What's new

PM Modi a versatile genius who thinks globally and acts locally: Justice Mishra

MP2011

Senior T20I Player
Joined
Aug 22, 2018
Runs
19,021
Post of the Week
1
https://www.livemint.com/news/india...ts-locally-justice-mishra-11582367974783.html

Justice Mishra said India is a responsible and most friendly member of the international community under the 'stewardship' of Modi. He said India is the biggest democracy in the world and 'people wonder how this democracy is functioning so successfully'

Complimenting the PM and Union Law Minister Ravi Shankar Prasad for doing away with 1,500 obsolete laws, Justice Mishra said India is a responsible and most friendly member of the international community under the "stewardship" of Modi.

Delivering the vote of thanks at the inaugural function of the International Judicial Conference 2020 - 'Judiciary and the Changing World' at the Supreme Court, he said challenges faced by the judiciary at the national and international levels are common and judiciary has a "significant role" in the ever-changing world.

"Dignified human existence is our prime concern. We thank the versatile genius, who thinks globally and acts locally, Shri Narendra Modi, for his inspiring speech which would act as a catalyst in initiating the deliberations and setting the agenda for the conference," Justice Mishra, who is third in seniority in the apex court, said while expressing gratitude to the PM for inaugurating the conference.

He said India is the biggest democracy in the world and "people wonder how this democracy is functioning so successfully".

"India is a responsible and most friendly member of the international community under the stewardship of internationally acclaimed visionary Prime Minister Shri Narendra Modi," he said.

"India is committed to constitutional obligations and dedicated to a peaceful and secure world, free from terrorism. In the process of development, preservation of environment is considered supreme," he said.

Justice Mishra emphasised on the need to strengthen the judicial system saying, "Now we are in the 21st century. We are looking for modern infrastructure not only for the present but also for future.

"To strengthen judicial system is the call of the day as it is the backbone of democracy whereas legislature is the heart and executive is the brain. All these three organs of the state have to work independently but in tandem to make democracy successful...".

Referring to globalisation, he said, "but there is growing concern among masses of being left out and deprived of the gains of globalisation".

"The sense of injustice and inequality being created by the same looms large on us," he said, adding, "It has to be taken care of by all of us alike before it becomes lethal like coronavirus".

He also referred to the contribution of an independent and robust bar and said there is no denying the fact that "bar is the mother of judiciary".

Judges from over 20 countries are attending the conference here.
 
Sadly, under 56" & mota bhai, even our judiciary has gone down the drain. And this guy is 3rd senior most SC judge.
 
Extremely dangerous days ahead for us, if not upon us already. I used to pin my hopes on judiciary to rein in the government's high handedness on various matters concerning us. Not any longer, it seems.

So all those 'big' verdicts came up during last few months, may not be independent after all.
 
This instance reminds me of India's ex SC judge, Justice P N Bhagwati who sung peans on Indira Gandhi when she stormed back to power in 1980.

Needless to say, he was suitably rewarded with CJI post despite not being the seniormost.
 
and people blame our judiciary of favoring establishment when it takes action against a proven looter exposed internationally. Indians are making us look very civilized.
 
Sadly, under 56" & mota bhai, even our judiciary has gone down the drain. And this guy is 3rd senior most SC judge.

One judge doesn't make the judiciary. The bar council condemned this statement.

The judiciary is rotten, but of its own making, constitutionally it is well protected from executive tyranny.
 
So now people cant have an opinion?

Judges vote in elections too. Should that be taken away?

The last CJI Ranjan Gogoi was son of A congress CM of Assam.

Didnt see the OP making a thread on that.
 
Didn't know that taking birth in some family/country is in one's hands. Or that it'll act as a deterrent for becoming a judge later on in one's career!

lol, there is a difference between having a public opinion about head of union government which is a major litigant in SC and voting in elections! And all this along, I used to think that exercising one's democratic right is done by secret voting and not by shouting from the rooftops that I've voted for this or that party!

PS: And there is a small matter of these words being uttered in a conference where judicial officials from 20 countries were taking part in! Even the Bar council has condemned Justice Mishra's singing peans of PM. They too must be oblivious of someone having right to opinion?
 
And lest some misguided souls accuse me of being partisan in this case, have already mentioned Justice Bhagwati case in the OP itself.
 
