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 »

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 »

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 »