Cashing blood and cashing on dead body: Part-1

Cashing blood and cashing on dead body

Cashing blood and cashing on dead body is the cultural attitude of Indian Nehruvian Congress (I.N.C.) leaders besides making money and playing vote bank politics.

Indian Nehruvian Congress leaders, especially Nehruvians are famous for commiting blunders and frauds.

Now let us look back. Do not say why to look back? Why not to look ahead?

To look back is needed to understand the cultural character of a party and its leaders.

Nehru was off course a confused persons but because he was adament and self centred person, he did not pay any heed to even his own party’s leaders. e.g. Sardar Patel had  advised him and warned him too. e.g.  “Tibet”, “China”, “J & K” and Hyderabad issues are the good examples.

Sardar Patel was ignored:

So far Hyderabad was concern, it was an issue within India, Sardar Patel could handle and resolve by ignoring Nehru. But as for J & K, Sardar Patel in consultation with MK Gandhi, insisted Hari Singh to merge provisionally with India for military aid. Hari Singh merged his kingdom with India. Though MK Gandhi believed to be Masiah and an authority on non-violence, the same MK Gandhi, because his concepts were clear on non-violence, he said Sardar Patel that to help J&K militarily is the duty of India.

Like this way, Sardar Patel made J & K issue, a home issue. But Nehru made this issue an issue of foreign affairs by taking it to UNO. Nehru’s concepts neither clear on socialism nor on non-violence. Nehru’s concepts were clear only for self interest.

As for China-India relation and activities of China in Tibet, this being a matter of external affairs, Sardar Patel   simply invited the attention of Nehru by writing a Demi Official letter. Nehru was wisdom-less and otherwise also he was thinking him self a socialist, besides this he had self-interest as he was self-centred person, he supported China blindly.

Though Nehru one hand, was condemning and cursing heavily the military rule in Pakistan in 1954, Nehru was supporting the non-democratic leaders of China and USSR. One could get surprised by Nehru’s logic. It is a matter of research whether Nehru was a hypocrite or a fraud or both.

Nehru neglected the whole Indian border with China.

INDIAN MILITARY HAS AND HAD REMARKABLE REPUTATION. HOW INDIA CAN BE DEFEATED?

Somewhere in 2002, I came across a retired and very old brigadier of Indian Army. I asked him a question, that China was not that much stronger in 1962 to defeat India … on the contrary India was ahead of China in many fields as reported by the then Chairman of the planning commission Ashok Mehta … besides this, Indian army had never been defeated in past, then how did in 1962 China win the war and that too, be like a cake walk victory?

The 88 year old brigadier told me that  the India’s border with China was totally insecure. We had extremely poor man power at the border and the army was not well equipped. i.e. we had no shoes, woollen clothing, guns, weapons, equipments, artilleries etc…  We had only 2000 odd soldiers on the Indo-China border. China had 8 times more man power and weapons than what we had.

I asked him how much time would it be required to send army with all them making well equipped ? The brigadier said we needed at least one year to transfer the man power and the equipments.

One should know that JB Kripalani a veteran MK Gandhian, was inviting attention of Nehru on the insecure border with China and also pointing out the infiltration of Chinese army in Indian soil. But Nehru was fraudulently denying the infiltration. Nehru used to give vague, irrelevant and philosophical replies in the parliament during 1952 to 1962.

VK Menan  was Nehru’s defense minister. Nehru put him against Kripalani in West Mumbai L.S. seat in the general elections of 1962. VK Menan, with the open help of his Communist friends, defeated Kripalani.

Thereafter, China invaded 92000 square miles of Indian soil in 20 days cake walk victory. India lost 3000+ Jawans (This is an official figure. Un official figure could be much more) and 4000 surrendered to China.

Who was guilty for this loss of lives of Jawans. Was Nehru not a terrorists?

NEHRU CASHED THE BLOOD OF 22 JAWANS WHO DIED DURING INDIA-PORTUGESE (Div, Daman and Goa) WAR IN DECEMBER 1961.

Nehru used to present himself as devoted to non-violence. But just before the declaration of 1962 general elections, he invaded Div, Daman and Goa in December 1961. Nehru cashed the blood of 22 dead Jawans in the general elections 1962.

Fortunately when JL Nehru died, there were no immediate elections. Indian Nehruvian Congress can cash out any benefit out of dead body of Nehru.

INDIRA GANDHI BROKE ALL RECORDS OF CASHING THE BLOOD

Period from 1968 to 1971 was the period of large scale infiltrations of Non-Bengali speaking Muslims from the then East Pakistan (Bangladesh) into India.

These Muslims were not supporting Bangla Liberation movement. That is why they were being driven out. But Bengali speaking were also not safe that is why they too were infiltrated into India. It was a large scale infiltration and these infiltration had paralysed the normal life of West Bengal and North East of India.

Pressure of public and military was getting building up on Indira Gandhi to wage a war against Pakistan and also to send these infiltrators back to Pakistan.

Jai Prakash Narain was visiting western world countries to try to build opinion against Pakistan and to help India, but western world did not paid much heed.

Indira used to remain in vivid condition so far public problems are concern. She was not capable to take decisions in public interest unless the problem strikes on her chair.

It was a high time that war could be declared at any time. People of India were thinking that war may broke at any time.

Pakistan attacked Indian Air Strips. India left with no option to but react hard.

Indian military was ready to attack hard hand since last one year. Pakistan under estimated India’s mindset. Pakistan understood only Indira’s vivid mind.

Pakistan was geographically and strategically in awkword situation.

Pakistan’s Eastern force was not having support of local people,

To bring West Pakistani  force to east side, it had to take a round of whole south India and Cylone to reach  to Bengal.

The US had missed the bus to take the credit of liberation of East Pakistan (Bangladesh), because Pakistan attacked India without taking its clearance. The US did not remain active in the war. Jai Prakash Narain’s western visits counted.

The geographically and strategically awkward situation of Pakistan, becoming highly favourable situation for India.

India left with no option but to achieve victory. If under this situation Indian military did not win the war, then it cannot win any war in future. Hence India was supposed to win this war without fail. India did it.

INDIRA GANDHI CASHED THE BLOOD OF 4000 INDIAN JAWANS DIED IN THIS WAR

This remarkable victory got a very big fame for Indira Gandhi. All India Radio was known as All Indira Radio, otherwise also it was giving a lot of coverage to Indira Gandhi, now the All Indira Radio Started giving out of proportion coverage to Indira Gandhi.

Indira Gandhi conducted assembly elections of many states i.e. 19 states where they were due as usual. Under the aforesaid situation Indira Gandhi won the elections with thumping majority by cashing the victory.

In fact this victory was due to the sacrifice of 4000 JAWANS  and the sincere efforts of Indian defines forces and the people. Indira’s role was minimum. And now we will see how derogative Role Indira played.

(1) Jag Jivan Ram the Defence Minister declared that India would not return the captured land to Pakistan.

(2) India will impose penalty on Pakistan for this imposed war,

(3) India will send back all the infiltrators and ask Pakistan to make good of the expenses India incurred on these infiltrators and the 90000+ Prisioners Of War (POW) surrendered to India,

(4) Not only Kashmir issue but all other issues would be resolved,

The above deal was termed as the Package Deal.

Pakistani Government kept mum on these. But Pakistan was successful in building up pressure through other countries against India that Pakistan was ready for talks but India was not coming forward for talks. Pakistan argued further that India was putting up pre-conditions before coming for a talk.

Indira cannot withstand the foreign diplomatic pressure. She and Bhutto set in Simla. There were lot of affirmative statement on Package deal. But at the end the result was zero or so to say losses to India.

No captured land was retained, but all the captured land pieces were returned to Pakistan. Not only this but the land portion of Pakistan Occupied Kashmir which was captured by Indian military was also returned to Pakistan. This was highly unconstitutional, because India has the claim on POK and it cannot be handedove.

No compensation was recovered from Pakistan,

No penalty was imposed on Pakistan,

All the 90000+ Pakistani Prisioners of War were released with free of charge to Pakistan,

Pakistan returned no POW those were captured in Western border.

This shows that how Indira Gandhi played the game of CASHING HER EFFORTLESS FAME AND CASHING OUT THE BLOOD OF SACRIFICE OF JAWANS.

(CONTINUED)

Shirish Mohanlal Dave

Tags: Sardar Patel, Demi Official, Nehru, Iskander Mirza, Federal Union, general elections 1962, India Portugese War 1961, Cake walk Victory, 3000 Jawans killed, 4000 Jawans killed, 1971 elections, Simla Pact, Package deal, Cashing Blood, Cashing Dead Body, Indira Gandhi

 

 

Read Full Post »

NEHRUVIANS INTOLERANCE AND DISRESPECT TOWARD HUMAN RIGHTS

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

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

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

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

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

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

JAWAHARLAL NEHRU:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

INTOLERANCE OF NEHRU

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

INDIRA GANDHI:
DISRESPECTS:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

INTOLERANCE OF INDIRA GANDHI:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RAJIV GANDHI

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(2) The GANG disrespects BJP leaders.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What does this GANG want?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Shirish M. Dave

Tags:

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

Read Full Post »

DO NOT FORGET “ENEMIES ARE NEVER SMALL”

I have received an email from one of my learned friends, on some points which are generally being used to pass blame on BJP and Narendra Modi by many as a failure of BJP government.

MY RESPONSE TO THE POINTS IS AS UNDER:

1 why no difference appears because of Modi whom we feel connected with the soil of India whereas all formers were Muslim/Communists or Christian/Communists anti nationals ?

(1)What I feel that all the problems and issues arise out of negligence, ignorance and thereby failure of Government in the fields of education and employment.

The Nehruvian Congress has no vision right from Nehru. Its ideas on management of land and productions are not worth to debate. I have watched the making of Modi in Gujarat. He was quite an unknown person to the people of Gujarat till he was made a CM of Gujarat in 2001.

A very well established leader viz. Keshubhai Patel was The CM. He was a failure to the public expectation. BJP was losing ground in Gujarat. Ahmedabad Corp election was lost by the BJP. There was a severe earth quake in Gujarat on 26-01-2001. BJP CM was a failure. Media was making fun of Keshubhai.

Some how, by the grace of God, Narendra Modi was appointed as CM by Bajpai.

Narendra took hold of bureaucracy. He suspended several senior officers and set Gujarat to normalcy.

There was a lot of internal fights within BJP. Most leaders of BJP inclusive of Keshubhai where against Modi. They were trying to let him down. But Modi had achieved mass popularity. Media was also against Modi. Modi had discontinued the special treatment to media. A very senior writer of Gujarati literature, published an advertisement asking people to submit their opinion whether Modi should continue as CM or not. People had to use the advertised form to cast their opinion and to forward the opinion with their own postage charges. Modi got 87% votes in favor. However Keshubhai and others continued their fights. They were failed. Modi also won Ahmedabad Corp.

Then it was 2002 riot case. He handled it successfully despite of all odds. He defeated all his rivals without breaking BJP. How? Simply by encouraging education, cottage productions and infrastructure developments. Development brings employment. Infrastructure development brings developments in other fields. If there is a good governance then all these can happen if one has a will.

The changes would become visible by the time of next election. Because infrastructure projects are in pipe line. During Nehruvian Cong rule a tender used to take 3 years to get finalized. It is not the case with the BJP.

2  Indians have given Modi all supper powers still he has no media which speaks good about him expect Sudarshan who is not much known . NDTV is dead antinational . Others are owned by foreign powers . Why Modi failed to rescue  our media ?

(2) Modi has no super power as per constitution. BJP has no absolute majority in LS, and no majority in RS.

Nehruvian Congress knows how to misguide people and how to degrade those who oppose them. Nehruvian Congress has become expert in dividing people by religion, caste and language.

In 1956 Nehru himself had said that if Maharashtra would get Mumbai, he would be happy. By telling this, he gave a message to Marathi people that Gujaratis are the obstructions for Marathi people in getting Mumbai. In fact Gujarati and Marathi lived together for centuries. Narendra Modi has generated a parallel media of print and TV. This is social media. Hence those who love India have to be active on social media to defeat this paid media.

3 If Modi has power to change constitution why he has not put a ban on cow slaughter and free not guilty saints from prison ? . Now he has lost supports from Sadhus community .

(3) BJP has no absolute majority and has no power to change constitution. Modi might be not in favor to take risk.

If Asharam is falling under Sadhu, then most Sadhus must not fall under that category. Shri Shri Ravishankar, Ramdev, and many others are true Sadhus. They do favor Modi. Rest too, would extend favor when they would generate a sense of proportion and sense of priority.

BJP ruled states are doing progress on the ban on cow slaughter.

4 Modi had promised to get black money back in 100 days and every body will be much better . now when he could not do it was not his responsibility to explain poor Indians who are still eagerly waiting . Now they feel cheated .

(4) We have to think with sense of proportion. Nehruvian Congress willfully failed to constitute SIT, despite of the order of SC for 3 years.

Narendra Modi constituted SIT within 3 days. SIT is headed by SC judge. We should have faith in SC and SIT.

Since BJP has no absolute majority it cannot make drastic changes. If ordinance is issued, it can be challenged in SC. Modi does not want to take a risk to give a chance to the media. Media belongs to the pseudo secular gang. It is always ready to abuse Modi by twisting the matters.

Nehruvian Congress and its allies want to create controversy on every matter. Nehruvian Congress has avoided black money issue for six decades, despite of this, Anti-Modi gangs have become able to confuse the learned people on black money issue. They have become successful to create negative image for Narendra Modi and BJP to some extent. Most learned people have lost the sense of proportion. Should we become a part of it?

Please go through my blog “क्या आप भारतके होतैषी है? और फिर भी क्या आप इनमेंसे कोई एक  वर्गमें भी आते हैं?” at https://treenetram.wordpress.com/2015/01/04/%E0%A4%95%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%AF%E0%A4%BE-%E0%A4%86%E0%A4%AA-%E0%A4%AD%E0%A4%BE%E0%A4%B0%E0%A4%A4%E0%A4%95%E0%A5%87-%E0%A4%B9%E0%A5%8B%E0%A4%A4%E0%A5%88%E0%A4%B7%E0%A5%80-%E0%A4%B9%E0%A5%88-%E0%A4%94/

5 Because of these blunders Modi will lose in next election. It is not a blunder at all.

(5) To term it a blunder and to create a negative atmosphere for BJP, is the strategy and trap made by Nehruvian Congress and Anti-Modi (BJP) gangs.

How to tackle this strategy, the way out to it, depends upon us and our sense of proportion to understand and to realize the same.

The pseudo secular gangs are no way better than BJP and Narendra Modi.

We have to remember that Nehruvian Congress has ruled for six decades with majority period of absolute majority.

BJP has never ruled with an absolute majority. Now also, it is ruling with normal majority that too in LS only.

6 So , how India will save herself from wicked Congies and  Muslim/Christian powers to hijack our country ?

(6) As and when Hindus are attacked intellectually, Hindus have to hit them back.

Hindus have good weapons to fight. It is easy for Hindus to hit them back as these Muslim and Christian leaders have basic falsehood and cunningness in their philosophy and actions respectively.

When they attack on us physically, we should take legal action and to expose them, to give wide publicity. We must make such events as  international issue. There is no shortage of weapon to fight intellectually against Nehruvian Congress, pseudo secular, Christian priests and decisive forces of Muslims.

The nationalists should always hit them back repeatedly on their culture, character and their evil actions. They have no defense at all.

e.g. Nehruvian Congress:

Nehru’s Blunders on policy with China, Kashmir, Pakistan, Tibet, Burma, Ceylon etc… no end, including telling lies before parliament.

Indira’s blunders, scams, cunningness for power, negligence on the issue of sending back the Bangadeshi infiltrators, Introduction of Vote bank politics, telling lies before court of law, Simla pact, Union Carbide deal, Emergency, antisocial activities, generating cross border terrorism and what not?

Rajiv Gandhi’s inaction and improper handling of Bhopal gas hazard, making smooth pass for Anderson.

Sonia’s anti-national activities, giving smooth path to Daud to run away, allowing his gang to do all the anti-social activities, unconstitutional actions and a lot scams executed openly. Besides this, her party’s willful failure of reinstatement of Kashmiri Hindus. Denial of natural rights, Human  rights and constitutional rights of Hindus, her negligence on securities of Hindus’ rights everywhere.

Pseudo secular and media: Spreading rumors against Hindus, neglecting Kashmiri Hindus for 25+ years. This is a grave offence of keeping mum on massacre of 3000+ Kashmiri Hindus and keeping them in exile from their own state and houses. They are living in tents from 1990, till date. Hindus should make continuous, wide spread and big noise on this criminal negligence. All the leaders like Nehruvians, Kashmiri leaders like Omar, Farukh, Mufti, separatist leaders IAS officers etc… should be arrested on unbailable warrant, put to jail and convicted for willful negligence of human rights.

Christian priests: An investigation team should be constituted in each state to see as to how the Hindus were converted to Christianity.

Muslim separatists and caste politics: Most Nehruvian Congi leaders and whosoever have played or encouraged vote bank politics to divide India on the basis of caste, religion, so called race and language, should be prosecuted.

E.g.  Akabaruddin, Azamkhan, Mamata, Nitish, Laloo, Karuna, MMS, Sonia … Even without creating any controversy the Nationalist lot of India can hit these virtually anti-nationals, very hard and continuously.

As and when any of the above leaders speaks against BJP government and otherwise also, they should be bombarded by us through print media and social media. Media should be flooded with our attack.

At this stage, when the anti-national elements are alive and making efforts to derogate BJP to create a negative atmosphere, the people who think themselves nationalists, should not touch any non-issues like as to who was responsible for partition or like that…

We must also know that an enemy is never a small. National enemy can never be pardoned.

BJP has to follow Kautilya. BJP has not to follow Prithviraj Chauhan.

Kautilya has said wisely that it is better to have an intelligent enemy than to have a foolish friend.

Shirish Mohanlal Dave

Tags: Nehruvian Cong, Nehru, Indira, Rajiv, Sonia, blunder, scam, lies, SIT, BJP, Narendra Modi, Negative atmosphere, Anti-Modi gangs, pseudo secular gangs

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 »

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 »

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

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

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

Who has said this?

Has it been spelled out by a Hindu fundamentalist?

Is it spelled out by a Militant Hindu Leader?

Has been spelled out by a RSS chief?

No it is said by MK Gandhi to the British.

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

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

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

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

WHAT IS A POLITICAL PARTY?

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

We will concentrate only on Indian Nation Congress.

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

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

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

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

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

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

This point can be made clear in this way.

JL. NEHRU

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

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

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

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

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

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

MOHAMMED ALI JINNA A FAKE MUSLIM

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

M. K. GANDHI

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(Continued)

Shirish Mohanlal Dave

Read Full Post »

STATE ASSEMBLY BUILDING IS TO BE RENTED OUT

ACTION AND PURPOSE BEHIND THE ACTION 

Hello Governor

Let us go through some of the actions of Nehruvian Congress Private Limited and its purpose behind those actions.

It is very common among Nehruvians in India to act under disguise of public interest or in the interest of poor people but to have some different purpose behind that action.

Jawaharlal Nehru

1948: Case of Kashmir taken to UNO by Nehru and accepted the date of report to UNO as LOC with an intention (purpose) to show his out of proportion respect towards UNO. In fact it was a political blunder because Nehru had no wisdom and foresight.

1950: Founded Non-alliance Movement with an aim to show the First world (NATO countries) that military alliance is not the solution for world peace. But indirectly it was unregistered alliance with Second World (Communist countries Russia and China)

1952: Accepted sovereignty of China on Tibet. To show the Communist countries Russia and China that he was more aligned to socialism than human rights. Internally he wanted backing of Russia and China against the influence of USA and others.

 

1952: Puch-sheel treaty with China, to show the world that he loved peace and has soft corner for Buddhism (the vote-bank of Ambedkar).

 

1953-1962: Non-action on Chinese military infiltration and denial before parliament of India on any Chinese  infiltration in India. To show Russia that he had soft corner towards China and how much faith the people of India had in him despite of his blunders. It cannot be ruled out that he wanted political assistance from Russia in playing political unfair tactics with people of India.

 

1962: Nehru said “enemy has betrayed us on his Defeat against China due to neglecting security of borders. This statement was made to misguide the people of India to show that he was innocent. When Nehru was asked that when the forward movement of China in India would get stopped? Nehru replied “where and when we would stop them by our strength”. But China had captured 30000 square miles additional land more than what it had claimed in Indian land. China made cease fire of his own and gave back the additional seized land of 30000 square miles out of 92000/- square miles of total seized land.

 

1963: Nehru took oath “we will not take rest until we recapture the lost land of mother India”. The purpose was to show his sincerity towards mother India. In fact Nehru was a fraud and he made fraudulent statement. He and his progenies knew very well that the lost land was never going to be recaptured.

 

MORARJI DESAI WAS ICS AND COMPETITOR No One to Nehru

1963: Kamraj Plan: Nehru spelled purpose to strengthen the party by utilising services of senior leaders. Internally his purpose was to remove Morarji Desai who was his number one opponent.

 

Indira Gandhi:

Removal of privy-purses of Kings: This was with a view to show that she was socialistic. In fact the privy-purses were in accordance to the agreement signed with them when they handed over their kingdoms to independent India. The annual payment was to getting reduced to end up to zero in due course. However Indira wanted to show her promptness and militancy on establishing socialism to remove poverty.

 

Nationalisation of 14 leading private banks: Morarji Desai had introduced socialisation of banking. The RBI controls the policy of advances. Hence Morarji Desai was on right path. But Indira Gandhi wanted to spoil the bank employees for her political benefit. Nationalisation of Banks spoiled the administration of all these banks. Banks’ money got utilised for granting no-return loan as per the unwritten understanding. Like this the purpose was in no way effective to remove poverty or to uplift poor mass, but to share loan amount among managers (not always), recommending authority of loan (viz. Nehruvian Congress local leaders) and the borrowers. 1968 to 1984 of further rule of Indira Gandhi no poverty had been removed.

 

Remove Poverty was a fraud

Emergency: Indira declared emergency under the plea that her opponents instigating people to revolt against government and there was bulk indiscipline. But in reality her purpose was to retain her power and PM-ship.

 

Weak deal with Union Carbide: to make India self sufficient on pesticides. In fact under table deal cannot be ruled out as it is a practice of western industrialists to establish such hazardous production units in poor countries so that they can fool the local governments in case of hazard by way of executing defective agreement with purchasable government like Nehruvian Congress of India Private Limited.

 

Indira had no wisdom to see what could happen consequent to Simla Pact

Simla Pact: Bhutto said If I would solve all the problems and issues with India and agree to any such pact, I would be killed in Pakistan, and the agreement would not have any meaning. Indira Gandhi agreed to this as reported by Indira and no issue or problem was solved and converted victory into defeat. Further reality was so-called weak pact had also been made useless, as otherwise also Bhutto had been killed by the successive government of Pakistan. It cannot be ruled out that there could be an undertable deal with Bhutto by Indira Gandhi.

Rajiv Gandhi 

Deal with Ceylon: The aim was to have good relation with Ceylon. But it was complete avoidance of the interest of Tamilians in Ceylon. It was a blunder. Can you imagine that Pakistan would send its military in Kashmir to kill Muslim terrorists?

 

Every body has to make Nehruvian Congress comfortable in a deal

Boffors tanks: To make India stronger in military. We know the fact.

 

Anderson of Union Carbide: Rajiv said he would come back whenever we call him under investigation. It was a fraudulent statement. Under table deal cannot be ruled out for giving an easy pass to Anderson.

 

Man Mohan and Sonia Gandhi:

 

Harshad Mehta security scam: Man Mohan the then Finance Minister announced that he would take suitable corrective step such that security scam would not get repeated. The purpose was to show to the public that they were innocent. He said it was the fault of system. In fact the designers of the system were themselves. Man Mohan had made several phones to pressurise the then Income Tax Commissioner Vishvabandhu Gupta not to take action.

 

Though Man Mohan was FM at that time, when he became PM, Satyam scam took place.

 

Ravan Lila at Ram Lila Maidan: Nehruvian Government says law was taking its own course. In fact the police authority said, it was a political decision.

 

Jan Lok Pal Bill: Nehruvian Cong leaders say Parliament is supreme and government wants strong Lokpal. In fact the Civil Society was formed in consultation with government and Nehruvian Congress never wanted a strong Lokpal. Nehruvian Congress never tried to discuss on the merits. Arun Jetley had never been replied to the points.

 

Similar are the cases of Black-red money, Printing of currency notes by RBI, Distribution of Fake currency notes by RBI, Statements related with deportation of Daud, curtailing the scope of RTI act. EVM … there is no end. We can write a bigger book than Maha Bharat on the frauds, scams, scandals and blunders Nehruvians and Nehruvian Congress together with their allies.

 

ONE SHOULD NOT BE IN POLITICS FOR POWER

Governor appoints Lok Pal in Gujarat: Nehruvian Congress says we are sincerely on Lok Pal. Chronology says the issue has been made political by Nehruvian Congress. Governor and opposition party (Nehruvian Congress of India Private Limited) in Gujarat in joint venture rejected the proposal of ruling party (BJP Gujarat), without any merits and convincing reason. The HC has not gone through the political aspect and aims of Nehruvian Congress. Purpose behind the action is important. The purpose cannot be set aside in jurisprudent.

Do they want to scrap the state government? Let us rent out the State Assembly building.

 

Shirish Mohanlal Dave

 

Tags:

Nehruvian, Purpose, Action, Power, Politics, Jawahar, Indira, Man Mohan, FM, PM, Governor, Gujarat, State Assembly, Rent out

Read Full Post »