Discovery of Metteyya the Awakened One with Awareness Universe(FOAINDMAOAU)
From Analytic Insight Net - FREE Online Tipiṭaka Law Research & Practice University in
 116 CLASSICAL LANGUAGES in BUDDHA'S own Words through http://sarvajan.ambedkar.orgat 668, 5A main Road, 8th Cross, HAL 3rd Stage, Punya Bhumi Bengaluru- Magadhi Karnataka State -PRABUDDHA BHARAT

January 2017
« Dec   Feb »
2122 Sun 29 Jan 2017 LESSONS…/live-bsp-chief-mayawati-addresses-a-p… Remember what Napolean has said: “I can face two battalions but not two scribes ” Today the PRESSTITUTE media that serves only the urban readers are selfish. People do not buy newspapers but they are loyal users of Internet Facebook, WhatsAPP, Twitter, Youtube SMS and are the scribes mentioned by Napolean and are the owners of Journalism. But the media are chamchas, chelas, slaves , boot-lickers and own mothers flesh eaters of Murderer of democratic institutions (Modi). If any one goes against him IT raids will be conducted on him. Uttar Pradesh polls: BJP manifesto draws flak from political rivals-…/commenta…/article5951429.ece…/mayawati-s-muslim…/356157.html BSP supremo Mayawati’s major minority push by fielding a little more than a hundred Muslim candidates will give her the desired results in line with what she got in the 2007 elections by engineering the SC/ST-Brahmin combination. She is following what Dr BR Ambedkar wished to give more seats to minorities and less to the majority people for real justice.…/ BJP (Bahuth Jiyadha Psychopaths) remotely controlled by just 1% intolerant, militant, shooting, lynching, lunatic, mentally retarded chitpawan brahmin psychopaths of RSS (Rakshasa Swayam Sevaks ) for their stealth, shadowy, discriminatory hindutva cult rashtra are themselves the top terrorists of the world. America enlisted RSS in one of the Biggest Terrorist Organisation in the World
Filed under: Vinaya Pitaka, Sutta Pitaka, Abhidhamma Pitaka, Tipiṭaka
Posted by: site admin @ 9:25 pm

2122 Sun 29 Jan 2017


Uttar Pradesh polls: BJP manifesto draws flak from political rivals

BSP supremo Mayawati’s major minority push by fielding a little more
than a hundred Muslim candidates will give her the desired results

America enlisted RSS in one of the Biggest Terrorist Organisation in the World…/live-bsp-chief-mayawati-addresses-a-p…

Remember what Napolean has said: “I can face two battalions but not two scribes “
Today the PRESSTITUTE media that serves only the urban readers are
selfish. People do not buy newspapers but they are loyal users of
Internet Facebook, WhatsAPP, Twitter, Youtube SMS and are the scribes
mentioned by Napolean and are the owners of Journalism. But the media
are chamchas, chelas, slaves , boot-lickers and own mothers flesh eaters
of Murderer of democratic institutions (Modi). If any one goes against
him IT raids will be conducted on him.

Uttar Pradesh polls: BJP manifesto draws flak from political rivals

Trashing the manifesto as another attempt to hoodwink the people of
Uttar Pradesh, BSP chief Mayawati said the party which failed to fulfil
its earlier promises has no moral right to bring a document of pledge.

After gobbling the Master by tampering the EVMs Murderer of demoratic
institutions (Modi) has shown total insensitivity and behaved
irresponsibly in almost three years.

“After failing to fulfil the
‘achche din’ promise made during the 2014 Lok Sabha elections, BJP has
no moral right to bring out this manifesto…it is another attempt to
hoodwink people of the state,” she told mediapersons after release of
the document by BJP chief Amit Shah. he has brought Bhuri din with his
Demonitisation where hundreds of people died in his QUEUE INDIA
MOVEMENT, while his remote controller RSS claimed that people who died
in the queue were patriots and sacrificed their lives (Balidhan) for
their stealth, shdowy, discriminatory hindutva cult rashtra.

and Modi had made a slew of promises and allurements to the people of
the country and Uttar Pradesh as well like bringing achche din, but now
they are not even on the agenda of the Centre Mayawati claimed. The
promises made in the manifesto on Saturday are hollow, she added.

Manifesto is a bundle of lies and it was out to rake up the Ram temple
issue once again to hide its shortcomings.EC must take action against
BJP which is violating the model code of conduct in the name of

The manifesto has no mention of how many labourers and
workers lost jobs and suffered due to theDEMONitasation, the BJP chief
is promising setting up of task force to deal with mining mafia but
maximum illegal mining takes place in BJP-ruled states like
Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand and Madhya Pradesh.

These states does not
have task force for the purpose in these states launched any campaign
against the mining mafia.The BJP manifesto is a “document of lies” based
on false promises aimed at misleading the people

.All the Bahuth
Jiyadha psychopaths (BJP) ruled state are non-developing states.In BJP
Modi bluffed that he is a OBC though he is from Gandhi’s caste and a
tea seller for the sake of power and money while many of the tea sellers
are really poor.

People are clever now and will not fall for
gimmicks of uneducated RSS (Rakshasa Swayam Sevaks).Sarvajan i.e., all
societies including SC?STs/ OBCs/ Muslims and Upper castes are happy
together…They trust each other and respect each other under Ms
Mayawat’s BSP.

In a huge outreach to the Muslim community, which
forms 18 per cent of the state, the BSP has given tickets to 97 Muslim

The Ansari family is having considerable influence
in about 20 assembly constituencies in Ghazipur, Mau, Azamgarh, Ballia
and Varanasi.

Modi in 2014 had promised a lot in the Lok Sabha
elections in UP. He had said that he wanted to provide electricity to
all the people of Uttar Pradesh, he said we will do a lot in 20 days and
30 days.

In 2014, he had promised that he will bring all the
black money from the foreign countries and deposit Rs 15 Lakhs in every
citizens bank account.

The BJP, Congress, SP and their allies
which are vultures of a feather that flock together and feed on the
bodies of the Sarvajan Samaj Voters have plundered the country since

BJP has its own manifesto, instead of implementing the Modern Constitution.

Only the 1st rate athmas (souls) must get educated and hold all the top
posts in Central, State and PSUs as they are the only meritorious
people on the earth who can perform.

2nd rate souls have to rule this country.

3rd rate souls must do business and trade.

4th rate souls must serve all the above

The Aboriginal Inhabitants (SC/STs) have no souls so that they could do
anything they wished to do and the women are not equal to men.

Also poke their dirty nose in other dish promising to press for taking
forward its view on the triple talaq in the Supreme Court.

party is firm on the RSSised Ram temple issue…efforts will be made to
ensure that Ram temple is constructed under the constitutional
provisions and also RSS says irrespective of constitutional provision
they will go ahead and build the RSSised temple.


Now Bhagwan Bharose. Lord Ram, please forgive them and bless them with
good sense, else they will declare you also as antinational.


EC open your eyes ask the parties/leaders to publish the Revenue and
Expenses for their manifesto promises along with candidates assets for
the last 5/10/15 years on the bill boards so that voters can take a
better decisions to vote or reject their proposals Jaihind.

Anoop Gupta

Worst news paper ever

Indian express and The hindu ..
Nation is watching ur activities..
Jo bo rhe ho khud bhi whi paoge… dont think people fool… u ignorant
fools… there was so much to discuss on the menifesto…. thats y no
one reads u…
Go get some air… Keep dreaming u guys will not get
any gift from Modiji to write acticles in favour of him… bt u fools
must know truth prevails…
Thats y BJP is winning in every corner of the country..

Koi padhta bhi h kya itna ghathiya article… sudhar jao aur sach
likho… presstitutes…. tum logo ko kewal ram mandir dikha menifesto
me …. common …. u loosers…. bjp will win for sure… u loosers
will do vidhwavilap i know…. aur haa ram mandir mudda is not back it
was also in previous menifesto… u ignorant fools… go get ur lessons
ready… or leave ur rotten journalism right now …. u fools .. haha

Karthik Reddy

Is this porkiExpress ?

can be PM and an IITian can be CM.bjp is not the party of king where son will rule after father or mother.

Samaj Party chief Mayawati is addressing a press conference ahead of
the five-phase Uttar Pradesh assembly elections, scheduled for February

BSP supremo Mayawati’s major minority push by fielding a little more
than a hundred Muslim candidates will give her the desired results in
line with what she got in the 2007 elections by engineering the
SC/ST-Brahmin combination. She is following what Dr BR Ambedkar wished
to give more seats to minorities and less to the majority people for
real justice.

The trend is visible more in the highly polarised
western Uttar Pradesh, where Mayawati has fielded Muslims on 50 of the
140 seats going to polls in the first two phase.

The Sarvajan
Samaj i.e., all societies are happy with the policy of Sarvajan Hitay
Sarvajan Sukhaya i.e., for the welfare, happiness and peace for all

Country’s top terrorists RSS and BJP have to be banned
to achieve the desired objective of DR Ambedkar and Ms Mayawati to save
this country.

Ambedkar and Nationalsim

April 15, 2016 in Featured, Indian Muslim, Viewpoints | 0 Comment
Ambedkar and Nationalsim By Irfan Engineer

Even those political parties that have systematically tried to
undermine Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar’s agenda – of equality, social justice,
fraternity and liberty – are, for political gains, celebrating his
125th birth anniversary. They are invoking Babasaheb only to appropriate
him and enlist him as a supporter of their political objectives which
he was in fact opposed to! Scholarship of the Hindu nationalists was
never the best, but that it would be so abysmal is surprising to many.
Or, is it that they are deliberately trying to use Babasaheb to say
exactly what the Hindu nationalists want knowing well that Babasaheb was
in fact opposed to the agenda of the Hindu nationalists?

To call
Babasaheb himself as a “nationalist” or a “patriot” would be less than
the truth. Babasaheb was a liberal democrat who stood for the principles
of liberty, equality and fraternity along with social justice. In his
book “Pakistan or the Partition of India” (Dr. Ambedkar, 1990),
Babasaheb examines the issue of Partition dispassionately and
rationally, and not from the nationalist perspective. In the said book,
Babasaheb interrogates the Muslim case for Pakistan and the Hindu case
against Pakistan. In the 1946 edition of the book, Babasaheb added Part V
giving his views on the subject in Chapter XIII and XIV. He examines
the case of Canada, South Africa, N. Ireland and Switzerland, analyzes
the religio-racial-ethnic-linguistic conflicts in these countries and
the ways in which they were managing these conflicts with appropriate
systems and governance structures. He then arrives at the conclusion
that the interests of the minorities would be better served if they do
not demand a separate state but safeguards within governance structure
of the country. Note that Babasaheb is concerned with the “interest of
the minorities” and not interest of the “nation”.

In his Address
delivered at the Session of the All India Scheduled Castes Federation
held in Bombay (as it was then called) on May 6, 1945 (Dr. Ambedkar,
1989) Babasaheb supports the principle of self-determination of and
wrote, “I am not against Pakistan, I believe it is founded on principle
of self-determination, which it is now too late to question. I am
prepared to give them the benefit of the principle…”. However, Babasaheb
was for united India as he felt that his proposals would be accepted by
the Muslims in preference to Pakistan as they would provide them with
better security. A nationalist’s position would be rejecting any
proposal for partition of the country and the principle of
self-determination would amount to a sacrilege and an “anti-national”
act! Mere utterance of the word “self-determination” invites lynching
from the Hindu nationalist mobs!

Babasaheb’s proposals were in
brief, weightage in representation of minorities in legislatures as well
as in the executive. He writes, “Majority rule is untenable in theory
and unjustifiable in practice. A majority community may be conceded a
relative majority of representation but it can never claim an absolute
majority”. Babasaheb did not want representation of the majority
community in the legislature to be so large as the enable the majority
to establish its rule with the help of the small minorities. For,
according to Babasaheb, the legislative majority in India was communal
majority, unlike in U.K. where, by and large the people followed a
common religion and spoke a common language. Forget the principle of
weightage, any affirmative action to ensure that minorities do not fall
behind and are not discriminated would invite opprobrium and charge of
“minority appeasement” from the Hindu nationalists. If there is no
weightage in representation and separate electorates for minorities in
the Constitution of India, it is not because Babasaheb was in principle
against it, but because Sardar Patel, chair of the Advisory Committee on
Minorities and Fundamental Rights of the Constituent Assembly,
successfully persuaded the minorities to give up the demand of separate
electorates (and rightly so). Minorities that were left behind after the
partition felt that they should invoke the good will of the majority
community (Constituent Assemble Debates, Vol. V (14-8-1947 to
30-8-1947), 2003, Pp 198-200).

Babasaheb’s views on Nationalism and Hindu Raj:

Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) chief Mohan Bhagwat has claimed that
Babasaheb believed in the ideology of the Sangh and had called its
workers symbols of social unity and integrity. He also said Ambedkar
wanted to adopt the saffron flag of the RSS as the national flag of
India. This is far from truth. Babasaheb was strongly opposed to Hindu
religion and located untouchability and caste based hierarchies in Hindu
religion. That is why he administered vow to 3 lakh followers who
converted with him from Hinduism to Buddhism in which they repeated
along with Babasaheb that they would not have any faith in Brahma,
Vishnu, Maheshwara, Rama, Krishna and that they renounced Hinduism.

Babasaheb denounces not only Muslim nationalism of Jinnah, he writes
that the whole world was decrying against the evils of nationalism and
seeking refuge in international organization (Dr. Ambedkar, 1990, pp.
352-53). According to Babasaheb, Indians were only a people, not a
nation and further opines that there was nothing to be ashamed of if
they were not and would not become a nation (Dr. Ambedkar, 1990, p.
353). The RSS on the other hand believes that Hindu nation is ancient
and its origin went as far back as 2000 years and even more. How could
Hindu Raj or Hindu Rashtra be a nation? Hindu society according to
Babasaheb was undemocratic and that millions of shudras and non-Brahmins
and millions of untouchables were suffering worst consequences of the
undemocratic character of Hindu society (Dr. Ambedkar, 1990, p. 356).

Whereas RSS wants to establish a Hindu Rashtra, Babasaheb thought it
would be a greatest calamity for this country as it was a menace to
liberty, equality and fraternity and it should be prevented at any cost
(Dr. Ambedkar, 1990, p. 358). The lower orders in the Hindu society
shared the plight of the majority of Muslims as far as social, economic
and political needs were concerned and Babasaheb felt that they should
all come together in a common cause to defend the human rights which the
high caste had denied them for centuries (Dr. Ambedkar, 1990, p. 359).

Lip service to Babasaheb:

Pushing the undemocratic agenda of Hindu Rashtra aggressively, the
ruling dispensation is still trying to appropriate Babasaheb and their
strategy in doing so is to build grand monuments and claim that they had
built more monuments than the Congress. Grand monuments of Babasaheb
appease a section of dalit politicians representing the aspirational neo
dalit elite on one hand and mesmerize the oppressed, deprived and
discriminated dalit masses but cannot address their real issues.
Monuments of brick and mortar cannot speak the mind of Babasaheb and
cannot conscientize the dalits to carry on the struggle for equality,
social justice and dignity. The statues, busts and brick and mortar
monuments blunt the conscience of dalits and rob their icons.

They build grand monuments and undermine the principle of liberty,
equality, fraternity and social justice which is ingrained in the
Constitution of India which Babasaheb so painstakingly drafted and then
steered through the Constituent Assembly. Those who are building Grand
monuments of Babasaheb are also lynching those whose views they do not
approve of even in court premises under the watch of police and no
action is taken against anyone. Against the principles of liberty, they
are forcing certain slogans down the throat of unwilling. They are
creating new hierarchies in the name of nationalism and forcing the
country to accept the privileges of neo-nationalists who during freedom
were with the colonial power, and excluding others from equal
citizenship creating neo-untouchables. The neo-untouchables are
erstwhile un-co-opted sections of dalits, adivasis, sections of the
OBCs, minorities, women, farmers and workers of the country.
Extra-judicial and extra-legal networks of violence are deployed to
undermine the rule of law and spout hate speeches coupled with liberal
dose of violence against the neo-untouchables.

