Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘Emergency’

Who is more guilty? Navaz Sharif or Man Mohan Singh.One can serve the nation at its

best when the person occupies a power post. The best post is the post of Prime Minister. One has to struggle to occupy this post.

Navaz Sharif

Navaz Sharif is the Prime Minister of Pakistan. He has been committed to serve his nation. He has put all his efforts in politics. He is in politics since more than 30 years. During this period, he has been come up of his own efforts from a small party worker through a Chief Minister of a state and then the Prime Minister. He has also faced vindictance as and when Pakistan had been remained under marshal law. Navaz Sharif is not equivelantly illiterate like our white Rabdi Devi of India (Sonia Gandhi) and brown Rabdi Devi of Bihar. Navaz Sharif is a law graduate. He had struggled a lot.

SITUATION IN INDIA

But in India, the situation is not like that. There were many PMs who put no effort and became Prime Minister. Among them are, Indira Gandhi, Rajiv Gandhi and Man Mohan Singh. Indira Gandhi had become Prime Minister under Kamraj Plan which was executed by JL Nehru to make his daughter to pave a road to PM-ship. Rajiv Gandhi was sworn in as the PM by the then President of India viz. Zail Singh. This Zail Singh once upon a time, had declared that he is so much so committed to the then Prime Minister Indira Gandhi that if Indira Gandhi asked him to broom he was ready to broom. This President invited Rajiv Gandhi, (son of Indira Gandhi who, held the PM post just before she was murdered) with a taken for granted the post facto proposal, the post facto candidature and the post facto approval of the Indian Nehruvian Congress parliamentary party. The post facto approval in deciding the leader of the parliament is constitutional or unconstitutional is a matter of research.

Consequent to the death of Rajiv Gandhi, and under the parliamentary elections Indian Nehruvian Congress, could not get a majority. Sonia should have been made leader of the new parliament. But she was in a vivid mind. There was no unanemousy and Narasinha Rao was made the PM of an alliance lead by Indian Nehruvian Congress. Narsinha Rao acted efficiently but the efficiency pinched Indian National Congress. Sonia Gandhi was not holding any recognised power post in the then Indian Nehruvian Congress Party. Sonia Gandhi when she came out of sadness of her husband’s death, she was to be posted as the PM as per the dynastic tradition of Indian Nehruvian Congress, since the Number One power post was the Post of PM.

But why Narsinha Rao was selected as the leader of the house? As per the theory of probability and because when Narsinha Rao had been selected as the leader of the house Sonia Gandhi was post-less.

The post of Indian Nehruvian Congress President post was held by Sitaram Kesri. He was not ready to quit. Sitaram Kesri physically  made unseated from the chair of Indian Nehruvian Congress. One must know that to prepare such a conspiracy or a procedure or an exercise to throw Sitaram Kesri out, was to be worked out. To create an atmosphere and to put the rein of the party in the hands of Sonia Gandhi was not a short time project. Hence under this situation Narsinha Rao could capture the post of PM.

Narasinha Rao was a senior and an experienced leader in politics. He started to ignore Nehruvian policies. This was against the tradition of Indian Nehruvian Congress. But was not possible to make Narsinha Rao unseated from the chair.

INDIAN NEHRUVIAN CONGRESS (INC)

Those who knows the politics within the Indian Nehruvian Congress party, the Number One Power Post has to be reserved for a progeny of Nehruvian Dynasty. Though Narasinha Rao was an efficient PM, the efficiency of Narasinha Rao was not purcolated. The changes were not known to the bottom level voters. Hence the Indian Nehruvian Congress lost the majority in the succeeding general elections.

The BJP alliance  got a very thin majority. Indian Nehruvian Congress is a party run by coterie committed to a progeny of Nehruvian. This coterie decided that Number One power post inveriably should be held by Nehruvian and Nehruvian only. Nehruvian means, a faithful Nehruvian to the preceded Nehruvian PM. No chance should be taken to install any body else who is not a progeny of Nehruvian dynasty.

NUMBER ONE POWER POST

Parliamentary elections conducted in 2004, Indian Nehruvian Congress party became the largest party with its allied parties. Besides this, some other  parties having the similar culture were also ready and eager to support Indian Nehruvian Congress party. This alliance was termed as United Progressive Alliance (UPA). This UPA anonymously selected  Sonia Gandhi as the leader selected as the leader. Sonia went to the then President with the list of the MPs and the proof as she was supported by them. But under the Indian Constitution by default Sonia was not a qualified candidate for PM ship. This point was raised by Subrahmanian Swami and the then President of India APJ Abdul Kalam asked Sonia Gandhi to clarify.

Such question was beyond the capacity of the brain power of Sonia Gandhi. She came back to the coterie. The coterie was not ready to take any risk. Coterie searched out for an obedient MP. The coterie picked up Man Mohan Singh.

MAN MOHAN SINGH

This Man Mohan Singh was two step ahead of Zail Singh so far “obedience” and the “commitment” to Nehruvian (Sonia Gandhi) is concern.

Though Man Mohan Singh knows very well that:

“India is a democratic country,

“The democracy is deeply rooted in India,

“India  had overthrown with in 18 moths the person who was autocrat,

“India may be poor …  India may be not that literate like France … but India had defeated the sitting PM and her coterie along with her party by more than half a lakhs votes in the elections,

“The democracy in India is more than 10000 years old,

“The people of India have also uprooted empires and the kings.

Despite of this, Man Mohan allowed him self to govern my extra-constitutional power centre viz. Sonia Gandhi and her coterie.

Why?

Is it that Man Mohan was being black mailed for having his black money in foreign banks and the matter was known to Nehruvians?

Is it that Man Mohan was hungry of eminities  enjoyable  by PM?

Is it that because Man Mohan had a share in the money being collected through unauthorised channels by the UPA leaders?

Is it that Man Mohan was having joint ventures with Indian Nehruvian Congress and its cultural allies?

Is it that Man Mohan was happy with his post?

Is it that Man Mohan was ignorant of constitutional provisions and the duties and responsibilities of the Prime Minister?

Is it because Man Mohan was of the opinion that if he would not remain the PM, the army would take over the rein of power?

During the UPA rule, India had become a bankrupt country. Indian Defence had become weak and it had left with meagre quantum of spare parts. Internationally, India had become an isolated nation.

CERTIFICATE DOES NOT GENERATE NATIONAL INTEREST AND WISDOM

One must know that Man Mohan failed to resign and protected all of the thieves of Indian Nehruvian Congress party and its cultural allies.

He gave liberty to take decision to A. Raja in making money through unauthorised channels and allowed them to do cognizible offences.

As per Indian Constitution, Prime Minister is responsible for all the shortcomings and the gains of every portfolios. Whereas the minister is responsible for only of his own portfolio.

If a person fails in his responsibility, he has to be punished by the PM. If the PM does not punish a minister who failed in its responsibilities, then the PM has to be punished.

Man Mohan as per the Indian Constitution cannot delegate full power inclusive of arbitrary power to any of his ministers.

No body in a democratic government can enjoy arbitrary power.

In a democratic government all powers are discretionary power. Every authority has to convince its self with valid reasons. The Powers of the PM are the delegated powers by the President. The delegated powers cannot be further delegated as per the constitution. Man Mohan must be aware of this constitutional and lawful provisions.

Now look at the Coal Gate Scam. The PM himself was holding the ministry of Coal. The auction of coal mines was a fraud. Man Mohan Singh being a minister of coal, he was the first responsible person. But he did not resign and he was not prosecuted.

But for all these lawlessness, failing in duties Man Mohan Singh was spared on the plea that

“What to do? This fellow viz. Man Mohan Singh is a clean person. He has not earned a single penny out of these frauds and scams. Man Mohan should be spared. He is not only well educated but highly educated and highly qualified person. He had held many high level posts, not only in India but abroad too. Once upon a time he had held the highly important and honourable post of Governor of the Reserve Bank of India. Look at his innocent face. Such person cannot be held responsible for any fraud or scam. Yes, what shortcomings we have noticed, are due to the reason of his helplessness. He had been made helpless. It is not his fault. It is the fault of the “others”. Every body knows and at least media knows who are these “others”. But the agenda of media was not to pass any blame on these “Others”.

INDIAN MEDIA AND NAVAZ SHARIF

But Indian media is heavily active even out of proportion to pass blame on Navaz Sharif for his failure in administration. It is the matter of research as to why Zee News too, is overacting to pass blame on Navaz Sharif?

Navaz Sharif has come up of his own efforts. Pakistan has a very wide back ground of military rule. Just like in India when a person or organisation remains in power for a very long period, it becomes corrupted and developed vested interest. It produces, develops and controls many power centres. Similarly Military officers in Pakistan controls many centres of production of commodities, contractual agencies, education centres, trade centres and what not? It has very close links in political power centres, intelligence agency, beauraucracy, antisocial organisations, mafias, terrorists organisations etc… All these work jointly to maintain their vested interests.

If in India the leaders like Nitish Kumar can surrender to antisocial elements like Shahabuddin, then how Navaz Sharif can neglect joint nexus of Military, Intelligence agency, antisocial elements and terrorists organizations?

Is it that Navaz Sharif has no option?

Yes. Navaz Sharif has no option but to resign.

But what is about the consequences that would result to his resignation?

Besides this, is it really a good option for Pakistan? If a self made leader of an elected party under constitution, resigns, then the nexus made of extra constitutional authorities would take hold of the administration. Is it is not the fact that by passing blame fully on Navaz Sharif, we are inviting military rule in Pakistan? At present Pakistani military has not constitutional power, but if Navaz Sharif would resign, the nexus of Anti-social elements, intelligence agency and terrorists would get full power and free hand.

THE GREAT PILOO MODI ANSWERS

Once upon a time, on imposition of emergency by Nehruvian progeny Indira Gandhi, and when the Janata Front Government in Gujarat still was not toppled, one of the best parliamentarians, Piloo Modi gave an answer to a question asked to him.

The question was “what is wrong if the government works better in autocracy than in democracy?”

The reply of Piloo Modi was that “we can afford bad governance in democracy but we cannot afford so called good autocracy”.

We have seen that due to the frauds, scams and lies of Indian Nehruvian Congress and its allied leaders, we could defeat them and prosecute them. Because in democracy we have a substitute. But in autocracy we have no option to have a substitute.

To protect Navaz Sharif is hundred times better than to protect Man Mohan Singh. We can have a live hope for a better democracy in Pakistan. Man Mohan Singh opted to remain in power for his undisclosed interest and undisclosed treaty with Indian Nehruvian Congress.

PROTECT NAVAZ SHARIF. HIT HARD ON MILITARY AND ITS NEXUS.

NAVAZ SHARIF IS 100 TIMES MORE SHARIF THAN MAN MOHAN SIGH. NO BODY CAN GIVE CLEAN CHIT TO MAN MOHAN.

Shirish Mohanlal Dave

Tags:

Navaz Sharif, Man Mohan Singh, Sonia Gandhi, Indian Nehruvian Congress, Indira Gandhi, Nehruvian progeny, Number One Power post, Emergency, Piloo Modi, Afford democracy,

Read Full Post »

NEHRUVIANS INTOLERANCE AND DISRESPECT TOWARD HUMAN RIGHTS

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

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

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

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

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

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

JAWAHARLAL NEHRU:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

INTOLERANCE OF NEHRU

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

INDIRA GANDHI:
DISRESPECTS:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

INTOLERANCE OF INDIRA GANDHI:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RAJIV GANDHI

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

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

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

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

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

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

300

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

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

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

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

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

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

(2) The GANG disrespects BJP leaders.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What does this GANG want?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Shirish M. Dave

Tags:

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

Read Full Post »

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

BROTHER DONKEY IS WORRIED OF ANARCHY

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

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

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 APPOINTED AS CM BY INDIRA GANDHI AN OASIS IN DESERT OF NEHRUVIAN CONGRESS

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

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

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?

 

JAI PRAKASH NARAYAN HAD NOT 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

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 »

%d bloggers like this: