Posts Tagged ‘democracy’
IT IS NOT BAD, BUT IT IS HURTING: G. D. Bakshi on “Quit India”
Posted in Social Issues, tagged Academic interest, “Quit India’, Candidature, Civil disobedience, communication, Controversy, Cripps Mission, delegates, democracy, dialogue, Difference of opinion, Emergency General Body meeting, faith, freedom of expression, Freedom struggle, G. D. Bakshi, Gandhi, Indian National Army, Indira Gandhi, Jai Prakash Narayan, Judgement, Lawful, line of action, logical, Mahatma, majority, members, non-violence, party, Piloo Modi, Pradeepji, President, Prime Minister is not supreme in a party, principle, protest, provincial, Resign, revolt, ridiculous, sincere, Spirit of the judgement, Subhash, Supreme Court, Working Committee on August 17, 2018| Leave a Comment »
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
WHO HAS NOT APPLIED MIND …?
Posted in Social Issues, tagged 15 days, 3rd single largest party, Alliance, Appointment, arbitrary, assembly, authorize, bjp, burden of proof, CM, common agenda, constitution, delegates, democracy, discretionary, First single largest party, flaw, floor of the house, foul, general body, Governor, HC, horse trading, INC, Indian Nehruvian Congress, JDS, justified, Karnataka, legal time, majority, notice, null and void, petition, policy, Power, protem Speaker, Provisional Speaker, reasonable, resolution, SAY, SC, seat, second single largest party, Spirit, Supreme Court, terms and conditions on May 23, 2018| Leave a Comment »
WHO HAS NOT APPLIED MIND …?
The elections of Karnataka state Assembly are over.
The election result produced a hung assembly
BJP got 104 Seats,
Indian Nehruvian Congress got 78 seats,
JDS+ got 38 seats
And
Others got 2 seats
Somehow it appears that there is a flaw somewhere in the process of calling for proving the majority.
Who are the parties?
(1) Governor of Karnataka
(2) Nehruvian Congress and JDS
(3) BJP
(4) Supreme Court Judges
(1) Governor of Karnataka what was his role?
(1.1) to invite the leader of the First Single largest party, to take an oath as CM,
(1.2) to ask the CM to appoint the provisional temporary speaker from the elected members to swear in,
(1.3) to ask the CM to prove his majority on the floor of the house
(1.4) the CM should prove the majority support within 15 days on the floor of the house, not elsewhere,
(1.5) the CM to form the government after proving the majority support on the floor
Is there any flaw at the end of the Governor?
No. There is no flaw in inviting the leader of the First Single largest party to take an oath as CM, because it was as per the guide line prescribed by the Sarkaria Commission in its report and it has been approved by the SC.
Was there any flaw in the appointment of Mr. Bopiah as provisional speaker of the house?
No. There was no flaw in his appointment because he was the senior most under the criteria of length of service in a cadre. Allegation against him of being bias was set aside by the SC long back in some other case. He had also worked as provisional speaker previously too.
Is there any flaw in asking the CM to prove the majority on the floor of the house?
No. There was no any flaw in asking him to prove the majority on the floor of the house. This was in accordance to the Supreme Court ruling in some other case that the majority has to be proved on the floor of the house, not elsewhere.
Is there any flaw in asking to prove the said majority support within 15 days.
No. There was no flaw in giving a maximum period up to 15 days for the job entrusted to the leader of the First largest single party. 15 days period is the legal period.
Why 15 days period is termed as the legal period?
Something related with multiple subjects and objects to be dealt with, a time limit of minimum 15 days has to be given, to avoid injustice to person/persons/party/parties. If the time period has the relation with a single person with no gathering, searching the matter related document/documents i.e. documental studies, then 72 hours’ time limit is justified. Here in our subject matter, this was not the case. Here it is a policy matter where the whole party’s members have some SAY. These SAYs are to be compiled and needed to arrive to several decisions related with alliance including the alliance to me made or not, through discussion within the party and then through consensus an amicable solution with or without some terms and condition. The leader of a party cannot take decisions at his whims in a democratic country. Hence the 15 days’ time limit given was a well justified limit.
Therefore the decisions of the Governor was foul-less and flawless.
The further details on this justified time limit we would see later.
(2) Nehruvian Congress and JDS
These are the petitioners. We do not know whether Nehruvian Congress is the First Part of the petitioner or the Second Part. Similarly about the JDS. Irrespective of the First Part or Second Part, the BJP lawyer should have asked to clarify. Leave this aside, it is the right of any person/organization to submit a petition. It is up to the discretion of the SC to get convinced or not. We would examine this point further under the actions of the SC.
(3) BJP, is off course the opposite party. Action of BJP and SC we would discuss together.
(4) Supreme Court:
Who has issued instructions?
Governor has issued the instructions.
If the governor’s instructions are challenged then the Governor becomes the defendant. BJP cannot become either an opposite party or a defending party. But here, BJP being the first largest single party, its interest is affected if the SC does not hear BJP.
