Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘Gandhi’

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?

Image result for images of quit india movement

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;

Quit India

“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

Related image

Image result for images of quit india movement

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.

Image result for images of quit india movement

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.

Image result for images of quit india movement

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.

Related image

Shirish Mohanlal Dave

Read Full Post »

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Read for details
 

MK GANDHI AND DEMOCRACY

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

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

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

Democracy is a process where truth is heard and honored.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Political Parties

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

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

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

Now let us take the Congress.

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

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

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

COURT OF LAW

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

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

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

WAS GANDHI DEMOCRATIC?

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

What is “power pressure”?

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

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

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

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

No… A BIG NO.

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

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

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

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

CHAURA CHAURI EPISODE

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

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

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

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

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

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

NOW LOOK AT THE OTHER INSTANCE

In 1934 MK Gandhi had resigned from the Congress.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Subhash vs Nehru

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

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

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

Now what was the legal position?

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

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

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

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

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

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

IDEOLOGY THAT DECIDES THE FATE

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

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

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

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

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

THEN WHY SOME SO-CALLED ELITE HATE MK GANDHI?

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

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

Why?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

These people use to speak the language of Jinna.

Don’t hate them. Have a mercy.

NATURAL TREND IS TOWARDS NON-VIOLENCE

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

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

democratic Gandhi

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

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

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

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

The main reasons are:

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

Autocracy cannot survive with transparency,

Autocracy cannot survive with all the time with conducting elections,

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

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

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

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

The non-violent struggle is fought on moral ground,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

IS OUR COUNTRY A DEMOCRATIC COUNTRY?

NO.

Simply routine elections cannot make a country fully democratic.

We need to have constituted voters’ council,

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

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

We need lot of changes in governance and judiciary.

IS DEMOCRACY COMMITTED TO TOTAL NON-VIOLENCE?

No.

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

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

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

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

THEN WHAT IS ABOUT RAMA?

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

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

A RUSSIAN JOKE

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

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

“A” said I was favoring “Popovich”

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

“B” said, “I was against “Popovich”

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

“C” replied “I am Popovich”

This is all about socialism without transparency.

Shirish Mohanlal Dave

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

Read Full Post »

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.

MUSLIM LEADERS WERE LACKING IN HUMANITY

DON’T MAKE NON-ISSUE AN ISSUE. THIS BECOMES TO HIDE THE REAL ISSUE

One has to forget MK Gandhi, if one does not want to follow him.

MK Gandhi had not held any power post.

Those who held powers and were entrusted with duties and we pay them against their duties, we can pass one or other blame for their failure. Gandhi had acted as an ordinary person. It is your choice to follow his ideas or not. Gandhi is insignificant.

Do not forget Nehruvian. They always held power posts.

Nehruvians have not become insignificant. They had constitutional power and constitutional responsibilities. To perform their constitutional duties they had been paid very heavily from public account. They made blunders, frauds and scandals. They are still significant.

Efforts are still required to eliminate Nehruvian Congress. Nehruvian Congress can very easily come to power again, if the learned and elite people would go on discussing irrelevant, least significant and dead issues or non-issues like passing blame on MK Gandhi.

Gandhi is dead. You are alive. Nehruvian Congress and antinational forces are alive. Concentrate on them. If you do not concentrate on them, then you would be not be less than JAICHAND.

INDIA COULD DEFEAT FASCISTS AND AUTOCRAT LIKE INDIRA GANDHI

Narendra Modi has great respect for Mahatma Gandhi. Mahatma Gandhi has inspired many great leaders in the world. Let us not pass blame on him. He was very much tactful and he did his best for the nation. The credit goes to MK Gandhi for having firm rooted democracy in India. Due to firm rooted democracy only, India could withstand against the fascist forces of Indira Gandhi. It is only India in the world who could uproot the fascist government of Indira Gandhi within 18 months. France had taken 18 years to uproot fascist government.

Now let us expect from Narendra Modi not to act like Prithviraj Chauhan, but to act like Chanakya, to take India towards development to regain its thousands of year old dignity.

Even if Narendra Modi could not act, to the extent to your satisfaction, there is nobody else who can do better. Be very clear to prevent Nehruvian Congress from regaining power again at any cost. Your any impatience with Narendra Modi, can create a negative atmosphere to confuse the mass opinion. This would simply help Nehruvian Congress.

WHAT IS NON-VIOLENCE (अहिंसा)?

Gandhi has made a definition of Non-Violence as minimum violence. If a work can got be done by hitting a stick once, then do not hit twice.

i.e Non-violence is a relative term.

There is nothing like absolute Non-Violence. If some says that Non-Violence is an absolute term, then take him as a fraud.

Gandhi’s non-violence has no relation with cowardice.

Gandhi has said that “If I have to choose between Cowardice and Violence, then I would choose Violence.” This is carved below a statue of Mahatma Gandhi at Jabalpur.

Why did Gandhi promoted Non-violence against British government?

British believed in non-violence by law.

Democracy can make changes in the government without bloodshed.

Transfer of power or reforms can be made without bloodshed.

Exchange of ideas can make the change of belief. If the laws are providing injustice, then the laws can be changed. Mass opinion can be built up.

If the human rights can be secured without bloodshed, then there is no need to avoid the democratic way of correcting the opponents.

By logical arguments the opponents can be cornered and exposed. This would build pressure on the opponent if he has been abide by the principals of democracy.

Any change if brought through non-violence, it brings public awareness and also educate people. This steps up the society.

WHAT ARE THE PRE-CONDITIONS FOR THE GOVERNMENT AGAINST WHOM A PERSON CAN GO ON FAST.

The persons involved in governance have taken an oath, that they believe and they have faith in democratic values and humanity,

They are transparent,

They are ready to communicate with the opposition,

They are not prejudicial, but they are logical,

They are abide by the prevailing rules,

They do not have any ill will towards opposite party.

This indicates that they are ready to change the law if they are convinced.

WHAT ARE THE PRE-CONDITION OF THE PERSON WHO IS TO GO ON FAST?

The person has to issue a notice indicating the demand and the reason behind it.

The person should be ready for discussion all the time with anybody,

The person goes on fast on the principle of the public interest,

The person has no direct interest,

The person has love and faith in principle, for the other parts,

The person has no ill will towards opposite parts,

The person is ready to accept the punishment for his disobedience of law, under the prevailing law. The person is ready to undergo punishment.

WHY GANDHI DID NOT GO ON FAST?

The Congress leaders where willfully avoided the advice of MK Gandhi,

The public had no awareness and foresight on the consequences of the partition,

The public was not ready to support Gandhi and not ready to avoid the partition,

The British were determined for dividing India as Congress was ready to discuss with them on the terms of partition,

The delay in independence was likely to create more critical and serious problems under the control of British government,

The time to make public aware of the consequences and to create mutual love and faith between the two communities was very short,

Shirish Mohanlal Dave

smdave1940@yahoo.com

Tags: Non-issue, issue, human values, democracy, faith, love, ill will, grudge, non-violence, transparency, Gandhi, British, government, pro-united India

Read Full Post »

WHAT WAS THE DEPARTING KICK OF BRITISH?

Gandhi had expressed that he was deadly against partition.

British had sent Crips Commission who was to discuss the partition conditions. It was not to discuss any other options.

MK Gandhi who was the invited member to participate to help the Congress in presenting the case as to how to achieve freedom. But the way the British framed the basic conditions for independence was not acceptable to MK Gandhi. MK Gandhi asked Congress working committee to pass a resolution to boycott the Cripps Commission.

The Congress members did not agree to the advice of MK Gandhi. At that stage MK Gandhi said loudly that had been my Subhas here, he would have definitely obeyed my advice of boycotting the commission. MK Gandhi further said, when the committee members are determined to accept the partition, I cannot be a member of that committee. He boycotted the commission by resigning from the commission. I would not be a party in dividing India. Then MK Gandhi said “No body in Congress is ready to discuss with me and even no body in Congress is ready to hear me”.

This was the time when the leaders who were outside the Congress, should have stand by the side of Mahatma Gandhi firmly. But they did not. They were either divided or confused. No body stood by the side of MK Gandhi to support him.

DIRECT ACTION DAY IN CALCUTTA

The call of “Direct Action” given by Jinnah had made most leaders to realize the inevitability of division of India. People were also of the opinion that there was no option but to accept partition.

MK Gandhi too realized the necessity of partition, at that moment of time under “the Call of Direct Action” and the decisive approach of British Government and Muslim league leaders. Jinna was of the opinion that Muslims are different culture and there by different nation. Muslim needs a separate nation. Congress and MK Gandhi were not for to accept the theory of two nations. Once Gandhi asked Jinna if you become Hindu, in what way your culture would be different than a Hindu. Jinna could not reply to MK Gandhi. It was an historical truth that the origin of most Muslims in India is Hindu. Those who are not, they have also adopted the Hindu culture.  

What were the other options for independence of India?

THE OTHER OPTION WAS “FEDERAL UNION”

What meaning of “Federal Union”?

The meaning of Federal Union was to be worked out. As a simple meaning of Federal Union was a Union of Pakistan and India. Pakistan and India were to exists under the Federal Union, but India and Pakistan were to get autonomy in certain fields of governance. It was possible to pressurize British on the option of “Federal Un ion” had the proposal been made unanimously.

The British was firm in saying that the independence means to leave India with making proper arrangement and provision in a treaty that shows that they have cared to provide security and rights of all the communities of India.

FEDERAL UNION COULD NOT GET MATERIALIZED

The characters in dealing with the proposal for Federal Union were JL Nehru, Sardar Patel, MK Gandhi and Mhammeda Ali Jinna. It was not possible and advisable to call them at one place and to conduct the discussion. This was because it was a matter of confidentiality. Its premature disclosure can create a lot of problems. British can exploit the matter for instigating different community leaders indirectly to play decisive role. Bhulabhai Desai was the messenger. He was meeting and trying for consensus with Jinna, MK Gandhi, JL Nehru and Sardar Patel to make them agreeable on Federal Proposal.

Bhulabhai Desai met Sardar Patel and MK Gandhi. They were agreed to it. Then Bhulabhai Desai met Jinna. Jinna too agreed to it in principle. Bhulabhai Desai met JL Nehru. He totally disagreed to the proposal of Federal Union. JL Nehru out rightly rejected the proposal.

MK Gandhi was ready for Federal Union. It was the Semi Undivided India. i.e. It was united India. It was also divided India.

Then Sardar Patel went to JL Nehru to understand as to why had JL Nehru straight way rejected the idea of Federal Union.

Sardar Patel learnt that JL Nehru had a thought that it was highly possible that MK Gandhi would select Jinna as the head of Federal Union and he would have to work under Jinna. JL Nehru had allergy of Jinna. (Earlier at one stage Nehru had declared that if Jinna agrees to Undivided India, then he would not appoint Jinna even as his peon.)

However Sardar Patel reviewed the other factors. These were about the character and likely aptitude of the kings and kingdoms. Many of the kings were greedy and prone to get instigated for their own freedom and conditions. It was a matter of a lengthy and time consuming frame work for preparing accession or amalgamation conditions. Besides this the presence of decisive British was also there. They were keen to instigate self-centered and communal leaders to divide India in many other pieces. That is why MK Gandhi and Sardar Patel thought to divide India in two nations to avoid India, breaking in multiple pieces.

BRITISH WANTED TO DIVIDE INDIA IN MULTIPLE PIECES

India, Pakistan and the kingdoms. As for the people of Kingdoms, they may decide at a later stage either they would remain as an independent kingdom or they may conduct plebiscite as to affiliate with whom. British said “We would provide the independence to the kings for their kingdom. We give them two option. They can remain independent. They can have accession either with India or Pakistan by adopting a fair plebiscite.”

MK Gandhi was of the opinion, that it was the Muslim leaders who were keen to divide India. As for Congress, the leaders were not ready to delay the independence any more. British were ever ready to spoil the situation. Gandhi and Sardar thought, it would be better to accept the independence with divided India. In democracy, the real power belongs to the people. It would be better to try for reunion at later stage.

MK Gandhi had foreseen the likely massacre to some extent after partition. He tried his best to prevent them and to build unity. He had gone on fast to establish peace. The peace was urged to both the people of both the communities. But some took it one sided without going through the details.

MK Gandhi wanted to visit Pakistan to try to reunite the nation. He wanted to see that the peace get established at least in Delhi. Because if both the community have no faith in each other they cannot reunite.

WISDOM-LESS, SELFISH CONGRESS LEADERS

MK Gandhi was very much upset, when he learnt that the leaders of Congress who belonged to the region of Pakistan had run to India instead of staying in Pakistan for enforcing harmony with Muslims.

When Gandhi aksed them, the Congress leaders said “our life was not safe”.

MK Gandhi said, “So what? I have taught you to be brave and fearless. I have taught you to be ready to sacrifice everything. I have taught you to die. I have not taught you to run away. You are all coward. Had you been killed there, I would have been pleased a lot. I would have danced on hearing the news of your death. I would have really danced a lot.”

Now those who are having mindset to abuse MK Gandhi, they take the above Spell outs as that has been spelled out before Hindus who ran towards India. In fact the words were spelled out before Congress leaders of Pakistan.

MK Gandhi wanted the Congress leaders to remain in Pakistan. Had the people of Congress been nationalist, they would have remained in Pakistan. They could have formed a political party named “Pakistan National Congress”.

Look at the Muslim leaders. Many of them remained in India and formed an Indian Muslim League. The decisive Nehruvian Congress has joined the hands with the Indian Muslim League since 1958. There are lots of Muslim Organizations in India. It is only Nehruvian Congress who instigated Muslims to remain isolated from Hindus.

Soon MK Gandhi experienced that many Congress leaders were exerting pressure on him to get some position in the new government. Not only this but the leaders who to had deserted Pakistan, and had come to India to share the power. MK Gandhi publically declared to dissolve Congress.

“Diary of Last three months of Gandhi in Delhi” written by Manuben Gandhi, provides the full information on the role played by MK Gandhi. There is a day to day diary of MK Gandhi’s last three months in Delhi before he was killed. Manuben Gandhi has given report day to day and word to word. Those who read MK Gandhi would never carry a feeling that MK Gandhi had any attitude to appease Muslims and Muslims leaders. Instead he appears to be deadly against Muslim leaders. He has at one stage said that if Pakistan is not capable to provide proper securities to Hindus, India should attack on Pakistan and take over Pakistan.

WHO WAS DANGEROUS FOR MK GANDHI? JINNA OR JL NEHRU?

Yes. It was JL Nehru who was more dangerous.

No provincial party committee had suggested the name of JL Nehru for PM’s post. Nehru declared before MK Gandhi that he want to head the government, then Gandhi told him that none of the provincial party committee and the CM has suggested his name.

It was the moral duty of JL Nehru to withdraw his name. But instead of doing that, he kept mum and silently left the room. MK Gandhi thought that Nehru is likely to do some adventure. This adventure would break the Congress party at that crucial stage when the separatists including British were working hard to weaken the Congress. MK Gandhi called Sardar Patel and got an assurance that Sardar Patel would see that Congress remained united.

It is needless to say that JL Nehru had already created a socialistic Group within Congress with a freedom to abuse other Congress leaders like Rajgopalachari, Sardar Patel etc…

MK Gandhi knew that in democracy nothing is final. Let JL Nehru be the PM, till the general elections under new constitution gets conducted.

But unfortunate to India, MK Gandhi was murdered, Sardar died before general elections. JL Nehru used media to divert the attention of public from his failure in external affairs, his failures in planning and wisdom-less vision. It is a matter of surprise and a matter of research as to how the learned people made no noise.

JL Nehru had become intolerant and autocrat. He became hungry of power. JL Nehru himself has written this, for himself to have a fun on himself.

A good opportunity had come, to have Federal Union. Iskandar Mirza had proposed for “Federal Union, in 1955. It was a good and proper time when everything was OK locally. The people who left their property in Pakistan were alive and this issue was also alive. Pakistan was ready to resolve this issue bilaterally. But JL Nehru indecently rejected the proposal of “Federal Union” without discussing it at any level.

WERE THEY DEAF AND DUMB?

The learned people including the learned people talking too much till date for passing blame on MK Gandhi for partition. They are feeling great for themselves for this, but they kept mum instead of calling for a strong agitation for Federal Union in 1955. Federal Union was the first step toward Undivided India. Most of the leaders who had abused Congress and MK Gandhi for passing the blame of dividing India, were very well alive and capable to launch wide spread agitation in favor of “Federal Union” in nineteen fifties. They never agitated for Federal Union, even that proposal had come up from the Pakistan. Not only this, these leaders had kept mum even on the absolute blunders of JL Nehru on external affairs related with Tibet, China and Burma in nineteen fifties.

Was it difficult for them? Was it that these were political issue and thereby they (RSS) cannot take part in politics?

It was never difficult for them. It was not a politics. It was related with and great concern with humanity and national interest. Despite of this they behaved like deaf and dumb.

It was not that there were no agitation during 1950-1960. It was not that that RSS was less popular. In fact at most of the school compound and street, RSS was running RSS Shaakhaa. Golvalkar was also alive. A lot of other agitations took place during 1951 to 1960. But none tried either for Federal Union nor against the Himalayan Blunders of JL Nehru.

The victory of Nehruvian Congress in 1952 was fraudulent. The victory of Nehruvian Congress was a fraud. But the defeat of pro-RSS parties made their leaders weak and frustrated. They achieve some confidence only when Nava Nirman agitation unseated the Nehruvian Congress party in 1974. The Nehruvian Congress party had earlier 140 seats in Assembly out of 168 in 1972 assembly elections.

It is needless to say that it was Jai Prakash Narain a veteran Mahatma Gandhian who lead the agitation against Nehruvian Congress and defeated Nehruvian Congress badly in 1977. The inaction and frustration of worthless leaders of RSS, VHP, BD and some leaders like Advani, Sushma, Murlimanohar gave life to Nehruvian Congress.

WHY MK GANDHI DID NOT GO ON FAST?

(Continued)

Shirish Mohanlal Dave

Tags: Nehruvian Congress, Federal Union, kings, kingdom, Cripp’s Commission, Gandhi, Bhulabhai Desai, Sardar Patel, RSS, VHP, BD, leaders

Read Full Post »

WAS M. K. GANDHI RESPONSIBLE FOR DIVIDING INDIA? Part – 1

“India has fought several big wars successfully. It has maintained and secured its culture, heritage and dignity. It is one of the oldest cultures in the world. It has sense to understand what is good and what is bad for its fate. It has been survived of its own. It has defeated many strong invaders those invaders who had attacked India after achieving victory on great nations having great culture and civilization. But India has strength to face it and protect it. India has capacity to resolve the challenges. suppose if it has problems with Muslims, it has a capacity to settle it.”

If it is not possible to solve the issue with mutual talks, India will solve it at the point of sword in a battle field. If in doing so, Hindus would get defeated and its existence would end up and its glory would get distorted or it would get vanished totally from the pages of history, it would be a desire of God to finish Hindus. But be sure that Hindus have survived with its glory in continuity. Hence do not underestimate its capacity. Hindus are capable to fight out its war within itself and they are also capable to fight out of their own, the war with others. Hence don’t interfere in our internal matter of India.

Who has said this?

Has it been spelled out by a Hindu fundamentalist?

Is it spelled out by a Militant Hindu Leader?

Has been spelled out by a RSS chief?

No it is said by MK Gandhi to the British.

This British wanted to show their universal wisdom to secure safety of India.

Some people are very much active on abusing, derogating and passing blame on M. K. Gandhi for partition of India, appeasement of Muslims and promoting or imposing J. L . Nehru as Prime Minister of India instead.

It is OK if somebody talks with material and logical arguments and that too for academic purpose in a neutral and non-prejudicial way.

In a democracy political parties are supposed to be democratic. But democracy is not an absolute term. Democracy is a relative term. In a fair democracy, the reflection of people’s voice depends upon the process adopted in party to select the leaders who controls the decisions taken.

WHAT IS A POLITICAL PARTY?

A group of persons which tries to educate the people on a system of good governance and then its leaders get elected under a so-called system, by the persons who had faith in that system of governance.

We will concentrate only on Indian Nation Congress.

It was founded by Hume under the instructions of British Crown to provide an interface between people of India and the British Government.

Initially it was a party of “white collar” people.

Likeminded people having faith in the policy and practice of Congress would become a member of the party.

Members will elect delegates before an annual meeting or an extra ordinary meeting is held. Delegate elects the other office bearers including the working committee members and the Chair person, all with some specified delegated powers for governance and making decisions based on the party’s policy. This includes the changes in the constitution of the party.

In short the party is composed of a Party President, High Command, Working Committee, delegates and party members.

All put to gather a party will have constitution, members, workers/leaders of level -4, level-3, level -2, and the level – 1, High-Command and the President. The strength of the leader has nothing to do with the backing of general people once he/she becomes capable to occupy a level post.

This point can be made clear in this way.

JL. NEHRU

Nehru was popular among members. He was an icon of youths. He was capable to introduce fashion, he was in habit to act dramatically, he used to argue with philosophical language.

JL Nehru was popular among youths and level – 3 leaders. This was mainly due to his father’s wealth, his status and he was able to oblige leaders due to money power he had. Money power means, his house had become a guest house for leaders (up to the level -3 leaders) for lodging and boarding.

MK Gandhi had opened the doors of Congress for common men.

MK Gandhi had experienced that any struggle can be made effective and sustainable if the common mass is involved. Once M. K. Gandhi opened the doors of Congress for common mass, the common mass also got entry in the Congress.

JL Nehru had not strong hold at the leaders of Level – 1. This was mainly because, though Nehru had good ideas, he was weak in wisdom and governance. His philosophy of socialism was not acceptable to many leaders at the top due to its vagueness. He had inherited the status in the party due to his father.

The mass was not aware of the political policies related with any specific governance like socialism. Mass had only a desire for independence. The mass was of the opinion that the independence would solve every problem. “There would be rivers of Ghee and Milk in independent India”.

MOHAMMED ALI JINNA A FAKE MUSLIM

There was some struggle among top leaders in Congress. This struggle was for becoming effective in governance at the top level of the party. Initially leaders from Hindus and Muslims both were in Congress without any communal mindset. At the first stage, Jinna was far more popular than JL Nehru even at all Levels.

But progressively British started to identify people by Muslims and Non-Muslims. Despite of this, most Muslims remained with Congress.

Jinna had no faith in non-violence, disobedience to law, non-cooperation etc… promoted by MK Gandhi. This was also a cause, for becoming less acceptable to most leaders of Congress and the Hindu mass. Despite of this, Jinna was highly honored at top level, due to his skills in pleading the cases against the British Government. Jinna’s good image had prevailed till he joined Muslim League.

It was a long story of political battle between JL Nehru and Jinna. At one stage Nehru insulted Jinna by saying when Jinna was practicing in London, that “Jinna is not capable in political skills. It is good if he could prove his skill of legal practice in London”. This insult, instigated Jinna to come back to India to re-join the politics in a big way.

It is essential to look into the political situation prevailing at that time and also the mind set of Muslims, Hindus and various political leaders of all the communities before we arrive to any conclusion.

Muslims leaders were divided if we take an overview of local elections even after Jinna joined Muslim League. However nobody can deny that Jinna was the most prominent leader among Muslims, by virtue of his own expertize in law and practice besides the backing of British.

Jinna could attract Muslim at a very large scale under communal way in politics. Jinna, basically was secular, but he, for political benefit, used the communal cards.

If we compare the then statements of Jinna made against Gandhi and Congress, were quite similar that of the Nehruvian Cong leaders and its cultural allies making against BJP as a communal party. Jinna used to twist the every action with a conclusion that Congress was a party of Hindus and M. K. Gandhi is the leader of Hindus. The interest of Muslims is not safe.

Jinna’s aim was to take support of Muslims wherever they are. He had strong hold in most part of present Pakistan and some parts of East Bengal. But it was also a truth that in many Muslim dominated areas, Muslims were divided in Congress and some other local leaders.

British knew this, thereby to weaken Congress, British used to tell that they would have to take care of Muslims and other minorities like Sikhs and Dalits and Dravidians. As for the South India, most leaders were with MK Gandhi. Hence ice could not be broken. But as for Sikhs and Dalit the British tried their level best to instigate their leaders.

As for the partition, many people till date are under the impression that the proposal was only to divide India in two parts. But British had tried their best to divide India into multiple pieces. The aim of British was to make India and Congress weak.

Congress leaders initially were very firm on united India. At that time on the proposal of dividing India, MK Gandhi stated that India would be divided on his dead body. That is till he is alive he will not allow India to get divided.

M. K. GANDHI

Gandhi was popular among Hindus is beyond doubt. But it was not true for all the elite of Hindus. Some leaders who were outside Congress were against Muslims. Many leaders inside the Congress and outside the Congress were not happy when Gandhi was putting his efforts to not fall Muslims in line with Jinna. His this efforts were taken as the appeasement of Muslims.

The best example is Khilafat movement. Most people are ignorant of the real motives and strategic role of British to confuse Muslims.

India had nothing to do with Khilafat movement. This movement pertained to some other country. It was there between a religious leaders holding the political power too, and the leaders who were against holding both the power by the religious group. They wanted that religious group should hold only power so far Mosq is concern.

This was the concern of that country. But British made it international, and it supported by reformists Muslims. This caused to divide the strength of Muslims world. That is the religious leaders should not have political power.

This affected Indian Muslim leaders too. Congress leaders also poked their nose in the matter. Jinna was not a religious person. He wanted religion and politics should not be mixed up. Since Muslims are more prone to support Mullas, many Muslims became against Jinna.

MK Gandhi knew the strategy of British of dividing the Muslims in some other country. Since Jinna and many Congress leaders have already poked their nose in the matter not concern with Indian Muslims, they tried to attract Indian Muslims. Jinna had very good reason to oppose British.

It may be by tradition or by a law religious leaders are also holding political power, it becomes a part of religion. British should not intervene in the matter which could hurt the religious feeling. Besides this as for MK Gandhi it was an internal matter of that country.

The stand taken by MK Gandhi was understood as appeasement of Muslims. Off course this was a matter linked with early years of MK Gandhi in Politics of India. But this approach of MK Gandhi was used to criticize Gandhi for all the time by his Hindu opponents. (Just like Narendra Modi is continuously taken to target for the 2002 riots by pseudo secular leaders).

Many Hindu leaders were enjoying the division of Muslims on Khilafat movement. Muslims were getting divided in two groups viz. reformist (or secular) and fundamentalist (conservative). Jinna was supporting reformists. Most Muslims of India were conservative. Jinna took MK Gandhi as a leader who was dividing Muslims for political gain of Congress. Hindu conservative took MK Gandhi’s action as appeasement of Muslims.

MK Gandhi was of the opinion that fundamental changes in the law, (the law may be in force by virtue of a constitution or by the long established practice) should come up from the people. the leaders who hold power posts have no right to change any law. This point need very deep thinking to understand the heart of democracy. One can read the articles The Ram who was in flesh and blood is lost ( कहां खो गये मांस और हड्डीके बने राम?) at wwwDOTtreenetramDOTwordpressDOTcom to make it more clear.

The leaders who are not holding power post can only educate the people for the changes in the Law and Practice.

At a later stage MK Gandhi had resigned from Congress. He was not even an ordinary member of Congress party. This was because the people can express their views without any fear and the leaders can follow the changes suggested by the people.

INDIA BREAKS

(Continued)

Shirish Mohanlal Dave

Read Full Post »

APPLOGY IS A TRAP:

Apology is vague term being used to trap BJP and NaMo.

LOCAL NEHRUVIAN CONG LEADER’S PLAN

It is nothing but decisive stupidity to give exclusive treatment to 2002 riots of Godhra Aftermath.

These riots had taken place as a reaction of blazing of Railway coach where 59 Hindus were burnt alive, under a planned conspiracy of a local leader of nehruvian congress of Godhra (this local leader had run away in Pakistan soon after blazing the coach). If on account of Godse, the whole of RSS is Godse, then it is beyond doubt that whole Nehruvian Congress and its allies are terrorists. Godse at least was devoted to his (decisive) thoughts, he did not ran away from the spot he killed MK Gandhi. But here in case of the blazing of the railway coach conspiracy of Nehruvian Congress leader, ran away to a country which is the source of production of terrorists.

HOW CAN WE EXPECT ONLY GUJARATIS SHOULD BE SAINTED?

Only individuals are not only the living organism. Each group of living organism is also a living organism with different properties, behavior and aims. Refer “One and One only Not even Two” on “Advait” at treenetramDOTwordpressDOTcom.

How can one expect Gujaratis to behave like saints, in this India whose atmosphere has been spoiled as a result of Nehruvian Congi’s rule of 60 years with anarchy?

ONE HAS TO GET QUALIFIED

Who is qualified to ask Gujaratis to behave like saints? No one is qualified.

Now look here. As for every terrorists act, Muslims and the pseudo secular use to say, it was a reaction of Muslims, due to demolition of Babri mosq at Ayodhya. Such reactions are in multiples in numbers, and appears to remain for unlimited times, right from 1993 Bombay blasts to 2008 multiple blasts.

Then how do the Muslims and the pseudo secular can qualify them selves, to defame others?

BE AWARE:

Look if Nehruvian Congress would continue to rule, the Muslims are likely to see worst situation for them due to the double standards of pseudo secular and nehruvian congress.

Soon India would get converted into a communal country like Pakistan. Pakistan is horrible for other other religions.

NARENDRA MODI IS A MAN OF FULL WISDOM:

Narendra Modi knows very well that for the common mass, the main problem is the monetary problem. Development can solve all problems. That is why people go to Gulf countries, European countries and America. Why poor mass from Bangladesh, infiltrates into India? They infiltrate mostly for searching some job, barring some political reasons.

Fortunately Narendra Modi is becoming popular and most likely to take over the rein of India is good for Muslims in India, because under the 11 year rule of NaMo, Gujarat is peaceful and does not show any reaction even the Muslim terrorists had attacked Akshardham Temple and some other places with several blast thereafter. If nehruvian cong and pseudo secular cannot have culture to appreciate this, hell is ready for them. When the God wants to destroy some body, he makes them to get lost by their brain. 

The irrational Muslims and pseudo secular should be thankful to NaMo and the people of Gujarat that they decided to remain in peace despite of several odds. Why don’t you call them saint? They have stopped reacting despite of the decisive role of Nehruvian congress in governance.

वचने किं दरिद्रता

A TRAP  IS LINKED WITH APOLOGY

I do have the reply. It is just like a question to put a person into a trap, against his NO FOUL or principles.

One should compare this episode just like Nehruvian Cong and its allies along with some secular ask Narendra Modi (to trap him), as to why Narendra Modi does not submit apology for the Godhra After Math?

According to this pseudo Secular gang, the GANG wants Modi, to make Modi responsible for the killings, on the plea that Narendra Modi was the CM, and thereby he was responsible for the Godhra Aftermath.

But Modi is clever enough to void the trap. He knows that this pseudo secular gang wants to trap him, by picking him up, exclusively. He puts a question. He says if I am guilty hang me. How one can relieve a guilty person on his apology?

This is because; many riots have taken place in India and also in Gujarat. Many of them were even bigger than 2002 of Gujarat. None of the CMs was asked to submit apology. Why only Narendra Modi exclusively is being asked to submit apology?

Similar is the case with Capital punishment to Bhagat Singh.

British asked Gandhi to request British government to reduce the punishment from capital punishment to some lower one. By asking MK Gandhi like this, they wanted to trap MK Gandhi on his principle of nonviolence. If Gandhi requests the British Government the way it wanted, the British were very much ready to trap Gandhi, to contradict him and can abuse him for his double standards. Off course MK Gandhi was the last person to deviate from his faith. He said bluntly that he is in principle against the capital punishment. Otherwise also, Gandhi had said very clearly on many occasion that British government had proved not trust worthy. British government had failed in keeping their words.

However at this moment of time, it is not desirable to favor the floating of such controversial or even any matter that can defame Mahatma Gandhi, because according to many the call of the current period is to concentrate to defeat Nehruvian Congress.

MK Gandhi is widely honored all around the world. He has become a man of inspiration of many great people. If he would be abused by some body, the group to which the critics belong, would become unauthentic and unreliable. Similar would be for Modi where Modi will be honored equally.

Shirish Mohanlal Dave

Tags: Trap, Narendra, Modi, 2002 riots, Nehruvian Congress, Local leader, conspiracy, Godhra, Railway Coach, Living organism, Group, Bhagat Singh, Gandhi, Capital punishment

Read Full Post »

%d bloggers like this: