Support Anupam Kher

The government viciousness has never been so irrational. All Anupam Kher said was that if the constitution needs to be changed, it should be changed. What is so horrifying about that? He has not said anything about the constitution to be thrown in the trash or any such thing.

The government has charged him with breach of privilege. He is to face a breach of privilege motion in the Assembly. The government’s illegal mafia is on a witch hunt, where one doesn’t need any proof that the words were actually said to initiate action. A committee has been formed.

See the video below and decide for yourself.

The only thing I see here is that Anupam Kher has staunchly supported Anna Hazare’s movement that has brought the government down on its knees. Most of these corrupt politicians including this thug Malik are faced with the very real threat of criminal prosecutions in the very near future. These attacks on supporters of the bill are a vicious and criminal intimidation to demoralize and pressurize those seeking for a bill with strong prosecution against criminal politicians.

It is an utter joke to see Nawab Malik say that Anupam Kher is insulting the constitution. This is the man who had to “resign” because of allegations of corruption. He is most definitely under a big legal axe if the bill gets passed. Apparently looting a country is constitutional, and recommending that a constitution that has been ammended n number of times be ammended in the interests of the people of the country is unconstitutional!

I propose that we all support Anupam Kher. His exact words were

Aur agar samvidhan change karna hai, to samvidhan change hona chahiye

That is it. No insult at all. It is a fact that our constitution has been amended from time to time, and there is nothing wrong with Anupam Kher saying that if a need comes up to amend it, it should be amended. That too, he isn’t saying that amend it. IF it needs to be changed it should be changed is all he is saying. An opinion, not demand.

I propose, that if you agree that Anupam Kher has our best interests in mind, and that he has said nothing wrong, then OWN these words. Say these words publicly. Wherever. Here, in the comments, on your Facebook, on Twitter, make posters for your locality, markers on T-shirts, whatever. If he should face action, we all should face action.

I say right here. The situation in the country is extraordinary. The citizens have spoken up. They do not trust the politicians to do the right thing and they want a body created with the authority to enforce anti-corruption action against corruption in the system. If this doesn’t have a place in our constitution, then our constitution must be amended to make place.

If Anupam Kher was wrong, so am I. I would be honored if someone took the same action against me as him.

Join the Intellectual Anarchy!

About the Author

Vidyut
Vidyut is a blogger on issues of National interest. Staunch advocate of rights, learning and freedoms. @Vidyut

32 Comments on "Support Anupam Kher"

  1. I also admit that our constitution needs to be changed. It is one of the most ineffective constitution in the world. It implements the proxy democracy where people of India have notion of freedom. If it is democracy then why only 500-600 people decide fate of India. Election is another big disguise. We have option of selecting a corrupt leader out of a pool of corrupt leaders. In my point of view in India 90% of people are corrupt and when any one from the rest of 10% wanted to change something these 90% pull him backward. So How can India improve. Let the China invade the India, only then we will realize the value of democracy.

  2. I also admit that our constitution needs to be changed. It is one of the most ineffective constitution in the world. It implements the proxy democracy where people of India have notion of freedom. If it is democracy then why only 500-600 people decide fate of India. Election is another big disguise. We have option of selecting a corrupt leader out of a pool of corrupt leaders. In my point of view in India 90% of people are corrupt and when any one from the rest of 10% wanted to change something these 90% pull him backward. So How can India improve. Let the China invade the India, only then we will realize the value of democracy.

  3. Santosh Kumar Lenka | April 11, 2011 at 2:39 am | Reply

    There are no people to say hard truth like Anupam. He is absoloute right. Only coward & greedy people bahaving against him like Kauravs in Mahabharat.
    Thanks Anupam.

  4. Santosh Kumar Lenka | April 11, 2011 at 2:39 am | Reply

    There are no people to say hard truth like Anupam. He is absoloute right. Only coward & greedy people bahaving against him like Kauravs in Mahabharat.
    Thanks Anupam.

  5. An update is due, to a part of my very first comment in this thread. It’s about my saying there that my recent comment at, inter alia, Prof. Abinandanan’s blog was moderated out/deleted. In response to my email query, Abi has now informed me that that comment of mine was put by Blogger.com in the spam folder, but–and here’s the important part—the email alert going to Abi did not mention the spam part of it, and so he could not notice if there was anything amiss. Some technical glitch! Abi has since approved my comment; thanks to him. Update over.

    –Ajit
    [E&OE]

  6. An update is due, to a part of my very first comment in this thread. It’s about my saying there that my recent comment at, inter alia, Prof. Abinandanan’s blog was moderated out/deleted. In response to my email query, Abi has now informed me that that comment of mine was put by Blogger.com in the spam folder, but–and here’s the important part—the email alert going to Abi did not mention the spam part of it, and so he could not notice if there was anything amiss. Some technical glitch! Abi has since approved my comment; thanks to him. Update over.

    –Ajit
    [E&OE]

  7. @Ajit Appreciate your appreciation of my writing. Thank you.

  8. @Ajit Appreciate your appreciation of my writing. Thank you.

  9. mr jadhav resents rss ,bjp, anupam kher , vidhyut ,(anyone remotely relted to brahmin )

    0

  10. mr jadhav resents rss ,bjp, anupam kher , vidhyut ,(anyone remotely relted to brahmin )

    0

  11. @Ajit. Read your post. Thank you. And you have my word that it remains here in all its glory. Unaltered, undeleted.

    Do not wish to argue, but this constitution you are speaking on behalf of enshrines the freedom of speech of the people of India. Criticism of the constitution itself is also not exempted. Nor should it be in a free country. This is no more than a witch’s hunt for two reasons. 1. There is no exact quote of Anupam Kher insulting the constitution 2. Even if he had insulted the constitution (which has to be more than “taking offense” based on context), it is not illegal for him to do so.

    Your post does absolutely nothing to change this.

  12. @Ajit. Read your post. Thank you. And you have my word that it remains here in all its glory. Unaltered, undeleted.

    Do not wish to argue, but this constitution you are speaking on behalf of enshrines the freedom of speech of the people of India. Criticism of the constitution itself is also not exempted. Nor should it be in a free country. This is no more than a witch’s hunt for two reasons. 1. There is no exact quote of Anupam Kher insulting the constitution 2. Even if he had insulted the constitution (which has to be more than “taking offense” based on context), it is not illegal for him to do so.

    Your post does absolutely nothing to change this.

  13. viraj kulkarni | April 10, 2011 at 10:03 am | Reply

    tya mulech vidhyt taincha pan tyana rag yeto karan tyanche adnav kale aahe na ani aata maza pan karan maje adnav kulkarni na kay saheb ????

  14. viraj kulkarni | April 10, 2011 at 10:03 am | Reply

    tya mulech vidhyt taincha pan tyana rag yeto karan tyanche adnav kale aahe na ani aata maza pan karan maje adnav kulkarni na kay saheb ????

  15. lahan pani ghadlelya” pani incident” mule jadhav sahebanna saglya brahmin jaticha ,ani rss vagere vishayi far rag distoy … kalte bar ka jadhav saheb saglyanna

  16. lahan pani ghadlelya” pani incident” mule jadhav sahebanna saglya brahmin jaticha ,ani rss vagere vishayi far rag distoy … kalte bar ka jadhav saheb saglyanna

  17. Viswanathan.A M. | April 10, 2011 at 9:50 am | Reply

    “The breach of privilage motion”! I hve been watching the T V almost through out these five days. Looking at he time and the present scenario, I doubt this as an act of frustration in disguise. Mr. Anupamji, I am with you and thank you for the courrage.

  18. Viswanathan.A M. | April 10, 2011 at 9:50 am | Reply

    “The breach of privilage motion”! I hve been watching the T V almost through out these five days. Looking at he time and the present scenario, I doubt this as an act of frustration in disguise. Mr. Anupamji, I am with you and thank you for the courrage.

  19. Vidyut,

    0. Thanks. I have approved your comment at my blog.

    1. However, unfortunately, I cannot once again see the video here. So, I will comment based on my recollections alone.

    2. I can clearly see a bit of a spin here, and also emotions running high (i.e. in the more civil parts of the clip).

    The spin occurs when the guy at the extreme right (is that Anwar?) makes explicit references to the courts and the law, but the anchor, ignoring such references, continues the tirade about the unlimited democracy—whether winning election wipes out criminal record.

    A spin and/or faulty summarization also occurs regarding Kher. First of all, the disputed clip is not shown by the channel immediately. Then, it is not summarized properly. “If the constitution needs to be changed, it should be changed,” is not *all* that Kher said. There is a context to it, and it is important. Please bear with me, but we need to see the details first. (And, to repeat, I am writing only from a memory of a clip watched casually only once. Please provide me some allowance on that count.)

    Kher first says something about globalization, about how the economy/India has become free. Then, he clearly say something about changing from “khaadi” (dhoti?) to modern(?) clothing (pant?), from “nani”(?) “kaa chulhaa” to the microwave oven, and then, having established his line with these two points, goes ahead and seeks to plot a third point *on the same line*: changing a 1952 constitution to today’s times.

    God is in the details. The objection of the right-most guy, apparently, comes from the above noted details—something which, you, Vidyut, too, unfortunately, have failed to notice.

    Without the detail, Kher comes across as someone who actively seeks to better the constitution, if necessary. And, why not? With the details, however, what also comes forth is his apparent lack of appreciation of certain matters to do with the sanctity of constitution. A lack of an appreciation, to the required depth, of what political institutions mean, require, and entail.

    Vidyut, lifestyle of the people in the USA have changed from the horse-carts to the space-shuttles, for example. However, for an example of the kind of intellectual and moral respect that the best among them bring to bear on the nature and importance of political institutions, I recommend to you two books: (i) I, Martha Washington (or some similar title I read two decades ago) (ii) Ominous Parallels by Leonard Peikoff: the entire book, but esp. the chapter called (something like) The Nation of the Englightenment.

    I am not sure if it was in the above-cited book or some other place he said it, but Peikoff has also observed (something like): changing the *US* constitution in today’s intellectual climate would be nothing short of a disaster.

    If one is talking of changing the constitution of a free nation, it is important that the tone of the writing/debate should be as elevated as in the examples given. (Yet another example: See a recent (2011) blog-post on the topic of Jefferson’s change of a single word, at the Voices of Reason blog.)

    Even if we are not a fully free nation—and that’s one point Kher’s intellectual capacity is such that he misses it—I think there is enough freedom here that our tone w.r.t *constitution* should be, say, reserved or sober or respectful enough. (I am not good in English, but I know that by “reserved,” I do not mean (re/su)pressed.) Not just by way of the tone of the utterance of a sound byte, but also by way of the concrete examples we pick up and the actual arguments we suggest via our weaving through those concretes.

    You cannot have a change of constitution plotted on the same line as the change of two items of life-style. That was my basic point.

    And, the help Kher received via the bombastic refusal of even noting down or acknowledging the right guys’ reference to the courts, to laws, (perhaps also to due procedure) and his attempt to distinguish these things from mere accusations.

    – – – – –

    My main points are over. Vidyut, have I made a fool of myself? … I know asking this question can be seen as a full-toss, to be hit for a six. I could have put a perfect yorker (spelling correct?) too, here. But, no, I didn’t want to. Which brings me to my last point.

    The reason I bothered writing here was that I liked your approach in a couple of posts. Rather than directly telling which ones (or providing hyper-links) here are my brief comments w.r.t. them. (i) When I was a little boy, I would always stand first in the school, effortlessly (without ever having to study). I happened to have been born in a 96K Maratha family. The guy who then would always strive to beat me (and also study fairly hard for it, though not too hard), and yet would invariably stand only second, was a Konkanastha Brahmin. (He had received the Maharashtra Open Merit Scholarship in IV whereas I had missed filling form for it due to some family circumstances. In VII, I got it; he didn’t.) “We” thus had, say, a competition of sorts between us. Once, when I went to his home for playing, I found that his grand-father from Pune was visiting them. The grandfather asked me my name. Then, after the play, when I was thirsty, the grandfather corrected my friend—he insisted that I be served water in plastic glass, not the stainless steel glass that the friend had naturally picked up. And, the friend had to wash his hands before inserting his hand in the “maaTh” to get his glass of water. The episode actually happened, but never altered any part of whatever friendship the friend and I had. But, yes, the friend was embarrassed a bit. (ii) In an overall sense, the nuclear energy is much safer than organic fuels (coal, oil, etc.) The Objectivist philosopher Dr. Harry Binswanger has been a consistent advocate of it. (iii) In today’s world, young people often spend too much time interacting with other people rather than thinking about reality—the more fundamental issues. In the USA they a patriotic tradition of having beer on July the 4th. In the same USA, until pretty recent times, going for “fishing” used to be the most common pastime. (In the heartland USA, i.e. excluding the two coasts where the likes of Madhuri Nene, Ashwini Bhave, and Meenakshi Seshadri reside, I am told, it still is.)

    Yes, sometimes I do write at length. I actually like writing at length. … But, anyway, it’s it and that’s that: unless really necessary, I won’t bother to post replies to any comments that this comment might generate. I wanted to point out a few things, and that’s about all.

    My best wishes to you.

    –Ajit
    [E&OE]

  20. Vidyut,

    0. Thanks. I have approved your comment at my blog.

    1. However, unfortunately, I cannot once again see the video here. So, I will comment based on my recollections alone.

    2. I can clearly see a bit of a spin here, and also emotions running high (i.e. in the more civil parts of the clip).

    The spin occurs when the guy at the extreme right (is that Anwar?) makes explicit references to the courts and the law, but the anchor, ignoring such references, continues the tirade about the unlimited democracy—whether winning election wipes out criminal record.

    A spin and/or faulty summarization also occurs regarding Kher. First of all, the disputed clip is not shown by the channel immediately. Then, it is not summarized properly. “If the constitution needs to be changed, it should be changed,” is not *all* that Kher said. There is a context to it, and it is important. Please bear with me, but we need to see the details first. (And, to repeat, I am writing only from a memory of a clip watched casually only once. Please provide me some allowance on that count.)

    Kher first says something about globalization, about how the economy/India has become free. Then, he clearly say something about changing from “khaadi” (dhoti?) to modern(?) clothing (pant?), from “nani”(?) “kaa chulhaa” to the microwave oven, and then, having established his line with these two points, goes ahead and seeks to plot a third point *on the same line*: changing a 1952 constitution to today’s times.

    God is in the details. The objection of the right-most guy, apparently, comes from the above noted details—something which, you, Vidyut, too, unfortunately, have failed to notice.

    Without the detail, Kher comes across as someone who actively seeks to better the constitution, if necessary. And, why not? With the details, however, what also comes forth is his apparent lack of appreciation of certain matters to do with the sanctity of constitution. A lack of an appreciation, to the required depth, of what political institutions mean, require, and entail.

    Vidyut, lifestyle of the people in the USA have changed from the horse-carts to the space-shuttles, for example. However, for an example of the kind of intellectual and moral respect that the best among them bring to bear on the nature and importance of political institutions, I recommend to you two books: (i) I, Martha Washington (or some similar title I read two decades ago) (ii) Ominous Parallels by Leonard Peikoff: the entire book, but esp. the chapter called (something like) The Nation of the Englightenment.

    I am not sure if it was in the above-cited book or some other place he said it, but Peikoff has also observed (something like): changing the *US* constitution in today’s intellectual climate would be nothing short of a disaster.

    If one is talking of changing the constitution of a free nation, it is important that the tone of the writing/debate should be as elevated as in the examples given. (Yet another example: See a recent (2011) blog-post on the topic of Jefferson’s change of a single word, at the Voices of Reason blog.)

    Even if we are not a fully free nation—and that’s one point Kher’s intellectual capacity is such that he misses it—I think there is enough freedom here that our tone w.r.t *constitution* should be, say, reserved or sober or respectful enough. (I am not good in English, but I know that by “reserved,” I do not mean (re/su)pressed.) Not just by way of the tone of the utterance of a sound byte, but also by way of the concrete examples we pick up and the actual arguments we suggest via our weaving through those concretes.

    You cannot have a change of constitution plotted on the same line as the change of two items of life-style. That was my basic point.

    And, the help Kher received via the bombastic refusal of even noting down or acknowledging the right guys’ reference to the courts, to laws, (perhaps also to due procedure) and his attempt to distinguish these things from mere accusations.

    – – – – –

    My main points are over. Vidyut, have I made a fool of myself? … I know asking this question can be seen as a full-toss, to be hit for a six. I could have put a perfect yorker (spelling correct?) too, here. But, no, I didn’t want to. Which brings me to my last point.

    The reason I bothered writing here was that I liked your approach in a couple of posts. Rather than directly telling which ones (or providing hyper-links) here are my brief comments w.r.t. them. (i) When I was a little boy, I would always stand first in the school, effortlessly (without ever having to study). I happened to have been born in a 96K Maratha family. The guy who then would always strive to beat me (and also study fairly hard for it, though not too hard), and yet would invariably stand only second, was a Konkanastha Brahmin. (He had received the Maharashtra Open Merit Scholarship in IV whereas I had missed filling form for it due to some family circumstances. In VII, I got it; he didn’t.) “We” thus had, say, a competition of sorts between us. Once, when I went to his home for playing, I found that his grand-father from Pune was visiting them. The grandfather asked me my name. Then, after the play, when I was thirsty, the grandfather corrected my friend—he insisted that I be served water in plastic glass, not the stainless steel glass that the friend had naturally picked up. And, the friend had to wash his hands before inserting his hand in the “maaTh” to get his glass of water. The episode actually happened, but never altered any part of whatever friendship the friend and I had. But, yes, the friend was embarrassed a bit. (ii) In an overall sense, the nuclear energy is much safer than organic fuels (coal, oil, etc.) The Objectivist philosopher Dr. Harry Binswanger has been a consistent advocate of it. (iii) In today’s world, young people often spend too much time interacting with other people rather than thinking about reality—the more fundamental issues. In the USA they a patriotic tradition of having beer on July the 4th. In the same USA, until pretty recent times, going for “fishing” used to be the most common pastime. (In the heartland USA, i.e. excluding the two coasts where the likes of Madhuri Nene, Ashwini Bhave, and Meenakshi Seshadri reside, I am told, it still is.)

    Yes, sometimes I do write at length. I actually like writing at length. … But, anyway, it’s it and that’s that: unless really necessary, I won’t bother to post replies to any comments that this comment might generate. I wanted to point out a few things, and that’s about all.

    My best wishes to you.

    –Ajit
    [E&OE]

  21. Sanjay Khanna | April 10, 2011 at 8:56 am | Reply

    The local police thana should have registered a FIR against goondas(anti-Social characters)on seeing the clip. No one has the right to destroy a provire citizen’s person or property. In fact in a Democracy the people come first.People make the Constitution not otherwise. It is delightful that a MLA has started this issue as it really shows the nexus of interests begining to congregate.There could be more such blunders in coming days.However the political class is of survivors and as soon as they know that people will support Kher,Anna they will quickly fall in line.It is going to strngthen the civil society further. Satya meva Jayte.Jai Hind. These are stages of success Tiraskaar,Uphaas,Upeksha,Daman and then Samman.

  22. Sanjay Khanna | April 10, 2011 at 8:56 am | Reply

    The local police thana should have registered a FIR against goondas(anti-Social characters)on seeing the clip. No one has the right to destroy a provire citizen’s person or property. In fact in a Democracy the people come first.People make the Constitution not otherwise. It is delightful that a MLA has started this issue as it really shows the nexus of interests begining to congregate.There could be more such blunders in coming days.However the political class is of survivors and as soon as they know that people will support Kher,Anna they will quickly fall in line.It is going to strngthen the civil society further. Satya meva Jayte.Jai Hind. These are stages of success Tiraskaar,Uphaas,Upeksha,Daman and then Samman.

  23. A copy of the comment made on @Ajit’s blog

    Normally, I don’t bother with these kind of posts, but I’d like to prevent you from making a fool of yourself in the comments on my blog, because I appreciate that you made an effort to reach out to me.

    Your opinions are your own, and I have no wish to challenge them. We are all free to admire or demean whom we like. Only wanted to point out a few factual errors in your article.

    1. There is a good reason you couldn’t find a record of Anna Hazare for the Magsaysay Award. The reason is that there is no reason for the Magsaysay people to keep a record of PADMABHUSHAN AWARDS. Other awards Anna got can be seen here. http://www.annahazare.org/awards.html No reason for Magsaysay to record any of them.

    2. Anna has studied till his 7th class

    3. Anna has also confronted BJP on corruption.

    4. The person you call an idiot has spent half the amount or less of what you did in education and has a list of achievements you couldn’t begin to memorize. So it makes you look more foolish than him.

    5. Anna has never claimed to be a paragon, nor does anyone expect him to. The matter is really simple. He is raising a voice against corruption and the people are supporting him.

    PS: I hope you have the same standards on comments that you expect from others in the sense that you don’t delete this comment.

  24. A copy of the comment made on @Ajit’s blog

    Normally, I don’t bother with these kind of posts, but I’d like to prevent you from making a fool of yourself in the comments on my blog, because I appreciate that you made an effort to reach out to me.

    Your opinions are your own, and I have no wish to challenge them. We are all free to admire or demean whom we like. Only wanted to point out a few factual errors in your article.

    1. There is a good reason you couldn’t find a record of Anna Hazare for the Magsaysay Award. The reason is that there is no reason for the Magsaysay people to keep a record of PADMABHUSHAN AWARDS. Other awards Anna got can be seen here. http://www.annahazare.org/awards.html No reason for Magsaysay to record any of them.

    2. Anna has studied till his 7th class

    3. Anna has also confronted BJP on corruption.

    4. The person you call an idiot has spent half the amount or less of what you did in education and has a list of achievements you couldn’t begin to memorize. So it makes you look more foolish than him.

    5. Anna has never claimed to be a paragon, nor does anyone expect him to. The matter is really simple. He is raising a voice against corruption and the people are supporting him.

    PS: I hope you have the same standards on comments that you expect from others in the sense that you don’t delete this comment.

  25. @Ajit

    Disagreeing with me is usually not a problem here, though I do enforce civility. You disagree, I get food for thought and respect it. If its a random attack, I don’t have to suffer it.

    Vidyut

    Edit: I read your post on your blog about Anna Hazare and I only think it fair to warn you that I don’t delete comments. So, if you make your comment, and then end up looking like a fool, I will not be deleting it. You may want to consider the comments I have made there first.

  26. @Ajit

    Disagreeing with me is usually not a problem here, though I do enforce civility. You disagree, I get food for thought and respect it. If its a random attack, I don’t have to suffer it.

    Vidyut

    Edit: I read your post on your blog about Anna Hazare and I only think it fair to warn you that I don’t delete comments. So, if you make your comment, and then end up looking like a fool, I will not be deleting it. You may want to consider the comments I have made there first.

  27. Vidyut,

    Would it be OK if I comment on this piece and clip, and some other issues?

    I have noticed that a few of my recent comments at a few blogs have been moderated out (i.e. deleted). Such blogs include: Critical Twenties, Shrikant Rangnekar, and now apparently also Prof. Abinandanan’s nanopolitan. So, I thought of asking you beforehand.

    Advance disclosure: I will be somewhat critical/against all: Anupam Kher, the IBN anchor, and also you—the way you summarize Kher’s position.

    (BTW, I am saving *this* comment of mine too, as a text file on my USB drive. (:)))

    –Ajit
    [E&OE]

  28. Vidyut,

    Would it be OK if I comment on this piece and clip, and some other issues?

    I have noticed that a few of my recent comments at a few blogs have been moderated out (i.e. deleted). Such blogs include: Critical Twenties, Shrikant Rangnekar, and now apparently also Prof. Abinandanan’s nanopolitan. So, I thought of asking you beforehand.

    Advance disclosure: I will be somewhat critical/against all: Anupam Kher, the IBN anchor, and also you—the way you summarize Kher’s position.

    (BTW, I am saving *this* comment of mine too, as a text file on my USB drive. (:)))

    –Ajit
    [E&OE]

  29. Mai puri tarah se Anupam ji ke sath hu. maine swaym wo tape dekhi hai, usme aisa kuch bi nahi hai jisse aisa pratit ho ki Indian Constitution ka apmaan hua ho.
    Balki mai to yahi kahunga ki us samay present time ke anusar Constitution banaya gaya tha, ab agar samay ki maang hai ki constitution me badlaw ho to hona chahiye, globlization ke daur me ham LAKIR KE FAKIR BAN kar nahi chal sakte.

  30. Mai puri tarah se Anupam ji ke sath hu. maine swaym wo tape dekhi hai, usme aisa kuch bi nahi hai jisse aisa pratit ho ki Indian Constitution ka apmaan hua ho.
    Balki mai to yahi kahunga ki us samay present time ke anusar Constitution banaya gaya tha, ab agar samay ki maang hai ki constitution me badlaw ho to hona chahiye, globlization ke daur me ham LAKIR KE FAKIR BAN kar nahi chal sakte.

  31. anupam ji has dared to say what crores of indian were willing to . our constitution undoubtedly has unlimited flaws, which provides coverage to these bloody corrupt politicians.thats why it has hurt their dirty emotions.. being a true indian i support another true indian anupam kher hands down.. i assure him that this issue wll not resist him t support such revolutions in future..we d youth will stand befre d govt t save d innocent man. jai hind

  32. anupam ji has dared to say what crores of indian were willing to . our constitution undoubtedly has unlimited flaws, which provides coverage to these bloody corrupt politicians.thats why it has hurt their dirty emotions.. being a true indian i support another true indian anupam kher hands down.. i assure him that this issue wll not resist him t support such revolutions in future..we d youth will stand befre d govt t save d innocent man. jai hind

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published.




Contact information || Privacy information || Archives