This week, Newslaundry’s Abhinandan Sekhri, Jayashree Arunachalam and Shardool Katyayan are joined by The News Minute’s Pooja Prasanna and lawyer Vakasha Sachdev.
On the Karnataka polls, Pooja says the JDS and BJP are “better allies” than the Congress and JDS since “their target base does not overlap. Both parties bring something new and fresh to the table”. She adds that the “myth of the Vokkaligas being secular is nonsense”.
The panel discusses the inheritance tax debate, with Vakasha saying the tax has a solid rationale behind it “from a social justice perspective”. Jayashree says the matter escalated into a controversy because people are “conflating a lot of things, like what Modi said about the Congress taking away people’s money”. Shardool adds, “Most of the people arguing about this tax won’t have to pay it because it applies to the creamy layer of society.”
Vakasha then explains why the PMLA is problematic. On the state of the Indian judiciary, he says over the years, “we’ve had our justice system constantly become a voice for the establishment”, adding that there is a lack of critique of the courts. Abhinandan says people are possibly “afraid of critiquing the court because of contempt of court...so courts have completely gone out of scrutiny”.
This and a whole lot more. Tune in!
Hafta letters: Poll pivots, EVMs, Sreenivasan Jain’s show
We have a page for subscribers to send letters to our shows. If you want to write to Hafta, click here.
Check out the Newslaundry store and flaunt your love for independent media.
Download the Newslaundry app.
General elections are here and Newslaundry and The News Minute have ambitious plans. Click here to support us.
Song: Band Aankh Se Dekh Tamasha
Timecodes
00: 04:31 - Headlines
00: 12:49 - Lok Sabha elections: Karnataka
00: 26:30 - Inheritance tax
01: 00:00 - Prevention of Money Laundering Act
01: 28:55 - Letters
01: 57:30 - Recommendations
References
How BJP ‘won’ in Surat: Unravelling 24 hours of peculiarities
Inheritance and gift tax rates
Recommendations
Vakasha
Dune series
Shardool
Mind ki Baat, Ep 10: Autism spectrum disorder
Jayashree
Bullets and Beats: How a radical militant group wooed Manipuri youth
Knife: Meditations after an Attempted Murder
Abhinandan
The secret to upward mobility: Friends
Chasing the American Dream at Outback Steakhouse
Check out our previous Hafta recommendations.
Produced and recorded by Aryan Mahtta, edited by Hassan Bilal.
Sting: [00:00:00] This is a News Laundry podcast and you're listening to NFTA
Abhinandan: News Laundry. Welcome to another episode of NFTA from, uh, hot Afternoon. Uh, we are recording this at 3:00 PM on Thursday the 25th of April. Uh, we are not in the midst of the peak election excitement, but there is enough excitement, uh, which means everyone's really busy. And the speeches are getting more and more, uh, shrill and desperate, should I say?
And today the election commissioners also woken up from a slumber. We shall talk about that. But let me introduce the panel first. Joining me in the studio is Shardul after a long time. Hello. Shardul minus a beard. Yes. I am trying
Shardool: to get better.
Abhinandan: Get better. What is it? Are you saying people with beards are not better?
No, I am not better. [00:01:00] Okay. It's a subjective thing. This is beard is in the studio. Uh, joining us, uh, on zoom, uh, from Chennai is our very own star. Jayshree. Hi Jayshree.
Jayashree: Hi. Hi. I am also absent my beard.
Abhinandan: Yes, I guess I'm the only one with a beard and a Pathan suit. So I guess I should not go for any rallies where kapdi type things.
Also joining us, I'm guessing from Bangalore is Pooja Prasanna. Hi Pooja, you're in Bangalore or are you elsewhere? No,
Pooja Prasanna: no, no, I'm in Bangalore.
Abhinandan: So Pooja is the editorial head for reporting with a special focus on politics and social justice at the News Minute. She's been there for almost 15 years. She's covered major news events across South with experience in broadcast, digital and print.
So, uh, we will be looking forward to To much of her reporting and she is going to be, uh, I mean, she is not going to be, she's part of the [00:02:00] team that is doing a lot of election related reportage for us. And like all the reports, all the reportage on News Laundry and News Minute, it is ad free non sponsored funded by you.
So we had six election funds up, three have been topped up. The fourth is almost topped up. Thank you so much. There are two left and I'm hoping by the time this episode goes on, by the end of that weekend, those will be topped up too. So our entire team is traveling because you have supported it. Also, we have a new show with Srinivasan Jain.
Audio insert: In this election, I will travel across the country to dissect the powerful narratives driving the BJP's campaign. How much are claims and how much is reality? Follow me on a journey that cuts through the noise and brings you the facts. Journalism that is free, fair, and in your interest.
Abhinandan: And we'll be having a mini series also by Karma Paljor.
So all the journalists who you are used to watching on broadcast and who have done some great journalism, but there aren't many platforms today that actually support great journalism because [00:03:00] they're all ad funded. Contribute to News Laundry in the News Minute, and we shall get you many more journalists who you have appreciated in the past.
Also joining us is Vakasha Sachdev. Welcome, Vakasha.
Vakasha Sachdev: Um, thanks for having me on the show.
Abhinandan: And which part of the world are you joining us from?
Vakasha Sachdev: I am in Delhi only. Yeah, I was supposed to be coming to into the studio today, but unfortunately we got a bit of a stomach bug, so we'll have to the safety of a Zoom.
Abhinandan: Yes, the heat does that in Delhi. It always leads to a stomach problem for many people. But uh, Vakasha is a policy and legal expert. He's worked as a lawyer with top law firms in England and in India. And as a journalist, he was previously the associate editor for legal at the Quint. So Vakasha, now you're just.
Thank you very much. Freelancing or have you gone back to law? Are you still a journalist?
Vakasha Sachdev: Well, I mean, it's almost more of a legal role because I'm working as a policy specialist for a tech company. Um, still have some things to do with, uh, with, with journalism because, you know, it's, it's, if [00:04:00] they also have, there's a sort of independent fact checking entity.
As part of our group, which, um, you guys might've heard of logically facts. Um, but yeah, I mean, here are more in, in, in the capacity of having looked at all these, uh, things in the past and keep grumbling about them. So that's basically the, the reason I'm here. So that's the basis.
Abhinandan: So thanks for joining us, Vakasha.
Uh, we will get into the discussion with this nice panel from all across India, but first here's the headlines.
Jayashree: Okay. So here are the headlines for the week. Voting on 88 seats during the second phase of Lok Sabha polls is scheduled for Friday, April 26th, that is tomorrow. The first phase of the election showed a voter turnout of about 65.
5 percent, a decrease of four percentage points from 2019. Right, then the Supreme Court on Wednesday reserved judgment on a batch of petitions that are seeking 100 percent cross verification of vote counts in EVMs with baby pat paper slips.
Abhinandan: In
Jayashree: [00:05:00] Rajasthan, addressing a rally in Banswara, the Prime Minister on Sunday said the Congress, if voted to power, could distribute the nation's wealth amongst infiltrators and those who have more children.
Abhinandan: And he also used the word Muslim. Yes. He also used the word Muslim. When
Audio insert: he was in power, he used the word Muslim.
Manifest. It's
Jayashree: not more blatant than that. Anyway, so the election commission finally today took cognizance of a model model code of conduct violation and sent a letter to surprisingly JP Nadda [00:06:00] asking the BJP to respond to complaints filed by opposition parties. The poll panel also asked the Congress to respond to complaints filed by the BJP against Malik Arjun Karge and Rahul Gandhi regarding respective remarks.
Shardool: Baswala is an interesting seat because Congress is campaigning against their own candidate there. You know this? No. So they could not finalize their alliance. So Congress fielded a candidate. His name is Arvind, Arvind Damore, I think. But then their alliance was finalized with BAP, like Bharat Adivasi Party.
So that candidate is Rajkumar Rao, which NL has interviewed. So you can watch that. But besides that, and Congress candidate refused to take back his nomination. Oh my God. So it has become a three, And Congress is telling people, Don't vote for our candidate.
Jayashree: The candidate very cleverly vanished for a couple of days and then he resurfaced after the date of withdrawing nomination had ended.
So then he was like, what a shame, I still have to contest. [00:07:00] They said they're going to suspend him for six months, I think. Which is And
Shardool: similar sort of thing has happened on Poornia that, uh, Pappu Yadav merged his party with Congress, but Congress couldn't get him the ticket. Bhima Bharti got the ticket.
Yeah, so he's
Abhinandan: contesting.
Shardool: I saw
Abhinandan: that as well.
Shardool: Funny shit going around everywhere.
Jayashree: Dance of democracy is what is happening.
Shardool: Dance of democracy.
Jayashree: In Delhi, a court on Tuesday extended the judicial custody of Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal and BRS leader K. Kavita till May 7th. They're both been arrested in connection with the liquor policy case.
Abhinandan: And he finally was able to take his insulin. Being a diabetic myself, I was seeing some of the commentary around that. My God, man. I mean, Yeah, I thought there would
Jayashree: be a given that he would have access to his insulin. I mean,
Abhinandan: you're aware people are generally stupid, but you're just not prepared for how stupid they are.
I mean, just the conversations around this were like,
Shardool: But why would they deny it? I couldn't figure out why, why, how does, how does that help?
Abhinandan: Don't even ask. It's just, it's just a power trip. And, you know. [00:08:00] I don't know who the doctor that if it is not below 220, if it's not above 220, you don't need insulin.
You are going ahead of time, man. BAMS doctor. You are going ahead of time, man. Comments
Shardool: made
Jayashree: this week. First, Defence Minister Rajnath Singh in Uttar Pradesh said, the Prime Minister has never thought of doing politics on the basis of Hindus, Muslims and Christians. Never,
Audio insert: ever.
Jayashree: And then, uh, Yogi Adityanath said the Congress, in its manifesto, apparently expressed its intention to implement Sharia in the country and usurp people's properties to distribute amongst themselves.
Audio insert: Congress says that we will implement the Dictatorship Act and implement the Sharia law. Iskamatna babasahab bheemrao ambedkar ke duara banaiy kais samvidahan ke liye yeh log khatra paida karna chahatein. Yani desh ke samvidahan ko yeh khatra paida khatre me daalna chahatein. Talibani sasan lago karna chahatein.
[00:09:00] Kya hum Talibani sasan ko sweetar karenge? Kya yeh desh Talibani sasan ko sweetar karega? This is crazy
Shardool: Which manifesto is he reading here? Well today
Abhinandan: Kharge has written a letter to the prime minister saying please allow me and Rahul to come and explain the manifesto because you clearly haven't understood it.
Jayashree: And the thing is what I find though is that also they say rubbish like this but this isn't this just becomes news like this is a headline on a front page it doesn't actually clarify that yes the manifesto actually says this it just becomes sort of part of public discourse that oh by the way the congress manifesto has this
Abhinandan: yeah
Jayashree: right then the samajwadi party on wednesday has announced party chief will contest from In the BJP's, in the BJP in, oh sorry, in Surat, the BJP candidate was elected unopposed on Monday after the Congress's candidate was disqualified by the polling officer and other candidates then withdrew their nominations.
Abhinandan: You can read Basant Raju's report about how this happened. Bizarre. Sorry, [00:10:00] Basant Raju is his Twitter profile. Yes. Basant Kumar.
Jayashree: On Monday, the Calcutta High Court declared null and void the 2016 state level selection test for recruitment in Bengals. Government schools. It also ordered the cancellation of over 24, 000 appointments made through it.
The petitioners claim the jobs are given to candidates in return for money.
Abhinandan: And they've also asked them to pay back the salaries. I have no idea how they'll implement that.
Jayashree: The logistics of this is
Abhinandan: huge. How are you gonna make it happen anyway?
Shardool: Yeah. And like basic school teachers, how are they gonna pay back the salaries?
Yeah. The fees has been paid to kids school
Jayashree: in Money 0.3, medium intensity blasts damaged a bridge in Kko k district, late on the intervening night of Tuesday, Wednesday. The first phase of falling in the state was also marred by gunfire, destruction of ebms and allegations of coercion and intimidation.
Shardool: Yeah, like man, first phase two, two young men died. Both of them were cookies on me.
Jayashree: In Mumbai, the Economic [00:11:00] Offences Wing of the Police gave a clean chit to Maharashtra Deputy Chief Minister Ajit Pawar, his wife Sunetra Pawar and nephew Rohit Pawar in alleged money laundering scam.
Abhinandan: All is well. Very good.
Jayashree: And a day after the Supreme Court questioned the size of the public apology issued by Patanjali over misleading ads, it has now issued a more prominent unconditional apology in newspapers, saying they earnestly apologize for the mistake made. It is a wholehearted commitment. Such errors will not be repeated.
Abhinandan: I saw that. Even now the apology is such a non apology. But I was just thinking about that press conference that Baba Ramdev gave. Ki agar kuch galat nikhle to mujhe faansi pe latka dena. Hang me, jail me, yay me, woe me.
Audio insert: Yog mein, Ayurveda mein, naturopathy mein jo hum integrated. and evidence based treatment system to control and cure diseases.
This is not a lie. This is the truth. If we are liars, then we should be fined hundreds, thousands, crores of rupees. And if we are given [00:12:00] a death penalty, then we accept it. But Lala Ram All the
Shardool: time. Sorry, Baba Ramdeva also always speaks
Abhinandan: like that. Uh, and in this week's Adla Badli, who went where from which party?
In Bihar, Mehboob Ali Qaizar NDA's lone Muslim MP joined RJD. In Punjab, Karamjeet Kaur Choudhury, who was the Congress candidate from Jalandhar, Baipur, last year joined BJP. All India Congress Committee Secretary in Charge of Himachal Pradesh, Tajinder Singh Bittu resigned from his post and joined BJP. In Himachal Pradesh again, BJP leader Ranjit Singh, a close aide of former Chief Minister Premkumar Dhumal, joined Congress.
And Karnataka's six time Ambassador and former Minister Malekiah Guttedar quit the BJP and joined Congress. So until next week. We will keep tracking of who has jumped where to where.
Shardool: Yes.
Abhinandan: And on that note, let's get into the discussions with our wonderful panel. Okay. Uh, you know, I have a bunch of stuff to discuss.
I have two announcements before that. Uh, if you've recently discovered the Hafta [00:13:00] Show, It's a weekly news podcast. This episode is also free. It's going to be free for another three or four episodes after it will go behind the paywall. Uh, so do subscribe, contribute, and share this with as many people as possible so we can get them used to this show.
And then when you put it behind the paywall, they'll be forced to pay. Haha, that's our strategy. And like I said, please top up our election fund. So, you know, I want to talk a little with this whole panel. And I know Pooja is only here for 20 minutes because after that she's recording a show. In fact, for the news minute news laundry joint coverage only.
