Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘MK Gandhi’

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 Rajya

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.

RAMA RAJYA THE POWER OF TEACHER

(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 »

INDIA OF OUR DREAM

FOR THOSE WHO HAVE “M” PHOBIA

RSS was not banned for indefinite period.

One can agree that a common man of RSS be scared of going to jail. Are the leaders of RSS too are supposed to be scared of Jail?

RSS was not banned for a very long time.

Why it could not be banned for indefinite period, because in democracy it can be challenged in a court of law.

RSS WAS NOT THE PARTY WITH GODSE

Godse had killed MK Gandhi, but his action was not supported by any resolution passed by the general body or working committee of RSS.

Further the constitution of RSS does not provide to kill a Hindu, leave aside Muslims. In 1948, some leaders of RSS might have been arrested who had been doubted for their awareness of the plan of Godse and support to the plan.

Most RSS leaders were not proved guilty. This is because Godse had decided of his own.

Veer Savarkar was also not punished as a party with Godse. He was banned for social activities. Madanlal was punished to life imprisonment who had tried to kill MK Gandhi . Madanlal’s plan was failed. There was a group and had prepared plans. The third plan was successful. And all of the eight accused were convicted for preparing plan and executing it. Godse and Apte were hanged. Other six were punished with life imprisonment.

IT MAY BE UNLAWFUL BUT IT IS A MORAL RIGHT

Now as per Gandhi and otherwise also, a person who loves its nation, and if it wants to make its nation an independent nation, it has right to agitate.

If Godse had moral right then MK Gandhi had moral right, as well as legal right too, to express. It was not Gandhi who failed to control carnages. It was the government that failed, the government which had power to control the situation. Gandhi had no power.

If Godse wanted to play insurgency against Gandhi he could have discussed the disputes with Gandhi. He could have given a notice for discussion before he decided to kill him.

Recall and remember. According to Indian culture, a notice for conducting negotiation need to be given before waging a war. It was Government and power holders in the government required to be targeted by Godse. The target could never be Gandhi for Godse.

Culprits were punished. But what was about many other leaders of RSS? There were many injustice on Hindus and on India where the interest of India was hurt.

e.g.

Nehruvian policy on Tibet, China, Burma had made irreparable harm to India and Indian society.

If RSS was against division of India, what did it do when Iskander Mirza had suggested for Federal Union of Pakistan and India in 1955?

Are these issues, political issues only? Not at all. They were highly related with the security and interest of India.

RSS cannot shirk from the responsibilities from keeping mum on such national issues when it passes the blame of partition of India on MK Gandhi.

RSS kept mum. Is it because RSS was banned? Not at all. RSS was banned only for few months from Feb. 1948. I myself was a member of Saurashtra High School Shakha in 1949 to 1951 in Rajkot. There was no ban on RSS. And otherwise also, RSS members and leaders are citizens of India, and the rights of citizen always prevail.

Is it that the RSS leaders were frustrated due to mass arrests during 1948?

Is it that the RSS leaders were scared of jail?

Had the RSS leaders believed as, had they been agitated against Nehruvian Congress on Tibet, China, Burma and Pakistan issues, they would had been sent to jail?

No. Not all all.

One must know that the then opposition leaders in Parliament had very badly opposed the policy of Nehru. But they had no adequate mass support to uproot the Nehruvian Government in subsequent elections. RSS leaders had simply ignored the matter. RSS leaders could have mobilized the mass and could have provided support of mass to the opposition parties. But the RSS leaders had not tried at all.

Are the RSS leaders scared of punishment?

Yes. It appears like that. At the time of general elections in 1980, the RSS leaders did not come out for preventing Indira Ghandi to come to power, though this Indira Ghandi had executed may scams and frauds with the nation. Simla Pact with Pakistan, Deal with Union Carbide, Imposition of Emergency and political lift to Bhindaranwale to make him politically stronger. This Bhindaranwale had opened the doors of India for cross border terrorists, these were the good reasons to prevent Indira Ghandi to power in 1980.

Is it that the RSS leaders are hypocrite, timid and lacking in sense of wisdom?

The nationalist persons have to be always at war at least to fight out with a pen if not with a sword. But as per the RSS it says that they don’t believe in non-violence. They believe in violence.

If it is like that, then they should had fought out with violence, no need to have phobia of Mahatma Gandhi.    

Leave this aside. Discussion on MK Gandhi is no way significant. He is dead. Otherwise also he had no power.

NEHRUVIANS ARE ALIVE

Nehruvians are alive.

Nehruvians always remained in politics and only politics for power posts.

Nehruvians held power post and that too Number One Power Post,

Nehruvians were and are paid from public money.

Nehruvians misused their power at large scale for their own benefit.

Nehruvians divided people of India, they made money through scandals, frauds and scams. They have lot of money by which they can control media and vote bank. They are not least significant. They have culture to topple any government by any means and at any cost to the nation.

NEO-MAHATMA GANDHI

Now Narendra Modi has come to power. He is Neo-Mahatma Gandhi. Support him with big hand. Get rid of misconceptions about MK Gandhi. Gandhi is not relevant to fight a war against Nehruvian Congress. Uproot Nehruvian Congress to establish social morals and dignity of India.

Shirish Mohanlal Dave

Tags: MK Gandhi, Indira Ghandi, Nehru, Nehruvian, Congress, Godse, RSS, leaders, scared, jail, Narendra, Modi, Neo-Mahatma Gandhi

Read Full Post »

THEY ARE BRAVEMAHATMA GANDHI AND GODSE IN PRINCIPLES

AN INSURGENCY CAN BE OF MAINLY TWO TYPES: NON-VIOLENT AND VIOLENT

In both the insurgency persons involved has to be ready for punishment.

In both the cases, one has to make up its mind to leave its relatives, friends, home, job, town and even the country. This inevitably happens in more or less proportion. One’s family is off course going to suffer socially, mentally and monetarily.

Then what is the difference between these two?

INSURGENCY WITH VIOLENCE:

A person goes with weapon,

A person can be non-transparent,

A person goes underground,

A person fights physically,

A person gets beaten,

A person goes to jail,

A person faces litigation and say if a person gets convicted then the person would undergo punishments like house arrest, jail, life time jail, exile jail, up to capital punishment.

A WAR ON MORAL GROUND AND WITH FAIR PRINCIPLES

In old days in India a war was played associated with fair principles. Rama, Pandava, Chandra Gupta, Rana Pratap, Shivaji and many others, say lastly Subhash Chandra Bose had waged war on moral grounds. We leave this aside in this blog. One can watch Subrhamanian Swami on this topic on You Tube.

INSURGENCY WITH NON-VIOLENCE:

A person is always ready for discussion,

A person keeps transparency,

A person goes without weapon,

A person does everything openly,

A person gives a notice,

A person suffers all tortures physically and mentally,

A person gets beaten,

A person goes to jail,

A person faces litigation and say the person gets convicted then the person would undergo punishment like house arrest, jail, life time jail, exile jail and capital punishment.

 

CAN WE RULED OUT CAPITAL PUNISHMENT TO AN INSURGENT COMMITTED TO NON-VIOLENCE?

A person may not get capital punishment. But this punishment cannot be ruled out if the government is non-democratic.

Democracy is a relative term. A government could be less democratic and could be hypocrite. Such government can kill a person in many other ways.

We know as to how the life of Shyama Prasad Mukharjee was ended up.

We know very well as to how Jai Prakasha Narain was treated medically in the jail and how was he taken to near death condition by the Nehruvian progeny Indira Ghandi.

We know about a lot of persons as to how they had been disappeared from the world by the Nehruvian Governments.

This indicates that the non-violent person or a group of persons has to be ready for facing indirectly imposed capital punishment.

POLICY IN FREEDOM STRUGGLE

What was the decided policy between violent Insurgents and non-violent insurgent during Indian freedom struggle?

Both of them had decided that they should not come into mutual conflict. They should run the struggle on their own principles.

The supporters of Bhagat Singh defame MK Gandhi on the plea that MK Gandhi did not save the life of Bhagat Singh. According to them, it was possible for MK Gandhi to save the life of Bhagat Singh. As said by them a proposal was made by the British.

First of all one should understand that an insurgent has to be ready for any punishment including the capital punishment. The insurgent is supposed to foresee it and the insurgent is supposed to accept it, in case the capital punishment comes to the insurgent.

Bhagat Singh was not timid. He was not scared of punishment. He had foreseen it. He was ready to accept it. He had not prayed for any relief in punishment.

Now suppose, MK Gandhi might had prayed the British to provide relief to Bhagat Singh who believed in insurgency with violation, what could British had done?

As for Gandhi, the British were cunning and not reliable. Besides this it was beyond doubt that British could use such approach of MK Gandhi to defame him maximum. One should not be silly to ask Mahatma Gandhi to fall in the trap of British.

WHY THE PSEUDO SECULAR LEADERS ASK MODI TO SUBMIT APOLOGY ON 2002 RIOTS?

Is it that, in case Narendra Modi had submitted apology the matter would have been ended up there?

No. It would have given a big weapon to pseudo secular to demoralize Narendra Modi and BJP too.

Modi is equally clever and smart like MK Gandhi.

You must be smart enough to understand Narendra Modi and Mahatma Gandhi.

A time has come to apply logic and spell out logically because your stupidity can harm the BJP lead Government.

Shirish Mohanlal Dave

Tags: Insurgence, Agitation, Violence, Non-violence, punishment, MK Gandhi, Godse, notice, communication

Read Full Post »

Reflection of People’s voice: HITTING IN THE BUSH

To implement the terminology of People’s Representative in its real sense and spirit, it is not possible under present system of voting and set up of Election Commission to nominate, select and then elect people’s representative.

VOTERS COUNCIL

We are supposed to have voters’ council under constitution. This voters’ council is supposed to be a workable council. Workable means, a voters’ council should be a booth-wise council so that the people can attend meeting conveniently, communicate their views and the proceeding can be put to records including their opinion and verdict.  The circulars, agenda, minutes etc…  of the meetings of a voters’ council should be authentic.  Everything  has to be conducted under a designated government officer. If this is not done then it could be termed to be improper, irregular and unlawful.

INDEPENDENT OFFICE UNDER A DESIGNATED DEPARTMENT

Not only this, the voters’ council should have an independent office associated with a hall so that voters of a geographical area can be addressed and their opinion can be recorded.  As and when needed voting can be executed.

MEDIA AND KEJRIWAL SHOULD SHOW SENSIBILITY

Now here, Mr. Kejriwal and the electronic media are of the affirmative opinion on the members elected under the banner of AaP, are people’s representatives. In support to this belief they say that Kejriwal had gone in different areas and he has discussed with the people on the selection of the candidates for nominating for election as representative of people in Assembly. Based on the merit (which they had formulated), the contesters  were selected as the candidates to file nomination.

Who is Kejriwal?

But who is Kejriwal to take decision on procedure, selection criteria, selection for consultation and then final selection of a candidate to term him/her as people’s approved nominated candidate to contest the Assembly election?

Since the method adopted by Kejriwal is not supported by constitution, it is unconstitutional. Elected candidate under the banner of his party cannot be legally or morally termed as peoples’ representative as argued by Mr. Kejriwal .

Now any way, in case of a person declared elected under the constitutional provision has to be accepted as people’s representative.

 

REFLECTION OF PEOPLE’S OPINION

As for reflection of people’s opinion in its true spirit and sense, an elected member is supposed to meet  people of his constituency to seek opinion on every matter. He is not answerable to his party. He is answerable to the people who have elected him.

Now in the present situation of forming a government, the party AaP or BJP whatsoever, is not supposed to impose their opinion on the elected members.

WHAT IS THE TRUE SPIRIT OF PEOPLE REPRESENTATIVE?

It is that the legislature to be put before the legislative assembly in the case if he/she get elected. The draft of the legislature has to be circulated among the people and discussed,  then it has to be finalized and then it has to be got approved by the people. This procedure has to be made mandatory for every candidate. If he/she does not follow this procedure then there is no existence of transparency and  reflection of peoples’ opinion in genuine, true and lawful spirit.

PEOPLE’S REPRESENTATIVE

 A people’s representative is supposed to be people’s representative in its sense and spirit. In that case a member should go to the voters who have elected him/her, to seek their opinion on “Yes” or “No” or for modification in the draft as the case may be.

He/she should go to the party to convey the opinion given by his/her voters. In every case/event he/she is supposed ask for the opinion as to what he/she should do?

PEOPLE DO NOT RECOGNIZE ANY PARTY

The people’s representative is supposed to support a legislature/verdict related to an issue on merits. He/she is not supposed to act as per party’s decision. This is because, the people don’t recognize party.

People recognize only a candidate.

However there is no such system to collect such opinion from public on every point.  Further if the party is of the opinion that it will not give support or it will not take support. This type of approach is useless. Because a member of a party who is also a representative of people, is people’s representative first. He is supposed act on merits of an issue at his own will or his voters’ will. His/her party neither can dictate nor can direct.

BASELESS ALLEGATION ON OTHERS

People’s representative is answerable to his voters. First of all, there supposed to be a system for an elected member to seek a quantified opinion. In absence of such system, Kejriwal cannot believe with discrimination that all the elected members of other party are corrupted and thereby they are not worthy to extend support. To discard the support without any sustainable, logical and lawful ground and that to without going through any recognized procedure, Kejriwal cannot ask their elected members to follow him arbitrarily.

ALL ARE EQUAL PEOPLE’S REPRESENTATIVE

All the elected members through a single and same system are equal in all respect.  One cannot discriminate them on any ground.

Kejriwal should know that as a principle Anna as well as MK Gandhi, did not believe in party politics. Besides this there is no provision for voters to recognize a candidate by its party when they cast their votes.  There is a name against which a voter has to press the button. How can Kejriwal  take such decision that every voter who has voted for a candidate of other party has voted for that party and not for that candidate?

If Kejriwal is of the opinion that his elected candidates are the only people’s representative and BJP’s elected candidates are not the representative of people, then Kejriwal’s opinion is erroneous and not sustainable. Kejriwal can not apply double standards.

Once the persons are elected they are all equal. They should decide on every matter/issue/case/ event only on merits. This is the correct way to work in public interest.

Read more on constitutional reforms related with elections at

https://treenetram.wordpress.com/2013/11/14/%E0%A4%A8%E0%A4%B0%E0%A5%87%E0%A4%A8%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%A6%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%B0-%E0%A4%AE%E0%A5%8B%E0%A4%A6%E0%A5%80-%E0%A4%9C%E0%A4%AC-%E0%A4%AA%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%B0%E0%A4%A7%E0%A4%BE%E0%A4%A8-%E0%A4%AE/

Shirish Mohanlal Dave

Tags: people, voice, representative, selected, candidate, nominated, elected, party, member, answerable, responsible, recognize, Kejrival, AaP, BJP, Anna, MK Gandhi, principle, assembly, legislature, opinion, Yes, No, Modification, Draft 

Read Full Post »

%d bloggers like this: