Gandhi ideology mocked in Modi's India
India is celebrating Gandhiji's 150th birth anniversary like some kind of a mockery. Modi has restricted Gandhi to just a symbol of cleaning roads. There is a reason to this. Gandhi is a memory, an indelible one, that seeps the sangh Parivar in guilt owing to the end he met at the hands of a person who believed in Sangh ideology. Hence the BJP which believes in Sangh ideology has restricted Gandhiji to a metaphor of sweeping roads. BJP leaders stand with rooms in the hands on the birth anniversary of Gandhiji clearly ignorant is all other messages and teachings. Gandhians fear whether the leaders have held broom to sweep away his other values such as non violence, coexistence, harmony and secularism.
It is true that Gandhiji placed cleanliness above all other values. He wants visited pilgrimage which was dirty beyond comprehension and said god would never be present here. He once visited Krishna Mutt and the dignitaries invited him to visit the main temple Gandhiji asked them are Dalits allowed in that place?
Upon getting a negative answer he refused to go to the temple. His emphasis for cleanliness was not just external. He believed external cleanliness is as important as internal purity. This is the main reason why Modi's swachata andolan is not taking off as expected. The reason for its failure is here. There is also a reason as to why the river Ganga is not getting cleaned up. So long as social evils such as poverty, casteism and untouchability are not eradicated from our society, or the government does not work with total integrity to eradicate them from the society, all these celebrations will just remain mere slogans or pretensions.
Gandhiji strongly believed in nonviolence. That was the route he chose to earn freedom for India. Just as the non-cooperative movement was gaining momentum some people set a police station on fire when he heard this he withdrew from the movement.
He felt the country wasn't prepared to gain independence. He regretted for this incident of violence. At a time when the country celebrates his 150th birth anniversary violence is looming large in all quarters of the country. There was a time when those to cared for the cows were known as Gau rakshaks. Today's Gau rakshaks are those who brandish knives, do rowdism, smoke ganja and drink alcohol creating trouble for everyone and claiming innocent lives in the pretext of cow protection. Dairy farming held prominent place in Gandhi's India. Princes in Modi's India, dairy farming takes a backseat and fake Gau rakshaks gain prominence.
Farmers are killed by this fake cow protectors. Police kill without hesitation in the name of encounters. More than anything else government got down to assault the farmers who had gathered to press for the demands at the national capital on Gandhi Jayanti day itself. This is the tragedy of the celebration. This bloodthirsty government will attempt to kill common people but will pay tributes to Gandhiji by banning sale of meat on the day of his birth anniversary. Just as fake cleanliness is a mockery of Gandhi's values running sale of meat is also another contradiction to what Gandhi stood for.
India is a country where people have varied sources of food, it's not a majoritarian nation. Meat and alcohol should not be made on the same scale. Alcohol is not food and by consuming it man loses semblance of thoughts. The government has to ban sale of alcohol on certain occasions.
Gandhi had staged anti alcohol protest many a times during his freedom struggle. But never ever did he stage a demonstration against food or choice of meat as one's food. Many of his friends were meat eaters and Gandhi never protested against it. This being the case why should the government ban sale of meat on his birth anniversary? More than 50% of the population in India dies of malnutrition. World Health Organisation has been warning that the numbers are increasing with every passing year. With this by placing meat and alcohol on the same level what message is the government trying to give to the people of the country?
The government is trying to reduce the food of the majority of Indians to third grade. This government is trying to create an inferiority Complex among people about eating meat. Where are the examples of vegetarians having followed the path of non violence?
History is testimony to the fact that Hitler was vegetarian. All those who have been exploiting the Dalits since ages are vegetarians. This being the facts what is the basis to prove that non vegetarian diet encourages violence or cruelty among its consumers?
Violence is to take away the right to sell cattle from the hands of their rearers which are farmers. Denying people their food for not possessing Aadhar card is violence. Banning sale of meat on Gandhi Jayanti day and denying people their choice of food is violence. The irony of democracy is that the government decides the diet of people starting from Gandhi Jayanti to Mahavir Jayanti. Gandhiji would have never approved of this. No administration or any government has any right to dictate food choices to people. Before people take to streets demanding their choice of food the government should issue a directive to district administration to not issue official orders on what people should be eating on a particular day.
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
CJI calls for 'unified judicial policy', use of technology to converge practices across courts
Jaisalmer (PTI): Pushing for a "unified judicial policy", Chief Justice of India Surya Kant on Saturday said technology can help align standards and practices across courts, creating a "seamless experience" for citizens, regardless of their location.
He said high courts -- due to the federal structure -- have had their own practices and technological capacities, and "regional barriers" can be broken down with technology to create a more unified judicial ecosystem.
Delivering the keynote address at the West Zone Regional Conference in Jaisalmer, Kant proposed the idea of a "national judicial ecosystem" and called for an overhaul of India's judicial system with the integration of technology.
"Today, as technology reduces geographical barriers and enables convergence, it invites us to think of justice not as regional systems operating in parallel, but as one national ecosystem with shared standards, seamless interfaces, and coordinated goals," he said.
He emphasised how the role of technology in the judiciary has evolved over time.
"Technology is no longer merely an administrative convenience. It has evolved into a constitutional instrument that strengthens equality before the law, expands access to justice, and enhances institutional efficiency," he said, highlighting how digital tools can bridge gaps in the judicial system.
Kant pointed out that technology enables the judiciary to overcome the limitations of physical distance and bureaucratic hurdles.
"It allows the judiciary to transcend physical barriers and bureaucratic rigidities to deliver outcomes that are timely, transparent and principled," he said, adding that the effective use of technology can modernise the delivery of justice and make it more accessible to citizens across the country.
The CJI called for implementing a "unified judicial policy".
He said India's judicial system has long been shaped by its federal structure, and different high courts have their own practices and technological capacities.
"India's vast diversity has led to different high courts evolving their own practices, administrative priorities and technological capacities. This variation, though natural in a federal democracy, has resulted in uneven experiences for litigants across the country," he said.
Kant underscored that predictability is crucial for building trust in the judicial system.
"A core expectation citizens place upon the courts is predictability," he said, adding that citizens should not only expect fair treatment but also consistency in how cases are handled across the country.
He pointed to the potential of technology in improving predictability.
"Technology enables us to track systemic delays and make problems visible rather than concealed," he said.
By identifying areas where delays occur, such as in bail matters or cases involving certain types of disputes, courts can take targeted action to address these issues and improve efficiency, Kant said.
The CJI explained that data-driven tools could identify the reasons behind delays or bottlenecks, allowing for faster, more focused solutions.
"Technology enables prioritisation by flagging sensitive case categories, monitoring pendency in real time and ensuring transparent listing protocols," he said.
Justice Surya Kant also discussed the importance of prioritising urgent cases where delays could result in significant harm. He highlighted his recent administrative order that ensures urgent cases, such as bail petitions or habeas corpus cases, are listed within two days of curing defects.
"Where delay causes deep harm, the system must respond with urgency," he stated, explaining that technology can help courts identify and expedite such cases.
Kant also raised the issue of the clarity of judicial decisions.
He noted that many litigants, despite winning cases, often struggle to understand the terms of their judgment due to complex legal language.
"Although the orders had gone in their favour, they remained unsure of what relief they had actually secured because the language was too technical, vague or evasive to understand," he said.
He advocated for more uniformity in how judgments are written.
"A unified judicial approach must therefore extend to how we communicate outcomes," he said.
The CJI also discussed the role of AI and digital tools in improving case management. He pointed to the potential of AI-based research assistants and digital case management systems to streamline judicial processes.
"Emerging technological tools are now capable of performing once-unthinkable functions. They can highlight missing precedent references, cluster similar legal questions, and simplify factual narration," he said, explaining how these technologies can help judges make more consistent decisions.
He also highlighted tools like the National Judicial Data Grid and e-courts, which are already helping to standardise processes like case filings and tracking.
Kant reiterated that the integration of technology into the judicial process is not just about improving efficiency but about upholding the integrity of the system and strengthening public trust.
"The measure of innovation is not the complexity of the software we deploy, but the simplicity with which a citizen understands the outcome of their case and believes that justice has been served," he said.