You would think this guy being a judge would have a basic level of intelligence. When you go to an international judicial conference as a judge, the last thing you should do is praise the leader of your country like a ****** .. atleast put on a show of independence from the executive. Perception matters.

The other judges were probably chuckling at this clown and sadly even India's court system, if these are the kind of judges they have there.
 
You would think this guy being a judge would have a basic level of intelligence. When you go to an international judicial conference as a judge, the last thing you should do is praise the leader of your country like a ****** .. atleast put on a show of independence from the executive. Perception matters.

The other judges were probably chuckling at this clown and sadly even India's court system, if these are the kind of judges they have there.
Well said. Won't term Justice Mishra a clown though.
 
One judge doesn't make the judiciary. The bar council condemned this statement.

The judiciary is rotten, but of its own making, constitutionally it is well protected from executive tyranny.
Read about ex CJI Bhagwati and how he got rewarded by Indira Gandhi.

If anything, current ruling dispensation is far more rewarding (and vindictive) to its followers (or non followers) than Indira Gandhi ever was.
 
PM Modi was invited to that conference and delivered an address. After that Justice Mishra made his statement.
 
What has that got to do with Justice Mishra's obviously inappropriate comments?
 
Read about ex CJI Bhagwati and how he got rewarded by Indira Gandhi.

If anything, current ruling dispensation is far more rewarding (and vindictive) to its followers (or non followers) than Indira Gandhi ever was.

Problem of the judges of they cannot maintain integrity. Not the problem of judiciary, as it is well protected from executive and legislative tyranny. Indira Gandhi hasn't been surpassed yet. She would change the constitution if the court went against her. Any such current example? Please provide, unless you were indulging in hyperbole.

Last UPA govt awarded journalists with padma bushan. No journalist who has integrity will accept award from the govt. This has been normal in indian politics, so what is your point exactly?
 
My point is that this dispensation has been far more tyrannical and destructive for India than Indira Gandhi could ever imagine in wildest of her dreams. I don't need to list all transgressions in its reign of 5 years and 9 months.

If you still can't understand my point lets move on.
 
My point is that this dispensation has been far more tyrannical and destructive for India than Indira Gandhi could ever imagine in wildest of her dreams. I don't need to list all transgressions in its reign of 5 years and 9 months.

If you still can't understand my point lets move on.

I want to understand your points. Indira used to change the constitution if the court went against her. So I want you to list just one (not all, just one) such incident in the current govt. Should be easy, no?
 
I want to understand your points. Indira used to change the constitution if the court went against her. So I want you to list just one (not all, just one) such incident in the current govt. Should be easy, no?
So?

Changing constitution is the only way to hurt India?

And how does it matter now if Indira or for that matter, any other Congress leader changed constitution? All of them are dead and have nothing to do with our current precarious position.

What India is currently facing is far more grave than what we have ever done since '47.

And if you didn't notice, have already mentioned Indira in the OP.

Open another thread if you want to discuss constitutional improprieties committed by Indira Gandhi.
 
So?

Changing constitution is the only way to hurt India?

And how does it matter now if Indira or for that matter, any other Congress leader changed constitution? All of them are dead and have nothing to do with our current precarious position.

What India is currently facing is far more grave than what we have ever done since '47.

And if you didn't notice, have already mentioned Indira in the OP.

Open another thread if you want to discuss constitutional improprieties committed by Indira Gandhi.

I don't want to discuss Indira. You brought her in the discussion, so wanted to know where you are coming from. I can list the problems with the current govt but they have not subverted the constitution. Just want to expand my views as you think they have.

There is a system of parliamentary democracy, where elected representatives frame laws within the ambit of the constitution. If the laws go against the spirit of the constitution, the supreme court declares them void. So if a section of population thinks that the govt has done something unconstitutional, they should wait for the courts to decide on it ( the court has already accepted litigations). And one may protest peacefully without causing inconvenience to public. This is how a healthy democracy should function. But the demand is to put pressure on the govt and want to negotiate directly with the govt instead of going through constitutional means. This is anarchy and anyone who supports is against the constitution. Who should be blamed for it? The govt which followed due process, or people who want to have their demands met unconstitutionally?
 
so when will this versatile "genius" gonna give interview to International media ? :yk
Forget about international media. he doesn't even allow desi journalists to ask unscripted questions, that is when they're lucky enough to ask questions from him.
 
Man what’s up with India’s institutions these days.

Army chief, Supreme Court judge all giving their opinions publicly.
 
Man what’s up with India’s institutions these days.

Army chief, Supreme Court judge all giving their opinions publicly.

It's always been that way, years back some indian chief justice said he dreamed of India annexing Punjab and Sindh in his lifetime lol.
 
https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/for...president-kovind-2195802?pfrom=home-topscroll

New Delhi: Former Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi was nominated for Rajya Sabha, the upper house of parliament, on Monday by President Ram Nath Kovind.

The President's move is unprecedented - no Chief Justice has been nominated to the Upper House, usually dominated by celebrities and artistes, by the head of the state. And few members of the judiciary have crossed over to the space of legislature.

A couple of decades ago, former Chief Justice Ranganath Mishra had joined the Congress and became a Member of Parliament. Justice Mishra, who retired in 1991, was nominated to the Rajya Sabha in 1998 and stayed there till 2004.

Later, former Chief Justice of India P Sathasivam became a Governor of Kerala appointed by the Narendra Modi government.

Former Justice Baharul Islam was earlier a Rajya Sabha MP before nominated as Judge of the Gauhati High Court. He was appointed as judge of Supreme Court in 1980. He went on to absolve the then Bihar Chief Minister Jagannath Mishra in the urban cooperative bank scandal. He resigned as Judge and became Rajya Sabha member again.
 
lol, was just a matter of time. All those judgements in favour of 56", make complete sense now. And what a quick nomination this was! He retired late last year IIRC and now he is an MP!

Great going, 56"! Only independent authority in India is now completely under your control.

Next turn, Justice Mishra!
 
In an attack on judiciary, BJP today said "pre-retirement judgements are influenced by a desire for a post-retirement job", while pitching for a two-year cooling off period for retiring judges before they are appointed to tribunals and commissions.

"Even though there is a retirement age... But the judges are unwilling to retire," Leader of Opposition in Rajya Sabha Arun Jaitley said at a conference of lawyers organised by the party's legal cell.

"Pre-retirement judgements are influenced by a desire for a post-retirement job," he said in his address during which he did not name anybody.

Batting for judicial reforms, the BJP leader said that he had no hesitation in supporting increase in the tenure of judges or supporting pensions equal to last drawn salaries for judges.

"But this clamour for post retirement jobs is adversely affecting impartiality of the judiciary of the country and time has come that it should come to an end," he said.

"For two years after retirement, there should be a gap (before appointment), because otherwise the government can directly or indirectly influence the courts and the dream to have an independent, impartial and fair judiciary in the country would never actualize," he said. "I say this with a lot of responsibility that even before they retire, it is decided for Supreme Court and high court judges as to which Commission they will go and join," he added.

He added that it was important that the judiciary distance itself from the electoral circumstances of the day. "The tendency of judges to follow the ballot box, to get carried with the times, has to be avoided. The judiciary is the lifeline of a democracy, and if people lose faith in it, they lose faith in democracy itself," Jaitley said.

Sharing his own experiences, the Leader of Opposition in Rajya Sabha said, "Now through judicial verdicts post retirement jobs are being created. My experience in this regard is quite bad. When I was a minister I would be wary while meeting a retiring judge that he should not hand me his bio data."

Jaitley also spoke in favour of creating a National Judicial Commission which would have representatives of the judiciary, government and society to look after matters related to appointments and complaints against judges.

"In that time (during the Emergency), this fault was seen within the judiciary. We must not make this mistake in today's time, and this is not a subject related to a particular party," Jaitley said, who was backed by his party president Nitin Gadkari, who called for a cooling-off period of two years for judges after retirement.

Criticising the process of appointment of judges, the BJP leader said, "There are two kinds of judges— those who know the law and those who know the law minister. Now we have established a system where judiciary has the last say. We are the only country in the world where judges appoint judges.

"The best are not willing to become judges. This is the second challenge," he said.

On judicial activism, he said that courts should shed the mindset that they had to step in because other agencies were not doing their job. He said that courts could only direct others to do their duty.

"Courts can't frame laws, courts can't administer the state, courts can't fight terrorism," he said.

"I was reading a recent judgement (what the government does we will see) that the a judge should be appointed in Information Commission and the present law should be changed. It is indirectly a direction to parliament... Something which is not acceptable on the concept of separation of powers," Jaitley said.

The BJP leaders also attacked the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) alleging that it worked under political pressure and said such officers should be taken to task.

BJP chief Nitin Gadkari while recommending a cooling off period for judges, said, "I say this with a lot of responsibility that even before they retire, it is decided for Supreme Court and High Court judges as to which Commission they will go and join.

"My suggestion is that for two years after retirement there should be a gap (before appointment), because otherwise the government can directly or indirectly influence the courts and the dream to have a independent, impartial and fair judiciary in the country would never actualise."

Reacting to Jaitley's statements, Congress spokesman Manish Tewari said, "rather than cast aspersions by insinuation, he should have the conviction of saying certain things squarely, if he knows them to be true".

Being a former law minister, Jaitley should know that certain statutory bodies can only be headed by serving and retired judges, he said.
[MENTION=136588]CricketCartoons[/MENTION]

Your take?

Judiciary still can be controlled by legislature this way.
 
lol, was just a matter of time. All those judgements in favour of 56", make complete sense now. And what a quick nomination this was! He retired late last year IIRC and now he is an MP!

Great going, 56"! Only independent authority in India is now completely under your control.

Next turn, Justice Mishra!

Congress has been doing the same. There should be a law which prevents supreme court judges to take any other job post retirement. It does not prevent human greed, but will reduce these quid pro quos.
 
Sorry, too long to read. Is there any law/procedure through which legislature can control the judiciary?

Basically it says that retiring judges can be given plum postings post retirement by govt which would result in potential (or likely) bias in judgements.

No law but a way around it.
 
Congress has been doing the same. There should be a law which prevents supreme court judges to take any other job post retirement. It does not prevent human greed, but will reduce these quid pro quos.
Who told you this latest act of outright corruption justifies Congress' acts of omission & commission when they were ruling the roost?
 
Who told you this latest act of outright corruption justifies Congress' acts of omission & commission when they were ruling the roost?

Who told you that I was saying that it justifies anything? The point is institutions are not free now is false, they were never free.
 
Basically it says that retiring judges can be given plum postings post retirement by govt which would result in potential (or likely) bias in judgements.

No law but a way around it.

So it is wrong to say that the legislature can control the judiciary. The law protects the judiciary from executive and legislature very well. These quid pro quos happen outside the ambit of the law. Legislature cannot be blamed if modi holds a gun to a judges head, or offers him a million dollars. The judiciary is very much safe from executive tyranny, but it is rotten from inside.

I was once involved in getting someone bailed out from corruption charges (was caught red handed). friends in police services know which cop and which judge is open for bribes, so approached the anti corruption judge. First had to meet a mediator, who wanted some cash and an iPhone for his daughter. After providing that, he arranged meeting with the judge. The judge never asked for any bribe, just asked what we all do, which means how we can be useful to him. Got lakhs worth of services done for him. He gave instructions never to greet him in the court premises, and he gave the clean chit in the third hearing ( the first two hearings were dummy ones so that it looks he is bring strict on us). No law can stop this, so it is wrong to bring legislature into corruption done by judges. Law only protects the judges from others, what they do while enjoying protection from law is their own business.
 
Who told you that I was saying that it justifies anything? The point is institutions are not free now is false, they were never free.
So the previous acts of quid pro quo cancel out what is happening today...

I get it.....
 
So the previous acts of quid pro quo cancel out what is happening today...

I get it.....

if you think they cancel out I will just agree to disagree.

I think it is the continuation of congressi traditions.check what happened to the judge who gave clean chit to congress leaders for 84 riots.
 
So it is wrong to say that the legislature can control the judiciary. The law protects the judiciary from executive and legislature very well. These quid pro quos happen outside the ambit of the law. Legislature cannot be blamed if modi holds a gun to a judges head, or offers him a million dollars. The judiciary is very much safe from executive tyranny, but it is rotten from inside.

