[throwaway384629]

Thanks a lot for sharing detailed answer, and I appreciate you for even including few points that you don't like about the Indian Government.

If you allow, I would also like to share my opinion (and some facts backed with references) on the points that you shared.

1. Abrogation of Article 370: Honestly I like that government made a strong decision and completed a long pending issue but I don't see how it can improve peace in the region or how it can stop the attacks or how it impacts life of any common citizen.

2. Implementing GST (Goods and Service Tax): Again I like that government made a strong decision and completed a long pending issue. However, I see the GST has also caused tax rate to be increased a lot on most of the items. There are many different tax rates and businesses has to file a lot more reports on monthly/yearly basis. For example VAT on software products used to be 5% but now GST on software products is 18%. Similarly now people have to pay GST on many essentials and food items. [1]

3. Citizenship Amendment Act: The way I see it, it's done only to act against muslims of India. They excluded only muslims from the list and included all other religions. There are conflicting statements from the ministers of Indian Government where Home Minister of India even seems to be indirectly threatening Muslims [2] [3]

4. Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act: I think this is also done only to act against muslims of India. I absolutely do not support Triple Talaq and I like that they ended it but I don't think the intension is to protect women rights. Even current PM Modi has left his own wife without giving her a divorce. [4]

5. Economy flourished: Agree with you that India's GDP and Ease of doing business is growing. But I don't know what are real changes that people started noticing on the ground. Highways are being built at record pace but they are charging Toll for most of the highways and those highways are built and operated by private companies.

6. Settling the Ayodhya Dispute: Is it done by Supreme Court or Government? Are you implying that Supreme Court is not independent and Government has a hand in Supreme Court decisions?

7. Unified Payments Interface: Agree, this is a very good initiative and I heard good things about it.

8. Reducing/eliminating big scale corruption on National/Federal/Central level: I think there is still a big time corruption, but now government controls the narrative and mainstream media and probably judiciary too (See my comment on previous point). Just a high level list of potential scam happened under BJP/Modi government. Whenever opposition raises these issues, mainstream media actually blames opposition parties instead of calling for investigation into the allegation:

8.1 Rafale Scam: The supreme court of India headed by Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi gave clean chit to government without requiring any investigation. Government recommended the same judge for Rajya Sabha right after his retirement from the court. I cant say how its morally/ethically right for a judge to accept post-retirement benefit from government and how you can guarantee that the decisions from that judge were unbiased. [6] [7]

8.2 PM CARES Fund: The Prime Minister's Citizen Assistance and Relief in Emergency Situations Fund (PM CARES Fund) was created on 27 March 2020, following the COVID-19 pandemic in India. The total amount of funds donated and the names of donors have not been publicly disclosed, and the fund is privately audited. The Government of India had initially claimed that the fund is a private fund, and denied that the PM CARES Fund is a public fund for the purposes of transparency laws such as the Right to Information Act 2005, even though the Fund uses government infrastructure and the national emblem of the Government of India. In December 2020, the Government of India reversed its stance and admitted that the PM CARES Fund was a public fund, but still refused to disclose information regarding it under the Right to Information Act 2005. [8] [9]

8.3 Electoral bonds and FCRA amendments: While the common man has to declare every cent of their income, political parties are allowed to take huge sum of money without disclosing any details. The Delhi high court had in 2014 indicted both Congress and BJP for receiving foreign funds in violation of the existing FCRA Act, and the RPA Act that specifically prohibits parties from accepting contributions from a foreign source. The court asked the government and EC to act against the two political parties. In response, the BJP government has amended the FCRA Act itself, and exempted from scrutiny all foreign funding to parties retrospectively from 1976! Furthermore, the amended Companies Act now allows any foreign company registered in India to make contributions through bonds to political parties, overruling legitimate doubts about who or where its real owners are, or what its source of funding is. [10]

[1] https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/life-style/food-news/the...

[2] https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/no-question-of-linking...

[3] https://twitter.com/BJP4India/status/1197163315148910593

[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jashodaben_Modi

[5] https://statisticstimes.com/economy/india-vs-pakistan-econom...

[6] https://indianexpress.com/article/india/rafale-deal-probe-ju...

[7] https://indianexpress.com/about/ranjan-gogoi/

[8] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PM_CARES_Fund

[9] https://www.dw.com/en/covid-how-is-an-emergency-fund-stirrin...

[10] https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics-and-natio...

[SanjayMehta]

The CAA does not affect any Indian citizens: it only applies to minorities of neighbouring countries like Pakistan, Bangladesh and Afghanistan.

[throwaway384629]

Seems like you have omitted some information:

>> The Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019 was passed by the Parliament of India on 11 December 2019. It amended the Citizenship Act, 1955 by providing a pathway to Indian citizenship for persecuted religious minorities from Afghanistan, Bangladesh and Pakistan who are Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains, Parsis or Christians, and arrived in India before the end of December 2014. [1]

Government of India amended a bill to allow Indian citizenship. They added a list of religions but somehow excluded only Muslims from that list.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizenship_(Amendment)_Act,_2...

[KrishnaShripad]

> Government of India amended a bill to allow Indian citizenship. They added a list of religions but somehow excluded only Muslims from that list.

Because Muslims obviously are not traveling to India fearing religious persecution in ISLAMIC countries. That is... a big oxymoron.

The fast-tracking of Citizenship was for "persecuted religious minorities".

Muslims are welcome to come through Regular routes just like every other Citizen of the World (which also includes Buddhists, Hindus, Sikhs, Jains, Parsis, Christians from other countries not part of the 3 countries mentioned in the Act for instance). There are many Hindus who fled Sri Lanka and taken refugee status in India but haven't been brought under CAA as their status is still unclear (i.e. if they want to go back to Sri Lanka or not as the persecution was not of religious nature). The CAA was enacted specifically for minority religious persecution. How can you link that with regular Immigration which continues unabated? These refugees are languishing without Citizenship for 40+ years. Have some sympathy for them.

It is exactly the same as Jews fleeing persecution. Did US not fast-track citizenship for such Jews? Precedent has already been set by the United States. Now will you condemn USA for the same? [1]

Let me quote from the Lautenberg Amendment and the discussion prior to that:

"C. Special Category Aliens Since 1989, legislators have pushed the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) for increased admissions of specific religious and ethnic groups, in particular Soviet Jews and Evangelicals, Czechs, and Poles. In doing so, they have created special preference categories for specific aliens. 34 In May of 1989, U.S. Senator Frank Lautenberg (DNJ) proposed that Congress create a "rebuttable presumption of refugee status for Soviet Jews, Evangelical Christians and certain Southeast Asian nationals."

`The Lautenberg Amendment required the Executive branch to establish: one or more categories of aliens who are or were nationals and residents of the Soviet Union and who share common characteristics that identify them as targets of persecution in the Soviet Union on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion .... [One such category shall include] aliens who are ... nationals ... of the Soviet Union and who are Jews or Evangelical Christians.`

`President Bush signed the Lautenberg Amendment on November 21, 1989.41 The Amendment allows for a reduced admission standard for the particular groups and requires the eligible aliens to assert a fear of persecution and show a "credible basis for concern about the possibility of such persecution. 42`

[1]: https://scholarship.law.nd.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1...

[KrishnaShripad]

-----------------------------------------

Responding to 8.2 PM CARES Fund:

> The total amount of funds donated and the names of donors have not been publicly disclosed, and the fund is privately audited

False. It has been disclosed. For both years (2019-20 and 2020-21).

1. 2019-20: https://www.pmcares.gov.in/assets/donation/pdf/Audited%20Sta...

2. 2020-21: https://www.pmcares.gov.in/assets/donation/pdf/Audited_State...

> names of donors have not been publicly disclosed

Why should names of donors be disclosed? It is a donation for a charitable cause. Charity is typically done anonymously unless the donor explicitly requests to be named.

> fund is privately audited

I don't see anything wrong with that. It is the same as the erstwhile Prime Minister's National Relief Fund which ran for 70 years and introduced by the Congress Party.

> The Government of India had initially claimed that the fund is a private fund, and denied that the PM CARES Fund is a public fund for the purposes of transparency laws such as the Right to Information Act 2005, even though the Fund uses government infrastructure and the national emblem of the Government of India

This is fake news spread by NDTV. The Government did not say anywhere that it was a private fund. This was deliberate misinterpretation of Clause 5.3 of the Trust Deed [1] by NDTV. It was registered as a "Public Charitable Trust" [2]

Yes it does not come under RTI just like the Prime Minister's National Relief Fund which was setup by the Congress Party but was not even registered.

The Fund using Government infrastructure or National Emblem of GoI has no bearing on it to being included under RTI. Even the earlier Prime Minister's National Relief Fund, which was unregistered entity, carried the National Emblem and used Government infrastructure and was not under RTI. So why was no issue raised on that? The PM CARES Fund is not an institution that is established or constituted by an act of Parliament or a state legislature. And the funds are not used for day-to-day functioning of the Government of India. Hence, it cannot come under RTI. Now would it be good if the Government brought it under RTI? Yes, it would be good as it would quell all doubts regarding the fund. Can it be forced to bring it under RTI? No it cannot be. There is already precedent set by Prime Minister's National Relief Fund which functioned for 70 years as an unregistered entity with no audits being carried out by the CAG. At least the PM CARES fund is registered and goes through scrutiny by independent auditors from a panel suggested by the CAG. I would definitely vote for more transparency in the fund, but I wouldn't be shocked/surprised if this petition was struck down by the Courts.

---------------------------

> 8.1 Rafale Scam: The supreme court of India headed by Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi gave clean chit to government without requiring any investigation. Government recommended the same judge for Rajya Sabha right after his retirement from the court. I cant say how its morally/ethically right for a judge to accept post-retirement benefit from government and how you can guarantee that the decisions from that judge were unbiased. [6] [7]

Yes you can question the ethics/morality of this. But this is not the first time such a thing has been done. CJIs/Judges taking up jobs in the Government (or even joining Political Parties) post-retirement is not new. And in my opinion it should be avoided to safeguard sanctity of institutions s/he was part of. But you cannot restrict a private citizen from exercising his fundamental rights. The Judge, after retirement, is a private citizen who has all the Rights to do as he pleases. Even if that means joining a Political Party.

However, this cannot be the basis for questioning a judgement based on facts. You are not just insinuating that the CJI acted with bias but also the other 2 Justices of the Supreme Court of India to not have exercised their independent judgement but were coerced by the Government of India. Don't forget that it wasn't Ranjan Gogoi alone but 2 other Justices who sat on the bench. It was decided by all 3 of them. It was unanimous verdict. Not a tie breaker where the CJI had to involve.

The Chief Justice of India or any Court of Law is not duty bound to conduct/direct conducting of investigations in an "alleged" scam without prima facie evidence. In fact, it is the duty of the petitioner to produce evidence "after" conducting investigations "prior" to submitting the petition. Is it the job of the Court to order investigative agencies to investigate random petitions, with no prima facie evidence, filed by petitioners? Can I make a wild accusation against the Government of India, move a Public Interest Litigation in the Supreme Court and expect the Court to direct investigative agencies to investigate the Government just to satisfy my wishes? Then I can easily get 1000s of petitions filed with frivolous accusations and turn the Court and the Government into a circus show. You are expecting too much from the Court. The Court only orders investigations if it finds prima-facie evidence that there is some malpractice or illegality. It could not find any in this case.

[KrishnaShripad]

Splitting into multiple comments as Hacker News is complaining that it is too long. I'll answer in the order of the most contentious issue you raised first. I will tackle the easy ones in the end.

Responding to 8.3:

> In response, the BJP government has amended the FCRA Act itself, and exempted from scrutiny all foreign funding to parties retrospectively from 1976

This is partly true and some of the wording is incorrect (and facts are misinterpreted). Firstly, the article is written by Pavan K Varma who is a Politician from an Opposition Party (and was recently removed from the party). Not saying that it somehow invalidates his points. Just that there can be vested interests in this as it is his opinion.

The fact is that the Congress Government had already implemented this in 2010 (in a previous amendment to the act). The current BJP Government shifted the year from 2010 further back to 1976. Even if the current BJP Government hadn't amended it, it wouldn't have any issues itself as the case concerned those Governments pre-2014 as per the Court order (and would have scrutinized the previous BJP Government of the 90s headed by different individuals, all of whom are not even in power today). The current BJP Government probably did it to not want to waste Government resources and time on checking every single donation received from 1976 onwards for all parties. This is just my guess. An explanation of this in the Supreme Court will definitely be provided by the Government. We can only wait for that explanation. But even then, I'll try to answer with my limited understanding of the matter.

Pavan K Varma seems to have misunderstood the amendment. The amendment declared what is considered a "foreign source". The technicality is that of having received "foreign contributions" and it being violation of FCRA act. That part I agree with. What I disagree with is that it can now no longer be "scrutinized". That is patently false. It can be scrutinized but cannot be called "illegal". Now is this ethical/correct thing to do? Absolutely not. I suspect all the Political parties arrived at an understanding to not allow skeletons of the past to tumble out in public domain and collectively agreed to allow this amendment to pass. It is not mere coincidence that the Government passed this Amendment without discussion amidst din in the Parliament orchestrated by the Opposition benches. It did so fully in collusion with Opposition parties as well (as they knew what was in the amendment and did not want to discuss it in public domain). This should not have been done this way. It would have been better if there was a discussion held, the political parties accepted their faults of the past and declared to the Nation that they'll rectify it going forward. But it wasn't done because the Opposition has its own skeletons to hide and hence is weak. The ruling dispensation has its own skeletons to hide but is not willing to go through them as it has power and can do whatever it likes. Which is why I stressed on having a strong opposition in my final point in my previous reply. This sort of constructive opposition is needed so that the Government is put in the dock and truth comes out. But we have such a weak opposition (primarily cos it has its own horrid past) that it targets the Government only on those points where it knows it is bound to lose.

Anyways, this is where the Supreme Court comes in and now that the matter is before the Court, the Court will definitely take a call.

Now is it possible for Government to retrospectively fix this illegality? Yes it is possible. It has all the legislative powers to do this. Can Court strike down this amendment? Not possible at all as Judiciary cannot overstretch to that extent. It can only interpret the Law not amend it. It can strike down a Law if it has specific proof of the Law being used for malicious intent. I don't see that happening. As the Government can easily explain it away by saying that the Law was enacted without keeping in mind "so and so [insert excuse here]" and hence needed to be Amended. In fact, this sort of stuff happens quite regularly even for regular citizens like you and me, where stringent penalties (both civil and criminal) are sometimes retrospectively amended as the Law was enacted wrongly to begin with (happened in GST amendments so many times I lost count). In my case specifically (since I am an exporter and this applies to all exporters), the Government, through RBI, decided to push the date for regularization of Bank Realization Certificates indefinitely (even though it is against FEMA regulations) to facilitate exports which were badly affected during COVID crisis. This was done through an order by RBI. Another one is forgiving/waiving of farmer loans. It is literally making something illegal legal. Another good example is retrospectively amending the imposition of a minimum alternative tax on foreign companies so that FDI inflows are not affected. Not all retrospective amendments are "bad" per se. Sometimes the Law is just too strict to be able to do anything meaningful with the Law requiring such retrospective amendments as such Laws were enacted at a time where such issues were not envisioned to occur. The only time retrospective amendment was negatively scrutinized was during the Vodafone case where Vodafone dragged Indian Government to the International Court of Arbitration, Hague with the Indian Government losing the case.

> While the common man has to declare every cent of their income, political parties are allowed to take huge sum of money without disclosing any details

This is wrong. Political parties are 100% exempt from paying taxes on donations. However, they are not given relief from disclosing details of the donations. In fact, the Political parties are duty bound to declare every single paisa they get. Any political party as per Section 13A is required to furnish return of income under Section 139(4B) if its income exceeds maximum amount not chargeable to tax (limit is computed before taking into consideration Section 13A exemption). Tax slab applicable for political parties is same as the one applicable to normal resident individual. It is the responsibility of CEO of the political party to file the return of income and also to sign and verify the same.

The bone of contention really is that Electoral Bonds introduces anonymous electronic donations. But that was the case before as well. Except it was in hard cash and not electronic cash. And hard cash = black money. Electoral Bonds on the other hand can only be purchased through check or demand draft with full KYC. So even though the payee is not necessary to be declared (as donors would like to protect their affiliation), the amount itself is not black money at the very least as it has to now only be paid through Cheque/Demand Draft and not Cash. Now the question is, should the payee details be declared? What if I donated to Congress today and some despot/tyrant takes over India tomorrow and gets a list of all donors who donated to Congress so as to kill them? Do I want my political affiliation to be declared publicly? This is a question of privacy of an individual/corporate entity and not of legality. What if me donating to BJP leads to some mob deciding to cancel me for my political affiliation? Isn't that what happened in US where US Companies were forced to shut down their donations to a certain political party by the mob because it did not align with mob interests else be cancelled for supporting such party? This directly affects my Freedom of Expression. If my voting preference must be kept private and anonymous, why should my Electoral donations be forced to be made public? Wouldn't that reveal my voting preference? How ethical is that?

[KrishnaShripad]

> 6. Settling the Ayodhya Dispute: Is it done by Supreme Court or Government? Are you implying that Supreme Court is not independent and Government has a hand in Supreme Court decisions?

The Supreme Court only resolved the title issue. The Government on the other hand went out of the way to provide Muslim Party huge land to build a Mosque. Which was welcomed by Muslim Organizations except for Asaduddin Owaisi and few terror organizations like PFI/SDPI. There was no need for the Government to give land to Muslim Organizations to build a Mosque when the title dispute was between private parties. So yes, I applaud the Government for doing what it did.

> 5. Economy flourished: Agree with you that India's GDP and Ease of doing business is growing. But I don't know what are real changes that people started noticing on the ground. Highways are being built at record pace but they are charging Toll for most of the highways and those highways are built and operated by private companies.

Why shouldn't Toll be charged? I don't see any problem in this as the roads require continuous maintenance too. I don't see anything wrong in Public-Private Participation. Why shouldn't highways be built by private companies? The tender is issued by the Government of India. Paid for by the citizen's taxes. Which goes to the Private companies which employs millions of Indians. So the taxes I pay are indirectly coming back to me in various forms and infrastructure is being built simultaneously. I don't see what exactly is wrong here. Do you want the Government to build highways? I want minimum Governance. I don't want Government to involve in areas where private sector would do a much better job. I rather the Government outsource it to private sector which can do it quickly and efficiently than try to do everything and not succeed in anything. Most public sector companies directly controlled/managed by the Government is always loss making (with exception of ISRO). Look at what happened to Air India. I prefer if Government sells public sector companies to private enterprises and only focus on legislation, security and governance and not involve in building companies. The Government's role is not to build Companies.

> 4. Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act: I think this is also done only to act against muslims of India. I absolutely do not support Triple Talaq and I like that they ended it but I don't think the intension is to protect women rights. Even current PM Modi has left his own wife without giving her a divorce. [4]

Modi leaving his own wife was not to get into relations with another woman. Nor was it to not provide alimony. Modi left his wife as he was forced into the engagement when he was a child (teenager) against his wishes (as it was tradition/custom during those days to do child marriage — a custom which he refused to follow and accept). He wanted to live the life of an ascetic so he ran away from home and reached the Himalayas to study under a Sage and become a monk. The Sage instead refused to teach and induct him into the Sanyasi order and told him to enter politics as that is where his destiny lies.

Modi and his wife have an understanding between them. If his wife was upset, she could have moved the court anytime. She hasn't. In fact she supports him by attending all his rallies in Gujarat.

I, for one, applaud Modi for not consummating his child marriage (he was engaged at tender age of 13 years). This is a very difficult thing to do. Especially in that sort of orthodox society and during those times (this is 1960s rural India). This is nothing but progressive thought.

Comparing this to instant triple-talaq is an insult IMHO. Triple-talaq is a disrespect to the woman involved. It is not done out of agreement but pure misuse of Islamic Sharia Law.

> 3. Citizenship Amendment Act: The way I see it, it's done only to act against muslims of India. They excluded only muslims from the list and included all other religions. There are conflicting statements from the ministers of Indian Government where Home Minister of India even seems to be indirectly threatening Muslims [2] [3]

No. This sort of Act was implemented by the United States too. When it gave fast-track citizenship to Jewish migrants fleeing Nazi Germany. They fled fearing persecution and rightly so. They were granted fast-track Citizenship rightly so. So why then should Hindus, Buddhists, Christians, Parsis fleeing Islamic Nations of Pakistan, Afghanistan and Bangladesh fearing Religious Persecution not be granted fast-track Citizenship? Did the Government of India bar regular Citizenship to Muslims from neighboring countries? No it did not. Even now Muslims from neighboring countries are taking citizenship through normal route.

The articles you linked don't say anything about "threatening Muslims". [2] is about not linking NRC with CAA. NRC is different Bill altogether that hasn't even been drafted, let alone passed in the parliament. NRC is register of Citizens just like every Democratic Country keeps a register of its Citizens to differentiate between legal citizens and illegal aliens so as to provide Government subsidies and services only to legal citizens. The NRC on a State level is only implemented in Assam till now. Assam because of mass illegal migration that has been going on from Bangladesh to India. In neither of the links you provided has the Government threatened Muslims. Illegal aliens will be deported however. This is not a new issue but a long standing demand of majority of Indians from the past 4 decades (ever since the Indo-Pakistan War of 1971). You can check any opinion poll that was conducted regarding this issue and you will get at least 95% of the poll responding with a yes to introducing NRC. However, CAA has no connection to NRC whatsoever.

> 2. Implementing GST (Goods and Service Tax): Again I like that government made a strong decision and completed a long pending issue. However, I see the GST has also caused tax rate to be increased a lot on most of the items. There are many different tax rates and businesses has to file a lot more reports on monthly/yearly basis. For example VAT on software products used to be 5% but now GST on software products is 18%. Similarly now people have to pay GST on many essentials and food items. [1]

That is again wrong. The earlier VAT and Service Tax regime had a tax-on-tax issue which doesn't exist in GST. Only VAT had input tax credits which could be redeemed. Service Tax did not. The rest 10 other taxes also did not have input tax credits facility. This facility was only provided under GST. Thereby the net product value actually dropped. The compounding tax issue is something that can only be explained by an example.

In earlier regime, if I had a 10$ raw product (say I manufacture plastic pellets), the 12 taxes together would have been say 5%. That would be 10.5$ in total. Now if I purchase the raw material to create plastic bottles. The cost of manufacturing plastic bottles is 10$. Now the total cost would be 10+10.5 = 20.5$. Adding 5% tax on that, it would be: 21.0125$. Which is what the end consumer would pay. You would have paid a total tax of 1.0125$.

Now let us take case of GST. It would be 10$ + 18% = 11.8$. However, that extra 1.8$ would come back to me as Input Tax Credits. So effectively I have purchased only for 10$. Now I manufacture the product for 10$. The total cost of the product would then be: 10$ + (10$ + 18% * 10$) = 21.8$ (notice that there is no compounding of tax like in previous regime). In this case, my output tax liability would still be 1.8$ only. However, I pay 0$ in tax as I have 1.8$ as credits from my previous purchase which I can utilize to reduce my output tax liability. So the total cost of the product would then be: 21.8$ with me effectively paying 0 tax as a seller. This is a brilliant taxation scheme. In fact, you can not just club in raw material purchases but also any business expenses and bring your tax liability to negative and request a refund from the Tax department. It is called as "cascading tax effect" which GST removes completely. I think you haven't understood how important GST is and you aren't taking advantage of what GST provides if you are only taxing your software product but not claiming Input Tax Credits for your business expenses. Read more about "cascading tax effect" here [4]

> 1. Abrogation of Article 370: Honestly I like that government made a strong decision and completed a long pending issue but I don't see how it can improve peace in the region or how it can stop the attacks or how it impacts life of any common citizen.

That will happen in due course. Already seeing major improvements in Kashmir, Jammu and Ladakh. Don't forget that the State is not just Kashmir. It also includes Jammu and Ladakh which actually form the major part of the State. However since Ladakh was bifurcated into its own Union Territory, it now gets special attention as it was the most neglected region before the Abrogation happened. And it will take time to bring everything back to normalcy. The spate of Terror attacks has definitely reduced a lot but now there is targeted killings of Kashmiri Hindus. That will also die down slowly as the Indian Army eliminates Terror groups and Terror sympathizers.

[1]: https://www.pmcares.gov.in/assets/donation/pdf/Trust_Deed.pd... [2]: https://www.pmcares.gov.in/en/web/page/about_us. [3]: https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/blogs/right-and-wrong/we... [4]: https://quickbooks.intuit.com/in/resources/gst-center/cascad...