the government did was commendable as you suggest, it would not have attracted that response from the court.

this thread has gone over a 100 posts and NOTHING from me... kinda shameful. So thought would repost a wall post from FB.

Carvaka: Again, stop jumping steps. Government does not need to arrest him if the only thing they can legally charge him with is violating the permit. That it is not a serious criminal offense that requires arrest. They should have filed charges and gotten a warrant before "using force."

--> I am not asking you to judge whether the govt. decision to arrest him was right or not. My question is with respect to the police brutality that you keep harping about.

--> The cops were informed of the govt. decision to arrest him and when they went to do so Ramdev tried to thwart them by concealing himself amongst his followers and trying to evade arrest. The cops then used force to arrest him.

--> My question is: was it ok for the cops to use force to arrest Ramdev? Or should they have allowed Ramdev to evade arrest and flee?



Carvaka: Now answer me this. Why did the Supreme Court call the incident police brutality? If what the government did was commendable as you suggest, it would not have attracted that response from the court.


--> The possibility that this was a political decision rather than a legal one should not be ruled out.

Rashmun wrote:I am not asking you to judge whether the govt. decision to arrest him was right or not. My question is with respect to the police brutality that you keep harping about.

Why not? My whole argument over the last two days has been that the government acted in unnecessary and unexplained haste, and sent in the police when it didn't need to. So "not judging the government decision" is missing the point of my criticism altogether.

Rashmun wrote:The possibility that this was a political decision rather than a legal one should not be ruled out.

Haha... the possibility that your decision to argue on the side of authoritarianism against free political speech is a political decision rather than a principled one should not be ruled out.

Tracy Whitney wrote:this thread has gone over a 100 posts and NOTHING from me... kinda shameful. So thought would repost a wall post from FB.

Who is who here?

charvaka wrote:Who is who here?

MMS vs. Ramdev

charvaka wrote:

Tracy Whitney wrote:this thread has gone over a 100 posts and NOTHING from me... kinda shameful. So thought would repost a wall post from FB.

Who is who here?

LOL don't underestimate the punjabis. Remember how Surinder Sahni beats the japanese wrestler to win their honeymoon trip to Japan )

anything can happen

Rashmun wrote:
--> The possibility that this was a political decision rather than a legal one should not be ruled out.

Are you saying that the government's decision was not a legal one? So, it was illegal? Can a government take illegal actions? If yes, how should the government be lathi-charged for breaking the law?

Rashmun wrote:
--> The cops were informed of the govt. decision to arrest him and when they went to do so Ramdev tried to thwart them by concealing himself amongst his followers and trying to evade arrest. The cops then used force to arrest him.

Did the cops have a warrant signed by a judge to arrest Ramdev? After they arrested him, did they charge him with any crimes? Did they produce him before a magistrate for the heinous crime of holding a protest without permit? Did they put him in jail? Or did they simply take him to another location and release him? If all that they wanted to do was take him to another location and release him, could they not have simply allowed him to evade arrest and run away? What was the need for lathi charge?

Rashmun wrote:Carvaka: Again, stop jumping steps. Government does not need to arrest him if the only thing they can legally charge him with is violating the permit. That it is not a serious criminal offense that requires arrest. They should have filed charges and gotten a warrant before "using force."

--> I am not asking you to judge whether the govt. decision to arrest him was right or not. My question is with respect to the police brutality that you keep harping about.

--> The cops were informed of the govt. decision to arrest him and when they went to do so Ramdev tried to thwart them by concealing himself amongst his followers and trying to evade arrest. The cops then used force to arrest him.

--> My question is: was it ok for the cops to use force to arrest Ramdev? Or should they have allowed Ramdev to evade arrest and flee?



Carvaka: Now answer me this. Why did the Supreme Court call the incident police brutality? If what the government did was commendable as you suggest, it would not have attracted that response from the court.


--> The possibility that this was a political decision rather than a legal one should not be ruled out.

+ If it was that important to arrest him, why release him immediately?

+ If the purpose was to get him to leave the premises, letting him flee would not have been a disaster.

+ What is the justification of using brutal force on peaceful supporters to arrest him for a violation and release him so soon?

SomeProfile wrote:

Rashmun wrote:
--> The cops were informed of the govt. decision to arrest him and when they went to do so Ramdev tried to thwart them by concealing himself amongst his followers and trying to evade arrest. The cops then used force to arrest him.