Uh, but, uh, Pooja, just give us a, you know, update on what's happening in Karnataka because their stuff was pretty hot with elections. And I've seen a bunch of interviews of Mr. Siddharam Iya. Uh, I must say he seems very bored in all the interviews. Is that his demeanor or is he just really tired?
Pooja Prasanna: Uh, I think it's a bit of both.
Uh, but also he doesn't seem to have anything new to say. So I stopped watching his interviews because I know the script now. I listened to two of them and now I know exactly what he's going to say, which answer to which question and all that. But he's, I [00:14:00] think that also sends a very bad message that the person leading Congress in the state is bored as he has, uh, he's, he looks jaded, so that's definitely not great for the Congress.
Abhinandan: But otherwise, what's it like, what's the campaign like? Like I see today, uh, some young man who was, I don't know if he's young, who was Spreading misinformation has joined the BJP. I think he was responsible for spreading that rumor online that I think what people are being attacked. Yeah.
Jayashree: So he's the Dihari who had made, um, he joined the BJP, but he had spread misinformation about migrants, migrants being attacked, allegedly in Tamil Nadu.
Abhinandan: Yeah. Oh, that was Tamil Nadu. All right. Right. But yeah. Otherwise, what is the problem? The entire campaign and the elections are like in Karnataka because Karnataka is being seen very closely as is Maharashtra and Bihar because these three are the hardest to predict. So say most political pundits, do you want to venture into some [00:15:00] predictions Pooja or just tell us what's happening?
Pooja Prasanna: I will not mention a single number because I mean the things I'm hearing, uh, so Congress is getting anything from six. So I am not speaking to people who are talking about numbers, but what I can tell you is the Congress is talking a lot about the welfare schemes because that is the biggest, uh, talking point here.
They think that people who have benefited will vote for them. Here's the twist. Many people who have benefited, and I've spoken to people, women traveling in buses and all, they think, great, we're very grateful. And we're very happy that they've given this for us, but we want to still vote for Modi, uh, for, for the next elections.
So that is something the Congress will be disappointed with, but that said it's welfare on one side. And for the BJP, there seems to be Nothing beyond Modi. They're not even talking much about [00:16:00] Hindutva this time, except now, because there, a young woman got murdered by a young Hindu woman was murdered in her college by her stalker, who happens to be a Muslim man.
And then you have it, a love jihad angle comes in the election. So the Hindutva angle has just come in, but before that they were only and only talking about Modi. So I went and I followed Tejasvi, And they say, you know, this is Modi's election. You have to give him 400. You have to make sure that he comes back to power.
So it isn't about me. So clearly I think even the candidates don't care much about themselves. It's just Modi all the way here.
Jayashree: But also it's too early for there to be any kind of anti incumbency against the Congress, right? I mean,
Pooja Prasanna: just a year after. Anti incumbency honestly for them started a month because of how the media and the BJP Also bring them, right?
Because, uh, it's the same chief minister from before 2013 to 2018. It was Raia. Yeah. So they kind of digging up, uh, all this, uh, [00:17:00] the all alleged scams from then. And, uh, they're accusing him of corruption even before he could complete, uh, say a month in office. And, uh, there's enough and more and the media is obviously amplifying, uh, everything that the BJP is saying.
And this tag of RA being anti Hindu is hard to shock off.
Jayashree: Hmm. I had another question before Abhinandan asks you more, but mostly that, um, so for the BJP, I guess it's sort of fighting for its journey into South India or whatever, right? Congress is fighting for survival, whatever it's fighting for. So for the JDS, like, what is this?
Because Yeah,
Pooja Prasanna: there are parts of Karnataka where JDS will be relevant, even if it's not seen, right? Um, but I think it's more of a survival battle for JDS than for the Congress in Karnataka at least. And, uh, honestly, I, I know that people are talking about how, oh, this is the secular party and they've joined [00:18:00] hands with BJP, how will they work together and all of that.
But I see them to be better allies than Congress and JDS because one, uh, the target voter base does not overlap. So both the parties are bringing something new and fresh to the table. Uh, and on top, uh, if you've seen how, uh, Modi and, uh, Deve Gowda have been campaigning, it is almost like one big happy family, honestly.
They're hugging, they're holding hands, they're sitting on stage holding hands. I actually saw that. It was quite.
Jayashree: I saw they co opted Annamalai to also hit the campaign trail in Karnataka.
Pooja Prasanna: He's worked here, right? Especially in Bangalore South, yeah. He has a connect. He's more popular here than in Tamil Nadu.
Yeah, yeah. I've always thought
Jayashree: that. He's far more a Karnataka Bangalore guy. I was just
Pooja Prasanna: saying this entire JDS BJP thing is working very well. I think much more than most people predicted. And, uh, this You know, this Lingayat Volkaliga thing of how two dominant castes can they come together, they fought each other.
I think that's bogus [00:19:00] because, uh, they operate in very different geographical locations, North Karnataka, South Karnataka. So the overlap is very less, number one. Number two, this myth of Volkaligas being secular simply because, uh, you know, they'd kept BJP at bay all these years in one region or Mysore is again, I think nonsense.
They more. JDS was a caste based party, so they supported them. And now they've brought caste plus communalism and they've happily lapped it up. So I don't see any problem for the two
Abhinandan: parties to
Vakasha Sachdev: work together. There's been a couple of interesting sort of center state disputes, right, with Karnataka, which have come up.
One was that issue on the food grains. There's been now the issue on the drought relief to Karnataka. Um, is that something which, I mean, are people even aware of it? Number one, as like a political issue. And number two, is that something which is, actually perceived as a negative thing towards the BJP or does it actually sort of take them towards that, you know, does it actually favor more of this whole concept of [00:20:00] like double engine Sarkar kind of thing?
Like, have you had any conversations with anyone about these issues and how they feel about
Pooja Prasanna: it? So the, the BJP in Karnataka is in a fix because there's only that much you can lie. The Congress has gone to court against the union government asking for dues. And, uh, what, uh, the union government, uh, for example, Nirmala Sitharaman, what she's saying here on ground vis a vis what the union government said, uh, in court, uh, they're very different.
So Congress in that sense has been smart. They brought to you the government's affidavit. And they're talking about that in the media saying that, listen, your BJP spokespersons are lying clearly because look at what they're saying in court. So I think it is a very big narrative for the Congress. It has been fairly successful.
Uh, I'll tell you why, because Nirmala Sitharaman last year in October, uh, she held a press conference where she said that, uh, we don't owe the state any dues for drought relief. Uh, then the Congress kept badgering them with documents, [00:21:00] fax, they showed when they've sent in their application and all of that.
Now, just last, uh, last week or the week before, I think, um, one of the ministers, Krishna Vaidya Gowda, he challenged Nirmala Sitharaman to a debate. Of course, she didn't go. Nobody thought she would, but she held a press conference that day in the morning. And she said, uh, yes, we have to give Karnataka the due for the drought relief.
But then the MCC kicked in, so we couldn't give and all of that. So, which means that, you know, they, the Congress managed to get, so she did walk back up
Abhinandan: earlier, comment basically, she, she had to walk back. She did, but she
Pooja Prasanna: didn't appear to, of course, because it's m she sounded as arrogant as ever . But we have it on record right, what she said in October.
and what she said now. So, yeah. And for me, the highlight was a Kannada channel, which is owned by Rajiv Chandrasekhar, which is known to go after the Congress, very obviously. They did a segment two days ago, [00:22:00] uh, calling out Nirmala Sitharaman on this. That was a big, big deal for me to see that, you know, Congress managed to convince on these guys.
Abhinandan: So, uh, Pooja, we have you for, uh, uh, what? What? 3. 30? 3. 20? How long are you with us? Because I know you have to record. Another five minutes. Another five minutes. Okay. So, uh, I mean, just let me know whenever you want to leave. Uh, cause we don't want to delay your next shoot, but I, you know, since you
Pooja Prasanna: also with you guys, which is also
Abhinandan: with us, you see that we are buzzing, there's this so much of activity happening in the news laundry office that what, what can we say in the news minute office is all but deserters, everyone's traveling on the ground, uh, you know, covering elections.
Thank you. Those of you who have contributed to those who haven't, the link is in the show notes below. I will keep reminding you now and then. Uh, but, uh, you know, you spoke about the welfare schemes, et cetera. I just want to talk about that because that suddenly became an issue from nowhere, out of nowhere.
Uh, we will also discuss, you know, Prime Minister Modi's speech and Since Manisha is traveling, I've hosted Clothesline this week and we've dissected his speech. [00:23:00] I've just made jokes, but Srinivasan Jain has dissected it. So do watch this week's Clothesline. Uh, but, uh, you know, this whole nuisance, nuisance, sorry, I said Clothesline, show.
Okay. So, um, uh, just this whole redistribution of wealth and it's become such a bad word. It's such. Such a big thing. And I mean, it, it has gone into a zone of complete bizarreness with Mr. Modi saying that, you know, addressing a rally that he wants to take your money. None of those people in the rally will even be eligible for inheritance tax.
But anyway, you know, such is the life of, you know, election cycles. But, you know, even I had Made a comment. It wasn't specifically about inheritance tax, but I'll come to that later, but has led to the most bizarre commentary around that. Not that Twitter is the best place to, you know, find sensible arguments, but, uh, just want to start.
Let, let me start with Jayshree. I don't know whether you heard, I haven't heard Sam Petroda's press conference, by the way. [00:24:00] I only read
Shardool: bits of what he said. I had Karnataka specific question to her. Oh,
Abhinandan: you had Karnataka. Okay, why don't you get that out of the way and then we'll get back to this inheritance tax because then she has to go.
So Pooja, I wanted to confirm one
Shardool: thing and Um, you know, pick your brains about one seat. So one is that, uh, like we were discussing this BJP and JDS alliance seems to gel together. Is it because, uh, JDS gives, uh, you know, BJP, uh, foothold into Vokaliga cast. I mean, what base, because DK Shiv Kumar is also Vokaliga.
So is it helping them? That was my question. And the other was the seat I wanted to know about was this Bengaluru rural, which is like Strange, uh, sort of contest between C. N. Manjunath, who's a very, I hear, popular and very, you know, well meaning surgeon, who's a BJP candidate. And the other one is, um, D. K.
Suresh. What's your input on that seat? Because I am very intrigued by that specific seat.
Pooja Prasanna: Just to give you a little bit of background, uh, last year, [00:25:00] 20, last time, 2019, Congress won exactly one seat on Karnataka out of 28. And it was that one seat, uh, Bangalore rural where DK Suresh won. So it doesn't matter.
He's, he has money. He has muscle power. That's how he's held on to the seat. Manjunath interestingly is from Deva Gowda's family. He is Deva Gowda's son in law, but he's gotten a BJP ticket, right? So technically the family's gotten three tickets. Uh, David himself, uh, his, uh, sorry, uh, Kumaraswamy and, uh, his nephew in Hassan and his brother in law who's here.
I think it's very tough though. He does have a lot of goodwill as a doctor. Um, I don't know if it'll translate into work. But yeah, it's an interesting battle because it's a caste battle. It's also a family battle. These two families go way back, you know, the rivalry of like two, three decades. Yeah. So that's a fun battle to watch out for.
But that's one seed that could go. [00:26:00] No predictions, but yeah, but just the overall picture, why it's working well, because they both need something. JDS needs protection from BJP because their MLAs, their leaders were
Abhinandan: So, uh, Pooja's connection was a bit unstable because she is on the move, uh, because of election season. Hopefully next time she'll be able to join us from the studio. So coming back to the whole inheritance tax thing. So Jessie, what did you read about the Petroda comment? Now, the Congress saying it's not our view.
I don't know how this become an election issue. I have no idea why 80 percent of Indians who are not in 80, probably 95 percent of Indians who are not in the We'll not have to pay any inheritance tax because they are inheriting jack shit. But, but I just want to know where this started and the whole panel's view on it.
Jayashree: Yeah. So he said, uh, so he spoke about how there is inheritance tax in the [00:27:00] U S he said, it's 50%. He said that if someone has, uh, a hundred million dollars or whatever, and they pass away, they can only give some 45 percent or 50 percent or some number he gave to their children. And he said, it's a very interesting law.
Audio insert: Let me tell you in America, there is an inheritance tax. So if let's say one has a hundred million dollars worth of wealth, and when he dies, he can only transfer probably 45 percent to his children. 55 percent is grabbed by government. Now that's an interesting law.
Jayashree: So then this became this entire thing where people said that Rosada shot off his mouth.
The Congress then tried to distance itself. It said that there was actually Raji Gandhi, who in the eighties had scrapped something to do with an inheritance law tax. So then Modi shot back today saying, oh, but Ari only did it 'cause he wanna claim his mother's assets. So the entire thing is extremely stupid.
So I think inheritance tax is just one more form of progressive taxation. It's not a prohibition on inheritance. You are going to inherit a massive chunk of wealth, 100 percent [00:28:00] unearned, and to be taxed for it is Quite straightforward, especially in a country with widespread poverty and inequity and all those things.
And if those with wealth and privilege have offspring who then get their wealth and privilege, tax merely means you're paying a chunk of the unowned wealth you will get from your parents on their passing. It's, I feel like it's quite essential in a just society and it's also another form of income tax if you look at it in that way.
Those who receive assets and money and they should be taxed the same way income is taxed. It's a basic rule, except that income tax is on earned money and this is not. So also I think I saw your tweet. I saw the storm it created on Twitter. So the fact is also that the demographic that is bleating about this inheritance tax, this is the elite middle class.
They're not a particularly significant voter base. Their turnout rate is quite low. They constitute a very tiny percentage to start with. So this is this. Another thing that will generate buzz online, mainstream media is running with all the head, like I think all the newspapers I got today. The main headline was what did [00:29:00] Ampa Toda say And Why is this now an issue?
But it's actually a non-issue for the election. No, also for most,
Abhinandan: and mostly like for example, for, you know, Modi to take this up in that speech we're saying that.
So he, it's like the scaremongering because even if you were to say that it comes into force, it will not impact. I would hazard a guess even 95 percent of Indians. So, uh, you know, you know, before we come to back to the studio, uh, you know, let's, let's see what the other panelists have to say because Pooja is no longer with us.
She's gone. So Vakasha, what, what is your take on the villain inheritance tax?
Vakasha Sachdev: I think, you know, I had the I used to work as a tax lawyer in the UK and, you know, I had to go through [00:30:00] inheritance tax law on all of this and I trust it is, it is really annoying. Um, I mean, purely for the sake of how annoying it can be to deal with, I can understand why people don't want an inheritance tax, but I think the social justice issue is very much, um, you know, that there is a very good reason for it.
You know, I mean, and I think what Jessie's. examined here, there's a reason why you have even these countries, which are very capitalistic and, you know, have very clear ideas of being capitalistic countries. You've retained the idea of an inheritance tax because it's one of your ways in which you can balance out sort of the inequalities which come up.
Now, what you, obviously what has to be decided is what's that threshold going to be. I think as you're saying, you know, most people are not going to end up paying it. Now in the UK, the threshold is something like, uh, what is it? 325, 000 pounds. So the value of the estate, which is left over is 325, 000 pounds.
And anything over and above that value will be taxed at a 40 percent rate. Now that's a strong rate. I mean, look, of course, as [00:31:00] we know, this is not really what's being argued here, but in principle, the idea of having an inheritance tax, if you have it at a reasonable threshold, you put a reasonable amount on it.
Nobody's saying you have to make it 40 percent or 50%. You could even have a 20 percent 30 percent tax rate. And it doesn't matter what that level is. If you just make a sensible basis for that, um, put a proper threshold, it is something which can be really transformative. And I think that's why many countries have continued to retain it, even So, you know, it creates huge amounts of problems.
And the only reason why the UK is finally going to maybe change that is because there's so much pressure on Rishi Sunak because of just how much of a mess the parties are. And so he's thinking maybe it'll save a bunch of my donors
Abhinandan: and keep
Vakasha Sachdev: it with
Abhinandan: anything as
Vakasha Sachdev: such. It's still such a small group of people that, you think about it in terms of would that truly impact their, even their electoral result?
Probably not. Like, I mean, it's such a small group of people who would even, even in the UK, get that, uh, you know, face that issue. So I think, um,
Abhinandan: So it's just a pandering to friends and family, basically. [00:32:00] It's just social noise that will take someone, make Sunak take the decision because it cannot be political expediency because it doesn't impact, like you said, a significant chunk.
It is just those who have your ear can influence it. All his,
Vakasha Sachdev: all his, his big closest allies, you know, his Jacob Rees Mogg's and all those kinds of people, like they, they cared about this. And so they're thinking of putting it, but for the average person, like, you know, I mean, even I know some relatives in the UK who went through the process.
They didn't have a problem with it in principle, they were just like, it's just really annoying how the process works. And I think that's obviously just a standard issue with how anytime we try to deal with taxes, we, we, you know, the human tendency, I think, is to make it something as horrible as possible rather than making it an easier process.
But in principle, like, you know, even common people who've had to pay that tax aren't like all up in arms about it. They're kind of okay with it. Like, you know, if you're not someone, even if you're someone who's having to pay that tax, as long as you're not some. Uh, you know, I think it's just a storm in a teacup outside India.
It's, it's, it's even [00:33:00] more of a, it's like a storm in like a shot glass inside India because we're just making this into like a, uh, I mean, there's zero, there's going to be minimal impact on people. And, um, you know, it's still, even if one wanted to bring it in, it's perfectly in your hands to decide what the thresholds are.
So, you know, I mean, for people to make it into like this, Oh my God, we're becoming a communist state or, Oh, look at how terrible this is. It's, it's, it doesn't work. You look at how many of these people over the years. Who are now coming out and screaming about it have previously, uh, argued that it's not a bad thing.
You know, in principle, when they had to argue that, oh, this is good for, for inequality, a lot of people did including people like TV Mohan that's by also
Abhinandan: the context makes such a big difference. But yeah, Jesse, go ahead.
Jayashree: Now, I was going to say that the reason why it's become such a stormy take up is because here we're conflating lots of things, like the people who are yelling about this online, they're not yelling about an inheritance tax, exactly.
They're yelling about that, but also they're conflating it with what Modi said about Congress is going to take away your money, you're going to take away our sisters and wives, mangalsutras or whatever. So, it's a [00:34:00] combination of many things that they are now classified as. Something is going to happen where someone is taking away money that is mine.
It's a Congress position. Basically,
Abhinandan: it's a Congress position. Now, how do we trash it? That's what it's become.
Jayashree: That's what I was going to ask. So, but an inheritance tax is different from an estate tax, right? But, and India doesn't have either of those. Is that correct? I mean, India doesn't have a state. No, but America
Abhinandan: has a state tax, but it's very similar to an inheritance tax in the, in America.
Jayashree: Inheritance, you pay one, a person pays it. Otherwise it comes out of the estate. That's a
Vakasha Sachdev: modality issue, right? Like in terms of where the funds do they, do they get released before or after the estate? But like, in, in principle, it's the same. Yeah. The American estate
Abhinandan: tax is basically, this is another name for the energy tax.
Yeah. You were saying Shardul?
Shardool: Before I say anything about inheritance tax, Sam Pitroda always makes statements near elections and makes life difficult for Congress. And he's supposed to be a Rahul Gandhi supporter. Look at
Abhinandan: Vadra, he's a supporter of Vadra. [00:35:00] Jeejay, he's put, he's about to put posters, Amethi Mange, Vadra, whatever, I don't know what the hell he's saying.
I think
Shardool: Vadra believes Rahul Gandhi should be Bandhanwala Salman
Abhinandan: Khan. So whatever Jeejay says, I'll do. Your take on the inheritance
Shardool: tax? Our producer was asking, I don't give a shit. I have no inheritance. Right. Lelo. But, but the point is, it should be there. And like, you were right. Most of, even the most.
People who are arguing online, I suppose, upper middle class people will not have to pay it because it only applies to the creamy layer of society.
Abhinandan: I mean, the bar is very high for inheritance tax.
Shardool: And of course, you should take it and it should come out of only the inheritance and not the complete wealth, of course, that I would say.
I don't know how it We applied. And right now the Congress is saying they're not interested in implementing or even introducing it. So it's just a mood debate. But yes, Modiji has picked up another point of one [00:36:00] Congress supporter and ran with it. And of course, now Congress is defending it.
Abhinandan: But what's fascinating about Modiji is that his entire strategy this time is purely he waits for Congress to say something, takes that.
And so, I mean, now it is far too transparent. He has no issue of his own to actually go to the people with. Yeah. Yeah. So I was about to say that. He just keeps reacting to
Shardool: Congress speeches, basically. Because I wasn't here for three or four weeks, right? Because of the work and all. When their, their manifesto release it, it was so intriguing.
It's not even BJP anymore. It's just Modi ji. It's Modi ji's promise and he does everything. He's next to God and you should trust him. And his entire speeches
Abhinandan: are completely reactionary. So just, you know, come to the, my tweet actually did not even tweet was, Tweet was like Modi, it is a reaction to some noise that I saw and heard about people saying, oh, why should there be an inherit tax?
You know, we have hard earned money. We have put this ourselves together. Should I be paying an inheritance tax? Now, some of those people who I've known [00:37:00] well and I've known for decades, and some of them are friends of mine, you know, you don't wanna necessarily, you know, punch a friend in the face, you know, metaphorically, you punch a friend
Jayashree: in the face,
Abhinandan: But I'm like, dude, you are not. You know, you're where you are because of privilege, not necessarily because you worked so hard and while you've done that too. So my tweet was the following Quote the good thing about the clever kind of well read kind of successful and kind of well spoken indian sophisticates is Their belief they're self made if it wasn't for social access Most of us including me would be sitting in a waiting room hoping for an interview Self made is a myth and I ran out of space because I haven't paid for the blue tick So that is My full space.
I want to say self made is a myth for most, for most did not fit. But anyway, even if we didn't, it's a fucking tweet. It's not an affidavit. Did
Jayashree: you write it with the hope that it would get a rise? I thought
Abhinandan: like most of my tweets, a few people, I didn't think it would create [00:38:00] this. But if you see, I have not.
Taken a position on Herrington. But you don't need
Jayashree: to take a position. It sounds like you already have and you're sounding like you're sort of like slaying other people.
Abhinandan: So people, of course, many who don't read on Twitter started talking a lot of shit. So I think I have mentioned this, uh, episode a long time ago on Hafta.
It is the secret to upward mobility. Friends, there's an actually, uh, study done, uh, which has demonstrated, and this is done by an Indian origin, Harvard economist, Raj Chetty, and his team of researchers that Cross class friendships are a significant, uh, you know, upward mobility factor. And there's another episode which has actually taken mobile phone location data and seen place like Applebee's.
Uh, you know, the American Applebee's is like one of the places where the poor go because you get a lot of food for very cheap, but it's a nice place for kids like it. So the relatively well, it's one of the few restaurant chains where there is cross cut cross class. [00:39:00] A convergence of people and tracking that data.
They showed that people who go to Applebee's, the poor ones actually get into a network with rich people and tend to do better. So yeah, there is data to show what I'm saying. In India, no one has the time, energy or Funds to do this research, but here the results will be so dramatic that it'll leave Raj Chetty professor's research far behind.
Now, many people reacted to this with anger and, oh, so a estate tax is not, it's about 50 crore. Now, I think there are many benefits to estate tax, even from a macro view. Now, I'm not saying I have a firm position on it. I'm willing to change my position if someone gives me, you know, I personally know. And if I personally know a few people, I'm sure there are thousands like this who have about between five to 12 apartments.
in Gurgaon and those areas and these apartments can be anything from five crores to 15 crores because you know their [00:40:00] folks are politicians or bureaucrats they have just like and they're like they don't need the rent it's just lying there now if there was an inherent index it would not impact their income.
Uh, financial situation, even a little bit. In fact, it leads to an economic activity of those houses being sold to pay the tax, if nothing else. So, so, so that is one, it only impacts people above a certain point. Secondly, it in a country like India, where let's take some like Sindhia. I have said in the last, you know, Jyotiredhe Sindhia is a mediocre fellow who would not normally get a job.
If he was not a Sindhia, he must be worth some 20, 30, 000 crore. Why? Because he's a son of a king. I mean, look at, uh, Karan Singh. Yeah. His son, who's a Vikramaditya Singh. He's less than mediocre. He would not even get the job that Sindhia might get. Uh, he happens to be married to Sindhia's sister incidentally.
Uh, that guy's inheritance was worth 20, 000 crores. Like the point is, and these are kings in a country like India where [00:41:00] people are dying. It is, I think, and I remember when we were studying economics and many of the Twitter to humanities, well, actually I was a science student in. Uh, my plus two, I took economics in, uh, graduations.
I didn't take philosophy as many of you suggested. Uh, one of the examples that was taken is that if a meteor were to hit my backyard and the material it's made off is worth many millions, what is the most economically efficient way for the government to tax me? And that was a hundred percent. Because if they tax me 100%, it will not impact the market.
There'd be no incentives, disincentives. That whole material will be taken by the government saying you get zero. The full tax on that would be 100 percent and there is a very robust economic rationale behind that. Just you can come in and just one thing I want to say on top of that, people will say, Oh, are you saying the others are not hardworking?
You can be hardworking and you can be privileged. Many people say there's guilt and there's self lack. I'm ri, and you can vouch for it. I'm not a humble person, . No. In fact you're not. I would range on the rather pompous, arrogant side. [00:42:00] Modest side, yes. Yeah, not, not at all modest. So it's not modesty. It is just that.
I think I'm really good at what I do. I think I'm fucking phenomenal what I do. I'm better than, I'm 99% of the people, but that is because I have an 80 on monsoon wedding. A job that I got, a camera assistant, because of my Dune Vellum connection, because the writer is like my sister. I got a job at NewsTrack in the 90s, where there were only NDTV and NewsTrack, there was no third place that was doing electronic.
That was because of my Dune Vellum connection. I have inherited, uh, But today, let me give you a simple example. Three of my batch mates are contesting elections. Raghav Lakhantpal from Saharanpur, Jitendra Prasad from Shahjahanpur, Nakul Nath from Chindwada, my house captain Jyotiraj Sindhia is contesting from Dossa.
If you are in the right social bracket, nothing is more than two phone calls away. Now, after that, you can also be hardworking and smart and all that. Thousands of people are hardworking and smart and all that. The [00:43:00] only thing they don't have is access. I don't think Rajdeep is not hardworking. I don't think Alia Bhatt is not hardworking.
I think she's very hardworking. She's very gifted. But the reason they're where they are is because of social access. Yeah, please understand that. And I think there is a great way to make people understand that it is not, I mean, it is not a bad thing. You can be hardworking and you can have social access.
That was my only point. Sorry, Jashree. Go ahead.
Jayashree: What was my point? No, I mean, I totally agree with you, but also I feel a lot of people who disagree with you. See, I mean, I know it's a, the, where we are today is a function of our caste, our class, our social capital, and people really underestimate the amount of place.
Like I went to a top college in Chennai. I went to Asian college of journalism. I have my contacts through that. My partner went to NLS. NLS is a top tier law school. We know people through that and it changes how you work and how you operate. And I thought it was interesting because this came up in that episode of What's Your ISM that, uh, Siddhipta did with Sagarika, where he asks her about, um, privilege.
And he said, do you, are you conscious of it? And she waffles a bit. [00:44:00] She's like, and he tries to pin her down and he says, you know, but it is a function of caste and class. And what do you think? And again, she waffles and she said, no, you know, I know my grandfather had wealth, but you know, I also just worked really hard, but that's not the point.
Abhinandan: And for
Jayashree: me, the most stupid thing about this conversation on inheritance tax is that inheritance tax is not even, you know, a very sort of radical idea that you will tax someone based on wealth that is inherited. I mean, a really radical idea would you would abolish inherited wealth, but that is a conversation I don't even want to have.
So for everyone to have to be so up in arms because Sam Pitora dared to say that Perhaps we should think about the idea of an inheritance tax to the extent where the Congress is now actively trying to distance itself. I think it's absurd. And, but also I think the Congress is really failing at messaging because like you said, Modi is reacting to everything that Rahul Gandhi is saying, and they're making it very easy for him because in that other speech that Rahul Gandhi made where he talked about, um, he talked about redistributing wealth.
The thing is, he just used it like a phrase. He didn't, use it in a context where he really knew what he was [00:45:00] talking about, even explaining what the Congress means when it says redistribution of wealth is something that they will strive towards in their manifesto. So he sort of left it hanging, he left it open, and then of course the BJP walks in and then sort of runs off at the point.
So, um, yeah. Yeah, that's all I have to say.
Shardool: I have two, three things to say. One, you have made this point on many occasions in many forums. Like, the connections you make help you push through your class and any ceiling you have, glass or cement or whatever. Like, if it was just hard work, like, I think empirically, like pound to pound, the daily wage laborer who is the hardest working person and he gets the least for his hard work.
So, of course, connections matter, but I think like the one thing I would object with Sam Petroda saying it was, I completely agree with inheritance tax that before you introduce inheritance tax, like if you think about it, but whatever knowledge I have, I think that Vakasha would be able to tell us better.
But, uh, We have to sort of [00:46:00] expand our net of taxation before we introduce inheritance tax because otherwise people will misjudge it and half baked knowledge is very easy to get now on Twitter and these forums and nobody is willing to discuss it in detail or with, with some sanity and people.
Abhinandan: Even the economic rationale can be dissected, you know, like I do think that an inheritance tax would also unlock a lot of.
Uh, assets that are unproductive, for example, uh, In Bombay, there's so many people who I'm sure we are all aware of who are sitting on properties worth like 100, 200, 300 crores. They don't have the money to even maintain those properties, but they will not sell it because they do not want to move out of that bungalow.
And, you know. Uh, Pali Hill or Bandra, wherever it is, but, but their liquidity is pathetic. That's true for a lot of places in Rajasthan, a lot of place in Delhi. So you would have to make that asset liquid to pay the inheritance tax, which would actually [00:47:00] from a macro lens, it could actually make a lot of assets that are just lying locked into the economic activity zone.
So I think there is an economic rationale, a macroeconomic rationale for it as well.
Shardool: There is a human rationale also. And then I think we should, we should let Vakasha talk about this. You talk. Talked about the economic spine. As a human being, like if you look at people, we don't value something unless there is a cost attached to it.
If I'm just getting anything, I will take it for granted. And there is a very big, good chance that propensity of it being used for, like you said, lying it as a waste or used for just random nefarious purposes is more. If I have to actively think about that, dude, I got this, let's say big Haveli from my father or grandfather passing away.
And now I have to do this. Most people would at least engage with it. And as you said, it may enter the economic market or not, but there will be something happening. Let's say it happens within the family.
Abhinandan: I mean, in many countries, like, you know, France has a very high net. It is not on, if you're not residing in [00:48:00] that, then it applies for your next asset.
It's, it doesn't apply to everything. I mean, there are various ways to skin that catfish. You tell us what, what are the. Ways where you think it can actually have an economic rationale. I'm not even getting into the moral or ethical rational right now.
Vakasha Sachdev: I think the issue is that I think one of the things which, I mean, I, I didn't understand all of Piketty, but I think, you know, one of the very important things about what Piketty talks about in his book.
And I think we've been seeing this over the last few years is that when you have, it's, it's when you have these massive Disparities in equality and in economic wealth. What it does is it makes it, it makes it tougher for even other good programs to have the effects they need to have to bring people out of poverty.
It's when you, it's only when you actually have enough programs, which actually reduce those economic gaps between things that you actually see. Uh, better growth, you know, sort of more holistic growth across, uh, [00:49:00] areas. So I think, for instance, he had shown that, you know, in your post war era, in your fifties to sixties, that dramatic reduction in inequality was what allowed the West also to have its big boom economically, which, which wasn't just like a big boom, like back in the day that used to happen, but it led to everyone.
It led to a lot of like increases in per capita incomes. It led to a situation where you had even people who weren't working the most fancy jobs were getting enough money that they could have a home. They could buy their own home. They could have enough safety for their retirement. You didn't have to be a rocket scientist for that to happen.
And the thing is, you know, if we look at the period from the eighties onwards, when, you know, we've had this increase in inequality, we've had some countries that GDP is exploded. You've had all of these things happen, but has that meant that Your actual, um, sort of, uh, you know, uh, has that actually led to growth and development for all the people in those countries?
And it has it. And this is even in the biggest countries in the world. You know, the, the problem is when you have vast gaps in inequality, that then [00:50:00] it keeps having its knock on effects and things, right? So like just something like in India, I think when we look at, uh, the way we get domestic work done, right.
Like anywhere else in the world, that's a very difficult process. You can't get domestic work done for you, making our life so simple at that kind of rate. And there's a reason for that is because people should not be paid at this kind of low level. But when you have this vast gap in inequality, it makes it possible.
It really keeps reinforcing those structures. So I think, you know, the, the way I look at inheritance tax is, okay, it's not a magic bullet, but it means to be part of a whole suite of ideas that you have to bring in to reduce inequality, because If you keep having that widening gap in inequality, it structurally makes it impossible to have a fairer, more equitable society.
And then also, uh, you know, there's the social effects and things which it has also in terms of how people will be able to view their futures, view their ideas for what they want out of their country. All of these things get impacted, right? So on that point, I think, you know, it's the, the, the rationale is that there's economic rationale.[00:51:00]
You can look at it and all of this, but purely in terms of, you know, if you're trying to chart a course for a country's future and economic and, and, and, uh, justice path, like you can't ignore these kinds of ideas. I'm not saying that they have to come in exactly in this way or have to come out tomorrow.
One thing which I just disagree is that you don't necessarily have to have a tax base increase for something like inheritance tax to come in because the whole point of inheritance tax is actually to deal with your small tax base who's got a lot of money. I think just one last point which I'd like to make is, and this sort of ties back to something which Abhinandan you were saying, is that, you know, one of the reasons why people don't like to acknowledge that they've got privileges because, you know, we've, uh, in different countries at different periods of time, you know, you've had this, you sell this dream, right?
Like in India, in the nineties, you sold this middle class dream, which was very much, I mean, uh, was, was, so, and again, it's a middle class, but also conveniently a particular Sort of upper, you know, uh, oppressor class kind of group, which all was living this dream, which [00:52:00] had to send their kids to college, and then you will get your upward mobility, and then you will go forward.
It's a drive. It actually kind of reinforces a lot of your societal pride, your family pride, and some of it is not necessarily, it's not necessarily malicious. And some of it, there were say some families and all where people made a lot of sacrifices for their kids to that. And people don't like to accept that.
I think it's difficult because Maybe we sometimes have to consider how the language around this needs to change. Because a lot of the time we do make people feel genuinely guilty about it. And I'm not saying this is all our fault when we talk about these issues. Some, some of it is just their snowflake attitude to it.
But the point is that, you know, um, It is, I think it's important for people to understand that, look, you just acknowledging that you have privilege doesn't necessarily mean that you are, that your achievements are invalidated. I think that therefore some amount of language and maybe even we can consider on it, but it's, it's, it's such a basic thing, you know, it's something as simple as Jesse just mentioned, right?
That, oh, she, her partner went to NLS and that means that even she and I, who've never spoken before. Have a connection now that because that's what I would, [00:53:00] and again, at the end of the day, it's not as if my parents were filthy rich or anything, but they sent me to a decent school, like a better school than many other kids would have had the option to go to.
And I had like, you know, I used to go for like these classes and things, which used to teach you all the basic things that you needed for the law exam, which I didn't even have to bother doing much for the law exam. And at the point where I got into law school, I was like, Oh my God, I'm just like, I'm so smart.
I've done so well. And then later I just like, I mean, like, did I really work that hard for it?
Abhinandan: You know, like, like you said, no, like you said, I think one very important point to meet, uh, you know, Vakasha was that it's not just being filthy rich, you know, uh, many people like us did not inherit any wealth.
It is just the social access, which is cost based, which comes from, you know, being rich. The cost, it's privileged cost that you, you, uh, it comes from, uh, you know, what you mentioned about, uh, you know, the college you went to, or you are wondering why I did so well. Now, some of the lawyers who've [00:54:00] represented us who are amongst the best, like, you know, justice, uh, Nariman.
Uh, who recently tried, uh, Iran? His name or No, he was Ris, he was Justice Rowan. Uh, it's not Roan, it's uh, Ali.
Vakasha Sachdev: He's Ali's son. So, so, no, what I'm saying is Fali was
Abhinandan: not the justice I'm talking about Justice Roan. I'm not, I'm not saying he wasn't, Haung wasn't good, but. He was Fali's son, Saurabh, who represented us, who's one of the finest lawyers in the city.
And I'm so glad because he won a case for us against, you know, uh, the India Today group. And he represented us against the Indian income tax authorities. His father was chief justice. Dude, it makes a big difference. He's a father. Fantastic lawyer. He's hardworking. He's a good human being. But so many of these judges sitting there are sons of judges, our chief justice of India.
I think he's a wonderful man, but he's the son of a judge. So it makes a huge difference. And I just want to quote one thing. I mean, if you go by the [00:55:00] PIB data. Uh, 20 to 23 India's Gini coefficient was 0. 402. If you go by Statista, which is this website, uh, India's Gini coefficient is, uh, where is it? Uh, is 0.
35. So not that much of a difference. I mean, actually there is quite a bit of difference for zero and three, five, but so these are It shows that it is a deeply unequal country. And there is another article, which shows that there is, you know, in the U S and Japan also, there is this huge divide, but the base in us is much higher than India.
You know, people are not starving today. That is not the kind of poverty you see, you will not see that. Okay. And 1 percent control a significant chunk in India at 0. 1%. I mean, that is how thin the sliver is. And, and yet somehow it becomes a Hindu Muslim issue, Congress BJP issue. Dude, half of you are jumping in, I'm not even affected by it,
Shardool: [00:56:00] like we are.
And the thing is, like, you have mentioned it many times, like one, like Vakasha said, people sort of feel, sometimes the language makes them feel guilty, but sometimes people don't want to acknowledge that they were privileged because they have faced some hardship. Of course, everyone has. I remember
Abhinandan: they, you know, Dude, Mr.
Modi till today is convinced he's the victim here. He's been chief minister for 10 years, 12 years. He's been prime minister for 10 years, 22 years. He has been taken care of like very few human beings in the country are. But till today, when you hear his speeches, it is as if the whole country has been beating him up for the last 10 years.
Dude, victims, human beings. Uh, always victims like RK Narayan story and I've quoted many times said, you say the following two things to any human being, he will be convinced. It's about him. One, you give way more to the world and the world gives you, you are too giving by nature and, and, and two, That you have a very soft interior, very hard exterior.
Everyone likes to believe that about themselves. The coconut [00:57:00] analogy. Everyone believes that about themselves. No matter how big a dick you are, no matter how much privilege and access you have, everyone believes that. You
Jayashree: said that and I felt like you were speaking to me. It
Abhinandan: is true. But yeah, Vakasha, let's give you the last word on this before we move on to the other legal issue that we would like you to clarify for us and our viewers.
Vakasha Sachdev: Yeah, I mean, look, I think it's It's a thing where we, I think part of it is, it's a, it's a sort of a self awareness journey. People have to go in it themselves and there are different triggers, which would make you, I think, fully understand that. I think, you know, without that, no matter how much you try to explain it to them, they just won't get it.
I think, um, you know, the thing is, I think you were, you were referencing some of the articles which are there and you know, you look at those unequals, you look at the things, there's this whole stuff now, which just coming to how we're more unequal now than we were during the British. Yeah. And that comes down to, you know, if you look at the way a lot of our economic growth has happened in the last 20, 30 years, which, and then, you know, there've been doubling down on like all the [00:58:00] problems within that.
And I think basically the big thing is that we know we lose the ability to talk about those issues because. And the need and the, and the, and the better ways to, to, to deal with that problem, because we get so caught up in all these really dumb, uh, arguments around our elections, right? Like, as in this kind of issue and inheritance tax issue, dealing with inequality should have been a primary issue for our attention, but it is not because Well, I mean, I think, you know, the thing is what we've maybe got to try and do is try to make sure that more of this kind of conversation, we're able to get it into accessible language, get it into ways to talk to people, not at this time of the election, not at the time when Petroda makes up.
It has to be done at a time when, you know, uh, where we're, we're, we're at, uh, uh, when, when there is time and space to do it. And I understand, obviously that's a very difficult thing in the Indian context, but I think we just have to figure out the right time to do it in the right way to say it. And [00:59:00] there is a, there is a very sensible set of things to be argued on.
And I think this is one of those
Abhinandan: arguments that will have very, uh, Very good points from both sides. I think even from the other side, there can be someone who say that, let's say I'm not a, you know, a Sinia or a Raja or a, you know, Ash Shabani. I'm a first generation, like a, like a Raj Sheik, what's his name?
D dude, wi Sheik. Shama. So you know, someone like him can say that, dude, I. I'm a first generation wealth creator, or I'm sure there are many others who can say that. I mean, how much wealth do you need, but I mean, I'm sure one can empathize with that position as well. I mean, I think there are very good points that all sides can make, but it is just that that's not a conversation that, like you said, this is not the time for it.
And I think that's, I think that's a very good, maybe we should organize a debate around this with, uh, you know,
Jayashree: Sam Petroda, with other
Abhinandan: people, before we move on to PMLA with the lawyer. No, no, I'm good with [01:00:00] inheritance. So now we're going to talk about PMLA because that has actually gone in the way of a lot of level playing field during this election.
But before I do that, I have yet again to ask all of you to contribute and pay to keep news free because when the public pays, the public is served. Advertisers served. Uh, we, I don't know whether that story has already gone up, but we will be publishing a report that shows how there was a sudden dip in advertising after the model code of conduct came in of Sarkari ads.
So you can see the amount of Sarkari ads that the top newspapers of this country were getting. And that's also your money and it goes without you having to say anything about it. But in case of news laundering and others, we do public interest journalism because we are supported by the public. So if you haven't already contributed to our election fund, please consider doing so.
Uh, and if you haven't subscribed. Please do so if you're earning. If you're not, you can also apply for our, uh, student subscription, which we give for free and we give it for free so that when you start earning, you pay us. Uh, so the links to all this are in the show notes or just go on to newsline. com and you can contribute.[01:01:00]
Now coming to the Prevention of money laundering act, PMLA, which has many netas thrown into prison, uh, including Arvind Kejriwal. And you hear things have gone up, matter reserved, ED says, no, there is no money trail. There's no money trail because a hundred phones have been destroyed. So we cannot give you a money trail.
I mean, in fact, the ED now says that there's no money trail because all the phones have been destroyed. So there's no trail. So therefore. In any other case, the court should say, okay, so since you're saying that everything has been destroyed, you don't have any evidence, then you gotta let him go. Even in murder, yes, you cannot produce an, you know, the, the, uh, what, what the instrument or the weapon, et cetera.
You have to get that to make a strong case. So tell us about this PMLA case and what is this reserved reserving judgment, kota, what is the point of that? What is the rationale behind that? These two, the first questions, I'll have many more, I'm sure for you.
Vakasha Sachdev: Look, I mean, look, reserving judgment is about the fact that, you know, it's, it's.
Very [01:02:00] easy to have some of these arguments and all, but when you really sort of write out the whole judgment, you have to really get your, your research, right? Make sure you've contested, looked at all the contesting claims and you put that together. So I mean, reserving judgment is reserving its orders.
All of that is generally meant to take place where, you know, the court has to really take its time to consider its order, think about it very carefully. Then Tom has to say. I mean, unfortunately we have seen sometimes this reserving order kind of thing happening, even for like any basic things where they don't need to.
I think one of the really big challenges, which is, uh, which I think the courts have thrown on themselves in recent years. And this is something which I've seen, which we, you know, some other people have also like, you know, Gautam Bhatia has also written about this is this whole, you know, there was, we've reached a point where now the courts no longer want to pass like interim orders, uh, you know, at the right time, even when the issues are blindingly obvious or blindingly clear.
You know, and, um, in principle, yes, the court should take its time to come up with its order, write its order, make sure everything is perfectly fine. But, you know, it doesn't just come up like [01:03:00] that, you know, unfortunately because of the way our courts work. And I think, um, I'm going to just ask you if you can just repeat the sort of, uh, thing, uh, I mean, are you talking about which, which order are you talking about here?
Like in terms of PML in general,
Abhinandan: it is one of those. Where people have been, you know, taken into custody. They have been, I think, detained. Like it, it apparently is a completely different kind of law and well,
Vakasha Sachdev: that is something which we do have this concept of special laws, right? See, I mean, generally your criminal law used to be the IPC.
Now we're gonna have that BS, s and all these things. I mean, like in my, I mean the, the BS is very clear in all of those, but like that's where we're, but the point is that, um. You know, you have your criminal law, it's going to set out like some of the basic things, but you do will sometimes maybe in principle, in principle, which said, maybe you need to have some laws, which deal with more specific offenses, like, like the most serious crimes.
And that's what your special laws are supposed to deal with, right? So you've got your, you will, you'll [01:04:00] have an anti terror law. You'll have your, uh, drugs law, which, I mean, there's a whole debate to be had on whether that deserves to be a special law or not. And then you have things like money laundering.
Now, the funny thing, of course, is that our money laundering law is. The reason why the 2002 PMLA was pushed in was in relation to proceeds of crime coming out of drugs. Like there's been decades of like, you know, these UN, um, uh, summits on it and these conventions which have come up and discussions and treaties.
And that's where the PMLA comes from. It's about concerns over money laundering because of drug, you know, and the funny thing is that, you know, it's, it's, it's, Yes, obviously you do want to have something to deal with economic crimes, which deal with other things as well. But it's, it's a very interesting thing to understand that where we've come from there, from being, okay, we have to deal with like this very problematic aspect of the drug trade, which has, which goes beyond just selling the drugs, but also involves people's exploitation and all these hundreds of other things, which is why you [01:05:00] needed a special law to deal with it.
To now come up to anything, like you suddenly got proceeds of crime from it. And before there's any Uh, conviction or anything in the predicate offense, you just like, Oh yeah, yeah, yeah. We definitely have to throw these people in jail for money or not. So I think that's the basic thing is that, look, in principle, you do need to have maybe sometimes some special laws which can have.
Some more serious or like for
Abhinandan: terrorism, like, but the thing is that in India they are applied so randomly. Like for example, the, in case of the news click found a probate, you know, one can say, okay, he's taken this money. He hasn't paid tax. Terrorism. Like. Probably the terrorist, you know, to just go all the way, right?
I mean, that's what we
Vakasha Sachdev: see with the Bhima Koregaon. Okay. So you see, they don't even bother. Like, I mean, we see like now, of course, and now we're seeing these 20, 000 pages like being written and submitted. Now they just write like novels and they're submitting these to the courts to try and come up with something to make it look like that is a serious offense.
Right. But even then, I mean, the, the, the [01:06:00] underlying material, the evidence is, is, is often really, really pathetic. And the problem, this is of course, a bigger problem that, you know, for years we've had our justice system constantly become a voice for the establishment. At the end of the day, terror laws have, this is not the first time that terror laws have been being misused.
You know, you've had your TADA years, you've had your quota years, you know, all of that. And what you've had is that this consistent situation where the judiciary's actions on When it came to those was not questioned enough, you know, I mean, yes, obviously there were people who protested Tata, like to the extent that you obviously see that, you know, the Congress made repeal of quota, uh, part of the manifesto in 2004, right?
Like it is something which has affected a lot of people, but the sort of underlying it. Critique is not just which is needed. There's not just of the law, but also of the courts. And that's been missing for way, way too long. But I think that's also because people
Abhinandan: are very afraid of critiquing the courts because of the whole contempt of court.
You know, we have had three instances where a media [01:07:00] house Did some commentary or investigation or a report on allegations of corruption against, you know, judges. Ever since those three cases, the, the journalist fraternities just petrified of commenting on courts completely. So it has, so courts have completely gone outta the scrutiny.
I think that that is the problem. I think
Vakasha Sachdev: the attempt is one part of it. The other part is the Supreme Court did. Great PR job, right? From the eighties onwards after it's abject failures during emergency, right? Like it did this great number on everyone to the point where, you know, we were accepting that, oh, yeah, they're, they're, they're the guys who will handle everything.
They will make sure things don't go bad. But there's a serious danger in that because then when you don't actually critique things properly, so I'm saying this, it's condemned is definitely part of it. But honestly, if you look at the number of contempt, actual cases, which have resulted in convictions, it's so low that even, I mean, yes, everyone, like I remember when even I joined my newsroom, even when I was studying it, like a book on the [01:08:00] first thing is in guys, we can't, like, you can't have contempt, write a note, like, like to show how you will, what you are doing is not going to get you into contempt of court.
But the problem is that That really, um, you know, that actually is not as big a threat as people tend to think it is because you will have a lot of better arguments if you want to go to court to deal with that. But the problem is that we most, even most journalists, like if you look at legal coverage, still something like bar and bench and live law comes up, right?
And it's like this, It's just, okay. Someone made a, made a headline grabbing quote that would go up. Where was the depth of, you know, the, the, the, the critique of what was happening? There were people who could write this, but, you know, honestly, from the eighties, nineties onwards, we've just lost that because there was not a focus on trying to do that.
So even if someone pointed out maybe one case, the problem with it's again, the one bad Apple, rather than talking about the systemic. issues with the institutional problems. And I think is,
Abhinandan: I think even media has that problem. They think that they cannot be commented upon because if someone critiques the media, they take you to court.
[01:09:00] But, uh, but, but, uh, Jesse, you know, you want to come in on any of this before I go to Shardul and we've crossed an hour.
Jayashree: Yeah. So my, I mean, but, uh, but can correct me if I'm wrong. Is that, so my understanding of this is that, uh, PMLA was brought in because yes, to curb criminals from enjoying the fruits of their crime, whatever, but.
It's also now a sort of like a law which can be invoked against anyone if money is alleged to have changed hands, right? And also Just
Vakasha Sachdev: alleged, like the basic allegation. Exactly.
Jayashree: And so the onus of proving innocence is on the accused person. I think the ED has, uh, what do you call it? Powers of search, seizure, arrest, um, you can arrest even in the absence of an FIR.
You don't need a warrant from a court. The offenses are automatically non bailable. Since there's no charge sheet filed, the court will then base its bail decisions on what the ED is telling it. And I mean, the ED will obviously tell them, well, you should not give them bail. So also I want to ask you about the ambit of, so the specific ambit of crimes that come under the [01:10:00] PMLA and it's considering that it is so vast after the amendments.
And I think we keep going on about draconian laws, but you know, every draconian law is a tool for a government. The draconian law is not bad only in and of itself. It's A law is draconian when you place an accused at an unfair disadvantage, and that's the case with, I think, many laws in India, especially the UIPA, the PMLA is another one.
But these exist ostensibly because we are expected to tackle these really legitimate issues, but they are tools for unscrupulous governments. So, I mean, the, I think just that the present government has sort of mastered the art of how it's wielding it. And I also don't think we should forget those. Two Dalit farmers who were booked under the PMLA, um, in Tamil Nadu, that became this entire scandal.
I can't remember when, uh, was it last year? There were two Dalit farmers who were booked because they were apparently trying to get their land away from some BJP chap who'd taken over it in Salem. And so they booked him under the PM, they booked the two farmers under the PMLA. They had only 450 rupees in their bank account.
[01:11:00] The ED then said, Oh, sorry, it was a mistake we did by mistake. So, but I'm just saying that this is the amount of power that people have. If the story hadn't become some sort of national headline where everyone was criticizing it, the case would probably still exist. So,
Vakasha Sachdev: I mean, the thing is, you know, we've the expansion, the problem is the underlying basis on which we're looking at fences is so wide, right?
Because basically the concept should have been that, okay, look, people commit a crime, they get money out of it. They've been found to have committed money to have done this. A money trail truly exists. They've been either convicted or there's been some proper process to really say that, yes, this money and this person has used that money.
But what we now got is this thing where I say, okay, the moment the predicate offense is just registered before there's even enough material to show anything. About what's going on with that actual underlying offense.
Abhinandan: We're
Vakasha Sachdev: now like, you know, let's go for the season. And the problem is when you look at the schedule of what all this includes, like if this was a tightly, like the way to do this would have been to say, okay, let's make a very tight [01:12:00] schedule.
It'll only cover like very serious offenses, maybe like. Since the origins were under like, you know, drug crime stuff, like make it under NDPS app, some very, very specific offenses under that. It's not, you know, you've got something like 420, like cheating and dishonestly inducing delivered property also is technically a schedule offense.
So any case which comes up, you could say, it just depends on the mood.
Abhinandan: It depends on more the ED. If, if any financial impropriety can be seen as PMLA,
Vakasha Sachdev: that's the danger, right? When you give discretion to this extent, That's, and you know, this is the, this is exactly where, you know, legislatively, whether it's, it's it's our legislators and this is other parties as well.
The Congress could have tried to fix these issues with the PMLA when they came to parties past in 2002. Sure. That was time you came to pa, you were 10 years to fix this. No, you didn't and you were happily looking. You, I'm sure we're looking to use issue. Yeah. That is a number of cases, has drastically exponential increased, but they didn't do anything about it then.
We as civil society didn't talk about these issues. We were all, you know, again, and this is the part of, [01:13:00] we are in our little cocoon where we, you know, a lot of people thought, okay, very good money laundering, economic offense should deal with it. Nobody went into the nitty gritties, looked at the fact that the discretion was so wide.
And then. And every time the courts have had a chance to look at it, they've not done a good job, and we've not critiqued the court's judgment on it either. And so you then end up with getting this judgment by Justice Convilker, which, you know, I mean, we all, like anyone who knew what Justice Convilker has been doing for the last few years would know that this is what he's going to do.
And that's why you get a, uh, of Vijay Madanlal Chaudhary judge, which Goes to the extent of saying, yes, yes. You know, when, when, even though the term, uh, he was in the law there says, and construed as all just, just do it because we've had this, they've had this impunity to do this kind of terrible rulemaking interpretation all this time.
And, you know, so it's the big problem is, you know, and it's only getting worse is that our level of scrutiny of legislation as it's coming through is itself terrible, right? I think the last
Abhinandan: time, I think the last time there was a. [01:14:00] Um, serious pushback against, uh, legislation, which then was struck down was 66 a yes.
After that, there hasn't been such a successful campaign, a civil society campaign where
Shardool: you can consider farmer laws in it when farmers went on road, but that was a different kind of,
Abhinandan: that was a different kind of bill, right? There was a bill that was to be passed, but it was like, the
Vakasha Sachdev: problem is we shouldn't be in a position where our parliament is taking action.
Passing laws with such gaping flaws. Obviously, there are going to be agendas behind laws and all of that. But if you look at the consultative process, which takes place in other countries, which have a proper functioning parliament or a Senate or whatever you want to call it, you know, there is months of consultations, months of review, all of that kind of stuff, and there's a full engagement from civil society on that as well.
And Then at the end of that you have changes, some things will still go bad and you maybe will need to go to the courts over it, but it would reduce the number of things. Like something as stupid as this, like not having an and versus an or, or like, you know, having an over, these are [01:15:00] things which we meet or like, if you look at the wording in 66, same, same thing.
Abhinandan: Yeah, exactly. They've used words like annoyance. In fact, similar wording has been used in the new broadcast bill, but God save us from that. But, uh, anyway, so thank you so much, uh, for coming, uh, Vakasha. Uh, we will, before we get into the emails and we'll discuss, uh, the election coverage. Uh, can we get a recommendation from you before we thank you and say goodbye that would enrich the lives of our listeners and viewers?
Vakasha Sachdev: So it's an old book. It's not a new one. It's just that I recently did a reread of this and I, uh, and I, as it, as I was, because I read it when I was older, I had a lot more appreciation for it is the Dune series. Um, I mean, a lot of things which are, it's not a perfect series. There's a lot of things which are written in the 60s by a white dude with a lot of like stuff about Middle Eastern ish kind of cultures.
So, well, you can imagine it's not perfect, but what's really fascinating about it is he actually kind of rates it with a lot of respect for those cultures. And he's actually [01:16:00] envisioned a future. Like thousands of years future ahead, where, you know, Islamic language is filled is an absolutely common part of the, like the day to day and things, you know, so very, very actually quite broad minded person, but what's very fascinating as you go through his books.
Um, and I think this is something which our readers and others really need to appreciate is that he The, you know, it's a very clear headed understanding of a bunch of things from the influences religion can have on politics to the need to be able to get out to break out of a lot of these patterns, which we like to get into as societies, uh, the need for even whether it's a liberal or a conservative group to be aware of the fact that, you know, you can't Stay hidebound to your old rules.
You have to be willing to look at progression and change. And that's the only way society progresses. And I think that's something it's a, it's a, it's a very basic message, but I think, you know, there's so many people in our country who just haven't got that. I think it would be good for them to do it.
And one of the most fascinating things is he has this whole debate on democracy at one point and the whole, and the, the, some. [01:17:00] Ending of it is that the only thing which keeps a democracy alive is mistrust of your elected representatives. Never trust them, no matter how charismatic they are, no matter how well meaning they are, no matter how great they are, they could see the future, it doesn't matter.
If you don't have a healthy mistrust of your elected representatives, you know, it is always going to be a problem. That's the trap we're stuck in now, that's a trap which I don't know how we'll ever get out of, but You know, I mean, I wish more people understood that. So
Abhinandan: that's a good message. So since, since you are into the Dune series, I did not know it was based on a book.
Actually, I went and saw one film because the kids in our family wanted to go watch it. And I haven't had such a headache for a long time. So they said, Mamu, can we go watch Dune 2? I said, only you can drag my dead body there. There's no way I'm watching it. So I just, because it's just too long a film, and I guess I'm just not into films anymore.
But one thing I was a little fascinated by isn't such a. A completely starched [01:18:00] cause I'm sure there's some detailing. I'm not asking this with, you know, trying to be overly critical or trying to be too funny, but because I know, you know, books like, uh, uh, which is the other one, the Tolkien one, um, Lord of the Rings.
There used to be the Lord of the Rings geeks when we were in school, we used to walk in and say, Apparently, you know, he's actually in front
Shardool: of you,
Abhinandan: one is sitting right here. So, you know, they would, I mean, he's actually invented.
Again,
Vakasha Sachdev: look
Abhinandan: another
Vakasha Sachdev: privilege connection.
Abhinandan: I've never picked it up. And the moment I saw someone carrying it, I changed direction. So, you know, but the detailing in those books, you know, they invented a language, a script, et cetera, et cetera, the stuff they do. So I thought that in Dune also, if it's a book with such detailing, haven't gone into it.
Those big sandworms, which are hundreds of feet long, what do they live off? Everything. What are they eating? Everything. There is nothing? There's only sand? Anything. Whatever's in the desert, they
Vakasha Sachdev: just like go for it. Like, it's like No, but what? They don't show anything
Abhinandan: else in the desert. [01:19:00] No, they eat
Shardool: their machinery,
Abhinandan: everything, dead bodies.
A lot, but to sustain that speed at that scale and that mass, I'm sure that, you know, even interstellar, the fundamental science behind it was sound, even if it was exaggerated. What is that worm eating? . I am not a Dune fan. One . But you can't,
Shardool: so, and the thing, have they explained, is it
Abhinandan: explained in the book?
Yes. Whether the film, yes.
Shardool: Okay. So the other thing is the universe with the rules they have created, according to those rules, those worms can sustain themselves, not on the rules of our actual like carbon based beings. Well,
Vakasha Sachdev: I would say, yeah, because the thing is, that's actually one of the things, because the whole idea is that it's not based on earth, right?
It's a, so there are potentially other chemistries, like, so for instance, one of the things which they talk about is as a whole thing of how these, they're ingesting a whole bunch of other kinds of materials. But the other thing also is in the books, one of the ways in which they deal with this is that, you know, June is mostly desert, but there is also Yeah.
There's a [01:20:00] strong, pretty thriving ecology that comes from like, uh, Herbert was actually very interested in the whole idea of like, uh, you know, transforming dry lands and like that kind of ecology and stuff. So he, uh, I mean, it's, it's obviously doesn't all match up and there's a lot of physicists who loves to be like, how does the worm go through the sand forward with three segments that there's a lot of issues with it.
Partly you have to just be like, you know what, I'm not going to think about this. No, of course. I know. I, I love
Abhinandan: like, I love Pathan. So I'm not going to like, quibble about the, I'm not going to quibble about the believability of things. Yeah.
Vakasha Sachdev: I mean, the main thing is that, yeah, I basically, I think, you know, it's, is that they had that chemistry, that sort of biological chemistry is different.
They're not, they're not a carbon based life form from earth. They're, An alien creature which ingests even and gets certain things it needs from just like even sand and like rocks. So
Shardool: I can tell you something which will blow your head off. The question will change. So the protagonist of this series, his son would sort of join with [01:21:00] one, one worm larva and reign for three and a half thousand years in Dune series.
The protagonist. You see like Timothy Shamin. What? Who He's playing that Lisa, he
Audio insert: lack, he,
Shardool: he's the main guy. His son is the main, he's the main guy. Main guy who will ru merge with a larva of one of these worms and then rule for three and half thousand. It is just, and he by earth rules
Jayashree: looks unwell. ,
Shardool: this is where they lost.
Me also, like I stopped reading it at that point, but, but,
Vakasha Sachdev: but listen, honestly, go back and read it. Now you'll really, you will appreciate it. Like, even though it's still weird, but like everything was the worm emperor guy does is actually really fascinating. And you really like, you look at like, especially our society today.
And you're like, yeah, everything that she wants to fix. You're like, yeah, that's exactly why. We need a woman. I'm really
Abhinandan: looking forward to a Salman Rushdie's new book. So as soon as I have my
Jayashree: recommendation for, Oh, is
Abhinandan: it good? Then I'll pick it up. So clearly it's good. So, but thank you so much.
Jayashree: So you guys can talk about worms.[01:22:00]
No, no. My problem
Shardool: is I read everything under the sun. So I found wheel of time. So Dune is illogical compared,
Abhinandan: but thanks so much for coming. We'll appreciate your next time. Hopefully when you're feeling better, do join us in the studio. Absolutely. All right,
Vakasha Sachdev: see you guys soon for the coverage of the elections.
Thank you so
Abhinandan: much. Uh, so I had a couple of things. Yes, please. PMLA and about election, because before we get into the emails, there's a lot of election action happening. New Zealand has been doing so many stories. So. I'm sure, uh, Chardul and Jayshree may have something to add to that, but yeah, go ahead.
Shardool: There's a lot of trivia about tomorrow's voting. So, um, so what's PMLA? So he mentioned the case, which I was about to mention that Vijay Mandal Chaudhary versus Union of Union of India, in essence, like TLDR is that judgment says, even if you did not know the, you were not aware of the crime from where these ill proceeds of money were taken.
If you use that money, You can be accused under PMLA. So you need [01:23:00] not be associated with the crime which earned that money. My God. How about that? And in fact, what I remember, I did not check it again. But last year, I think somewhere in November, the Supreme Court had sort of said that we are ready to review this judgment to a higher bench and all.
But what happened after that, I don't remember. I'm sure people would be able to tell us. So this is one problem. And one problem related to the, like, Arvind Kejriwal discussion we were having on Charcha three weeks ago. So I made this point, like, even Bapu used to say it, say it, and many other people in public life have said it in many times.
There are two types of things, like your personal character and your social character, public character. And just because you are sort of unimpeachable and incorruptible or have not been corrupt in personal life doesn't mean everything is kosher in your public life.
Audio insert: That
Shardool: now applies in today's public life.
Like Modi ji personally is not corrupt, but that does not mean he's [01:24:00] not parted to what's happening every day. And like, I know myself, same thing with Manmohan Singh. Yes, like I personally don't like corrupt people at all. I am very furious, sort of zealous, zealot about it. But, If you say any small party who has to indulge in some sort of small time corruption to get funds, you cannot just look at it in a black and white manner because this is how politics runs.
They have no avenue to gain funds these days. So there is a nuance to this. In fact, uh,
Abhinandan: uh, former election commissioner Qureshi, when he had come, he had said, he suggested that the party will continue to fund elections by making money from it. And everyone has been doing it for every party, every single party, but Big or small.
I mean, it's not like, I mean, the entire electoral bonds is one of the biggest scandals in the, you know, it's not a hyperbole to say that, but, uh, he, he had suggested that based on how many seats you get, there should be a central allocation of funds given.
Shardool: And [01:25:00] besides that, what I'm doing, I'm trying to say something else different, no matter where the money comes from, if the top, the incorruptible top leader, which is Modi Zee these days, like, I'm saying it as a pun.
People don't think I'm respective so much, sir. I don't. So if he has squeezed the top and the source of fund for every other political outfit besides himself, people will find money because
Abhinandan: they have to contest election.
Shardool: Forget about election. It's a power play. Everybody is vibing for it. Everybody is trying to get to it at some power we gain.
So we We do whatever we want, but that's a different thing. That's administration, like winning elections and governing are two different skill sets. Modiji is very good in one and no good in the other. Correct.
Jayashree: I don't know. I mean, I think at the end of the day, Modi is, see, I think when you talk about who is Modi, the point is that we know who he is because of 2002, right?
It's, he was like an RSS guy who was shoved into this role to fill in a gap. And since [01:26:00] then he's had like these ambitions where he talks about corruption, black money. He talks about being the sort of global figure abroad. He clearly wants to sort of surpass what Nehru used to be. But I mean, at the end of the day, I think his fan base, his voter base.
What they buy into is his consistent messaging and his consistent messaging is stuff that we saw in Rajasthan this week. It's what we also saw in Surat. It's from the fact that the BJP is at the end of the day, a relentless sort of election winning machine. And I do think I want to talk with Surat only because see it's, Surat is a pocket bro, right?
Uh, it's almost a guaranteed seat for the BJP. At least it has been so far.
Audio insert: So far. And
Jayashree: the circumstances surrounding it are hilarious. I mean, one candidate said he dropped out because he was depressed. Another candidate said. His key election issue was traffic, and since the BJP said they would sort traffic, he dropped out.
Another candidate dropped out because he said his mother's, his mother had a fall. So the election commission wrote to the BJP only today, and they only alleged that a star campaigner had made certain comments in Rajasthan. They didn't send it [01:27:00] to Modi, they sent it through, through Nadda. So I'm saying that even if this entire process is This electoral process in India, we love to pretend, you know, that it's one of the biggest elections in the world, it has unimpeachable integrity, but I feel like the election is already so compromised.
And, um, as much as you debate on it, and people will say, well, you know, the BJP is doing all these things because they're scared, but I'm not really buying that sort of optimism about it at all.
Shardool: So,
Jayashree: anyway.
Shardool: Don't measure this integrity just by because they don't take bribes. Of course, that is integrity. No, I mean, but there are different types of integrity.
Jayashree: Yeah, I see. If the mechanics of an election exist, and then that means we have a free and fair election, that means this is a free and fair election. But I feel like we should decouple those concepts in our mind. A free and fair election doesn't just mean that a process or mechanics of it is followed.
It's what is a free and fair election. It's about violations of the model code of conduct. It's about who has money and how much, which party has the most money. It's about having Also, there are several countries
Abhinandan: where networks are [01:28:00] mandated that if you're giving X amount of coverage to one party, you have to give X amount to the other party.
And there was a time where Doordarshan also used to have those mandates. If you're doing three stories on this, no matter who was in power, even compromised as it was, they had to be equal time to each party. But now, of course, that doesn't happen. So it's gone into a different zone completely. I think, I think the very important thing and that is I'm hoping the Supreme Court case will bring it back, whether it's through the VVPAT.
People have to start trusting the election. And for that, you cannot expect people that you have to change your view. You have to show that our systems are so robust that no matter how hard someone tries, they cannot mess with the fair, fairness of an election. And that, according to me, No institution is actually going out of the way to try to do, institutions that matter.
And that is their prerogative. They have to say, look, this is so robust that they can be, you know, nothing can go wrong. But anyway, uh, we shall move on to the emails. We have several, we have about seven left over from last week. So [01:29:00] we'll cover those as well. And there are some questions to the panel in those emails.
So I'm hoping we can answer those. Uh, so let's go with last week's mails first, will you please do the honors?
Jayashree: Yeah. So, and if you
Abhinandan: want to write to us, we only entertain the emails of subscribers, so you can write to us at podcasts at newslondon. com, I repeat, podcasts at newslondon. com. Please keep your email below 150 words so we can include many.
Because as you've seen last week, there were so many we've got spilled over this week to this week. So you're going to be spilled over next week, uh, or better still just click on the link below. It will open out this box and you can fill in your comment, your critique, your criticism or your questions. Uh, but we only entertain subscribers, so you have to be a subscriber.
Jai Shree, please.
Jayashree: Yes, so the first letter is from Sharath, who says, Hi NL team, I want NL to ask this question and at the election show. Is blocking of non Basmati rice from India? Okay, he wants to ask questions on the blocking of non Basmati rice from India. This is a poll issue for Telangana, and [01:30:00] Bengal farmers.
I feel this should be one of the major issues as it impacts farmers and opposition in not using it and also the excise on oil import. Both were implemented during COVID. This is also a data point as to why only non Basmati rice is blocked as the PM is scared of Punjab farmers. Special kudos to Manisha and the nuisance team.
I did not know about the blocking of non Basmati rice. Even I didn't
Abhinandan: actually, but well, thank you, Sarath. You have informed us and many of our listeners as well.
Shardool: But one thing I do know is India produces extraordinary amount of unnecessary rice and that's a water intensive crop, so we should reduce it.
Jayashree: Next letter from Dhruv, who says in one of his recent interviews, Prashant Kishore mentioned he does not envision AAP to become a poll position party, as the party does not have a core ideology, unlike other national parties. Do you agree or disagree? And why?
Abhinandan: I don't know. I'll have to think about it. I mean, I get what he's saying, that every party has to have a, at least so far, had to have this core base, which was in case [01:31:00] of Shiv Sena was the Marathi Manu, set it It.
That was before Hindu Al. So it was the Maha that that regionalism, you know, the Davidian parties. It is that Ian identity with the Mar, the Marist also
Jayashree: had their ideolog. Yeah. Again,
Abhinandan: the Congress doesn't really have core ideology. What is the Congress's core ideology? So I think actually, I think in the near future, all parties are gonna be driven by superstars.
Uh, I, I don't see, I mean, I don't know what that will change to. Mm. But at least in the reality show age of. It's digital media where it's everyone's reality show. There is Elvish Yadav and you know, even Dhruv for example, I think Dhruv Rathee is doing phenomenal work. I saw his last two, three videos. I mean, they're, I, I'm pretty certain if you see the last four months, his eyeballs will be more than many.
broadcasters, including their channels put together that I think it's going to be driven by superstars. So whether it is a Trump, whether it is a [01:32:00] Modi, whether it is a Kejriwal. So in that sense, I, I think it has a pan India presence.
Jayashree: People in general are also moving away from core ideology. They're attracted to personality.
Aditya says, dear team, I'm responding as a long time subscriber and admirer of the work you do, but a first time writer. I generally love Hafta. The chat is peppered with Abhinandan's uncle dom, which I see in myself as I age. Oh no, Aditya.
Abhinandan: Yes. No! But last
Jayashree: night Be very careful, Aditya. But last night, I was doing a thorough read of your reporting after a long, long time.
Because there's no time otherwise. The stories stayed with me and were absolutely brilliant investigative pieces. Beyond the headlines, the story on Dharavi, PMJY, the BBC and ANI. It's a rare combination of your core mission with stories that are rarely picked up in depth, especially the story on Dharavi's redevelopment.
Continue. Thank you. Thank you
Abhinandan: so much. Thank you. A from KU uncle. Uh, but, uh, tan is, [01:33:00] is the cringe is real, but the cringe is real. Yeah. Yeah. That's what these Zoomers and these GenXers tell me. But, uh, the HA was done by Pratik, if I'm not wrong. Right.
Jayashree: The was by dea. I think it was a freelance, a freelancers story.
It was a very good report.
Abhinandan: Yeah. Yes. But yeah, thank you so much. You'll see a lot of. Good reporting coming down in the elections also from the Northeast. Hopefully, Karma is going to be doing a bunch of things with us.
Jayashree: Next letter is anonymous. First, he said he wanted to write last week but was driving and then forgot.
I was 10 or 11 years old in 2004. The Congress had just won the election. Up until very recently, I remembered Sonia Gandhi not becoming Indian PM in 2004 because some political men being insecure and questioning her Italian heritage and calling her gory ma'am. That was my reality and I've always been bamboozled by the pettiness of so called leaders.
I assume my take was wrong. And if I was, I was extremely harsh on such politicians. Can you shed some light on your understanding of this as journalists? In fact, if, in fact, I [01:34:00] am correct in my recollection, surely it takes a heck of courage to go back and still be a politician when you've been ripped apart just for being you.
Part of me really wants to be wrong about my recollection. Uh,
Abhinandan: so on the first, the second
Jayashree: email says the talk on national leaders overpowering local MLA MPs during an election and centralizing power led me to think if there should be an election commission guideline that prevents parties from naming a PM or CM candidate.
If there isn't a named person, then votes can't be asked for a leader, but only on ideas and issues. Because there's no single face, ideas have to be clearly presented, and then you'll see weak leaders putting their own foot in their mouths quite often. The public will have to choose to go with them or not.
People do tend to justify their local candidates shitty politics by falling back on I voted for Modi or something on that sort. How possible is this from the EC? Thanks for filling my weekends with stuff. Give my regards to Atul and to Manisha. Thank God for nuisance.
Abhinandan: Uh, so thank you so much on your first question.
Uh, I mean, I'll just tell you what we know for sure and what at least I know from people who, uh, [01:35:00] Close to, you know, the party and who are covering it in 2004. Uh, first of all, the UPA did not expect to win that mandate that it did. And when it won that mandate, they weren't ready at all with who's gonna be PM, who's gonna be what.
So initially, apparently, Sonia Gandhi had agreed to become prime minister. And of course, the whole thing was that pushback that because she's Italian, that thing will be there. And Sushma Swaraj had made that major, uh, promise that if she becomes prime minister, I'll shave my head. I'll eat only chana and I'll sleep on the ground for the next one year or something like that.
People had, it wasn't just men. Everyone had overreacted to that, but at least from, uh, there was a very emotional scene in the parliament at night. And all of UPA came there, Renuka Chaudhary, who was next level melodrama, you think I'm cringe?
Shardool: Renuka
Abhinandan: Chaudhary
Shardool: is cringe top, cringe cream.
Abhinandan: She got up and started crying and oh my God, Sonia ji, you have to, so [01:36:00] Sonia Gandhi, apparently, I mean, I don't know what the final, what the actual reason was.
Maybe she'll write in her autobiography at some point. She had, in spite of all that, had agreed to become, but her children said no. They will not let you live and because they had lost one parent and one grandparent, uh, as prime minister already to terrorism, uh, the children, her children said that, uh, no way you're becoming prime minister because they were just afraid of losing their mother.
That's what I've been told. That is what actually swung it with her saying, okay, I won't.
Jayashree: And Rajiv to get into politics, right? She was highly resistant. He wanted a quiet life, but then. He said, mommy needs me. So he got into politics himself. She also wanted to stay away, but then she sort of had to go into it.
I do think it was a smart choice to not make her prime minister.
Shardool: There is another angle to this. So one, we all know anecdotes, even some Congress supporters, like, like Sharath Pawar is the most famous one. [01:37:00] He also left, he also objected to it. And there is a historical context to it now. And like, we can say that we don't think it's right, or it's quite bigoted.
But that is also passing a judgment like within a hundred years of such a long enslavement colonization. People do feel that someone who's born in your country should be one.
Abhinandan: I completely, in fact, I think, uh, if you were to ask me what my personal view is, I mean, I was just asked the question of what happened.
And if you ask my personal view, uh, I think, um, it need not be a law, but, uh, It would be good politics and for very good reason. I think if you are especially European born,
Shardool: yeah,
Abhinandan: or, you know, of white origin, um, or any India is, you know, ethnically we are diverse enough. I think if you're not ethnically Indian, uh, you should not be prime minister of India.
I mean, I believe that, but whether it's right, wrong, that's a different issue. We can go into it. But the reason she [01:38:00] turned it down, apparently what I know was what I said,
Shardool: because he wanted our view on the sort of. Point of view also, where should she have become a PM or not? Like, if you look at US still, if you're not a by birth a US citizen, you cannot be a president.
You may be a senator or congressman or a governor.
Abhinandan: I think had Ani been born in America, he'd be president of the United States. It's a fact, dude. I mean, the guy would, he had, he has the, you know, base, he has popularity across Democrats and Republicans. He's the only Republican who can really give it to Trump in the face.
If he was born in America, he's the only one who I think from the Republican party who could have completely destroyed Trump.
Shardool: So like, that's the thing. And Anonymous other point was like, can EC pass a rule that there should be no PM CM candidate? Like this is, I think you are trying to sort of suppress human tendencies.
Abhinandan: But why? I mean, but also what is the point? Yeah, exactly. And it's not even fair. [01:39:00]
Shardool: Some people are always more charismatic and they will shine.
Jayashree: That's good enough. This next letter is from Chetan who says, Hi NL team, shout out to you guys for the electoral bonds articles and coverage. I'm a Newslaundry subscriber planning to upgrade your joint subscription once my current one ends.
I want to know if News Minute will follow your model of not monetizing their YouTube videos. It would be great if they could. In fact, I think it's already happened.
Abhinandan: They already demonetized, uh, Chetan. We'll just, I'll confirm with Dhanya and Vignesh. But from what I recall, their, their YouTube has been demonetized.
Jayashree: Also, first of all, can you team, let me know where Manisha is holding another election show in Bangalore. I'd love to meet her and give her some surprise goodies. I personally love, I thoroughly love Pakka Politics and What's Your Ism. My small suggestion is, can News Minute also have a weekly podcast on the lines of Hafta and Charcha?
Maybe in Tamil and Kannada and Telugu. And you guys can alternate panelists from both these teams that will help you diversify efforts of both organizations. I know it's a great ask considering the financial constraints, but I believe in our NL and TNM family that [01:40:00] they can pull off this most difficult one.
And you guys are known for that. Imagine I'm only a subscriber for one year. And this could probably get you more people to subscribe to your platform.
Abhinandan: So, Chetan, thank you so much for your support. Much appreciated. In fact, your idea of having a weekly hafta type show on News Minute has been on our to do list for almost six months now.
And immediately after this election, you will see that that will be happening.
Jayashree: But having it in regional languages It's tough, no? I mean. Yeah. Then it's just. You can't share panelists. You really can't do.
Abhinandan: It'll probably be in English, but it'll be South only. It's like a Hafta, but hosted, um, there in Bangalore.
Jayashree: Next email is from NK says, Dear NL team, I hope this email finds you in the midst of brewing another cup of coffee to fuel your fearless journalism and perhaps a giggle or two at the absurdities of the world. What a fun opening sentence. So I recently stumbled upon a report titled Economic Inequality in India.
The billionaire Raj is now more unequal than British colonial Raj. I [01:41:00] must say, let me pondering some rather comical questions. First, does the billionaire Raj come with a membership card, perhaps a secret handshake? I'm asking for a friend who's still waiting for their invite. Secondly, in a country with such vast economic disparities, do you think the top 1 percent hold annual meetings where they discuss how to spend their fortunes, like debating whether to buy another yacht or just stick with upgrading their private islands?
And speaking of upgrades, do you reckon the Indian Income Tax Department offers loyalty rewards for top earners, like a gold plate calculator or a personal accountant on Retainer? Lastly, if we're going to have a super tax on wealthiest families, can we at least have a superhero themed unveiling ceremony?
I can already imagine the headlines. Batman, Billionaires, beware, India's wealthiest face the ultimate tax showdown. Anyway, I digress. Keep up your fantastic work in shedding light on crucial issues with trademark wit and insight. And if you ever need a resident jester to inject some humor into serious business of news, you know where to find me.
Nice, NK, thank you so fun email. That was a
Abhinandan: fun email. Enjoyable. Also, we
Jayashree: discussed exactly this on Hafta this
Abhinandan: week.
Jayashree: [01:42:00] So Shivam writes, Hi Abhi, I'd like to do, I would like to recommend you do a deep dive into the various party manifestos, unlike news channels, nitpicking the group, the goods of the ruling party and the worst of the rest.
Specifically, if you could address it in the podcast, what do you think of the CPIM's point of getting rid of nuclear power? Okay. One, is it necessary? Two, is it politically benefiting them? I
Abhinandan: mean, I don't know. Do you either have a firm position on this? I have a firm position.
Shardool: Trust the communists to come up with the worst
Jayashree: ideas. No, I mean, the CPI manifesto went on about nuclear power in the context of taking land away from Kudankulam and all that. And they said police action against people who have lived there for a long time. So I know that was one big Aspect of their pushback against nuclear energy.
But
Shardool: nuclear energy is one of the best ways to generate energy. It's environment friendly, but you have to have those safety measures and everything related to the reactor [01:43:00] without any glitch or, you know, any sort of issues. Ignorance of rules like that the rules and everything has to be taken care of in a almost a perfect manner as good as
Abhinandan: possible.
Yeah, but even if it is what happened in Japan can happen. So yes, I'm not as optimistic. I mean, I get that it is not polluting in the conventional sense of carbon based fuels, but I am not. As optimistic because many countries in Europe are actually stepping away from nuclear energy after, you know, advocating it so aggressively in the, in the last two decades.
But so, Shivam, I don't have a very firm position. I know that there's some very good arguments in favor of it. But I think there are also very good arguments against it. But specifically to your answer, is it necessary? I think it is like the inheritance tax and on issue because when I, if I remember correctly, and I will also give you my theory and why they put in their, uh, in their manifesto is when Manmohan Singh risked his government on the nuclear deal.
He just, it was, I don't know [01:44:00] if you know, Shivam, how old you were then, but I remember I was working out at the gym and it was, and I've said it before, I just sat on the bench and I just kept watching TV and the whole gym was getting so pissed off because people in gym wanted MTV or Channel V or something.
I had turned on the news and everyone, I was like, dude, we are watching this. You do your fucking whatever you're doing in this. And I didn't do any exercise. I just sat in front because the parliament session went late into the night. Yes. And, um, what I was amazed at, and that is when I figured that Manmohan Singh must really love America.
And, you know, I, that's when I kind of veered into the conspiracy theory zone of Arundhati that there is some Washington consensus that is bullying because I was like, there are a hundred things to bet your. You know, it was never a very smooth alliance with the left 72 seats. So there were many friction points, but he always used to back off man Mohan.
The one thing that he's risking his. politics for his entire [01:45:00] government for is a nuclear deal, which at that time had said it will take care of 6. 2 percent of our energy needs, which is not very much. And actually eight years after that, it did not even touch 5%. So that's a separate matter. But, uh, later what I was made to understand is that it brought us into the nuclear club, like we, the whole, that was a big coup.
And I think why? They have it on the manifesto is because I remember Mr. Prakash Karat was so pissed off because they were sure that this guy is not going to risk his government. Yeah. He's not going to let his government fall. And they thought it would fall. Amar Singh saved it. So because of that bad ass, they said, beta, you made us irrelevant because it, and that was, that was a high point of the left.
After that, they've never been able to achieve that high point. They had 72 seats together. So because of that, they said we, we can't undo that, but we can undo all the nuclear thing that you had.
Shardool: That is my theory. The thing is, like I say, trust communists to come up with the worst ideas because I remember last, last year in December, [01:46:00] they were complaining about so many things, which the government were doing and Congress were doing and the official CPIM or CPI Mao, like some handle had tweeted a big thread on Mao Zedong's birth anniversary and now they celebrated it.
I don't know.
Jayashree: But also, I just googled it and I think the controversy is that, sir, the reason controversy seems to be that the CPIM in its manifesto said they want to dismantle India's nuclear weapons for interests of safety, which I am, fine, last week's letters, we have a long way to go. No, this week's letters.
We are, this is from Amitabh, who says, hi, Newslaundry Avinandan, keep up the great work as ever, but couple of points. Number one, you do not praise the PM schemes enough. In particular, the most successful of all, the Pradhan Mantri Lockup Act, also known as PMLA, keeping the opposition arrested since Amrit Kaal.
Number two, what do you think is the present state of cinema and reflecting present day social issues? Do they also live in fantasy worlds [01:47:00] that news channels live in? In particular, I want to ask about events such as demonetization. The only movie I'm aware on, on this topic is the lovely Punjabi movie called, uh, Golak Bhoogni Bankte
Abhinandan: Batoya.
Bankte Batoya. Please translate.
Jayashree: Bankte Batoya.
Abhinandan: Bankte Batua. Golak Bhoogni Bankte Batua. Golak is, you know, that claypot That, that is good luck. Yeah. BNI is probably also a, a, a little, some sort of, I dunno, must be some sort of bank is bank the bot.
Jayashree: This is in the great ation of Punjabi humor and sati in the footsteps of the great Jaal bti who got national fame for flop.
For flop show on Ian. Both this movie and shoa free on YouTube. GBBB traces the story of loving couples in communities caught in both demo monetizations. India has seen chance to reflective cinema can be brave while funny.
Abhinandan: Oh, interesting. I wasn't aware of it. I'll try to catch this Amitabh. Thank you.
Jayashree: The next email is from Yeats Fan.
Last week's discussions reminded me of the first stanza of The Second Coming by [01:48:00] W. B. Yeats. Here it goes. Turning and turning in the widening gyre, the falcon cannot shear the falconer. Things fall apart, the center cannot hold. Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world. The blood dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere the ceremony of innocence is drowned.
The best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity. Lament not, this too shall pass. But maybe not in our lifetime. That was quite upsetting.
Abhinandan: Only thing is that I think it'll pass in our lifetime. Yes. You underestimate the power of those who do resist and there are many in this country.
Shardool: Time! Modiji is 73. I am just 40. Don't worry about it.
Jayashree: The next mail is from Anonymous. for featuring Mr. Deshpande on Hafta, his detailed explanation of the EBM's design was enlightening, covering both technical and political science perspectives. His emphasis on the critical role of trust was particularly noteworthy.
The revelation about the lack of technical expertise within the EC was alarming. Anand's argument about digital payments and trust was [01:49:00] incomplete. While he hinted at the complexity of processes behind digital payments, he failed to recognize that trust in digital payments stems from the ability to verify the process, a feature that is lacking in EVMs.
Therefore, his comparison missed the mark. Keep up the good work.
Abhinandan: Hmm. Yeah, I guess. True.
Jayashree: Next is Vivek, a very short email who says, I believe the BJP manifesto was low on divisive topics as the first phase included Tamil Nadu and a few Northeast states where communal agenda would not have worked. But starting phase two, Modi has already made the pivot as can be seen here.
Shardool: Yeah.
Jayashree: He has put the link from the The
Shardool: speech
Jayashree: in Rajasthan,
Shardool: the Banswala speech,
Jayashree: yes. On what basis is the election schedule decided where 39 seats in Tamil Nadu is completed in one go while 40 seat Bihar is divided across seven phases? Does the EC give any rationale for this? Well,
Abhinandan: the only rationale the EC gives is availability of forces.
That is the rationale for everything, uh, that we cannot do this. We have to spread it. But how they stretch it out and how they do it, I think [01:50:00] depends on, you know, uh, where certain star campaigners have to appear and because they can't appear in too many places together with very different messages. I think that is what determines this.
Shardool: There is no transparency to how easy comes to the decision, number of phases and how they will be spread out. Yeah. Yeah.
Jayashree: Here's another email about the manifesto. Saju Vargi says, Looking at the Modi ki Guarantee aka BGP manifesto, a thought which has come to my mind is it's actually not Congress Mukt Bharat, but BJP Mukt Bharat.
Now there is no BJP, it is only Modi. How could the BJP and RSS have allowed itself to be modified? Is it a brute takeover?
Abhinandan: Well, I guess so. But I guess in politics, whatever's working,
Jayashree: Yeah, this works for them, right? Yeah, it works for
Abhinandan: them.
Jayashree: Sagar has a small complaint. All NL shows have become very predictable.
Every story over the government seems to be very predictable. That is, Modi government is bad for India. We seldom seem to hear the government's or even the BJP's view. There must be some way of bringing so called Modi bhakts to the same table. It might be a bit difficult, but just because [01:51:00] Modiji won't make the effort to take everyone along, doesn't mean we shouldn't as well.
I've contributed to the NL funds. I'm hoping we get different viewpoints in another election show at the very least.
Abhinandan: So, well, I hope you have already seen the fruits of your labor, Sagar. Uh, Arun Govil spoke to Vasu. Uh, several BJP leaders have spoken to our News Minute team. In fact, some of the voices on the election show are not necessarily predictable views because that is also because of the regional.
Goodbye. When it comes to Hafta and sit down interviews in the studio, uh, it's pretty clear, uh, the BJP voices will not speak to us. In fact, not just to us, if you noticed, they don't speak to anyone who is not friendly. During election is the only time where you can actually just ambush them with a mic, but otherwise, yeah, it's hard, but we shall try because you're right.
You should, there should be some sort of a. A sensible way to discuss what, but although I will say [01:52:00] that Manisha's, uh, was that Manisha's, uh, report, uh, which, which, uh, demonstrated how, uh, the last mile delivery under Modi has been better than under Manmohan's 10 years.
Jayashree: That was, I think, a News Minute video.
The, uh, Modi report card series, I think.
Shardool: But this happened in 2019 too, when like Manisha Atul and everyone went out in the field. Yeah. So we do, we didn't get
Abhinandan: that. We did, we, we have got that also in, in, no,
Jayashree: even the current. Sena series, which is Modi 2. 0 report card. So we've done health insurance, the farmer scheme, and one more.
And if you read the health insurance piece, it's actually quite complimentary to the Modi government because at the end of the day, it has succeeded in doing a lot. So obviously, there are criticisms, but the piece itself does not really throw the Modi government under the bus and say everything is wrong.
It's a pretty, Balanced piece. And my next email is from Ibrahim. Says, Hi NL team, great to see Srinivas and Jane back on the road with a red [01:53:00] mic. I'm excited about this series. I was a huge fan of Truth vs. Hype of NDTV. I would have loved it if we'd called the series the same thing. I also like Jane's India report on Al Jazeera.
NDTV was my go to site for daily news, but after the takeover, I feel really sad to see a great Indian brand go join the Godi. I hope News Laundry is able to take the baton forward like NDTV and do a better job. My question to Robin London is. If he was in, ever in the situation of Pranoy Roy, would he sell or close Ennil down?
I think it's better to die a hero than live long enough to be a villain.
Abhinandan: Rahim, that's a very difficult question actually. Um, and it's, I mean, I can't really answer it in one, one sentence, but I have kind of put this question out there on Hafta only and we've taken it around. Um, I think maybe
Jayashree: We did it with the tea thing.
Abhinandan: On the Ulfa thing, yeah, on the tea thing. You know, that's a difficult one that would you shut, would you just shut down your tea gardens? Or would you pay and carry on because there are hundreds of jobs at stake? Uh, so [01:54:00] I think those weren't the only two, uh, options. I mean, if I were to give you a short answer, I think the buildup of what NDTV became, and let me put it this way, NDTV was not, and I've worked there for a long time, not as a full time employee, but I did a lot of shows for them.
I've done almost 150 episodes of various shows, probably 200 episodes of various shows for them. I used to go there two or three times a week. I think for a news organization, it's important when you enter, you feel that you've entered a ring of fighters that everyone here will fight to the finish. That is something I never felt when I entered NETV.
When I entered NETV, it was, I've entered a room where people are nice, they're wonderful, but if you provoke them for a fight, 90 percent of them would say, thanks, we, we, we ain't fighters. And I think for an organization that's doing news, You have to have a room full of [01:55:00] Arnubs who are fighting for a good thing, not for a bad thing.
You have to have a room full of fighters. NDTV was not a room full of fighters. That's all.
Shardool: Can I reply with another pun? So he ended it with the Dark Knight Batman dialogue.
Abhinandan: What's a Dark Knight?
Shardool: I think it's better to die as a hero rather than Oh, right. Yeah. So the thing is like, the Joker dialogue is people are only good as world allows them to be.
I expect NL to be better. Okay,
Abhinandan: good.
Jayashree: Okay, so there are still a bunch of letters. No, I'll keep going. So no, I
Abhinandan: think we can save the rest for Manisha's back next week, because I see a few of them are about another election show, etc. There
Shardool: RS,
Abhinandan: which I was very bothered about. So then why don't we read that and finish it off?
The last one RS. So I'll read that out. RS says, Hey, NL team really loved last week's stuff on policy think tanks. I just have one comment. Although traditionally it has been IAS officers who have led various ministries and taken decisions on policies, but now with the advent of official lateral entries at various [01:56:00] positions owing to the requirement of specialized knowledge in some sectors, I think it's a good move by the government to make it a more formalized intake.
There have been people appointed at various positions earlier as well, but it wasn't a formal or structural entry. Not a BJP supporter at all. But this is a good move, I think. I hope it fares well. Also, just started with Akar Patel's prize for the Modi Modi Shosha and the control of media and the institutions.
Extend my regards to him if you can. Anyway, always a great discussion of the podcast. Kudos to the entire team. P. S. A small request from the subscriber meetup somewhere in Scandinavia, preferably in Stockholm. I'm sure I can bring up to at least five people with me who would love to attend. Uh, if you don't have enough support this, so, okay.
Uh, RS, we will probably have one in. Scandinavia somewhere. Uh, and we shall communicate your thing to our car, your good wishes to our car. But what was your,
Shardool: he also wrote the one above it, which [01:57:00] that one had it like basically he's North Indian that shit. And
Abhinandan: Oh, is that yes. He's written that also. So RS
Jayashree: has written another Oh, you read the You showed us the same guy though.
Well,
Abhinandan: it's RS, so I don't know if it's the same RS. In another deck, she showed us But this is Manisha, so we'll wait for Manisha to come. So it's, yeah. But, uh, to your specific question, I don't think it's a bad thing, lateral entry, if you ask me, RS. So, yeah, that's my one line answer.
Jayashree: My one line is I agree with Abhinandan.
So
Abhinandan: on that note, let's get the recommendations of the week. Should we start with you, Shardul?
Shardool: I have three recommendations again, and none of them are election related per se, but I was not here for the last three weeks because of different reasons, work related, but this is the last week when I could be on hafta of autism acceptance month.
So one is our 10th episode of that mental health podcast, autism. This is an autism acceptance month. I am one of them. [01:58:00] Read about it and how people are contributing. And as more autistic and other neurodivergent people are included into different corporate circles, you'll find out that the new ways of innovation are coming up.
Because we tend to think differently and tend to be very early in our ways. We won't budge just because you want us to. So, um, the second one is X 97. So X Men is all used to be an analogy for racism, how it began the comic, but has always been, uh, sort of a signifier of how normal quote unquote normal people treat different people in society.
So X 97, the Marvel has sort of renewed that old animated series and it's It's six or seven episodes have been aired and they're amazing. Some breath of fresh air back in some type of content. So that, and the last is like my previous one, I am consuming in personal life and in digital life, sort of old [01:59:00] romantic stuff again.
So another one of my favorites, old movie of. Michelle Pfeiffer and George Clooney. It's not that big a hit, but I really love it. Is it
Jayashree: One Fine Day? Yes,
Shardool: One Fine Day. I love
Jayashree: that movie. Because
Shardool: Michelle Pfeiffer, for those who don't know, the best That's a new one.
Jayashree: Oh, no. Very old.
Shardool: When I was a teenager. Oh, I see.
I think it was It used to come on star movies a lot. Yes, 97, 98 movie, One Fine Day. It's not a boy's or a girl's love. It's a man's or a woman's love, but it's a very fine, fun movie. A lot of tropes, but great movie. These three. All right. Thank you. Jayshree.
Jayashree: Love one finder. Yeah. So I have two recommendations.
The first is a long read in boom lives decode section. Turn how the Arambai Tenggol mobilize Houston youth in Manipur. Especially how they use social media to do it and now they have about 65, 000 members, though I think only a portion of them are armed. And it's very interesting, for example, it says, um, how an award winning Maltese singer, known by his stage name Tapta, [02:00:00] resorted to vitriolic lyrics to attack the Kukizo community with songs containing strong elements of hate.
The series of songs called Cookie Land put the onus entirely on the cookiezos for the conflict in Manipur and suggested ethnic cleansing as the only way to achieve peace. The song was later taken down on YouTube, but by then it's become a huge hit, it's picked up widely across social media. And it also talks about how a lot of mainstream media organizations wanted to really tackle the misinformation that was in Manipur at the time, but you know.
There's too much of a language divide, there was inability to really access the kind of misinformation they were seeing online, so it resulted in this. So the story is headlined Bullets and Beats, How a Radical Militant Group Wooed Manipuri Youth. And my second Recognition is, yes, it is Knife by Salman Rushdie.
So basically this is after he was knifed a couple of years ago. It was in August. He was speaking at an event and then he fell and then he sort of vanished from the public eye for a long time after that. So it's a very short book. It's about him coming to terms with his injuries. He [02:01:00] writes about how he combed through literature and, you know, Greek mythology because he also wanted to find somebody else who lost an eye.
He lost an eye to the attack. Odin. And finally, he's.
Shardool: Odin is, Odin is Norse, Norse mythology, it's not Greek. No, he
Jayashree: has, the one real life character that he said really inspired him is, Tiger Pataudi, which I thought was quite interesting. He said if, Tiger Pataudi had only one eye and could face, the wild bowlers of the West Indies, then he could learn how to pour water into a glass without spilling.
And the thing about Salman Rushdie is, you know, he writes about suffering and, you know, he has this imagined series of interviews with his assassin whom he calls ass. But also beneath this very grim sort of narrative, he's He writes in this very typically Rushdie esque way of, you know, with levity and with fun, and also he writes a lot about love, goes on a bit about his wife, how it anchors him and things.
And look, the thing is, he's still an asshole, but the man can really write. Yeah, man, that's
Abhinandan: what I loved about his film Anton, Joseph Anton it was called, right?
Jayashree: Joseph [02:02:00] Anton, yeah, the autobiography.
Abhinandan: Someone who, like you said, is such a dick. but is so aware of him being a dick. Yes. And can write about it. I was like, I was like, dude, this is like meta.
Like he is a self indulgent dick, but what is rare is that he knows he's a self indulgent dick. And
Jayashree: he presents it with this sort of nimble, lighthearted sort of touch. And it's really good to read. But I'm looking
Abhinandan: forward to it because The last book of his that I read did one which he had written, Enchantress of Florence.
Jayashree: Florence. Which was so bad.
Abhinandan: I don't know, did he read, write anything after that? Because that was the last time I tried because before that I've read Shames, He did, he came out
Jayashree: with one, uh, last year, Vic, uh, Victor Nights. The, the victories
Abhinandan: and Flo was so bad that I was like, dude, what's happened to him? So I'm very excited about the new one.
Thank you. I'm, I'm pick success defeats
Shardool: everyone. Jealous. Ah, man. .
Abhinandan: So I have three recommendations. Uh, one is because of my tweet. All the people who thought I was talking about them, I, I said, you know, [02:03:00] sophisticates self privilege are not self-made so many, like I've tweeted. crude upstarts also got offended.
I'm not talking about you. You guys are self made. I'm talking about the sophisticates who have access. Uh, so, uh, but clearly, you know, no one really thought of reading a little bit about this. So, uh, my recommendation is to, uh, one is this podcast, the secret to upward mobility friends. It is based on a study by, uh, Raj Chetty, a Harvard economist.
Uh, so there are a few links here, which you can also look at his, the studies that he's done. Uh, on how actually friends are one of the key determinants of your success, which is your social peers. The second is, uh, where the American dream, uh, chasing the American dream at the Outback Steakhouse, which is all again, how social connections determine success.
And the third is this BBC hard talk that I just happened to stumble onto. I was in the morning watching TV [02:04:00] and, uh, it was a conversation of Stephen Sacker, uh, who I think gets a lot of shit for no reason. His show is hard talk. So he takes a position which even if he's not, doesn't believe it. So, It's pretty cool.
I remember when that, that guy from, I don't know which country went at him. It was, oh, wonderful, wonderful. I was like, okay, deal, feel happy for a bit. But this is a interview by, of Judith Butler, philosopher and gender theorist. Uh, I didn't know who Judith Butler was, but Judith Butler is the, parent or the mother or father, because Judith says, uh, he slash she is non binary.
Uh, basically she says, I don't, he says, I don't belong to anyone. I don't identify, but he's not comfortable with the phrase fluidity. He says, I don't know. A lot of the terminology that Judith came up with today says that I really don't know what to say. It means just the way it's being used now, but I found it [02:05:00] fascinating.
I found it very, I learned a lot. It teaches you to think outside the structures that you are, that you know, the X, Y, X, X, X, X. Is it just the penis and the vagina? Is there more physiological elements? Is it things that I thought had simple answers? I mean, it was a revelation and I think if people like Judith Butler were to talk more and the hysterical gender activists online would talk less, I think a lot more could be achieved in this space.
Uh, but yeah, it was a fascinating conversation.
Jayashree: But Judith Butler is wildly popular
Abhinandan: and they've been writing,
Jayashree: yeah, they've been writing for decades. Yeah.
Abhinandan: Yeah.
Jayashree: So. Used to have regular columns and all.
Abhinandan: But just, just the way, uh, they, they, they, they, yes, the pronoun, just the way they explained things was phenomenal.
So yeah, on that note, would like to thank all of you who have contributed, would like to [02:06:00] encourage the ones who haven't to contribute, would like to encourage the ones who have contributed. to tell your friends and relatives to also do it. Let's make journalism great again. Let's make ad free, non sponsored journalism the norm.
That is how journalism should be. And we can make it happen. We're at that critical mass. And I'd like to thank our producer Aryan and our sound recordist Anil and my panelists. Jayshree.
Shardool: And before we close, like this month specific appeal, like we received a letter in chat about talking about inclusivity and creating safe spaces.
So I told them I am one of them. There was a rare place and I have friends in all continents now in neurodivergent community. This is one of the most safest places for any neurodivergent to work. It may seem like it's not, but it is. So do fund us.
Abhinandan: Yes. Thank you. Uh, and we will leave you with this song. Uh, I hope it reflects the political environment of the times
Audio insert: [02:07:00] we are in.
Helen! Helen, Helen, don't go! No, no, no! very much.
Sting: Thank you for your subscription. You're changing the world by changing the way news is funded. For the [02:08:00] smoothest news laundry experience, download the News Laundry app. It is the best way to listen to our paywall podcasts.
Abhinandan: And you'll also get access to all free News Laundry shows. Keep us ad free and subscriber funded.
Help us grow. Tell people who listen to you to pay to keep news free. Subscribe to News Laundry. Keep journalism independent.
Newslaundry is a reader-supported, ad-free, independent news outlet based out of New Delhi. Support their journalism, here.
