Message to Prashant Bhushan ji

[02/04 03:26] Manish Singh: dear Prashant ji,
just read your post "No. that is a misreading. ...."

I think that there is a Ideological Gap between You and Arvind ji at present.
BBC Hindi news line very craftly describes this gap when it says about expulsion of you and YY as जीत की राजनीति की जीत ।

I think we should put to Public Vote, a referendum, what *Should be*( the agreeable Moral, ethical, legal, or Utilitarian) approach to this dilemma.
I would like to make an attempt to accurately phrase the dilemma in a philosophical note :

Should a person who swears to erradicate Corruption, be allowed (or disallowed) Tactical Means , the so-called winning Strategies to defeat his rivals ??

Further, for a reminder, from the Vedic Epics of Ramayan , Lord Ram had used a tactical means to defeat and kill Raja Bali, in a fight between Bali and Sugreev.

In Mahabhrata, Krishn had designed lots of means to defeat the Kauravs, which included Killing of Bhishm, Dronacharya, Duryodhan ,etc.
_________________________________________________________________________

[02/04 03:27] Manish Singh: Let's put the matter with the help of another elaboration.
there are police cases registered even against Kejriwal, as per the records of the NGO Association for Democratic Reforms. In LS2014 The candidate with hightest criminal cases was Mr SP Udaykumar an AAP candidate from Kanyakumari.
   But we quite know and BEAR A CONSCIENCE that these cases deserve the PARLIMENTARY IMMUNITY as the way it should be. Their police cases have accured in way of a public interest protest and demonstration, not by a "political conspiracy and Vendetta Politics by the political opponents".

Within the AAP, the difference of opinion between AK and PB is about the THRESHOLD at which a candidate should be rejected by the AAP.
  PB is of the view that we will have to guided by the Public Image AND NOT JUST the police record antecedent since sometimes the wrong guys manage to pull the police not to register any cases, complaints against them.
    PB claims that certain such anti-social elements have come into the AAPs fold.

AK claims that he had made ample enquiries on those PB flagged nominations "through various resouces" and nothing was found.

The question before us, the Volunteers, is to lay down the Gold Standards Rule as to how a nomination shall be passed and failed.

I am of the view that PB proposed Public Image standard should NOT be used, as this will result into unjustified, discretionary actions of the AAP itself and may cause internal Corruption-of-sorts.
   However, answering to the possibility angle proposed by PB, we may proceed onto select a perceivably 'wrong' guy on the following two reasonings:
1) Our Internal Constitution and the Working Process must be strictly followed as pre-decided So to ensure that the suspect wrong guys do NOT usurp away the AAP party and its principles.
    I believe that our binding principles will themselves have the strength and ability to catch the wrong guy who has penetrated within our folds by giving any slips to the PAC or the Selection Committee. He still runs the risk of being caught even while he has successfully gotten with us.  The police administration and the independent CBI kinds AAP policies will ensure his culpability which he might have escaped until.
    Therefore, at the the PAC and the Selection Committee , a rational objective criteria should be used, not the Vogue Public Perception.

2) In the current political climate, we have more enemies than our friends. The rivals and the media will leave no stone unturned to expose any of the wrong guys who has yet managed to break ranks within us.