Did the cops have a warrant signed by a judge to arrest Ramdev? After they arrested him, did they charge him with any crimes? Did they produce him before a magistrate for the heinous crime of holding a protest without permit? Did they put him in jail? Or did they simply take him to another location and release him? If all that they wanted to do was take him to another location and release him, could they not have simply allowed him to evade arrest and run away? What was the need for lathi charge?

Gosh...i wrote something and it sounds so similar to what you wrote. I am sure anyone without prejudice would reach similar conclusion.

artood2 wrote:
Gosh...i wrote something and it sounds so similar to what you wrote. I am sure anyone without prejudice would reach similar conclusion.

Yes, one minute apart! Great minds think alike.

SomeProfile wrote:Are you saying that the government's decision was not a legal one? So, it was illegal? Can a government take illegal actions? If yes, how should the government be lathi-charged for breaking the law?

SomeProfile wrote:Did the cops have a warrant signed by a judge to arrest Ramdev? After they arrested him, did they charge him with any crimes? Did they produce him before a magistrate for the heinous crime of holding a protest without permit? Did they put him in jail? Or did they simply take him to another location and release him? If all that they wanted to do was take him to another location and release him, could they not have simply allowed him to evade arrest and run away? What was the need for lathi charge?

These are all good, pertinent questions. I hope Rashmun answers each of those questions in a pointed manner, rather than repeat the same old (partially false) "facts" about government negotiating with Ramdev, the latter breaking their negotiated agreement, yoga camp, 50,000 people and so on and so forth ad nauseam.

The matter in question here is not whether Ramdev is an idiot; nobody on this thread has argued that he isn't. The matter in question is one of principle: the rights of citizens versus the powers of government, and the expected conduct of a democratic government towards peaceful protestors.

CroMagnon wrote:

charvaka wrote:Who is who here?

MMS vs. Ramdev

Thanks.. I see. This is why what the government did was stupid on so many levels. They made this a David vs. Goliath thing, by reacting with so much force in the dead of night to a peaceful protest. The last thing I would have wanted was for Ramdev to become some kind of symbol of resisting the mindless wrath of the state; but posters like this one indicate that the government's move has completely and utterly backfired.

Rashmun wrote:The cops were informed of the govt. decision to arrest him...

If you believe the honorable Home Minister, the cops made the decision all by themselves. The elected representatives decided to abdicate all decision-making, if you believe what he says. Do you believe Chidambaram, or do you believe what you said earlier was right?

charvaka wrote:

Rashmun wrote:The cops were informed of the govt. decision to arrest him...

If you believe the honorable Home Minister, the cops made the decision all by themselves. The elected representatives decided to abdicate all decision-making, if you believe what he says. Do you believe Chidambaram, or do you believe what you said earlier was right?

i had written that post prior to my listening to Chidambaram. but you are still not answering my question.. My question to you is:

Once the decision had been made to arrest Ramdev, and when the cops went to arrest him, and when Ramdev instead of courting arrest peacefully tried to flee and evade arrest should the cops have:

(a) allowed Ramdev to evade arrest and flee
(b) used force to arrest Ramdev

i am glad you listened to the Chidambaram video though. In his talk, Chidambaram pointed out that the Ram Lila ground is located in a sensitive area in Delhi. (This is the same Ram Lila ground for which Ramdev had sought and obtained permission to hold a yoga training session and instead ended up hosting a political rally. ) Chidambaram also pointed out that so many people had collected --far in excess of the 5,000 for which permission had been sought and given--that a single spark could have ended up in a conflagration.

Rashmun wrote:i had written that post prior to my listening to Chidambaram.

He also says there were 20,000 persons, not 50,000 as you claimed many times.

Rashmun wrote:but you are still not answering my question.. My question to you is:

Once the decision had been made to arrest Ramdev,

My answer is that the decision to arrest Ramdev itself was incorrect. The violence that followed that decision was a result of that stupid decision. Now, answer the questions SP raised above regarding that decision to arrest Ramdev.

Rashmun wrote:i am glad you listened to the Chidambaram video though.

I am too; it showed me how morally bankrupt this government has become, to wash its hands off its own decisions by saying the police made the decision.

Rashmun wrote:In his talk, Chidambaram pointed out that the Ram Lila ground is located in a sensitive area in Delhi. ... that a single spark could have ended up in a conflagration.

And you bought his arguments hook, line and sinker. You must be the most gullible citizen India has! Did you also buy his claim that the police made the decision all by themselves?

I am going to respond to your comments on both threads here, so we can keep it all together in one place.

Rashmun wrote:In his talk, Chidambaram pointed out that the Ram Lila ground is located
in a sensitive area in Delhi. ... that a single spark could have ended
up in a conflagration.

You bought this line so readily. Let us examine it in detail.

What sort of sensitivity did you assume Chidambaram was talking about? What made the ground particularly more sensitive than say the Jantar Mantar? Why is a political rally against corruption subject to sensitivity but not a yoga camp conducted by the same baba and attended by the same people?

Rashmun wrote:According to the rule of law the designated spot for holding political rallies in Delhi is Jantar Mantar.

You are wrong; you should stop swallowing the party line so readily. Question what authority figures tell you -- even if their political ideology matches yours. For instance, here is a political rally held by Sonia Gandhi at Ramlila Maidan.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U_EEovMZ5sQ

I can dig up more where that came from. If you say, "according to the rule of law the designated spot for holding political rallies is such and such" that tells me you don't know the meaning of rule of law.

Rashmun wrote:I had earlier used the figure of 50,000 based on Digvijay Singh's statement in which he had used this figure.

So do you accept now that Digvijayji is not trustworthy? Or will you continue to rely on his statements for mudslinging, and say ludicrous things like "Digvijay would not have said this or that had there been no truth in it?"

Rashmun wrote:I am for preemptive action.

In other words, you are for letting the government take arbitrary action without any evidence of actual crimes being committed.

Rashmun wrote:You would rather, from what one can make out, wait and watch for the
suicide bombers to be trained and armed and then make arrests after they
have killed some people.

Per the law of the land, it is illegal to recruit and train suicide bombers. So you can make arrests as soon as Ramdev actually recruits his first suicide bomber.

Rashmun, let me repeat for you some very specific questions that you need to answer if you want to defend the government's actions. It looks like you are going to use SP's tasteless post as an excuse to wriggle out of these questions. I think it is better to ignore that thread and focus on the substance of those questions. So let me ask them again.

• Did the cops have a warrant for the arrest?
  
• After they arrested him, did they charge him with any crime?
  
• Did they produce him before a magistrate? Or did they simply take him to another location and release him?
  
• If all that they wanted to do was take him to another location and release him, could they not have simply allowed him to evade arrest and run away? What was the need for lathi charge?
  
• Who made the political decision to arrest Ramdev?
  

Contrary to Rashmun's claims that Jantar Mantar is the only spot for political rallies in Delhi, the Ramlila Maidan has a long history of use for political rallies. Back when Indira Gandhi announced elections at the end of Emergency, the first major opposition rally took place at Ramlila Maidan. Sonia Gandhi held a rally there in 2009. The All India Milli Council had a "rally to end fear" there. NDA held a rally in December 2010 there. The political right and left, Hindus and Muslims, priests and union leaders -- various groups have rallied there for their favorite causes over the years. But Chidambaram disingenuously claims that it was a sensitive place for this one rally!

http://www.telegraphindia.com/1030821/asp/opinion/story_2281797.asp
http://headlinesindia.mapsofindia.com/state-news/delhi/traffic-advisory-for-delhi-rally-on-wednesday-71089.html
http://www.iosworld.org/news/large_gathering_of_Muslims.htm

charvaka wrote:I am going to respond to your comments on both threads here, so we can keep it all together in one place.

Rashmun wrote:In his talk, Chidambaram pointed out that the Ram Lila ground is located
in a sensitive area in Delhi. ... that a single spark could have ended
up in a conflagration.

You bought this line so readily. Let us examine it in detail.

What sort of sensitivity did you assume Chidambaram was talking about? What made the ground particularly more sensitive than say the Jantar Mantar? Why is a political rally against corruption subject to sensitivity but not a yoga camp conducted by the same baba and attended by the same people?

Rashmun wrote:According to the rule of law the designated spot for holding political rallies in Delhi is Jantar Mantar.

You are wrong; you should stop swallowing the party line so readily. Question what authority figures tell you -- even if their political ideology matches yours. For instance, here is a political rally held by Sonia Gandhi at Ramlila Maidan.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U_EEovMZ5sQ

I can dig up more where that came from. If you say, "according to the rule of law the designated spot for holding political rallies is such and such" that tells me you don't know the meaning of rule of law.

Rashmun wrote:I had earlier used the figure of 50,000 based on Digvijay Singh's statement in which he had used this figure.

So do you accept now that Digvijayji is not trustworthy? Or will you continue to rely on his statements for mudslinging, and say ludicrous things like "Digvijay would not have said this or that had there been no truth in it?"

Rashmun wrote:I am for preemptive action.

In other words, you are for letting the government take arbitrary action without any evidence of actual crimes being committed.

Rashmun wrote:You would rather, from what one can make out, wait and watch for the
suicide bombers to be trained and armed and then make arrests after they
have killed some people.

Per the law of the land, it is illegal to recruit and train suicide bombers. So you can make arrests as soon as Ramdev actually recruits his first suicide bomber.

-------
1. My take on the meaning of Chidambaram's words 'sensitive area' is that the Ram Lila ground lies in an area where the population comprises of a mix of religious communities and where there have been communal incidents in the past.

2. The fact that Sonia held a political rally at the Ram Lila ground thereby implying that Ram Lila ground can host political rallies is news to me. I thought that political rallies in Delhi could only take place in Jantar Mantar.

3. Never the less the question remains as to why Ramdev tried to hoodwink the authorities by taking permission for a yoga camp at Ram Lila ground for 5,000 people and where more than 20,000 people (according to Chidambaram) showed up for what turned out to be a political rally. After all, in all large political rallies, the authorities have to make some arrangements to take care that no violence takes place and nobody gets hurt. There was no reason for Ramdev not to inform the authorities about his political rally. In fact it was irresponsible on his part not to do so because quite easily violence could have taken place and people could have got hurt. This was seen in December, 1992 when the BJP kept saying that they would hold a peaceful demonstration but it ended up leading to large scale violence.

4. With respect to Digvijay Singh's figure of 50,000 i will for now give him the benefit of doubt. After all, Chidambaram used the figure of 'more than 20,000'. Digvijay made his statement immediately after the incident and its possible he made an honest mistake when giving the number. There is no reason for him to lie about such a small thing.

5. You mention that i am supporting the congress because my ideology matches theirs. That is nonsense. For instance, i had stridently opposed caste based reservation policies for OBC's at top govt. engineering colleges and management colleges initiated by Arjun Singh who was the Congress HRD minister at that time. And you had in fact supported Arjun Singh at the time if memory serves me right.

6. If the govt. feels that some force is required to stop the law and order situation from getting out of hand that it should be allowed some discretion. For instance, Narasimha Rao forbade any force on the Kar Sevaks in December 1992 even when reports kept coming to him that the situation was getting rapidly out of hand. He preferred to wait and watch and only after wide spread killings had already taken place and the poison of communalism mixed in the polity for a long long time did Rao gave the consent to use force but by then it was too late.

Rashmun wrote:My take on the meaning of Chidambaram's words 'sensitive area' is that the Ram Lila ground lies in an area where the population comprises of a mix of religious communities and where there have been communal incidents in the past.

This "communal sensitivity" is a cheap tactic Congress has used for most of our history as a nation. And you fell completely for it! See my post above -- Hindu groups and Muslim groups, BJP and Congress have all used that venue for political rallies in the past. So the government's (and your) excuses don't add up.

Rashmun wrote:The fact that Sonia held a political rally at the Ram Lila ground thereby implying that Ram Lila ground can host political rallies is news to me. I thought that political rallies in Delhi could only take place in Jantar Mantar.

India, thankfully, is not communist China. Political rallies take place in multiple places in Delhi. They are not restricted to either the Jantar Mantar or the Ramlila Maidan.

Rashmun wrote:Never the less the question remains as to why Ramdev tried to hoodwink the authorities by taking permission for a yoga camp at Ram Lila ground for 5,000 people and where more than 20,000 people (according to Chidambaram) showed up for what turned out to be a political rally.

Has the government prosecuted Ramdev for violating the law? Why did they release him instead of charging him, if he committed a crime?

Rashmun wrote:You mention that i am supporting the congress because my ideology matches theirs.

I don't know why you are carrying water for the Congress. Suffice it to say that you are defending the Congress more than the Congress is defending itself -- they are simply distancing themselves from what happened, while you are congratulating them for it!

charvaka wrote:

Rashmun wrote:My take on the meaning of Chidambaram's words 'sensitive area' is that the Ram Lila ground lies in an area where the population comprises of a mix of religious communities and where there have been communal incidents in the past.

This "communal sensitivity" is a cheap tactic Congress has used for most of our history as a nation. And you fell completely for it! See my post above -- Hindu groups and Muslim groups, BJP and Congress have all used that venue for political rallies in the past. So the government's (and your) excuses don't add up.

Rashmun wrote:The fact that Sonia held a political rally at the Ram Lila ground thereby implying that Ram Lila ground can host political rallies is news to me. I thought that political rallies in Delhi could only take place in Jantar Mantar.

