Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘principles’

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 »

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.

democratic Gandhi

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 »

%d bloggers like this: