Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘Congi’

Which one is the real Shiv Sena? – 2

The second part of the story is dismissal of the MLAs who had already sworn in, i.e. taken an oath before the Governor.

Speaker did not carry the trust of the majority members. When the speaker knows this, the speaker should resign from his post.

To not follow the whip by a MLA a non-member is not a democratic decision and it is against the freedom of the member. When the party’s line of action itself is undemocratic and it becomes the matter controversial, one cannot decide the matter by simply YES or NO.

First of all the matter is to be decided as to who represent the verdict of the people. What verdict had been given by the people in the assembly elections?

Is it the party or its member?

Do people elect a person, or a party by casting votes?

If the party, is the verdict of the people, then why the name is incorporated on the list of the Voting Machine? It can be said vice versa, as the symbol pertains to the party.

But if we take this way;

A party is proposing a person, who would authorized to act as per the principles of the party in the assembly if elected. So if the people, likes the policy of the party, the people may elect him/her who has been proposed by a party.

The policy is the part and parcel of the principles of a party. Change in policy, if the same has not been processed properly, and that too not in a democratic way, the person who received the verdict of the people is entitled to act as per the original policy. Because the people had elected him on that Ground. Further, the party has not asked the person’s opinion or his desire before making change in the policy.

Thus neither the dismissal of a person from its party nor the dismissal from the assembly- membership of the person, is possible in a democratic set up.

The judiciary is supposed to decide the matter in a whole and with a broader view in a democratic way. It is not important as to how the matter took place technically. The importance has to be given to the moral and democratic value.

Right to Call Back the people’s representative

If there is no provision of the procedure to use “the right to recall” by the people, in the Indian Constitution, it does not mean that the people can be deprived of their right to recall. There are always general principles for any procedure.

e.g. How much strength is required for a meeting?

(1) In a regular meeting, more than 20% presence is required. Why 20 % presence of Members?

20% are supposed to be out of station. 50% will have some vivid mind and or some other work or priorities than to attend the meeting. We left with 20%. If after serving a notice of the meeting to be held, less than 20% are present in the meeting the meeting has to be postponed. Meeting has to be recalled, by issuing a Notice indicating the reason the last meeting could not be held. If with this notice also, less than 20% members turn up, then this has to be recorded in the minute of the meeting. The meeting’s proceedings should be conducted even with this less than 20% presence of the members.

(2) Similar is a case with floating a tender. There are general principles of calling for the competitive rates. First of all, it has to be decided as to what exactly we want and for what purpose and for which usage. This is called specification of the item. We may also contact experts if needed. Or we may call for opinion as to what should we purchase to meet the requirement to meet with our purpose.

E.g. We may also prepare a Contract Agreement to avoid could be loss. We may also consult a lawyer. If we receive rates only from two parties, we have to extend the date of submitting tender. If thereafter also we receive only two or less tenders, we may opt for retendering or extending the date again or we can open out the tender with the discretion of the competent authority. Then market rate should be ascertained. If any officer does not follow the general condition of the tender, he/she is liable to undergo disciplinary proceedings. It was a matter of surprise as to how the judiciary did not take cognizance while giving the judgement on 2G scam of Congi..

(3) Everywhere there are general rules and special rule. Similarly in absence of special rule or prescribed rule, right to Call Back the representative of the people by the people can be availed. If 20% of voters submit on affidavit to the EC, saying that they have no faith in their representative, the Election Commissioner can call for the re-verdict as Yes/No. If the previously elected person receives majority votes in favour, then the cost should be borne by the persons who voted against in the affidavit. If majority voters votes against, then the re-election should be conducted. This way we can avail the freedom of Right to Call Back.

We can also compare the division of Congress in 1969. There the Judiciary had given its verdict in favour of Congress (Indira).

The brief story is like this:

Indira had called emergency meeting with the members who became member after she was dismissed by the Central Executive Committee of Congress. Off course she had sizable original members too.

Both the Congress were claiming for the original Congress title. Technically the Congress (O) had a control over the Congress organisation. Matter need to be decided based on the position prevailed before the status of Congress membership and the public representatives (i.e. MLA-s, MP of LS and RS of Congress who voted for the Congress party’s official candidate in the presidential election in 1969). But the judiciary gave its verdict on the basis of the public representatives elected in 1980 on Congress ticket. The judiciary stated, “In democracy the public is supreme.”