I was once involved in getting someone bailed out from corruption charges (was caught red handed). friends in police services know which cop and which judge is open for bribes, so approached the anti corruption judge. First had to meet a mediator, who wanted some cash and an iPhone for his daughter. After providing that, he arranged meeting with the judge. The judge never asked for any bribe, just asked what we all do, which means how we can be useful to him. Got lakhs worth of services done for him. He gave instructions never to greet him in the court premises, and he gave the clean chit in the third hearing ( the first two hearings were dummy ones so that it looks he is bring strict on us). No law can stop this, so it is wrong to bring legislature into corruption done by judges. Law only protects the judges from others, what they do while enjoying protection from law is their own business.

I see..... Thanks for the info bhai.
 
if you think they cancel out I will just agree to disagree.

I think it is the continuation of congressi traditions.check what happened to the judge who gave clean chit to congress leaders for 84 riots.
I know Justice Mishra got a RS seat, courtesy Congress. But even that was 7 years after he retired as CJI. And he wasn't nominated by president himself.

This is the first time it is happening that a not so distant ex CJI is being nominated as RS MP. Nominated MPs to RS are nominated for their contribution in the field of art, sports & culture, not that it is a statutory requirement, still someone who has given so many decisions in government's favour especially during last few months of his tenure. If this doesn't reek of quid pro quo what else will?
 
Also, you don't get it.

We're not discussing what bad did Congress do in their reign. They're out of power for last 6 years and will remain so for some more decades if things remain what they're right now.

Considering the current and future supremacy of sanghis, do you think it is ok for an ex CJI to be nominated to RS and that too so soon after his tenure got over?

Won't it embolden current & future heads of independent authorities (or at least which are supposed to be independent as per our statute) to act keeping in mind ruling dispensation's best interests so as to be suitably rewarded after retirement?

Isn't centre one of the biggest litigants in SC? If they know that they can get what they want from the apex authority why else would they be bothered about mending their ways since SC is the last refuge of reining in the centre from the policies which an ordinary Indian would like to think are detrimental for them?
 
I know Justice Mishra got a RS seat, courtesy Congress. But even that was 7 years after he retired as CJI. And he wasn't nominated by president himself.

This is the first time it is happening that a not so distant ex CJI is being nominated as RS MP. Nominated MPs to RS are nominated for their contribution in the field of art, sports & culture, not that it is a statutory requirement, still someone who has given so many decisions in government's favour especially during last few months of his tenure. If this doesn't reek of quid pro quo what else will?

You are sounding like an apologist for congress by bringing excuses. Quid pro quo is not established, but judiciary is supposed to be like caesar's wife. It should not just be above suspicion, but also appear to be above suspicion. Supreme court judges should be terminal posts, and no posting anywhere either private or public sector after they retire. I don't know why you are always having a meltdown, when I disapproved it in the very first post.

However, I approve of learned people getting nominated instead of bollywood celebrities or sportsmen.
 
You are sounding like an apologist for congress by bringing excuses. Quid pro quo is not established, but judiciary is supposed to be like caesar's wife. It should not just be above suspicion, but also appear to be above suspicion. Supreme court judges should be terminal posts, and no posting anywhere either private or public sector after they retire. I don't know why you are always having a meltdown, when I disapproved it in the very first post.

However, I approve of learned people getting nominated instead of bollywood celebrities or sportsmen.
So you don't get it....Its ok.
 
Here is the chronology of events,

1) Then SC judge Gogoi does press conference protesting apparently against how roster of SC judges was being prepared.

2) Elevated as CJI apparently as a result of his revolt.

3) Sexual harassment case against then CJI.

4) The plaintiff gets castigated and refused a hearing IIRC. Also, got fired from her job.

5) He goes on and adjudicates on several important cases, all of course by chance, being music to government's years, some very controversial and dismisses many cases against the government.

6) Retires as CJI and within 3 months gets nominated into Rajya Sabha.
 
Here is the chronology of events,

1) Then SC judge Gogoi does press conference protesting apparently against how roster of SC judges was being prepared.

2) Elevated as CJI apparently as a result of his revolt.

3) Sexual harassment case against then CJI.

4) The plaintiff gets castigated and refused a hearing IIRC. Also, got fired from her job.

5) He goes on and adjudicates on several important cases, all of course by chance, being music to government's years, some very controversial and dismisses many cases against the government.

6) Retires as CJI and within 3 months gets nominated into Rajya Sabha.

Missing some events in your chronology. The lady who was fired was reinstated.
Which law was violated in any of the events?
 
Which judgement of his do you think was doctored and a travesty of justice? Follow up question: have you read the full judgement in that case?
So it must only be a coincidence that the government was right on all the occasions when the matter was brought to SC's notice as final authority?
 
Missing some events in your chronology. The lady who was fired was reinstated.
So that makes it ok for her not to be given a proper hearing? See what you yourself has written above,

Judiciary is supposed to be like caesar's wife. It should not just be above suspicion, but also appear to be above suspicion.
 
So it must only be a coincidence that the government was right on all the occasions when the matter was brought to SC's notice as final authority?

I m not saying that. It is very much possible. But since you seem to think that some of the judgements were shady, please mention them, and have you read the full judgement for that?
 
So that makes it ok for her not to be given a proper hearing? See what you yourself has written above,

Judiciary is supposed to be like caesar's wife. It should not just be above suspicion, but also appear to be above suspicion.

I just added one fact. It is you who is making interpretations and projecting your thoughts on me.
 
Missing some events in your chronology. The lady who was fired was reinstated.
Which law was violated in any of the events?

The senior most judge becomes CJI by default. So did Gogoi. He was not elevated because of the press conference.

The entire congress and its media arm were speculating and saying BJP wont let Gogoi become CJI as he is a former Congress CMs son and because of that press conference.

The moment the bench led by Justice Gogoi gave the Rafale and Ayodhya judgement. Both of them were unanimous ones i think, liberal group and opposition up in arms.
 
Judges have been appointed to RS for long. Nothing new to see here.

Wasn't the whole point of electing the BJP into power that they are not corrupt like the Congress? If appointing a chief justice to the parliament months after he's retired is not a sign of quid pro quo aka corruption, I don't know what is.
 
Last edited:
Wasn't the whole point of electing the BJP into power that they are not corrupt like the Congress? If appointing a chief justice to the parliament months after he's retired is not a sign of quid pro quo aka corruption, I don't know what is.
Twitter is replete with sanghis crying hoarse over the exact same thing in '13. Guys like Jaitley, 56", Piyush Goyal.....Now that they've done it in a much worst way, its ok.

Bloody hypocrites...
 
Wasn't the whole point of electing the BJP into power that they are not corrupt like the Congress? If appointing a chief justice to the parliament months after he's retired is not a sign of quid pro quo aka corruption, I don't know what is.

This is not a sign of corruption or quid pro quo. Just that it can cause doubts about the judges impartiality, therefore it must be avoided. This is same as conflict of interest, which is not a sign of corruption, but can raise doubts about ones impartiality, that is why it is to be avoided.
 
Twitter is replete with sanghis crying hoarse over the exact same thing in '13. Guys like Jaitley, 56", Piyush Goyal.....Now that they've done it in a much worst way, its ok.

Bloody hypocrites...

On one side are sanghis who think there is nothing wrong in this. Another side of non sanghis think it proves that the judgements were wrong. Both side idiots.
 
This is not a sign of corruption or quid pro quo. Just that it can cause doubts about the judges impartiality, therefore it must be avoided. This is same as conflict of interest, which is not a sign of corruption, but can raise doubts about ones impartiality, that is why it is to be avoided.

I am curious to know what you think the motive of the BJP was in doing this. Out of one billion people
they could've nominated anyone to the RS.. a loyal party member .. anyone.. but they picked the man who was chief justice a few months ago. You can't be this naive.
 
I am curious to know what you think the motive of the BJP was in doing this. Out of one billion people
they could've nominated anyone to the RS.. a loyal party member .. anyone.. but they picked the man who was chief justice a few months ago. You can't be this naive.

The president could have and should have. I agree this raises doubts. But it is not evidence of corruption. Eg. say Rahul Dravid is coach of under 19 team, while he is selector for an IPL team. It is conflict of interest, and when he picks a star under 19 player for the IPL team, one may accuse him of being partial and corrupt, but he acted in good faith and chose the player on merit. To avoid the unnecessary doubts on the impartiality of the selection process, is why these things should be avoided.

The ex CJI should not have been nominated, no matter how learned he is and commands a membership based on merit, because it makes people doubt both the president and the ex CJI, and these posts should be above suspicion. But finding fault on his judgements should be based on the merits of the judgement itself. They don't become good or bad judgement based on whether he was not nominated or nominated.
 
The world has already seen that Modi is a fascist.
 
Back
Top