Misrepresenting Facts..

Cynicism  of politician has become customary if not a rule . They don't get from the state what is DUE to them without cautiously thinking of the consequences and the verbal attacks they might ostensibly face .This "due" refers to that right which they directly derive from the Indian Constitution under Article 19 .1(a)  ..But time and again the utter disregard for using  this justiciable right is made conspicuous by recent speech made by the BJP spearhead Narendra Modi in Fergusson College (Pune) by misrepresentation of  facts about India's share of GDP on its education compared with China's.

The entire basis of being expressive for the citizens or P.I.O. or any foreigner is derived from the  Fundamental premise of Right to free speech and expression.

This right becomes all the more significant in context of public figures especially ..Politicians...The rationale that forms the PITH & MARROW of the said argument  being the elected representatives they should be aware of the unintended impact it would have on their followers .But the question here is not that tilted against the followers but on the politicians itself.

.

Here is my personal take on this issue. Its a matter of serious concern as manipulating the minds of the people based on careless reference to any topic can result in  misguiding the youth in comprehending those matters leave alone the uneducated people who trust those people blindfold ( convincing them can be a child's play for Politicians). Its unfortunate that no one has taken notice of instances consisting such presumptuous remarks and if anyone did but not giving it a thought. 

Its easy to conceive of our parliament's lack of concern for such matters as they will be amongst the only being targeted but the buck should have stopped with the supreme court taking cognizance of such falsified statements and intruding in between as it forms the basis on which parliamentarians get elected and usurp power .Thus making use of illegitimate and false means to find their way

The prescriptive theory I propound  is :-

   Firstly , there has to be a demarcation which on the one side forms the bulwark of what's appropriate and what's not on the other .The other side should be  the more accentuated one as what not to subsume can be comparatively easier than what to include.And the transgression of this line to the other side should impose penalties. Although its a very generalised argument that I put forth and might be difficult to formulate on paper since it lacks any form but its importance couldn't be anyhow underestimated considering its implications.

  Secondly , the least that should be expected of  such persons is to offer public apology for flouting their privileges enshrined on them by the constitution and a cap .

  Thirdly ,not to mention the weakest link for exercising a law i.e. the  implementation of any such law if formed which I hope it will, shall not allow the offender to get away with any impunity .

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend till my death your right to say it". Though I concur to this ideology  but it needs to be amended in context of Politicians with T&C applied.  

I think the solution in addressing this problem is in filing a PIL and see if my discourse gets responded by.