Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘constitution’

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 »

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

SC at flaw

(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 4th 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 »

Yes I agree that Sardar Patel was more eligible to become PM than Nehru.

But Nehru was determined to break congress, had he not been made PM.

At that moment of time, it was not advisable to see the Congress gets broken. This is because, a broken Congress would be a weak Congress for fighting out the other greater challanges to come.

 There was a possibility of India could had been divided to five to ten or more pieces. e.g. Dalistan, Sikhistan, Dravidistan, Hyderabad, Junagadh, J&K, Palanpur and many other kingsly state could had been tempted to be separated from India, besides Pakistans.

Nehru was determined to take risk for the sake of power. (we have seen as to what his daughter did in 1969).

Gandhi could foresee the likely drama Nehru was to play for power at the cost to the nation.

Nehru was not capable to handle such big task of likely breaking India into pieces.

It was a great risk to allow breaking of Congress. Nehru had no majority in working committee of Congress at center and states. But he was a youth icon and highly popular too in public due to his many dramas against British Government under events of freedom struggle. One can read autobiography of Mahavir Tyagi for the details of dramas. This Mahavir Tyagi had become opponent of Nehru.

Gandhi could have removed Nehru by virtue of his strategy at a later stage. His first step was to dissove Congress. His second step was to go to Pakistan and convince people to re-unit India. No body is eternal in democracy. In 1952 elections Nehru could have been defeated. But Nehru was skillful to remove his competitors.

It is a matter of research as to why Nehru was not defeated even after his known blunders? Probably the leaders who could foresee the danger were in minority, and media loved Nehru too much.

Read for details
 

MK GANDHI AND DEMOCRACY

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

When we use the word “democracy” it may carry different meaning for different persons.

If needed, a person has to define/describe the meaning of the word he/she uses as and when the meaning creates any dispute.

Democracy is a process where truth is heard and honored.

The truth unless it is challenged (denied)logically, it is honored.

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

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

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

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

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

Political Parties

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

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

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

Now let us take the Congress.

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

Thereby Gandhi had promoted that if we want such change we should involve mass of India in Congress, for better communication and depth at grass root level.

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

COURT OF LAW

In democracy, if any law provides injustice, then that law becomes null and void. But this thing has be proved before a qualified and constitutionalized third party.

This authorized third party is the Court of Law. The Court of Law is the authority to interpret the law and the authenticity of the relevancy of the event based upon which a case of injustice has been produced before it.

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

WAS GANDHI DEMOCRATIC?

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

What is “power pressure”?

One may hold an executive power by virtue of a law. One may hold the muscle power (punishment power) by a law.

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

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

HAD THERE ANY “POWER POST” BEEN POSSESSED BY MK GANDHI?

No… A BIG NO.

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

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

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

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

CHAURA CHAURI EPISODE

Now let us take the example of “Chaura Chauri incident where Mahatma Gandhi had withdrawn his agitation which he had launched to protest against Rowlatt Act, in 1922 through civil disobedience.

Under the Rowlatt Act, the government had acquired a power to arrest protesters for indefinite period. Some leaders of the protesters were arrested who were protesting against some price rise. Then some people of Chauri Chaura agitated against these arrests and they become violate.

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

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

Since the call of civil disobedience was made by Congress and MK Gandhi was in Congress holding a post in working committee, he felt himself indirectly responsible for the violence.

MK Gandhi, on this ground, felt that still the mass had not understood and grasped the meaning of civil disobedience. Hence he withdrew the agitation. Off course this was a hypothetical conclusion. But Gandhi could convince himself and the working committee too, that the call was a premature call for agitation.

NOW LOOK AT THE OTHER INSTANCE

In 1934 MK Gandhi had resigned from the Congress.

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

There were many groups in India and within the Congress too. But there were mainly two ideological groups. One had faith in Non-violence. Other had no faith in non-violence. These two groups were otherwise also having conflict. MK Gandhi naturally with the group having faith in non-violence. MK Gandhi had said that both these groups would not come against each others way while fighting for independence.

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

Nehru, Jinna, Subhash, Sardar Patel, Pant, Maulana Azad … the second generation was equally popular among second generation in public.

Nehru was having a starting lift due to his pop Motilal. Nehru was not a fool in politics. He had political skills. He was capable to side line his opponents. He therefore had made a group within Congress. This group was named as the socialistic group. But many had left progressively this group due to Nehru’s hypocrisy. It is a long story.

Nehru was in position and thereby he could defame his opponents through his group. Nehru had disguised his group as an ideological group as he used to speak philosophical language. Even after independence he could side lined his critics like Chakravarti Raj Gopalachari, Jai Prakash Narayana, Vinoba Bhave and lastly Morarji Desai without breaking Congress.

(Indira Gandhi was not that skillful. Under her quest of power, she could not avoid breaking of Congress. But she could manage with media till she could win the 1969 elections).

The other difference between Nehru and Indira was that Nehru was not thankless to some extent. Indira Gandhi was thankless and totally self-centered.

This was mainly because Nehru had a back ground of good contribution in freedom struggle, whereas Indira was totally with nearly zero contribution. Leave this aside.

Subhash vs Nehru

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

In 1939 Nehru had no courage to submit his candidature for the Congress Presidentship elections, against Subhash.

Maulana Azad once submitted but he withdrew in favor of Dr. Pattabhi Sitaramayya. The delegates defeated Dr. Sitaramayya by marginal votes. Since Sitaramayya was suggested by MK Gandhi, Gandhi said that it was his own defeat. Gandhi congratulated Subhash, and there after he asked Subhash that he should form his own working committee.

Now what was the legal position?

Subhash could have taken over the Congress by forming his own working committee. But the delegates’ verdict cannot be reversed. All the members of the then prevailing working committee submitted their resignation because they had faith in non-violence as per the basic principles of the Congress.

It was a big task for Subhash to have the working committee members of his choice to get elected by re-calling Extra Ordinary General meeting. Had Subhash done so, Subhash would have been defamed as hungry of power.

Compare: Indira Gandhi had no majority in working committee in 1969, but she called EGM and bifurcated the Nehruvian Congress.

As per constitution of Congress party, anybody is authorized to call EGM with 20% supporting members. But the Congress president has to be convinced. This was not done through proper channel by Indira Gandhi. Thereby there was a court case.

Court ruled that in democracy the people are supreme, and since majority of MPs have supported Indira, her Congress is the real Congress. But the property went to Organizational Congress where the working committee owned by the old Congress president due to his majority support in the working committee.

The ruling of the Court was controversial. Piloo Modi an excellent parliamentarian, had made a joke and a fun. He said, “Suppose in next election, in a case if Congress (I) get less seats and if Congress (O) gets more seat, then would the Court reverse its ruling?

IDEOLOGY THAT DECIDES THE FATE

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

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

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

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

Gandhi and Subhash has great respect for each other. But many immature persons do not know this.

THEN WHY SOME SO-CALLED ELITE HATE MK GANDHI?

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

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

Why?

It is their mind set to not read anything in favor of MK Gandhi, and not to apply mind.

That is why they simply produce conclusive remarks. At the most they would base their conclusion on a matter that itself is controversial.

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

e.g. If you say Gandhi had asked Congress leadership to Boycott the Crips Commission. This M-Phobia would ask an irrelevant question, as to “why did Gandhi not put a single favorable condition for Hindus before British?”

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

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

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

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

You cannot argue with this lot.  They must know that Churchil was most genius in making strategy. But this Churchil was afraid of MK Gandhi, because he knew that Gandhi could not be trapped. Churchil was so much scared of MK Gandhi, that he had refused to give an appointment to MK Gandhi. He had insulted MK Gandhi on his dress.

Yes. When one has prejudice and lesser intelligence than his opponent, then he would avoid the opponent who has clear concepts.

Now if in reality MK Gandhi had been an agent of British Government, he was supposed to, be in a good book of Charchil. Churchil would have never refused MK Gandhi for an appointment. On the contrary Charchil and Gandhi could have met several times. But you know, logic does not work for those who are determined to abuse MK Gandhi.

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

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

These people use to speak the language of Jinna.

Don’t hate them. Have a mercy.

NATURAL TREND IS TOWARDS NON-VIOLENCE

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

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

democratic Gandhi

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

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

The Similar example is USSR where Lenin uprooted Czar Empire with violent struggle. The rein captured by Stalin. USSR had shortages and non-transparency because its base for independence was “violence”.

WHY THE DEMOCRACY WITH ALL ITS BAD QUALITY IS SUPERIOR TO AUTOCRACY?

The main reasons are:

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

Autocracy cannot survive with transparency,

Autocracy cannot survive with all the time with conducting elections,

Thereby Autocracy is prone to corrupt a ruler and the society.

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

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

If the ruler is committed to democracy then Non-violent movement is more advisable. e.g. British vs Indian independence struggle with non-violence.

The non-violent struggle is fought on moral ground,

The non-violent struggle can even be played by individuals,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

IS OUR COUNTRY A DEMOCRATIC COUNTRY?

NO.

Simply routine elections cannot make a country fully democratic.

We need to have constituted voters’ council,

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

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

We need lot of changes in governance and judiciary.

IS DEMOCRACY COMMITTED TO TOTAL NON-VIOLENCE?

No.

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

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

The Indian government has a right to arrest Omar, Farukh and all other leaders who had power to execute to protect the human rights of 5-7 lakhs of Hindus of Kashmir.

These leaders can be arrested and prosecuted because these leaders have been remained inactive in performing their duties . The responsibilities lies with the Officials of Human Right Commission too. The Human Rights Commission can be de-recognized by the Indian Government.

THEN WHAT IS ABOUT RAMA?

Rama was a democratic king. Rama was much more democratic than any of the present democratic leaders. Rama heard the opinion of a washerman. Rama and his ministry could not reply to the points raised by the washerman. They honored the opinion of the washer man.

But the persons like Rama can come on the earth, after several thousand years. Our life is only for 100 years.

A RUSSIAN JOKE

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

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

“A” said I was favoring “Popovich”

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

“B” said, “I was against “Popovich”

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

“C” replied “I am Popovich”

This is all about socialism without transparency.

Shirish Mohanlal Dave

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

Read Full Post »

%d bloggers like this: