Posts Tagged ‘Indian Nehruvian Congress’


The elections of Karnataka state Assembly are over.

The election result produced a hung assembly

BJP got 104 Seats,

Indian Nehruvian Congress got 78 seats,

JDS+ got 38 seats


Others got 2 seats

Somehow it appears that there is a flaw somewhere in the process of calling for proving the majority.

Who are the parties?

(1) Governor of Karnataka

(2) Nehruvian Congress and JDS

(3) BJP

(4) Supreme Court Judges

SC at flaw

(1) Governor of Karnataka what was his role?

(1.1) to invite the leader of the First Single largest party, to take an oath as CM,

(1.2) to ask the CM to appoint the provisional temporary speaker from the elected members to swear in,   

(1.3) to ask the CM to prove his majority on the floor of the house

(1.4) the CM should prove the majority support within 15 days on the floor of the house, not elsewhere,

(1.5) the CM to form the government after proving the majority support on the floor

Is there any flaw at the end of the Governor?

No. There is no flaw in inviting the leader of the First Single largest party to take an oath as CM, because it was as per the guide line prescribed by the Sarkaria Commission in its report and it has been approved by the SC.   

Was there any flaw in the appointment of Mr. Bopiah as provisional speaker of the house?

No. There was no flaw in his appointment because he was the senior most under the criteria of length of service in a cadre. Allegation against him of being bias was set aside by the SC long back in some other case. He had also worked as provisional speaker previously too.

Is there any flaw in asking the CM to prove the majority on the floor of the house?

No. There was no any flaw in asking him to prove the majority on the floor of the house. This was in accordance to the Supreme Court ruling in some other case that the majority has to be proved on the floor of the house, not elsewhere.

Is there any flaw in asking to prove the said majority support within 15 days.

No. There was no flaw in giving a maximum period up to 15 days for the job entrusted to the leader of the First largest single party. 15 days period is the legal period.

Why 15 days period is termed as the legal period?

Something related with multiple subjects and objects to be dealt with, a time limit of minimum 15 days has to be given, to avoid injustice to person/persons/party/parties. If the time period has the relation with a single person with no gathering, searching the matter related document/documents i.e. documental studies, then 72 hours’ time limit is justified. Here in our subject matter, this was not the case. Here it is a policy matter where the whole party’s members have some SAY. These SAYs are to be compiled and needed to arrive to several decisions related with alliance including the alliance to me made or not, through discussion within the party and then through consensus an amicable solution with or without some terms and condition. The leader of a party cannot take decisions at his whims in a democratic country. Hence the 15 days’ time limit given was a well justified limit.

Therefore the decisions of the Governor was foul-less and flawless.

The further details on this justified time limit we would see later.

(2) Nehruvian Congress and JDS

These are the petitioners. We do not know whether Nehruvian Congress is the First Part of the petitioner or the Second Part. Similarly about the JDS. Irrespective of the First Part or Second Part, the BJP lawyer should have asked to clarify. Leave this aside, it is the right of any person/organization to submit a petition. It is up to the discretion of the SC to get convinced or not. We would examine this point further  under the actions of the SC.

(3) BJP, is off course the opposite party. Action of BJP and SC we would discuss together.

(4) Supreme Court:

Who has issued instructions?

Governor has issued the instructions.

If the governor’s instructions are challenged then the Governor becomes the defendant. BJP cannot become either an opposite party or a defending party. But here, BJP being the first largest single party, its interest is affected if the SC does not hear BJP.

As for the Governor, the Governor cannot be called before any court. When this is the position of the Governor, then, it implies that the Governor must have an unchallengeable power, to take the decision. But no authority is allowed to take arbitrary decision in a democratic country. The decision should be taken with discretion.  Discretion means reasonable and justifiable.

The task before SC was to decide whether the instructions issued by the Governor contained any flaw and to rule on:

(1) To entertain the petition or not, when the Governor has discretionary power.

(2) If yes, then whether any instruction of the Governor was discretionary or arbitrary? If the SC finds prima-facie in the petition that any instruction of the Governor contains flaw, then the SC can entertain the petition.

The SC has ruled that the 4th instruction of the Governor was arbitrary.  That is the time limit given for proving the majority within 15 days contains a flaw.

On this point, the SC has a flaw in its order.  SC changed the time limit from 15 days to two days.

The petitioner parties, viz. the  Nehruvian Congress and the  JDS or vice versa, can come with dirty hand, is understandable, through their record of history. But the legal matters are heard, point to point with its relevance.

e.g. Indira Gandhi had spoken fourteen lies on oath, before the Allahabad HC, when her election was challenged by Rajnarain. But at that time, the HC had not ruled, that all of her, rest of the statements were also false. Similarly here, if the petitioners have come with the dirty hands, then this was required to be proved in the court. If the Opposite party proves this, then the petitioners are liable to be punished.

How and why the matter was so urgent that it should be heard at mid night?

It is said that the appointment of Protem speaker, by the leader of the BJP, can play a foul game. But SC can say that this is hypothetical ground. Court cannot give its verdict on hypothetical assumption. Hence SC should have rejected the petition and could have asked the petitioners to come after the appointment of the Protem Speaker.

The pray for the reduction of time limit for the reason of horse trading.

This point is also hypothetical. Horse Trading applies to every party, and if the factor of horse trading is to be considered, then it is to be applied to all.

Otherwise also, the point of preventing Horse Trading cannot be entertained. Because the petitioner One and the petitioner 2 gets full liberty for Horse Trading and that to for indefinite period. They can do the horse trading during the forming of government and after word also while negotiating on terms and conditions of common minimum program.

The point of petitioner coming before the Court with dirty hands lies here:

To have an alliance among two or multiple parties is a policy matter of each party.

To have an alliance, there needs to have terms and conditions which are supposed to be in concurrence with the party principles. Whether these terms and conditions are in concurrence with party principles or not, there needs an expert opinion and the members of the party must have a SAY to it. All these things can be decided only by the General body meeting of the party. Even the Central Working Committee is not authorized to change the policy of the party without the concurrence of the general body.

What should be or what is the procedure to decide such “policy issue” in a democratic set up?

The party president can call for an emergency general body meeting. But political parties are having members in lakhs. Therefore there are state committees. State committees further dependent on district, tehsil and city committees. They have to give suggestions and to elect delegates for the general conference. These delegates will submit the SAYs of members in the general conference. Then the central working committee would compile the SAYs and take the decision as per the delegated power under the constitution of the party. If any member of any Committee inclusive of MLA, if does not agree with the decision/s of the central working committee, he/she has the right to leave the party if he is in minority. No question arises of he being in majority because in that case the proposal gets rejected.

If the alliance has been done before the declaration of the Assembly elections, all these procedure can be followed. And a member against any terms and conditions of alliance or even against the alliance itself, would not file his candidature in assembly election and even he could resign from the party.

If the alliance is proposed after the poll, how to follow the line of democratic spirit to have the alliance?      

It is mandatory to follow the aforesaid procedure to maintain the spirit of the democracy. On the plea of an urgency no party can overlook the basic characteristic of democracy. Further there is no urgency because if the matter is delayed even beyond 15 days, there was no scope of breakdown of the constitution.

Generally for calling any meeting, a notice of 15 days in advance is required for committee of any level with an agenda. In case of an urgency and a known single agenda, a notice of 72 hours is OK at lower level. But when the higher level committee is dependent on the suggestions of the lower level committees, inclusive of electing and sending delegates to the general body meeting at the Head Quarter, 72 days’ notice is not feasible. That is why 15 days’ time period was ok.

Democratic spirit is the transparency and accommodating every body’s SAY so that it can reflects the opinion of general members to the central working committee. Now, in case of post poll alliance even if all the above procedure is followed and accordingly the alliance to a party is approved by a party, an elected member of a party may not agree to the alliance. It is the liberty and the right of that elected member/s to disagree with the post-poll alliance.

Now it is matter of controversy, that in such a case the elected member/s should resign from the MLA-ship or not?

If he/she resigns from the party is understandable. The party can dismiss the member that can also be understandable.

But whether the MLA is the representative of the people of the constituency or the representative of the party? This point is controversial for some people.

Whether the party is superimposing on MLA or people of the constituency are superimposing on MLA?

In democracy the people are the supreme. Thereby in democracy, the MLA should act according to the desire of the people of the constituency.

If while canvassing the contestant of a party has not made mention about a could be alliance to a party, but on the contrary the contestant had abused and derogated the opponent party/parties and its contestant, in that case if that contestant wins the elections the contestant becomes the MLA, and that MLA is not supposed to resign from MLA-ship, because he has not lost the faith of his people.

It is on record that SC has ruled that the people are supreme even above the constitution in democratic countries, then a party cannot terminate any MLA on the ground of the MLA has lost the faith of the party. People are supreme not the party, not the SC, not the house and not the constitution. The burden of proof that the MLA has lost the faith  of the people, lies with party. If any law is not in concurrence with the aforesaid burden of proof, the law is null and void.  

The Supreme Court has not considered the characteristic of the democracy. The party leaders have no arbitrary power for having an alliance. The SC appears to have been taken for granted that the central working or its president enjoys the arbitrary power.  They cannot have such arbitrary power in democracy.

Further the SC has not cared to see or the SC appears to have been overlooked the mandatory procedure to be followed by the petitioner parties to have an alliance reflecting the approval of general body. This is the big flaw in the decision of SC.

The SC has not examined and it has overlooked the mandatory characteristic of parties in a democratic country in passing the order of curtailed time limit of to 72 hours.

We can conclude that it appears;

SC has not taken “ an alliance with another party” is a policy related matter.

SC over ruled that a party should maintain transparency in a democratic country,

SC has approved that non-democratic parties are allowed to function in politics of a democratic country.

SC found on hypothetical ground that there could be horse trading at the end of opposite party (BJP) without examining any past records of it.

SC found no scope for horse trading between two petitioning parties even though they have unlimited scope for indefinite period.

or the SC has not applied mind

As for the BJP, we do not know as to why it has not represented its own case in view of the democratic principles of transparency and mandatory procedures to compile the members’ voice.

If the party is already having its pre-planned strategy of dealing with the matter, it is ok.

Amit Shah is considered to be the modern Chanakya who followed the philosophy of Lord Krishna who had said “ShaTham Prati ShaThyam Samacharet” शठं प्रति शाठ्यम्‌ समाचरेत्‌”.

Shirish M. Dave



Read Full Post »

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

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

Navaz Sharif

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


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

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

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

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

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


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

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


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

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


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

Though Man Mohan Singh knows very well that:

“India is a democratic country,

“The democracy is deeply rooted in India,

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

Is it that Man Mohan was happy with his post?

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

No body in a democratic government can enjoy arbitrary power.

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

Is it that Navaz Sharif has no option?

Yes. Navaz Sharif has no option but to resign.

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

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


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

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

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

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

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



Shirish Mohanlal Dave


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

Read Full Post »

%d bloggers like this: