Analytic Insight Net - FREE Online Tipiṭaka Research and Practice University and related NEWS through 
http://sarvajan.ambedkar.org 
in
 105 CLASSICAL LANGUAGES
Paṭisambhidā Jāla-Abaddha Paripanti Tipiṭaka Anvesanā ca Paricaya Nikhilavijjālaya ca ñātibhūta Pavatti Nissāya 
http://sarvajan.ambedkar.org anto 105 Seṭṭhaganthāyatta Bhāsā
Categories:

Archives:
Meta:
December 2009
M T W T F S S
« Nov   Jan »
 123456
78910111213
14151617181920
21222324252627
28293031  
12/15/09
Spoke against Mayawati. Expelled.-Rise of the First Pacific Prime Minister
Filed under: General
Posted by: @ 11:21 pm


The Bahujan Samaj Party has lost no time in expelling general secretary
Shahid Siddiqui, who dared to speak against party chief Mayawati.


Daily newspaper
The Indian Express quoted Siddiqui as saying that in party meetings,
“Mayawatiji comes, speaks, goes, there’s no discussion.” The BSP
expulsion came just a few hours after the newspaper had published
Siddiqui’s comments on Monday.


The party said in a press release

that it was expelling Siddiqui for indulging in anti-party activities
and that he had been warned a week ago to improve his way of
working
. It said Siddiqui’s statements on party activities were baseless.

The
party also blamed Siddiqui for the loss of the Bijnor seat in the Lok
Sabha elections this year. Shahid Siddiqui had quit the SP to join the
BSP just before the parliamentary elections and lost to RLD candidate
Sanjay Singh Chauhan.


To the The Indian Express, Siddiqui also
said; “Decisions are taken somewhere else. People like Bal Thackeray,
Prakash Karat who have not been to Parliament, and those like Mayawati
and Chandrababu Naidu who are not MPs themselves, control party MPs.
They tell them what to say and what not to. Parliament is the
chessboard on which the pawns are moved, but the hands moving them are
elsewhere”.


Explaining Siddiqui’s expulsion following his interview in the Indian
Express, cabinet minister Babu Singh Kushwaha said that Siddiqui’s
irresponsible statement was the last nail in his coffin as the party
was annoyed by his errant ways.


‘Right from day one, Siddiqui
had been told in no uncertain terms to maintain discipline and not
indulge in self promotion as BSP was not like other political parties.
But he refused to mend his ways and was angling to get an entry into
the Rajya Sabha. However, our party president gave him a Lok Sabha
ticket for Bijnore that was BSP’s traditional stronghold. Yet he fared
poorly and failed to retain the seat, largely because he could not give
up his hobnobbing with SP,’ Kushwaha stated
.

Dec 15. It was May 2007, when Ku. Mayawati led Bahujan Samaj Party
swept the Uttar Pradesh Assembly Elections,winning 206 out of 403
seats. The dalit czarina silenced all her critics by taking her party
to majority for the first time,becoming the first majority party in the
state since 1991.The social engineering agenda of the 52 year
politician had reaped huge dividends as Mayawati became centre of all
attention in the politics of India. Mulayam Singh Yadav and his
Samajwadi Party associates could never understand what had hit them.

As the recent results of the bye-elections to the 11 assembly
constituencies and a Lok Sabha seat is to be taken into account, BSP
has won 9 out of 11 seats.Now speaking about Mission 2012, BSP has managed to win 9 seats which
indicates that the BSP has still not lost touch with its voters.

Rise of the First Pacific Prime Minister


Now speaking about Mission 2012, BSP has still
not lost touch with its voters. Hence Ku. Mayawati will not only be the first
Scheduled Caste Prime Minister of Jambddvipa, that is, the Great Prabuddha
Bharath, but also rise to be the first Pacific Prime Minister.

Politics and
political matters are considered worldly concerns, yes. But Mayawati did not
ignore such worldly concerns, because as a Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh,
still she is living in society. Food comes from vast numbers of people
constituting society. So she is working to elevate society to evolve into a
higher form, to be more effective and more just?

The Ministers, MLAs and BSP Cadres are also told by Mayawati
to work for the good of many, for the benefit of all beings and for the
betterment of society. The intent behind the founding of the Bahujan Samaj
Party (BSP) was entirely for the benefit of the people.

In the life of Buddha, we find that the Buddha often
discussed politics with the rulers of realms in his time, such as King Mala,
King Kosala, King Licchavi and King Ajatasattu. The Buddha always preached the
kings that they must rule their kingdoms with dasarajadhamma. The dasarajadamma
in Pali is based on ten precepts, in order for the king to best rule the
country. They are:

(1) be liberal and avoid selfishness,

(2) maintain a high moral character,

(3) Be prepared to sacrifice one’s own pleasure for the
well-being of the subjects,

(4) be honest and maintain absolute integrity,

(5) Be kind and gentle,

(6) lead a simple life for the subjects to emulate,

(7) Be free from hatred of any kind,

(8) exercise non-violence,

(9) Practice patience, and

(10) Respect public opinion to promote peace and harmony.

Ms Mayawati’s government who wishes to peacefully rule her
State effectively apply these 10 precepts even today; they haven’t yet and
never will “go out of date.”

She follows
non-violence and peace as a universal message. She did not approve of violence
or the destruction of life, and aware that there is no such thing as a ‘just’
war.
  “The victor breeds hatred; the
defeated lives in misery. He who renounces both victory and defeat is happy and
peaceful.”

She is also
aware ‘When the ruler of a country is just and good, the ministers become just
and good; when the ministers are just and good, the higher officials become
just and good; when the higher officials are just and good, the rank and file
become just and good; when the rank and file become just and good, the people
become just and good.’

Now Ms
Mayawati is been described as one of the greatest leaders. The Leader as
Visionary. Like the captain of a ship, he has a definite goal to chart her
course and steer his ship in the right direction. She has one goal - to find
the cause of suffering and a way out of suffering. Despite much hardship and
setback, she never veered from her course but persevered till she gained
awaken-ness after she got elected as Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh.

Guided by
this vision, her mission is an all-embracing one. It is a mission founded on
compassion and love for all beings, regardless of race, creed or status quo.

The Leader
as Role Model

She has an
exemplary figure, someone we can respect and emulate. She is extraordinary,
virtuous and righteous in every thought, word and deed. She says as

She does and
does as she says. Such integrity and consistency won her the trust of her
followers. She is aware of the ten principles which a ruler ought to be
possessed:

1.                 
Alms giving

2.                 
Morality

3.                 
Unselfishness

4.                 
Integrity

5.                 
Gentleness

6.                 
Self-restraint

7.                 
Non-anger

8.                 
Non-violence

9.                 
Patience

10.             
Agreeability


Father of the Prabuddha Bharath Constitution

Ambedkar proved right

 

After resigning from Nehru’s
Cabinet as Law Minister over the controversial Hindu Code Bill in 1951, Dr.
B.R. Ambedkar spent most of his time writing at his 26, Alipore Road residence in Delhi’s Civil Lines.
Fresh from drafting and the successful piloting of the Indian Constitution in
the Constituent Assembly, he entered one of his most productive writing phases
and left behind a great body of literature on a wide range of subjects.

 

Dr. Ambedkar, who remained a
Rajya Sabha member till his death in December, 1956, made occasional
appearances in the house of elders to express his views on contemporary issues
that exercised him. Though reading and writing on Hinduism and Buddhism
consumed most of his time, the everyday Indian political situation of the 1950s
did not escape his attention. Two of those issues that need to be relooked
today are the reorganisation of the states and his idea of the politics of
majority and minority castes.

 

As the issue of
reorganisation of Indian states on the basis of language raged in the 1950s Dr.
Ambedkar compiled his opinions into a book, Thoughts on Linguistic States,
which was published in 1955. The book is as relevant today as it was then. Dr.
Ambedkar felt that creation of states should be based on equal distribution of
population and their capitals should be centrally located in those states. Dr.
Ambedkar criticised the confusion prevailing in the ruling camp in the 1950s on
linguistic states.

 

He said that one language in
a state can unite people and two languages are sure to divide them. “Culture is
conserved by language”, he said. He supported linguistic states for two
reasons. One, to make the path to democracy easy and the other to remove racial
and cultural tensions.

His opinions find reflection
in today’s situations in Karnataka, Tamil Nadu, Assam
or even Maharashtra. The formula he put forth
for division of states in his book now seems prophetic. He then had envisioned
the division of Bihar into two: north Bihar with Patna
as capital and Ranchi being the capital of south
Bihar.

 

The division did happen,
though it took almost fifty years. For him Andhra and Hyderabad (Telangana) were never one state.
He always perceived them as two separate entities. The demand for a separate
Telangana never really died down.

 

More ominous seems to be his
prescription for Uttar Pradesh. He sought to divide Uttar Pradesh, which was a
six Crore population state in 1955 into three states of two crore population
each. Western Uttar Pradesh with Meerut, Central
Uttar Pradesh with Kanpur and Eastern Uttar
Pradesh with Allahabad
as capitals. He clearly conceptualised that smaller states were always better
administered.

 

Dr. Ambedkar’s
recommendations for Maharashtra will be too
startling for today’s reader. He proposed the creation of a city state of Bombay (Mumbai) with a rider that the taxes collected from
Bombay should be equally divided among the three
states he proposed to carve out of rest of Maharashtra.
His proposal was for a western Maharashtra, Marathwada or central Maharashtra
and eastern Maharashtra comprising Vidharbha.

 

He had also wanted to split
Madhya Pradesh into north and south, which eventually became Madhya Pradesh and
Chhattisgarh many decades later. While accepting the linguistic states
as a matter of principle, he proposed further division of single language
states for better administration, access to administration for people of
various regions within the geographic entity and also their sentiments.

 

[   Excerpts from the Thoughts On
Linguistics States, By Dr Babasaheb Ambedkar 
       

 

SUMMARY OF PRICIPLES
COVERING THE ISSUE

 

For the sake of the reader I summarise
below the principles which should underly the creation of Linguistic States which are
already enunciated In the foregoing pages but
which lie about scattered. These principles may be staled as below :

(1) The idea of having a mixed State must be completely abandoned.

(2) Every State must be an unilingual State. One State, one language.

(3) The
formula one State, one language must not be
confused with the formula of one language, one State.

(4) The
formula one language, one State means that all people speaking one language
should be brought under one Government
irrespective of area, population and dissimilarity of conditions among the
people speaking the language. This is the idea that underlies the agitation for
a united Maharashtra with Bombay. This is an absurd formula and has no
precedent for it. It must be abandoned. A people speaking one language may be
cut up into many States as is done in other parts of the world.

(5) Into
how many States a people speaking one language should be cut up, should depend
upon (1) the requirements of efficient administration, (2) the needs of the
different areas, (3) the sentiments of the different areas, and (4) the proportion
between the majority and minority.

(6) As the
area of the State increases the proportion of the minority to the majority
decreases and the position of the minority becomes precarious and the
opportunities for the majority to practise tyranny over the minority become
greater. The States must therefore be small.

(7) The
minorities must be given protection to prevent the tyranny of the majority. To
do this the Constitution must be amended and provisions must be made for a
system on plural member constituencies (two or three) with cumulative voting ]

 

 

The most fascinating
of Dr. Ambedkar’s proposal was about making Hyderabad, the country’s second capital for
an obvious reason
— this
southern city is equidistant from various regions of the country. The second
reason for mooting this idea was to ease the north-south tension.

 

[ Excerpts from the Thoughts On Linguistics
States, By Dr Babasaheb Ambedkar

 

INDIA AND
THE NECESSITY OF A SECOND CAPITAL

A WAY TO REMOVE TENSION BETWEEN THE NORTH
AND THE SOUTH

 

Can India
afford to have one Capital ? That India has now
one capital does not close the question. If the Capital of India is not
satisfactorily located, now is the time for considering the question.

Since the departure of the British, India
has only one capital and that is Delhi.
Before the British, India
has always had two capitals. During the Moghal
period, India had Delhi as one Capital and Shrinagar
in Kashmir as another Capital. When the
British came they too had two capitals, one was Calcutta and another was Simla. Even when
they left Calcutta for Delhi, they retained Simla as their summer
Capital. The two capitals maintained by the Moghuls
and by the British were the results of climatic conditions.
Neither the British nor the Moghuls were able to
live in Delhi or in Calcutta continuously for 12 months. The
summer months in Delhi
were unbearable to the Moghuls. They made Shrinagar their second capital for
summer months. The summer months in Calcutta
were equally unbearable to the British. They, therefore, established a second
capital. To these climatic conditions must now be added three other conditions.
There was no popular Government when the Moghuls ruled or when the British ruled. Now we have popular Government and the
convenience of the people is an important factor. Delhi is most
inconvenient to the people of the South. They suffer the most from cold as well
as distance. Even the Northern people suffer in the summer months. They do not
complain because they are nearer home and they are nearer the seat of power.
Second is the feeling of the Southern people and the third is the consideration
of Defence. The feeling of the Southern people is that the Capital of their
Country is far away from them and that they are
being ruled by the people of Northern India.
The third consideration is of course more important. It is that Delhi is a vulnerable
place. It is within bombing distance of the neighbouring countries. Although India is trying to live in peace with its neighbours
it cannot be assumed that India
will not have to face war sometime or other and if war comes, the Government of India will have to leave Delhi and find another
place for its location. Which is the place to
which the Government of India can migrate ? A
place that one can think of is Calcutta.
But Calcutta is also within bombing distance
from Tibet.
Although India and China today are
friends, how long the friendship would last no one can definitely say. The
possibility of conflict between India
and China
remains. In that event Calcutta
would be useless. The next town that could be considered as a refuge for the
Central Government is Bombay. But Bombay
is a port and our Indian Navy is too poor to protect the Central Government if it came down to Bombay. Is there a fourth place one could think of? I find Hyderabad to be such a place. Hyderabad Secunderabad
and Bolarum should be constituted into a Chief
Commissioner’ s Province and made a second capital of India. Hyderabad fulfils all the requirements of a capital for India. Hyderabad is equidistant
to all States. Anyone who looks at the table of distances given below will
realise it:

 

 

From Delhi – miles

From Hyderabad – miles

To Bombay

798

440

To Calcutta

868

715

To Madras

1198

330

To
Karnul

957

275

To Trivandrum

1521

660

To Patiala

124

990

To Chandigarh

180

1045

To Lucknow

275

770

 

From the defence point of view it would
give safety to the Central Government. It is equidistant from all parts of India. It would
give satisfaction to the South Indian people that their Government is sometimes
with them. The Government may remain in Delhi during winter months and during other months it can
stay in Hyderabad.
Hyderabad has all the
amenities which Delhi has and it is a far better
City than Delhi.
It has all the grandeur which Delhi has. Buildings are going cheap and they
are really beautiful buildings, far superior to those in Delhi. They are all on sale. The only thing
that is wanting is a Parliament House which the Government of India can easily
build. It is a place in which Parliament can sit all the year round and work,
which it cannot do in Delhi.
I do not see what objection there can be in making Hyderabad a second capital of India. It
should be done right now while we are reorganising the States.

Hyderabad, Secunderabad and Bolarum
should be constituted into a second capital of India. Fortunately, it can be very easily done with satisfaction
to the whole of South India, to Maharashtra and to
the Andhras.

This is
another remedy for easing the tension between the North and the South ]

 

In Karnataka
State the BBMP has
created 198 wards from just less than 100 wards. Even though the number of
seats reserved for SC/ ST is not proportionate to 198, the election is will be
held in February. The BBMP has been bifurcated to 20000 and 30000 population.
When such is the case why not States be bifurcated for every 2 crore
population? Already number of States have been created after Independence. There is no problem. It is for
easy administration.


comments (0)