Ayyo yo… ayyo yo Ideological sons of Godse where R U

Be aware, O! Sanatanists and Nationalists, all these are either Congi-s’ and/or supporters their cultural allies, with mask of nationalists. Identify them.

I call them Lutyen Gangs. These are always ready to divert the attention of public, from current culprits and traitors, from the current national issues, towards dead and controversial issue of Gandhi.  These people want to divide Hindus on every way possible, by cursing and creating negative atmosphere against present Central Government.

JUMP TO OTHER TOPIC

They will not concentrate on strategy. Even if, someone asks questions to the point on the dead issue they are activating. They will not reply to the point.

If someone ask a logical question (just for an academic reasons as they say “to study the history for the reason, it does not get repeated”) they will not answer. Because their agenda is to help Lutyen leaders. They either curse you, with the same irrelevant dead topic or they would jump to other similar subject.

DO NOT WRITE TO THE GOVERNMENT

If someone will point out that if they want the result of their choice, they could exert the pressure on the Central Government by writing to the Central Government? This facility is available on social media. Criticizing with negative approach towards BJP/Modi is not the way and it cannot be a part of strategy. If they are not capable to understand about the strategy, better they keep mum.

ACADEMICAL INTEREST?

If they feel, they are correct, they should come up with logic and reply to the questions put up to them.

Why their forefathers did not kill Jinna, Mujiboor Rehaman, Liyakat Ali, JL Nehru, Iskander Mirza, Suharavardi Noon, …?

These Lutyen people were responsible for partition. Why did they chose a soft target MK Gandhi? Even after killing MK Gandhi, they could have continued to kill these rest leaders!

WERE THEY COWARD?

Why they did not continue the incomplete work of killing? Were their forefathers, coward? Were they interested to take up the soft target only? That is all. Their job finished. Now put full point?

COWARDS REMAIN INACTIVE

Nehru had committed a lot of blunders. Such blunders a fool or chitter/fraud/anti-national only can do. But these people did not even defeated the Nehru/Congi. What to talk and expect killing Nehru by these cowards, even after allowing the China to enjoy the Cake Walk Victory over India.

I say, Nehru had nearly donated 91000 Square miles land to China.

Nehru took an oath before the parliament that he/his party, will not rest, till they would re-capture the lost land.

WHAT DID THESE COWARDS DO?

They simply awarded a Victory to Congis in all the elections for decades.

If these cowards’ forefather had supported MK Gandhi, when he said partition would be on my dead body, then partition could had been avoided. If these people would had gone on fast, Gandhi definitely could have taken up fast.

But nobody of them come up at any scale to support MK Gandhi.

British did their job of dividing India mentally and geographically. MK Gandhi did his job of sacrificing his life after independence, and opened up a way to eliminate Nehru, by advising congis, and suggesting people, to dissolve Congi. But these cowards and their forefathers had no principles, no sense of relevance and no sense of significance.

LOOK AT THE LATEST SITUATION.

The Kejri, is openly active in full swing,   with his communal mind and enhancing communal mind-set. He is alive, even after blazing and killing through his gangs.

WHO IS TO BE BLAMED FULLY? ANNA HAZARE?

Yes?

 

It looks ridiculous.

Would these Cowards say the responsibilities lies with Anna Hazare?

No only Kejri and his gang is alive, but Mamata with her gang who executed genocides on who did not voted to her,  is alive,  Mullayam died with his natural death but his cultural, biological and ideological son Akhilesh with his gang is alive, Farukh  with his gang is alive, Mehbooba with his gang alive, CPMI leaders with its gangs are alive, Nehruvian biological and ideological progenies with their gangs are alive, Uddhav and his gang is alive, Sharad and his gang is alive,  …. And what not …. ?  

Fortunately Anna Hazare is help-less and ready to explain how he is helpless.

Is there any crack pot available here?

Social Media helps Congi Lutyens too, to divert the attention of public.

Ayyo yo …. Where are you … Madhuji, Chavdaji, Sudhirji, Prakharji, Gayatriji, Col. Bakshiji …

Read Full Post »

A letter to Mr. Abhijit Chavda

Dear Mr. Abhijit Chavda,

I used to watch your video with a lot interest. I found you credible. But when I watched your video “ Was Gandhi Really a Mahatma? Or was Gandhi a British Agent ? | Favouring British Over India | Abhijit Chavda.”

What is the definition of Mahatma?

I think first we should understand the meaning of Mahatma.

मनस्येकं, वचस्येकं कर्मण्येकं महात्मनाम्

A great soul would spell out what is in he thinks, what is in his mind and the same he would put to work.

Can you give any example where MK Gandhi worked to the contrary to his principles?

Was Gandhi a British Agent?

Matter off course can be very well treated as controversial. To my opinion this is due to mislead perceptions.

Who was the great nationalists among British in Britain, who held power post as Prime Minister?

I think it was Churchill. He had said I am the last person to award freedom to India. He had bitterly criticized Indians including MK Gandhi. He never granted permission to MK Gandhi for a personal meeting with him. Was Churchill a fool cheating himself? The PM who treats a person an enemy number one can be treated as an agent? Was Churchill a fool or a cheater for himself? 

Fortunately you have not objected (I am not sure whether I am right or wrong) to the word “Father of Nation” on the ground that India is a 20000 years old civilization how can its father could be a 79 years old person?

Congress which was formed by Hume was off course functioning as a British Agent. This was the very purpose for what it was formed to Act between British Government and the people of India. The duty of the Congress members was to communicate people’s feeling to British Government. But in the early twentieth Century it was divided in two groups. i.e.  This was in about 1920 and the Congress passed a resolution for self governance. Thereafter by 1930 passed a resolution of total freedom. Then in 1942 “Quit India Now”. We will not cooperate you in your war.

You have narrated uncalled, non-comparable stories. The geographical and political situations were quite different that prevailed in India and the nations of your stories of some other leaders, who embarrassed violence and converted their nation into a prosperous country.

You raised a question as to Why Gandhi could not do this?

According to you, Gandhi could have done this by Guerrilla wars with the help of the support of Indian military.

It is much more significant question if we ask our self as to why MK Gandhi could not act as per Chanakya.

I agree that, initially MK Gandhi was of the opinion that Britishers are eligible to rule India. According to MK Gandhi, British Government by its principle, respectful towards Law & Order. British believed in humanity and Human rights, despite, it failed at many/some incidents.

Why the Indians failed to judge the British intentions in correct way?

Indians had seen Mogul rule of Aurangzeb and his atrocities. But when Aurangzeb was in the last days of his life, the Mogul empire was totally broken up. Subedars (सुबेदार) of Mogul, Riyasatdar (रीयासतदार) of Marathas and Peshvas, were after looting the traders of cities. There are books written during the period of middle of eighteenth and first quarter of nineteenth century, where the kings, irrespective of Hindu or Muslim or Pindhara, only interested in looting wealthy people, during their small spans of rein. In short, it was period of anarchy.

Kings were fighting among each other. This was a period of total anarchy prevailed for nearly 50 to 75 years i.e. upto 1825.

British somehow got a chance to establish their rule. It is a long story, we will not discuss.

British established peace and rule of law. But Dalhousie started derecognizing the successors of some of the Indian kings. Thereby the kings united irrespective of Hindu or Muslims, under the leadership of Bahadur shah Jaffar. 

Bentick had introduced English in administration. Gurukuls were destroyed systematically. Conversion started in tribal area. Craftsmanship was getting destroyed.

After the defeat of 1857 war, some reformers started re-thinking as to why we lost 1857.

Dayanand Saraswati thought it was due to, we forgot Vedas and our culture which is actually far more  superior to British.

But there was another trend too.  That was consisting many elite and political leaders. These people were certified by British. They had been educated in English Schools and universities.

Raja Ram Mohan Roy, Ishvar Chandra Vidya Sagar, Ravindra Nath Tagor, Lokmanya Tilak, Gopalkrishna Gokhale,  … Many of these people believed that British people are worthy by their culture and knowledge to rule India. This was a very common belief among Elites of India. So was the case with MK Gandhi.

MK Gandhi was of the opinion that it is possible to get justice through court of law or with a non-violent movement. Condition applies that faith should be on both the sides.

Mr. Abhijit ji, you have ignored this valuable theory of non-violence which was put forward by Leo Tolstoy, before passing blame on MK Gandhi.

MK Gandhi was doing experiment once he satisfied himself on what Leo Tolstoy put forward.

MK Gandhi was having an ordinary calibre, with his family back ground. His mother and a maid servant had put great impact on him about the religion, will power and to always avoid telling lies. Off course once upon a time, he wanted to be physically stronger. He ate mutton too. Then his belief was changed. Then he confess before his father what he did.  His friend Rajchandra had given him a lot spiritual knowledge. This had great impact on him.

MK Gandhi was not from a well to do family. Once his father died, the condition of the family was like a common family. He went to England by selling out jewellery of his wife and some monetary help of his elder brother.  

MK Gandhi created good contacts in England who were interested in love, spirituality and religion.

We must know that his father was serving the Porbandar kingdom as a family court, for resolving the family issues. He never experienced and felt any difference and discrimination between Hindus and Muslims. That is the political culture had  not  become strong enough to divide. One of the reasons could be due to weak media.

MK Gandhi had given successful fight for providing justice to Indians in South Africa. His Socio-political service was started from South Africa. i.e. Experiment on truth.

After coming to India he was advised by Gopalkrishna Gokhle to carryout extensive tour of rural area for nearly two years.

His biggest service to the nation was that, he opened up the doors of Congress for common mass. He organised Congress and its structure. He organized Swadeshi movement, he organized social reforms. Off course he believed in castes but had not believed in its different levels. He believed in Naturopathy and Ayurved. He had made several experiments on them and they were successful at large.

He believed in democracy. He believed that reformers should have no political power nor even of any type. That is why he was not even holding a membership of Congress from 1933.

It is the public who suggest and demand the reforms. That is, the public (common mass) should be ready to percept the reforms. Individual have full rights of expression without harming others.

According to MK Gandhi “non-violence” was a relative term. For him, least possible violence is a non-violence.

Why human society has made rules and regulation? Rules and regulations are the first step towards least violence.

An authority can only punish a guilty. Nobody can take law in his/her hand.

“Government will shoot who is not faithful to the nation. If you will make me the authority, I will shoot the unfaithful to the nation.” said MK Gandhi.

Awareness of the common mass was the great contribution of MK Gandhi. He was not against machines. He asked “what is the immediate job you can give to these poor mass. The earliest solution of poverty was Khadi-Gramodyoga.”

Independence of India was a peaceful transfer of power.

There has to be a document (Rule Book). Once Indian public representatives appointed a team to prepare a constitution and when they pass it with its majority, India has to be in a dominion status. How can a culprit during an interim period can be punished? There has to be some law.

Pakistan has achieved independence through violence of “Direct action”. You can see its conditions. Everybody cannot have spiritual mind-set. Even a person having talked of morality, cannot remain spiritual unless he is not being watched. Look at Kejri, Mamata, Sharad, Uddhav, Stalin, Lalloo, Mullayam…. 

The socialists (Communists), by their principles of “need not have any principle to achieve power”, are not that successful countries.

Dear Abhijit, it hurt me a lot, when you abused Gandhiji falsely.

Many persons are having false understanding on MK Gandhi. It could be due to their ill reading, ill understanding, lacking of common sense or prejudice mind or suffering from Anti-Gandhi phobia. Some of them are spreading fake news too.

I used to give them challenge to prove what they believe at least for their one conclusive opinion. Mostly they run away. i.e. they do not accept the challenge. Or they abuse me and run away.

But when I heard you against Gandhi,   I am really hurt a lot. To me, you are falling under a category of rare to rarest intelligent and logical persons on narrating ancient Indian historical facts with logical proof.

I had a very great opinion about you. Why did you break my heart?

Are you ready to discuss? Are you ready to take up a challenge? Only on one topic of your choice which is most significant for you that put India to irreparable harm. … Take your time.

Regards,

Shirish Dave

https://www.treenetram.wordpress.com

Read Full Post »

CMs are getting a message from the Judiciary of India!

CMs are getting a message from the Judiciary of India! Is it like this?

Recently Indian judiciary passed a general order and ruled the Hate Speech should not be left out without filing a FIR.

Yes. The order was on Hate Speech.

MESSAGE OF THE ORDER

It is a matter of research to takeout the message of the order.

Yes. What is the message given by the SC to the public?

This depends upon individuals. That is, the interpretation of the order would be its meaning. The meaning becomes the message given by judiciary.

All the individuals are brought up in different background and information conveyed to them.

This applies to not only individuals, but to a group too, or to a community too. Communities cover religions too.

What is the message received by CMs (CMs means Common Men, or Chief Ministers as the case may be) of a community and or a state which is having a feeling depending upon the information being conveyed hitherto, and would be conveyed to.

Message received could be and would be depending upon the back ground in general and in specific.

WHAT IS THE BACKGROUND AVAILABLE WITH THE CM OF INDIA?

CMs have seen that what was their observations on SC/HCs in past?

Was there not a complete inaction and negligence of the HC/SC on the inaction of the CMs (many of these Chief Ministers of Lutyen gangs had enjoyed the Chief Minister post thereafter) of JK and the Central Government on the large scale genocide/s of Hindus of JK in 1989-90?

“ O Hindus, you people, either embarrass Islam or be ready to be killed or leave your house and run away from this state ….  O! Hindus you leave here your females for us … ”.

It was a complete denial of even natural rights of Hindus for decades together. Absolute absence of sensitivity on the part of the SC/HC and the state and central Government.  Even a PLI was rejected by the SC on a flimsy ground!” This is story of 1979-80 and thereafter.

SC/HC might have said “we were helpless because JK had a special status.” Is it that the special status was denied the natural rights? Can Democracy and Autocracy remain together?

MULTI PARTIES JOINT VENTURE

It absolutely appeared that it was in accordance to the four parties “Joint Venture Agenda”. Who were these four parties? (1) Muslims of Kashmir (2) State Government of Kashmir (3) Central Government of India (4) the terrorists organizations invited by the state and Central Governments to conduct genocide of Hindus. All acted as the parties of a joint venture Agreement.

HC of J&K was mum. SC of India was mum. No sensitivity shown. On the Contrary the details were kept hidden by the then Central and State Governments.

It was not only one event of JK. There were series of genocides in a small and large scale at various places in India. But no authorities took cognizance during the period of Lutyens’ rule.

THE MIND-SET OF SC/HC AND ACTION, APPEARED TO BE SELECTIVE TO THE INCIDENTS.

 In a case of a communal unrest e.g. Protest against the amendment of an act e.g. CAA, a Chief Minister identified some antisocial elements who blaze some houses selectively. According to some earlier ruling of judiciary the loss was to be recovered from the antisocial elements individually.  The CM’s government decided some justifiable/genuine norms to quantify the value. The judiciary took cognizance under SUO MOTTO.

THE JUDICIARY DID NOT APPLY MIND.

There is always a scope of committing error by the administration. It could be also wilful because some government servants would see the opportunity to set their personal agenda. But that is a matter to be viewed case by case.

But leave these points aside. The judiciary should apply their mind and to give verdict that the protest was not justifiable, hence the persons who called Muslims to come up to protest should be taken to task?

Had the judiciary applied its mind on this point?

1. ABSOLUTELY A BIG NO.

GANDHIAN WAY OF PROTEST AND TAKING THE RESPNSIBILITY

Recall the agitation conducted by Mahatma Gandhi against enforcement of Rowlett Act. Chaura Chauri is a town near Gorakhapur. At Chaura Chauri some retired soldiers were protesting against high food price and liquor. Police officer beaten one of the protester. Under retaliation next day a crowd marched towards Police Station.  Police opened up fire in air, to disperse the Crowd. Ultimately four agitators were killed. Then the crowd became violent and burnt the police choky, where four policemen live burnt. Then Mahatma Gandhi had taken off the agitation, saying “When I have given a call for non-violent agitation, and if the agitation becomes violent, it is my responsibility to see that the agitation remains non-violent, in all circumstances.

It must be noted that Mahatma Gandhi could have argued that “this incident had nothing to do with my protest.”

Suppose the case might had gone before the judiciary, the judiciary would had given verdict in the favour of Mahatma Gandhi.

What lesson the Indian judiciary has learnt from Mahatma Gandhi?

CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS

Let us have a look towards our Constitutional provision.

Indian Constitution under the duties of the Citizens, it provides

Section – 4 (A)/

51.(b) says, it would be the duties of the citizen is to establish by heart the high morals which had inspired us to achieve our freedom.

(d) to provide the national services to protect the nation as and when it is demanded,

(g)  ….. to be cooperative mutually …. And to be sensitive towards animals ….

(h)  ….. to have and develop   logical sense and humanity …

(i)   …… to protect public property and to be non-violent ….

The judiciary is bound to have these duties too.

Was it not the duty of judiciary to be cooperative to the administration of the state?

Off course it was expected to be cooperative mutually, when the agitators were highly violent and the state administration wanted with an aim to take preventive measures.

Is it that the judiciary is unable to develop its logical sense?

It is possible that at some places, the administration might have committed some errors, for the reason as mentioned above. But such cases should be singled out and kept for further investigation and proceeding to identify the culprit. When the damages to the properties made in large scale, the rare cases should not dominate and influence the large number of cases.

WHAT WAS THE MOST IMPORTANT POINT?

The most important point is “whether the point of agitation was justifiable or not”

Common Men say; the point was not justifiable.

Agitators’ point was that the CAA has the communal base identity. Any identity that is based on communality can be termed as discrimination. Because in democracy all are equal before law.

Ok. Now taken up the case of Nehru – Liyakat Ali Pact which was signed in 1950. The provisions of this agreement are that the Government of both the countries will constitute a Commission in the interest and safe guard the equal rights of the minorities. In spite the formation of minority commission if any citizen who belonged to a minority is persecuted in a country then the persecuted person be allowed to the other part. i.e. In Pakistan (including Bangladesh) a Non-Muslim is persecuted then the person cannot be denied for citizenship and entry in India. Similar is the case with Muslim of India for Pakistan and Bangladesh.

Evidently Pakistan (inclusive of Bangladesh) wilfully and miserably failed to protect the non-Muslims. India is supposed to accept the minorities as understood in Pakistan lawfully and with all practical purpose.

As for Muslims as understood lawfully and practically as on the date of the agreement signed with the aim, if they want Indian Citizenship, a separate procedure has been prescribed under a law.

When this Pact was signed, no party or no Judge of any judiciary, no individual had opposed this pact, neither in parliament nor outside the parliament at any time. No body termed it a communal.

THE AMENDMENT TO CAA, DOES NOT TAKE AWAY THE CITIZENSHIP OF MUSLIMS.

For the purpose of security and welfare of the Indian citizens, Government of India is liable and supposed to deport the infiltrators which are non-minority of Muslim countries. Government had already ensured the Muslims that this CAA amendment does not take away the citizenship of anybody, but this amendment is to provide citizenship.

There was no point of conducting agitation for anybody. SC could have taken the SUO MOTTO on agitators.

THE DOORS OF INDIA MUST REMAIN OPENED FOR HINDUS OF PAKISTAN

According to Mahatma Gandhi also the doors of India must remain open for all the times for Hindus.

WHEN A PERSON OR A GROUP OF PERSONS CAN CONDUCT AGITATION AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT?

The person/the leader of group of person, should give a notice to the Government with a list of the points with explanation.

The person/leader should ask the Government for a dialogue and time.

If the Government fixed an appropriate date and or a time to discuss, the person must accept it.

Under the dialogue if there is no logical solution then it should make it public with details indicating merits through media.

Then the person should give a notice to the Government that the person would launch agitation from such and such date. While conducting agitation also the person/leader should be ready for discussion.

This was mandatory even when the India was ruled by British.

The agitators has to take the responsibilities if any inconvenience if caused to the third party. Now here in the matter of agitation against CAA, nothing was done by the agitators. Not only this, but they caused irreparable loss to the public, besides paralyzing the normal life of the region.

SC/HC did not take cognizance of its own, and did not pass an order against the agitators to clear the road. On the Contrary the SC gave a statement “we agree to the right of protest”. This was uncalled.

WHAT SHOULD THE JUDICIARY HAVE DONE?

SC/HC should have noted that the agitators had no point to agitate in specific, and should have passed an order to initiate appropriate action under criminal procedure.

Instead of extending cooperation, why should the judiciary make an uncalled statement?

Did the judiciary want to prove that they believe in principles of democracy as if the same had been doubted?   

Even when a case is pending with a court of law no agitation is permissible. Such was the verdict of Baba Saheb Ambedkar, subsequent to the Indian Constitution passed by the Indian Parliament. This must be taken as the most significant guiding principle of the Constitution.

SADHVI PRAJNA FILE:

Sadhvi Prajna was arrested on a proved cooked up story of Lutyens where she was alleged having link with the so-called Saffron Terrorists. She was tortured heavily. She reached to the near death condition like Jai Prakash Narayan. The details were available continuously on social media. But it appeared that SC/HC neither took cognizance of social media nor gone deep to the matter nor tried to protect the human right of an alleged citizen.

NAVNEET RANA FILE

Navneet Rana was harassed unlawfully, by the then Maharashtra government on the matter of illegal re-instatement of Sachin Vaze who was dismissed for his criminal acts,

KANGANA RANAUT FILE

Kangana Ranaut was harassed by the then Maharashtra State government on the matter of  giving statement related to the murder of Sushant Singh and the statements against Drugs parties in Bollywood and nepotism prevailed in Bollywood.

NUPOOR SHARMA FILE

In a discussion on a TV channel, a participant gave an abusive question on Hindu deity. Nupoor Sharma replied the documentary fact on a prophet. She was trolled on social media. Many FIRs were filed. Nupoor Sharma filed an application before SC with a prayer to hear her case of various FIRs in one court, The Supreme Court judge made a premature observational remark that due to Nupoor Sharma whole nation is burning.

It may be recalled that if Akbaruddin says “at how many places Kaushalya had gone for delivery?” or “If police is removed for 15 minutes, 20 % will kill the rest 80%.”

According to judiciary this is not a hate speech.

To draw a painting showing naked Sita seating on the tail of naked Hanuman, is not any insult of Hindu deities. All these are the observation and verdict of judiciary.

KAJAL SHINGALA FILE

Kajal Shingala remarked on Hindu girls related with “Love Jehad” being carried out by a minority community. She also said the saffron is her identity.

What is wrong with this?

There was nothing like hate speech. The Maulana talked and took it as Hindu Terrorism what said by Kajal. Actually what Maulana said exhibits his HATE towards Hindus.

(Recall the fact. Those who said we want Pakistan because we are not safe with majority Hindu India,  and they voted for Pakistan. After formation of Pakistan, these peoples themselves remain in India)

KASHMIR FILE:

Many Lutyen gangs leaders agitated against, the movie produced by Agnihotri. They called it a propaganda movie, and many of them termed it a fake. No body came up when the producer challenged to prove any scene of the movie as fake.

SIMILAR COULD BE CASE WITH KERALA STORY

The majority communities of India lives in this back ground.

There are many pockets in many in many states, where majority of India is becoming minority in that places, still they are termed as majority only. But the Indian judiciary neither has time to take cognizance nor time to spell out their observation.

Shirish Mohanlal Dave

P.S.

PUNCH

COMMON SENSE IS COMMONLY UNCOMMON

IS IT EVERYWHERE?

Read Full Post »