Sunday, 26 June 2016

Benches in Court
While in the High Courts, Judges sit singly or in a division bench ( i.e. a bench of 2 judges ) or sometimes in a full bench ( i.e. a bench of 3 or more judges ) to hear cases, in the Supreme Court judges always sit in benches, usually of 2 judges, but occasionally of 3 or more . No judge sits singly in the Supreme Court.
 The purpose of forming benches of 2 or more judges is that a single person, however intelligent and learned he may be, is likely to have views which are one sided and subjective, with his personal prejudices, predilections and views influencing his judgment . But when 2 or more persons sit together and discuss a matter, the decision becomes more objective, with personal angularities rubbed off, and all aspects considered. Errors of a single person are often corrected by another. This is the reason for forming benches of 2 or more persons.
 But for a bench of 2 or more persons to function effectively, it is necessary that each of the judges on it must apply his/her mind independently, and express his/her own views.
When I sat for the first time with Justice Gyan Sudha Mishra in the Supreme Court, before entering the Courtroom I had a few minutes talk with her. I told her " Sister, although I am the senior member on our bench, in the Court we are equals. Please feel free to disagree with me whenever you wish, I will never be offended or take it amiss. In fact the very purpose of a division bench is that both judges should apply their minds, and not that the junior judge should sit like a dummy. In fact sometimes I may be on the wrong track, and then you can correct me. You can also put questions to the lawyer arguing a case directly, and not necessarily through me ". 
At this she said that I was very gracious, and that no senior judge with whom she sat in the High Court or Supreme Court had ever spoken like this to her.
 What I found in my long career in the judiciary is that often ( though not always ) senior judges on a bench resent it if the junior judge disagrees with him, or even puts a question to a counsel arguing a case directly. They feel that the junior judge is misbehaving if he does so, and expect him to sit like a dummy, and just sign on the dotted line on the judgment prepared by them. But this way the very purpose of forming a bench is undermined.
 Once when I was sitting in a division bench with a senior judge in the Allahabad High Court, after hearing the arguments of the lawyers the senior judge would dictate orders without even consulting me. When I told him that he should consult me before dictating orders, he felt very offended.
 The old tradition of the Allahabad High Court was that the Chief Justice would sit with the seniormost judge in the Court. The reason for this was that a very senior judge could disagree with the Chief Justice if he thought the Chief Justice was wrong, whereas junior judges, though theoretically they too could disagree with him, in practice would rarely have the courage to do so.
 In recent times, however, this sound practice has largely been given up. When I was a Judge in the Supreme Court, I found the Chief Justices would usually sit with junior judges, who would rarely disagree with him, probably thinking it is not good manners to disagree with the Chief Justice..
 In Constitution benches ( i.e. benches of 5 or more judges ), the senior judges should sit with the Chief Justice ( if he was on the bench ). But what I found was that often junior judges were made to sit with the Chief Justice who would rarely disagree with him, thus undermining the very purpose of forming such a bench.
 I will conclude by relating an interesting incident in the Allahabad High Court a century ago ( related in the memoirs of my grandfather Dr. K.N. Katju ) 
Sir Henry Richards was at that time Chief Justice of the Allahabad High Court ( he was Chief Justice from 1914 to 1919 ) and sitting with him on the bench hearing criminal appeals was the senior most puisne judge of the Court, Sir Pramoda Charan Banerji. While Sir Henry Richards was known to be a liberal judge who was not readily disposed to accept the police version in every criminal case, Sir Pramoda Charan was considered by the bar as a severe, or to use a vulgar expression, a 'convicting' judge.
 A criminal appeal against a death sentence came up for hearing before this bench.
After the appeal was heard for some time, the 2 judges ceased to be fellow travellers in the same direction. Instead of talking with each other, they were talking at each other through the lawyers.
When one of them would put a question to the lawyer,the other judge would intervene by saying " Probably your answer to this would be----:, and so on.
Soon the judges ceased to be even on talking terms with each other, and each was ostentatiously sitting up in his chair looking around elsewhere.
After arguments were over, it was obvious there would be divergent judgments, and the matter would have to be referred to another bench.
The Chief Justice, being the senior judge on the bench, began dictating his judgment first. After a careful consideration of the prosecution evidence he ended up by saying that it would be unsafe to uphold the conviction of the accused, and giving him the benefit of doubt would acquit him.
 Then began Sir Pramoda Charan. He dictated his long judgment countering the comments of the Chief Justice, and everyone in Court thought that the matter would now be sent to another bench.
 But lo and behold ! At the end of his lengthy judgment he was heard dictating the conclusion " However, inasmuch as the learned Chief Justice has come to a different conclusion in favour of the accused, I am not prepared to dissent. I therefore agree that the appeal should be allowed and the accused. "
Everyone present in Court was electrified, the most being Sir Henry Richards himself. He could not believe his ears. Throughout the delivery of Sir Pramoda Charan's judgment, Sir Henry Richards had been sitting deep in contemplation, with his eyes half closed, but as soon as he heard the concluding words he suddenly sat up, as if an electric shock had been given to him. His face glowed, and he simply beamed with joy, and almost looked like a blushing bride.
 And then Sir Henry rose from his chair, his face wreathed in smiles, and bowed low before Sir Pramoda Charan.
  Some people commented that it was wrong for Sir Pramoda Charan to have acquited the accused having found him guilty. After all, each judge on a bench must apply his mind independently
 Others said that Sir Pramoda Charan had done the right thing, as it would be monstrous for one judge to say that he would hang the accused when the other judge was in favour of acquittal.
 I leave it to the readers of this post to express their views on this.

Saturday, 25 June 2016

Arrest of Dinesh Mohaniya
The AAP MLA Dinesh Mohania was arrested by the Delhi police
The charge against Mohaniya was that he had misbehaved with a group of women who had approached him with a complaint of water crisis in their locality.
I am not going into the question whether the charge was true or false, as that will be decided by the Court on the evidence. I do not have the evidence with me, and therefore I cannot comment on it.
I am, however, on a much more fundamental issue. Where was the need of arresting Mohaniya ? In my opinion the police could have made an investigation and could have interrogated Mohaniya without arresting him. Let me explain the legal position in this connection.
It may be mentioned that arrest is not a must in every case where an F.I.R. of a cognizable offence is registered with the police. This is obvious from section 157 (1) Criminal Procedure Code. which reads :
" 157. Procedure for investigation
(1) If, from information received or otherwise, an officer in charge of a police station has reason to suspect the commission of an offence which he is empowered under section 156 to investigate, he shall forthwith send a report of the same to a Magistrate empowered to take cognizance of such offence upon a police report and shall proceed in person, or shall depute one of his subordinate officers not being below such rank as the State Government may, by general or special order, prescribe in this behalf, to proceed, to the spot, to investigate the facts and circumstances of the case, and, if necessary, to take measures for the discovery and arrest of the offender; "
The use of the words "and, if necessary " in the above provision clearly indicates that it is not incumbent on the police to arrest in every case, rather it is discretionary. And this discretion has to be excercised depending on the gravity of the offence. If the charge was of murder, dacoity , rape or some such serious offence, then of course the arrest could have been justified, but this was not a case of such a nature.
In Joginder Kumar vs. State of U. P. A.I.R. 1994 S.C. 1349 ( see online ) the Supreme Court observed : " No arrest can be made because it is lawful for the police officer to do so. The existence of the power to arrest is one thing. The justification for the exercise of it is quite another.The police officer must be able to justify the arrest apart from his power to do so. Arrest and detention in police lock-up of a person can cause incalculable harm to the reputation and self-esteem of a person. No arrest can be made in a routine manner on a mere allegation of commission of an offence made against a person. It would be prudent for a police officer in the interest of protection of the constitutional rights of a citizen and perhaps in his own interest that no arrest should be made without a reasonable satisfaction reached after some investigation as to the genuineness and bona fides of a complaint and a reasonable belief both as to the person's complicity and even so as to the need to effect arrest. Denying a person of his liberty is a serious matter. "
Thus the Supreme Court has held that arrest is not a must in every case. In the same decision the Supreme Court has noted that the National Police Commission in its Third Report has observed that 60% arrests in India are unnecessary or unjustified, and that arrests are a major source of corruption in the police.
Unfortunately in our country the practice of our police has been that the moment an F.I.R. is lodged it goes to make an arrest. But this is an illegal practice, as pointed out above.
In my opinion arrest was unnecessary in this case. If the police wished to interrogate Mohaniya and investigate the allegations against him, they could have done so without arresting him. Aftefr all he was not going to abscond..
It is time now that the correct legal position be made known to all policemen.
The AAP leaders have alleged that the arrest of Mohaniya was at the instance of the Central Govt,
I do not know whether this allegation is true or not, but if it is true, the policemen concerned who carried out this illegal order of their political masters can not escape accountability on the pretext that orders are orders.
In the Nuremburg Trials after the Second World War the Nazi War criminals took plea that orders are orders, and that they were only carrying out the orders of their political master Hitler. However, this plea was rejected, and many of the accused were sentenced to be hanged.
So our policemen should heed this warning : they must not carry out illegal orders, whether written or oral, of political masters or their superiors, otherwise they themselves may be given severe punishment

Mad Parsi
I have the highest respect for Parsis, who though a tiny community in India, have made a great contribution to the country in the fields of law, business, armed forces, etc. So they may forgive me for this joke on them ( I heard it from someone, and it is not my own creation ).
Once the great lawyer Seervai, who was a Parsi, was walking down a corridor of the Supreme Court. Mr. C.K. Daphtary another distinguished lawyer( who became Attorney General of India ), was s...tanding at one place in the corridor with some of his juniors.
Daphtary, though himself a very senior lawyer, was junior to Seervai in practice. When Seervai came near him Daphtary bowed his head and said respectfully " Good morning Sir ".
Seervai ignored him and silently walked past.
Then Daphtary said to his juniors " All Parsis are mad, but he is a mad Parsi "
The Scots
While seeing on T.V. that Scotland may choose to remain in the EU, I was reminded of this incident which happened when I was a Judge of the Supreme Court.
A team of British High Court Judges, led by the Lord Chief Justice of England, had come to Delhi, and they were invited to a function. There I was introduced to a certain Justice Macdonald, and I asked him whether he was Scottish. He laughed and said he was, and then said he wanted to tell me of an incident.
He... had been invited to Calcutta, where in a party he was introduced to a certian Mr. Campbell, whose ancestors had come from Scotland to India about 200 years ago, and they had settled down in India. Perhaps Mr. Campbell had never been to Scotland or England.
When Justice Macdonald extended his hand to Mr. Campbell, saying thai he too was Scottish, Mr. Campbell refused to shake his hand, and said " I have never shaken hand with a Macdonald in my life, and I never will "
The British
Justice Geoffrey Care is my British friend whom I have met often, in India and abroad. He comes to India frequently.
Once when he was in Delhi we went together to a function at a venue near the Supreme Court ( perhaps the Indian Law Institute ).
There, a person from the audience shouted " Why have we invited a Britisher here ? The British had oppressed us during their rule ".
I immediately replied " That is not fair. Geoffrey's ancestors may have oppressed my ancestors, but Geoffrey has not oppressed me. Also, while we should certainly criticise the British for their oppression and exploitation in India, we must not forget their great historical contribution in the struggle for liberty in the 17th century, their fight against Nazis in the Second World War, etc and their great contributions in literature ( Shakespeare, Dickens, etc ), science ( Newton, Darwin, Rutherford, etc ), and in various other fields.
The opiums of the Indian people
Some persons are gloating over the fact that today, on 25th June , 33 years ago, India won the World Cup in cricket.
This reminds me of the film song ' Sikander ne Porus se ki this ladai, to main kya karoon ? '
We have to see what is happening in our country today, not what happened 33 years back.
Moreover, cricket is an opium of the Indian masses.
The Roman Emperors used to say " If you cannot give the people bread, give them circuses "
The Indian establishment says " If you cannot give the people dal or employment, give them cricket "
How does it matter whether we won the World Cup in cricket, or whether our cricket team beats Pakistan ? Does it reduce poverty, unemployment or price rise or child malnutrion or ensure healthcare and good education for our masses ?
Cricket is an opium of the Indian masses. But that is not enough. To keep them safely drugged other opiums are also required. So these too have been properly arranged for, and they are religion, babas, astrology, film stars, T.V. shows, petty politics, etc, etc
It is a beautiful racket, to ensure that the 90% remain 90%, or even become 95%
Hari Om
The worldwide economic crisis and Brexit
As I said in my post on Brexit, this event is a product of the worldwide economic recession, and is a step towards extreme nationalism, growth in right wing politics, and fascism. What is the cause of this recession, and what is the solution ? This is what will be examined here.
For quite some time there has been an economic recession all over the world. From time to time we hear of a recovery, but in fact there has not been, and there is unlikely to be, a genuine recovery of the world economy for a long time. I will try to explain.
An economic recession is a feature of an industrial, not agrarian economy. In agrarian economies, too, there were catastrophies, but these were due to natural calamities like drought, epidemics, etc. An economic recession is a feature peculiar to industrial economies.
There have been recessions every eight or ten years ever since the Industrial Revolution of the 18th Century in Western Europe. These, however, were followed shortly thereafter by recoveries. But there has been one Great Depression which lasted from 1929 to 1939, and was ended only by the Second World War (in which 50 million lives were lost) which generated the massive demand for armaments, supplies to armies and war affected civilian populations, and capital for reconstruction, etc, and it was this massive demand which pulled USA out of the Great Depression. This Great Depression caused havoc in large parts of the globe, particularly in the developed countries.
We are now witnessing a persistent, and apparently unending, world economic recession, and its sweep is wider than that of the Depression of 1929, because while the latter affected mainly North America and Europe, the former is affecting the whole world, because while before the Second World War ( 1939-1945 ) many countries ( including India ) were largely unindustrialized, there has been a certain level of industrialization in most countries since then.
The principal cause of an economic recession (or depression) is lack of sales, which in turn is due to lack of purchasing power in the masses. There are other causes also, but these are only incidental, and not the main cause.
A large part of the world’s population is so poor that it hardly has sufficient purchasing power. Even in the developed countries there are many poor people.
Apart from the above, as the industrial economy develops, in the process industries tend to become larger and larger, to effect economy of scale, and more and more capital intensive ( that is, labour being replaced by machinery ). This is necessary for industries to face the competition in the market, otherwise their rivals will become larger and more capital intensive and drive them out of the market, by underselling them. This process is inevitable in most industries, but it leads to large scale unemployment, since many workers in a labor intensive industry are laid off when it becomes capital intensive. This generates unemployment.
Let me explain. There is competition between businessmen in the market. Let us take a simple illustration. Suppose A has a shop selling a loaf of bread for Rs.20. Next to his shop is the shop of B selling the same size and quality loaf for Rs. 18. What will happen ? The customers of A will gradually leave him and become the customers of B, and B will eliminate A by underselling him. Thus one businessman eliminates another not by tanks, guns or bombs but by underselling him.
Now the same thing happens on the national and even international level.
To reduce his sale price a businessman has to grow larger ( to effect economy of scale ) and to introduce new technology. This is because cost of labour is a big chunk of the total cost of production. So if the cost of labour is less, the cost of production is less, and if the cost of production is less, the businessman can sell at a cheaper price, and thus eliminate his business rival.. By introducing new and labour saving technology in his plant, the businessman can cut down his labour costs, and thereby his cost of production.
Suppose a manufacturer had 500 workers working in his plant. With the advance of technology he may get a new machinery which requires only 100 workers to produce the same amount of goods which he was producing earlier. This means 400 workers will become unemployed. Even if 100 of these 400 workers can get jobs elsewhere this still leaves 300 workers unemployed. When we enlarge our scene (because the same process is inevitable in most industries) we find large scale unemployment is being generated everywhere.
Now the worker, apart from being a producer, is also a consumer. Of course a worker in a steel factory does not consume steel. But he and his family consume food, clothes, shoes and various other articles. When he becomes unemployed his purchasing power becomes drastically reduced. And when unemployment is generated on a large scale, the market correspondingly contracts on a large scale, and this leads to a recession.
Thus we see that the very dynamics of an unregulated industrial economy is that by the very inevitable process of its growth it keeps destroying its market.
The goods produced have to be sold. But how can they be sold when people have lost their purchasing power (due to widespread unemployment)?
Mass production has to be accompanied by mass consumption. By taking purchasing power out of the hands of mass consumers the industrialists deny to themselves the effective demand for their products that would justify reinvestment of their capital accumulation in new plants (which would also provide employment ).
Before the Great Depression of 1929 high level of employment was generated by high level of debt in the form of mortgage debts (for housing etc.), loans to buy cars and other consumer goods, brokers loans (for buying shares, etc.). The same thing happened in recent times. But this cannot continue endlessly. A time comes when people cannot repay their debts (due to unemployment or cut in real wages). Then debtors curtail their consumption, which reduces demand, and the producing units have to close down or drastically cut production.
In modern economies, most businesses require loans for their normal operations. Banks normally retain a small fraction of their deposits (5% or less) and give the rest as loans to borrowers. When the banking sector does not work properly (because of defaults by loanees) businesses do not easily get loans, and consequently they have to curtail their production and lay off workers. As they curtail production they require less raw materials and other supplies. Hence their suppliers have to reduce their output and lay off their workers. The suppliers to these suppliers have to do the same.Thus, this can set off a chain reaction.
If manufacturers cannot sell they cannot generate enough revenue to repay their loans. The business goes bankrupt and the bank finds in its hand non performing assets. Hence banks want to lend less. This becomes a vicious cycle.
Depositors get scared because some banks have collapsed due to the non performing assets. Hence they start withdrawing their money, and more banks collapse.
The economic recession is thus caused by the reduction of purchasing power in the masses which is due to the very dynamics of unregulated growth. The productive capacity has been enhanced enormously, but the vast majority of people are too poor to buy.
The problem, therefore, is not how to increase production, but how to increase the purchasing power of the masses. Production can be increased easily several times because there are tens of thousands of engineers, technicians, etc., and there are immense reserves of raw materials in India. But the goods produced have to be sold, and how can they be sold when the people are poor or unemployed, and thus have very little purchasing power?
The problem is also not how to increase demand. The demand is there, but people do not have the money for purchasing goods. In India, for instance, 75% people live on bare subsistence incomes. This may not even be sufficient for buying necessities, like food or medicines, what to say of durable consumer goods like motor cars, refrigerators, computers, air conditioners and other goods.
The solution to the economic crisis can only be by raising the purchasing power of the masses. How this is to be done requires a great deal of discussion and creative thinking , and all serious thinkers must now address this main problem facing our country, and indeed the whole world.
The situation in India today is that while we have recently increased the number of billionaires in our country, the poor have become poorer and even the middle class is finding it difficult to make two ends meet because of rising prices. This is a dangerous trend and if continued is going to lead to widespread social turmoil and social unrest. It is totally unfair to the vast masses of our people and it will not be tolerated very long.
Society owes subsistence to all its citizens either in procuring work for them on a reasonable wage, or in ensuring a livelihood to those who are unable to work.
As stated by the great French thinker Rousseau in his book 'Discourse on Inequality' : “Nothing can be farther from the law of nature,however we define it, than that a handful of people be gorged with luxuries, while the starving multitude lacks the necessities of life.”
So how do we increase the purchasing power of the masses, which alone can bring us out of the recession and the economic crisis ?
In socialist countries the method of raising the purchasing power of the masses, and thereby rapidly expanding the economy and consequently abolishing unemployment, was broadly this :
1. Prices of commodities were fixed by the government.
2. These prices were reduced by 5-10% every 2 years or so
3. This resulted in steadily increasing the purchasing power of the masses, because with the same income people could buy more goods. In other words, the real income of the masses went up even if nominally it remained the same ( since real wage is relative to the price index ).
4. Simultaneously, production was stepped up, and this increased production could be sold in the domestic market, as the purchasing power of people was steadily rising.
5. This led to rapid expansion of the economy, leading to creation of millions of jobs and thereby abolition of unemployment.
During the Great Depression which hit the Western economies in 1929 ( it continued till the breakout of the Second World War in 1939 ) when about one third or more people in Western countries were unemployed and factories were shutting down, the Soviet economy was rapidly expanding and unemployed abolished by following the above methodology.
Of course this was only possible in a socialist economy, where the problem was solved by state action.
I am not saying that we must necessarily follow the method adopted by socialist countries. We can adopt any other method if thereby we can raise the purchasing power of the masses and thereby rapidly expand the Indian economy, which is the only way of abolishing unemployment in India.. The central point, and therefore the main problem before India, is how to raise the purchasing power of the masses ? Do we follow the method of socialist countries, or some other method ?
An Analysis of Brexit
By Justice Markandey Katju
Britain has decided to exit from the European Union and European Common Market.
What is the implication of this ?
 In my opinion it has profound historical importance, not only for England, but also for India, Europe, Asia, Africa, USA, and indeed for the whole world. It marks a drastic reversal of the process of internationalism which had been going on for quite some time after the Second World War. It is a step towards extreme nationalism and right wing politics, which is bound to spread everywhere, and create great disorder. Let me explain.
The extreme nationalism which was prevailing in the developed countries before the Second World War was replaced after the War by internationalism. Multi national corporations cut through national borders after the War in search of markets, raw materials and cheap labour, to increase profits. This process included hiring workers from other countries, particularly from underdeveloped countries, who were available at lower wages/salaries. It also included export of capital and outsourcing of jobs to foreign countries. Cost of labour is a big chunk of the total cost of production, and by getting foreign labour at lower wages/salaries the corporations could cut down their cost of production drastically, thus enhancing profits.
In Europe and America there are millions of foreign workers working at lower pay than local European or American  employees. Also, many of the jobs in America and Europe have been outsourced to underdeveloped countries where employees are obtained at much lower pay.
 This process has no doubt increased the profits of these multi national corporations, but has also led to great unemployment among the local people in Europe and America, resulting in massive discontent there. Europeans and Americans feel that the jobs in their own countries which should have gone to them have been taken away by foreigners. This is further exacerbated by the world wide economic recession which has been going on for quite some time. Unemployed people, especially the youth, are feeling that the jobs which should have gone to them have gone to foreigners.
 The recent killing of the British Labour M.P. Jo Cox who supported immigrants, by a man who shouted ' Britain First ', is an example of the widespread strong feelings in this connection not only in  England, but also all over Europe and America.
 Germany, which already had many Turks, admitted 1 million refugees from Syria and Iraq recently, which is bound to have repercussions. In fact feelings against foreigners is growing in Germany. These are statements of foreigners  which bear this out :
 " I was told by a taxi driver to 'go back to Japan'. I was scared because it was just me and him and it was late at night, so I got out, paid him and walked away as quick as possible.
" I was followed by a middle aged German lady who heckled 'stinkende chinesen hore!' (stinking chinese whore) at the top of her voice- for about a block ".
 In America Donald Trump's rhetoric against Hispanics, etc and outsourcing of jobs is striking a chord, and he may well win the election for President.
 Britain's decision to exit the EU should be understood in this light. It is not just exiting the EU. It is drastically reversing the process of internationalism, and is the first step towards going back to virulent nationalism.
 There are 1.4 million people of Indian origin living in England, and many from other parts of Asia and Africa. Soon attacks  on them by right wing goons will start, and the same is likely to happen in Germany, France ( which has a large Muslim population, mainly from North African countries which were earlier French colonies ), etc. Businesses of Indians in England ( Mittals, Tatas, Hindujas, etc ), and their Indian employees, may also be attacked, and so also of other Asians and Africans. They will all be told to get out and go home.
 The step taken by England will sooner or later be followed by Germany, France, Italy, etc
 So we are going back to the era of virulent nationalism, which was resolved in Europe by wars ( the First World War, Second World War, etc ). But after the development of nuclear and other such destructive weapons, such wars are unlikely to be repeated. So how then will the crisis be resolved ?
Moreover, Europe and America are heavily dependant on foreign labour, both inside these countries and abroad. If these are driven off or laid off, much more expensive European and American labour will have to be employed. This will drastically reduce the profits the multi national corporations are earning, leading to further recession, and so more lay offs and discontent.
In my opinion the world is heading for a prolonged period of great chaos, extreme nationalism, and fascism.

Friday, 24 June 2016

Eating beef and pork

I eat pork ( particularly ham and bacon ) and also beef, if legally permitted.

I reside in Noida, U.P. where beef is prohibited by law, so I do not eat it here. But when I go to Kerala, Goa or some other state where it is legally permitted I eat it.

I am not compelling anyone to eat beef or pork, but I see nothing wrong in it. Almost the whole world eats beef. And I regard cow as an animal, like any other animal, e.g. a dog or a horse. It is certainly not 'gomata'. An animal cannot be the mother of a human being. And my reply to those who say that beef eating hurts Hindu sentiments is that I will keep attacking stupid sentiments, whether Hindu or Muslim. Not all sentiments are rational.

As regards pork, it was rightly prohibited by Islam because in earlier times there were no modern dairies, and pigs often ate filth, which could cause diseases like tapeworm. But now pigs are raised in modern dairies in hygienic conditions, so I have suggested to Muslims to eat pork just like any other kind of meat, and ignore these Maulanas who have kept many of you backward..

As for people who are inclined to beat up Muslim meat eaters ( usually accusing them of eating beef ), let them come to me. I have a danda waiting for them which is getting impatient

Is Eating BEEF A Crime?: The Newshour Debate (17th March 2016)


Is Eating BEEF A Crime?: The Newshour Debate (17th Ma...

View on
Amjad Sabri
This is the inevitable result of creating a theological, artificial and fake state called Pakistan. In the reunited India we will create, maybe after 10-15 years, we will crush religious extremism, whether Hindu or Muslim, with an iron hand, and show no mercy to bigots or fanatics, though permitting freedom of religion.…/amjad-sabri-assassination-why-do…