IT IS NOT BAD, BUT IT IS HURTING: G. D. Bakshi on “Quit India”

IT IS NOT BAD, BUT IT IS HURTING

“MAHATMA GANDHI BROUGHT FREEDOM” IS VERY WRONG.

Major General G. D. Bakshi has shown his terrible reactive anger on the above conclusion. He says with evidence that it was not Mahatma Gandhi who brought freedom for India but it was Subhash Chandra Bose who brought the freedom for India.

It is difficult to understand as to why does Major General G. D. Bakshi put Gandhi and Subhash against each other?

To have a difference of opinion between two persons is natural. Both the persons could be correct under their logic. Whose logic is true and whose logic was wrong depends upon a lot of prevailing factors at that time. The point is whether the persons are sincere on their thoughts and actions or not? Yes. Subhash was sincere in his thoughts. Gandhi was also sincere in his thoughts. There was no confusion between them. Both the great persons had respect for each other.

So far I deeply felt that Gandhians have most respect for Subhas Chandra Bose. But unfortunately some ill-informed persons who deliberately does not read Gandhi, put Gandhi as an enemy of Subhash Chandra Bose.

“GANDHI REMOVED SUBHASH FROM CONGRESS” G. D. BAKSHI SHOUTS

A political party is supposed to have its principles and line of actions in concurrence with its principles. Congress had decided to proceed with freedom struggle on the line of non-violence. The activities of Subhash had generated a doubt on his faith towards principle of non-violence. Thereby MK Gandhi had put a candidate against Subhash in party’s presidential election. This is permissible in every Democratic Party. There is nothing wrong in it. There is no reason that every election should go uncontested. G. D. Bakshi should understand this.

Subhash won the election. Gandhi congratulated Subhash Chandra Bose. He advised him to select his own working committee members. He also accepted that the victory of Subhash was his defeat. He said that since the elected working body members are committed to non-violence and the elected president’s integrity on the party’s principle is not beyond doubt, the elected working committee members should resign. All the members of central working committee resigned. Gandhi was an ordinary citizen. He was not even an ordinary member of the Congress. It was up to the members of working committee to resign or not to resign. How Gandhi can be prevented for his expression of his opinion?

LOOK AT THIS. WHAT INDIRA GANDHI DID IN 1968?

She had no majority in working committee when her suggested person was rejected by the other members of working committee. She called an extraordinary meeting without the permission of the then party president, though there was no justification for calling emergency general body meeting because the general body meeting was due in next few months. Prime Mister is not supreme in his party. Working Committee is the supreme in a party.

Indira Gandhi prepared bogus lists of provincial members and the delegates were sent to general body meeting. The delegates dismissed all existing members of central working committee and a new working committee was formed and a new president was elected. Consequently Indira’s process of calling for general body meeting and conducting party’s election was challenged in the SC. Meanwhile general elections were conducted and the Congress of Indira won the election, and because she had majority elected members on her side, her party was recognized as the original Congress by the Supreme Court.

This was absolutely a wrong judgement.

HOW WAS THE JUDGEMENT WRONG?

Now suppose Congress (O) would have not been dissolved in 1977. And it would have remained as a part of Janata Party, and suppose now had it been a major part of BJP lead alliance, and had acquired more than 50 seats in Lok Sabha, then what would remain the value of the verdict of the SUPREME COURT ?

Now Congress (Indira or Nehruvian) has only 45 seats in L.S. Would the decision of SUPREME COURT could be reversed? Yes. It has to be reversed to maintain the spirit of the judgement of the Supreme Court. This way the then SUPREME COURT’s decision was ridiculous. This situation was pointed out by Piloo Modi a prominent leader of Congress (O).

SUBHAS WAS NOT HUNGRY OF POWER

Now let us examine the Case of Subhash Chandra Bose for academic reason. Suppose Subhash would have taken a risk. And he would have called general body meeting. He could have done this lawfully, unlike Indira Gandhi, because here, Subhash was already the president of the party. Subhash could have tried to take full confidence of the members of Congress. But he did not acted like that. Viz. Calling of emergency general body meeting.

There were two reasons. First, that working committee members were likely to get re-elected. Subhash Chandra Bose could have NOT been in position to get new working committee members of his choice get elected, and he could have been put to a situation to not take decisions at his choice and will.  This is because all the decisions in working committee are taken by the majority of the members. Second. Subhash was not ready to give a chance to public to feel that he was hungry of power.           

NOW LET US DISCUSS FOR ACADEMIC INTEREST AS TO WHO BROUGHT THE FREEDOM

What does Major General Bakshi quotes in support of the freedom brought by Mahatma Gandhi? And how he disapprove the same?

He quotes a song title of Ramachandra Narayanji Dwivedi alias Pradeepji (प्रदीपजी).

Pradeepji was a great poet of the time. He had glorified even Subhash too, in his many poems.

But here Major General G. D. Bakshi quotes

Viz.

दे  दी हमें आज़ादी बिना खडग बिना ढाल,

साबरमतीके संत तूने कर दिया कमाल.

On this he shouts and tells in very loud voice, THIS IS VERY WRONG. He further shouts;

“Gandhi’s movement was totally failed. All the leaders had confirmed that the struggle of Congress for independence was failed. Quit India movement was failed. British government was determined to make it failed. British arrested all the leaders of Congress and thrown them into jails for indefinite period. All the leaders were tired and all of them were frustrated.”

Then he narrates the glory of Subhash Chandra Bose.

There is nothing wrong in glorifying Subhash Chandra Bose for the path he chose to achieve the freedom. Subhash Chandra Bose is worth to get the glory. Nobody have and nobody can have any objection to it.

IS IT A BURNING CONTROVERSY OR IS IT A CONTROVERSY AT ALL?

Is it a burning issue to simply prove the negation on the Gandhi’s “quit India movement’ and it had no role in toto, in bringing the freedom for India?

Simply some poet has written a poem and he said the Gandhi’s war with the weapon of non-violence was victorious. “QED” added by Major General G. D. Bakshi and then he rejects it.

NO VICTORY OR NO DEFEAT CAN BE DUE TO SINGLE REASON

Major General G. D. Bakshi was born in 1950. No person can have first-hand information when he was not available at the time and at the spot where and when event/s occurred. He does not know what was the atmosphere prevailing at that time.

I AM OLDER TO HIM BY TEN YEARS.

My information after reading Gandhi and others observations and feelings;

(1) Cripps mission was failed because it had pre-conditions that the limited freedom would be considered only after the World War II finished.

(2) Gandhi’s opposition led the Indian National Congress to reject the British offer.

(3) Cripps’ modification of the original British offer, which provided for no real transfer of power.

(4) Behind-the-scenes efforts of the Viceroy and Secretary of State for India to sabotage the mission.

(5) Gandhi was of the opinion that it was simply a trap. Gandhi believed this, on the basis of past experience of World War-I, when the British had strengthened the slavery rules, disregarding its previous commitments. 

Impact of Cripps Mission.

The long-term significance of the Cripps Mission really became apparent only in the aftermath of the war, as troops were demobilized and sent back home.

(1) As for the “quit India” could get launched, all the leaders were arrested. Not only leaders but a lot public figures were also arrested.

(2) Some of the leaders who were supporters of “Quit India movement” went underground. These were beyond the control of British.

(3)  It was asked by Mahatma Gandhi that there would be full scope of mass arrests, and thereby every person had to continue his fight for freedom in his own leadership.

(4) Since there was no leader to guide the people, wide spread violence had occurred. The British Government was not able to control the violence. MK Gandhi said, it was the failure of British, as it had no faith in non-violence.      

But the Quit India movement was not a dismal failure; rather the movement of 1942 gave the death blow to the British rule. India’s march towards freedom was hastened. This movement sparked off an aggressive national consciousness. Many people sacrificed their careers, property and even lives. Many freedom fighters’ families’ lives were paralyzed because earning members were arrested.

It can be a failure of both the ways. The way that Subhash chose, and the way that Gandhi chose.

Mass awareness decides the fate of Government. Mass awareness had generated the revolt of Indian Navy.

Aurabindo Ghosh was of the opinion that if all people of India would deeply think with their strength of inner conscious for the freedom of India that force would act on British conscious to decide to leave India.

Even Churchill recognized that there could be no retraction of the offer of independence which Cripps had made, but by the end of the war, Churchill was out of power and could do nothing but watch as the new Labor government gave India independence. This confidence that the British would soon leave was reflected in the readiness with which Congress politicians stood in the elections of 1945–1946 and formed provincial governments.

A HUMAN FIGHTS WITH ANOTHER HUMAN

We should not forget that “A human fights with another human” cannot be a supportive to the eternal truth for mankind, and it could not be advisable to follow it. Even this principle applies to ecological balance of the mother Earth, then how could it not be applied to human?

YES. CONDITIONS APPLIES

Yes the conditions are; Are you democratic? Do you have respect for each other, list out injustice, communicate, be logical, do peaceful protest, while protesting continue communication…

Mahatma Gandhi believed that protest with non-violence against British Government was suitable and it can work. Probably Major General G. D. Bakshi has not read the principles of non-violent protest … e.g. public participation at a large, awareness at a large, dialogue, stepping up, protests with responsibilities, strike, hunger strike, hunger strike on to death, civil disobedience, do not go on bails, be ready for punishment, prison, self-improvement while in prison and all the time be ready for dialogue.

NOW LOOK AT THIS. FORGET MAHATMA GANDHI.

Remember MK Gandhi is dead. Hindu Maha Sabha is dead. But Nehruvian Congress is alive. Communists are alive.

Who remembers Captain Lakshmi?

She was Presidential Candidate in 2002. She suffered only because she was a member of communist party. Otherwise she was a great lady.

All Non-Congress parties had supported British Government baring Indian National Army of Subhash. But the position of Subhash had become awkward when Russia supported British against Germany. There was a lot of diversity among the leaders of Indian National army.

Now let us not blame anybody or let us not abuse any freedom fighter and let us not put them against each other. They were all gallant gentlemen and gallant women who had sacrifice their lives.

UNDERSTAND THE COURAGE

There are two types of courage. One is Physical courage and the other is moral courage. One has not to select option. It is natural. But few people have both. Gandhi had both. He was ready to die for his principles. Subhash had also both the courage. Both died on unnatural death. There were others too on both the sides. Let us not devaluate them to satisfy our ego of righteousness.

WHO WAS HE?     

Who fought for democracy against Indira Gandhi when she imposed emergency to save her own chair for which she was disqualified? This was the exhibition of her craze of power.

It was Jai Prakash Narayan who led the people of India and he integrated all political parties. Who was he? He was veteran Gandhian. But he was not alone. He took people with him. Indira Gandhi was miserably defeated in election. She herself was defeated by 55000 votes. But the dream of Jai Prakash Narayan was vanished under his own eyes. He was a failure. So what?

Political Gandhi is a small element. Gandhi had struggled a lot. Gandhi and Self-reliance, Gandhi and Swadeshi, Gandhi and appropriate Technology, Gandhi and Cleanliness, Gandhi and naturopathy, Gandhi and health, Gandhi and duties of peoples representatives inclusive of Governors and President, Gandhi and Civic Sense, Gandhi and Hindu Religion, Gandhi and religious conversion, Gandhi and democracy inclusive of Ram-Rajya, Gandhi and inter relation between Bureaucracy and people. Gandhi and education…. All these are put together, Gandhi is a very big entity of India. Major General G.D. Bakshi should read “Collected works of Mahatma Gandhi”, or at least “Gandhi in Delhi” which is the daily diary of Mahatma Gandhi of his last 3 months in Delhi.

Shirish Mohanlal Dave

Read Full Post »

FAKE CONTROVERSY ON ANNA’s AGITATION

FAKE CONTROVERSY CREATED BY “LEARNED POLITICAL ANALYSTS ON ANNA’s AGITATION

BROTHER DONKEY IS WORRIED OF ANARCHY

THEY SAY ANNA WILL BRING ANARCHY

It is not correct to say the movement lead by Anna can bring anarchy.

Probably some learned writers are not aware of the “Nav Nirman Movement” launched by the people of Gujarat in 1974.

 

“Nav Nirman Movement” if viewed with the same spectacle that being used by some political analysts, then that Nav Nirman movement was much more dangerous and should have definitely lead Gujarat and thereafter the nation towards anarchy. Had we observed such result consequent to that “Nav Nirman movement”?

 

It is possible that some “learned” political analysts might be unaware of the details of the situation under which the “Nav Nirman movement” was launched. One of the many other reasons of their unawareness could be, these “learned” might be walking with perambulator at that time. The other associated reason could be the ignorance on history  as they would not agree to any thing unless experienced personally. There are people including “learned media journalists” who prefer to apply their own intelligence than to study history. Print media can also fall under this category.

 We should understand “Nav Nirman Movement” and the philosophy of “Fast” in politics: This would be more relevant, instead of talking vague; as to how many times Mahatma Gandhi went on fast and for what?

Mahatma Gandhi has very well defined and clarified his weapons of “Satyagraha and Fast”.

HEART WITHOUT WORDS IS BETTER THAN WORDS WITHOUT HEART

RULE OF LAW & RESPECT FOR HUMAN VALUES AND HUMAN LIVES;

Fast is permissible when the government believes in rule of law and has respect for the human lives and values, unless government says that it has no respect for rule of law, thereby whatsoever it does is the rule of law.

This Nehruvian Congress has not said that it has no respect for rule of law or it has not rejected the rule of written law. Therefore we have to believe by giving a benefit of doubt, that the government believes in rule of law.

IN CASE OF HYPOCRITE GOVERNMENT;

Now suppose government is hypocrite and thereby though it says it believes in rule of law but practically it does not act with respect to rule of law, then what should be done? Is an agitation permissible?

No. Under this circumstance it is not permissible. Because the venue of judiciary is open to get justice.

But suppose, the judiciary is heavily loaded and the justice gets delayed. Then what should be done?

The justice can be delayed due to two reasons. System is faulty or number of judges is less and cases are piled up. In such cases an agitation can be launched for reforms of the system. To have a situation of less number of judges is also a fault of the system.

Now here in case of Nehruvian Congress government, the non-governance or fake governance or ill-governance in India is the fault of the system which is kept  unattended willfully.

LOK PAL BECAME INEVITABLE

During the last eight years, the corruption at high level went to its Himalayan peaks. Nehruvian Congress government initiated actions only when Supreme Court issued directives.   Thereby to constitute the Lok Pal became inevitable.

CIVIL SOCIETY VS PARLIAMENT: A FAKE CONTROVERSY OF HYPOCRITES

Controversy which has been created on supremacy of Parliament vs. Supremacy of Civil society is a fake controversy created by hypocrites and vested interest.

Parliament is not supreme. Constitution is superior to parliament. Human values are superior to Constitution. Parliament can enact a law but if that law does not provide justice then that law is treated as null and void.

COALITION DHARMA IS SUPREME

Here in our case Lok Pal Bill draft prepared by the government was defective.

It was not taking proper care of the public interest and to punish the culprit seated at the top levels of governance.

 

Anna Hazare cannot file a PIL in SC. Because SC would say it is hypothetical. India needs reforms in system of elective representation. It is a time consuming process. This issue  can be taken up as a second step.

 

Lok Pal Bill with wide power has become inevitable and it is first step towards reforms. One should compare the quantum of corruption prevailing in India by comparing the quantum of Indian money in foreign banks to that of other developed countries.

Under the prevailing circumstances and the culture of Nehruvian Congress, people of India and Anna Hazare have no option but to go on fast to have a proper draft for Lok Pal Bill.

GOVERNMENT AND PARLIAMENT ARE NOT SYNONYM:

How an authority of a government can speak on behalf of parliament?

A minister is part and parcel of government. The spokespersons of ruling party are speaking on behalf of government.

The members of parliament are elected based on the comparative voted majority of the people of their respective constituency. They might have been supported by one or other party but they are considered the representative of all the people who voted for them, who did not vote to them and who did not vote for any one. That is, they represent all the people of their respective constituency.

Further when there are hundreds of persons in parliament, who are voted to parliament for the very purpose of presenting the voice of their people, why are they keeping mum? How can a minister talk on their behalf? Let the members of parliament come forward to say their view. The ministers should keep mum. Ministers or spoke persons need not play double roll.

SCOPE OF LOK PAL WAS NOT FORMING A PART OF MANIFESTO:

Further it must be clear to the party or group of parties running the government, that the scope of the proposed Lok Pal was not forming a part of party or parties’ election manifesto/s. Thereby no party can take the people for granted on the Lok Pal Bill draft which has been pointed out for its defects.

The Ministry had agreed to have a Civil Society to prepare a draft of Lok Pal Bill. There is no ban on the ministry to accept such draft. The ministry could have invited and entertained discussion on material and merits on Jan Lok Pal Bill. But the government has always avoided the discussion. On the contrary it said to the members of Civil Society as to who are they to press government for discussion!

Now look at one more point. The team Anna has conducted referendum in the constituency of Kapil Sibbal on both the drafts viz. government prepared Lok Pal bill and Civil Society prepared Lok Pal Bill.

What was the result? 80% and above people have supported Jan Lok Pal Bill.

Kapil Sibbal has no courage to conduct referendum in any way. This indicates very clearly, as to where the government Lok Pal Bill stands for its democratic value.

It must be mentioned here that before the submission of the Jan Lok Pal Bill draft to the government, Anna Hazare had made it very clear before the public and before the government that he would not mind if the parliament does not pass the bill, but Jan Lok Pal Bill has to be placed before parliament.

Because, the aim of Anna Hazare is, people should know who are for and who are against the Jan Lok Pal Bill.

Nehruvian Congress wanted to play a crooked game because its conscious is guilty. It refused to submit the draft of Jan Lok Pal bill before the parliament.

IS THE FORMATION OF CIVIL SOCIETY A FUN?

The formation of Civil Society was in consultation with the Nehruvian Congress government. Was the Civil Society formed for a fun? Nehruvian Congress should confirm and say “yes, we had formed the Civil Society for a fun”. But Nehruvian Congress is hypocrite and it has floated a discussion on a fake controversy of supremacy. No member of parliament other than minister uses to take part in discussion is a matter of surprise and research.

WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY DEMOCRACY?

Democracy means where a truth is honored, irrespective the level from where it has come.

In democracy the decisions are taken on material and merits.

Recall “Ramayana” where Rama and his ministry could not answer the points raised by the washer man. Though the issue was a person matter of Rama, but as per the tradition, king cannot have any different personal law. He cannot have a relaxation in personal law.

Do we want to step back ward than to the level where we were six thousand year back?

We had gone backward many times due to slavery. But now we will not.

Our learned analysts want to break their head to prove some thing else on hypothetical basis, that Anna Team is an extra constitutional authority and cannot issue instructions to parliament. Because if government surrenders to such extra constitutional pressures, it would collapse the system of parliament and can bring anarchy in our country.

WHAT HAD BEEN HAPPENED IN GUJARAT IN 1973?

It was a Nav Nirman Stir against corruption.

 

GHANSHYAMBHAI OZA AN OASIS IN DESERT OF NEHRUVIAN CONGRESS

What was the point of corruption?

Contrary to this date there was no list of scams, frauds and scandals. No list of authorities who made money through unauthorized channels was known.

In 1972 after taking the credit on the victory over Pakistanin 1971, Indira Gandhi conducted the due election of Gujarat Assembly. Her Nehruvian Congress secured 140 seats out of 164 seats of Gujarat State Assembly.

Indira Gandhi was in habit of posting Chief Minister of her own choice instead of electing leader of the house through elected members of the party in the hall.

Indira posted Ghanshyambhai Oza. But the elected members were not for Ghanshyambhai Oza. Chimanbhai Patel took the lead and he made Ghanshyambhai Oza to resign. Chimanbhai Patel some how proved his majority before the observer team sent by the Central high command. Indira Gandhi had no option but to surrender to the majority member support to Chimanbhai Patel.

Chimanbhai Patel had sworn in as CM before a veteran Mahatma Gandhian leader and social worker Ravishankar Maharaj. Chimanbhai Patel became the CM against the will of Indira Gandhi though both belonged to the same party i.e. Nehruvian Congress alias Congress (J) means Congress lead by Jagjivanram.

 

CHIMANBHAI PATEL WHO WROTE A BOOK HOW INDIRA GANDHI MADE MONEY

MAKING MONEY THROUGH UNAUTHORIZED CHANNELS:

The aim of Nehruvian Congress has always been remained to make money through unauthorized channel. When such money is made the effect is price rise.

The price rise in eatables caused the rise in food bill of an engineering college. This initiated Nav Nirman Stir. It was against corruption. Ground nut oil is a consumable item in Gujarat. It has good production and market in Gujarat. Chimanbhai Patel fixed the price or ground nut oil to Rs. 9.00 per kg and made announcement. But at the very next day the price went to Rs 9=25 per kg.

People smelt corruption. Agitation was launched to remove CM. It went to a critical stage. Ravishankar Maharaj a veteran Mahatma Gandhian and social worker before whom Chimanbhai Patel had sworn in as the CM, he asked Chimanbhai Patel to resign. Ravishankar Maharaj was considered the “Soul of Gujarat”. Next day Chimanbhai Patel resigned from the post of CM. Chimanbhai Patel wrote a book that from where, how and when Indira Gandhi collected money through unauthorized channels from Groundnut Oil Millers.

 

AGITATION WAS SUPPORTED BY ALL

Agitation was supported by all the associations and Mahatma Gandhian leaders in Gujarat.

Agitation continued. The cause and source of corruption was not only CM but it was the Nehruvian Congress and Indira Gandhi herself. Agitation aimed to dissolve assembly.

Looking to the density of the agitation the members of Jan Sangh and Congress (O) resigned from the assembly membership. In every town and city, area wise Nav Nirman Samiti was formed. Those committees pressurized Nehruvian Congress MLAs to resign.

There were some instances of violence, but by and large the agitation was peaceful.

Jai Prakash Narayan and many other Sarvodaya leaders had visited Gujarat. They were astonished to learn that the agitation was against corruption. Hitherto they had observed agitations in other states for demands to have some government run industry or some big project. Contrary to this, the agitation in Gujarat was against corruption. They were very much impressed and they gave their full support.

MEMBERS OF ASSEMBLY RESIGNED OR FORCED TO RESIGN.

Majority of the assembly members had resigned. Assembly was suspended long back. But Indira Gandhi tried to adopt delaying tactics as per her inherited culture. She was under impression that agitation cannot run for indefinite period. Sooner or later people would get tired, and then she would conduct bye-elections to fill up vacant posts.

But she was proved wrong. Agitation continued and it was becoming stronger and stronger. Mararji Desai went on indefinite fast. Ultimately the Assembly was dissolved. No body had raised a point of extra constitutional authority. It may be due to the then learned analysts of politics, were enough learned entities and were not confused by what is written in some books and what is written on the walls.

Indira Gandhi imposed presidential rule. She started making delay in mid-term election, so that she can get sufficient time to divide the people by castes and creeds in Gujarat. KHAM (Kshatrya, Harijan, Adivasi and Muslim) theory put to work.

 

MORARJI DESAI WHO BROUGHT DEMOCRACY ON TRACK

FAST FOR ELECTION

Again agitation was launched. Again Morarji Desai went on indefinite fast. Then Assembly elections were declared. Janata Front came to power.

Gujarat agitation instigated Jai Prakash Narayan to launch nation wide agitation. Meanwhile Allahabad High Court set aside the election of Indira Gandhi from Raibareli and it also disqualified Indira Gandhi for six years.

Indira Gandhi imposed emergency and made changes in constitution to re-establish her MP-ship. India learnt a lot lessons from the anarchy created by a party who had absolute majority in parliament. The learned political analysts should learn a perspective culture of party which got elected through a defective and not fully reliable system of people’s representation. They should identify the thick and illusive wall of demarcation of people’s representatives and the people’s voice in reality.

HAD JAI PRAKASH NARAYAN BROUGHT ANARCHY?

 

Anna Hazare may be a poorly literate person. But Jai Prakash Narayan was not. Jai Prakash Narayan was a laureate and social scientist. Anna Hazare may not use technical language of social science. But his conclusions are proper and meet the democratic requirements. Anna Hazare has vast experience on the aptitudes, attitudes and aims of bureaucrats and politicians especially that of Nehruvian Congress and its allies.

WHAT WAS THE OUTCOME OF THE AGITATION LEAD BY JAI PRAKASH NARAYAN?

Indira imposed emergency by which learned political analysts should have realized that Indian political system including the constitution was not able to provide democratic freedom where a truth can get respect irrespective from where it comes. Not only this, whatever comes from the Number One of the ruling party is the only truth and it must be honored at any cost to the nation. The latter has to be termed and has to be realized as anarchy.

Fortunately many veteran Gandhian leaders and thinkers were alive and they could guide the people of poor India on importance of democracy in 1977. The emergency imposed by Indira Gandhi collapsed of its own Burden.

 

STABLE GOVERNMENT OF NEHRUVIAN CONGRESS

Indira Gandhi along with her party got miserable defeat.

The new government lead by Morarji Desai of Janata Front made changes in constitution so that no mad and power hungry PM can take nation on ban.

CONCLUSIONS:

Agitation launched by Team of Anna Hazare, Baba Ramdev, RSS, VHP or whosoever are more trustworthy than the MPs of Nehruvian Congress. At the most the result would be dissolution of parliament. The dissolution of parliament should come as early as possible if the government really committed to democratic values.

The manifesto of each party should be precise on scope of political reforms.

e.g.

Following wings should be constituted independent in all respect. Staff and offices.

1     Administrative wing (Government)

2     Legislative wing (Parliament, State Assemblies and local bodies)

3     Investigative wing (Lok Pal & VC & CBI)

4     Judiciary wing (SC, HC & other courts and tribunals)

5     Information wing (CIC & SIC)

6     Census cum Election wing (Central and State Election plus census cum Voters Council Commission which would conduct all types of voters meetings on common cum single platform)

Shirish Mohanlal Dave

Tags: Controversy, Extra Constitutional, So called Learned, political analysts, Perambulator, Ignorant on history, vested interest, Nehruvian, Indira, Emergency, Ramayana, Supremacy

Read Full Post »