When we use any word, it is possible that it may not carry the same meaning for others.

When we use the word “democracy” it may carry different meaning. If needed a person has to define/describe the meaning of the word he/she uses as and when the meaning creates any dispute.

Democracy is a process where truth is heard.

The truth unless it is challenged logically, it is honored.

In democracy everybody has freedom to express one’s opinion.

One has to be ready for exchange of information on which its own opinion to have been based.

Freedom of expression must not be based on pressure of violence or power.

The freedom expression has to be based on non-violence.

It is the liberty of a person/the people to accept some body’s opinion with logic or otherwise. But it is not the liberty of any person or a mass of the people to be violent.

The people having one ideology can prepare a group. The group can spread its ideology. It is up to individuals to accept the ideology and to join to it with logic or otherwise.

But one has to be always ready for discussion. There should be some systems for all these processes.

The group which has majority following, will control the governance. The aim of the governance is the welfare of the people, geographically confined to an area of activity.

Now let us take the Congress.

The ideology of Congress, once upon a time was to establish democratic rights of the people of India through Non-Violence.

Thereby Gandhi had promoted that if we want such change we should involve mass of India for better communication and depth.

Gandhi had introduced the methods of protest in the struggle of freedom. All the protest were non-violent. The protester/s need to have faith in non-violence.


In democracy, if any law provides injustice, then that law becomes null and void. But this thing has be proved before a qualified and constitutionalized third party. This authorized third party is the Court of Law. The Court of Law is the authority to interpret law and the authenticity of the relevancy of the event based upon which a case of injustice   has been produced before it.

It is not only a party member has a right to express and a liberty to opine. It is the liberty of the party too, to either follow some body’s opinion or not to follow that opinion.


If a person is not exerting any “power pressure” and expresses his views, such freedom is allowed in democracy.

What is “power pressure”?

One may hold an executive power by virtue of law. One may hold the muscle power by law or otherwise.

One can oblige a person by using its executive power which he/she held by the law. This law can be supported by state constitution or by the party’s constitution as the case may be. If there is a breach of law of any type, one has a liberty and right to approach the court of law.

If one holds the muscle power and it uses out of law, then it is undemocratic, and thereby the user can be convicted by court of law.



Gandhi had only citizen’s right to express his opinion.

Whenever MK Gandhi had been alleged for his so-called non-democratic approach, he held no power whatsoever.

Yes he had moral power. The moral power is a logical power. As for holding a logical power a person is open for discussion. The rest have to come forward for discussion. The persons who come forward for discussion, they have also the liberty to discard his opinion.

It is just like this. You have options. You accept one’s opinion and follow to it, in accordance to the said opinion. Or you reject his opinion and don’t follow. Or you can modify its opinion. It is your liberty and right to discuss with him or to not discuss with him. You can have your own opinion. For any action based on any logic, it is the responsibility of person who is taking action.


Now let us take the example of “Chaura Chauri incident where Mahatma Gandhi had withdrawn his agitation which he had launched to protest against Rowlatt Act, in 1922 through civil disobedience. Under the Rowlatt Act, the government had acquired a power to arrest protesters for indefinite period. Some leaders of the protesters were arrested who were protesting against some price rise. Then some people of Chauri Chaura agitated against the arrests and they become violate.

Violence is banned under the principles of Non-violent struggle. You can demand the release of the leaders but you cannot become violent.

In fact whosoever protesting, has to be ready to face the consequences and should be ready for punishment under the law of the land.

Since the call of civil disobedience was made by Congress and MK Gandhi was in Congress holding a post in working committee, he felt himself indirectly responsible for violence. He, on this ground, felt that the mass has not understood and grasped the meaning of civil disobedience. Hence he withdrew the agitation. Off course this was a hypothetical conclusion. But Gandhi could convince himself that it was premature call for agitation.


In 1934 MK Gandhi had resigned from the Congress. But the Congress had free will to take advice of Gandhi. This was mainly due to the principles adopted and constituted by the Congress that the Congress would fight the struggle for complete independence under the principles of non-violence.

There were many groups in India and within the Congress. But mainly two ideological groups. One had faith in Non-violence. Other had no faith in non-violence. These two groups were otherwise also having conflict. MK Gandhi naturally with the group having faith in non-violence.

Some people had a false belief that Nehru was come up due to MK Gandhi only.

Nehru, Jinna, Subhash, Sardar Patel, Pant, Maulana Azad of second generation were equally popular. Nehru was having a starting lift due to his pop Motilal. Nehru was not a fool in politics. He had political skills. He was capable to side line his opponents. He therefore had made a group within Congress. This group was socialistic group. But many had left his group due to his hypocrisy. It is a long story. Nehru could defame his opponents through his group. Nehru had disguised his group as ideological group as he used to speak philosophical language. Even after independence he side lined his critics like Chakravarti Raj Gopalachari, Jai Prakash Narayana, Vinoba Bhave and lastly Morarji Desai without breaking Congress. (Indira Gandhi was not that skillful. Under her quest of power, she could not avoid breaking of Congress. But she could manage with media till she could win the 1969 elections). The other difference between Nehru and Indira was that Nehru was not much thankless. Indira Gandhi was thankless and totally self-centered. This was mainly because Nehru had a back ground of good contribution in freedom struggle, whereas Indira was totally with nearly zero contribution. Leave this aside.

Nazies were not favored by most leaders of India because Hitler was not democratic and he used to insult Indian leaders. Subhash met two Nazi’s leaders to not insult Indians. But there were rumors that Subhash had no faith in Non-violence. However Subhash was equally popular to that of JL Nehru or he was even more popular than JL Nehru.

In 1939 Nehru had no courage to submit his candidature for the Congress President ship elections against Subhash. Maulana Azad once submitted but he withdrew in favor of Dr. Pattabhi Sitaramayya. The delegates defeated Dr. Sitaramayya by marginal votes. Since Sitaramayya was MK Gandhi’s suggestion, Gandhi said that it was his own defeat. He said after congratulating Subhash that Subhash should form his own working committee.

Now what was the legal position?

Subhash could have taken over the Congress by forming his own working committee. But the delegates verdict cannot be reversed. All the members of the then prevailing working committee submitted their resignation because they had faith in non-violence as per the basic principles of the Congress. It was a big task for Subhash to have the working committee members of his choice to get elected by re-calling Extra Ordinary General meeting. Had he done so, he would have been defamed as hungry of power.

Compare: Indira Gandhi had no majority in working committee in 1969, but she called EGM and bifurcated the Nehruvian Congress. As per constitution of Congress, anybody is authorized to call EGM with 20% supporting members. But the Congress president has to be convinced. This was not done through proper channel. There was a court case. Court ruled that in democracy the people are supreme, and since majority of MPs have supported Indira, her Congress is the real Congress. But the property went to Organizational Congress where the working committee owned by the old Congress president due to his majority support in the working committee. The ruling of the Court was controversial. Piloo Modi a good parliamentarian, made a joke. Suppose in next election in case of   Congress (I) get less seats and if Congress (O) gets more seat then would the Court reverse its ruling?


Subhash Chandra Bose could have done similar to what Indira did in 1968-69. Subhash could foresee the bifurcation of Congress. Since Subhash did not want to weaken the Congress, he resigned from the post of the President of the Congress. Subhash was not after power. He was not hungry of Power.

Gandhi and Subhash both of them had the purely ideological conflict.

The evil of Vote Bank politics is “Love thy enemy” for sharing the power.

The democracy is “love thy enemy “, do communicate and discuss, but do not negotiate on ideology.

Gandhi and Subhash has great respect for each other.


It is matter of surprise as to why some of the supporters of Subhash have no respect for Gandhi?

It is possible that these pro-Subhash have not read MK Gandhi.


It is their mind set to not read anything in favor of MK Gandhi, and not to apply mind. That is why they simply produce conclusive remarks. At the most they would base their conclusion on a matter that itself is controversial.

These people do not know that they themselves become inauthentic. Not only this, the group they belong to, or as they disguise to belong to the group, that group itself becomes untrustworthy. i.e. Some of them disguise they are pro-BJP, but they make BJP leadership itself inauthentic by virtue of their prejudicial and illogical approach.

e.g. If you say Gandhi had asked Congress leadership to Boycott the Crips Commission.

This M-Phobia would ask an irrelevant question, as to “why did Gandhi not put a single favorable condition for Hindus before British?”

These people with M-phobia thinks it is better to be emotional because common men in most cases go with emotions, then why to take a pain of further reading.

“It is better to show our mental braveness by exhibiting conclusive remarks to abuse a personality. This is the best style to exhibit their sensitivity. By this way we can establish that we are so much keen on national interest that we can even derogate MK Gandhi.

The aim of these “M”- phobia persons is to devaluate the strategy and wisdom of MK Gandhi that too on hypothetical base. If you would give some material they would not read it. If you become logical they would jump to other point.

One more fake conclusion of this lot is that “Gandhi was puppet and an agent of British government.”

You cannot argue with this lot.  They know that Churchil was most genius in making strategy. But he was afraid of MK Gandhi, because he knew that Gandhi would not get trapped. He was so much scared of MK Gandhi, that he had refused to give an appointment to MK Gandhi. He had insulted MK Gandhi on his dress.  Yes when one has prejudice and  lesser intelligence than his opponent, then he would avoid the opponent who has clear concepts. Now if in reality MK Gandhi had been an agent of British Government, he was supposed to be in a good book of Charchi and Churchil would have never refused MK Gandhi for an appointment. On the contrary Charchil and Gandhi could have met several times. But you know, logic does not work for those who are determined to abuse MK Gandhi.

Better you recall Chanakya’s stement that with whom one should discuss and with whom one should avoid the discussion.

Can you convince a Nehruvian Congi leader on logic? No. They would find fault with PM Narendra Modi for his failure within 60 days of his rule. But they would not see any fault of Nehruvians of their 60 years of rule. Because they do not want to use sense of proportion.

These people use to speak the language of Jinna.

Don’t hate them. Have a mercy.


Earlier a king had a right to be emperor. He can invade other country. Now it is not.

The world going towards non-violence. If not then current Muslims would have been highly honored worldwide.

democratic Gandhi

One should understand from the history that violence results into violent society. The violent political society promotes dictatorship.

The black and white example is the status of Pakistan. Jinna had promoted “Direct Action”, though Jinna had believed in democracy. Jinna had fought a lot cases of the freedom fighters. Jinna was secular also. But the ultimate result we see in Pakistan is that the people of Pakistan are all confused and a lost mass.

The Similar example is USSR where Lenin uprooted Czar Empire with violent struggle. The rein captured by Stalin. USSR had shortages and non-transparency.


The main reasons are:

Autocracy cannot survive with non-violence, autocracy has to be violent,

Autocracy cannot survive with transparency,

Autocracy cannot survive with all the time with conducting elections,

Thereby Autocracy is prone to corrupt a society.

The ruler has the full scope to get improved in democracy. This is not possible in autocracy where the ruler does not know as to where what battle is being fought.

Why the democratic way or so to say the Non-violent way is superior to the Violent way of struggle is superior for freedom struggle?

If the ruler is committed to democracy then Non-violent movement is more advisable.

The non-violent struggle is fought on moral ground

The non-violent struggle can even be played by individuals

The non-violent struggle is always with understanding the each element of issue,

The non-violent struggle provides awareness and supplements your logical brain,

The non-violent struggle makes a person courageous morally, physically and strategically,

In non-violent struggle, an individual’s human rights are maintained because it is being made against a so-called democratic ruler.

During the non-violent struggle, the mass gets educated. The mass can be trained at many places, whereas for violent struggle you have to carry out the practice in a forest or in a secret area,

The non-violent-struggle can be made much more transparent due to ease in communication, whereas the violent struggle cannot remain transparent,

The non-violent-struggle has a capacity to involve more and more persons progressively as soon as the mass- awareness gets spread, whereas this is not possible in a violent struggle to that extent,

In non-violent struggle, you can do your normal work till you get arrested, whereas in violent struggle you have to engage yourself full time,

In non-violent struggle you can feel supremacy over ruler, because you have moral grounds and you have gained moral courage and physical courage both,

During non-violent struggle you can foresee the likely time and action of the ruler, thereby you have more option for future plan, whereas during violent struggle you have all the way uncertainty,



Simply routine elections cannot make a country fully democratic.

We need to have constituted voters’ council,

We need to have a constituted system for “Calling the representative back” as and when he/she loses our faith,

We need to have transparency in the draft of the bills which are proposed by a party in its election manifesto. This is essential because a party if does not show its transparency in the draft of the bill, the party at a later stage can play mischiefs in bill at the time when it put the bill before the parliament. That is why the public must know the draft well before the elections.

We need lot of changes in governance and judiciary.



A punishment on a breach of law cannot be non-violent in totality under present situation,

If a person attacks you, you have the right to protect yourself. To protect the right to live and right to live peacefully, you can be violent and you can kill the person,

The Indian government has a right to arrest Omar, Farukh and all other leaders who had power to execute to protect the human rights of 5-7 lakhs of Hindus of Kashmir. Because these leaders have been remained inactive in performing their duties . The responsibilities lies with the Officials of Human Right Commission too. The Human Rights Commission can be de-recognized by the Indian Government.


Rama was democratic, much more than any of the present democratic leaders. Rama heard the opinion of a washer man. Rama and his ministry could not reply logically. They honored the opinion of the washer man.

But Rama comes after several thousand years. Our life is for 100 years.


Three persons were in a jail. e.g. “A”, “B” and “C”

“C” asked to “A”, why are you in jail?

“A” said I was favoring “Popovich”

“C” asked “B” , “Why are you in jail?”

“B” said, “I was against “Popovich”

Then “A” and “B” asked to “C”, why are you in jail?

“C” replied “I am Popovich”

This is all about socialism without transparency.

Shirish Mohanlal Dave

Tags: Gandhi, violence, non-violence, struggle, independence, contribution, principles, ideology, faith, democracy, truth, Subhash, popular, transparency, human rights, constitution, politic, party, Congress, Nehru

સમસ્યાઓનું નિરાકરણ એટલે નવ્ય સર્વોદયવાદ – ૫. મોદીના સ્વપ્નનું ગામ કેવું હોવું જોઇએ?

વપરાશના મકાન વિષે ગાંધીજીના ખ્યાલોઃ

દરેક મકાનમાં હવા ઉજાસ હોવા જોઇએ,

સૂર્યનો તડકો આવવો જોઇએ,

આકાશ જોઈ શકાતું હોવું જોઇએ,

સંડાશ હોવું જોઇએ,

નાના બાળકને રમવા માટે મોકળાશ હોવી જોઇએ,

મકાનની કિમત રુપીયા ૫૦૦થી વધુ ન હોવી જોઇએ.

આપણે તેમાં ઉમેરીએ કે:

મકાનમાં ગીલેરી હોવી જોઇએ,

મકાનની એક બાજુ સુદૂર સુધી ખુલ્લી જગ્યા હોવી જોઇએ,

હવાની અવરજવર થઈ શકે તે માટે હવાને આવવા જવાનો રસ્તો હોવો જોઇએ,

મકાનના રહેવાસીઓ પોતાને કોમ્યુનીટીમાં રહે છે અને સાથે સંવાદ કરી શકે છે તેવી સગવડ હોવી જોઇએ,

શાળા નજીક હોવી જોઇએ,

દુકાનો નજીક હોવી જોઇએ

પાણીના નળ હોવા જોઇએ,

પાણીના નિકાલની સગવડ હોવી જોઇએ,

શાસન સાથે સંવાદ કરવાની અને સમસ્યાનું નિરાકરણ કરવાની સગવડ હોવી જોઇએ,

સામાજીક સુરક્ષા, વ્યક્તિગત સુરક્ષા અને આરોગ્ય સુરક્ષા હોવી જોઇએ.

રહેણાંકની ગોઠવણ

રહેણાંક કોલા ક્ર્મ ૫,૬,૭, અને ૮ની ગોઠવણને આપણે એક મોડ્યુલ ગોઠવણ કહીશું. આ ગોઠવણ અનેક પ્રકારે થઈ શકે.

રહેણાંકના કોલાઓની ગોઠવણ કઈ કઈ રીતે થઈ શકે તે નીચેના ચિત્રમાં બતાવ્યું છે.

ત્રણ અને ચાર કોલાને પણ ગ્રુપમાં લઈ શકાય.

શાસન શું આપશે?

શાસન ફક્ત દિવાલ વગરના કોલાઓ આપશે.

ધારો કે ત્રણ કોલાનું એક મંડળ લીધું છે. અને એક કુટૂંબને બે કોલા આપ્યા અને એક કુટૂંબને એક કોલો આપ્યો. આવા સંજોગામાં બે કુટૂંબની કોમન દિવાલ શાસન બનાવી આપશે.

દરેક કોલાઓ ની બહારની દિશાઓમાં લોખંડની જાળીઓ આરસીસી પીલરમાં કે ગેલેરીના આરસીસી વર્કમાં ફીટ કરીને આપવામાં આવશે. આ બહારની દિશામાં પડતી આ જાળીઓને જો તેઓ ગેલેરીમાં હશે તો તેને ચણતરથી બંધ કરી શકાશે નહીં. પણ બીમ ઉપર દિવાલ બનાવી શકાશે.

ગ્રામ્ય વિસ્તારના નવસંરચના સંકુલમાં ગ્રાઉન્ડ ફ્લોર ઉપર નો એક પ્લાન નીચે આપેલો છે.

જમીન તળ

પશુપાલકોના અને કૃષકોના ઢોર તથા તેમના રહેઠાણ દર્શાવેલા છે. કારીગરો અને માલધારીઓના રહેઠાણો સામે સામે છે. પણ કારીગરોના રહેઠાણો પેસેજમાં ખુલે છે. માલધારીના મકાનો બહારની તરફ ખુલે છે.

દુકાનોની પાછળના ભાગમાં વાહન પાર્કીંગની વ્યવસ્થા ગોઠવવામાં આવી છે.

દુકાનોની અંદર પ્રવેશ ફક્ત પેસેજમાંથી જ જઈ શકાશે.

જો આ વિસ્તાર શહેરી વિસ્તાર હશે તો વાહન પાર્કીંગની વ્યવસ્થા ભોંય તળીયામાં હશે.

ઉપર ૧૫ફૂટ બાય ૧૫ ફૂટના બે કોલા છે. એક એક કોલો બે ગરીબ કુટૂંબને ફાળવેલો છે. દરેક કોલા સાથે બે ગેલેરી છે. આ ગેલેરીને લોખંડની જાળીઓ ૩ફૂટની પડદી કરી લગાવવામાં આવી છે.

એક જ માળ ઉપર આવેલા અને એક જ હરોળમાં રહેલા કોલાઓના અલગ અલગ રીતે ગ્રુપ બનાવી શકાશે.

(૧) બે કોલાનું એક ગ્રુપ. બે કે એક કુટૂંબને આપી શકાશે

(૨) બે કોલાનું એક ગ્રુપ પણ બની શકે. ચારે બાજુથી ખુલ્લું આ વ્યવસ્થા જો જમીન વધુ હશે તો આમ થઈ શકશે.

(૩) ચાર કોલાનું એક ગ્રુપ. બે કે એક કુટૂંબને આપી શકાશે.

(૪) ઉપર નીચેના કોલાઓ પણ એક કુટૂંબની ઈચ્છા હોય તો આપી શકાશે.

 મોડ્યુલ અને રચના

પક્ષીઓનો ઉપદ્રવ અને ગંદકી ટાળવા દરેક કોલાની બહારની ખુલ્લી બાજુએ લોખંડની જાળીઓ લગાવવામાં આવશે.

કોલાઓની રચના કેવી હશે?

માળની સંખ્યાને અનુરુપ પીલરોનું કદ નક્કી થશે.

બીમ બધા પ્રીકાસ્ટ કરવા હશે તો તેને કરી શકાશે.

સ્લેબ માટે સ્લેબના નાના નાના એલીમેન્ટ હશે તેને ગોઠવીને સ્લેબ તૈયાર કરવામાં આવશે.

આર સીસી વર્ક

પીલર અને બીમ નું આરસીસીઃ

આ પ્રમાણે પીલર અને બીમ ના પ્રીકાસ્ટેડ (કારખાનામાં તૈયાર કરેલા) ટૂકડાઓને જગ્યા ઉપર જોડવામાં આવશે અને આરસીસીનું બહુમાળી માળખું તૈયાર થશે. સ્લેબના એકમો પેસેજમાટે ગોઠવી દેવામાં આવશે. સ્લેબના એકમોને સીમેન્ટથી ચોંટાડવામાં આવશે અથવા ચૂનાથી ચોંટાડવામાં આવશે.

પત્થરોના પીલર અને બીમ.

જ્યાં મજબુત પત્થરો ઉપલબ્ધ છે ત્યાં પત્થરોનો ઉપયોગ પીલર અને બીમ અને બીમના એલીમેન્ટ (એકમ) બનાવવામાં થઈ શકશે. આમાં આવતી તકનીકી (ટેક્નીકલ) સમસ્યાઓ ઉકેલી શકાય તેમ છે. પત્થરો ના પીલરો સહેલાઈથી બની શકે. પણ પત્થરોના પ્રીકાસ્ટેડ બીમ બનાવવા માટે તેને યોગ્ય આકારમાં એકબીજામાં ફસાવી શકાય અને આ જોડાણ તેમાં લગાવેલા બાઈન્ડીંગ મટીરીયલ (જોડાણ મજબુત રહે તે માટેનું રસાયણ) તથા ધાતુની સ્લીવ (બાંય) કે ધાતુની પટ્ટીઓ થી મજબુતાઈથી બાંધીને કરી શકાય છે.

જો કે દશેક માળ સુધીનું જ સંકુલ હોય તો પત્થર ગૂનાના પીલરો કરી શકાય. તેનું કદ મોટું રાખવું પડે. બે પીલર વચ્ચેના બ્લોકની ડીઝાઈન બદલવી પડે.

નવ સંરચના

શહેરી વિસ્તાર અને ગ્રામ્ય વિસ્તારોમાં પણ નવ સંરચના (રીડેવેલપમેન્ટ), કરતી વખતે જેઓ બેકાર છે અને ઘરવગરના છે કે ભીખારી છે તેમને સુવાની સગવડ આપી શકાય.

જો પ્રીકાસ્ટેડ બીમ, પીલર અને સ્લેબના એકમો કારખાનામાં તૈયાર કરવામાં આવે તો એક કોલો એક કુટૂંબને આપવામાં આવે તો તેનો ખર્ચ ત્રણ કોલા જેટલો આવે. કારણ કે આપણે અમુક જગ્યા ખુલ્લી છોડીએ છીએ અને પેસેજ પણ આપીએ છીએ.

એટલે કે ૭૫ ચોરસ મીટરના બાંધકામ જેટલો ખર્ચ થાય. એક ચોરસ મીટરનો ખર્ચ ૫૦૦૦ રુપીયા થાય તો ૭૫ ચોરસમીટરનો ખર્ચ ૭૫ ગુણ્યા ૫૦૦૦ થાય. એટલે કે ૩૭૫૦૦૦ (ત્રણ લાખ પંચોતેર હજાર રુપીયા) થાય. ગાંધીજીએ જે સમયે રુપીયા ૫૦૦ ની લીમીટ રાખેલી ત્યારે સોનાનો ભાવ ૩ રુપીયે ગ્રામ હતો. આ પ્રમાણે ગણો તો ૫૦૦ રુપીયામાં તે વખતે ઓછામાં ઓછું ૧૬૫ગ્રામ સોનુ આવતું હતું.

આજે સોનાનો ભાવ ૩૦૦૦ રુપીયે ગ્રામ છે. એટલે ૧૬૫ ગ્રામ સોનું ૪૯૫૦૦૦ (ચારલાખ પંચાણું હજાર) રુપીયામાં આવે. આ પ્રમાણે ઘર ગાંધીજીએ બાંધેલી સીમામાં રહેણાંકનું મકાન તૈયાર થઈ શકે છે.

ગ્રામ્ય અને શહેરી વસ્તીઓમાં જ્યાં જમીનનો વ્યય થયેલો છે ત્યાં આ નવ સંરચના અમલમાં મુકવાથી ઘણી જ જમીન ફાજલ પડશે,

ફાજલ પડેલી જમીન ઉપર નવી સંરચનાઓના સંકુલ અમલમાં મુકી શકાશે.

બાગ બગીચાઓ થઈ શકશે.

વાહનવ્યવહારનું રસ્તાઓ ઉપર દબાણ ઓછું કરી શકાશે.

શાળા નજીક થઈ શકશે,

સંકુલના શાસકીય વહીવટનું કાર્યાલય સંકુલમાં જ રાખવાથી જનતાને સરળતા રહેશે,

મિલ્કતને લગતા કોર્ટના કેસો નાબુદ થશે,

ગેરકાયદેસર બાંધકામ ના બનાવો નષ્ટ થશે,

સંકુલના રહેણાંકમાં પ્રવેશ સુરક્ષા ચકાસણી થયા પછી જ થતી હોવાથી અને દરેકની નોંધણી થયેલી હોવાથી ગેરકાયદેસર પ્રવેશ અશક્ય છે.

સંકુલમાં મતદાર મંડળ હશે,

સભાખંડ હશે.

દરેક કાર્યવાહીઓ ની વીડીયો ક્લીપ બનશે.

દરેક પ્રસ્તાવની નોંધ રહેશે,

દરેક જગ્યાએ સીસી કેમેરા રાખવાથી અરાજકતા દૂર થશે, ગુનાઓ લગભગ નાબુદ થશે

જનતાની સુરક્ષા વધશે,

પેસેજની સામસામે સૌના નિવાસસ્થાનો આવેલા હોવાથી સહજીવન (કોમ્યુનીટી) નો આનંદ વધશે. એકલતા દૂર થશે,

સામૂહિક આનંદ પ્રમોદના સાધનો વધારી શકાશે.

સ્વાસ્થ્ય સુવિધાઓ સરળતાથી અને તાત્કાલિક રીતે આપી શકાશે,

દરેક નિવાસ્થાનને સૂર્યનો તડકો અને હવા ઉજાશ મળવાથી, જનતાની તંદુરસ્તી સુધરશે,

પાણીના વપરાશના નિકાલની સગવડ હોવાથી નિષ્કાસિત પાણીનું શુદ્ધિકરણ કરવાની વ્યવસ્થા સંકુલમાં જ કરવામાં આવ્શે.

સંકુલના પીલરો ઉપર અને અગાશી ઉપર સોલર-પેનલ રાખવામાં આવશે.

જો શક્ય હશે તો પવનચક્કીઓ પણ બે કોલાઓ ના એકમોની વચ્ચે રાખેલી જગ્યામાં બીમ ઉપર ફીટ કરવામાં આવશે.

આ વિદ્યુત ઉર્જાનો ઉપયોગ લીફ્ટ ચલાવવા અને રાત્રે પ્રકાશ માટે કરવામાં આવશે.

કશું મફત મળશે નહીં.

શાસન જેઓ ઘરવગરના હશે તેમને ભાડે રહેઠાણ આપશે. અથવા ભાડા-ખરીદ પદ્ધતિના ધોરણે માલિકીના હક્ક આપશે.

જે વ્યક્તિઓ કે કુટૂંબો નિશ્ચિત સમય મર્યાદામાં હપ્તાઓ કે ભાડું ભરી નહીં શકે તેઓને દંડ ભરવો પડશે અને આ દંડ કે બીજો કોઈ પણ દંડ પહેલાં વસુલ કરવામાં આવશે. દરેક સંકુલમાં એક બેંક હશે. અને તેમાં દરેક વ્યક્તિના ખાતા હશે. દરેક વસુલાતો તે ખાતામાંથી થશે. જોકે આ માટેના નિયમો શાસન નિશ્ચિત કરશે.

જેમને હાલ તુર્ત કશું કામ આપી શકાય તેમ નથી, તેમને અંબર ચરખો કાંતવાનું કામ આપી શકાશે અને તેમાંથી રહેવાના કે સુવાના ભાડાના પૈસા વસુલ કરવામાં આવશે. જો કે પાંચ ત્રાકનો અંબર ચરખો આઠ કાંતવાથી એક વ્યક્તિને તો પૂરતી રોજી મળી શકે છે.

દરેક શાસન કર્મી એ નિશ્ચિત વસ્ત્રો અને તે પણ ખાદીના જ વસ્ત્રો પહેરવા પડશે.

આ પ્રમાણે કોઈ કામવગરનું રહેશે નહીં.

દરેક સંકુલનો તમામ વહીવટ, શાસનો વહીવટી (એડમીનીસ્ટ્રેટીવ) અધિકારી કરશે.

શિરીષ મોહનલાલ દવે,

ટેગ્ઝઃ નવ્ય સર્વોદયવાદ, મોદીના સ્વપ્નનું ગામ, સંકુલ, મકાન, કોલો, રહેણાંક, શાસન, નવસંરચના, કૃષક, કારીગર, ગ્રામ્ય, પીલર, બીમ, એલીમેન્ટ, સ્લેબ, આરસીસી, પ્રીકાસ્ટ, એડમીનીસ્ટ્રેટીવ, અધિકારી, સીસી કેમેરા, વીડીયો, ઉર્જા, સોલર પેનલ




એક સંકુલનો એક માળસમસ્યાઓનું નિરાકરણ એટલે નવ્ય સર્વોદયવાદ – ૪. મોદીના સ્વપ્નનું ગામ કેવું હોવું જોઇએ?

ખાદ્ય ચીજોના ઉત્પાદનને લગતી નીતિઓ એટલે કે અન્ન, ફળ, ઘાસ, ફુલ, મૂળ, પશુપાલન, દૂધ વિગેરે બાબતોમાં કેવી પ્રક્રિયાઓ અપનાવવી તે   “સમસ્યાઓનું નિરાકરણ એટલે નવ્ય સર્વોદયવાદ – ૩”માં જોયું.

ટૂંકમાં ઘાસ, અન્ન, ફુલ, મધ, મૂળ જેવા પદાર્થો ઉત્પન્ન કરવા માટે જમીનનો ઉપયોગ ન કરવો.

હા, તમે વૃક્ષની નીચે રહેલી જમીનનો ઉપયોગ જેતે ખાદ્ય પદાર્થો જેવા કે ઉગી શકે તેવા ઘાસચારા, ફુલ કે ખાદ્ય કંદમૂળ ઉગાડી શકો છો. વટવૃક્ષની નીચે કુટીર બનાવી શકો છો. જેનો તમે રહેઠાણ કે ગૃહ ઉદ્યોગ તરીકે ઉપયોગ કરી શકો છો.

ઘાસ, અન્ન, ફુલ, મધ, મૂળ જેવા પદાર્થો ઉત્પન્ન કરવા માટે બહુમાળી મકાનો બનાવવા પડશે. ગેલેરીઓમાં ફુલ અને શાકભાજી ઉગાડવા પડશે.

તો હવે શું ખેતરો નષ્ટ કરી દેવા પડશે?

તાત્કાલિક કશું થઈ શકતું નથી. પણ આ દિશામાં ગતિ કરવી પડશે. આનો પ્રારંભ શહેરની નજીકના ખેતરો થી કરવો પડશે.

ભારતમાં નગરોની નજીક રહેલી જમીનના ભાવો આકાશીય થઈ ગયા છે.

જમીન માફિયાઓ, જનપ્રતિનિધિઓ, સરકારી કર્મચારીઓ અને સરકારી અફસરોની મિલિભગતથી વ્યાપકરીતે અરાજકતા વ્યાપી રહી છે.

સામાન્ય ખેડૂત પણ એક જ જમીનનો ટૂકડો વેચવા માટે અનેક પાસેથી બાનાખતના પૈસા પડાવે છે.

જમીનની માલિકીને લગતા પારવિનાના કેસોનો ન્યાયાલયોમાં ભરાવો થયેલો છે.

જમીનનું રાષ્ટ્રીયકરણ કરી દેવું જોઇએ

નગરની નજીક રહેલી જમીનનો ભાવ અત્યારે એકચોરસવારના ૧૦૦૦૦ રુપીયા તો છે જ. આ ભાવ એક ચોરસવાર બાંધકામ કરતાં લગભગ ડબલ છે. ભ્રષ્ટચાર કરવા માટે જનપ્રતિનિધિઓ, સરકારી અફસરો, જમીન માફીયાઓ અને બીલ્ડરોની દાઢ સળકે છે.

“અમે જમીન નહીં આપીએ”,

“અમારે તો ખેતીજ કરવી છે,

ખેતી સિવાય અમારે કશું કરવું નથી,

ધરતી અમારી માતા છે,

અમે તો ધરતીના પૂત્રો છીએ,

“અમે પ્રાકૃતિક જીવનમાં માનીએ છીએ,

“સરકાર ગૌચરની જમીન વેચી રહી છે,

“ભારતીય સંસ્કૃતિનો નાશ થઈ રહ્યો છે”,

“ભારતીય પરંપરાનો નાશ થઈ રહ્યો છે,”

“જગતના તાતને આત્મહત્યાઓ કરવી પડે છે,”

આવી અનેક વાતો જનતાના બની બેઠેલા પ્રતિનિધિઓ, નેતાઓ અને સમાચાર માધ્યમના ખેરખાંઓ ચગાવે છે. વાસ્તવમાં તો ભરવાડો અને રબારીઓ ગૌચરની જમીનનો કબજો જમાવી લે છે અને જમીન માફીયાઓ પણ પોતાનો ભાગ ભજવે છે.

સંભવ છે ક્યાંક ખેડૂતોને અન્યાય થઈ રહ્યો હશે અને ખોટું થઈ રહ્યું હશે. કેટલાક કિસ્સાઓમાં સામાજીક રીતિરિવાજો પણ કારણભૂત હોય છે. આ બધા ઉપર સંશોધન થવું જોઇએ. સરકારે કસુરવારોને જેલભેગા કરવા જોઇએ.

ટૂંકમાં જો જમીનને લગતી સમસ્યાને જડમૂળમાંથી નષ્ટ કરવી હોય તો વ્યક્તિના જમીનની માલિકીને લગતા હક્કો નષ્ટ કરવા પડશે. બીજી સ્થાવર મિલકતને લગતા હક્કોને પણ નિયંત્રિત કરવા પડશે.

મકાનના હક્કોઃ

મકાનો જમીન ઉપર થાય છે. એટલે કઈ જમીન નો ઉપયોગ કેવા મકાનો માટે કરવો તેના માટે શાસન નિયમો બનાવશે.

સમજી લો આપણે બહુમાળી મકાનોના સંકુલો તરફ જઈ રહ્યા છીએ.

જો ગામડાંઓને એટલે કે જમીનના એક હિસ્સામાં રહેતી વસાહતને સંકુલમાં ફેરવવી પડશે. સંકુલ એટલે એક એવું બહુમાળી મકાન જેમાં કુટુંબોને રહેવા મળતું હોય, દુકાનો હોય, સ્વકીય ગ્રામોદ્યોગ-ધંધાઓ હોય, શાળા હોય, જરુરી અને પરવડે તેમ હોય તો કોલેજ પણ હોય, સરકારી કાર્યાલયો હોય, વાહનો અને પશુઓને રાખવાની સગવડ હોય, ગોદામો હોય, બસસ્ટેન્ડ હોય, કસરત અને ખેલકુદની વ્યવસ્થા હોય.

સંકુલ કેવું હશે?

સંકુલ એક બહુમાળી મકાન હશે,

આ સંકુલની રચના જે જમીન ઉપલબ્ધ હશે તેને અનુરુપ હશે.

એક નમૂના રુપ સંકુલ અહીં દર્શાવેલ છે.

આ સંકુલ ના કોલાઓ પ્રબલિત કાંકરેટ એટલેકે અંદર લોઢાના સળીયા કે તાર નાખેલું કોંકરેટના ચણતરથી બનેલું હશે. આ આર.સી.સી. કોલાઓ છે.

આ એક કોલો પાંચ મીટર લાંબો, પાંચ મીટર પહોળો અને ત્રણ મીટર ઉંચો હશે.

એટલે કે કોલાઓની હરોળનો ઉપયોગ રહેઠાણ કે સામાન્ય ઉપયોગ એટલે કે પેસેજ, દાદરો કે લીફ્ટ તરીકે કરાશે. બાકીની હરોળોનો ઉપયોગ રહેઠાણો તરીકે થઈ શકશે. કોલાને ૨૫ ચોરસમીટરનો ખંડ બનાવી શકાશે. આ ખંડને દિવાલો નહીં હોય. પણ ૪ મીટર લાબી અને દોઢ મીટર પહોળી એવી બે ગેલેરીઓ સંલગ્ન હશે. આ ગેલેરીઓ લોખંડની જાળીઓથી જડેલી હશે જેથી કોઈ તે ગેલેરીમાંથી નીચે કચરો નાખી ન શકે કે પાણી ઢોળી ન શકે.


ઉપરોક્ત ચિત્રમાં બીજો માળ બતાવવામાં આવ્યો છે.

જમીન તળ દુકાનો અથવા અને કાર્યાલયો હશે. આ કોલાઓને ગેલેરી નહીં હોય અને કોલાઓ સળંગ હશે. તેથી પેસેજની બંને બાજુ સળંગ ૨૦+૨૦ એમ ૪૦ દુકાનો માટેના કોલાઓ હશે. જે તે દુકાનદારને તેને અનુરુપ દુકાનના કોલાઓ વેચવામાં આવશે. એક વેપારી કે કારીગર એક કરતા વધુ કોલાઓ ખરીદી શકશે.

રહેઠાણની સંપત્તિના નિયમોની રુપરેખાઃ

શાસન, કોલાઓનું જુદાજુદા ઉપયોગ માટે વર્ગી કરણ કરશે અને તે પ્રમાણે તેનું વેચાણ કરશે. જેમકે, વેપાર, સેવા, કાર્યાલય, ગૃહ ઉદ્યોગ, શાળા, કોલેજ, રહેણાંક વિગેરે

વેચાણ લેનાર તેની માગણી અનુસાર એક કરતા વધુ કોલાઓ ખરીદી શકશે. પોતાના કોલાઓમાં માલિક વિભાગો કરી શકશે. પણ તોડફોડ કરી શકશે નહીં.

જો આ કોલાઓ પ્રજાની સંપત્તિના વિનિયમયમાં થયા હશે એટલે કે જેણે જેટલી જમીન શાસનને પરત કરી હશે તેના કરતાં અઢી ગણા વિસ્તારની સીમા જેટલા કોલા-વિસ્તાર આપવામાં આવશે. આમાં ૨૦ ટકા ની બાંધછોડ કરી શકાશે.

જેઓએ જમીન વગરનું મકાન શાસનને આપ્યું હશે તેને તેના માલિકીના વિસ્તારના દોઢ ગણા જેટલા રહેણાકના કોલાવિસ્તાર આપવામાં આવશે. તેમાં પણ ૨૦ ટકાની બાંધછોડ કરી શકાશે.

આ કોલાઓ તેણે જે તે વ્યવસય માટે લીધા હોય તે વ્યવસાય જ કરી શકશે.

કોલાઓની માલિકી અને ભોગવટાના હક્ક, જે તે વ્યક્તિ કે વ્યક્તિ સમૂહ, બીજી વ્યક્તિ કે બીજા વ્યક્તિ સમૂહને વેચી શકશે. પણ તેનું મૂલ્ય સરકારે નિશ્ચિત કર્યું હશે. શાસન તે મિલ્કતનો કબજો લઈ તે વેચાણ કે ભોગવટાના હક્ક લેનારને તે મિલ્કતનું હસ્તાંતરણ કરશે. મિલ્કતના વેચાણના કિસ્સામાં શાસન તે મિલ્કતની ૬ ટકા કિમત પોતાની પાસે રાખશે.

ભોગવટાના હસ્તાંતરણના કિસ્સમાં શાસન, મિલ્કતના વાર્ષિક ભાડાના દશ ટકા દર વર્ષે વસુલ કરશે. આ રકમ શાસન, આગોતરી વસુલ કરશે. મિલ્કતનો માલિક, ભોગવટાના હક્કનું આગામી વર્ષમાટેનું મૂલ્ય દર હિસાબી વર્ષના પ્રારંભે પોતાની મરજી પ્રમાણે નક્કી કરી શકશે.

એટલે કે જો મિલ્કતનો માલિક મિલ્કતના ભોગવટાનું (ભાડાનું) મૂલ્ય ભોગવટાનો હક્ક તારીખ ૧૫-૦૧-૨૦૧૪ ના રોજ આપે છે. તો તે તેજ સમયે ૦૧-૦૨-૨૦૧૫થી શરુ થતા વર્ષમાટે ભાડું નક્કી કરી જણાવશે. શાસન ભાડાખતનો એક નમૂનારુપ દસ્તાવેજ બનાવશે. તેમાં રહેલાં પ્રાવધાનો દરેક માલિકે અને ભાડવાતે માનવા પડશે. આ ઉપરાંતના પ્રાવધાનો માલિક ઇચ્છે તો ઉમેરી શકશે.

અનિવાર્યપણે વેબ સાઈટ

દરેક ધંધાદારી કે કારીગર જાહેર સેવા કરનારી વ્યક્તિએ સરકાર દ્વારા સૂચિત પ્રાવધાનો વાળી વેબ સાઈટ શાસનને આપવી પડશે. શાસન, તેને તે સંકુલની વેબસાઈટમાં એક લીંક તરીકે ગોઠ્વશે. આ વેબ પેજ ઉપર મિલ્કતની વિગત, ધંધાની વિગત, મિલ્કતનો માલિક, ભોગવનાર, પોસ્ટલ એડ્રેસ, સંપર્ક ઈમેલ એડ્રેસ વિગેરે વિગતો દર્શાવવી પડશે. આમાં થનારા ફેરફાર માટે મિલ્કત ના ભોગવાનારે ૧૫ દિવસ પહેલાં નોટીસ આપવી પડશે.     

કૌટૂંબિક હસ્તાંતરણના કિસ્સાઓમાં, શાસન, કશી વસુલી કરશે નહીં. વસિયતનામામાં જેનું નામ લખાયેલું હશે કે નોમીનેશન જેના નામે હશે તેને થતા હસ્તાંતરણમાં શાસન, કશી વસુલી કરશે નહીં. મિલ્કતને ગીરો રાખી શકાશે પણ તે માટેની નોંધણી શાસનમાં કરાવવી પડશે.

રહેણાંકના મકાનો કેવા હોવા જોઈએ તે વિષે વિગતો તપાસીએ.


શિરીષ મોહનલાલ દવે

ટેગ્ઝઃ ગ્રામ્ય, શહેર, જમીન, ખેતર, મકાન, સંકુલ, કોલો, મિલ્કત, માલિક, ભોગવટો, ભાડવાત




RSS was not banned for indefinite period.

One can agree that a common man of RSS be scared of going to jail. Are the leaders of RSS too are supposed to be scared of Jail?

RSS was not banned for a very long time.

Why it could not be banned for indefinite period, because in democracy it can be challenged in a court of law.


Godse had killed MK Gandhi, but his action was not supported by any resolution passed by the general body or working committee of RSS.

Further the constitution of RSS does not provide to kill a Hindu, leave aside Muslims. In 1948, some leaders of RSS might have been arrested who had been doubted for their awareness of the plan of Godse and support to the plan.

Most RSS leaders were not proved guilty. This is because Godse had decided of his own.

Veer Savarkar was also not punished as a party with Godse. He was banned for social activities. Madanlal was punished to life imprisonment who had tried to kill MK Gandhi . Madanlal’s plan was failed. There was a group and had prepared plans. The third plan was successful. And all of the eight accused were convicted for preparing plan and executing it. Godse and Apte were hanged. Other six were punished with life imprisonment.


Now as per Gandhi and otherwise also, a person who loves its nation, and if it wants to make its nation an independent nation, it has right to agitate.

If Godse had moral right then MK Gandhi had moral right, as well as legal right too, to express. It was not Gandhi who failed to control carnages. It was the government that failed, the government which had power to control the situation. Gandhi had no power.

If Godse wanted to play insurgency against Gandhi he could have discussed the disputes with Gandhi. He could have given a notice for discussion before he decided to kill him.

Recall and remember. According to Indian culture, a notice for conducting negotiation need to be given before waging a war. It was Government and power holders in the government required to be targeted by Godse. The target could never be Gandhi for Godse.

Culprits were punished. But what was about many other leaders of RSS? There were many injustice on Hindus and on India where the interest of India was hurt.


Nehruvian policy on Tibet, China, Burma had made irreparable harm to India and Indian society.

If RSS was against division of India, what did it do when Iskander Mirza had suggested for Federal Union of Pakistan and India in 1955?

Are these issues, political issues only? Not at all. They were highly related with the security and interest of India.

RSS cannot shirk from the responsibilities from keeping mum on such national issues when it passes the blame of partition of India on MK Gandhi.

RSS kept mum. Is it because RSS was banned? Not at all. RSS was banned only for few months from Feb. 1948. I myself was a member of Saurashtra High School Shakha in 1949 to 1951 in Rajkot. There was no ban on RSS. And otherwise also, RSS members and leaders are citizens of India, and the rights of citizen always prevail.

Is it that the RSS leaders were frustrated due to mass arrests during 1948?

Is it that the RSS leaders were scared of jail?

Had the RSS leaders believed as, had they been agitated against Nehruvian Congress on Tibet, China, Burma and Pakistan issues, they would had been sent to jail?

No. Not all all.

One must know that the then opposition leaders in Parliament had very badly opposed the policy of Nehru. But they had no adequate mass support to uproot the Nehruvian Government in subsequent elections. RSS leaders had simply ignored the matter. RSS leaders could have mobilized the mass and could have provided support of mass to the opposition parties. But the RSS leaders had not tried at all.

Are the RSS leaders scared of punishment?

Yes. It appears like that. At the time of general elections in 1980, the RSS leaders did not come out for preventing Indira Ghandi to come to power, though this Indira Ghandi had executed may scams and frauds with the nation. Simla Pact with Pakistan, Deal with Union Carbide, Imposition of Emergency and political lift to Bhindaranwale to make him politically stronger. This Bhindaranwale had opened the doors of India for cross border terrorists, these were the good reasons to prevent Indira Ghandi to power in 1980.

Is it that the RSS leaders are hypocrite, timid and lacking in sense of wisdom?

The nationalist persons have to be always at war at least to fight out with a pen if not with a sword. But as per the RSS it says that they don’t believe in non-violence. They believe in violence.

If it is like that, then they should had fought out with violence, no need to have phobia of Mahatma Gandhi.    

Leave this aside. Discussion on MK Gandhi is no way significant. He is dead. Otherwise also he had no power.


Nehruvians are alive.

Nehruvians always remained in politics and only politics for power posts.

Nehruvians held power post and that too Number One Power Post,

Nehruvians were and are paid from public money.

Nehruvians misused their power at large scale for their own benefit.

Nehruvians divided people of India, they made money through scandals, frauds and scams. They have lot of money by which they can control media and vote bank. They are not least significant. They have culture to topple any government by any means and at any cost to the nation.


Now Narendra Modi has come to power. He is Neo-Mahatma Gandhi. Support him with big hand. Get rid of misconceptions about MK Gandhi. Gandhi is not relevant to fight a war against Nehruvian Congress. Uproot Nehruvian Congress to establish social morals and dignity of India.

Shirish Mohanlal Dave

Tags: MK Gandhi, Indira Ghandi, Nehru, Nehruvian, Congress, Godse, RSS, leaders, scared, jail, Narendra, Modi, Neo-Mahatma Gandhi



In both the insurgency persons involved has to be ready for punishment.

In both the cases, one has to make up its mind to leave its relatives, friends, home, job, town and even the country. This inevitably happens in more or less proportion. One’s family is off course going to suffer socially, mentally and monetarily.

Then what is the difference between these two?


A person goes with weapon,

A person can be non-transparent,

A person goes underground,

A person fights physically,

A person gets beaten,

A person goes to jail,

A person faces litigation and say if a person gets convicted then the person would undergo punishments like house arrest, jail, life time jail, exile jail, up to capital punishment.


In old days in India a war was played associated with fair principles. Rama, Pandava, Chandra Gupta, Rana Pratap, Shivaji and many others, say lastly Subhash Chandra Bose had waged war on moral grounds. We leave this aside in this blog. One can watch Subrhamanian Swami on this topic on You Tube.


A person is always ready for discussion,

A person keeps transparency,

A person goes without weapon,

A person does everything openly,

A person gives a notice,

A person suffers all tortures physically and mentally,

A person gets beaten,

A person goes to jail,

A person faces litigation and say the person gets convicted then the person would undergo punishment like house arrest, jail, life time jail, exile jail and capital punishment.



A person may not get capital punishment. But this punishment cannot be ruled out if the government is non-democratic.

Democracy is a relative term. A government could be less democratic and could be hypocrite. Such government can kill a person in many other ways.

We know as to how the life of Shyama Prasad Mukharjee was ended up.

We know very well as to how Jai Prakasha Narain was treated medically in the jail and how was he taken to near death condition by the Nehruvian progeny Indira Ghandi.

We know about a lot of persons as to how they had been disappeared from the world by the Nehruvian Governments.

This indicates that the non-violent person or a group of persons has to be ready for facing indirectly imposed capital punishment.


What was the decided policy between violent Insurgents and non-violent insurgent during Indian freedom struggle?

Both of them had decided that they should not come into mutual conflict. They should run the struggle on their own principles.

The supporters of Bhagat Singh defame MK Gandhi on the plea that MK Gandhi did not save the life of Bhagat Singh. According to them, it was possible for MK Gandhi to save the life of Bhagat Singh. As said by them a proposal was made by the British.

First of all one should understand that an insurgent has to be ready for any punishment including the capital punishment. The insurgent is supposed to foresee it and the insurgent is supposed to accept it, in case the capital punishment comes to the insurgent.

Bhagat Singh was not timid. He was not scared of punishment. He had foreseen it. He was ready to accept it. He had not prayed for any relief in punishment.

Now suppose, MK Gandhi might had prayed the British to provide relief to Bhagat Singh who believed in insurgency with violation, what could British had done?

As for Gandhi, the British were cunning and not reliable. Besides this it was beyond doubt that British could use such approach of MK Gandhi to defame him maximum. One should not be silly to ask Mahatma Gandhi to fall in the trap of British.


Is it that, in case Narendra Modi had submitted apology the matter would have been ended up there?

No. It would have given a big weapon to pseudo secular to demoralize Narendra Modi and BJP too.

Modi is equally clever and smart like MK Gandhi.

You must be smart enough to understand Narendra Modi and Mahatma Gandhi.

A time has come to apply logic and spell out logically because your stupidity can harm the BJP lead Government.

Shirish Mohanlal Dave

Tags: Insurgence, Agitation, Violence, Non-violence, punishment, MK Gandhi, Godse, notice, communication



Why MK Gandhi did not go on fast for pressurizing Congress to deny partition?

Gandhi has stipulated conditions for his every action. “Going on Fast” has certain pre-conditions. To understand Gandhi one must read Gandhi.

However the counter question is that as to why only Gandhi should go on fast?

One cannot shirk from their own responsibility by asking MK Gandhi as to why he did he not go on fast. Why did they themselves neither went on fast nor gave any call for Direct Action?

The leaders who were “Pro-United India” too could have gone on fast. Who had prevented them? Nobody had prevented them. They could have gone on fast onto the death. They too could have given a call for “Direct Action” to Hindus. Otherwise also Gandhi had to die as the result was to be the same.

In fact every leader wanted partition. The partition had become inevitable due to the Hindu-Muslim riots which was a result of the call of “Direct Action” given by Jinna to Muslims.

India was not in position to delay the independence.

It is also a matter to research that after the death of Sardar Patel why did the so called nationalists not forcibly drive out the Muslims from India?

Pakistans, Burma, Ceylon did such thing all the time? All of them have driven out others from their country in a big way. Omar and Farukh have driven out even 7 lakhs Hindus from their state in 1990 after executing a massacre of 3000+ Hindus, though Kashmir is an integral part of India.



One has to forget MK Gandhi, if one does not want to follow him.

MK Gandhi had not held any power post.

Those who held powers and were entrusted with duties and we pay them against their duties, we can pass one or other blame for their failure. Gandhi had acted as an ordinary person. It is your choice to follow his ideas or not. Gandhi is insignificant.

Do not forget Nehruvian. They always held power posts.

Nehruvians have not become insignificant. They had constitutional power and constitutional responsibilities. To perform their constitutional duties they had been paid very heavily from public account. They made blunders, frauds and scandals. They are still significant.

Efforts are still required to eliminate Nehruvian Congress. Nehruvian Congress can very easily come to power again, if the learned and elite people would go on discussing irrelevant, least significant and dead issues or non-issues like passing blame on MK Gandhi.

Gandhi is dead. You are alive. Nehruvian Congress and antinational forces are alive. Concentrate on them. If you do not concentrate on them, then you would be not be less than JAICHAND.


Narendra Modi has great respect for Mahatma Gandhi. Mahatma Gandhi has inspired many great leaders in the world. Let us not pass blame on him. He was very much tactful and he did his best for the nation. The credit goes to MK Gandhi for having firm rooted democracy in India. Due to firm rooted democracy only, India could withstand against the fascist forces of Indira Gandhi. It is only India in the world who could uproot the fascist government of Indira Gandhi within 18 months. France had taken 18 years to uproot fascist government.

Now let us expect from Narendra Modi not to act like Prithviraj Chauhan, but to act like Chanakya, to take India towards development to regain its thousands of year old dignity.

Even if Narendra Modi could not act, to the extent to your satisfaction, there is nobody else who can do better. Be very clear to prevent Nehruvian Congress from regaining power again at any cost. Your any impatience with Narendra Modi, can create a negative atmosphere to confuse the mass opinion. This would simply help Nehruvian Congress.


Gandhi has made a definition of Non-Violence as minimum violence. If a work can got be done by hitting a stick once, then do not hit twice.

i.e Non-violence is a relative term.

There is nothing like absolute Non-Violence. If some says that Non-Violence is an absolute term, then take him as a fraud.

Gandhi’s non-violence has no relation with cowardice.

Gandhi has said that “If I have to choose between Cowardice and Violence, then I would choose Violence.” This is carved below a statue of Mahatma Gandhi at Jabalpur.

Why did Gandhi promoted Non-violence against British government?

British believed in non-violence by law.

Democracy can make changes in the government without bloodshed.

Transfer of power or reforms can be made without bloodshed.

Exchange of ideas can make the change of belief. If the laws are providing injustice, then the laws can be changed. Mass opinion can be built up.

If the human rights can be secured without bloodshed, then there is no need to avoid the democratic way of correcting the opponents.

By logical arguments the opponents can be cornered and exposed. This would build pressure on the opponent if he has been abide by the principals of democracy.

Any change if brought through non-violence, it brings public awareness and also educate people. This steps up the society.


The persons involved in governance have taken an oath, that they believe and they have faith in democratic values and humanity,

They are transparent,

They are ready to communicate with the opposition,

They are not prejudicial, but they are logical,

They are abide by the prevailing rules,

They do not have any ill will towards opposite party.

This indicates that they are ready to change the law if they are convinced.


The person has to issue a notice indicating the demand and the reason behind it.

The person should be ready for discussion all the time with anybody,

The person goes on fast on the principle of the public interest,

The person has no direct interest,

The person has love and faith in principle, for the other parts,

The person has no ill will towards opposite parts,

The person is ready to accept the punishment for his disobedience of law, under the prevailing law. The person is ready to undergo punishment.


The Congress leaders where willfully avoided the advice of MK Gandhi,

The public had no awareness and foresight on the consequences of the partition,

The public was not ready to support Gandhi and not ready to avoid the partition,

The British were determined for dividing India as Congress was ready to discuss with them on the terms of partition,

The delay in independence was likely to create more critical and serious problems under the control of British government,

The time to make public aware of the consequences and to create mutual love and faith between the two communities was very short,

Shirish Mohanlal Dave


Tags: Non-issue, issue, human values, democracy, faith, love, ill will, grudge, non-violence, transparency, Gandhi, British, government, pro-united India


Gandhi had expressed that he was deadly against partition.

British had sent Crips Commission who was to discuss the partition conditions. It was not to discuss any other options.

MK Gandhi who was the invited member to participate to help the Congress in presenting the case as to how to achieve freedom. But the way the British framed the basic conditions for independence was not acceptable to MK Gandhi. MK Gandhi asked Congress working committee to pass a resolution to boycott the Cripps Commission.

The Congress members did not agree to the advice of MK Gandhi. At that stage MK Gandhi said loudly that had been my Subhas here, he would have definitely obeyed my advice of boycotting the commission. MK Gandhi further said, when the committee members are determined to accept the partition, I cannot be a member of that committee. He boycotted the commission by resigning from the commission. I would not be a party in dividing India. Then MK Gandhi said “No body in Congress is ready to discuss with me and even no body in Congress is ready to hear me”.

This was the time when the leaders who were outside the Congress, should have stand by the side of Mahatma Gandhi firmly. But they did not. They were either divided or confused. No body stood by the side of MK Gandhi to support him.


The call of “Direct Action” given by Jinnah had made most leaders to realize the inevitability of division of India. People were also of the opinion that there was no option but to accept partition.

MK Gandhi too realized the necessity of partition, at that moment of time under “the Call of Direct Action” and the decisive approach of British Government and Muslim league leaders. Jinna was of the opinion that Muslims are different culture and there by different nation. Muslim needs a separate nation. Congress and MK Gandhi were not for to accept the theory of two nations. Once Gandhi asked Jinna if you become Hindu, in what way your culture would be different than a Hindu. Jinna could not reply to MK Gandhi. It was an historical truth that the origin of most Muslims in India is Hindu. Those who are not, they have also adopted the Hindu culture.  

What were the other options for independence of India?


What meaning of “Federal Union”?

The meaning of Federal Union was to be worked out. As a simple meaning of Federal Union was a Union of Pakistan and India. Pakistan and India were to exists under the Federal Union, but India and Pakistan were to get autonomy in certain fields of governance. It was possible to pressurize British on the option of “Federal Un ion” had the proposal been made unanimously.

The British was firm in saying that the independence means to leave India with making proper arrangement and provision in a treaty that shows that they have cared to provide security and rights of all the communities of India.


The characters in dealing with the proposal for Federal Union were JL Nehru, Sardar Patel, MK Gandhi and Mhammeda Ali Jinna. It was not possible and advisable to call them at one place and to conduct the discussion. This was because it was a matter of confidentiality. Its premature disclosure can create a lot of problems. British can exploit the matter for instigating different community leaders indirectly to play decisive role. Bhulabhai Desai was the messenger. He was meeting and trying for consensus with Jinna, MK Gandhi, JL Nehru and Sardar Patel to make them agreeable on Federal Proposal.

Bhulabhai Desai met Sardar Patel and MK Gandhi. They were agreed to it. Then Bhulabhai Desai met Jinna. Jinna too agreed to it in principle. Bhulabhai Desai met JL Nehru. He totally disagreed to the proposal of Federal Union. JL Nehru out rightly rejected the proposal.

MK Gandhi was ready for Federal Union. It was the Semi Undivided India. i.e. It was united India. It was also divided India.

Then Sardar Patel went to JL Nehru to understand as to why had JL Nehru straight way rejected the idea of Federal Union.

Sardar Patel learnt that JL Nehru had a thought that it was highly possible that MK Gandhi would select Jinna as the head of Federal Union and he would have to work under Jinna. JL Nehru had allergy of Jinna. (Earlier at one stage Nehru had declared that if Jinna agrees to Undivided India, then he would not appoint Jinna even as his peon.)

However Sardar Patel reviewed the other factors. These were about the character and likely aptitude of the kings and kingdoms. Many of the kings were greedy and prone to get instigated for their own freedom and conditions. It was a matter of a lengthy and time consuming frame work for preparing accession or amalgamation conditions. Besides this the presence of decisive British was also there. They were keen to instigate self-centered and communal leaders to divide India in many other pieces. That is why MK Gandhi and Sardar Patel thought to divide India in two nations to avoid India, breaking in multiple pieces.


India, Pakistan and the kingdoms. As for the people of Kingdoms, they may decide at a later stage either they would remain as an independent kingdom or they may conduct plebiscite as to affiliate with whom. British said “We would provide the independence to the kings for their kingdom. We give them two option. They can remain independent. They can have accession either with India or Pakistan by adopting a fair plebiscite.”

MK Gandhi was of the opinion, that it was the Muslim leaders who were keen to divide India. As for Congress, the leaders were not ready to delay the independence any more. British were ever ready to spoil the situation. Gandhi and Sardar thought, it would be better to accept the independence with divided India. In democracy, the real power belongs to the people. It would be better to try for reunion at later stage.

MK Gandhi had foreseen the likely massacre to some extent after partition. He tried his best to prevent them and to build unity. He had gone on fast to establish peace. The peace was urged to both the people of both the communities. But some took it one sided without going through the details.

MK Gandhi wanted to visit Pakistan to try to reunite the nation. He wanted to see that the peace get established at least in Delhi. Because if both the community have no faith in each other they cannot reunite.


MK Gandhi was very much upset, when he learnt that the leaders of Congress who belonged to the region of Pakistan had run to India instead of staying in Pakistan for enforcing harmony with Muslims.

When Gandhi aksed them, the Congress leaders said “our life was not safe”.

MK Gandhi said, “So what? I have taught you to be brave and fearless. I have taught you to be ready to sacrifice everything. I have taught you to die. I have not taught you to run away. You are all coward. Had you been killed there, I would have been pleased a lot. I would have danced on hearing the news of your death. I would have really danced a lot.”

Now those who are having mindset to abuse MK Gandhi, they take the above Spell outs as that has been spelled out before Hindus who ran towards India. In fact the words were spelled out before Congress leaders of Pakistan.

MK Gandhi wanted the Congress leaders to remain in Pakistan. Had the people of Congress been nationalist, they would have remained in Pakistan. They could have formed a political party named “Pakistan National Congress”.

Look at the Muslim leaders. Many of them remained in India and formed an Indian Muslim League. The decisive Nehruvian Congress has joined the hands with the Indian Muslim League since 1958. There are lots of Muslim Organizations in India. It is only Nehruvian Congress who instigated Muslims to remain isolated from Hindus.

Soon MK Gandhi experienced that many Congress leaders were exerting pressure on him to get some position in the new government. Not only this but the leaders who to had deserted Pakistan, and had come to India to share the power. MK Gandhi publically declared to dissolve Congress.

“Diary of Last three months of Gandhi in Delhi” written by Manuben Gandhi, provides the full information on the role played by MK Gandhi. There is a day to day diary of MK Gandhi’s last three months in Delhi before he was killed. Manuben Gandhi has given report day to day and word to word. Those who read MK Gandhi would never carry a feeling that MK Gandhi had any attitude to appease Muslims and Muslims leaders. Instead he appears to be deadly against Muslim leaders. He has at one stage said that if Pakistan is not capable to provide proper securities to Hindus, India should attack on Pakistan and take over Pakistan.


Yes. It was JL Nehru who was more dangerous.

No provincial party committee had suggested the name of JL Nehru for PM’s post. Nehru declared before MK Gandhi that he want to head the government, then Gandhi told him that none of the provincial party committee and the CM has suggested his name.

It was the moral duty of JL Nehru to withdraw his name. But instead of doing that, he kept mum and silently left the room. MK Gandhi thought that Nehru is likely to do some adventure. This adventure would break the Congress party at that crucial stage when the separatists including British were working hard to weaken the Congress. MK Gandhi called Sardar Patel and got an assurance that Sardar Patel would see that Congress remained united.

It is needless to say that JL Nehru had already created a socialistic Group within Congress with a freedom to abuse other Congress leaders like Rajgopalachari, Sardar Patel etc…

MK Gandhi knew that in democracy nothing is final. Let JL Nehru be the PM, till the general elections under new constitution gets conducted.

But unfortunate to India, MK Gandhi was murdered, Sardar died before general elections. JL Nehru used media to divert the attention of public from his failure in external affairs, his failures in planning and wisdom-less vision. It is a matter of surprise and a matter of research as to how the learned people made no noise.

JL Nehru had become intolerant and autocrat. He became hungry of power. JL Nehru himself has written this, for himself to have a fun on himself.

A good opportunity had come, to have Federal Union. Iskandar Mirza had proposed for “Federal Union, in 1955. It was a good and proper time when everything was OK locally. The people who left their property in Pakistan were alive and this issue was also alive. Pakistan was ready to resolve this issue bilaterally. But JL Nehru indecently rejected the proposal of “Federal Union” without discussing it at any level.


The learned people including the learned people talking too much till date for passing blame on MK Gandhi for partition. They are feeling great for themselves for this, but they kept mum instead of calling for a strong agitation for Federal Union in 1955. Federal Union was the first step toward Undivided India. Most of the leaders who had abused Congress and MK Gandhi for passing the blame of dividing India, were very well alive and capable to launch wide spread agitation in favor of “Federal Union” in nineteen fifties. They never agitated for Federal Union, even that proposal had come up from the Pakistan. Not only this, these leaders had kept mum even on the absolute blunders of JL Nehru on external affairs related with Tibet, China and Burma in nineteen fifties.

Was it difficult for them? Was it that these were political issue and thereby they (RSS) cannot take part in politics?

It was never difficult for them. It was not a politics. It was related with and great concern with humanity and national interest. Despite of this they behaved like deaf and dumb.

It was not that there were no agitation during 1950-1960. It was not that that RSS was less popular. In fact at most of the school compound and street, RSS was running RSS Shaakhaa. Golvalkar was also alive. A lot of other agitations took place during 1951 to 1960. But none tried either for Federal Union nor against the Himalayan Blunders of JL Nehru.

The victory of Nehruvian Congress in 1952 was fraudulent. The victory of Nehruvian Congress was a fraud. But the defeat of pro-RSS parties made their leaders weak and frustrated. They achieve some confidence only when Nava Nirman agitation unseated the Nehruvian Congress party in 1974. The Nehruvian Congress party had earlier 140 seats in Assembly out of 168 in 1972 assembly elections.

It is needless to say that it was Jai Prakash Narain a veteran Mahatma Gandhian who lead the agitation against Nehruvian Congress and defeated Nehruvian Congress badly in 1977. The inaction and frustration of worthless leaders of RSS, VHP, BD and some leaders like Advani, Sushma, Murlimanohar gave life to Nehruvian Congress.



Shirish Mohanlal Dave

Tags: Nehruvian Congress, Federal Union, kings, kingdom, Cripp’s Commission, Gandhi, Bhulabhai Desai, Sardar Patel, RSS, VHP, BD, leaders


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 59 other followers

%d bloggers like this: