WHO HAS NOT APPLIED MIND …?

The elections of Karnataka state Assembly are over.

The election result produced a hung assembly

BJP got 104 Seats,

Indian Nehruvian Congress got 78 seats,

JDS+ got 38 seats

And

Others got 2 seats

Somehow it appears that there is a flaw somewhere in the process of calling for proving the majority.

Who are the parties?

(1) Governor of Karnataka

(2) Nehruvian Congress and JDS

(3) BJP

(4) Supreme Court Judges

(1) Governor of Karnataka what was his role?

(1.1) to invite the leader of the First Single largest party, to take an oath as CM,

(1.2) to ask the CM to appoint the provisional temporary speaker from the elected members to swear in,   

(1.3) to ask the CM to prove his majority on the floor of the house

(1.4) the CM should prove the majority support within 15 days on the floor of the house, not elsewhere,

(1.5) the CM to form the government after proving the majority support on the floor

Is there any flaw at the end of the Governor?

No. There is no flaw in inviting the leader of the First Single largest party to take an oath as CM, because it was as per the guide line prescribed by the Sarkaria Commission in its report and it has been approved by the SC.   

Was there any flaw in the appointment of Mr. Bopiah as provisional speaker of the house?

No. There was no flaw in his appointment because he was the senior most under the criteria of length of service in a cadre. Allegation against him of being bias was set aside by the SC long back in some other case. He had also worked as provisional speaker previously too.

Is there any flaw in asking the CM to prove the majority on the floor of the house?

No. There was no any flaw in asking him to prove the majority on the floor of the house. This was in accordance to the Supreme Court ruling in some other case that the majority has to be proved on the floor of the house, not elsewhere.

Is there any flaw in asking to prove the said majority support within 15 days.

No. There was no flaw in giving a maximum period up to 15 days for the job entrusted to the leader of the First largest single party. 15 days period is the legal period.

Why 15 days period is termed as the legal period?

Something related with multiple subjects and objects to be dealt with, a time limit of minimum 15 days has to be given, to avoid injustice to person/persons/party/parties. If the time period has the relation with a single person with no gathering, searching the matter related document/documents i.e. documental studies, then 72 hours’ time limit is justified. Here in our subject matter, this was not the case. Here it is a policy matter where the whole party’s members have some SAY. These SAYs are to be compiled and needed to arrive to several decisions related with alliance including the alliance to me made or not, through discussion within the party and then through consensus an amicable solution with or without some terms and condition. The leader of a party cannot take decisions at his whims in a democratic country. Hence the 15 days’ time limit given was a well justified limit.

Therefore the decisions of the Governor was foul-less and flawless.

The further details on this justified time limit we would see later.

(2) Nehruvian Congress and JDS

These are the petitioners. We do not know whether Nehruvian Congress is the First Part of the petitioner or the Second Part. Similarly about the JDS. Irrespective of the First Part or Second Part, the BJP lawyer should have asked to clarify. Leave this aside, it is the right of any person/organization to submit a petition. It is up to the discretion of the SC to get convinced or not. We would examine this point further  under the actions of the SC.

(3) BJP, is off course the opposite party. Action of BJP and SC we would discuss together.

(4) Supreme Court:

Who has issued instructions?

Governor has issued the instructions.

If the governor’s instructions are challenged then the Governor becomes the defendant. BJP cannot become either an opposite party or a defending party. But here, BJP being the first largest single party, its interest is affected if the SC does not hear BJP.

As for the Governor, the Governor cannot be called before any court. When this is the position of the Governor, then, it implies that the Governor must have an unchallengeable power, to take the decision. But no authority is allowed to take arbitrary decision in a democratic country. The decision should be taken with discretion.  Discretion means reasonable and justifiable.

The task before SC was to decide whether the instructions issued by the Governor contained any flaw and to rule on:

(1) To entertain the petition or not, when the Governor has discretionary power.

(2) If yes, then whether any instruction of the Governor was discretionary or arbitrary? If the SC finds prima-facie in the petition that any instruction of the Governor contains flaw, then the SC can entertain the petition.

The SC has ruled that the 4^th instruction of the Governor was arbitrary.  That is the time limit given for proving the majority within 15 days contains a flaw.

On this point, the SC has a flaw in its order.  SC changed the time limit from 15 days to two days.

The petitioner parties, viz. the  Nehruvian Congress and the  JDS or vice versa, can come with dirty hand, is understandable, through their record of history. But the legal matters are heard, point to point with its relevance.

e.g. Indira Gandhi had spoken fourteen lies on oath, before the Allahabad HC, when her election was challenged by Rajnarain. But at that time, the HC had not ruled, that all of her, rest of the statements were also false. Similarly here, if the petitioners have come with the dirty hands, then this was required to be proved in the court. If the Opposite party proves this, then the petitioners are liable to be punished.

How and why the matter was so urgent that it should be heard at mid night?

It is said that the appointment of Protem speaker, by the leader of the BJP, can play a foul game. But SC can say that this is hypothetical ground. Court cannot give its verdict on hypothetical assumption. Hence SC should have rejected the petition and could have asked the petitioners to come after the appointment of the Protem Speaker.

The pray for the reduction of time limit for the reason of horse trading.

This point is also hypothetical. Horse Trading applies to every party, and if the factor of horse trading is to be considered, then it is to be applied to all.

Otherwise also, the point of preventing Horse Trading cannot be entertained. Because the petitioner One and the petitioner 2 gets full liberty for Horse Trading and that to for indefinite period. They can do the horse trading during the forming of government and after word also while negotiating on terms and conditions of common minimum program.

The point of petitioner coming before the Court with dirty hands lies here:

To have an alliance among two or multiple parties is a policy matter of each party.

To have an alliance, there needs to have terms and conditions which are supposed to be in concurrence with the party principles. Whether these terms and conditions are in concurrence with party principles or not, there needs an expert opinion and the members of the party must have a SAY to it. All these things can be decided only by the General body meeting of the party. Even the Central Working Committee is not authorized to change the policy of the party without the concurrence of the general body.

What should be or what is the procedure to decide such “policy issue” in a democratic set up?

The party president can call for an emergency general body meeting. But political parties are having members in lakhs. Therefore there are state committees. State committees further dependent on district, tehsil and city committees. They have to give suggestions and to elect delegates for the general conference. These delegates will submit the SAYs of members in the general conference. Then the central working committee would compile the SAYs and take the decision as per the delegated power under the constitution of the party. If any member of any Committee inclusive of MLA, if does not agree with the decision/s of the central working committee, he/she has the right to leave the party if he is in minority. No question arises of he being in majority because in that case the proposal gets rejected.

If the alliance has been done before the declaration of the Assembly elections, all these procedure can be followed. And a member against any terms and conditions of alliance or even against the alliance itself, would not file his candidature in assembly election and even he could resign from the party.

If the alliance is proposed after the poll, how to follow the line of democratic spirit to have the alliance?      

It is mandatory to follow the aforesaid procedure to maintain the spirit of the democracy. On the plea of an urgency no party can overlook the basic characteristic of democracy. Further there is no urgency because if the matter is delayed even beyond 15 days, there was no scope of breakdown of the constitution.

Generally for calling any meeting, a notice of 15 days in advance is required for committee of any level with an agenda. In case of an urgency and a known single agenda, a notice of 72 hours is OK at lower level. But when the higher level committee is dependent on the suggestions of the lower level committees, inclusive of electing and sending delegates to the general body meeting at the Head Quarter, 72 days’ notice is not feasible. That is why 15 days’ time period was ok.

Democratic spirit is the transparency and accommodating every body’s SAY so that it can reflects the opinion of general members to the central working committee. Now, in case of post poll alliance even if all the above procedure is followed and accordingly the alliance to a party is approved by a party, an elected member of a party may not agree to the alliance. It is the liberty and the right of that elected member/s to disagree with the post-poll alliance.

Now it is matter of controversy, that in such a case the elected member/s should resign from the MLA-ship or not?

If he/she resigns from the party is understandable. The party can dismiss the member that can also be understandable.

But whether the MLA is the representative of the people of the constituency or the representative of the party? This point is controversial for some people.

Whether the party is superimposing on MLA or people of the constituency are superimposing on MLA?

In democracy the people are the supreme. Thereby in democracy, the MLA should act according to the desire of the people of the constituency.

If while canvassing the contestant of a party has not made mention about a could be alliance to a party, but on the contrary the contestant had abused and derogated the opponent party/parties and its contestant, in that case if that contestant wins the elections the contestant becomes the MLA, and that MLA is not supposed to resign from MLA-ship, because he has not lost the faith of his people.

It is on record that SC has ruled that the people are supreme even above the constitution in democratic countries, then a party cannot terminate any MLA on the ground of the MLA has lost the faith of the party. People are supreme not the party, not the SC, not the house and not the constitution. The burden of proof that the MLA has lost the faith  of the people, lies with party. If any law is not in concurrence with the aforesaid burden of proof, the law is null and void.  

The Supreme Court has not considered the characteristic of the democracy. The party leaders have no arbitrary power for having an alliance. The SC appears to have been taken for granted that the central working or its president enjoys the arbitrary power.  They cannot have such arbitrary power in democracy.

Further the SC has not cared to see or the SC appears to have been overlooked the mandatory procedure to be followed by the petitioner parties to have an alliance reflecting the approval of general body. This is the big flaw in the decision of SC.

The SC has not examined and it has overlooked the mandatory characteristic of parties in a democratic country in passing the order of curtailed time limit of to 72 hours.

We can conclude that it appears;

SC has not taken “ an alliance with another party” is a policy related matter.

SC over ruled that a party should maintain transparency in a democratic country,

SC has approved that non-democratic parties are allowed to function in politics of a democratic country.

SC found on hypothetical ground that there could be horse trading at the end of opposite party (BJP) without examining any past records of it.

SC found no scope for horse trading between two petitioning parties even though they have unlimited scope for indefinite period.

or the SC has not applied mind

As for the BJP, we do not know as to why it has not represented its own case in view of the democratic principles of transparency and mandatory procedures to compile the members’ voice.

If the party is already having its pre-planned strategy of dealing with the matter, it is ok.

Amit Shah is considered to be the modern Chanakya who followed the philosophy of Lord Krishna who had said “ShaTham Prati ShaThyam Samacharet” शठं प्रति शाठ्यम्‌ समाचरेत्‌”.

Shirish M. Dave

 

 

Read Full Post »

WOW !!! WHAT A CULTURE … of Nehruvian Congress … !!!

The elections of Karnataka state Assembly are over.

The election result produced a hung assembly

BJP got 104 Ssats, Nehruvian Congress got 78 seats, JDS+ got 38 seats and others got 2

Now as per the guide line prescribed under Sarkaria Commission report, the Governor is supposed to invite the leader of the first single largest party to form a government provided it has submitted the claim.

Supreme Court Approval:

It is specifically mentioned in the report, this first single largest party should be invited to form the government. Any alliance formed, after the poll results, would be over looked. Supreme Court too, had approved this criteria.

The BJP leader had submitted his claim.

The Governor of Karnataka state, invited the leader of the First Single largest party viz. BJP who had secured 104 seats.

What is the view of INC (Indian Nehruvian Congress)?

When the vote counting was in progress, and the Nehruvian Congress realized that it has no scope of getting sufficient seats to qualify as the first single largest party, and it has also realized that BJP is to get qualified as a first single largest party, Nehruvian Congress announced that it would support the 3^rd single largest party to form the government. i.e. the leader of 3^rd single largest party must submit its claim to form the government.

This looks very much funny

Nehruvian Congress is well known for its corruption, fraud, lies and scandals. It was also known to the Nehruvian Congress leaders that if it submits its claim to form the government, then JDS (Janata Dal Secular) would not support the Nehruvian Congress. That is why Nehruvian Congress tempted JDS to submit its claim to form the government. Nehruvian Congress propagated heavily its opinion under its so-called democratic understanding that the BJP should not submit its claim. BJP which is the First Single Largest Party if submits its claim it would be immoral, undemocratic and murder of democracy. If the Governor invites the 3^rd Single largest Party viz. JDS, it would be full of moral values, democratic and constitutional.

That is according to Nehruvian Congress, the Governor of Karnataka state must reject the claim of 1^st Single Largest party. 2^nd largest party is not willing to submit its claim hence the governor must invites 3^rd single largest party to form its government.

Does this not look ridiculous?

It may look ridiculous, but Nehruvian Congress has its own “Humpty Dumpty Dictionary” to define political terminologies.

WHY THE SARKARIA COMMISSION AND THE SUPREME COURT HAS IGNORED THE ALLIANCE FORMED AFTER ELECTIONS?

The governor has to use his/her discretion as to who can form the stable government.

More the number of parties more to be prone to unstable.

Parties having less number of seats can form an unstable government. A well-known evidence is available in Indian political history. To keep the first single largest party away from forming the government, 2^nd and 3^rd and 4^th single largest parties supported the  fifth single largest party to form the government and the leader of the fifth single largest party was having the strength of one seat. It was the leader himself.

Here, in the case of the Karnataka election, the situation is not exactly the same. But if the two post-election allied parties where the party having small seat strength becomes the leading party then they are more prone to give unstable government. Otherwise also they have no well thought out, program, discussion, mutual understanding of the issues and policy matters. They are more prone to get collapsed. Had they been pre-poll alliance they could have settled, issues and policy and could have prepared common minimum program. There could be a differences among elected members and can have serious problem in post poll alliances.

 Nehruvian Congress had never clear concepts about democracy. It is beyond their brain. JL Nehru was self-recognized socialist. “Socialist” means traditional communist. However there is little difference between the ideology of JL Nehru and Communist. By virtue of vicinity of MK Gandhi and his struggle for independence from British through the non-violence and democratic way, JL Nehru was not in position to talk of autocracy. Let us keep this topic away, but inherently Nehruvian Congress believes in autocracy. It appears like that.

POST-POLL ALLIANCE AND DEMOCRACY

If you have a say, if you are heard, if you are honored, if you are replied then you are living in a party honoring the democratic values.

But in a post-poll alliance, there is no scope for a member to submit his SAY, no chance to be heard, no scope to be replied. Leave aside the point of being honored.

IS IT THAT POLITICAL PARTY IS A HERD?

Nehruvian Congress does not understand the meaning of Pre-poll alliance and post-poll alliance.

Party is formed by its principles and policy. Like minded persons form a party. Give a name to the party. An alliance with some other party, is a policy matter. Before taking a decision on any matter, related with policy, it is mandatory in democracy, to discuss the matter in a general body meeting, so that the members can submit their SAY. Then a resolution is to be passed.

What to talk of general body? A resolution approved by the then Nehruvian Congress ministry in power, was torn out by Rahul Gandhi the prince of Sonia. Sonia is the wife of Rajiv Gandhi, Rajiv Gandhi was the son of Indira Gandhi, Indira Gandhi was the daughter of Jawahar Lal Nehru and Jawahar Lal Nehru was failed in ICS competitive examination of British, the father of Jawahar Lal Nehru Moti Lal Nehru. Moti Lal Nehru was one of the founder member of Indian National Congress. This Moti Lal Nehru asked Mahatma Gandhi to settle JL Nehru in politics.

When India was on verge to get independence, the central working Committee had called for the proposals for the post of Prime Minister. No provincial Committee had put forward the name of Jawaharlal Nehru for PM-Ship in 1946, despite of this, Jawahar Lal Nehru did not withdraw his candidature for PM-Ship, despite of Mahatma Gandhi brought this point to his notice. Jawaharlal Nehru ignored the verdict of his party and gave an indirect message that if he would not be made leader of the party he would generate a split in the party. At that time India was facing crucial issue  of maintaining united India after independence. At that crucial time JL Nehru indicated symptoms of breaking of the party. This became the basic culture which was put forward by Nehru. The daughter of JL Nehru, viz Indira Gandhi, not only degraded heavily, but murdered not only the political values but also the social values of the Indian politics.

Despite of serial defeats Nehruvian Congress is not ready to improve its culture. The leaders of Nehruvian Congress feel that they have all liberty to blame anybody on any issue and can abuse anybody by any name.

The governor of Karnataka invited the leader of 1^st single largest party to form the government. The Nehruvian Congress party went to the Supreme Court at midnight and challenged the governor’s decision, as being undemocratic and unconstitutional. Nehruvian Congress asked the SC to put a stay on the governor’s decision. The Supreme Court did not give any stay on the decision of the governor, and it also rejected demand. Further the court asked the governor of Karnataka to appoint a provisional Speaker of the house to conduct voting of the elected members to see if the invited leader possesses the clear majority or not on the floor of the Assembly.

The Governor appointed Mr. Bopaiah as the speaker from the elected members of house.  

Nehruvian Congress started agitation against the order of Supreme Court. Called the governor by abusive words and further threaten the country that there would be blood shed on the roads.

Nehruvian Congress also challenged the appointment of provisional speaker viz. Mr. Bopaiah stating that the provisional speaker is a bias one on the record and not even he is the senior most.

As for allegation “Bias” it had been already decided by the SC and the allegation was set aside by the Supreme Court long back in some other case.

As for the seniority it is difficult to understand the logic of the Nehruvian Congress leaders. According to the Nehruvian Congress, the definition of the seniority is the oldest member among all the other members in the house.

Funny part is that nowhere such definition existed. Even in Government services the seniority is based upon length of service in the same cadre. Mr. Bopaiah had completed more than two terms as MLA and he was the speaker twice.     

NEHRUVIAN CONGRESS LEADERS CALLED THE GOVERNOR AS A DOG OF BJP.

Nehruvian Congress leaders are heavily active on calling by names the person they dislike, irrespective of the post occupied by the targeted person. The targeted person could be an ordinary MLA, a MP, a Minister, a Chief Minister, the Prime Minister, a Governor or even a Supreme Court Judge too. Nehruvian Congress leaders belong to a dynastic party where a person belonged to the Nehruvian dynasty, is only honorable, none else unless he/she is faithful to the dynasty.

RaGa says our party possesses a school of thoughts, we believe in love, we believe in uniting the nation, we have sacrificed for nation, we care for democratic rights of people, we care for poor, whereas the BJP leaders have no principles, they hates others, they divide the nation, none of them have fought for independence, they are autocrat, they do not care for the poor mass.

Actually all these statements very well applies to themselves. We do not need to go into the proof. The very recent approach of its one of the leaders under a discussion on TV channels, proves that how much hypocrisy they possessed. E.g. A leader calls Narendra Modi a murderer of democracy because he attended the marriage ceremony of the daughter of Nawaz Sharif and gave a saree in gift to his wife in Pakistan. Recall, Indira Gandhi had gifted a portion of POK (which was captured by Indian military in the Indo-Pak war 1971) to Bhutto under Shimla Pact. The same Nehruvian Congress woman had put 66000+  persons inclusive of veteran Mahatma Gandhians, behind the bars for indefinite period without any existence of the offence at their end and without any prosecution.

Nehruvian Congress men are calling the Governor of Karnataka a dog. When this was opposed in a TV Channel under a discussion, the leader was not found apologetic, but he defended “I love dogs” and then diverted the matter. Means if you love dogs, there is nothing wrong, you have permit to call a dog to anybody. This is the logic of leaders of Nehruvian Congress.

What is the fault with other animals? We love every animal. All the animals are innocent, thankful and lovely. It may be cow, horse, donkey, pig, or a fox too. Should we call these leaders of Nehruvian Congress a fox or a donkey? But I think that would the insult of these animals.

Further, look at this …

Nehruvian Congi leaders called him NIKKAMMAA in 1997 then toppled him

Nikkammaa means USELESS. ” निकम्मा”

Now they want to oblige him by tempting his son to become the Prime Minister. This is the level of their words.

Congress has to wait for the full process of JDS is invited and proves its majority on the floor of house. Failure of Yadurappa is not enough.

Shirish M. Dave

There is poem in Gujarati, where a Camel says: “Here in this world no body is straight;

Parrot’s beak is not straight, crane’s neck is not straight, Dogs tail is not straight, Elephant’s trunk is not straight, Buffalo’s horns are not straight, Tiger’s nails are not straight … “ On hearing this,  the fox said to the camel, that as for other animals only one limb is not straight, but as for you, all your eighteen limbs are not straight.

Nehruvian Congress is like Camel.  

Read Full Post »

UNEDUCATED ACADEMICS WROTE LETTER TO PRIME MINISTER NARENDRA MODI

Some persons listed at the end of this blog, reported themselves as prominent persons and self established intellectual persons. They have shown their sensitivity on the recent atrocity incidents in India.

LACKING IN COMMON SENSE:

It is a matter of common sense that India is a large and thickly populated country. When British left this country it was hardly having its share in the world trade and production. Generally it was exporting raw material and importing finished goods.

Somehow or other Nehru took over the rein and he ruled with huge majority for nearly two decades. By that time India remained poor. Once in the parliament Dr. Lohia had announced “out of 50 crores of population, 40 crores persons’ daily income is less than four Annas(25 paise).” Nehruvian Congress corrected the figure while replying to the statement, that it was not 25 paise, but 27 paise.

We know that it does not make any difference. But this was the outcome of Nehru’s rule of nearly two decades.

During this period Nehru introduced reservation by caste. But did not take care to look as to who took the benefit. Indira Gandhi also ruled with huge majority for more than two terms inclusive of two years with autocracy. She expanded the scope of reservation to more castes. Both the Nehruvians kept this type of reservation as a permanent feature. Ambedkar was for reservation only for untouchables and that too for a limited period of 10 years.

None of the Nehruvian cared to see as to how the reservation functions. i.e. Who are getting benefitted all the time,  and who are deprived of the reservation despite of being Dalit?

NEHRUVIANS WANTED THE RESERVATION SHOULD WORK LIKE THAT ONLY.

i.e. Those lower caste families who have improved their status would continuously take the benefit of reservation. These beneficiaries were their own people and they were to keep hold on vote-bank to misguide their own people. Nehruvian Congress was fond of creating this situation which was most favourable for them under “Vote Bank Politics”.

A State Governor’s son/daughter was entitled for reservation but a poor Dalit with little less percentage to the son/daughter of a Dalit caste Governor was miss the  reservation. 

This policy of Nehruvian Congress still works with minor correction.

POLICY OF IDENTIFYING A PERSON BY CASTE AND RELIGION

To identify a person by its caste had created heavy class conflict during Nehruvian Congress rule since 1970 when Indira Gandhi float “Garibi Hatao”.

Indira Gandhi deep rooted the Caste-ism in 1971. In nineteen eighties and nineties there were riots also. During Nehruvian Congress rule they instigated the riots so that the hatred get expanded and become very deep rooted. This was the culture Nehruvian Congress.

DROPs OF A DEVIL’s BLOOD

Just like a devil blood drop, dynastic cultural parties took birth due to the success and victories of Nehruvian Congress under vote bank politics. 

Now let us come to the point about the sensitivity of these elite persons of the list, who wrote a letter to the Prime Minister indicating their great concern on atrocity on Dalits and Muslims.

Yes. Now the gang has added Dalits. Previously the gang used to talk of Muslims-Christian mix. The idea behind the adding Dalits is to keep them away from rest of Hindus. Because Dalits are still poor and less literate and thereby they can be mislead very easily.    

WHO IS THIS GANG?

These persons are termed as “academics”. “Academics” is a quite confusing term. Similarly the same is with “learned”, “Educated”.

Literally an Academic means a studious or an expert in a field who is much more than a learned. Learned means it is simply holding some certificates, just like our Man Mohan Singh who was committed to Nehruvians’ instructions.

ARE THEY QUALIFIED?

A person has to be qualified to opine on an event. He/she is supposed to be “Educated person”. “Educated person” is that person who has understood the issue and he/she has the capacity and expertise to solve the issue.

“Conflict between or among communities” is a social issue.

After all, every issue barring “science and technology”, all are the social issues. Social workers supposed to be sensitive on social issue without discrimination.

A SOCIAL ACADEMIC IS SUPPOSED TO BE A SOCIAL SCIENTIST.

A Social scientist must know the historical back ground of an issue at hand. A social scientist must have the sense of proportion and the sense of comparability. The social scientist is not supposed to play a “Blame Game”. The social science is also a science. A scientist is not supposed to play a Blame Game.

But suppose a social scientist wants to show his research work and want to submit the REPORT then what should be done?

It appears from the letter addressed to the Prime Minister, these self recognized academics have jointly signed the letter. They do not have sense of proportion and they have not gone through deeply into the issue. An Academic must be studious. But here they have not studied the issue.     

A community may be composed of a Class, a Service, a Caste, a Religion, a Region, a Language… 

HAVE A LOOK AT THE HISTORY

(1) JL Nehru had kept the Indo-China boarder knowingly insecure all the time. This was a big factor for India’s quick defeat. It causes a CAKE WALK VICTORY FOR CHINA. Minimum 3000+ soldiers were killed, due to the folly of Nehru.

To ask the security forces to sacrifice despite of prolonged military infiltration of China, was not a sensitive issue?

(2) Indira’s folly/scam was the Simla pact, where the victory achieved by the Indian army was converted to total defeat.4000+ Indian soldiers were killed in that war.

Was it not a sensitive issue?

(3) Union Carbide defective deal belonged to Indira Gandhi. Bhopal Gas hazard was the out come.25000+ persons were died and 500000+ were injured for life time.

Was it not a sensitive issue?

(4) Anderson was provided with Government vehicle by Arjun Singh in association with Rajiv Gandhi to have a free pass to leave India.

Was it not a sensitive issue?

(5) Hundreds of Hindus’ temples were demolished in Kashmir before and after the Babri Mosq demolition.

Were these not sensitive?

(6) In 1989-90 thousands of Hindu women were raped, tens of thousands of kashmiri Hindus were murdered and lakhs of Hindus were driven out. All these were done with the pre-planned and openly using loud speakers on Mosqs and on Jeeps, asking Hindus to adopt Islam or to runaway or be ready to get murdered.

Farukh Abdullah had run away like a coward. Nehruvian Congress did nothing to establish human rights of Hindus. No investigation, No FIR, No arrest, No prosecution, what to talk of punishment to the culprits?

Farukh and his son were not even disqualified for elections. On the contrary their failure was rewarded by establishing them as the CM of J&K by Nehruvian Congress by extending support to them.

This was the unparallel breach of human and natural rights of Kashmiri Hindus in the world history, where the Muslims inclusive of locals and Muslims across the boarder jointly executed butchery, under the willful inactions and negligence of local political Muslim leaders and the Nehruvian Congress leaders.

What sensitivity by these signatories had been shown?

(7) Even after this also, several carnage took place where Hindus were identified,  driven out of buses and  straight way shoot to death.

Had these signatories shown any sensitivity?

(8) Please note that, in Kashmir, or in Kerana or elsewhere no Muslim was killed. Hindus were only killed.

(9) Besides this terrorists attack by Muslims of cross border with and without association of local Muslims, during Nehruvian Congress party rule, was maximum. It was a total failure of Nehruvian Congress government’s intelligence services, or the Nehruvian Congress in association with their cultural allies made the intelligence service ineffective or the same has been ignored willfully. When the defense top officers had complained that the defense have no spare parts, what to talk of services.

On these terrorists attack, the Nehruvian Congress government was a total failure.

Had these signatories written a letter to the then Prime Minister?  

(10) To talk about riots of 2002, is a fashion of some gangs so called intellectuals. But they never link the riots with the blazing of Sabarmati Express Coach C-6, at Godhra Railway station under a pre-planned conspiracy of a local district head of Nehruvian Congressman.

Victims were 59 Hindus because they were Hindus and returning from Ayodhya. In the post Godhra riots, both the communities had suffered. Hindus were also killed and Muslims were also killed. In the police firing of that Modi Government, Hindus were killed much more. Otherwise also Hindus were killed in unaccounted stabbing organized by the Muslims community, which was continued round the year.  

(11) Before Bombay Blast attack, the Government of India had issued instructions to costal security guards, to inspect the ships in the Arabian sea leniently. This was under the pressure of an allied party’s top leader, of Nehruvian Congress. This gave a smooth way for the terrorists of Bombay blast, to enter India through western sea coast.

(12) During Nehruvian Congress lead Government, there was a common feature of having terrorists’ attacks.

Had these signatories exhibited their concern?

All these indicate, that this lot of signatories is not educated. This lot has acted under Nehruvian Congress and its culturally allied parties’ political agenda. If this is not correct then they must be fool or childish.

Now let us scrutinize the list of these lost so-called literate people;

THE CONTENTS OF THIS LIST.

Bengalis are 53 and they are 14 in Calcutta. Can CPIM & TMC & Nehruvian Congress not manage to get signed this much ?

Persons belonged to Kerala, Chennai, Hyderabad and Bangalore is 26. Can CPIM and Nehruvian Congress no manage this much?

Christians are 13.and Muslims are 11. Most of them are against NaMo. They can manage easily.

Persons studying or serving in Foreign Universities are 70. They party with above lot. Otherwise also they are prone to mislead.

In Gujarat the persons from  IIM and SEPT  of Ahmedabad are 5. Among these five, three are female and 2 are male. All these five are non-Gujaratis. They failed to find a single Gujarati to sign. How marvelous?

If you count like this; take Bengalis, Hyderabadis, Bengaloris and Chennait including those studying serving  in foreign countries,  and then add Christians and Muslims plus JNU and Ramjas Delhi and Delhi University you have a clear cut picture of the conspiracy.

There is no intellectual lot in Maharashtra, Gujarat, Rajasthan, MP….  Etc… of rest of India.

What a funny picture?

They could have found some people for the name sake from these states. But who will work so hard.

Thereby this gang has obtained signatures from their own contacts. Yellow journalism gives them out of proportion coverage, instead of scrutinizing the matter. Yellow journalism of India is very well lacking from investigative approach. Yellow journalism is always concentrating how to construct the matter with emotional sentences. In one case they had given 40 crores to distribute among media to not make noise against a deal in UPA government.

One Odd man Sudhir Chandra is detailed as Historian . Vinita Chandra from Ramjas College must be knowing him.

Another odd man a Chinese female Ying Chen working in USA has signed.

Ms Kiran Asher might be knowing her.

We can do some more research, but it would be useless once fact is established.

Many of these so called educated persons might be carrying an impression that why had they kept mum on greater evil acts took place during Nehruvian Congress rule (as narrated above) on an excuse that they were walking with perambulator.

If it is really like that, then also they are not pardonable. Because many of those issues are alive on date. E.g. The Kashmiri Hindus are not re-established in their home. Still they are refugees.

Besides this, when Narendra Modi lead government taking action to re-establish them, then the local Muslim leaders start agitating against re-establishment activities on flimsy and un-sustainable ground of demography. The same people did not react when the Hindus were being driven out. Why? If you can drive out a community then also demography gets changed. Why did you not agitate to secure the human rights of Kashmiri Hindus?

None of these elite signatories has made any noise when atrocity cases took place during Nehruvian Congress Government. These cases were of the order of 40000 every year?

In fact these signatories and their sponsoring political gang is enjoying the atrocity on Dalits. The caste-ism is not supported by any Hindu scripture and the caste-ism though ready to die, but the Nehruvian Congress party lead gang, wants the caste-ism should prevail for secure their vote bank. It is a weak part of Hinduism so far it is survived. However the elites of Indian society are trying to uplift Dalits and trying to bring them in main stream.

The Nehruvian Congress openly dividing the nation based on not only Caste, but also based on Religion, Region and Language ….

The divisive culture of Nehruvian Congress lead gang is known to wise people of India very well. That is why the said gang is trying for survival at any cost to the nation. The gang is spreading and floating false, twisted, misinterpreted issues and news to create a negative atmosphere for the Narendra Modi lead government.

People have identified the gang.

NARENDRA MODI GOVERNMENT IS THE ALL TIME THE BEST GOVERNMENT.     

TRUTH PREVAILS, NOT UNTRUTH.

COPERATION OF ALL, DEVELOPMENT OF ALL

THESE ARE THE SLOGAN OF NARENDRA MODI GOVERNMENT.

These fellow signatories and their sponsored parties and some sick media  would be ashamed of their deed, when they will find the developed India by 2014 under the government lead by Narendra Modi.

As per email received by me they are as under:

Odd persons : Do you know the history of the back ground? You must know that India is changing very fast under the leadership of Narendra Modi. There are gangs who possess political agenda to capture power at any cost to the nation.

Better do not poke your knows where you are not educated.

Shirish Mohanlal Dav

Read Full Post »