2  Why is corruption in US police\courts less than India’s police? – Introduction to RTR


2.1     A very mysterious question , and such a trivial answer!!

2.2     Why are junior policemen less corrupt in USA

2.3     Why do Police Commissioners in USA set traps

2.4     Common sense explanation of Right to Recall

2.5     Right to Recall and Prajaa-aadheen Raajaa

2.6     Right to Recall in modern US

2.7     A short history of Right to Recall in India

2.8     A short history of Right to Recall in World over

2.9     Right to Recall and Jury System in Greece

2.10   Right to Recall and Jury System in Rome

2.11   Right to Recall and Jury System in USA

2.12   Comrade Marx and Comrade Angels supported RTR

2.13   Comrade Stalin supported RTR

2.14   Mahatma Chandrashekhar Azad had supported RTR in 1925

2.15   Right to Recall in India from 1946 to 1999

2.16   Right to Recall in India from 1999 to sep-2011

2.17   The Neo-Recallists Movement in India

2.18   Constitutional validity of RTR procedures in India

2.19   Did RTR in modern US come from Atharvaved?

2.20   My discovering RTR and Atharvaved (Satyarth Prakash)

2.21   How leaders and eminent intellectuals in India are sabotaging RTR

2.22   Stand of politicians and activist-leaders on RTR

2.23   How can YOU help in reducing corruption in police?


2.1    A very mysterious question, and such a trivial answer!!

You must have heard from your relatives, friends in US that the corruption in US police\courts is far less than corruption in India’s police\courts. Every NRI in India must have noticed this from day one. E.g. when I was in US from 1990-1999. I was stopped by Constables 5 times for different traffic violations. First time, the constable just warned me and let me go. Second time, a different constable, different place, the constable fined me and total fines including insurance surcharge came to be about $1500. A question came to me - why neither asked for a $50 bribe?

This must have been a mystery to many of you – why are the policemen\judges in US far less corrupt? Are the policemen\judges in US so stupid, compared to the policemen\judges of India, that they can’t think of clever ways to extort bribes from their citizens? No, they are not so stupid. Are they so coward that they can’t muster courage to arm twist citizens and squeeze bribes from them? No, they are as courageous as policemen in India – no less. Then are all policemen\judges in US saints free from greed? No, not at all; all can’t be saints. Then is higher salary alone the main reason for low corruption? Well, let’s say we triple salaries of our policemen\judges in India this week; then will they will they give us even 10% discount in bribes starting next week? For example, in 2009-2010, Govt tripled the salaries of all judges. Did the judges give even 10% discount in bribery next day? I guess not. If a GoI employee thinks that his salary should be twice of what he is getting, and so he needs bribes, then does he stop taking bribes after collecting bribes equal to 30 years of salary difference? No, most of them never stop. So salary is surely an important issue, but not a major factor to create the difference between levels of corruption in India and US. Then what else can be the reason?

Is our culture a reason? Many eminent intellectuals (ku-buddheejeevies?) of India have 4 digit IQ, and they say that policemen in India are more corrupt because we commons are uneducated, unaware, lack moral character, we have bad political culture etc. IOW, as per these eminent intellectuals with 4 digit IQ, we the citizens are responsible for the corruption in policemen/judges!! These “blame the victim” explanation given by eminent intellectuals with 4 digit IQ is something I dismiss as a white lie. It reeks and stinks like “women are responsible for rapes”. The arguments that “citizens don’t have awareness” or “citizens have bad political culture” are total nonsense and a white lie. Even most illiterate person is very much aware that corruption is immoral and it is crime. And surely all policemen, judges, Ministers are very much aware that corruption is illegal and immoral. And even when education in US was less than 5% in year 1800s, they did not have such corrupt police, courts etc. Hence IMO, lesser education is a non-issue, “citizens lack awareness” is total nonsense cooked up by eminent intellectuals with 4 digit IQ and “citizens have bad political culture” is a white lie.

Then what are the real reasons behind lesser corruption in US policemen?

Let’s divide police force in two broad parts – junior officers like Constables\Inspectors and seniors like District Police Commissioner.

2.2    Why are junior policemen less corrupt in USA

The Constables in US rarely ask for bribes because District Police Commissioners in US set traps. So a Constable knows that 1 out 100-500 law-draft violator is a trap set by Commissioner and if he dares to ask for a bribe, he might get caught, will lose his job instantly and may even have to go to prison. E.g. when I was in US from 1990-1998. I was stopped by Constables 5 times for traffic violations. The constables fined me three times and pardoned me two times, but didn’t even hint that they were interested in bribes. Why? The main reason being: the Constable knew that 1 out 200 such traffic violators are traps set by Commissioner and he doesn’t know which one is the trap. And so he must have thought that I could be a trap set up by Commissioner. So he forgoes bribes in all 200 cases including mine. And many nodal officers in US like District Education Officer, District Public Prosecutors, Governors etc set traps against junior officers, Ministers, judges. The occasional traps keep all junior staff bribe free. So the fact that “Police Commissioner sets traps” explains why junior staff is less corrupt.

2.3 Why do Police Commissioners in USA set traps?

Often, one answer can often create10 questions and valid questions, which need answers.

So a new question now comes --- why do Police Commissioners in US set traps to stop bribes while most Police Commissioners in India order Constables to collect bribes? What creates this difference? Why don’t Police Commissioners of US also give collection targets to Constables? The one and only reason is: citizens in US have procedure to expel District Police Chief (aka Right to Recall). IOW, if citizens in a US district want to expel District Police Chief they don’t need to approach DIG or CM or Home Minister and file complaints. The citizens of US also do not need to approach High Court judges and file worthless PILs. The citizens in US only need to prove that majority district voters want Police Commissioner to be expelled. And once the majority is proven against a District Police Chief, he is expelled and no High Court judge or Supreme Court judge dares to throw stay order and delay his expulsion. Likewise, if citizens in US want to expel CM, Mayor, District judge, District Public Prosecutor, District Education Officer etc they don’t need to approach MLAs or PM or party leaders or judges – the citizens only need to prove majority opinion in that District or State. So Police Chief and all nodal officers fear that if staff becomes very corrupt, citizens may expel him. And so these nodal officers like Police Commissioners set traps and so corruption in junior staff is less.

Many anti-recall eminent intellectuals say that this procedure to expel nodal officer, aka Right to Recall an American concept. They further say that Indians must never dare to compare themselves with Americans. And some claim that it is un-Indian concept.

They are all liars.

Chap-6 of Satyarth Prakash is “Raaj Dharm”. In this chapter, Swami Dayanand enumerates powers and duties of citizens, officers, Ministers, judges etc. In the very first page of chap-6, Swami Dayanand establishes the foundation of Raaj-Dharm. Swami Dayanand gives two words - “Prajaa-aadheen Raajaa. And in these two words, he summarizes 10000 proposals on good politics. And then he elaborates : Raajaa must be Prajaa-aadheen, or else he will rob the citizens and destroy the nation”. And he has taken shlokas from Atharvaved. And a cursory comparison of India’s Police Commissioner, Ministers, judges etc with US Police Commissioner, Ministers, judges etc shows how correct the sages who wrote Atharvaved and Swami Dayanand are. The citizens in US have procedures to expel their District Police Chief, CM etc i.e. they are all Prajaa-aadheen, and so Police Chief, judges, CM etc in US don’t rob citizens but protect citizens Whereas citizens in India cant expel or do any damage to Police Chief, CM etc and thus they are not Prajaa-aadheen. And so we see that most Ministers, judges in India are busy robbing us commons. How apt is the analogy of Maharshi Dayanand – “just as carnivorous animal eats other animals, a Raajaa who is not Prajaa-aadheen would rob his citizens”. And thus of all things in this world - two words from Satyarth Prakash explain why corruption in US police is low. And  to me, it is an utter irony that I have to give example of US to prove the worthiness of these two words of Satyarth Prakash.

2.4    Common sense explanation of Right to Recall

Say you have a factory and have 100 employees. Now say Govt makes a law-draft that you cant expel any laborer for 5 years to 25 years. Now will the level of indiscipline increase or decrease? Surely, it will increase. Right to Recall can be derived from this common sense experience. We citizens of India are suffering only because we cant expel any officer from Supreme Court Chief judge to Clerk. So they all loot us. And citizens in US can expel District Judges, District Police Chief, District Public Prosecutors, District Education Officer, Mayor, Corporator, State High Court Chief Judge, Governor etc and so corruption is low. So all in all, RTR is just common sense.

2.5    Right to Recall and Prajaa-aadheen Raajaa

Now how are Right to Recall and “Prajaa-aadheen Raajaa” related? The ‘Right to Recall’ gives a procedure by which citizens can expel any officer/judge/Minister anytime and without approaching any higher authority and only via proving the majority. RTR (with the Jury based variant of RTR) is the only known method to make Raajaa Prajaa-aadheen and thus reduce corruption in Ministers, officers, policemen and judges. There are a plethora of alternate institution based proposals like police board, judocratic commission etc. but all of them are proven total failures. These institutions only corner corruption, they do not reduce it. Any procedure which keeps Raajaa autonomous (read : autocratic) of Prajaa can only re-distribute corruption, cannot decrease it.

If the citizens have no direct way to expel officers, judges, Ministers, and can expel them only after begging before other officers, judges, MLAs, MPs, Ministers etc, then the citizens will fail to control officers, judges, Ministers. The officers, Ministers, judges etc will endlessly extort bribes, demand all immoral favors and also throw unspeakable atrocities on citizens. And worst, they may also sell away the nation to the foreigners. The officers, judges, Ministers, be juniors or seniors, will almost always form “quid pro quo” nexuses amongst each other. And using the nexuses, they will protect each other. Hence there will be no punishment against corrupt and so the corruption will run amok. They will always cite “lack of proof” as excuse and support the corruption of fellow Minister, officers, judges. The direct intervention of citizens is the only method known to mankind which is immune to nexuses.

          I would give one more example. Say you own  factory. Say you have 100 laborers. And say Govt makes 2 new rules – (1)every month, money from your account will be deducted and salary will be deposited in your laborers’ account (2)you can NOT expel any of these workers for 5 to 35 years. Then 3 months after these new rules come, how many workers will be obeying you? Please do not read further without answering this question. I will re-ask this question : three months after these new rules come, will level of indiscipline increase or decrease? How many workers will obey you?

          IOW, so called (proposed) Right to Recall aka procedures by which citizens can expel Supreme Court judges, PM, CM, MP, MLA, judges etc is borne out common sense. It is very much mentioned in scriptures such as Satyarth Prakash and Atharvved. It has been implemented in modern US and Greece of 600 BC. But one doesn’t need scriptures nor history to get the gist of Right to Recall --- it is plain vanilla common sense. 

2.6 Right to Recall in modern US

The Recall procedures’ drafts in US vary from state to state, district to district. E.g. citizens in about 20 states have procedures by which citizens can recall Governors. And many states have right to recall District as well as High Court judges. Many states did not have right to recall Governors, judges etc when their Constitution were drafted in the beginning. But later, the citizens added recall procedures for Governors, judges etc. And many states have referendum procedures. And so even the states in USA where recall procedures don’t exist today, the officials know that if they misbehave, the citizens are very much capable of creating recall procedures via referendum procedures and expelling them, just like citizens did in many other States. IOW, the threat of recall is over every State/District official, even where recall procedures don’t yet exist.

You may be interested in knowing about some real recall examples. As an example, I will post the news from a US newspaper namely Palo Alto Daily of 4-may-2007. The reader may want to check the link : paloaltodailynews.com/article/2007-5-4-05-04-07-smc-sheriff-recall   for the entire article

Recall  effort  against  Sheriff  Munks  begins

A San Carlos resident is organizing an effort to recall San Mateo County's top law-draft enforcement officer. Michael Stogner said Thursday he plans to file a notice of intent by Monday to recall Sheriff Greg Munks, who was caught ... [in an alleged wrongful act] .. in Las Vegas on April 19. Munks said in a statement April 24 he thought he was visiting a legitimate business and didn't break any laws, but he has declined to answer any questions  ...  Though Stogner believes there is wide public support for ousting the sheriff, recalling any San Mateo County official is a tall order. Elections office spokesman David Tom said 10 percent of registered voters in the county must sign a petition to get a recall effort on the ballot. That works out to about 35,000 people. ....

Sheriff means District Police Chief in US. Not all, but some 70% to 80% of the District Police Chiefs in US are elected directly by the commons and the rest are appointed. Be appointed or elected, the citizens in US have formal or informal procedures to expel these police chiefs. The commons in many districts also have procedures to recall Mayors, District Govt Lawyer, District Education Officer etc. And can citizens in US recall judges? Well, many States have Right to Recall judges as well. There are many examples of cases wherein citizens tried to recall a judge at judgerecall.com . And please see following URL from Berkeley University’s website. igs.berkeley.edu/library/htRecall2003.html  to get an idea of Recall procedure in California.

The Recall Mechanism for officers, judges in California

The first step in a recall effort is the circulation of recall petitions. The process begins with the filing of a notice-of-intent-to-recall petition written in the proper legal language and signed by 65 voters. Once that is accomplished, the recall petition can be circulated in earnest. Petitions for the recall of statewide officers must be signed by voters equal in number to 12% of the last vote for that office, including voters from each of five counties equal in number to 1% of the last vote for the office in that county. Petitions for the recall of state legislators must equal in number to 20% of the last vote for the office. The recall ballot has two components: a yes or no vote for recall, and the names of replacement candidates, selected by the nomination process used in regular elections. …. The recall mechanism for statewide officers and legislators in California first appeared as a constitutional amendment in 1911, one of several reform measures put in place by the Progressive administration of Governor Hiram Johnson. The most controversial provision of the amendment was the inclusion of judges, and the justices of the state Supreme Court in particular, among the state officers subject to recall. Proponents favored the amendment as another mechanism to fight graft and corruption in government. Opponents criticized it as a device that extremists and malcontents would employ to harass and remove honest officials. Recalls have often been attempted in California against statewide elected officials and legislators. All governors in the last 30 years have faced some level of recall attempt. In 2003 Governor Gray Davis became the first statewide official to face a recall election. Recall efforts against state legislators have reached the voting stage, and four were actually recalled. Senator Marshall Black (R-Santa Clara County) was recalled in 1913, followed by Senator Edwin Grant (D-San Franisco) in 1914, and by Assembly members Paul Horcher (R-Los Angeles County) and Doris Allen (R-Orange County) in 1995. There have been many successful recall attempts at the local government level in California. For general historical background on the recall in California see:  Bird, Fredrick L., and Ryan, Frances M. The Recall of Public Officers: a Study of the Operation of the Recall in California. New York: Macmillan, 1930. ; Nolan, Martin F. "The Angry Governor [Hiram Johnson]," California Journal, v. 34, no. 9 (Sept. 2003), p. 12-18.  ;  Spivak, Joshua. Why Did California Adopt the Recall? History News Network, Sept. 15, 2003. ;   "The Recall Amendment," Transactions of the Commonwealth Club of California, v. 6, no. 3 (July 1911), p. 153-225.  (Please read whole article at http://igs.berkeley.edu/library/htRecall2003.html )

Someone in India who has only read textbooks written by the “Textbook Mafia” (textbook authors who have sponsorship of political\economic elitemen) may find it impossible to believe that there is a country right on this very planet where citizens can even expel even High Court judges via majority vote !! How could these commons do so? How dare they --- as judges are above the Gods !! At least that’s what eminent intellectuals with 4 digit IQ, who are also Nayaya-Murti-Pujak, in India have always upheld. Now will illiteracy play havoc if recall laws comes? These recall procedures have been in US since 1800 AD, when literacy was below 10%. So the argument that “recall is not good for India as most Indians are illiterate” is wrong.  Besides, literacy in India is low and US Is high mainly because citizens in US have Right to Recall District Education Officer and citizens in India don’t have any such powers. So money allocated to education gets siphoned out.

The threat of recall is the ONLY reason why district police chiefs, judges etc in US are far less corrupt than police chiefs, judges etc in India. Please note – there is no other reason. And I repeat once more – there is no other reason. And of all false reasons, the “political culture” reason is the biggest nonsense. “Lack of awareness” reason is another big nonsense.

So answering the question “why policemen in US are less corrupt than in India”, in the words of Atharvaved and Maharshi Dayanandji, the reason is that the Police Chief in US is Prajaa-Aadheen while in the one in India is not Prajaa-aadheen at all. And Atharvaved and Maharshi Dayanand Saraswatijee say that if the Raajaa (or Raaj Karmachaari such as Police Chief) is not Prajaa-aadheen, he will rob the citizens. We see that all the time in today’s India. And not just District Police Chief of US, Governor, MLA, District judge, District Education Officer, District Public Prosecutor, and in some states in US, even High Court Chief judge are all Prajaa-aadheen. And so these Govt employee’s robbery is less in US. And in same US, Senators are not Prajaa-aadheen, and they are all corrupt. Federal officers appointed President are not Prajaa-aadheen, and so they are all corrupt. So what Atharvaved says applies in US without exception. And in India, no one from Patwari to Supreme Court Chief judge is Prajaa-aadheen. And no wonder, they are almost all corrupt.

And the recall threat is so effective that citizens have to use it rarely - less than 0.05% of officers in US ever face recall. The recall procedures ensure that officials behave well and so there is rarely a need for recall. The procedure of recall has ensured that officers seldom become even 1% as corrupt as officers in India and work with expected efficiency. In fact, recall procedure increases re-election rate as officials behave well and so citizens seldom see need to replace him in next election.

The citizens of US have been having these recall procedures since 1800s. But India’s eminent intellectuals insist that citizens of India MUST not have these recall procedures even in 2010 as we Indians are inferior to Americans and we Indians have inferior political cultural, moral value, manasikta etc !! Well, my response to these eminent intellectuals is – “hell with your 4-digit IQ and hell with all your gyaan. I believe that recall is must and it is the only way to reduce corruption and nepotism in Indian judocracy, polity, administration. And so I ask citizens of India to force PM to issue Gazette Notifications that would enable us citizens to replace PM, Supreme Court judges, CMs, High Court judges, Ministers, District Police chiefs, RBI Governor and about 200 such positions. Most MPs of every party and almost all eminent intellectual has opposed my proposed recall procedures. And that has only encouraged me further.

Now the question is – how can we citizens enact Right to Recall in India? For this, I have proposed TCP law-draft, which I discussed in the chap-1.

2.7    A short history of Right to Recall in India

Right to Recall is mentioned in Atharvaved. Atharvaved says that Sabha , assembly of all citizens, can expel the King. Maharshi Dayanand Saraswatijee in chap-6 of Satyarth Prakash explain Raj-Dharma And in one of first 5 sholkas, Maharshi say – Raajaa must be Prajaa-aadheen i.e. dependent on us commons. Please note – he uses the word “aadheen” i.e. completely dependent. And in the next shloka, Maharshi Dayanand say that if Raajaa is not Prajaa-aadheen, then such a Raajaa would rob the citizens just as a carnivorous animal eats other animals and thus such a Raajaa (who is not Prajaa-aadheen) would destroy the nation. And Maharshi Saraswatijee has taken both shlokas from Atharvved written ages ago. And the word Raajaa here includes all Raaj-Karmachaaries i.e. employees of Govt from Supreme Court Chief judge to Patwari. All employees of Govt must be Prajaa-aadheen, or they will rob the citizens. So say the sages who wrote Atharvaved and Maharshi Dayanand Saraswatijee agree with those sages. So Right to Recall is at very heart of Indian Vedas, and thus all streams Indic Sects and Religions, which derive root beliefs from Vedas.

And please note – Dayanand Saraswatijee does not speak about BandhaaraNa-aadheen Raajaa, he talks about Prajaa-aadheen Raajaa. In India, the eminent intellectuals with 4 digit IQ have insisted opposite of what Atharvaved and Satyarth Prakash suggest. The eminent intellectuals with 4 digit IQ say that Raajaa and Raaj-Karmachaari i.e. Govt employees should not be Prajaa-aadheen at all but should be only be BandhaaraNa-aadheen i.e. dependent on book such as Constitution only. This whole concept of BandhaaraNa-Aadheen Raajaa i.e. BandharaNa-aadheen Ministers, BandharaNa-aadheen officers, BandharaNa-aadheen policemen and BandharaNa-aadheen judges is humbug as so called BandharaNa’s interpretation can be twisted by judges, Ministers etc like a piece of wax. This concept of BandharaNa-aadheen Ministers\judges is Demonistic (Rakshashi)  thought meant to create an illusion only.

2.8    A short history of Right to Recall in World over

The Right to Recall was used in Greece in 500 BC. Almost all cities in Greece had procedures by which citizens can assemble, and expel the King. Even the mighty Alexander of Macedonia, who defeated all kings between Greece and Yamuna, was expellable by his citizens !! There is no known record that procedure was ever used to expel a king --- and perhaps people never expelled kings ,  because Right to Recall King creates a threat that makes a King behave well, and there is seldom a need to expel him.

2.9    Right to Recall and Jury System in Greece

Now the Greek nations like every country also faced another issue – what if one officer of the King misbehaves, not the King himself? Calling Assembly of all thousands of citizens for every small case of abuse of power by an officer is too time consuming and expensive. And if senior officers and Kings are given sole control over junior officers, then all the officers will only serve the seniors and Kings and not the citizens. So a very ingenious way to control officers was drafted by the ancient Greeks. Every time an official  was accused of crime, 50 citizens were chosen at random to decide if the officer should be expelled/punished. And these 50 randomly chosen citizens were (rightly) assumed as best possible and least nexusprone representation the will of all citizens of the nation. And if the officer was senior, 100 citizens would chosen at random to decide the case. And if he was more senior then 200, 300, 400 or 500 citizens would be called. The size of largest Jury was 500 citizens, above which came Assembly of all citizens. This procedure gave birth to the Jury System in West, a system never recorded in ancient China or India etc. To a considerable, extent, “Right to Expel junior  official via Jury Trial” is close to Right to Recall by explicit majority vote.

Later, Jury System was extended to trials over the common citizens as well. The Greeks (rightly) believed that Trial by Jury is less prone to corruption and nexuses than Trial by kings or Trial by appointed judges, and so important trials in Greece were always decided by Juries. E.g. the execution of Socrates was decided by  a Jury of 500 Athens citizens. The Jurors were convinced that Socrates’ teachings were responsible for his pupils’ (such as Critias) actions of overthrowing Democracy in Athens and killing many Athenians. And the fact that Socrates never criticized his pupils’ actions of overthrowing Democracy and killing many Athenians had only made Athenian more angry against Socrates. Back then in Athens, it was unwritten law that everyone would fight against and criticize a tyrant. Further, Athens had created a belief that if a citizen does not serve Military to protect Athens, then Gods will punish him in hell. This belief enabled Athens to create a Military to protect Athens, because Athens did not have a paid Military back then. Socrates was trying to convince the youth that these beliefs were nonsense, and so many Athenian got convinced that Socrates is saying so to weaken the Military of Athens. Socrates was at first asked to leave Athens, but  when Socrates refused to leave Athens, he was tried by a Jury of 500 Athenians. About 340 voted for death penalty for Socrates and 160 voted for severe fine but not death. After trial too, Socrates was given option to leave Athens, but Socrates chose not to. Socrates was aging and fragile. Socrates perhaps saw more fame and glory in execution than natural death that would have anyway come in few years. And so the verdict of 500 Jurors was carried out. All in all, important decision in Athens and many Greek Nations were made by citizens directly and not by appointed judges. ‘

2.10                    Right to Recall and Jury System in Rome

In Romans, Assembly of Plebeians had all powers – and was more powerful than Senate. In theory, the Assembly of Plebeians had right to enact laws, and even expel Emperor. But since the procedure code was that “all Plebeians must come to one place”, the physical impossibility made the “Assembly of Plebeians” a useless entity. When population is large, “all citizens come to one place” is impossible. When population is large, one must use a system where there is one booth for each small area. But the Romans could not think of booth system or the Roman elitemen did not allow booth system and so the “Assembly of Plebeians” became logistically unviable concept. The Romans did practice Jury System in high places, and cases involving commons were decided by judges. The  Romans did not practice Jury System at all levels, but the Romans had elected judges, which reduced injustices. All in all, Rome had no Right to Recall, but election of judges and limited Jury System provided a very limited Right to Recall.

The Right to Recall and Jury System both practically disappeared in so called Dark Ages. In around 700 AD, due to Islamic invasions, the Priests and Kings or Europe had no option but to arm commons in large number. And so citizens gained more and more weapons. The weaponization of us Commons is the mother of Democracy. Weaponization of commons makes commons so strong that in 950 AD, the citizens of UK could force Kings to introduce Jury System, in form of Coroner’s Jury where in 12 citizens chosen at random can expel a policemen accused of killing a citizen. Later Coroner’s Jury became so popular, that citizens got convinced that Trial by Jury is less nexusprone than Trial by judges. The demand for Jury Trial and abolition or reduction of judge trials grew and in around 1100 AD, the citizens forced the King of England to print and sign Magna Carta where-in king was forced to make a promise that he and his officers will not punish citizens without approval Jury chosen from common citizens, and Jury got powers to expel/fine officials. So by 1200 AD, UK had “Right to Recall via Jury System” over junior officials.

2.11                    Right to Recall and Jury System in USA

US was first country to practice Right to Recall in full blown way. The first Police Commissioner’s (Sheriff’s) office was installed in Massachusetts, and had Right to Recall Sheriff, but was very informally stated. One major reason why Americans overthrew British in 1770s was because the British Kings did not want Jury System and Right to Recall in the American Colonies. After independence in 1770s, the States and Districts started writing formal laws. Many States introduced Right to Recall Police Chiefs, local judges and Governors. But Right to Recall was not put at Federal level. Why? Back then, the so called Federal Govt (Central Govt) of US was to administer only the Military and inter-state relations, and so the founding fathers of US never thought that the US President, Senators and Federal judges will ever have so much powers. So none thought of Right to Recall over President, Senators, Federal judges and Federal officers. Which is why all these Federal offices in US are full of corruption, but in same in US, recallable officials like Police Chief, Governor, local judges etc are least corrupt. So it is not culture or political culture or national character - it is presence or absence of right to recall (or Jury System) which decides how corrupt the officer would be.

2.12                    Comrade Marx and Comrade Angels supported RTR

Here is the quote by Friedrich Engels’s  Introduction to Karl Marx, The Civil War in France” (1871) from marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1871/civil-war-france/postscript.htm

From the very outset the Commune was compelled to recognize that the working class, once come to power, could not go on managing with the old state machine; that in order not to lose again its only just conquered supremacy, this working class must, on the one hand, do away with all the old repressive machinery previously used against it itself, and, on the other, safeguard itself against its own deputies and officials, by declaring them all, without exception, subject to recall at any moment. What had been the characteristic attribute of the former state? Society had created its own organs to look after its common interests, originally through simple division of labor. But these organs, at whose head was the state power, had in the course of time, in pursuance of their own special interests, transformed themselves from the servants of society into the masters of society. This can be seen, for example, not only in the hereditary monarchy, but equally so in the democratic republic. ….

2.13                    Comrade Stalin supported RTR

Comrade Lenin and Comrade Joseph Stalin also supported Right to Recall. Comrade Joseph in 1937  made fun of British, European and American Democracies by citing that there were no recall procedures in Europe. And Stalin claimed that Soviet Democracy was superior as Soviet Democracy had recall procedures at the local Deputy level.  Comrade Stalin said in 1937 :

Further, comrades, I would like to give you some advice, the advice of a candidate to his electors. If you take capitalist countries you will find that peculiar, I would say, rather strange relations exist there between deputies and voters. As long as the elections are in progress, the deputies flirt with the electors, fawn on them, swear fidelity and make heaps of promises of every kind. It looks as though the deputies are completely dependent on the electors. As soon as the elections are over, and the candidates have become deputies, relations undergo a radical change. Instead of the deputies being dependent on the electors, they become entirely independent. For four or five years, that is, until the next elections, the deputy feels quite free, independent of the people, of his electors. He may pass from one camp to another, he may turn from the right road to the wrong, he may even become entangled in machinations of a not altogether savoury character, he may turn as many somersaults as he likes -- he is independent.

    Can such relations be regarded as normal? By no means, comrades. This circumstance was taken into consideration by our Constitution and it made it a law that electors have the right to recall their deputies before the expiration of their term of office if they begin to play tricks, if they turn off the road, or if they forget that they are dependent on the people, on the electors.

I am a great admirer of Stalin, because he created a massive Military which protected Russia from Hitler in 1940s and later from George Bush in 2000 AD. But Stalin’s right to recall procedures were total joke --- any citizen who would have demanded recall was likely to imprisoned or even executed.  So while Stalin supported right to recall in theory, in practice he had opposed it. Also, he was wrong in reporting that West doesn’t have RTR. US has been having RTR since 1800s. (Aside : I will re-state that I am an admirer of Stalin as he created a Military, weapon manufacturing factories and nuclear weapons which saved Russia. Stalin’s Military strengthening methods are the only reasons why USUK still haven’t dared to do convert Russia into an Iraq)

2.14                    Mahatma Chandrashekhar Azad had supported RTR in 1925

On 1-jan-1925, Mahatma Chandrashekhar Azad and Mahatma Sachendra Nath Sanyal founded Hindustan Republic Association, which was later renamed as Hindustan Republican Socialist Army in 1928. It was the same organization, by which Mahatma Bhagat Singh and others masterminded the vadh or phansi of Police Chief Sanders. In the Manifesto of HRA released on 1-jan-1925 of HRA “In this Republic (that we wish to create) the electors shall have the right to recall their representatives, if so desired, otherwise the democracy shall become a mockery." (source : shahidbhagatsingh.org/index.asp?link=revolutionary )

So as back in 1925, Mahatma Chandrashekhar Azad, Mahatma Sachindra Nath Sanyal etc could see that in absence of RTR, representatives will sell out and make democracy a democracy. This demand for RTR in 1925 did not come from thin air. This came from real life experience. In 1919, first elections were held under Govt of India Act 1919, and most representatives who got elected sold out and became corrupt. So most wise men, such as Mahatma Sachendra Nath Sanyal saw the need of RTR as back as in 1925.

The elitemen of India asked eminent intellectuals of India not to write this fact in textbooks. And the eminent intellectuals in India also hate RTR to such an extent, and all textbook writers ensured that students know nothing about Sanyal and his demand for RTR. So the HRA manifesto, one of the most important historical document of India, was buried under carpet and never given to students. As a result, very few in India today know that demand of RTR in India is not new, it was there since 1925 and it was made by none other than organization of Mahatma Bhagat Singh.

2.15                    Right to Recall in India from 1946 to 1999

In India, M. N Roy in 1946 in his book  The Draft Constitution of India” supported Right to Recall but gave no procedures. The two main Communist Parties of India, CPI and CPM have been demanding recall rights since 1950s in their speeches, but their leaders refuse to give drafts. Even in 2004 when CPI/CPM had 60 MPs, they did not demand a vote on their right to recall drafts in the Parliament. And there are over 960 registered  parties in India, and perhaps over 300 of them support right to recall and none of them give draft. Jayprakash Narayan demanded right to recall  since 1950s and intensified his demand in early 1970s. Janata Party’s manifesto in 1977, on which leaders such as Moraraji Desai, Atal Bihari Vajpai and Lal Krishna Advani etc contested elections, had right to recall as one of the main demands. BJP leaders have supported “right to recall” numerous times. And their inactions are appalling. E.g. in 1977, after winning Parliamentary elections by landslide, if JP had asked 500,000 youth to surround Parliament and not let MPs walk out till they enact the recall laws, India would have got recall laws in 5 days. But JP never ever gave such a call to the youth. The followers of JP became anti-RTR after they became MPs and came in power via friends in MP and so RTR movement died.

From what I heard from my father’s old freedom fighter friends, Mahatma Dutt was trying to spread information on Right to Recall in 1950s. After all, Guru of Mahatma Dutt, Mahatma Sachindranath Sanyal and Mahatma Chandrashekhar Azad had predicted in 1925 in that “elections without Right to Recall would be mockery”. But efforts of Mahatma Dutt got sidelined because of Jaiprakash Narayan. In 1964, Mahatma Dutt passed away in near anonymity in a general ward of  AIIMS, New Delhi. His efforts to spread RTR did not even find ways in paid-media, and remained largely unheard.

The draftless lip service to RTR nevertheless went on. Many such as Laloo Yadav said that they supported Right to Recall. But they refuse to give draft.

I was the only candidate in May-2009 elections who gave DRAFT of the Right to Recall laws I had supported. CPI\CPM MPs have always refused to provide the DRAFTS of recall procedures they support. Jay Prakash Narayan never gave drafts for 25 years and always stalled the discussion on drafts. The followers of JPN such as Laloo Yadav, Mulayam Yadav etc claim they support RTR but refuse to give drafts of the laws they claim they support. Somnath Chaterjee  has been MP for 25 years and has been supporting RTR for 25 years but never inwarded draft  of RTR law-draft he supports.

Right to Recall has been intensely hated by the wealthy individuals all over world. Now all eminent intellectuals  are agents of wealthy individuals and so all the eminent intellectuals too also oppose Right to Recall PM, CMs, judges etc. The reason why eminent intellectuals hate RTR is because of the grants they get from elitemen. Consider any elitemen in top 10-20 elitemen of India. Think of his name --- say Mukeshbhai. Say you are on his chair. Say you notice two activists --- one is actively campaigning for Right to Recall PM, Right to Recall Supreme Court judges etc and one keeps silence on RTR or supports RTR over Sarpanch only. If you are an elitemen, whom would you give grant to – the rustic who supports RTR-PM or the eminent intellectuals who opposes RTR-PM? The answer is evident – if citizens g+ets Right to Recall PM, CM etc then their ability to give free lunches to elitemen at the cost of nation decreases. And so you would fund intellectuals who opposes RTR-PM, RTR-judges etc. The eminent intellectuals are very grant-aware and they sense the pulse of the elitemen, and so take anti-RTR-PM stand well in advance so that his chances of getting grants increase. The grant is the main reason why eminent intellectuals of India oppose RTR. Sometimes, the grants are in form of newspaper coverage and TV-coverage. But at the end of the day, most eminent intellectuals are driven by grants in some form.

So much so, that eminent intellectuals of India have refused to even write these pieces of information in their columns and textbooks that “citizens of US have procedures to expel District Police Chiefs and judges”, lest such information will make readers and students think about Right to Recall. Most of the MPs, MLAs Ministers, retired judges etc I came across have opposed Right to Recall. And most damage was done by none other than Jayprakash Narayan, who posed himself as supporter of RTR, but refused to propose draft for RTR when his own men of Janata Party were in power in 1977.

2.16                    Right to Recall in India from 1999 to sep-2011

By 1999, newspaper columnists, textbook writers and media-owners ensured that there is no information on RTR in newspapers and textbooks. Today, few young men know what “Right to Recall” means and even MA Political Science don’t know that citizens in US have RTR Police Chief and RTR judges. The followers of JP would sometimes do give lip service to RTR, but that was about it. The RTR demand which was emphasized by Swami Dayanand Saraswatijee in 1870, by Mahatma Chandrashekhar Azad in 1925 and by Jayprakash Narayan was all but lost.

I would proudly say that re-pioneered the Right to Recall proposals in around 1998-1999.

When I started campaigning for RTR law-drafts in 1999 in India, I found that almost none in youth had any information of RTR. It was mainly due to my 8-10 newspaper advertisements, distribution of about 100,000 pamphlets, sending over 100000 emails and over 10000 posts in internet communities, that by 13-jul-2010 about 50000 to 100000 people in India came to know what “Right to Recall PM, CMs, judges etc” is. And many of these 50000 to 100000 started spreading the news further. And I was the first and only election candidate in the history of 60 years of India who has proposed the DRAFT of the recall laws I am demanding and promising. I request citizens to demand the draft of recall laws from the leaders who claim that they support recall. Their evading this request will prove that they do not support RTR in reality and they are just hypocrites.

All in all, till Dec-2010, I was one of the very few politicians spreading information on RTR. My claim has been :- if my proposed RTR draft and my campaign methods are right, every new coming politician will be forced to support RTR, though most will support with intention to kill the RTR Movement. But in process, against their will, they will end up giving publicity to my proposed draft. As my drafts reach more and more activists, the movement will gain strength. The drafts have these feature --- more psuedo-recallists or anti-recallists try to denigrate the draft, the position of the draft in the minds of non-80-G will become stronger. And that may ensure that RTR will come in India.

Some success came. From dec-2010 to aug-2011, I was trying to convince volunteers of The Anna, that “Right to Recall Lokpal” is must. The pressure on Lord Anna increased to a point that on apr-08-2011, Almighty Ann was forced to say that he wants RTR !! This was news and shock to many who knew The Anna since the days when he was just “an Anna”. In 72 years of his life and 30 years of activism, Anna had never supported or demanded RTR. And he did not put Right to Recall Information Commissioner in Right to Information Act, and also did not put Right to recall Lokpal clauses in the Janlokpal draft. His village, Ralegaon Siddi doesn’t have RTR Sarpanch nor did Anna ever demanded such procedure. All this proves that The Anna was never in favor of RTR. But activists pressure made him give lip service to RTR. As RTR movement increased, on 28-Aug-2011, The Anna again gave lip service to RTR. But The Anna has always refused to give a draft for RTR and he repeated said that activists must not campaign for Right to Recall till utter useless Right to Reject is implemented !! And when anti-recallists claim that RTR is impractical and too expensive, The  Anna always refused to cite a viable cost effective procedure – which created a feeling that RTR is indeed impractical. The Anna has already added Right to Reject, a useless proposal, to sideline Right to Recall, and even when it comes to Right to Recall, he insists that it should be confined to Sarpanch and Corporator. All in all, by aug-2011 , Right to Recall movement has become strong enough that anti-recallists cant ignore it anymore, and had to send their best agent, The Anna, to guise as a (pseudo-) recallists to misguide the naïve Recallists.

But if more and more activists come to read the RTR drafts I have proposed, the movement will become stronger and anti-recallists will not be able to block it.

2.17                    The Neo-Recallists Movement in India

The Neo-RTR Movement that I started in oct-1998 has a point which will perhaps make it difficult for psuedo-recallists like The Anna and anti-recallists like BJP, Congress and CPM MPs to crack. The neo-Recallists have no human leader and no organization to tell them know. The only leaders are THE RTR DRAFTS.  The neo-Recallists have to do only 3 things --- understand the Right to Recall procedure code draft, ask PM to add them in Gazette and explain it further. The anti-recallists and psuedo-recallists thrive by claiming that Right to Recall is too expensive, and the RTR-drafts prove that they are liars. So as more and more non-80G-activists will come to know that a viable RTR draft exists, the movement will grow. If it crosses a threshold, then PM\CMs will be forced to print  RTR-drafts in the Gazette and that will be the beginning of RTR in India.

2.18                    Constitutional validity of RTR procedures in India

The eminent intellectuals in India insists that RTR is unconstitutional !! Well, in section-7.2, I have provided draft of Gazette Notification using which citizens can replace Supreme Court Chief judge. Till date, no eminent intellectual has found time to read the draft and tell me which clause of the GN I proposed violates Constitution !! Or may be, they did read the drafts, but could not find anything unconstitutional, and so they are claiming that they have NOT read the drafts at all. In any case, we the people wrote the Constitution, and so we the people shall decide what is Constitutional and what is not. So the decision on Constitutionality of the drafts I have proposed has to be taken by Citizens of India, not the SCjs of India

2.19                    Did RTR in modern US come from Atharvaved?

Did RTR came in modern US from Atharvaved? Well, many democratic and RTR related political thoughts in US and Europe came after British landed in India and got access to Sanskrit texts. And these thoughts escalated after 1757 AD when Robert Clive defeated Siraj-ud-Daula, bought or confiscated 10000s of ancient Sanskrit books from libraries in Kolkata and various parts of India, and shipped them to UK. Many books went to US from UK in around 1758-60. And RTR appears in US in early 1760s. Now I have no proofs that political thinkers of US derived RTR idea from the Sanskrit texts. But the timing is too obvious to ignore.

2.20                    My discovering RTR and Atharvaved (Satyarth Prakash)

I got chance to read Satyarth Prakash from my Arya Samaajee roommate Sandeep Tyagi in IITD in 1987. The shloka that “Raajaa must be Prajaa-aadheen” touched my heart and stayed in my mind forever. But as I got busy with courses, exams etc, a few years later, I forgot that I had read this shloka in Satyarth Prakash, though the words remained in my mind. Then in 1990 I landed in US, and I saw that policemen, junior officers etc here are practically non-corrupt. I started searching for reasons. Back then, there was no WWW even in US, and search for reasons involved 100s of visits to libraries, attending town meetings etc. Some 7 years later, in 1997,  I came across the fact that citizens in US have procedures to expel District Police Chief, and the “Raajaa must be Prajaa-aadheen” flashed in my mind and immediately helped me in understanding why corruption is low in US police. But in 1997, I could not remember the book from which I had read this sentence !! In 2009, I joined Param Pujya Baba Ramdevji’s Bharat Swabhiman Trust and showed RTR drafts to BST members. Many BST members said that RTR matches the views in Satyarth Prakash. So in 2010, I read Satyarth Prakash again and I remembered that I had read the same book in 1987, which had led me towards RTR concept.

So yes, to a considerable extent, the sentence “Raajaa must be Prajaa-aadheen” from Satyarth Prakash chap-6 first page led me towards understanding as well as deriving Right to Recall procedure draft.

2.21   How leaders and eminent intellectuals in India are sabotaging RTR

Many leaders, like The Anna, The Chhote Anne, Subramanian Swamy and other kubuddheejeevies are actively sabotaging Right to Recall using following methods :

1.  By throwing vague statements such as  RTR PM, RTR Supreme judges  etc is impractical” : One dirty trick eminent intellectuals have used since time immemorial is to throw the word “impractical”. What does the word mean? The word impractical has several meanings --- (1)there are no bribes or no grants or media-sponsorship to be earned by supporting RTR-PM, RTR Supreme Court judges etc. (2)the citizens will never be willing to spend Rs 3 and 15 minutes of time needed to recall (3)if crores of citizens decide to file approvals, then staff and fee and staff will be insufficient to register approvals. (4)any other meaning. The eminent intellectual will never clarify which meaning he has and will simply use the vague word “impractical” and thus get away. If and when an eminent intellectual throws the word “impractical”, instead of arguing against him, pls make statement before audience that the eminent intellectual is trying to confuse the audience by using vague words and not giving any clear statement, and request him to clarify the statement.

2.  By spreading lies that RTR is unconstitutional : Most leaders and ku-buddheejeevies will refuse to read one page draft (given in section-6.6) for Right to Recall PM or see chap-7 for Right to recall Supreme Court Chief judge. Pls read this draft clause by clause to them, and ask them which clause of the proposed draft violates which article number of the Constitution. They will fail to cite the article number, and then will start mumbling and fumbling. This will convince you that no clause of the proposed draft violates any article in the Constitution, and thus the draft is Constitutional.

3.  By insisting on RTR for elected representatives : Many leaders and eminent intellectuals will insist on “RTR for elected representatives” and thus declare themselves as pro-RTR, where as in reality  they are psuedo-recallists. Because what they mean is “RTR for elected representatives only” and thus they oppose RTR Supreme Court judges, RTR PM, RTR CM etc. The main reason why they oppose RTR PM, RTR CM, RTR Supreme Court judges etc because the grants eminent intellectuals get from the elitemen. The eminent intellectuals who use the phrase “RTR over elected representatives” should be confronted by request to explain they oppose RTR over Supreme Court judges, in case the SCjs are corrupt, and RTR over PM, CM etc.

4.  By insisting on chillar like RTR Sarpanch and refusing RTR PM, RTR Lokpal etc : The psuedo-Recallists like Anna will always insist that citizens must first confine to RTR Corporators and RTR and should never be applied on PM, Lokpal etc.

5.  By insisting on draftless movement : The psuedo-Recallists like Anna will talk about Right to Recall and refuse to give drafts there by creating an image that RTR is unviable. This only helps the anti-recallists.

6.  By demanding indefinite delay in RTR activism : The psuedo-recallists like Anna will tell activists not to campaign for Right to Recall till Lokpal bill is passed, and then they will demand that activists should not campaign for Right to Recall till Right to Reject is passed. And then the psuedo-recallists will cook some other excuse to delay the task of giving information about Right to Recall laws to the citizens.  IOW, they insist that RTR campaign should be taken up in the next lifetime only and not in this lifetime.

7.  By asking activists to divert focus on useless proposals like Lokpal, Right to Reject etc : The psuedo-recallists will add 2 to 10 more proposals in the bag, such as useless Right to Reject, useless campaign finance reforms etc and then finally settle on many proposals minus Right to Recall, and claiming partial victory and asking activists to wind up. Thus they will insist on keeping Right to Recall as a pending issue all the time.

8.  Demanding signature based RTR procedure code , oppose appearance based code : Another way is float a signature based procedure, which is a horrible mess, and thus create an image that Right to Recall is infeasible. Eg Nitish Kumar proposed a law-draft in which in a  ward of 50000, recalling Corporator would need 25000 signature !! In a typical ward, less than 20000 know how to sign, and Collector doesn’t have specimen signature to compare against !! So signature gathering is a useless procedure and only adds strength to anti-recallists. As opposed to that, my procedure is “appearance based procedure” where person has to personally appear in Talati’s office and approve alternate candidate. Hence problem of fraud reduces and problem is verification is also solved. But psuedo-recallists will always oppose appearance based procedure and insist on unviable signature based procedure.

These are some of the techniques psuedo-recallists use to misguide the naïve Recallists. This techniques will not work on the activists who have understood the draft and importance of the draft fully well. The “well informed neo-Recallists” are immune to all tricks of psuedo-recallists.

2.22                    Stand of politicians and activist-leaders on RTR

All MPs in Congress, BJP, CPM, CPI have opposed RTR. Advani, Pranav Mukherjee, Nitish Kumar, Laloo Yadav, Mulayam Yadav etc have also opposed RTR. Even opposition MPs such as Subramanian Swamy has opposed RTR. These corrupt politicians oppose RTR because these politicians depend heavily on MNC-owners, Missionaries, Saudi Arabia and Indian elitemen for media support i.e. MNC-owners, Missionaries etc pay mediamen to support these leaders. The MNC-owners, Missionaries etc do not want RTR in India, and so these leaders oppose RTR. Some MPs such Somnath Chaterjee insist on giving lip service only to RTR and oppose the proposal that RTR draft should be inwarded in the Parliament.

The activist leader such as The Anna has opposed the proposal to print RTR-Janlokpal clauses in the Janlokpal draft. Each of the Chhote Anne have also opposed RTR-Janlokpal. The also ask activist to oppose RTR-Janlokpal and insist on postponing RTR over MPs, MLAs etc. And The Anna and all Chhote Anne have flatly opposed RTR over PM, CMs, Supreme Court judges, High Court judges, RBI Governors etc.  They oppose RTR because they heavily depend on MNC-owners and Missionaries for media coverage. The MNC-owners and Missionaries are paying TV-channel-owners to cover them. And they all know that MNC-owners and Missionaries will not pay TV-channel-owners to cover them if they were to support TCP. And so The Anna etc oppose TCP.

All in  all, all MPs, MLAs, eminent intellectuals and activist leaders oppose RTR because they rightly fear that elitemen and Missionaries will stop supporting them if they were to support RTR.

2.23                    How can YOU help in reducing corruption in police?

Please send order to PM and Loksabha Speaker via SMS that your Yes\No sent via SMS on any bill presented in the Parliament should be posted on the website of Parliament. You can send order to CM via SMS to print RTR Police Chief draft in the Gazette. In addition, please read chap-13 of this book http://rahulmehta.com/301.htm . It has several steps where-in you can spend 4 hours a week and help to bring Right to Recall via SMS\ATM law-drafts in India. The steps involve sending orders to PM, CM etc via SMS, distributing pamphlets, informing citizens on motives of leaders who oppose RTR, giving newspaper ads, contesting elections on “RTR via SMS” plank etc. This will increases the chances that RTR Police Chief draft will get printed in the Gazette. And thus corruption in police will reduce.