The Congress too
paid only lip service to Babasaheb during their rule. Dalits were as
oppressed, discriminated and faced violence in their daily lives, be it
Tsundur carnage in AP, Belchi in Bihar, Bhagalpur blindings, denial of
access to dalits to drinking water wells and access to government
infrastructures. Congress too co-opted a section of dalit leaders with
crumbs of welfare schemes even while discriminating against dalits.

We all the democratic minded citizens of India will have to come
together in the struggle to democratize our culture carry on Babasaheb’s
mission of defending democracy and march towards equality and social

Our Unrepresentative ‘Representative Democracy’

Making a case for Proportional Representation mechanism as opposed to
the incumbent First-Past-the-Post electoral system followed in India,
Indrajit Roy argues that institution of PR mechanisms for
candidate-selection is likely to reduce several of the injustices
associated with the majoritarianism promoted by the FPTP mechanism.
Furthermore, if bolstered by a scheme of substantive representation for
members of underprivileged communities, such as Dalits, Adivasis,
Extremely Backward Classes and the Ajlaf and Arzal Muslims, PR
mechanisms would inaugurate a new era of ‘transformational politics’ for
millions of Indians. One way to do this, as envisaged by Dr Bhim Rao
Ambedkar, could be to introduce the provision of exclusive electorates
for specific ‘caste clusters’ within the PR system. This would entail
the creation of multi-member constituencies with differentiated
electoral rolls based on the ‘caste cluster’ with which voters identify.

As we justifiably celebrate the ‘world’s largest democracy’ going to
the polls, we should perhaps spare a thought for its representativeness.
Governments in India have only occasionally commanded the confidence of
the majority of the electorate. For instance, despite 60 per cent of
the Indian population not wanting it, the United Progressive Alliance
formed the government in 2009. In the past, its chief adversary the
National Democratic Alliance also formed the government under similar
circumstances. As of today, less than 20 per cent (95 of 543 MPs) of the
members of Country’s national Parliament, the apex institution of our
democracy, can claim to possess the confidence of the majority of voters
in their respective constituencies. Nearly three-quarters of all MPs
(402 of 543) were elected by 30-50 per cent of the voters in their
constituencies. Can we really call ourselves a representative democracy
when the overwhelming majority of our legislators are not elected by a
majority of the voters in their constituencies?

These unjust
outcomes make a mockery of democratic ideals of popular sovereignty.
They are the result of the First Past the Post (FPTP) mechanism of
candidate selection that we follow in our country today. The principle
of ‘winner takes all’ entailed in this mechanism means that all
candidates have to do to win elections is to skillfully manage their
constituencies and ensure that their rivals do not secure as many votes
as they do. This often involves buying out rival candidates and/or
ensuring that dummy candidates are nurtured in order to ‘eat into’ the
votes of serious contenders. Most political parties engage in such
tactics although it is probable that the more established and wealthy
the party is, the better it can manipulate voters and manage

We need to initiate a conversation about
candidate selection mechanisms that are more representative of the
diversity of political opinion in this country. In particular, we
urgently need to discuss mechanisms through which members of exploited
and oppressed classes and communities are able to wield substantive
political influence. Political mechanisms that enable members of these
classes and communities to translate their imagination of social justice
into reality are the need of the hour, and Indians should not shy away
from discussing these frankly.

Proportional Representation: Long overdue?

In an important 2006 paper titled ‘Electoral Institutions and the
Politics of Coalitions: Why Some Democracies Redistribute More than
Others’ and published in the American Political Science Review,
political scientists Torben Iversen and David Soskice attribute the
redistributive policy orientation of the European continental
democracies to their early institutionalisation of proportional
representation mechanisms. These mechanisms — and there are several —
conduced to political coalitions between the middle and working classes,
enabling redistribution from the rich to the poor. The PR mechanism
enabled different social groups to coalesce around their own political
organisations, without the possibilities of these organisations being
split and rendered ineffective. No matter how small or weak, they found
representation in the political institutions. By contrast, the FPTP
mechanisms of candidate selection in the Anglo-American democracies
conduced to political coalitions between the upper and middle classes,
stymying the prospects of any redistribution from the rich to the poor.
These findings have considerable implications for us in India. They help
us understand why no significant redistributions in favor of the poor
have occurred, excepting half-hearted implementation of social
protection interventions and affirmative action schemes.

Exclusion vs Coalition

Under the present FPTP mechanism, the legislative majorities commanded
by victorious political parties result from skilful management of seats
rather than from their genuine representativeness of the respective
constituencies. This enables elected representatives to omit the demands
of those who are known (or thought) to have voted for their rivals
without being held accountable for these omissions. This results in the
arbitrary implementation of social protection schemes and affirmative
action policies. A great deal of influence resides in the person of the
sole candidate declared elected. Such a candidate is likely to not enjoy
the confidence of the majority of the voters in a given constituency.
Beneficiaries of schemes and policies are selected by politicians with a
view to furthering patron-client relationships, which prevents either
political parties or politicians from addressing the underlying causes
of poverty.

On the other hand, PR mechanisms entail multi-member
constituencies. There is no one winner. Rather, political parties (and
affiliated politicians) share the polity in accordance with the votes
polled. What matters is political parties’ responsibility to their
constituents, rather than their ability to manipulate electors.
Political parties cannot remain content with mobilising a plurality in
their favor, but must strive to increase their vote share. To do this,
they cannot limit their actions to making patently unsustainable
promises to their constituents, but actually keep as many of those
promises as they possibly can. They are more likely to try and build
political coalitions that encompass as wide sections of their respective
constituencies as possible. Given the sheer numbers of the poor in
India, any widely-encompassing coalition inevitably includes them within
their ambit. Such coalitions are then more likely to ensure that
tax-funded redistributive programs are affected so as to benefit the
entire population, including those who may be unable to pay taxes for a
variety of reasons.

FPTP mechanisms are inherently
politician-centric, while PR mechanisms tend to be more party-centric.
For this reason, politicians contesting under FPTP mechanisms emphasise
their individual ability to ‘get things done’ for this or that group.
They find it more efficient to ‘target’ goods to supporters and
potential supporters, since all they really need to do is to secure a
simple majority. Instead of strengthening citizens’ access to public
goods, they are content with making discretionary allocations from their
budgets that are directed towards ‘key’ constituencies as gifts and
munificence. Our notorious Member of Parliament Local Area Development
Scheme (MPLADS) and Member of Legislative Assembly Constituency
Development Fuund (MLACDF) are a case in point. The incentives under PR
systems are different: political parties try to maximise the coverage of
public goods so as to enhance their support among the population. The
larger the support they can muster, the greater their control over the
constituency. While this makes the allocation of discretionary largesse
difficult (given the large number of competing constituents), it does
incentivise politicians and their parties to ensure that public goods
are available to citizens without additional costs.

Majoritarianism vs. Social Justice

The FPTP mechanism belongs to the family of candidate-selection
mechanisms that are correctly called ‘majoritarian’. This mechanism
enables politicians to completely ignore the opinions and interests of
scattered political minorities. PR mechanisms, on the other hand, are
more representative of these political minorities and allow them a voice
in the legislative institutions. In a society such as ours, where class
divisions are based on variables such as caste, ethnicity and religion,
PR mechanisms are more likely to produce a more representative polity
than the FPTP mechanism. However, PR mechanisms by themselves cannot be
expected to mitigate against the centuries of injustice that members of
the marginalised communities have undergone. They would need to be
bolstered by safeguards for social minorities, particularly SC/STs,
Adivasis, so-called ‘lower’ Shudras (categorised as Extremely Backward
Class in several States) and marginalised communities from among the

These safeguards would have to be more substantive than
the existing policy of ‘reservation’ of seats for members of SC/ST and
Adivasi communities. While the ‘reservation’ of seats enables members of
these communities to be elected to legislative institutions, it does
not necessarily safeguard the interests of SC/STs and Adivasis as such.
The reason for this lies again in the electoral rules governing the
‘reservation’. SC/ST and Adivasi representatives of ‘reserved’
constituencies are elected by all the registered voters of those
constituencies rather than by SC/STs and Adivasis alone. This rule of
electing candidates for ‘reserved’ constituencies was agreed upon under
the terms of the Poona Pact between Ambedkar and Gandhi in 1932. Against
Ambedkar’s well-reasoned proposal of separate constituencies for
SC/STs, wherein SC/STs would vote exclusively for SC/STs in elections,
Gandhi refused to countenance any move that would entail a political
separation between SC/STs and Hindus. With a deadlock confronting him,
Ambedkar had no choice but to accept the unjust rules pertaining to
electing candidates for ‘reserved’ constituencies.

