> Yet you used that data point to call the move a categorical success.

No I did not. I only countered a point that was made by the OP who said demonetization was a failure because 100 people died by citing a point that the Opposition parties in India made during the demonetization phase (about large-scale riots).

> No, I'm not trying to tie anything. I'm just trying to make you understand the fallacy that might have inadvertently crept into your reasoning (happens to the best of us!) Also I'm not comparing demonetization to pollution, I'm comparing the policy of demonetization to the policy response against pollution. Or to make it even simpler, I'm comparing the government policy to curb corruption to government policy to curb pollution, or the government policy to prevent deaths during the partition. Just because one policy response led to more deaths than another, doesn't mean that the former response wasn't as flawed as the latter. Especially since there are so many differences between the initial conditions that existed during the partition and the conditions that exist today. I will repeat here that simply saying that "less people were affected yet more people died during partition in contrast to demonetization where more people are affected but less people died" is an incomplete argument. Apples and oranges my friend.

So you can explain this to the OP of the post who said that demonetization was a failure because 100 people had died. Do you now understand why I'm countering this specific point? Because it makes no sense to compare an economic move with deaths. Apples and oranges indeed.

> Unfortunately not. Will this data ever be publicly available? No. Did a black market exist? Most definitely.

Of course it will be. You are assuming that the RBI will not publish data on remonetization. You are also assuming that the Income Tax department automatically accepts every deposit made between November 8th and December 31st as white money without conducting an audit. In fact, I'll argue that it has become so much more easier now for the Government to easily audit deposits as they have entered the formal system to catch evaders and bring them to book than to go after those who had hoards of cash stacked in their secret lockers.

> What if I don't agree with some of the articles of the constitution? Can I exercise my free speech rights to criticize the said articles without being charged with sedition?

You have already done it.

> Can I express those free speech rights by not standing up for the national anthem and not be charged for an offence?

If you are in India you are duty bound to stand. It is part of fundamental duties of every citizen of India. If you don't like it you can give up your Indian citizenship and adopt citizenship of another country.

> I am being instructed by legislation to sit or stand or perform some other body movement to uphold the legitimacy of a document, or an ideology, which I may or may not agree with. That was true for the Nazi salute as well.

No both are different. When you sit or stand, you do it for the concept of India and not for an ideology. The Nazi salute was a salute for an ideology that only catered to one section of society. The Constitution of India has a place for all except those who question the very ethos of India's existence. If you do not agree with the legitimacy of document you have no business accepting citizenship under the very document. That is highly hypocritical don't you think?

> There are very very subtle points that deal with things like burning the national flag and not "respecting" the national anthem. I urge you to check out the first amendment of the american constition and US supreme court rulings regarding their national anthem and national flag and what constitutes disrespect and what constitutes a criminal offence. Its fascinating stuff. The Indian constitution and the our Supreme court have a long way to go!

No we don't have a long way to go. India is a Sovereign Nation. Just because the US has a particular constitution doesn't mean we need to adopt the same. Would you be happy if we adopted the Second Amendment as well? It's ridiculous to compare constitutions. These are documents that are made based on historical as well as cultural differences. The United States is not as diverse as India. It's constitution would wreak havoc in an already fragile Indian society.