Gowdamma Iyer- Greatest Tam Bram ever?

I met my father's paternal aunt- Smt. Gowdamma Iyer- in the winter of 1968. She told me the story of Bhima and Hanuman. I requested her to repeat the story to me but placing more emphasis on the role played by Tarzan, Lord of the Jungle. Sadly, it was never to be. On the excuse of going to Matunga to buy katrika, she escaped my vigilance and went gallivanting off to become the first female Prime Minister of Israel.
I salute you, Godwdamma Iyer, you are the greatest Tam Bram ever.
Well, you would be if you could kindly stop bombing Lebanon and just fucking kill Subramaniyam Swamy already.
There's a cunt makes us all look bad.

How stupid are Indian Lawyers?

Further to my last- the question troubling me is how fucking stupid are Indian lawyers actually? Stupid enough to be misled by the specious arguments of Dr. Subramaniam Swamy it would appear.

Take a gander at this-

'Former attorney-general Soli Sorabjee told The Telegraph that the Italian ambassador did not enjoy any diplomatic immunity from contempt proceedings.

“If you read the Vienna Convention, there is immunity from criminal, civil and administrative actions. But the diplomat is facing contempt of court proceedings; it is not criminal proceedings. There is no immunity from contempt proceedings. Even if there is immunity, the Italian ambassador, by approaching the court, has waived the immunity,” Sorabjee said.

Is Sorabjee right? Are contempt proceedings neither criminal, civil nor administrative but some totally novel species of beast which the drafters of the Vienna Convention totally forgot to stipulate against? 

What does Indian statute law have to say in this matter?

The Contempt of Courts Act of 1971, divides Contempt into two types- Civil and Criminal. In other words, the offence of Contempt is not something different in kind from Civil or Criminal actions but can be divided into precisely those two categories. Thus, contra Sorabjee, there definitely is immunity from contempt proceedings for the Italian Ambassador. What about Sorabjee's claim that he waived his immunity? The answer is, according to the Geneva Convention, he did not have the right or the power to waive his immunity against any sanction of the Court. Only the Minister of Foreign Affairs of his Country had that power and that right and even then the waiver had to be given explicitly- something which has not happened.

Conclusion- Sorabje is talking through his asshole- something in which he has had much practice because he is a former Attorney General.

Under what Statute is the Supreme Court authorizing itself to impose a curb on the Italian Ambassador's freedom of Movement?

Presumably, it is Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act of 1971, where civil contempt has been defined as wilful disobedience to any judgement, decree, direction, order, writ or other process of a court or wilful breach of an undertaking given to a court.

In this connection, Rajeev Dhawan, 'an expert on international law', said: “There is some diplomatic immunity for the State and not the diplomat. Where the diplomat has rendered himself to the jurisdiction of the court with the consent of his State, we must assume that he has submitted himself to its jurisdiction.

“No doubt, the Vienna Convention says that the giving up of immunity must be through an express act. However, we can treat this act of invoking the court’s jurisdiction as an express act by the diplomat and the State to waive the immunity.”

Again this is simply cock-eyed. States don't have diplomatic immunity, they have Sovereign immunity. Diplomats have diplomatic immunity. The law says no diplomat can give up his immunity w.r.t any civil or criminal or administrative proceeding against his body BY ANY ACTION OF HIS OWN. An explicit waiver from the Foreign Minister of his Home Country is required.
Think about this for a second and it will start making sense. Suppose, like a recent Burmese Ambassador to Sri Lanka, our Envoy to Islamabad takes it into her head to beat her spouse to death. She knows, if she returns to India, she will have to do Jail time coz Soniaji is very strict about that sort of thing so as to encourage Rahul Baba to take the plunge and just get married already. So she says to the Pakistanis 'look, I waive my immunity. You try me here and keep me in a nice ISI bungalow- with a good supply of Hindu males to beat to death- and I will tell you all India's secrets.' Why can't this happen? Well, the Geneva Convention permits India to say- She has no right to waive her immunity. Only we can do that. You bloody well declare her persona non grata and expel her across the border otherwise we will let your Ambassador in New Delhi waive her diplomatic immunity for sodomizing Subramaniyam Swamy- which is contempt of Court coz the Hon'ble Bench thinks Sun shines out of his arse dontchaknow.'
You see, Diplomatic immunity isn't about Diplomats having impunity- it's about their being subject to the discipline of their home country. It's like when your wife or g.f. sends you over for a spot of Guy Time watching the Test Match with me. My g.f. isn't allowed to beat you if get tiddly on the Babycham and suggest I grow out my moustache. Under Behenji Geneva Convention, she can only communicate news of your horrible crime to your Mem Sahib who will inflict proper punishment on you once you get home.

Is the Italian Ambassador guilty of Contempt of Court?

Let us take up another question. Suppose, unknown to us all, the Foreign Minister of Italy got drunk and gave an explicit waiver to Sonia Aunty such that his Head of Mission in India's diplomatic immunity has been explicitly waived. What? It could happen! Italians are all terrible drunkards. Probably he was weeping into his Chianti and saying 'Sonia, bella, please come and be our Prime Minister and save us from Berlusconi.' Soniaji immediately said 'First waive Mancini's diplomatic immunity, then I'll think about it.'

 "Done!' says the Italian Foreign Minister, 'But please be telling Rahul Baba to shave. Chee Chee, he is looking like low class rowdy, I say.'

 "Khabardar' shouted Soniaji, "mere bete ki dhadhi Laqa ki jaisi hogi! Jaa, jaa- tu manhoos- teri nazar na lagne doonga mere laadle pe! Chashme buddoor.'

Anyway, even if all this happened, the Italian Ambassador still would not be guilty of Contempt of Court. Why? He gave his undertaking BEFORE the Court said 'Govt. is dragging its feet, hence Italian Marines are denied speedy trial'.

The moment the Supreme Court uttered this statement, the Ambassador's undertaking was null and void because it was not in his power, nor that of his Govt, to force the Marines back to India. Why? European Human Rights Law takes precedence over Italian Law. The Marines, by the admission of the Indian Supreme Court, were being denied the Human Right to a fair and reasonably speedy trial because the Special  Court required to adjudicate the matter did not then, nor does it now exist nor shows any sign of coming into being any time soon. 

What the Italians did wrong

Employ stupid, self-serving, Indian lawyers.  I recall many years ago, when I was married to an Italian and we were living in Delhi and when some small marital spat occurred, the Italian Embassy's Indian legal advisor  told my  then wife to prosecute my parents under some antiquated Victorian Law for restoration of conjugal rights or something of that sort. It's true, I was young, but I was not an imbecile or a minor or some other such person of diminished capacity. It was not in my parents power to force me to have sex with that woman. Yet this is what the Indian Lawyer advising those idiots at the Italian Embassy had her petition the Court to accomplish.
 I was all like 'babe, you know you got unrestricted access to my junk.' And she was all like 'yeah, well, I want like Kama Sutra shit. And the right to shove my finger up your ass to hurry things along.'  And I was going- No way you take my anal cherry bitch- I'm saving that for Manmohan Singh- I'll see you in Court! Mummy, help!, she's touching my no-no place!' 
Anyway, that's why I decided to quit India and return to London. At least we gotta European Court of  Human Rights here. Aint no fucking Supreme Court Bench can tell me I'm in Contempt unless I lose my anal cherry to some random I-talian with wicked finger-nails.
Mind it kindly.
Nuff said.

Subramaniyan Swamy & Italian Diplomatic immunity

Can an Ambassador waive immunity?
No. The Geneva Convention is clear. A diplomat can't waive his immunity by any action of his own. Only his Head or Mission or his country's Foreign Ministry can do so and that has to be an explicit not an implicit waiver. Thus, for example, if you rent a property to a diplomat who agrees to waive his immunity with respect to any civil matter arising from that transaction, though he may then sue you for some breach of contract- and to that extent any counter-claim by you will be offset against the damages awarded to him- nevertheless he has the following asymmetry in his favor- viz. your action to evict him for non-payment of rent will fail because he did not have the right to waive his immunity. Only if his home country steps in and voids his immunity can you get the slimy little shit out of your house.
Thus, though it is true that a diplomat can waive his immunity with respect to some judicial proceeding, still, it remains the case that at the time of execution of judgement- i.e. enforcement- a second waiver, from his home country is needed.

 A little thought will show that the Geneva Convention can have no other interpretation. Diplomats routinely enter into contracts for all sorts of things which come under the jurisdiction of Courts other than their own. If it is the case that they waive their immunity, without any limitation, every time a tort or breach of contract arises and the matter comes before a foreign Court, then they are subject to dual jurisdiction. But, if this is the case, they have a divided loyalty or responsibility. The condition of being diplomatic envoys of a Sovereign Power is violated.
The Indian Supreme Court, however, has upheld a novel argument put forward by, non lawyer, disgraced Harvard Economics Professor, Subramaniam Swamy, such that the Italian Ambassador to India, unknown to himself or his Ministry back in Rome, somehow managed to do something the Geneva Convention specifically says he can't do- viz. waive his immunity and become subject to the displeasure of the Indian Courts. This is despite the fact that the Ambassador is the Servant, not the Master, of the country that he represents. According to the old English pun 'he lies abroad for his country'. His word, however mendaciously given, can't bind his Master, nor put his own body in danger of legal action at the hands of the foreign power to whom he is accredited because, as the representative of his Sovereign Master, he enjoys immunity.
Yet, in a truly bizarre twist, the former counsel to the Italian Embassy, Harish Salve, is now saying that the Indian Supreme Court would be within its rights to jail his former client.
This simply isn't true- the only value of this Senior Advocate's statement lies in the glaring light it throws on the parlous condition of legal thinking in New Delhi.

What then is true position?
The answer is that this is all a storm in a tea-cup- mere saber rattling- a giant hissy fit on the part of the Judges.
It is precisely because they have no jurisdiction over the diplomat that they can afford to say anything that comes into their heads to register their rancor against him. In similar fashion, the U.S. Supreme Court is perfectly at liberty to find that the Queen of England is a dolphin recently escaped from Miami Sea World and require that she should kindly swim back there or be held in contempt of court. Since the American Supreme Court has no jurisdiction over Her Majesty, no legal consequence follows from their ruling- though it would certainly embarrass the U.S. Ambassador to the Court of St. James.
Suppose, in the Indian case, this problem with the Italian Ambassador went down to the wire- what would happen?
Well, the Supreme Court can institute proceedings for contempt of court on any Indian citizen or other employee or Agent of the Govt. who fails to prevent the Ambassador leaving the country- as per its order- though by that same action India violates the Geneva Convention and makes itself a pariah state. Should the Supreme Court direct the arrest of the Ambassador, then it issues an illegal order because it breaches both International Law and the Law of the Land. The President of India might then be required to take action- by declaring a State of Emergency and/or impeaching the Bench under Art.142 (4) for incapacity by reason of stupidity- such that the Govt. and People of India were no longer in breach of both International Law as well as the properly constituted Law of the Land.
In other words, what the Supreme Court has done is embarrass the Govt. by a willful and tendentious misreading of an unambiguous non obstante Law-perhaps in revenge for the Govts dragging its feet in complying with the Court's earlier order in connection with establishing a Special Federal Court to rule on Jurisdiction in this case. The Supreme Court's own manner of proceeding, however, was highly questionable in Law and had the effect of substantially weakening the Indian case. Essentially, the Supreme Court denied that the Kerala High Court had properly exercised its authority, as a matter of Indian, not International Law, though its proceedings were in line with the principle aut dedere aut judicare and it had established, as a matter of fact, not law that it had all that was requisite to proceed to trial- viz. evidence, witness statements, and custody of the accused. True, the Supreme Court had the right to over-rule the State High Court- but why did it do so? The crime of unlawful slaying had occurred. The State High Court had secured everything needed to conduct a trial- jurisdiction had been de facto established. The Marines had a right to a speedy trial and if there were any doubts on points of law then the case could have been transferred to the Supreme Court to do as it pleased. To compound its error, the Supreme Court then called for the setting up of a Special Federal Court, despite being aware that the Govt. of India does not and probably can not act with dispatch on any matter that requires the application of intelligence and adherence to proper form. Having dug itself into a hole,  the Supreme Court just kept digging itself in even deeper error by releasing the Italian Marines on parole to allow them to vote in their home country while simultaneously issuing a statement indicting the Indian Govt. for 'dragging its feet' in the matter of the Marines' Human Right to a speedy trial. This meant that the Marines could approach the European Court of Human Rights for protection from being sent back to India on the grounds that the Apex Indian Court had itself admitted that 'the Indian Govt. was dragging its feet' and thus their Human Rights had been violated. Since European Law is higher than Italian law, the Italian Ambassador had no right to give an undertaking that his country would perform an ultra vires and illegal action by compelling the return of people whom the Indian Supreme Court itself said were not getting a speedy trial by reason of the Govt. dragging its feet.
One other point, the Ambassador's affidavit (which is the basis of the charge of contempt of court against him) was issued before the Supreme Court stated that the Marines were not getting a speedy trial, by reason of the Govt's dragging its feet. This materially altered the facts of the case in such a way that the Ambassador's affidavit was nullified because it introduced a new fact such that it became clear that the Marines' Human Rights were being violated.
To give an example, suppose I stand surety for an accused and the Judge in the course of granting bail says 'of course, when you return for trial I can assure you that your Human Rights will be violated and you won't get a fair hearing'. In this case, if the accused chooses to flee, I am in foro conscientiae, released from my pledge of surety and a legal defense can be sustained for me in this regard.

To this day, it remains the case, though more than a year has gone by since the shooting at sea, that the Special Court to determine whether India has jurisdiction simply does not exist.
Italy does have jurisdiction. India says it may do so but wants to detain the Marines anyway. How is this not a violation of the European Charter w.r.t the right to a fair trial within a reasonable period?
Essentially, the Supreme Court has defeated its own claim to adjudicate in a manner that respects the Human Right to a fair and speedy trial and thrown doubt on the Govt. of India's willingness and ability to provide any such thing by explicitly accusing it of 'dragging its feet'.
Now, to make itself even more ridiculous, the Supreme Court, having listened to the opinion of the worthless fuck-wit, Subramanian Swamy, is indulging in barbaric saber rattling such that it has cut off the most powerful diplomatic sanction the Govt. possesses- viz. expelling the Italian Ambassador for his lying to the Supreme Court- by insisting the Govt. prevent the Envoy leave India.
This is lunacy piled on lunacy.
To summarize, the low I.Q but arrogantly activist Indian Supreme Court and the low integrity, virtually brain dead, Indian Government, who between them have already vitiated Justice for the slain fishermen, has now plumbed a further nadir of absurdity which gratuitously exposes India's dirty laundry in a manner which deals a blow to India's credibility and bargaining power in World forums. This is typical of the sort of mischief Dr. Swamy- the Narada Muni of Indian Politics- aims at through his bizarre Public Interest Litigation based on warped reasoning and a reckless disregard for the Truth.

Politically, the good news coming out of all this is that Italy won't now have to reveal all sorts of damaging information about bribery in billion dollar arms deals which would be embarrassing for the present Administration.
How did this happy coincidence come to pass?
The background to this contretemps is Italy's one great feat of arms since the Battle of Caporetto- viz. the courageous shooting of a couple of Indian fishermen by two Italian Marines on an Italian ship which, true to Italian tradition, proceeded to flee the scene as far and fast as it could.
Italy has embraced its two young heroes and refused to send them back to India, despite an assurance given by their Ambassador, because courage such as those two Marines have displayed is indeed a rare and precious commodity in the land of Berlusconi and it is totally unfair of the Indians to persecute them for killing Christian fishermen and then running away as fast as they could.
The Indians, for their part, had mollycoddled the two Italian heroes and let them go home not once but twice- once for Xmas and the other time to vote in the Elections coz though Italy allows postal voting these two sweet little boys could get a nasty paper cut when licking the envelope or else they might think the stamp was a Somali pirate and start shitting themselves uncontrollably and keep trying to run away except they would then slip on their own shit and fall down and hurt themselves and then die of the sulks coz their Mammas didn't come quickly enough to kiss away the boo-boo and buy them a gelato.

Clearly, these two young Italian military heroes should have got a sick note and submitted it to the Indian Court. Then, the Italian Ministry of Culture should have declared them living monuments to the great military tradition of that country and prohibited their export. This would have been a perfectly legal way for them to protect their priceless Heroes. Instead, the Italians chose to break the given word of their Ambassador to India. After all, if shooting people and running away is a sacred Italian military virtue, lying is no less a laurel wreath upon the brows of its diplomats and public officials.
As for the Judges of the Indian Supreme Court, they might try learning a bit of Law for a change. I'm not saying it will help them uphold Justice but the novel sensation may re-invigorate their sex-lives. What I mean to say is-  okay we all know you have the hots for Subramaniyam Swamy but how about you just ask him out for a date already?

Harvard sacks Subramaniyam Swamy

Subramaniyam Swamy is a Mathematical Economist. In other words, an idiot. Anything he writes about Politics or Culture or the Law is bound to be egregiously and recklessly false, mischievous, and fatal to any cause he holds dear.

Harvard has finally given him the sack over an article where he says-

'India that is Bharat that is Hindustan is a nation of Hindus and others whose ancestors are Hindus. Even Parsis and Jews in India have Hindu ancestors. Others, who refuse to so acknowledge or those foreigners who become Indian citizens by registration can remain in India, but should not have voting rights (which means they cannot be elected

representatives).'

There is only one person in India to which the above stricture applies- Sonia Gandhi. But, she has been popularly elected whereas Swamy has lost his seat. She has formed a Government which has been returned to power and whose legitimacy is unquestioned. 

There is no Muslim who does not acknowledge that they are descended from idolators. According to Islam, the father of Abraham, himself, was an 'aatish parast' fire-worshipping idolator. Swamy knows all this very well. The Jews weren't always faithful to Jehovah- if not a Holy Cow, they had a Golden Calf. No Jew, and therefore no Christian, denies that he or she is descended from idolators. True those ancestors may have lived far away but, don't you know, entire world plus many other planets were conquered by Emperor Bharata? Francis Wilford said Britain itself was nothing but the Sweta Dwipa of the Puranas. Thus everybody in the world is descended from Hindus because G.o.I, as well as Swamy defines Hinduism as any and every species of animism, shamanism, idolatory or vodoo practised by anyone not of an Abrahamic Religion. That's why, BJP MP's have to convert to Islam just so as to legitimize their second marriage even though both Polygyny and Polyandry are normative within Hinduism.

Swamy knows all this. His brother-in-law is Jewish, his wife Parsi, his son-in-law Muslim and his sister-in-law Christian. Yet reckless disregard for the truth has become his trademark, his one asset. These supposed Mullahs who deny they are descended from Jahil idolators don't exist, not even in Swamy's fevered imagination. The whole thing is a rhetorical flourish. If he had written instead 'Only one person shouldn't hold elective office in India- Sonia Gandhi.' people would have laughed at him. After all, even if Sonia Ji weren't an MP, she'd still be running the Govt. She could get her maid-servant elected and save herself the bother of visiting her constituency.

Swamy is a Tamil Brahmin. This is what he proposes ' Implement Uniform Civil Code, make Sanskrit learning compulsory and singing of Vande Mataram mandatory, and declare India as Hindu Rashtra in which only those non-Hindus can vote if they proudly acknowledge that their ancestors are Hindus. Re-name India as Hindustan as a nation of Hindus and those whose ancestors are Hindus.'

Does Swamy seriously think that the people of Tamil Nadu will sit quietly by while some idiot Brahmin forces them to learn Sanskrit? Does he not remember how the Tamils in Sri Lanka reacted when their Govt. tried to make Sinhala compulsory? Is he utterly mad?

No. He's an economist from Harvard, They're all fuckwits who shouldn't be let out in public without a minder for their own safety.

Still, Swamy's sacking by Harvard may yet redound to his credit. Perhaps, we will now get some plain speaking from him about the scandal that is National Income Accounting and Developmentalist chicanery.

Subramaniyam Swamy- Nutjob or Narada Muni?

I've just found out that the Japanese banned meat- at least that of 4 footed animals- for almost a thousand years. Thanks to Buddhism, they concentrated on slicing each other up with Samurai swords rather than chomping down on steaks with a fork and knife. Then, as part of their post-Meiji westernization- which pretty much put the kybosh on their deeply spiritual cultivation of internecine bloodshed-  they sought to popularize meat in a bid to improve the national physique.
I don't know whether Dr. Swamy eats meat- his unrelenting pugnacity suggests otherwise- but I do know he doesn't drink.
This I consider a national tragedy.
This was a very bright, very precocious, lad growing up in the arid atmosphere of post- Independence New Delhi's politico-bureaucratic wasteland, for whom drink was incumbent as a religious duty- like that of Balram, picking up his wine pot and his plough and walking away from the Kurukshetra conflict- except our hero never got that far into Hinduism, preferring a Harvard already utterly alien to true Purushartha, let alone Artha Shastra.

Had Swamy spent his adolescence getting into drunken punch-ups with all and sundry, his natural combativeness might have mellowed, permitting his undoubted talents to have had a less damaging impact on Indian politics. In saying this, I judge him on no evidence other than that he himself supplies on the Janata Party website.
Reading his articles, a picture emerges of a very bright, very brave, but fundamentally confused man who devoted his life to a style of politics that was but the sowing of a confusion worse confounded.
In vernacular Spiritual traditions, Narada Muni, the Sage Narada, is divinely gifted- in that he receives the vision of the Lord in youth- but this blessing is also a blight for he is doomed to remain without that vision for the remainder of his mortal span. This double aspect of Narada- precociously blessed to be but retrogressively blighted- is, perhaps, the source of the notion that Narada spreads mischief wherever he goes- as must any talent that too early and too consummately flowers- for, transcending its roots, it has no further function save as Eris's fruit.
This is not to say that Dr.Swamy was himself like unto that apple of discord for which the Hellenic Goddesses  jealously contested- though to read his articles, Swamy, deems himself so- all yearn for him and disclose their true desire to him alone. Indira needs him as a sort of tutor to her kids, Kamaraj wants him for the Tamils, JP needs him as a way out of the dead-end of Sarvodaya and a return to politics, Morarji needs him as a counterweight to the drunkard Vajpayee, Charan Singh wants him because he wants to become a Brahmin, or at least get his book on the Harvard Econ Reading list, Chandrashekhar needs him because he wants to become Prime Minister and only Swamy can bring that to pass, Rajiv needs him because he needs to be defended against his cousin Arun and ... and...actually, it turns out, Rajiv needs Swamy to defend his memory against everybody, including that K.G.B agent, Sonia, and that L.T.T.E agent. Priyanka, and ...urm...everybody and everything because you see Rajiv wan't using Swamy- No! Perish the thought! In fact, nobody ever used Swamy. Not Deng Xiao Ping when he invited Swamy for a meeting in 1981- don't you know Deng only wanted to hear Swamy's beautiful Chinese phonetics (child's play to him because he'd learned how to say 'Aiyaiyo!' from his dear old Mum) & this had nothing to with China's recent drubbing at the hands of the Vietnamese, or their need for a Trade Deal and World Bank money and so on- no, it was to hear Swamy's- Aiyayo! so beautiful no?-  Mandarin that Deng communed with him. But, you can be sure, Swamy was quick to squeeze Deng into the concession of a great strategic advantage to India- yes! permission for a couple of hundred Hindu pilgrims to make the trek to Mansorovar in Tibet! Don't you see, this was the greatest triumph of all! Every one knows Chinese are ruthlessly suppressing Buddhists, but see! this clever Brahmin has scored off against those silly Shramans like that Dalai Lama chap!
This wouldn't matter if Swamy had used his guanxi to make money promoting trade and industry and so on. But, Swamy tells us, he isn't into money. That's all very well, but those guys from the P.R.C, they are big-time. 
The way the Chinese and the Indians start getting along is through guanxi- everybody making money- that factory owned by the P.L.A, this bogus Defense Housing Colony on our side- that's when you have an 'all weather' relationship- look at the guanxi integration of Musharraf's Pakistan and the P.L.A-  the kidnap of some Chinese hookers triggers an Army raid on the Lal Masjid! (why? Its a guanxi network that runs from Generals to Triads to the local massage parlor or drug trafficking long distance truck driver) I know, the true story might be quite different- but the fact that the Chinese nationality of the hookers was played up as an explanation for Army action tells its own story.

I'm not saying opening up the Mansarovar teerth was a bad thing. In fact, religious tourism is something both countries can really work together on- precisely because of the quick profits from prostitution and fucking over those 'immoral' tribals in order to rape the environment and so on.
The fact is, China isn't in the business of giving India any thymotic breaks and will retaliate swiftly against pi-jaw- but corrupt guanxi relationships are a different matter.
But Swamy couldn't be the point of contact because (I believe) he is clean.
More is the pity. Ties between Nations arise in the same manner as Karmic ties- not by duty done and integrity maintained- but by lust and greed and intoxication and delusion.

But precisely because Swamy never got over his infatuation with the great pi-jaw peddlers Gandhi, J.P and so on- he never understood Artha Shastra- actual Political Economy. Nor, to my mind, did he understand what the Paramacharya was trying to open his eyes to.
What to do? Indians are like that only.
The irony is that, later on, China invited the next Kanchi Sankaracharya- an honor they denied even the Pope!- and the reaction was- See! Swamy has truly served Hinduism! You may say, he 'used' the Chinese- but, the fact is, he just so damn intellectually superior, it's like a law of Nature!
True, some ignorant fellows in South Block whine that it was a propaganda coup for the Chinese- they were showing how tolerant they are of all Religions- and, as for that invite to the Shankaracharya, that was the final straw which precipitated the crisis which put the fellow in jail- but, actually, that was all karma you know. Nothing to do with the Chinese being able to run circles around 'clever-clever' Brahmins like Nehru and Swamy- not at all. Why would you even suggest it? Oh, I see. You didn't get a PhD from Harvard at the age is 22. Well, you're just stupid aren't you? Shut up and go watch a Jayalalitha film.

It's still not too late for Swamy. Someone send him a bottle of black label and tell him its Ganga jal or cow's urine or whatever. Once he's had a few, mention to him that if Manmohan really didn't act malafide because, as an Economist, he didn't know from Law- then how is Raja guilty? The guy don't know from Econ, mechanism design- evolutionary game theory and Ken Binmore and such- which Manmohan does know about.
But Swamy's P.I.L and tactical slanders are nothing but 'champerty and maintenance' (okay, I know shite from Law), the arch-intriguer is intriguing again on the behalf of parties even more worthless than those he has previously, so futilely, served.
Fuck is wrong with him?
What's your verdict?
Nutjob or Narad Muni?