Which one is the real Shiv Sena? – 2

The second part of the story is dismissal of the MLAs who had already sworn in, i.e. taken an oath before the Governor.

Speaker did not carry the trust of the majority members. When the speaker knows this, the speaker should resign from his post.

To not follow the whip by a MLA a non-member is not a democratic decision and it is against the freedom of the member. When the party’s line of action itself is undemocratic and it becomes the matter controversial, one cannot decide the matter by simply YES or NO.

First of all the matter is to be decided as to who represent the verdict of the people. What verdict had been given by the people in the assembly elections?

Is it the party or its member?

Do people elect a person, or a party by casting votes?

If the party, is the verdict of the people, then why the name is incorporated on the list of the Voting Machine? It can be said vice versa, as the symbol pertains to the party.

But if we take this way;

A party is proposing a person, who would authorized to act as per the principles of the party in the assembly if elected. So if the people, likes the policy of the party, the people may elect him/her who has been proposed by a party.

The policy is the part and parcel of the principles of a party. Change in policy, if the same has not been processed properly, and that too not in a democratic way, the person who received the verdict of the people is entitled to act as per the original policy. Because the people had elected him on that Ground. Further, the party has not asked the person’s opinion or his desire before making change in the policy.

Thus neither the dismissal of a person from its party nor the dismissal from the assembly- membership of the person, is possible in a democratic set up.

The judiciary is supposed to decide the matter in a whole and with a broader view in a democratic way. It is not important as to how the matter took place technically. The importance has to be given to the moral and democratic value.

Right to Call Back the people’s representative

If there is no provision of the procedure to use “the right to recall” by the people, in the Indian Constitution, it does not mean that the people can be deprived of their right to recall. There are always general principles for any procedure.

e.g. How much strength is required for a meeting?

(1) In a regular meeting, more than 20% presence is required. Why 20 % presence of Members?

20% are supposed to be out of station. 50% will have some vivid mind and or some other work or priorities than to attend the meeting. We left with 20%. If after serving a notice of the meeting to be held, less than 20% are present in the meeting the meeting has to be postponed. Meeting has to be recalled, by issuing a Notice indicating the reason the last meeting could not be held. If with this notice also, less than 20% members turn up, then this has to be recorded in the minute of the meeting. The meeting’s proceedings should be conducted even with this less than 20% presence of the members.

(2) Similar is a case with floating a tender. There are general principles of calling for the competitive rates. First of all, it has to be decided as to what exactly we want and for what purpose and for which usage. This is called specification of the item. We may also contact experts if needed. Or we may call for opinion as to what should we purchase to meet the requirement to meet with our purpose.

E.g. We may also prepare a Contract Agreement to avoid could be loss. We may also consult a lawyer. If we receive rates only from two parties, we have to extend the date of submitting tender. If thereafter also we receive only two or less tenders, we may opt for retendering or extending the date again or we can open out the tender with the discretion of the competent authority. Then market rate should be ascertained. If any officer does not follow the general condition of the tender, he/she is liable to undergo disciplinary proceedings. It was a matter of surprise as to how the judiciary did not take cognizance while giving the judgement on 2G scam of Congi..

(3) Everywhere there are general rules and special rule. Similarly in absence of special rule or prescribed rule, right to Call Back the representative of the people by the people can be availed. If 20% of voters submit on affidavit to the EC, saying that they have no faith in their representative, the Election Commissioner can call for the re-verdict as Yes/No. If the previously elected person receives majority votes in favour, then the cost should be borne by the persons who voted against in the affidavit. If majority voters votes against, then the re-election should be conducted. This way we can avail the freedom of Right to Call Back.

We can also compare the division of Congress in 1969. There the Judiciary had given its verdict in favour of Congress (Indira).

The brief story is like this:

Indira had called emergency meeting with the members who became member after she was dismissed by the Central Executive Committee of Congress. Off course she had sizable original members too.

Both the Congress were claiming for the original Congress title. Technically the Congress (O) had a control over the Congress organisation. Matter need to be decided based on the position prevailed before the status of Congress membership and the public representatives (i.e. MLA-s, MP of LS and RS of Congress who voted for the Congress party’s official candidate in the presidential election in 1969). But the judiciary gave its verdict on the basis of the public representatives elected in 1980 on Congress ticket. The judiciary stated, “In democracy the public is supreme.”

The great parliamentarian Piloo Modi remarked on the judgement, “ It is funny. If this is the line of giving judgement, then, in case in future, the judgement will FLIP-FLOP based the election result.

The case of Shiv Sena, is little different.

Here the point is about the change of policy without calling the General Body meeting, after the election results. The public had elected the representatives based on the then existed alliance. If the judiciary believes in the same principles, related with the Indira Gandhi’s Claim to be the original Congress, the Shiv Sena of Shinde should be the real Shiv Sena.  

Further the Judiciary should not deny the “right to call back” in the absence of the system in Indian Constitution. Let us hope, the judiciary is not confused.

Shirish Mohanlal Dave

Read Full Post »

Which one is the real Shiv Sena? – 1

What is party?

Leave aside the meaning “Sena” and then discussing on “Who is real Shiv Sena”, if the party has been registered with the EC (Election Commission), then the party is supposed to have its Constitution and aim.

The aim of a political party is generally to act for the welfare of the people. The constitution of a party indicates as to how it would execute its action.

A political party is composed of its registered members and the office bears elected by the registered members under the procedure prescribed in its constitution. These office bears will act in accordance to the party’s constitution.

To incorporate any change in the policy matter, the president of the party has to call a General Body Meeting. Otherwise also to make the changes in the office bearers it has to call for General Body meeting in a regular interval as prescribed in the constitution. If the registered membership is very large, the members of every region, would elect their delegates in proportion (e.g. one delegate per 100 members) to send to the General Body meeting with its suggestions and views.

In a democratic country, all the parties are supposed to have to meet with the democratic requirements, including transparency.

By naming a party as “Sena”, the office bearers cannot function and treat the members as their soldiers. Sena does not carry a specific dictionary meaning. It is just a part to a proper noun.

What is the position of Shiv Sena?

The Shiv Sena had alliance with BJP. This was a part of its policy since long. The last election was fought by Shiv Sena as a partner of the BJP. i.e. the Shiv Sena and the BJP had not put their Candidate against each other. Further it was agreed by the Shiv Sena and BJP both to fight 50% seats of total seats of the Assembly. As a general principle and also as a natural principle, whichever party wins more seats, that party’s leader should be the CM. Here in this case, it was decided that the BJP’s leader viz. Mr. Devendra Fadanvish will be the CM of the alliance (NDA) in Maharashtra. The canvassing also done with the posters prepared on this line. This was as usual.

The Inside Story of Shiv Sena

Most leaders of Shiv Sena, by its nature, used to collect protection money (hapta Vasuli). But BJP is not with this nature. Shiv Sena leaders were not able to act with “Free Will” so far kick-back-s and protection money is concern. This was visible from the statements made by Shiv Sena leaders till Ram Mandir issue was not settled. The Shiv Sena leaders used to blame BJP by saying “BJP says ‘We will construct the temple at the same place (Babri Mosq place) but we will not tell you the date’.” This was the politics of Shiv Sena leaders, with a view to defame BJP indirectly. BJP knew this. But BJP had taken it, as political liberty of Shiv Sena.

Sharad Pawar did know this. He could see that the bonding of Shiv Sena and BJP is not very strong.

Sharad Pawar instigated Shiv Sena’s Uddhav Thakare to have post-election-alliance with his party. However Shiv Sena should not break the alliance with BJP before assembly election, so that Shiv Sena can take benefit of the alliance with BJP.

Shiv Sena might have asked to what to answer, in case a questions is raised on the Shiv Sena’s betrayal towards BJP. Sharad Pawar would have explained the whole plan to Uddhav Thakare. Otherwise also Uddhav Thakare personally was fed up with the alliance with BJP. 

As soon as the Maharashtra Assembly results were out, Uddhav Thakare as per pre-prepared fabricated story, asked BJP, that it was a pre-poll agreement in the alliance that for 2 ½ years the CM should be from Shiv Sena and for 2 ½ years it would be from the BJP. Uddhav Thakare insisted his son Aditya Thakare should be made the CM.

It was natural, that such proposal was certainly to be rejected from the end of BJP. Because the main weapon of BJP is to fight against the rule of dynasty. Hence BJP rejected it. Sharad Pawar also tempted the BJP, to have alliance with NCP. Sharad Pawar instigated Ajit Pawar of his own party to woo BJP to form the government. BJP fell in the net of Sharad Pawar. Ultimately the BJP was fooled.

After failing to form the Government, BJP has no scope to woo with Sharad Pawar again for asking his support, because Ajit Pawar of NCP had betrayed the BJP already.

We will keep all these stories aside.

What should be the position in a democratic country?

Most important point has been neglected by every learned person including the judiciary.

To change the alliance partner is a policy matter or not?

Off course, to Change the pre-poll alliance Partner, after the results are out,  is definitely a policy matter. To discuss the matter related with party’s policy in the General Body meeting is mandatory. Executive body of the party is not authorized to take decision on making the enemy as an ally and vice versa. Hence the post-election alliance, itself is undemocratic.

Judiciary should have taken SUO MOTTO. Why the judiciary has kept silence is a matter of research. The same is with the Election Commission. Because this is a betrayal with the people who gave their verdict as to who should form the Government.

(continued …)

Shirish Mohanlal Dave

Read Full Post »

WHO HAS NOT APPLIED MIND …?

The elections of Karnataka state Assembly are over.

The election result produced a hung assembly

BJP got 104 Seats,

Indian Nehruvian Congress got 78 seats,

JDS+ got 38 seats

And

Others got 2 seats

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

Who are the parties?

(1) Governor of Karnataka

(2) Nehruvian Congress and JDS

(3) BJP

(4) Supreme Court Judges

(1) Governor of Karnataka what was his role?

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

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

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

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

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

Is there any flaw at the end of the Governor?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why 15 days period is termed as the legal period?

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

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

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

(2) Nehruvian Congress and JDS

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

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

(4) Supreme Court:

Who has issued instructions?

Governor has issued the instructions.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We can conclude that it appears;

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

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

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

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

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

or the SC has not applied mind

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

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

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

Shirish M. Dave

 

 

Read Full Post »

MARATHI MANOOS IS MISUNDERSTOOD PART-1?

It appears that the Marathi Manoos is misunderstood by many learned analysts.

Delhi is the capital of India. States and that too the states based on language were formed to maintain the identity of the region and to have a better communication between the government and the people.

What is Mumbai?

Delhi is political capital and Bombay is commercial capital, so that every Indian should have equal right. Somehow Bombay has been merged with Maharashtra, but at that time it was assured by the government that its Five Colors (पंच-रंग) would be maintained. One must know that how Mumbai has been founded and got developed.

Katchi-s, Kathiyavadi-s, Parsi-s, Konkani-s and Anglo Indians have founded and developed Mumbai.

Earlier Mumbai was an island. It was a thinly populated island with Konkani and Kolis. Kolis are the people doing fishing at the western seashore right from Katch through Saurashtra (Kathiyawad) and south Gujarat.

The British decided to develop Mumbai when they got it as dowry from Portuguese in first half of nineteen century.

Katchi, Kathiyavadi-s, South Gujarati-s (Parsi-s got included in 10th Century), were doing sailing and trading with Africa, Arab Stan and Java-Sumatra (Indonesia) since the time immemorial. These people got concentrated in Mumbai by virtue of their experience. They also employed local people of Ghat (Western Ghat). Gradually they became in majority as they are supposed to be. In this way Katchi, Gujarati, Marathi, Konkani and Anglo Indians are the founders and developers of Mumbai.

Policy of Congress since 1918

Until first half of the ninety fifties it was the policy of Congress to have states based on Language. But as for Mumbai and as and when the other big cities crosses the population 50 lakhs, it should be ruled by Central States. Mumbai was already having a Mumbai Pradesh Congress Committee hence it was to be central state. But Marathi people wanted Mumbai in Maharashtra based on the major population (40-45 percent).

Nehru Conspired to defame Morarji Desai

Marathi people agitated and secured bulk number of seats in Mumbai, Maharashtra and Konkan in 1957 general elections. Nehru had foreseen this. To avoid the loss of power, Nehru lead Congress made a State named Bombay State comprised of Katch, Kathiyawad (Saurashtra), Mumbai, Maharashtra, Konkan and Karnataka in 1956.

Nehru knew that this arrangement was not to function for a longer time.

Nehru declared that if Maharashtra gets Mumbai, he would be pleased. This was a mischievous and a low dignified statement if it comes out from a top leader like Nehru. It was an uncalled statement. Nehru wanted to play a game.

Nehru’s statement was interpreted by pro-Nehruvian leaders that Gujaratis (Katchi, Kathiyavadi-s and Gujaratis) are responsible for preventing Mumbai to be in Maharashtra.

Nehru was very much crooked and tactful to divide the people.

First, he made Bilingual state (Gujarati-Marathi) in 1956 with a view that the power can be maintained in the Bombay province, even if Marathi people vote against Congress. Nehru was sure that any loss in seats in Maharashtra would be made up in Gujarat. But Gujarati speaking people especially Central Gujarati and North Gujarati wanted a separate state “Maha Gujarat” comprised of Katch, Saurashtra and Gujarat. They agitated for this.

Nehru was happy because any minor loss to Congress in Gujarat was to be useful to defame Morarji Desai (Morarji Desai was internal rival of Nehru). Nehru was very much successful in his game.

By the formation of bilingual state, congress could retain power in the region of Bombay province.

How to form states was the policy matter of the Central working committee of Congress. Nehru wanted to pass blame on others. He wanted to shirk from the responsibility. To side line his self he stated that he would be happy if Marathi people get Bombay. In fact Gujarati-s had never demanded Mumbai. But Nehru wanted to give an impression and a wrong message to Marathi people that Gujarati-s are the only obstructions for Maharashtra in getting Mumbai in proposed Maharashtra state.

Gujarati-s were beaten in Mumbai and they were forced to leave Mumbai. Some Gujaratis left Mumbai. This caused to paralyse the functioning of Industries. This was because 90 percent Industries belonged to Gujarati and 70 percent trade was also with Gujarati (Gujarati speaking includes Marvadi also.

Gujarati and Marathi lived together for centuries. It was Nehru of Congress who divided them in 1954.

Somehow, sooner the Marathi people realized that Bombay cannot function without Gujaratis. It was an extremely long way to go without Gujarati in Mumbai.

Why did Gujaratis want Gujarat?

This was mainly because less development was getting planned for Gujarat region.

e.g. It was a decision to construct roads in India as per “Colombo Plan”. The execution of roads in Maharashtra region was well ahead, and in Gujarat it was not even started.

Initially Saurashtra region was a separate state. Its CM Uchhangarai Dhebar had done a lot work in Saurashtra. Only Gujarat region was backward. Katch was also backward.

Nehru’s other game to secure votes

Nehru who disguised himself as a leader having faith in non-violence, attacked Div, Daman and Goa. These were colonies of Portuguese before the general elections of 1962. In 1960 he gave Mumbai to Maharashtra.

Gujarat was punished by denying Mount Abu and Dang to Gujarat.

Nehru imposed Jivraj Mehta as the C M on Gujarat. Jivraj Mehta, his gang leaders like Rasikbhai Parikh, Ratubhai Adani etc… in an behind the curtain joint venture defeated some big leaders of Congress in Gujarat where Morarji Desai had a strong hold.

Morarji desai took revenge. He got dismissed Jivaraj Mehta on the plea that Jivraj Mehta incorporated two Ministers who had been alleged for their doubtful integrity, some charges of corruption and activities against some Congress candidates in general elections 1962 of Gujarat. Jivraj Mehta was a man of Nehru, who was trying to make Morarji weak in Gujarat.

Nehru and his daughter had tried their best to defame Morarji Desai and to provide injustice to Gujarat and Gujaratis.

Central Government used to deprive Gujarat of any public sector project.

Even when natural oil was discovered in Gujarat basin near Bhavnagar, it was put under Bombay-high region so that royalty can go to Maharashtra. ONGC HQ was kept in Dehradoon instead of Gujarat, so that even the recruitment of Class-IV category employment can be denied to Gujarat.

In this way Gujarat has been denied for its genuine rights.

Fortunately Gujarati historically, is a community of sail and trade. Thereby some private and small industries could get developed.

Manubhai Shah who was the Minister of Industries and trade, had established small scale Industrial Corporation in every Tehsil in Saurashtra. This line was picked up by Gujarat, when a greater Gujarat (present Gujarat State) was formed in 1962.      

How Aamchi Mumbai and Marathi Manoos is any way related to this information?

(Continued…)

Shirish Mohanlal Dave

Tags:

Katch, Saurashtra, Kathiyavad, Central Gujarat, South Gujarat,sail, trade, public sector, industries, Maharashtra, Karnatak, Konkan, Mumbai, Bombay, iceland, province, state, British, Parsi, bilingual, Congress, policy, Morarji, Desai, Jivraj

 

Read Full Post »