I believe there are two parts to this. The first part about the CM working out a compromise is in my view, unexceptionable. There was nothing preventing the producers of this movie from sticking to the law & filing necessary complaints except that they won't help much in the real world. There is a lot of double speak by the film community on Raj Thackeray & the MNS. They have cut deals with this guy before too, I believe this producer has done it too (Wake Up Sid). When you play along with this guy, why do they expect that the guy won't come back for repeats? To that extent, the CM being involved is ok though it should have preferably been done behind closed doors and the CM should not have been involved in the nitty gritty, especially when the producers are being asked to forswear something which is not illegal - working/casting Pakistani actors etc. Best to have allowed this to be resolved directly with Raj Thackeray & the film producers.
The second part is the one involving money. The CM should have certainly not been involved in anything that remotely looked like extortion, though in my opinion, there is nothing remote about that in this case and it would be difficult for anyone neutral not to see this as an extortion regardless of the legal niceties. This is where the CM has brought his office & himself into disrepute notwithstanding his denials.
I must disagree, with respect to your views on the practice being an existing one, which is a good argument, but not good enough.
Let us leave aside the collusion that you have pointed towards. Neither of the parties is bound by oath to uphold the Constitution. You may ask if a citizen needs to have sworn an oath to be obliged to uphold the constitution of the country. The answer is - morally, no, but it is done in the case of an office-holder to ensure that there is an added emphasis on the importance of the constitution and its provisions.
The CM is bound therein. He cannot say anything in exoneration. Saying that he was going along with an existing practice and did not initiate it is not good enough. In that case, any office-holder, anywhere, can plead compliance with customary practice which just so happens to be in contradiction of the constitution. We could call it the Kalyan Singh defence: that turd, as CM of UP, committed himself to upholding the rule of law at the site of the gathering at the Babri Masjid, and then cynically betrayed his commitment with clinical detachment.
In this case, for the CM to descend to these depths is horrifying. We have climbed down yet another step. This kind of deal-brokering is done, for pay, by corrupt policemen and thanadars. The reason why the police is typically uninterested in any citizen lodging an FIR is because they want to know about only those things where there are prospects of earning money, either by pursuing the law, or by shielding the guilty from the law. Whoever, whichever has the funds to prevail over the other gets their support. That is, effectively, what has happened here, except that the calculus is of votes and popular support, even of prevention of any sullying of the law and order situation.
For the CM to take recourse to deal-brokering where one party threatens violence against the other is a straightforward acceptance, even of advocacy, of measures other than those compliant with the rule of law. In this view, it is no longer the law that matters; it is who has the greater potential to create trouble. Incidentally, this is precisely why I oppose both the left and the right: their supporting illicit actions which represent (in their view) the interests of a majority of the citizens, or the concerned citizens, or a particular Marxist category or class, rather than an impersonal, detached legal system. According to right and to left, such detachment is neither possible nor desirable; what is important to the right is the will of the religious majority, whether it aligns with the law or not be damned. What is important to the left is the will of the oppressed and down-trodden workers and farmers (workers in the agricultural sector, not land-owning classes), not the law (I hate the Congress for its dynastic rule, but more than that, for their introduction of corruption as a necessary ingredient in Indian politics).
If we dilute the rule of law, and the constitution as a framework for public life, we are on the slippery slope to ruin.
Fadnavis represents just one of those thoughtless robots of the RSS that does not realise the grave consequences of what he, they, and thanks to their negligence, we as an entire nation are putting at stake.
But this was LEGALLY acceptable 'tax' , Negotiated by the State and head of govt. and as such has full state sanction.
MNS had not implemented this 'tax', they demanded it, the state govt. and producers complied and reached an acceptable figure for this 'tax'.
So you are back.
Incidentally, sorry to disappoint you, but an individual legislator has no legal authority to impose a tax. It is then extortion. Only a legislature, or, in rare circumstances, an administration acting in urgency in the absence of a legislature and promulgating an ordinance, can impose a tax. Ordinances themselves have to be sanctioned by the legislature immediately after it reconvenes.
They are the exact opposite you moron. Can you read english and understand what you have read ?
Watch your words. You know from your past experience that you will get penalised. If you edit your post before 11:00 am Wednesday, I will let this pass.
