Legal Analysis of Politics (LAP)

The recent executive order of American President Donald Trump of banning migrants from seven Muslim-majority countries has triggered a heating debate worldwide, whether banning people from entering country as a national security measure at the expense of people who are not even remotely connected to any terror activity is justified or not. The Optimistic Indian understands that almost all terrorists, in this period belong to the Islamic sect. So banning people from some( and not all) of the countries who have a muslim-majority population, though highly racist, is still a counter-terrorist measure. Let's just analyse the step for the merit of this measure. And not for, reasons like 'It is infringement on fundamental right of a Global Citizen.'or 'This is against the American concept of Liberty'. Consider for a moment. Trump is an American guy. And he wants to save his country. So he has taken this measure. Makes sense. The question is whether this

Trump recently created headlines by moving out of the Paris Treaty. Certainly, it is a matter of concern-the Biggest Superpower has stepped out of an agreement, which atleast on paper, endeavours to save the Earth. However, in order to know the implications of the withdrawal of US from the treaty, it has to be understood that what exactly is Paris Treaty. One, it is all about not letting humans increase the global temperature by 2% till end of the century. The countries themselves have to set targets as BIG as possible to meet the target of not increasing the global temperature by 2% by the end of the century, preferably 1.5%. Two, the Paris Treaty is non-punitive. That means there are no punishments if the countries did not meet their self-created targets. That is had Trump not announced withdrawal from the treaty, no one could have forced him to meet the targets. But given the loud and nasty way Trump runs the administration, he declared withdrawal. And this stunned media

I was reading a piece during elections in an independent news website. Check the link to the article in the end. It was titled: Assertion Politics: Not identity Politics. I must say it had hell of an insight. Nobody thinks it that way; atleast I never did. Only those who have been themselves affected by Caste-inequality at some point of their lives could feel it in that manner. Or those who have a firsthand experience of working with people of oppressed caste could think that way. For me, it was something entirely new. I had always seen caste-politics as something unfortunate, primitive, illogical and anti-development. While it is true that it does qualify for all these adjectives, however it forgets the fact that for some, caste is as basic as food and water. They live in a society which had associated their entire life around a particular 'class'. And this has been from centuries. Democracy is relatively ve

Implications of State Elections 2017 The past month begin with a series of elections throughout India for five states, namely Uttar Pradesh, Punjab, Manipur, Goa and Uttarakhand. Uttar Pradesh elections have always been more than just another state elections. One of the biggest states of the Indian geography, this region sends maximum number of MPs from any state. Most Prime Ministers have been from UP. However this time it has become even more significant in the wake of intolerance debate, ghar-wapasi, demonetisation and Modi's performance after coming into power. Let us see what does this election and other state elections really mean to the politics of India. Modi wave has not burned out. His landslide victory in a agricultural-based state economy ,where a sizeable population is small farmers , landless labourers despite the inconvenient demonetisation drive which hit poorest the hardest, proves his charishma over the people of the country. And these el