The great parliamentarian Piloo Modi remarked on the judgement, “ It is funny. If this is the line of giving judgement, then, in case in future, the judgement will FLIP-FLOP based the election result.

The case of Shiv Sena, is little different.

Here the point is about the change of policy without calling the General Body meeting, after the election results. The public had elected the representatives based on the then existed alliance. If the judiciary believes in the same principles, related with the Indira Gandhi’s Claim to be the original Congress, the Shiv Sena of Shinde should be the real Shiv Sena.  

Further the Judiciary should not deny the “right to call back” in the absence of the system in Indian Constitution. Let us hope, the judiciary is not confused.

Shirish Mohanlal Dave

Read Full Post »

Which one is the real Shiv Sena? – 1

What is party?

Leave aside the meaning “Sena” and then discussing on “Who is real Shiv Sena”, if the party has been registered with the EC (Election Commission), then the party is supposed to have its Constitution and aim.

The aim of a political party is generally to act for the welfare of the people. The constitution of a party indicates as to how it would execute its action.

A political party is composed of its registered members and the office bears elected by the registered members under the procedure prescribed in its constitution. These office bears will act in accordance to the party’s constitution.

To incorporate any change in the policy matter, the president of the party has to call a General Body Meeting. Otherwise also to make the changes in the office bearers it has to call for General Body meeting in a regular interval as prescribed in the constitution. If the registered membership is very large, the members of every region, would elect their delegates in proportion (e.g. one delegate per 100 members) to send to the General Body meeting with its suggestions and views.

In a democratic country, all the parties are supposed to have to meet with the democratic requirements, including transparency.

By naming a party as “Sena”, the office bearers cannot function and treat the members as their soldiers. Sena does not carry a specific dictionary meaning. It is just a part to a proper noun.

What is the position of Shiv Sena?

The Shiv Sena had alliance with BJP. This was a part of its policy since long. The last election was fought by Shiv Sena as a partner of the BJP. i.e. the Shiv Sena and the BJP had not put their Candidate against each other. Further it was agreed by the Shiv Sena and BJP both to fight 50% seats of total seats of the Assembly. As a general principle and also as a natural principle, whichever party wins more seats, that party’s leader should be the CM. Here in this case, it was decided that the BJP’s leader viz. Mr. Devendra Fadanvish will be the CM of the alliance (NDA) in Maharashtra. The canvassing also done with the posters prepared on this line. This was as usual.

The Inside Story of Shiv Sena

Most leaders of Shiv Sena, by its nature, used to collect protection money (hapta Vasuli). But BJP is not with this nature. Shiv Sena leaders were not able to act with “Free Will” so far kick-back-s and protection money is concern. This was visible from the statements made by Shiv Sena leaders till Ram Mandir issue was not settled. The Shiv Sena leaders used to blame BJP by saying “BJP says ‘We will construct the temple at the same place (Babri Mosq place) but we will not tell you the date’.” This was the politics of Shiv Sena leaders, with a view to defame BJP indirectly. BJP knew this. But BJP had taken it, as political liberty of Shiv Sena.

Sharad Pawar did know this. He could see that the bonding of Shiv Sena and BJP is not very strong.

Sharad Pawar instigated Shiv Sena’s Uddhav Thakare to have post-election-alliance with his party. However Shiv Sena should not break the alliance with BJP before assembly election, so that Shiv Sena can take benefit of the alliance with BJP.

Shiv Sena might have asked to what to answer, in case a questions is raised on the Shiv Sena’s betrayal towards BJP. Sharad Pawar would have explained the whole plan to Uddhav Thakare. Otherwise also Uddhav Thakare personally was fed up with the alliance with BJP. 

As soon as the Maharashtra Assembly results were out, Uddhav Thakare as per pre-prepared fabricated story, asked BJP, that it was a pre-poll agreement in the alliance that for 2 ½ years the CM should be from Shiv Sena and for 2 ½ years it would be from the BJP. Uddhav Thakare insisted his son Aditya Thakare should be made the CM.

It was natural, that such proposal was certainly to be rejected from the end of BJP. Because the main weapon of BJP is to fight against the rule of dynasty. Hence BJP rejected it. Sharad Pawar also tempted the BJP, to have alliance with NCP. Sharad Pawar instigated Ajit Pawar of his own party to woo BJP to form the government. BJP fell in the net of Sharad Pawar. Ultimately the BJP was fooled.

After failing to form the Government, BJP has no scope to woo with Sharad Pawar again for asking his support, because Ajit Pawar of NCP had betrayed the BJP already.

We will keep all these stories aside.

What should be the position in a democratic country?

Most important point has been neglected by every learned person including the judiciary.

To change the alliance partner is a policy matter or not?

Off course, to Change the pre-poll alliance Partner, after the results are out,  is definitely a policy matter. To discuss the matter related with party’s policy in the General Body meeting is mandatory. Executive body of the party is not authorized to take decision on making the enemy as an ally and vice versa. Hence the post-election alliance, itself is undemocratic.

Judiciary should have taken SUO MOTTO. Why the judiciary has kept silence is a matter of research. The same is with the Election Commission. Because this is a betrayal with the people who gave their verdict as to who should form the Government.

(continued …)

Shirish Mohanlal Dave

Read Full Post »

Influence on Judiciary a matter of research

Please recall the interview of a retired Supreme Court Chief Justice, by Arnav Goswami on his TV channel. Common mass can smell a lot. We will discuss about the influence on Judiciary. But let us understand what is else.

There many more heads of Lutyen Gangs

 

Who is independent?

If a person has a liberty to express his view then either the person is bold or the person is secured. That is, a person can express his idea or view point or decisions without any fear, if this can applies to a common mass then it is an independent.

What is fear?

A person wants to live its life happily. That is the person feels that there is no scope or chances to get damaged his body and mind (off course, as for the body and mind, whatsoever is the damage happens to the body including brain is felt by mind) while it passes through its life span. Besides this the person also wants the same situation for his beloveds. Fear is the chances of disintegration of the body ultimately.

In a democratic society (country is also a society) the person is more secured and happy, compared to non-democratic society.

What is meant by democracy?

Democracy means, where the truth is honored and accepted, if it steps up the society. Step up means the mental evolution.

So far democracy is concern, the society is composed of common mass, people’s representatives, administrators (bureaucrats), media (which provides information and guide the society by giving information and suggestions), and judiciary (which takes ultimate decision on a dispute). The duties of all these lots are governed by the Constitution approved by the people through their representatives.

What is meant by “Influence”?

Influence is a change in thinking and arriving to an opinion. The change can be by Education and by more information. The change can also be under bribe, threat and penalty. We are talking about the latter type of influence.

Why are we discussing the influence by   bribe, threat and penalty?

We will not discuss on the influence other than influence on judgement of judiciary. Because judiciary is the final authority to award justice. If judiciary influenced by bribe, threat and penalty then it is harmful to the nation. Hence in a democratic country to have an independent judiciary is mandatory.

In most of the cases in India, bureaucrats have a culture to get influenced by bribe. Similar is the case with politicians. But in case of politician, it varies with party to party. The dynastic party viz. Congi has broken all records making money through unauthorized sources and dividing communities  in India, during its rule of 65 years. Congi’s top most leaders are also not beyond doubt of their integrity. They are bails too. Under this condition, what to talk about its normal members!!. The Congi has produced similar cultural parties like TMC, SP, RJD, NC, PDP …

BJP is the least corrupted party.

Who is powerful to influence the judiciary?

In a democracy the people are the most powerful. But the people are the soft target to get them influenced. It is a long story.

But we must know that the ruler of Oman can make his country from undeveloped to a developed country  within 15 years, but the Congi despite of its absolute power for decades together, failed in every field and keep the country undeveloped. On the other hand Congi created and developed social problems. Because Congi knows that, it can influence the people at a large scale, by dividing them by caste, religion, language and by encouraging antisocial element, bribing media, besides keeping the mass at large illiterate and by spreading lies.

People’s representatives have power for making the laws and implementing them. The people’s representatives can bribe, the bureaucrats, to implement the laws in such a way, in selective instances, as and when needed, such that the law can be made ineffective. However the judiciary can prevent this by taking SUO MOTO or it does not entertain the delay tactics in the process of proceeding and giving judgement.

Who can take SUO MOTO?

Judiciary of the level of High Court and the Supreme Court can take SUO MOTO. But these level judiciary would take SUO MOTO provided the matter according to them is serious and a breach of fundamental right. But it all depends upon the perceptions of the judiciary of an event.

Recent cases of failure of a state government of Maharashtra

Murdering Hindu saints at Palghar:

Two Hindu saints were murdered in Palghar by a mob, appeared to be under a non-Hindus’ agenda. This was done under a plea that the Sadhus had come to kidnap children.

There is no information at any place about, how many children are kidnapped in Palghar, how many cases are lodged with police, and on what ground the mob had a doubt on these Hindu Saints? One of the two saints, was above 70+ years of age. Mob had killed the driver also.

The high side of the selective behavior of Maharashtra Government is, it was not a case of happened suddenly. The car was stopped by some people. They gathered a mob. The car was turned down. Police came by its own time. Till this time the saints were in the overturned car only. They came out of the car by the police. Police was in at least a dozen in number, with a fully informed of the situation. It had required arms to control the situation/ Police was capable to stop the beating the Saints and driver. Police could have used their lathi  and or could have done fires in the air.

But police did nothing. The 70 years old saint was holding a arm of a police, under the normal expectation that police party would save him from beating by the mob. Police force was determined to see, both the saints and their car driver, killed by the mob. It absolutely appeared and very clear, it was not the only a lynching by the mob, but the police force was also a party, in killing the saints and their driver. Not only police and the mob, but a local leader of Sharad’s NCP’s was also present there. The NCP leader did nothing there, as he too was determined to not to protect the saints and their driver from the mob and the police force.

This case of murders  was kept hidden.

It is normal for this pseudo seculars, viz. SS (alias Sonia Sena, (which is wrongly termed as Shiv Sena), plus Sharad Sena (better known as a right hand of Daud), plus Congi Sena (known as the left hand of Daud), plus the Defense network of Daud in Mumbai i.e. the Police ), in this case of Palghar, tried to hide such cases where the Hindus are the victims. But some somehow they failed to hide the triple murder case of Palghar.

The R. Bharat channel got the video clip, and the news reached to the public. Surprisingly the CM of Maharashtra threatened the noise makers, to not make any noise, otherwise the Maharashtra Government take sever actions against them whosoever making the noise.

Bharat’s Arnva and the social media continued to protest. The public noticed as to how badly the case was handled by the Maharashtra Government.

Disha Shalyan murder case and Sushant Singh Rajput murder case!!:

A story was cooked up theory that Disha Shalyan the secretary of Sushant Singh (a successful actor of Bollywood) committed suicide. She jumped from 14th floor of a gallery. There are a lot of stories. But it is am matter of research as to how the police accepted the story of Disha’s death was a suicide, when the body found in naked condition. Is there prevailed such incident of  suicide?

Sushant Singh Rajput death case was also declared a case of suicide by a minister of Maharashtra State Government before any report comes out.

There are multiple stories running in media and on social media. This is very common in a democratic country. It is supposed to be accepted by the state government of Maharashtra. But a senior leader and a minister of the government of Maharashtra, surprisingly took it personally.

There are several narratives: Nepotism in Bollywood, involvement of Drugs Mafia run by Daud Ibrahim, Drug trading in Bollywood, Drug parties’ management in farm houses with the help of police and the agents of Daud Ibrahim in politics, Involvement of near relative of CM Maharashtra in the above mentioned two death cases. Surprisingly the Maharashtra Chief Minister and the Commissioner of Mumbai Police took the case personally and showed vindictiveness.

Kangana Ranaut reacted with the Chief Minister of Maharashtra. She says that she is ready to disclose a lot information about the evils prevailing in Bollywood before CBI. She is also ready to provide information on Disha Salyan Case and Sushant Singh case.

Chief Minister of Maharashtra demolished her house in Mumbai in an absolutely illegal way. Sanjay Raut a senior leader of SS openly used derogative words for Kangana Ranaut. He also threatened that if she would come in Maharashtra her waistline will be broken.

Can a minister in a democratic country behave like an autocrat? Can a minister in a democratic country stop the movement of a female citizen? Can a minister in a democratic country threaten a female to damage her body? Why a minister should be angry and get irritated on a citizen for nothing? People and the media has a right to expose such minister’s behavior. Is it not a matter of research as to why the judiciary cannot perceive the fact that the constitutional rights of a citizen are denied by the state government.

The more alarming situation of the action of the government machinery is used against Arnav Goswami clear cut vendetta and with absolutely false evidences and lies. The Commissioner of Police is a gazetted officer. A statement of a gazetted has to be accepted as a truth of proof by law. If a gazetted officer speaks lie, he gets disqualified for its  post. The Government is supposed to be dismissed. If the government does not suspend the gazetted officer, it should be termed as failure constitution in the state. The court should take a SUO MOTO and it should ask the union government to suspend the state government to investigate into the matter and arrest the officials involved in the case and also the ministry because it is a joint responsibility of the state ministerial cabinet unless the responsible ministers are not sacked out.   Here in the case of Maharashtra the whole cabinet and the allied parties members are responsible, because Sanjay Raut who is the spokesperson who speaks on behalf of the state government policy and action. The state assembly must be dissolved. This is the perception of common me common men of the country. The common men expect the judiciary to intervene.

Why the Union Government is silence on the matter?

The ruling alliance has two groups. One group believes in establishment of morality in India. Other Group wants that the alliance should not rush towards morality. The latter group is afraid of Sharad gangs. Sharad gang has link with cross border antisocial gangs and local antisocial gangs inclusive of police network especially of greater Mumbai. Lutyen gangs are composed of several gangs which is not a secret. In ruling alliance there are several leaders have links with Lutyen Gang, this possibility cannot be ruled out. Narendra Modi group thinks that when Sharad-Sonia-Uddhav gangs otherwise also to be die in near future, why should the BJP should open a new front?

Shirish Mohanlal Dave

Punch:

Daud has exerted pressure on and asked Sharad Sena, Sonia Sena and Congi Sena to  promise him to award Bharat Ratna to  Param Vir Singh as and when their alliance would come to power at Center. This cannot be ruled out. All the four gangs have also decided to merge and to have a single party with the name as United Lutyen Gang . ULG

Read Full Post »

NEHRUVIANS INTOLERANCE AND DISRESPECT TOWARD HUMAN RIGHTS

Just to create fake controversies, and to divert the attention of the public from the achievements of BJP Government lead by Narendra Modi the pseudo seculars are making noise.

During this short period of 18 months the BJP government has gained a lot of prestige abroad. It has made remarkable changes on foreign policies and local governance.

Due to this reason the Anti-BJP leaders have become terribly upset. They feel politically insecure. However during the last Bihar Assembly election they could realize that the hope to remain politically alive has not become zero.

They have gained a confidence that they can manufacture even fake controversies and can very well create a negative atmosphere for BJP and Narendra Modi.

It is a matter of research as to how the middle level BJP leaders have not prepared themselves to hit back the controversy manufacturers.

Let us read the records of Nehruvians, as to how much had they tolerated opposite views and given respect to human rights !!

JAWAHARLAL NEHRU:

DISRESPECTS:
(1) 1946-47 None of the provincial Congress Committee had proposed the name of JL Nehru for the post of PM. Despite of this, JL Nehru did not withdraw his candidature. This matter was brought to his notice by Mahatma Gandhi. To avoid partition of Congress party, MK Gandhi had to take assurance from Sardar Patel that he would keep the Congress intact and he would not claim for the PM post.

(2) 1947-50 Nehru did not respect the advice of Sardar Patel on foreign policy with China.

(3) 1948 Nehru had abused Sardar Patel on his action on the matter of Hyderabad issue.

(4) 1948 Nehru did not like to respect democratic procedure of taking a decision only after discussing the matter in Cabinet. He took the issue of Kashmir with UNO, without discussing it with his cabinet.

(5) 1952-1962 Nehru never respected the oppositions’ point raised in the parliament on the military infiltration of China into Indian Territory.

(6) 1950s Nehru did not respect the moral aptitude on Jeep Scandal to protect his beloved VK Menan.

(7) 1956-1959 Nehru did not respect the Congress working committee’s decision on Bombay State.

(8) 1956 Nehru as a PM did not respect the neutrality on the dispute between two states. E.g. Maharashtra and Gujarat.

(9) 1962-64 Nehru did not like to respect the qualification, seniority and genuine right of others to succeed him on the post of PM. He acted, out of way and cunningly to see that Indira Gandhi who was less qualified, less dignified, less learned, less experienced, less honest … become his successor for the post of PM.

(10) 1962 Nehru had no respect towards parliament and towards his own oath. He had taken an oath before the parliament that he would not take any rest till he recapture the lost land of India to China. His oath was simply a fraud.

INTOLERANCE OF NEHRU

(1) 1956-1964 Nehru was highly intolerant towards his competitors. Due to stupid foreign policy and stupid defense policy of JL Nehru, China could achieve a cake walk victory over India. China captured 91000 square miles of Indian land. Nehru was solely responsible for the defeat of India. In respect of his failure and to owe the moral responsibility JL Nehru was supposed to resign. JL Nehru had not own his moral responsibility. Contrary to this when he noticed that Morarji Desai is trying to become his competitor for the post of PM, Nehru could not tolerate Morarji Desai. JL Nehru removed him from his Cabinet.

INDIRA GANDHI:
DISRESPECTS:

(1) 1968 she had no respect towards party’s constitutional procedure. The working committee of her party had approved and recommended the candidature of Sanjiv Reddy for Presidential election.

(2) 1968 she had no respect to her own oath. She signed the candidature form of presidential election in 1969, she made campaign for the opposite to party’s candidate.

(3) 1968 she had no respect for the dignity of her own colleagues. As an understanding with the working committee, Morarji Desai had to be absorbed in Cabinet. But without consulting the party president Indira Gandhi removed Morarji Desai from her cabinet.

(4) 1968 She had no respect towards moral values in politics. There were lot of allegations on her doubtful integrity. But she did not resign.

(5) 1975 She had no respect towards verdicts given by court of law. She ignored the verdict of HC on her disqualification.

(6) 1975-1977 She had no respect towards constitutional provisions, human values and democratic rights of others. She imposed emergency and suspended even natural rights of citizens. Her governments representative told on oath before the court of law that during emergency, government can even kill a person at government’s will.

(7) 1972-75 she had no respect towards truth. When she was making statements before the Allahabad High Court on a case against her unfair practice in election and abuse of power, she told 14 lies on oath before the court.

(8) 1975-1976 She had no respect towards humanity. She had put 60000+ citizens behind the bars even without existence of any offence.

(8.1) 1972 She had nullified the victory achieved through the sacrifice of Indian soldiers and people of India. She, under Simla pact, handed over even the land of POK (Pakistan Occupied Kashmir) to Bhtto. This land was captured by India in the Pak-India war .

(8.2) 1972 She had disrespect towards her own promise of executing a packing deal with Pakistan to resolve all the issues with Pakistan. She had very good and full scope to execute “The Package Deal” with Pakistan. She willfully ignored it.

(8.3) 1972 Indira Gandhi disrespected even the constitution. To hand over a part of India, to the enemy or to any of the other countries, is against the constitution. That is our Indian cnstitutioin does not permit such transaction of land. POK is a part of India as per Indian Constitution, one cannot hand over a part of India to any other country even with an affirmation of the total MPs. To do like this India has to form a new constitution committee and a new parliament.

(8.4) 1980-83 Indira had disrespect towards the nation. She had joined hand with Bhinderanwale. She had supported terrorism and naxalite movement.

(9.1) 1968-1984 Indira had no respect towards her own words and oaths. She had promised to send back the 10000000+ (more than one crore), Bangladeshi infiltrators. But she did nothing. Her oath was simply a fraud.

(9.2) 1967-1984 Indira had no respect for truth. She floated a lot of fraudulent rumors to misguide mass with the help of her government owned media.

INTOLERANCE OF INDIRA GANDHI:

(1) 1968-69 Indira Gandhi had no tolerance to accept the candidature of a person (Sanjiv Reddy), proposed by the working committee of her own party. Resultantly she put up her own candidate viz. VV Giri for presidential election in 1969.

(2) 1972 Indira Gandhi had no tolerance to accept the leader elected by the state legislature party members for the post of CM. Indira always asking to accept a person of her own choice. Viz. 1972 Gujarat Assembly members had proposed Chimanbhai Patel with majority, as CM. But Indira Gandhi rejected him and imposed Ghanshyambhai Oza, who was not even an elected member of the assembly.

(3) 1972-1984 Indira Gandhi had no tolerance even if a leader of her own party, if he takes credit of his good work and good achievement. She can tolerate a leader only and only even if he/she gives credit to herself (Indira Gandhi), what had been achieved. E.g. VP Singh, Hemvatinandan Bahuguna and many others were removed by her from her cabinet for this reason only.

(4.1) 1968-77 Indira Gandhi had no tolerance to opposite view and opposite voice. She abused even veteran Gandhians like Jai Prakash Narain.

(4.2) 1975-1977 Indira had no tolerance to opposite voice and therefore she had imposed emergency for indefinite period.

(4.3) 1975-1977 Indira had no tolerance to opposite voice and Indira put 60000+ persons behind the bar for indefinite period.

(4.4) 1975-1977 Indira had no tolerance to opposite voice and Indira impose censorship on private media too, to suppress them by force.

(4.5) 1975 Indira had no tolerance to opposite voice and she even suppress the High Court judgments which were against her government,

(4.6) 1975-1977 Indira had no tolerance to opposite voice and she asked every type of associations, to pass a resolution in its meeting, that the association had supported emergency.

(4.7) 1978 Indira had no tolerance to remain without political power. She instigated Charan Sing to topple democratically elected government of Morarji Desai. She supported Charan Sing and then she betrayed him.

RAJIV GANDHI

(1) 1984 Rajiv Gandhi had no respect towards democratic procedure. He, without looking into the propriety of the President invitation to take an oath as the PM, he took the oath, without the resolution of the working committee and the cabinet of the party and the government respectively. In fact he should have refused to take the oath in absence of such resolutions.

(2.1) 1984-1989 Rajiv Gandhi had no respect for the human rights. He avoided action against his party lead carnage on Sikhs.

(2.2) 1984 Rajiv Gandhi had no respect for human rights and humanity. He gave a smooth passage to Anderson to runaway safely from India. Anderson was the culprit of Bhopal Gas Hazard.

(3) 1984-89 Rajiv Gandhi had no respect for morality. He was involved in Boffors scam. He had written and forwarded an instruction chit through Madhav Singh Solanki a minister of his cabinet, to Swiss Government to go very slow on the matter of investigation related with Boffor Kickback.

(4) 1986-1988 Rajiv Gandhi had no respect towards nation. He gave a smooth passage to Ottavio Quatrochie to run away safely from India.

SONIA GANDHI, CONGI and ASSOCIATES
i.e. The PSEUDO SECULAR GANG

300

(1)The GANG does not like to respect anybody else as “Number One” in the party. Sitaram Kesri was manually lifted and driven out from the seat of the Congi-President.

(1.1) The GANG does not respect the personality of opposite party.

(1.2) The GANG does not respect the achievement of the government of opposite party,

(1.3) The GANG does not respect the constitutional provisions. The GANG paralyses the functioning of the parliament.

(1.4) The GANG does not respect the very purpose of the parliament which is to discuss the matters and exchange the views to arrive to a decision.

(1.5) The GANG disrespects the natural right of opposite party (BJP leaders) to present their side on the floor of the parliament on the allegations made by the GANG.

(2) The GANG disrespects BJP leaders.

(2.1) The GANG addresses opposite party leaders with abusive words. Like “Maut kaa Sodaagar”, “Godse’s progeny”, Communal, Manav Bhakshi, Pishaach, Chaay Waalaa, Intolerant …

(3) The GANG does not have tolerance to any opposite view to Congi’s governance.

(3.1) The GANG could not tolerate Anna’s agitation. Anna Hazare was abused and alleged by all spokespersons of the Congi

(3.2) The GANG could not tolerate Baba Ramdev’s agitation. Baba Ramdev was also abused and manhandled. A lot fraudulent allegations were made on him. Congi had executed investigations too, but found nothing against Ramdev. Despite of this, Congi never thought of submitting apology.

(3.3) The GANG could not tolerate participants’ personality. Kiran Bedi was also alleged and abused. The investigations were carried out but no guilt was found on making money by Kiran Bedi,

(3.4) The GANG had no tolerance to the functioning of the opposite party. The GANG is in habit to manufacture fake controversies.

(4) The GANG does not have any respect for the human rights of Hindus:

(4.1) The GANG willfully neglected the human rights of Hindus in Kashmir, North East and some pockets of South India.

(4.2) The GANG does not have respect towards the rule of law that everybody is equal before law.

(4.3) The GANG has willfully discriminated the Hindus’ human rights.