India, thankfully, is not communist China. Political rallies take place in multiple places in Delhi. They are not restricted to either the Jantar Mantar or the Ramlila Maidan.

Rashmun wrote:Never the less the question remains as to why Ramdev tried to hoodwink the authorities by taking permission for a yoga camp at Ram Lila ground for 5,000 people and where more than 20,000 people (according to Chidambaram) showed up for what turned out to be a political rally.

Has the government prosecuted Ramdev for violating the law? Why did they release him instead of charging him, if he committed a crime?

Rashmun wrote:You mention that i am supporting the congress because my ideology matches theirs.

I don't know why you are carrying water for the Congress. Suffice it to say that you are defending the Congress more than the Congress is defending itself -- they are simply distancing themselves from what happened, while you are congratulating them for it!

---------

1. December 6, 1992 is not an excuse, not an imagination. It is reality. It actually happened despite your attempt at brushing it off casually. Many people died because the administration preferred to follow your line of thinking and adopt a wait and watch policy. The poison of communalism spread widely and it took a long while to dispell the madness that had gripped the nation because of the lethargic policy of Narasimha Rao.

2. Political rallies, to the best of my knowledge, cannot take place anywhere in Delhi. For instance, they cannot take place in residential areas. India is not China, but India does not believe in anarchy either. You cannot just do whatever you wish to do; you have to adhere to the law of the land.

3. Ramdev did get a punishment. His punishment was that he cannot enter Delhi for a certain period of time. This was deemed sufficient punishment for what he had done.

4. I am carrying water for the Congress just as much as you are carrying water for Ramdev. Congress is free to distance itself from its own action but my understanding of the events is that the administration took the correct decision of bringing the rally to an end for reasons i have stated several times earlier.

Rashmun wrote:December 6, 1992 is not an excuse, not an imagination.

Big, fat, red herring. The same Ramlila Maidan hosted political rallies of all kinds of political and religious affiliations. Why is an anti-corruption rally too sensitive, when BJP, Congress and AIMC can all rally there safely?

Rashmun wrote:Political rallies, to the best of my knowledge, cannot take place anywhere in Delhi.

I didn't say they can take place anywhere. I was just correcting your mistake -- which you repeated multiple times -- that Jantar Mantar is where political rallies occur, and Ramlila Maidan was somehow unsuitable for them!

Rashmun wrote:Ramdev did get a punishment. His punishment was that he cannot enter Delhi for a certain period of time. This was deemed sufficient punishment for what he had done.

Who awarded him that punishment? On the basis of which law? Was he tried in a court of law and convicted? Was he even charged with any crimes?

Are you going to groundhog on the questions you were asked regarding the decision to arrest Ramdev?

Rashmun wrote:I am carrying water for the Congress just as much as you are carrying water for Ramdev.

Most CHers can easily see that you are wrong about this. In my very first post on this thread, I called Ramdev a fool. You OTOH continue to defend Congress actions that the party is distancing itself from!

charvaka wrote:

Rashmun wrote:December 6, 1992 is not an excuse, not an imagination.

Big, fat, red herring. The same Ramlila Maidan hosted political rallies of all kinds of political and religious affiliations. Why is an anti-corruption rally too sensitive, when BJP, Congress and AIMC can all rally there safely?

--> The herring is red only in your imagination.

--> Why didn't Ramdev announce that he would hold a political rally at Ram Lila ground? Why did he obtain permission for holding a Yoga camp at Ram Lila ground? Why is Ramdev talking against corruption when he uses fraudulent means to hold his rally in the first place.

--> Also, who is Ramdev to talk of corruption. He himself has a business empire worth thousands of crores on which he pays no taxes whatsoever. He sells ayurvedic products and teaches yoga for a handsome fees. Isn't it obvious that he is a front for some of the opposition parties who are as corrupt as the Congress? How can such an individual--who as it turns out now is mentally unbalanced considering his claim that he will organize an armed gang of suicide bombers--be entrusted with an important task like an anti-corruption drive?

--> To return to the red herring point, the administration decided that Ramdev's rally was getting out of hand. He was making provocative statements and people were getting agitated. They took a call to bring the rally to an end. No lives were lost.

--> In December, 1992, Narasimha Rao preferred to adopt your favourite wait and watch lethargic policy despite repeated entreaties that the situation was getting out of hand. Many people died and the communal harmony was disturbed for a long time because of Rao's failed and discredited policy which you would like to be par for the course.

Rashmun wrote:Political rallies, to the best of my knowledge, cannot take place anywhere in Delhi.

I didn't say they can take place anywhere. I was just correcting your mistake -- which you repeated multiple times -- that Jantar Mantar is where political rallies occur, and Ramlila Maidan was somehow unsuitable for them! [/quote]

--> I stand corrected on this point.

Rashmun wrote:Ramdev did get a punishment. His punishment was that he cannot enter Delhi for a certain period of time. This was deemed sufficient punishment for what he had done.

Who awarded him that punishment? On the basis of which law? Was he tried in a court of law and convicted? Was he even charged with any crimes?

Are you going to groundhog on the questions you were asked regarding the decision to arrest Ramdev?[/quote]

--> I am not sure who announced the punishment. It could have been the Delhi police. I only recall reading that Ramdev would not be permitted to enter Delhi for the next 15 days. Ramdev is of course free to appeal to the courts about this.

--> I have no idea why you think i would go groundhog considering i have been patiently responding to all your posts.

charvaka wrote:

Rashmun wrote:I am carrying water for the Congress just as much as you are carrying water for Ramdev.

Most CHers can easily see that you are wrong about this. In my very first post on this thread, I called Ramdev a fool. You OTOH continue to defend Congress actions that the party is distancing itself from!

--> Since when is the Congress distancing itself from the Ramdev episode? My understanding is that there is anger within the Congress about the earlier attempts to mollycoddle Ramdev and that the general feeling is that a tough stance should have been taken against him from the beginning.

--> u have called Ramdev a fool but u never rebuked him for trying to hoodwink the administration repeatedly. First by getting permission fraudulently for his rally by claiming he would only hold a yoga camp. Second, even after more than 20,000 people had collected at Ram Lila ground he kept encouraging his followers from across the country to join the rally. Third, after the govt. accepted all his demands, and he gave a written assurance that he would bring his rally to an end, he went back on his word and started making fresh demands. In other words, this is not a man of principle. And yet other than calling him a fool you seem to think that its quite all right for Ramdev to repeatedly hoodwink the administration. It is as if you think the rest of us are all fools.

Rashmun wrote:who is Ramdev to talk of corruption.

Another red herring. It doesn't matter who he is. All that matters is that he has a right to hold a peaceful protest. In other words, fundamental rights are not restricted only to honest people or to those who haven't defrauded gullible people to make one's ill-gotten wealth. If you doubt what I am saying, look up the constitution and look for a "Baba exception;" you won't find one.

Rashmun wrote:I am not sure who announced the punishment. It could have been the Delhi police.

Can the police legally announce punishments? Do you even know how the rule of law works? Look up the role of our judiciary, before you make any more posts on this topic.

Rashmun wrote:I have no idea why you think i would go groundhog considering i have been patiently responding to all your posts.

These are the questions you have steadfastly ignored. Here is another opportunity for you to answer them.

• Did the cops have a warrant for the arrest?
  
• After they arrested him, did they charge him with any crime?
  
• Did they produce him before a magistrate? Or did they simply take him to another location and release him?
  
• If
  all that they wanted to do was take him to another location and release
  him, could they not have simply allowed him to evade arrest and run
  away? What was the need for lathi charge?
  
• Who made the political decision to arrest Ramdev?
  

charvaka wrote:

Rashmun wrote:who is Ramdev to talk of corruption.

Another red herring. It doesn't matter who he is. All that matters is that he has a right to hold a peaceful protest. In other words, fundamental rights are not restricted only to honest people or to those who haven't defrauded gullible people to make one's ill-gotten wealth. If you doubt what I am saying, look up the constitution and look for a "Baba exception;" you won't find one.

Rashmun wrote:I am not sure who announced the punishment. It could have been the Delhi police.

Can the police legally announce punishments? Do you even know how the rule of law works? Look up the role of our judiciary, before you make any more posts on this topic.

Rashmun wrote:I have no idea why you think i would go groundhog considering i have been patiently responding to all your posts.

These are the questions you have steadfastly ignored. Here is another opportunity for you to answer them.

• Did the cops have a warrant for the arrest?
  
• After they arrested him, did they charge him with any crime?
  
• Did they produce him before a magistrate? Or did they simply take him to another location and release him?
  
• If
  all that they wanted to do was take him to another location and release
  him, could they not have simply allowed him to evade arrest and run
  away? What was the need for lathi charge?
  
• Who made the political decision to arrest Ramdev?
  

1. The point is that should the Indian people anoint an anti-corruption campaigner who is himself corrupt and whose credibility and mental balance is questionable.

2. If the punishment meted out to Ramdev would have been illegal, the BJP would have made a big fuss about it. The fact that they have not means that the punishment was legal.

3. With respect to your red herring type questions about whether the cops had a warrant to arrest him and did they produce him before a magistrate, etc. my answer is that i do not know. What i do know is that instead of surrendering himself to the police when they came to arrest him he tried to evade arrest and flee for which the cops had use force to get to him. It is very very strange that you are unable to accept the fact that it was wrong on Ramdev's part to have tried to evade arrest using his disciples as human shields. It is also strange to see you repeatedly criticize the use of force by the police to get to Ramdev when he tried to evade arrest by using human shields. It is as if you would have liked Ramdev to have gotten away. Which is why your claim that you are not standing up for Ramdev comes across as a sham.

Rashmun wrote:The point is that should the Indian people anoint an anti-corruption campaigner who is himself corrupt and whose credibility and mental balance is questionable.

Indian people don't need to anoint a person before that person has the right to speak out on corruption. The constitution has no anointing procedure.

Rashmun wrote:If the punishment meted out to Ramdev would have been illegal, the BJP would have made a big fuss about it. The fact that they have not means that the punishment was legal.

I am sorry, but that line of reasoning is just plain retarded. The BJP has no more respect for rule of law than you (and Congress) do. So they are not focusing on the legal aspects. If the whole thing was legal and above board, the Supreme Court wouldn't have put the government in the dock.

Rashmun wrote:With respect to your red herring type questions about whether the cops had a warrant to arrest him and did they produce him before a magistrate, etc. my answer is that i do not know.

Is your ignorance the reason my questions become red herrings? For four days you have defended government violence on a peaceful protest. And you don't even know whether the government took all necessary / possible legal steps to resolve the problem without violence! You are proving yourself to be the most gullible citizen in India -- even illiterate people harbor some healthy skepticism about people in power!

SomeProfile wrote:

Rashmun wrote:
--> The possibility that this was a political decision rather than a legal one should not be ruled out.

Are you saying that the government's decision was not a legal one? So, it was illegal? Can a government take illegal actions? If yes, how should the government be lathi-charged for breaking the law?

Rashmun - another legitimate question for you right above. Are you going to answer it or run away like a scared little girl?

SomeProfile wrote:

Rashmun wrote:
--> The cops were informed of the govt. decision to arrest him and when they went to do so Ramdev tried to thwart them by concealing himself amongst his followers and trying to evade arrest. The cops then used force to arrest him.

Did the cops have a warrant signed by a judge to arrest Ramdev? After they arrested him, did they charge him with any crimes? Did they produce him before a magistrate for the heinous crime of holding a protest without permit? Did they put him in jail? Or did they simply take him to another location and release him? If all that they wanted to do was take him to another location and release him, could they not have simply allowed him to evade arrest and run away? What was the need for lathi charge?

Rashmun, more legitimate questions for you above. Are you going to answer them or run away like a scared little girl?

The Supreme Court was scheduled to watch a videotape of the midnight lathi-charge today afternoon India time. Anybody know if that is still happening? I didn't see anything in the news about it. I had originally read about this here: http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/article2292957.ece

Expressing concern over the incident, the bench said, “Innocent persons
should not be beaten up by whosoever. “We must ensure that such
incidents do not occur again.”


During the last hearing, the bench had questioned the city police for
allegedly not registering an FIR on the complaint of the yoga guru’s
followers against the alleged “atrocities” committed by the authorities.

With people like Rashmun-Al-Akbari and Maulana Merlot claiming to be the perfect free-speech-loving people, what else one can expect from their favorite govt at the center?

Yes, double-guessing local law and order on some cracked shins and supervising Delhi police is the best use of the highest court's time and bandwidth, at a time when its own case backlog has reached staggering and shameful proportions, and people are spending years together in prison awaiting trial, regardless of guilt.



But those undertrials shouldn't complain since they were not opposed to the government and here we're talking about the all-important freedom of expression for Bibi Ramdev who is opposed to the Empress.



Indeed sir, when it suits us, we shall hail such extra-constitutional incursions and cite the opinions of just-as-fallible judges as some kind of a validation of our own opinions.

Merlot Daruwala wrote:Yes, double-guessing local law and order on some cracked shins and supervising Delhi police is the best use of the highest court's time and bandwidth, at a time when its own case backlog has reached staggering and shameful proportions

One of the primary jobs of the judiciary in a democracy is to check and balance the powers of the executive. In this case, the executive branch had potential political motives for forcibly shutting this protest down. Matters involving the powers of the executive branch and how they are used are part of the primary jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.

Merlot Daruwala wrote:people are spending years together in prison awaiting trial, regardless of guilt.
Indeed sir, when it suits us, we shall hail such extra-constitutional incursions and cite the opinions of just-as-fallible judges as some kind of a validation of our own opinions.

Let's not let theatrics get ahead of facts, ok? There is nothing extra-constitutional about the Supreme Court hearing this appeal. Besides, the Supreme Court is not hte primary court of redress for those "undertrials" you speak of; it is not responsible for trying people in criminal matters. It is merely the appellate court in those matters.

charvaka wrote:

Merlot Daruwala wrote:Yes, double-guessing local law and order on some cracked shins and supervising Delhi police is the best use of the highest court's time and bandwidth, at a time when its own case backlog has reached staggering and shameful proportions

Matters involving the powers of the executive branch and how they are used are part of the primary jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.

Oh yes, and this is the court whose own constitutional bench - set up precisely to resolve such matters - has some 750 cases involving important constitutional principles pending before it for years. But no, this particular case of cops pre-emptively dispersing a mammoth crowd gathered there deceitfully by an unstable buffoon -- and not even the one involving deaths of farmers in Noida -- takes precedence over all those cases in terms of its constitutional importance and deserves immediate hearing? Why? Because it involves the Most Important Freedom of Speech which is of course, far more important than any other fundamental right? Haha, sir. Thanks for the laughs.

charvaka wrote:Let's not let theatrics get ahead of facts, ok?

Oh yeah? But it is ok to to hail some judges playing to the galleries -- while letting their own case backlogs fester on and on for years -- and use that as some great validation of one's ill-formed opinions?

charvaka wrote:There is nothing extra-constitutional about the Supreme Court hearing this appeal.

But it is extra-constitutional if the US Supreme Court injects itself into societal debates and overrules the legislature? Why? Because that does not suit our positions on those debates? Nice. Tie yourself into one more knot. Bibi Ramdev will applaud.

charvaka wrote:Besides, the Supreme Court is not hte primary court of redress for those "undertrials" you speak of... It is merely the appellate court in those matters.

So that makes it ok for miscarriages of justice in lower courts to fester on and on for years together on appeal, while the learned judges take their time to play and replay, at normal speed and in slow motion, Bibi Ramdev jumping off the dais and running away in a white salwar kameez? Please tell those undertrials that they should look beyond those extra ten years spent rotting in the clink while on appeal, because their suffering went towards upholding the Most Important Freedom of Expression for Bibi Ramdev. They surely will thank you for giving them a perspective.

Merlot Daruwala wrote:Oh yes, and this is the court whose own constitutional bench - set up precisely to resolve such matters - has some 750 cases involving important constitutional principles pending before it for years. But no, this particular case of cops pre-emptively dispersing a mammoth crowd gathered there deceitfully by an unstable buffoon -- and not even the one involving deaths of farmers in Noida -- takes precedence over all those cases in terms of its constitutional importance and deserves immediate hearing? Why? Because it involves the Most Important Freedom of Speech which is of course, far more important than any other fundamental right? Haha, sir. Thanks for the laughs.

You are quite welcome. The court has a process to follow by which it sets dates for taking up various stages of its caseload. Are you accusing the court of violating its own rules and process in order to speed-track this case?

MD wrote:use that as some great validation of one's ill-formed opinions?

Haha, sir, thanks for the laughs, but I was only asking a question whether the hearing is happening today as decided in July.

MD wrote:But it is extra-constitutional if the US Supreme Court injects itself into societal debates and overrules the legislature? Why? Because that does not suit our positions on those debates? Nice. Tie yourself into one more knot. Bibi Ramdev will applaud.

Was the legislature consulted on the matter of how to handle the protestors at Ramlila Maidan? How does the Supreme Court of India hearing this case become "extra-constitutional"? Please specify rather than make wild comparisons to completely different situations.

MD wrote:So that makes it ok for miscarriages of justice in lower courts to fester on and on for years together on appeal, while the learned judges take their time to play and replay, at normal speed and in slow motion, Bibi Ramdev jumping off the dais and running away in a white salwar kameez?

Your flair for drama notwithstanding, this whole strawman amounts to nothing -- unless you are accusing the Supreme Court of breaking its own rules, which would be an insight unique in its origin in the sense that the aggrieved parties haven't raised the matter with the court.