As for the Governor, the Governor cannot be called before any court. When this is the position of the Governor, then, it implies that the Governor must have an unchallengeable power, to take the decision. But no authority is allowed to take arbitrary decision in a democratic country. The decision should be taken with discretion. Discretion means reasonable and justifiable.
The task before SC was to decide whether the instructions issued by the Governor contained any flaw and to rule on:
(1) To entertain the petition or not, when the Governor has discretionary power.
(2) If yes, then whether any instruction of the Governor was discretionary or arbitrary? If the SC finds prima-facie in the petition that any instruction of the Governor contains flaw, then the SC can entertain the petition.
The SC has ruled that the 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
WOW !!! WHAT A CULTURE … of Nehruvian Congress … !!!
Posted in Social Issues, tagged 1st single largest party, 2nd single largest party, 3rd single largest party, 4th single largest party, assembly, camel, democracy, Dog, failed, Governor, ICS examination, indira, Jawahar Lal Nehru, Judge, Karnataka, logic, mahatma Gandhi, Moti Lal, nehruvian, not straight, political values, post poll alliance, pre poll alliance, RaGa, Rahul, Rajiv, Sarkaria Commission, SC, social values, Sonia, state, Supreme Court on May 20, 2018| Leave a Comment »
WOW !!! WHAT A CULTURE … of Nehruvian Congress … !!!
The elections of Karnataka state Assembly are over.
The election result produced a hung assembly
BJP got 104 Ssats, Nehruvian Congress got 78 seats, JDS+ got 38 seats and others got 2
Now as per the guide line prescribed under Sarkaria Commission report, the Governor is supposed to invite the leader of the first single largest party to form a government provided it has submitted the claim.
Supreme Court Approval:
It is specifically mentioned in the report, this first single largest party should be invited to form the government. Any alliance formed, after the poll results, would be over looked. Supreme Court too, had approved this criteria.
The BJP leader had submitted his claim.
The Governor of Karnataka state, invited the leader of the First Single largest party viz. BJP who had secured 104 seats.
What is the view of INC (Indian Nehruvian Congress)?
When the vote counting was in progress, and the Nehruvian Congress realized that it has no scope of getting sufficient seats to qualify as the first single largest party, and it has also realized that BJP is to get qualified as a first single largest party, Nehruvian Congress announced that it would support the 3rd single largest party to form the government. i.e. the leader of 3rd single largest party must submit its claim to form the government.
This looks very much funny
Nehruvian Congress is well known for its corruption, fraud, lies and scandals. It was also known to the Nehruvian Congress leaders that if it submits its claim to form the government, then JDS (Janata Dal Secular) would not support the Nehruvian Congress. That is why Nehruvian Congress tempted JDS to submit its claim to form the government. Nehruvian Congress propagated heavily its opinion under its so-called democratic understanding that the BJP should not submit its claim. BJP which is the First Single Largest Party if submits its claim it would be immoral, undemocratic and murder of democracy. If the Governor invites the 3rd Single largest Party viz. JDS, it would be full of moral values, democratic and constitutional.
That is according to Nehruvian Congress, the Governor of Karnataka state must reject the claim of 1st Single Largest party. 2nd largest party is not willing to submit its claim hence the governor must invites 3rd single largest party to form its government.
Does this not look ridiculous?
It may look ridiculous, but Nehruvian Congress has its own “Humpty Dumpty Dictionary” to define political terminologies.
WHY THE SARKARIA COMMISSION AND THE SUPREME COURT HAS IGNORED THE ALLIANCE FORMED AFTER ELECTIONS?
The governor has to use his/her discretion as to who can form the stable government.
More the number of parties more to be prone to unstable.
Parties having less number of seats can form an unstable government. A well-known evidence is available in Indian political history. To keep the first single largest party away from forming the government, 2nd and 3rd and 4th single largest parties supported the fifth single largest party to form the government and the leader of the fifth single largest party was having the strength of one seat. It was the leader himself.
Here, in the case of the Karnataka election, the situation is not exactly the same. But if the two post-election allied parties where the party having small seat strength becomes the leading party then they are more prone to give unstable government. Otherwise also they have no well thought out, program, discussion, mutual understanding of the issues and policy matters. They are more prone to get collapsed. Had they been pre-poll alliance they could have settled, issues and policy and could have prepared common minimum program. There could be a differences among elected members and can have serious problem in post poll alliances.
Nehruvian Congress had never clear concepts about democracy. It is beyond their brain. JL Nehru was self-recognized socialist. “Socialist” means traditional communist. However there is little difference between the ideology of JL Nehru and Communist. By virtue of vicinity of MK Gandhi and his struggle for independence from British through the non-violence and democratic way, JL Nehru was not in position to talk of autocracy. Let us keep this topic away, but inherently Nehruvian Congress believes in autocracy. It appears like that.
POST-POLL ALLIANCE AND DEMOCRACY
If you have a say, if you are heard, if you are honored, if you are replied then you are living in a party honoring the democratic values.
But in a post-poll alliance, there is no scope for a member to submit his SAY, no chance to be heard, no scope to be replied. Leave aside the point of being honored.
IS IT THAT POLITICAL PARTY IS A HERD?
Nehruvian Congress does not understand the meaning of Pre-poll alliance and post-poll alliance.
Party is formed by its principles and policy. Like minded persons form a party. Give a name to the party. An alliance with some other party, is a policy matter. Before taking a decision on any matter, related with policy, it is mandatory in democracy, to discuss the matter in a general body meeting, so that the members can submit their SAY. Then a resolution is to be passed.
What to talk of general body? A resolution approved by the then Nehruvian Congress ministry in power, was torn out by Rahul Gandhi the prince of Sonia. Sonia is the wife of Rajiv Gandhi, Rajiv Gandhi was the son of Indira Gandhi, Indira Gandhi was the daughter of Jawahar Lal Nehru and Jawahar Lal Nehru was failed in ICS competitive examination of British, the father of Jawahar Lal Nehru Moti Lal Nehru. Moti Lal Nehru was one of the founder member of Indian National Congress. This Moti Lal Nehru asked Mahatma Gandhi to settle JL Nehru in politics.
When India was on verge to get independence, the central working Committee had called for the proposals for the post of Prime Minister. No provincial Committee had put forward the name of Jawaharlal Nehru for PM-Ship in 1946, despite of this, Jawahar Lal Nehru did not withdraw his candidature for PM-Ship, despite of Mahatma Gandhi brought this point to his notice. Jawaharlal Nehru ignored the verdict of his party and gave an indirect message that if he would not be made leader of the party he would generate a split in the party. At that time India was facing crucial issue of maintaining united India after independence. At that crucial time JL Nehru indicated symptoms of breaking of the party. This became the basic culture which was put forward by Nehru. The daughter of JL Nehru, viz Indira Gandhi, not only degraded heavily, but murdered not only the political values but also the social values of the Indian politics.
Despite of serial defeats Nehruvian Congress is not ready to improve its culture. The leaders of Nehruvian Congress feel that they have all liberty to blame anybody on any issue and can abuse anybody by any name.
The governor of Karnataka invited the leader of 1st single largest party to form the government. The Nehruvian Congress party went to the Supreme Court at midnight and challenged the governor’s decision, as being undemocratic and unconstitutional. Nehruvian Congress asked the SC to put a stay on the governor’s decision. The Supreme Court did not give any stay on the decision of the governor, and it also rejected demand. Further the court asked the governor of Karnataka to appoint a provisional Speaker of the house to conduct voting of the elected members to see if the invited leader possesses the clear majority or not on the floor of the Assembly.
The Governor appointed Mr. Bopaiah as the speaker from the elected members of house.
Nehruvian Congress started agitation against the order of Supreme Court. Called the governor by abusive words and further threaten the country that there would be blood shed on the roads.
Nehruvian Congress also challenged the appointment of provisional speaker viz. Mr. Bopaiah stating that the provisional speaker is a bias one on the record and not even he is the senior most.
As for allegation “Bias” it had been already decided by the SC and the allegation was set aside by the Supreme Court long back in some other case.
As for the seniority it is difficult to understand the logic of the Nehruvian Congress leaders. According to the Nehruvian Congress, the definition of the seniority is the oldest member among all the other members in the house.
Funny part is that nowhere such definition existed. Even in Government services the seniority is based upon length of service in the same cadre. Mr. Bopaiah had completed more than two terms as MLA and he was the speaker twice.
NEHRUVIAN CONGRESS LEADERS CALLED THE GOVERNOR AS A DOG OF BJP.
Nehruvian Congress leaders are heavily active on calling by names the person they dislike, irrespective of the post occupied by the targeted person. The targeted person could be an ordinary MLA, a MP, a Minister, a Chief Minister, the Prime Minister, a Governor or even a Supreme Court Judge too. Nehruvian Congress leaders belong to a dynastic party where a person belonged to the Nehruvian dynasty, is only honorable, none else unless he/she is faithful to the dynasty.
RaGa says our party possesses a school of thoughts, we believe in love, we believe in uniting the nation, we have sacrificed for nation, we care for democratic rights of people, we care for poor, whereas the BJP leaders have no principles, they hates others, they divide the nation, none of them have fought for independence, they are autocrat, they do not care for the poor mass.
Actually all these statements very well applies to themselves. We do not need to go into the proof. The very recent approach of its one of the leaders under a discussion on TV channels, proves that how much hypocrisy they possessed. E.g. A leader calls Narendra Modi a murderer of democracy because he attended the marriage ceremony of the daughter of Nawaz Sharif and gave a saree in gift to his wife in Pakistan. Recall, Indira Gandhi had gifted a portion of POK (which was captured by Indian military in the Indo-Pak war 1971) to Bhutto under Shimla Pact. The same Nehruvian Congress woman had put 66000+ persons inclusive of veteran Mahatma Gandhians, behind the bars for indefinite period without any existence of the offence at their end and without any prosecution.
Nehruvian Congress men are calling the Governor of Karnataka a dog. When this was opposed in a TV Channel under a discussion, the leader was not found apologetic, but he defended “I love dogs” and then diverted the matter. Means if you love dogs, there is nothing wrong, you have permit to call a dog to anybody. This is the logic of leaders of Nehruvian Congress.
What is the fault with other animals? We love every animal. All the animals are innocent, thankful and lovely. It may be cow, horse, donkey, pig, or a fox too. Should we call these leaders of Nehruvian Congress a fox or a donkey? But I think that would the insult of these animals.
Further, look at this …
Nehruvian Congi leaders called him NIKKAMMAA in 1997 then toppled him
Nikkammaa means USELESS. ” निकम्मा”
Now they want to oblige him by tempting his son to become the Prime Minister. This is the level of their words.
Congress has to wait for the full process of JDS is invited and proves its majority on the floor of house. Failure of Yadurappa is not enough.
Shirish M. Dave
There is poem in Gujarati, where a Camel says: “Here in this world no body is straight;
Parrot’s beak is not straight, crane’s neck is not straight, Dogs tail is not straight, Elephant’s trunk is not straight, Buffalo’s horns are not straight, Tiger’s nails are not straight … “ On hearing this, the fox said to the camel, that as for other animals only one limb is not straight, but as for you, all your eighteen limbs are not straight.
Nehruvian Congress is like Camel.
NEHRUVIANS HAVE SPOILED THE MINDSET OF INDIAN MUSLIMS
Posted in માનવીય સમસ્યાઓ, tagged Bhagvat Geeta, Competence, Constitution of India, Dalit, democracy, Drama, EC, human rights, incapable, Intelligence, Islam, Jasodaben, Manu Smriti, minority Community, Muslim, Naendra Modi, Nehruvian Congress, pre-independence, Religious minority, Shankaracharya, struggle for independence, Triple Talaq, truth is honored, Veda, women on May 13, 2017| Leave a Comment »
NEHRUVIANS HAVE SPOILED THE MINDSET OF INDIAN MUSLIMS
It is a matter of surprise that the Nehruvian Congress has become successful to instigate a big lot of Muslims, even on the matters not related with Hindu-Muslim relations, that the court case of “Triple Talaq” has been generated by Hindus.
AN EPISODE OF A BOOK SHOP
In a book stall of Islam, there was a display board, which was indicating the Issue of “Triple Talaq” is being misunderstood, and Muslims are not favoring the existing provision of Triple Talaq. We are ready to discuss. Please come and discuss with us. So far the display is concern, it is fine, that Muslims are ready to protect the human rights of Muslim women.
Just as a curiosity I asked whether the existing method of giving Talaq to a Muslim woman by a Muslim man, simply by spelling out “Talaq Talaq Talaq”, has been supported by Koran or not? It was a simple question, which could have been replied under “Yes” or “No”.
But instead of this, the Muslim young man tried to explain at length. He said, it the misunderstanding and misinterpretation of our own Muslims of what really has been provided in Quran. Then he explained that there is provision of one month gap, between each word “Talaq”. We are ready to provide justice to our women. Why the Government should interfere?
The Muslim further added, “Look … we have our own marriage ritual. When the Government does not interfere in marriage ritual, why should it interfere in our system of “Talaq”? What is more important? “Marriage” or “Talaq”? Marriage is more important in the life than the “Talaq”. When the Government does not interfere in an important matter of “marriage” then why is it interfering in the less important matter of “Talaq”. Talaq is a personal matter. Two partners of the life, are not ready to live together. One person wants to be separated, how can we force him to live together? In Quran, there is a procedure as to how to deal with this matter of talaq. It asks the husband to say Talaq once. Then a time period is given for one month, during which the wife has to stay in the same house, so that both can rethink on the idea of separation. They have scope to improve their performance. Once again a time of one month is given after the spell out of second “Talaq”. Then ultimately the third time “Talaq” is spelled out. What is wrong in it?
Off course the Muslim was silent on the procedure which is being applied in practice with the Muslim woman. I had no interest to pose to put cross questions.
The Muslim continued. He said when the Government does not interfere into the injustice made to Hindu Dalits, Hindu women, why should it interfere into Muslims? Look … I can show you Manu-Smriti. How much injustice made to Dalits and women?
I tried to clarify, that Manu-Smriti is not a recognized book in Hindu religion. Recognized book is Veda and Bhagvat Geeta. Since the language of Veda is difficult to interpret, there is a simpler book named Bhagvat Geeta. However if there is a contradiction between Veda and Bhagvat Geeta, then what Veda has said, has to be accepted. Besides this Shankaracharya has said, that what Veda said, that contradicts to our experience then what experience tells us, is to be accepted. E.g. If Veda says Fire is cool and our experience says Fire is Hot, then Fire is Hot is to be accepted.
The Muslim was not interested in this matter, he said, “Look at Jasodaben …?”
I said “Jasodaben? Which Jasodaben.” I could not link Jasodaben to this topic
HAD JASODABEN BEEN MUSLIM
The Muslim said; “oh! You do not know Jasodaben? Jasodaben is the wife of our Narendra Modi. Had this Jasodaben been a Muslim, she could have already re-married to another person if Narendra Modi would have given her divorce.”
I said “Jasodaben and Narendra Modi had mutually agreed to remain separate. Narendra Modi had taken clearance from Jasodaben, to live their own lives in their own way. If Jasodaben asked divorce, it would have been given by Narendra Modi. What is wrong if two persons get separated with mutual understanding? Look at the episode of Buddha. Buddha had not even taken the permission from his wife and he had left her even without any intimation.
The Muslim fellow was suddenly stopped the discussion and said “oh it is my time for Namaza” I am going. He went away.
What the Muslim fellow reflected to me an impression which was quite uncalled. He linked Hindu religion in the matter of “Triple Talaq”.
WHY THIS IMPRESSION IS BEING CARRIED BY MAJORITY OF THE MUSLIMS?
The responsible person and party for generating this atmosphere and mind set of minorities, is Nehru and his party.
NEHRUVIAN CONGRESS HAS NO GUTS
Nehru though presenting himself as a logical person, he himself was lacking in logical interpretation. He wanted India to be a secular country. But what was his definition of “Secular”?
In accordance to his belief and action, the definition of “Secular” means “let the religious minorities live their lives in their own way. The Government and the Constitution will not interfere in their traditions, rituals and lives. Even if any interpretation needed, the interpretation on any religious tradition, rituals and rights will be accepted as has been interpreted by their religious priests. If the interpretation contradicts the human rights provided under the Indian Constitution, the constitutional provisions would be modify to respect the religion of the minority community.
According to the Nehru and his fellow men, the feeling of religious minority community should not be hurt in the name of the constitution of India. It is the liberty of the religious community to have the feeling that “their religion is First” and their religion is above the Indian constitution. Nehruvian Congress leaders and their cultural allies still carry the same interpretation what Nehru had made. Shah Bano case is the good example to read the mindset of these pseudo secular gangs.
IT WAS BEYOND THE INTELLIGENCE OF NEHRU
Nehru was skillful in playing political Dramas. He could do all his adventures during the struggle of independence, as he had a lot money, the money his father earned as a lawyer. This made him very much popular among second level leaders of Congress, because Nehru’s house was the rest house for them as and when they come to Allahabad. Nehru’s dramas made him popular in lower level lots. All these could happen in the pre-independence period. This effect continued for few years after independence too.
WHAT IS DEMOCRACY?
The meaning of democracy is “The truth is honored irrespective of which level it comes from”.
The Democracy is the place “where all are equal before law”
Is it necessary to have the act in regards to a religion for its code of conduct, on the plea to show the respect to that religion?
There is no need to have any Code pertaining to a religion. i.e. To have a Hindu Code, Muslim Code, Christian Code … all is humbug on the plea that Indian Constitution has respect towards other religions and thereby our constitution has the provisions to approve the religious code.
TAKE AN EXAMPLE OF HINDU CODE:
What does a code incorporate?
Marriage, Divorce and Succession.
Do we need such code?
Government must say; we are least concern with the system, ritual and celebration that you adopt in regards to your marriage. We want you to follow the following procedure.
PROCEDURE FOR MARRIAGE
Both of you should submit an affidavit that (1) Our status is unmarried (2) We want to marry each other (3) Our permanent addresses are as under with photo(4) We herewith pay Rs xxxx/- to publish notice for inviting any objection from public on our proposed marriage. (5) We will sign the document of the marriage in this office on this Date.
The office of the Department of Family Welfare or the Family Court, would publish a notice with details of Name, parents’ full name, Surname, photos of the coupe of the proposed marriage, addresses etc… in the three prominent local news papers.
The Government is least concern with the ritual, celebration or system what adopted or even not adopted by the couple.
PROCEDURE FOR DIVORCE
Similarly in case of a divorce, the couple would submit an application jointly or separately that they have agreed to be separated under the mutually agreed conditions. The couple would submit a proposed mutually agreed Draft of Agreement. In case of any absence of mutually agreed conditions, the case would be heard (which even now prevails) as usual and judgement would be given to provide justice to each one of the couple.
LAW OF SUCCESSION
In the matter of succession, one man can marry one girl only. The government cannot permit more than one wife at a time. A person must apply for a divorce to the existing partner before getting married to another.
As for the property, the wife has right to 1/3 share of the property of her husband or vice versa if the property is an earned property. If the property is an inherited property, the wife will have the 1/3 of the share of her husband’s share. Off course 1/3 share is shown here as an example. It may be decided by the Court depending upon the liability.
Law of succession must be same for all the religion and communities. At present the law of succession is different for different communities. It is prone to become a fraud unless the matter is brought before the court of law.
No person can enjoy a right to his own benefit, harming others for no fault of others. A person includes a group, a community based on geography, language, region, religion or organization as the case may be.
WAS NEHRU INCOMPETENT?
Was Nehru incompetent to understand Human Rights and respect towards religion? Nehru was not only incompetent, he was not capable to understand what is meant by justice. He was simply pampering minority to get spoiled.
We do not need several Acts like “Right to Information”, “Right to freedom to express”, “Consumers Right”, “Right to service”, “Right to organize”, “Right to elect”, “Right to call back (though this right is inbuilt in right to elect, but the EC does not entertain this right on the plea of absence of procedure. This looks funny) etc. … provided the Court is capable to interpret all the expressed rights in the light of the human rights.
In short the Muslims need not abuse Hindu religion in the matter of Teen TALAQ, simply because the present BJP lead government does not follow the line of action of previous Nehruvian Congress lead Government.
Shirish Mohanlal Dave
Tags: Nehruvian Congress, Muslim, Triple Talaq, women, Jasodaben, Naendra Modi, Islam, Dalit, Manu Smriti, Veda, Bhagvat Geeta, Shankaracharya, Drama, pre-independence, struggle for independence, Religious minority, minority Community, Intelligence, Competence, incapable, democracy, human rights, EC, Constitution of India, truth is honored
Supreme Court of India has to interpret laws in true spirit of the human rights
Posted in માનવીય સમસ્યાઓ, tagged act, consumer, democracy, election, enact, executive, faith, Fraud, human rights, India, indira, Information, Law, MK Gandhi, natural right, Nehru, nehruvian, party, person, Power, preacher, Rajya, Rama, representative, Rule, teacher on February 20, 2015| Leave a Comment »
Supreme Court of India has to interpret laws in true spirit of the human rights
Nehruvian Congress a political party of India had ruled India for more than six decades with small breaks. During these six decades, it has ruled 30 years with absolute majority. 2 years with absolute autocracy, and remaining period with majority.
Despite of this, it has made more than 100 amendments in the Indian Constitution, In the name of public interest.
Was it necessary?
No.
When this Congress party is addressed as Nehruvian Congress, there is a purpose.
You cannot say this Congress as “Indian Nation Congress Party” though on record it is like that.
This name has given, and still it gives, a very wrong message that this is the same Congress Party that gave big contribution, to make India independent from foreign rule.
This matter has been discussed by me in Gujarati language on my website (TreenetramDOTwordpressDOTwwwDOTcom)
If it has to be told in brief, than we can say that a person is identified by its culture. Culture can be identified by its behaviour. The behaviour is experienced or being experienced or it is on record.
WHAT IS EXPECTED FROM A CULTURED PERSON?
Suppose you are A and the other is B.
A and B both had respect for each others.
A is communicating with B.
B suddenly stopped communication with A. A got confused.
It was an insult indirectly but direct. A felt so.
Instead of being emotional, A asked B. B kept mum.
The reason was unknown to A. Even though A is open at heart, there was no way for A as to how A can correct itself? B has to be transparent.
A cultured society maintains democracy and transparency.
A human is prone to commit mistake and error, knowingly or unknowingly.
The democracy provide scope for correction of individuals. To ask the other person for a clarification is the democratic cultured mindset. If the a behaviour or belief of A or B is not liked to B or A as the case may be. This thing to get clarified is advisable.
Because after all, all of us are here for pleasure and spread pleasure.
One cannot hurt a person and boycott that person without asking that person to clarify.
What applies to person to person (He to She, He to He, She to She or whatsoever) that applies to political parties too.
This is universal. If the cap fits to She or He can review her/his action. This is necessary to give a chance to a person to correct itself. This is called democratic and humanitarian mind set.
Here the subject is the so called Indian National Congress Party.
Let us come to the point of above Congress.
This Congress has always been run by Nehruvians after the independence since 1947. The Congress had been founded by Hume, a British, in nineteenth century. It was a party of white collars. When MK Gandhi came to India and he joined the Congress, he made it open for the whole mass of India irrespective of caste and economical status.
The intention had been changed from “Acting as an agency to be interface between British and people of India” to “Home Rule” and then to “Complete Independence”.
MK Gandhi thought that without involving mass, India cannot achieve proper independence with the tool of Non-violence. This was the culture of Congress at that time. In nineteen thirties, it had also passed a resolution that India would be a democratic country and it will have a written constitution.
The big question is what is democracy?
According to MK Gandhi, the definition of democracy is the political system under which “the truth is heard and the truth is honoured”. MK Gandhi more specifically called “Rama Rajya” means the way Lord Rama ruled India.
Who was Rama?
Rama was a king emperor of India walked on this earth, some 6000 years back from now.
What were the main political features of Rama.
(1) The ruler (king) has to rule as per the accepted legal and social traditions prevailing in the society.
(2) The ruler has only executive authority,
(3) Ruler is not authorised to make any change in the rule and traditions,
(4) The authority for making any change in a rule or tradition is the people
The group of preacher (teachers) will decide the method of finding out the way to decide peoples desire to change.
(5) The preachers (Teachers) will have no executive power.
We know the details of life of Rama and his wife Sita.
How did people behave?
How did Rama behave?
How did the group of teachers headed by Vashishtha behave and what was the result?
How did Rama honoured the controversial truth which was against a tradition (which still prevails in the democratic countries of world ) which he could not challenge to prove it as a falsehood?
The challenge had come from a very lower class poor person. But it was honoured by Rama.
Rama has been taken as an incarnation of Sun God (Vishnu), not because he won a lot wars. Rama was taken as an incarnation of Sun God because he discharged his duty very efficiently. He maintained law and order in democratic way.
Now here, in the present period, who has to act as a Rama? Who has to act as the team of teachers? Who has to propose reforms?
The head of the elected representatives are Rama.
We have a method of electing representatives under Indian Constitution. Off course the elections have to be proper and fair.
But the system was no fair enough for four decades. In 1988, VP Singh appointed Shesan as the Chief Election Commissioner, who enforced election provisions provided under law, very firmly. Till then, unless there was a flood against Nehruvian Congress, the Nehruvian Congress had never faced a defeat.
But after the enforcement of law strictly, the Nehruvian Congress could not get clear majority at any time.
This means, rules are there, but the interpretation has either not been made properly by the ruler in execution
or
the Supreme Court has not been asked to interpret the law,
or
the Supreme Court has not intervene of its own, to interpret any rule which could not protect the constitutional rights of citizens.
In fact, if the Supreme Court of India interprets the provisions of the Indian Constitution, in relevance to the human rights and natural rights, there is no need to enact further Acts.
Now let us look at the democratic rights based on and prevailed under the rule of Rama.
(1) The ruler has only executive authority: Why?
It is natural that some body has to take the responsibility of execution of rule.
(2) Ruler is not authorised to make any change in rule and traditions: Why?
Because if ruler is authorized to make changes, then the ruler will make the changes which are beneficial to that ruler only.
This has been very well experienced by India, during the rule of Jawaharlal Nehru, Indira Nehru and Rajiv Gandhi.
As for changes made in laws, by Indira NehruGandhi, one can write a thick Book like epic “Maha Bharata”. We will look into it, on the day of anniversary of “Emergency imposed by Indira in 1975.
(3) The authority for making any change in a tradition is the people: Why?
It is only the people are suffering. They are suffering due to any law or tradition and the rule is defective and required to be modified to meet with the protection of human rights. That is why the proposals should also come up from the mass. the mass includes teachers, experts, leaders of political parties etc… They cn come up through media or/and common platforms. Then political parties will draft a bill in consultation with experts and put it before public through the party’s election manifesto. If that party wins the elections, then the bill can be passed in parliament.
(4) The group of preacher (teachers) will decide the method of finding out the way to decide peoples’ desire to change the law: Why?
This is in fact drafting a bill. Supreme Court can re-examine or ask an expert committee to review the draft or bill or law.
(5) The preachers (Teachers) will have no executive power. Why?
Executive power has been entrusted with the ruler. And if preachers are entrusted with executive power then they become ruler. In these circumstances the ruler will get the power to change the law. In fact we want to deprive the ruler from using the power of making changes in the law, unless it has been proposed or permitted by the mass.
We want a system which enables the truth to be heard and honoured.
We do not want to promote old type of Rama Rajya. We want Rama Rajya where Sita the wife of Rama too gets justice.
How did Nehruvian Congress fail to provide justice to the mass by not protecting human rights?
In 1950-s, there were some scandals. But the then Prime Minister Javaharlal Nehru told the parliament that “we will not attend the scandals. You put before the public. Public would decide in the next election.”
A poor lot was remaining poor. JL Nehru introduced reservation for lower class, instead of providing employment with dignified salary to all poor mass. This was the foundation of Vote Bank politics.
MK Gandhi had said in his book, written somewhere in 1930-s, to first concentrate on cottage industries and education. But Nehru overlooked.
MK Gandhi had asked complete prohibition of liquor, to prevent the poor and illiterate mass from domestic economical anarchy. But Nehru ignored it.
Contrary to this, the successive government encouraged the relaxation in Prohibition on Liquor enacted under British Rule in Bombay State.
In many other ways, the Congress existed before independence lost its character after independence. That is why person like me address this Congress as Indian Nehruvian Congress Party, in place of Indian National Congress Party.
Why did Supreme Court fail to supervise the human rights?
There was no provision in Indian Constitution to take up the issue before the Court of Law, unless some one is affected adversely by any act or whatsoever.
P. I. L.
The First Non-Congress Congress government headed by Morarji Desai, enacted the provision of “Public Interest Litigation”.
This provision provides, any citizen to go before the High Court of a state or before the Supreme Court to declare specified law as null and void, as it is harmful to human right. Supreme Court would either ask the Government to amend the law suitably or to drop it or to re-frame it.
But why there should be a Public Litigation Act? In fact it is inbuilt in democracy that any law becomes null and void if it harms a human right.
Information Act
Why this act is needed?
You have appointed a servant to whom you pay against the duty you have asked to perform.
Now suppose you gave him some money to purchase some vegetable.
You have the right to tell that person as to what he has to purchase and from where he should purchase, how he has to purchase and how much he has to purchase.
When he comes back, it is your right to ask the person, to tell you the full information. It is the right of the person who gave the earned money for a purpose to a person who has been employed on payment.
Now what did the Congress do?
It restricted the right by enacting the act and provided lot exceptions. The act became nail-less to great extent.
Consumer Protection Act
You have the full liberty to select the item, the amount, the way and the quantity to spend the money you have earned.
The right to selection, the right to quality, the right to know the contents, the right to compare the prices, the right to enjoy options, the right to have the record of your purchase. All these rights are inbuilt rights under human rights.
Right to “call back” the elected representative.
This act yet not been enacted.
But it can be interpreted as inbuilt right to human right.
How?
You are selecting your representative to represent and execute, your view, desire, security and welfare.
You are paying the representative for that duties.
There is a system of payment by Tax. This is called public fund.
There is a system for selecting person. This is called system of elections.
Somehow jointly, you have selected a person of your geographical area for 5 years.
Now suppose this person increases its own monthly payment without your permission,
Suppose this person shows negligence on your security,
Suppose this person hides the facts,
Suppose this person making joint ventures with your recognized enemy,
Suppose you have lost faith in this person and you feel to terminate its services.
Definitely it is your inbuilt human right to terminate the services of this person at any time as soon as you feel that this person is not faithful.
Terminate the services of a person whom you have elected is termed as “Call Him/Her Back”.
This “Right to call back” has not been enacted yet. But such right to call back is inbuilt right in democracy.
How to call a person back if there is no system constituted in the Indian Constitution.
Let us take an example:
In 1971 Nehruvian Congress had won 140 seats out of 163 seats of Gujarat State Assembly.
The said government lost the faith of public. Its governance was full of scandals and frauds. People of Gujarat were highly dissatisfied by the government. It became a hot issue of discussion as to how to call, all the elected members of the state assembly, back.
People had to lodge a wide spread agitation and asked the representatives to resign. But Nehruvian Congress Members did not pay any heed and did not resign.
All the opposition party members had resigned. There was a very big mass movement in Gujarat. This was known as Nava-Nirman-Stir (A movement for Reconstruction of State Assembly). It is a long story as to how it became successful and at what cost.
But how to achieve this success, without loss of blood?
What do we do in a normal housing society?
20 percent members can ask the president of the society to call for an extra-ordinary general meeting with an agenda.
Here, in the “Call them Back” case, 20 percent voters of that area can submit an affidavit before the Election Officer, asking the election officer to conduct a vote of confidence in respect of the elected member.
If the representative secures 50+ percent of the votes polled, he would be continued as the representative, otherwise by-elections would be conducted for that assembly seat.
This means that only interpretation or directives are required for fulfillment of any human right, from the Supreme Court.
Shirish M. Dave
Tags: Democracy, Rama, Rajya, Rule, Law, act, enact, person, party, Nehruvian, MK Gandhi, Indira, Nehru, India, human rights, natural right, Information, consumer, election, representative, fraud, faith, preacher, teacher, executive, power
MK GANDHI AND DEMOCRACY
Posted in માનવીય સમસ્યાઓ, tagged Congress, constitution, contribution, democracy, faith, Gandhi, human rights, ideology, independence, Nehru, non-violence, party, politic, popular, principles, struggle, Subhash, transparency, truth, Violence on October 16, 2014| Leave a Comment »
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.
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
WAS M. K. GANDHI RESPONSIBLE FOR DIVIDING INDIA? Part – 3
Posted in માનવીય સમસ્યાઓ, tagged british, democracy, faith, Gandhi, government, grudge, Human values, ill will, issue, love, Non-issue, non-violence, pro-united India, transparency on September 30, 2014| 1 Comment »
WAS M. K. GANDHI RESPONSIBLE FOR DIVIDING INDIA? Part – 3
WHAT WAS THE DEPARTING KICK OF BRITISH?
Why MK Gandhi did not go on fast for pressurizing Congress to deny partition?
Gandhi has stipulated conditions for his every action. “Going on Fast” has certain pre-conditions. To understand Gandhi one must read Gandhi.
However the counter question is that as to why only Gandhi should go on fast?
One cannot shirk from their own responsibility by asking MK Gandhi as to why he did he not go on fast. Why did they themselves neither went on fast nor gave any call for Direct Action?
The leaders who were “Pro-United India” too could have gone on fast. Who had prevented them? Nobody had prevented them. They could have gone on fast onto the death. They too could have given a call for “Direct Action” to Hindus. Otherwise also Gandhi had to die as the result was to be the same.
In fact every leader wanted partition. The partition had become inevitable due to the Hindu-Muslim riots which was a result of the call of “Direct Action” given by Jinna to Muslims.
India was not in position to delay the independence.
It is also a matter to research that after the death of Sardar Patel why did the so called nationalists not forcibly drive out the Muslims from India?
Pakistans, Burma, Ceylon did such thing all the time? All of them have driven out others from their country in a big way. Omar and Farukh have driven out even 7 lakhs Hindus from their state in 1990 after executing a massacre of 3000+ Hindus, though Kashmir is an integral part of India.
Third Eye (ત્રીજી આંખ) 