NEHRUVIANS HAVE SPOILED THE MINDSET OF INDIAN MUSLIMS

It is a matter of surprise that the Nehruvian Congress has become successful to instigate a big lot of Muslims, even on the matters not related with Hindu-Muslim relations, that the court case of “Triple Talaq” has been generated by Hindus.

AN EPISODE OF A BOOK SHOP

In a book stall of Islam, there was a display board, which was indicating the Issue of “Triple Talaq” is being misunderstood, and Muslims are not favoring the existing provision of Triple Talaq. We are ready to discuss. Please come and discuss with us. So far the display is concern, it is fine, that Muslims are ready to protect the human rights of Muslim women.

Just as a curiosity I asked whether the existing method of giving Talaq to a Muslim woman  by a Muslim man, simply by spelling out “Talaq Talaq Talaq”, has been supported by Koran or not? It was a simple question, which could have been replied under “Yes” or “No”.

But instead of this, the Muslim young man tried to explain at length. He said, it the misunderstanding and misinterpretation of our own Muslims of what really has been provided in Quran. Then he explained that there is provision of one month gap, between each word “Talaq”. We are ready to provide justice to our women. Why the Government should interfere?

The Muslim further added, “Look … we have our own marriage ritual. When the Government does not interfere in marriage ritual, why should it interfere in our system of “Talaq”? What is more important? “Marriage” or “Talaq”? Marriage is more important in the life than the “Talaq”. When the Government does not interfere in an important matter of “marriage” then why is it interfering in the less important matter of “Talaq”. Talaq is a personal matter. Two partners of the life, are not ready to live together. One person wants to be separated, how can we force him to live together? In Quran, there is a procedure as to how to deal with this matter of talaq. It asks the husband to say Talaq once. Then a time period is given for one month, during which the wife has to stay in the same house, so that both can rethink on the idea of separation. They have scope to improve their performance. Once again a time of one month is given after the spell out of second “Talaq”. Then ultimately the third time “Talaq” is spelled out. What is wrong in it?

Off course the Muslim was silent on the procedure which is being applied in practice with the Muslim woman. I had no interest to pose to put cross questions.

The Muslim continued. He said when the Government does not interfere into the injustice made to Hindu Dalits, Hindu women, why should it interfere into Muslims? Look … I can show you Manu-Smriti. How much injustice made to Dalits and women?

I tried to clarify, that Manu-Smriti is not a recognized book in Hindu religion. Recognized book is Veda and Bhagvat Geeta. Since the language of Veda is difficult to interpret, there is a simpler book named Bhagvat Geeta. However if there is a contradiction between Veda and Bhagvat Geeta, then what Veda has said, has to be accepted. Besides this Shankaracharya has said, that what Veda said, that contradicts to our experience then what experience tells us, is to be accepted. E.g. If Veda says Fire is cool and our experience says Fire is Hot, then Fire is Hot is to be accepted.

The Muslim was not interested in this matter, he said, “Look at Jasodaben …?”

I said “Jasodaben? Which Jasodaben.” I could not link Jasodaben to this topic

HAD JASODABEN BEEN MUSLIM

The Muslim said; “oh! You do not know Jasodaben? Jasodaben is the wife of our Narendra Modi. Had this Jasodaben been a Muslim, she could have already re-married to another person if Narendra Modi would have given her divorce.”

I said “Jasodaben and Narendra Modi had mutually agreed to remain separate. Narendra Modi had taken clearance from Jasodaben, to live their own lives in their own way. If Jasodaben asked divorce, it would have been given by Narendra Modi. What is wrong if two persons get separated with mutual understanding? Look at the episode of Buddha. Buddha had not even taken the permission from his wife and he had left her even without any intimation.

The Muslim fellow was suddenly stopped the discussion and said “oh it is my time for Namaza” I am going. He went away.

What the Muslim fellow reflected to me an impression which was quite uncalled. He linked Hindu religion in the matter of “Triple Talaq”.

WHY THIS IMPRESSION IS BEING CARRIED BY MAJORITY OF THE MUSLIMS?

The responsible person and party for generating this atmosphere and mind set of minorities, is Nehru and his party.

NEHRUVIAN CONGRESS HAS NO GUTS

Nehru though presenting himself as a logical person, he himself was lacking in logical interpretation. He wanted India to be a secular country. But what was his definition of “Secular”?

In accordance to his belief and action, the definition of “Secular” means “let the religious minorities live their lives in their own way. The Government and the Constitution will not interfere in their traditions, rituals and lives. Even if any interpretation needed, the interpretation on any religious tradition, rituals and rights will be accepted as has been interpreted by their religious priests. If the interpretation contradicts the human rights provided under the Indian Constitution, the constitutional provisions would be modify to respect the religion of the minority community.

According to the Nehru and his fellow men, the feeling of religious minority community should not be hurt in the name of the constitution of India. It is the liberty of the religious community to have the feeling that “their religion is First” and their religion is above the Indian constitution. Nehruvian Congress leaders and their cultural allies still carry the same interpretation what Nehru had made. Shah Bano case is the good example to read the mindset of these pseudo secular gangs.

IT WAS BEYOND THE INTELLIGENCE OF NEHRU

Nehru was skillful in playing political Dramas. He could do all his adventures during the struggle of independence, as he had a lot money, the money his father earned as a lawyer. This made him very much popular among second level leaders of Congress, because Nehru’s house was the rest house for them as and when they come to Allahabad. Nehru’s dramas made him popular in lower level lots. All these could happen in the pre-independence period. This effect continued for few years after independence too.

WHAT IS DEMOCRACY?

The meaning of democracy is “The truth is honored irrespective of which level it comes from”.

The Democracy is the place “where all are equal before law”

Is it necessary to have the act in regards to a religion for its code of conduct, on the plea to show the respect to that religion?

There is no need to have any Code pertaining to a religion. i.e. To have a Hindu Code, Muslim Code, Christian Code … all is humbug on the plea that Indian Constitution has respect towards other religions and thereby our constitution has the provisions to approve the religious code.

TAKE AN EXAMPLE OF HINDU CODE:

What does a code incorporate?

Marriage, Divorce and Succession.

Do we need such code?

Government must say;   we are least concern with the system, ritual and celebration that you adopt in regards to your marriage. We want you to follow the following procedure.

PROCEDURE FOR MARRIAGE

Both of you should submit an affidavit that (1) Our status is unmarried (2) We want to marry each other (3) Our permanent addresses are as under with photo(4) We herewith  pay Rs xxxx/- to publish notice for inviting any objection from public on our proposed marriage. (5) We will sign the document of the marriage in this office on this Date.

The office of the Department of Family Welfare or the Family Court, would publish a notice with details of Name, parents’ full name, Surname, photos of the coupe of the proposed marriage, addresses etc… in the three prominent local news papers.

The Government is least concern with the ritual, celebration or system what adopted or even not adopted by the couple.

PROCEDURE FOR DIVORCE

Similarly in case of a divorce, the couple would submit an application jointly or separately that they have agreed to be separated under the mutually agreed conditions. The couple would submit a proposed mutually agreed Draft of Agreement. In case of any absence of mutually agreed conditions, the case would be heard (which even now prevails) as usual and judgement would be given to provide justice to each one of the couple.

LAW OF SUCCESSION

In the matter of succession, one man can marry one girl only. The government cannot permit more than one wife at a time. A person must apply for a divorce to the existing partner before getting married to another.

As for the property, the wife has right to 1/3 share of the property of her husband or vice versa if the property is an earned property. If the property is an inherited property, the wife will have the 1/3 of the share of her husband’s share.  Off course 1/3 share is shown here as an example. It may be decided by the Court depending upon the liability.

Law of succession must be same for all the religion and communities. At present the law of succession is different for different communities. It is prone to become a fraud unless the matter is brought before the court of law.

No person can enjoy a right to his own benefit, harming others for no fault of others. A person includes a group, a community based on geography, language, region, religion or organization as the case may be.

WAS NEHRU INCOMPETENT?

Was Nehru incompetent to understand Human Rights and respect towards religion? Nehru was not only incompetent, he was not capable to understand what is meant by justice. He was simply pampering minority to get spoiled.

We do not need several Acts like “Right to Information”, “Right to freedom to express”, “Consumers Right”, “Right to service”, “Right to organize”, “Right to elect”, “Right to call back (though this right is inbuilt in right to elect, but the EC does not entertain this right on the plea of absence of procedure. This looks funny) etc. … provided the Court is capable to interpret all the expressed rights in the light of the human rights.

In short the Muslims need not abuse Hindu religion in the matter of Teen TALAQ, simply because the present BJP lead government does not follow the line of action of previous Nehruvian Congress lead Government.

Shirish Mohanlal Dave

Tags: Nehruvian Congress, Muslim, Triple Talaq, women, Jasodaben, Naendra Modi, Islam, Dalit, Manu Smriti, Veda, Bhagvat Geeta, Shankaracharya, Drama, pre-independence, struggle for independence,  Religious minority, minority Community, Intelligence, Competence, incapable, democracy, human rights, EC, Constitution of India, truth is honored

Read Full Post »

Supreme Court of India has to interpret laws in true spirit of the human rights

Supreme Court of India has to interpret laws in true spirit of the human rights

Nehruvian Congress a political party of India had ruled India for more than six decades with small breaks. During these six decades, it has ruled 30 years with absolute majority. 2 years with absolute autocracy, and remaining period with majority.

Despite of this, it has made more than 100 amendments in the Indian Constitution, In the name of public interest.

Was it necessary?
No.

When this Congress party is addressed as Nehruvian Congress, there is a purpose.

You cannot say this Congress as “Indian Nation Congress Party” though on record it is like that.

This name has given, and still it gives, a very wrong message that this is the same Congress Party that gave big contribution, to make India independent from foreign rule.

This matter has been discussed by me in Gujarati language on my website (TreenetramDOTwordpressDOTwwwDOTcom)

If it has to be told in brief, than we can say that a person is identified by its culture. Culture can be identified by its behaviour. The behaviour is experienced or being experienced or it is on record.

WHAT IS EXPECTED FROM A CULTURED PERSON?

Suppose you are A and the other is B.

A and B both had respect for each others.

A is communicating with B.

B suddenly stopped communication with A. A got confused.

It was an insult indirectly but direct. A felt so.

Instead of being emotional, A asked B. B kept mum.

The reason was unknown to A. Even though A is open at  heart, there was no way for A as to how A can correct itself? B has to be transparent.
A cultured society maintains democracy and transparency.

A human is prone to commit mistake and error, knowingly or unknowingly.

The democracy provide scope for correction of individuals. To ask the other person for a clarification is the democratic cultured mindset. If the a behaviour or belief of A or B is not liked to B or A as the case may be. This thing to get clarified is advisable.

Because after all, all of us are here for pleasure and spread pleasure.

One cannot hurt a person and boycott that person without asking that person to clarify.

What applies to person to person (He to She, He to He, She to She or whatsoever) that applies to political parties too.

This is universal. If the cap fits to She or He can review her/his action. This is necessary to give a chance to a person to correct itself. This is called democratic and humanitarian mind set.

Here the subject is the so called Indian National Congress Party.

Let us come to the point of above Congress.

This Congress has always been run by Nehruvians after the independence since 1947. The Congress had been founded by Hume, a British, in nineteenth century. It was a party of white collars. When MK Gandhi came to India and he joined the Congress, he made it open for the whole mass of India irrespective of caste and economical status.

The intention had been changed from “Acting as an agency to be interface between British and people of India” to “Home Rule” and then to “Complete Independence”.

MK Gandhi thought that without involving mass, India cannot achieve proper independence with the tool of Non-violence. This was the culture of Congress at that time. In nineteen thirties, it had also passed a resolution that India would be a democratic country and it will have a written constitution.

The big question is what is democracy?

According to MK Gandhi, the definition of democracy is the political system under which “the truth is heard and the truth is honoured”. MK Gandhi more specifically called “Rama Rajya” means the way Lord Rama ruled India.

Who was Rama?

Rama was a king emperor of India walked on this earth, some 6000 years back from now.

What were the main political features of Rama.

(1) The ruler (king) has to rule as per the accepted legal and social traditions prevailing in the society.
(2) The ruler has only executive authority,
(3) Ruler is not authorised to make any change in the rule and traditions,
(4) The authority for making any change in a rule or tradition is the people
The group of preacher (teachers) will decide the method of finding out the way to decide peoples desire to change.
(5) The preachers (Teachers) will have no executive power.

We know the details of life of Rama and his wife Sita.
How did people behave?
How did Rama behave?
How did the group of teachers headed by Vashishtha behave and what was the result?
How did Rama honoured the controversial truth which was against a tradition (which still prevails in the democratic countries of world ) which he could not challenge to prove it as a falsehood?
The challenge had come from a very lower class poor person. But it was honoured by Rama.
Rama has been taken as an incarnation of Sun God (Vishnu), not because he won a lot wars. Rama was taken as an incarnation of Sun God because he discharged his duty very efficiently. He maintained law and order in democratic way.

Now here, in the present period, who has to act as a Rama? Who has to act as the team of teachers? Who has to propose reforms?

The head of the elected representatives are Rama.

We have a method of electing representatives under Indian Constitution. Off course the elections have to be proper and fair.

But the system was no fair enough for four decades. In 1988, VP Singh appointed Shesan as the Chief Election Commissioner, who enforced election provisions provided under law, very firmly. Till then, unless there was a flood against Nehruvian Congress, the Nehruvian Congress had never faced a defeat.

But after the enforcement of law strictly, the Nehruvian Congress could not get clear majority at any time.

This means, rules are there, but the interpretation has either not been made properly by the ruler in execution

or

the Supreme Court has not been asked to interpret the law,

or

the Supreme Court has not intervene of its own, to interpret any rule which could not protect the constitutional rights of citizens.

In fact, if the Supreme Court of India interprets the provisions of the Indian Constitution, in relevance to the human rights and natural rights, there is no need to enact further Acts.

Now let us look at the democratic rights based on and prevailed under the rule of Rama.

(1) The ruler has only executive authority: Why?
It is natural that some body has to take the responsibility of execution of rule.

(2) Ruler is not authorised to make any change in rule and traditions: Why?
Because if ruler is authorized to make changes, then the ruler will make the changes which are beneficial to that ruler only.
This has been very well experienced by India, during the rule of Jawaharlal Nehru, Indira Nehru and Rajiv Gandhi.
As for changes made in laws, by Indira NehruGandhi, one can write a thick Book like epic “Maha Bharata”. We will look into it, on the day of anniversary of “Emergency imposed by Indira in 1975.

(3) The authority for making any change in a tradition is the people: Why?
It is only the people are suffering. They are suffering due to any law or tradition and the rule is defective and required to be modified to meet with the protection of human rights. That is why the proposals should also come up from the mass. the mass includes teachers, experts, leaders of political parties etc… They cn come up through media or/and common platforms. Then political parties will draft a bill in consultation with experts and put it before public through the party’s election manifesto. If that party wins the elections, then the bill can be passed in parliament.

(4) The group of preacher (teachers) will decide the method of finding out the way to decide peoples’ desire to change the law: Why?

This is in fact drafting a bill. Supreme Court can re-examine or ask an expert committee to review the draft or bill or law.

(5) The preachers (Teachers) will have no executive power. Why?
Executive power has been entrusted with the ruler. And if preachers are entrusted with executive power then they become ruler. In these circumstances the ruler will get the power to change the law. In fact we want to deprive the ruler from using the power of making changes in the law, unless it has been proposed or permitted by the mass.

We want a system which enables the truth to be heard and honoured.
We do not want to promote old type of Rama Rajya. We want Rama Rajya where Sita the wife of Rama too gets justice.

How did Nehruvian Congress fail to provide justice to the mass by not protecting human rights?

In 1950-s, there were some scandals. But the then Prime Minister Javaharlal Nehru told the parliament that “we will not attend the scandals. You put before the public. Public would decide in the next election.”
A poor lot was remaining poor. JL Nehru introduced reservation for lower class, instead of providing employment with dignified salary to all poor mass. This was the foundation of Vote Bank politics.

MK Gandhi had said in his book, written somewhere in 1930-s, to first concentrate on cottage industries and education. But Nehru overlooked.

MK Gandhi had asked complete prohibition of liquor, to prevent the poor and illiterate mass from domestic economical anarchy. But Nehru ignored it.

Contrary to this, the successive government encouraged the relaxation in Prohibition on Liquor enacted under British Rule in Bombay State.

In many other ways, the Congress existed before independence lost its character after independence. That is why person like me address this Congress as Indian Nehruvian Congress Party, in place of Indian National Congress Party.

Why did Supreme Court fail to supervise the human rights?
There was no provision in Indian Constitution to take up the issue before the Court of Law, unless some one is affected adversely by any act or whatsoever.

P. I. L.
The First Non-Congress Congress government headed by Morarji Desai, enacted the provision of “Public Interest Litigation”.

This provision provides, any citizen to go before the High Court of a state or before the Supreme Court to declare specified law as null and void, as it is harmful to human right. Supreme Court would either ask the Government to amend the law suitably or to drop it or to re-frame it.

But why there should be a Public Litigation Act? In fact it is inbuilt in democracy that any law becomes null and void if it harms a human right.

Information Act
Why this act is needed?
You have appointed a servant to whom you pay against the duty you have asked to perform.
Now suppose you gave him some money to purchase some vegetable.
You have the right to tell that person as to what he has to purchase and from where he should purchase, how he has to purchase and how much he has to purchase.
When he comes back, it is your right to ask the person, to tell you the full information. It is the right of the person who gave the earned money for a purpose to a person who has been employed on payment.
Now what did the Congress do?
It restricted the right by enacting the act and provided lot exceptions. The act became nail-less to great extent.

Consumer Protection Act
You have the full liberty to select the item, the amount, the way and the quantity to spend the money you have earned.
The right to selection, the right to quality, the right to know the contents, the right to compare the prices, the right to enjoy options, the right to have the record of your purchase. All these rights are inbuilt rights under human rights.

Right to “call back” the elected representative.
This act yet not been enacted.

But it can be interpreted as inbuilt right to human right.
How?
You are selecting your representative to represent and execute, your view, desire, security and welfare.
You are paying the representative for that duties.
There is a system of payment by Tax. This is called public fund.
There is a system for selecting person. This is called system of elections.
Somehow jointly, you have selected a person of your geographical area for 5 years.
Now suppose this person increases its own monthly payment without your permission,
Suppose this person shows negligence on your security,
Suppose this person hides the facts,
Suppose this person making joint ventures with your recognized enemy,
Suppose you have lost faith in this person and you feel to terminate its services.
Definitely it is your inbuilt human right to terminate the services of this person at any time as soon as you feel that this person is not faithful.
Terminate the services of a person whom you have elected is termed as “Call Him/Her Back”.

This “Right to call back” has not been enacted yet. But such right to call back is inbuilt right in democracy.

How to call a person back if there is no system constituted in the Indian Constitution.

Let us take an example:

In 1971 Nehruvian Congress had won 140 seats out of 163 seats of Gujarat State Assembly.
The said government lost the faith of public. Its governance was full of scandals and frauds. People of Gujarat were highly dissatisfied by the government. It became a hot issue of discussion as to how to call, all the elected members of the state assembly, back.

People had to lodge a wide spread agitation and asked the representatives to resign. But Nehruvian Congress Members did not pay any heed and did not resign.

All the opposition party members had resigned. There was a very big mass movement in Gujarat. This was known as Nava-Nirman-Stir (A movement for Reconstruction of State Assembly). It is a long story as to how it became successful and at what cost.

But how to achieve this success, without loss of blood?

What do we do in a normal housing society?

20 percent members can ask the president of the society to call for an extra-ordinary general meeting with an agenda.

Here, in the “Call them Back” case,  20 percent voters of that area can submit an affidavit before the Election Officer, asking the election officer to conduct a vote of confidence in respect of the elected member.
If the representative secures 50+ percent of the votes polled, he would be continued as the representative, otherwise by-elections would be conducted for that assembly seat.

This means that only interpretation or directives are required for fulfillment of any human right, from the Supreme Court.

Shirish M. Dave

Tags: Democracy, Rama, Rajya, Rule, Law, act, enact, person, party, Nehruvian, MK Gandhi, Indira, Nehru, India, human rights, natural right, Information, consumer, election, representative, fraud, faith, preacher, teacher, executive, power

Read Full Post »

MK GANDHI AND DEMOCRACY

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Read for details

 

MK GANDHI AND DEMOCRACY

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

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

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

Democracy is a process where truth is heard and honored.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Political Parties

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

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

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

Now let us take the Congress.

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

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

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

COURT OF LAW

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

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

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

WAS GANDHI DEMOCRATIC?

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

What is “power pressure”?

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

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

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

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

No… A BIG NO.

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

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

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

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

CHAURA CHAURI EPISODE

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

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

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

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

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

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

NOW LOOK AT THE OTHER INSTANCE

In 1934 MK Gandhi had resigned from the Congress.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Subhash vs Nehru

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

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

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

Now what was the legal position?

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

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

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

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

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

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

IDEOLOGY THAT DECIDES THE FATE

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

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

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

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

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

THEN WHY SOME SO-CALLED ELITE HATE MK GANDHI?

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

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

Why?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

These people use to speak the language of Jinna.

Don’t hate them. Have a mercy.

NATURAL TREND IS TOWARDS NON-VIOLENCE

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

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

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

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

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

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

The main reasons are:

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

Autocracy cannot survive with transparency,

Autocracy cannot survive with all the time with conducting elections,

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

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

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

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

The non-violent struggle is fought on moral ground,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

IS OUR COUNTRY A DEMOCRATIC COUNTRY?

NO.

Simply routine elections cannot make a country fully democratic.

We need to have constituted voters’ council,

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

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

We need lot of changes in governance and judiciary.

IS DEMOCRACY COMMITTED TO TOTAL NON-VIOLENCE?

No.

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

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

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

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

THEN WHAT IS ABOUT RAMA?

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

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

A RUSSIAN JOKE

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

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

“A” said I was favoring “Popovich”

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

“B” said, “I was against “Popovich”

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

“C” replied “I am Popovich”

This is all about socialism without transparency.

Shirish Mohanlal Dave

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

Read Full Post »