(4.4) Kashmiri Hindus had been threatened to be ready for the death unless they adopt Muslim religion. They were told either to adopt Muslim religion or to vacate their houses and leave Kashmir. The threat was announced through loud speakers, from Mosqs, pamphlets pasted on the doors, publications through the news paper, writing on the walls and through every means.

(4.5) The Muslims of Kashmir in joint venture with the GANG, had given a dead line date in advance about the carnage they were going to execute.

(4.6) The GANG had committed cognizable offences, as it kept mum, took no action, done no arrest, registered no FIR, initiated no investigation and no prosecution.

(4.7) The GANG kept total non-transparency on the prolonged carnage. It was a cognizable disrespect of protection of human rights of Hindus of Kashmir.

(4.8) The GANG happily watched the murders of 5000+ Hindus, and the migration of 50000000+ driven out Hindus from their houses.

(4.9) The GANG paid no heed on the issue of the rehabilitation of the Hindus. These Hindus are living in substandard living condition since last 25 years. This is nothing but a continued terrorist attack sponsored by the GANG.

What does this GANG want?

The GANG wants Hindus and pro-BJP inclusive of BJP persons should tolerate as under:

HINDUS AND PRO-BJP INCLUSIVE OF BJP PERSONS SHOULD TOLERATE all the injustice and discrimination applied upon them inclusive of end of their lives and carnage executed by the GANG.

HINDUS AND PRO-BJP INCLUSIVE OF BJP PERSONS SHOULD TOLERATE even if the GANG curtails suspends or dismisses their human rights.

HINDUS AND PRO-BJP INCLUSIVE OF BJP PERSONS SHOULD TOLERATE Even if the GANG abused them by any bad name

HINDUS AND PRO-BJP INCLUSIVE OF BJP PERSONS SHOULD TOLERATE Even if the GANG manufactures any fraudulent and fake controversy, rumor or allegation upon them,

HINDUS AND PRO-BJP INCLUSIVE OF BJP PERSONS SHOULD TOLERATE even if the GANG does not use its sense of proportion and or it does not use its sense of relevance while alleging

HINDUS AND PRO-BJP INCLUSIVE OF BJP PERSONS SHOULD TOLERATE Even if the GANG condemns the views of them on historical events even without material

HINDUS AND PRO-BJP INCLUSIVE OF BJP PERSONS SHOULD TOLERATE Even if the GANG terms the material conclusion of existence of some historical character as fake and fictitious and the GANG avoids discussion

HINDUS AND PRO-BJP INCLUSIVE OF BJP PERSONS SHOULD TOLERATE Even if the GANG insults your Gods and Goddesses,

HINDUS AND PRO-BJP INCLUSIVE OF BJP PERSONS SHOULD TOLERATE Even if the GANG does not talk to the point

HINDUS AND PRO-BJP INCLUSIVE OF BJP PERSONS SHOULD TOLERATE Even if the GANG simply shouts while discussion on TV channels and consumes most of the time

HINDUS AND PRO-BJP INCLUSIVE OF BJP PERSONS SHOULD TOLERATE Even if the GANG simply shouts and disturbs them while they submit their replies

HINDUS AND PRO-BJP INCLUSIVE OF BJP PERSONS SHOULD TOLERATE Even if the GANG openly tries to divide society by caste, religion, language and region,

HINDUS AND PRO-BJP INCLUSIVE OF BJP PERSONS SHOULD TOLERATE Even if the GANG stops them and abuses them for speaking against Nehruvians’ frauds, blunders, scams, scandals, stupidity or whatsoever,

HINDUS AND PRO-BJP INCLUSIVE OF BJP PERSONS SHOULD TOLERATE as the GANG persons are not supposed to tolerate any thing whatsoever against them, even if the allegations are proved in Court of Law. This is because the Gang has full liberty to express inclusive of anti-national, derogative to Indian culture or whatsoever.

HINDUS AND PRO-BJP INCLUSIVE OF BJP PERSONS SHOULD TOLERATE as the GANG persons are not supposed to respect any of their right inclusive of human rights or natural rights or constitutional rights whatsoever.

Shirish M. Dave

Tags:

Intolerance, Nehruvians, Nehru, Indira, Rajiv, Sonia, Congi, BJP, Narendra Modi, Emergency, Censorship, Media, Pseudo, Secular

Read Full Post »

%d bloggers like this: