Why should the Executive at the Centre become Almighty?
Why should he behave above the constitution, kill the Polity?
Let Me Speak Human! Let me support Kejriwal for his demand to control Delhi Police!
Kejri is an elected chief minister of an Indian State having landslide Mandate.
If the PM is empowered with the Mandate and Free to use his power, Why a CM is denied to execute the Mandate he got? Why the State and the people of Delhi should be deprived of full power and autonomy, the Constitution provides?
Rapes continue, unprecedented violence continues as Woman is a SEX Slave in the patriarchal society in Manusmriti caste and class hegemony rule and we, the people have ceased to be Social Animal, rather we are political animals devoid of humanity, morality, ethics and armed with money and muscle power, making in! Free flow of foreign capital and foreign interests has reduced the woman to saleable commodity despite her empowerment, despite their executive roles in every sphere of life!
Media, Art, Literature, Culture and Society, mediums and genres should be apolitical, then why we have to care for the political equations? Why we should not speak human? Why everything ends with the Politics? Why all these virtues have to be subjected to subsidence in Marketing Strategies?

This nonsense must stop!

Police should not be accountable to State Govt., why then we boast federal democracy? What is the logic of making separate state controlled by centre which might not ensure the safety of woman?
NDTV shared:
यह कैसी सियासती लड़ाई है मजहब की?बंटवारे की?
Mind you, the state Delhi is the national capital zone, where citizens including women have to enjoy privileges more than the masses in rest of India. Ironically nowhere else, the women, even those most empowered often raped and killed students from North East lynched, workers attacked and the Chief Minister feels helpless because the police is not accountable to the state government and the centre uses the police as it likes.

This nonsense must stop!

Capital Shame! 5-year-old and 2-year-old raped, what next, New Delhi monsters?

Even after the controversial legislation after Nirbhaya Rape and Murder that the Rapist should be hanged, nothing has changed hitherto!
Indian Woman is treated as Sex Slave irrespective of her caste, religion or race or status! Without rooting out the patriarchal society rapes would never stop and Indian society itself happens to be uprooted and gets the roots in the free market economy wherein Woman is reduced to the status of commodity on sale!
We are degenerated, decultured people devoid of ethics and morality, tradition whatsoever! Religion does not relate to faith or morality or ethics. It is reduced to politics only. It is reduced to power politics equations accounting for violence unprecedented and holocaust unabated.
Thus ,women is quite unsafe at home, working place, public place anytime anywhere round the clock as relation mean nothing these days i.e. Mother and Son, Brother and Sister and Father and Daughter.
This decline of humanity and civilization is said to be development and empowerment!
I have nothing to do with APP, Kejriwal or its politics. But I support Kejri while he asks that the police should be accountable to the state government, Mind you, he heads that government as he is elected Chief Minister with a landslide mandate!

Let me quote from DR. Ambedkar's maiden speech in the constitutional assembly which was debating the future of India while finalizing the framework of Constitution! The resolution was moved by the interim Prime Minister Jawaharlal Lal Nehru and the house was presided by Dr. Rajendra prasad.
Thus, Babsaheb spoke on the union of states and the centre!

I should like to invite your attention to Paragraph 3 of the Resolution, which I think (13/10) is very significant and very important. Paragraph 3 envisages the future constitution of India. I do not know what the intention of the mover of the Resolution is. But I take it that after this Resolution is passed, it will act as a sort of a directive to the Constituent Assembly to frame a constitution in terms of para. 3 of the Resolution. What does paragraph 3 say? Paragraph 3 says that in this country there shall be two different sets of polity, one at the bottom, autonomous Provinces or the States or such other areas as care to join a United India. These autonomous units will have full power. They will have also residuary powers. At the top, over the Provincial units, there will be a Union Government, having certain subjects for legislation, for execution and for administration. As I read this part of the Resolution, I do not find any reference to the idea of grouping, an intermediate structure between the Union on the one hand and the provinces on the other. Reading this para, in the light of the Cabinet Mission's Statement or reading it even in the light of the Resolution passed by the Congress at its Wardha session, I must confess that I am a great deal surprised at the absence of-any reference to the idea of grouping of the provinces. So far as I am personally concerned, I do not like the idea of grouping (hear, hear) I like a strong united Centre, (hear, hear) much stronger than the Centre we had created under the Government of India Act of 1935. But, Sir, these opinions, these wishes have no bearing on the situation at all. We have travelled a long road. The Congress Party, for reasons best known to itself consented, if I may use that expression, to the dismantling of a strong Centre which had been created in this country as a result of 15U years of administration and which I must say, was to me a matter of great admiration and respect and refuge. But having given up that position, having said that we do not want a strong centre, and having accepted that there must be or should be an intermediate polity, a sub-federation between the Union Government and the Provinces I would like to know why there is no reference in para. 3 to the idea of grouping. I quite understand that the Congress Party, the Muslim League and His Majesty's Government are not ad idem on the interpretation of the clause relating to grouping. But I always thought that, — I am prepared to stand corrected if it is shown that I am wrong,—at least it was agreed by the Congress Party that if the Provinces which are placed within different groups consent to form a Union or Sub-federation, the Congress would have no objection to that proposal. I believe I am correct in interpreting the mind of the (13/11) Congress Party. The question I ask is this. Why did not the Mover of this Resolution make reference to the idea of a Union of Province's or grouping of Provinces on the terms on which he and his party was prepared to accept it? Why the idea of Union is completely effaced from this Resolution? I find no answer. None whatever.

Babsaheb spoke earlier in the same speech:

I must confess that, coming as the Resolution does from Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru who is reputed to be a Socialist, this Resolution, although no controversial, is to my mind very disappointing. I should have expected him to go much further than he has done in that part of the Resolution. As a student of history, I should have preferred this part of the Resolution not being embodied in it at all. When one reads that part of the Resolution, it reminds one of the Declarations of the Rights of Man which was pronounced by the French Constituent Assembly. I think I am right in suggesting that, after the lapse of practically 450 years, the Declaration of the Rights of Man and the principles which are embodied in it has become part and parcel of our mental makeup. I say they have become not only the part and parcel of the mental make-up of modern man in every civilised part of the world, but also in our own country which is so orthodox, so archaic in its thought and its social structure, hardly anyone can be found to deny its validity. To repeat it now as the Resolution does is, to say the least, pure pedantry. These principles have become the silent immaculate premise of our outlook. It is therefore unnecessary to proclaim as forming a part of our creed. The Resolution suffers from certain other lacuna. I find that this part of the Resolution, although it enunciates certain rights, does not speak of remedies. All of us are aware of the fact that rights are nothing unless remedies are provided whereby people can seek to obtain redress when rights are invaded. I find a complete absence of remedies. Even the usual formula that no man's life, liberty and property shall be taken without the due process of law, finds no place in the Resolution. These fundamental rights set out are made subject to law and morality. Obviously what is law, what is morality will be determined by the Executive of the day and when the Executive may take one view another Executive may take another view and we do not know what exactly(13/8) would be the position with regard to fundamental rights, if this matter is left to the Executive of the day. Sir, there are here certain provisions which speak of justice, economical, social and political. If this Resolution has a reality behind it and a sincerity, of which I have not the least doubt, coming as it does from the Mover of the Resolution, I should have expected some provision whereby it would have been possible for the State to make economic, social and political justice a reality and I should have from that point of view expected the Resolution to state in most explicit terms that in order that there may be social and economic justice in the country, that there would be nationalisation of industry and nationalisation of land, I do not understand how it could be possible for any future Government which believes in doing justice socially, economically and politically, unless its economy is a socialistic economy. Therefore, personally, although I have no objection to the enunciation of these propositions, the Resolution is, to my mind, somewhat disappointing. I am however prepared to leave this subject where it is with the observations I have made.

Hastakshep