Even where
SC/STs are numerically preponderant, they have been unable to derive
substantial benefits from this system on account of the extraordinary
social disabilities they continue to face. SC/ST and Adivasi candidates
amenable to the privileged classes among privileged communities are
induced to contest elections against those Dalits who are better likely
to be representative of the poorer classes from both privileged caste
and SC/ST backgrounds. Such sponsored candidates are able to ‘win’
easily given the minimal requirements of the FPTP mechanism described
above. Not for nothing did Kanshi Ram, the founder of the Bahujan Samaj
Party, deride this rule as one that bred stooges (chamchas) of the
privileged communities rather than ensuring substantive representation
for SC/STs.

The institution of PR mechanisms for
candidate-selection is likely to reduce several of the injustices
associated with the majoritarianism promoted by the FPTP mechanism.
Furthermore, if bolstered by a scheme of substantive representation for
members of underprivileged communities, such as SC/STs, Adivasis,
Extremely Backward Classes and the Ajlaf and Arzal Muslims, PR
mechanisms would inaugurate a new era of ‘transformational politics’ for
millions of Indians. One way to do this, as envisaged by Dr Bhim Rao
Ambedkar, could be to introduce the provision of exclusive electorates
for specific ‘caste clusters’ within the PR system. This would entail
the creation of multi-member constituencies with differentiated
electoral rolls based on the ‘caste cluster’ with which voters identify.
Provisions for mandatory representation of members of marginalised
communities would ensure that they are not penalised for their numerical
weakness. The PR mechanism would provide the overarching framework
within which the representative character of the electoral procedure
would be nurtured and strengthened. This dual innovation — PR mechanism
coupled with a scheme of differentiated electorates for members of
underprivileged communities— will take us one step closer to bringing
about the fair and just polity that the founders of our republic

The unrepresentative character of India’s
parliamentary democracy is and will continue to be a major institutional
impediment to any ‘transformational politics’. The diversity of
political opinion in India, especially those of the underprivileged,
exploited and oppressed classes and communities, will remain ignored and
suppressed. If our claim of being the world’s largest democracy has to
have substance, we need to interrogate the complacence with which most
politicians, activists and academics have accepted and internalised this
unrepresentative character. It has resulted in the near-complete
dominance of the polity by two political parties which between them do
not command even the majority of votes of the electorate. The
fratricidal jousts between these two parties pass for ideological
debates. What remains ignored is the growing levels of inequality and
the continued denial of social justice to millions of our people.

These elections are an opportunity for India’s political parties to
make a difference by reaffirming their commitment to the principle of
justice enshrined in the preamble of our Constitution. It is an
opportunity for them to move beyond sterile posturing over secularism
and development and strive to link these substantively with the demands
of social justice. The New India is an India of social equality, social
dignity and social justice. Any talk of ‘transformational politics’
without respecting these imaginations, aspirations and assertions is
akin to the noise emanating from empty vessels.

(Indrajit is at
the University of Oxford where he is completing a manuscript on ‘Restive
Subjects: The Politics of the Poor’. His core intellectual interests
lie in investigating the political sociology of economic transition with
a special focus on the ‘emerging markets’ India, Brazil and South

a case for Proportional Representation mechanism as opposed to the
incumbent First-Past-the-Post electoral system followed in India,
<b>Indrajit Roy</b> argues that institution of PR mechanisms
for candidate-selection is likely to reduce…|By Indrajit Roy…/

BJP (Bahuth Jiyadha Psychopaths) remotely controlled by just 1%
intolerant, militant, shooting, lynching, lunatic, mentally retarded
chitpawan brahmin psychopaths of RSS (Rakshasa Swayam Sevaks ) for their
stealth, shadowy, discriminatory hindutva cult rashtra are themselves
the top terrorists of the world.

America enlisted RSS in one of the Biggest Terrorist Organisation in the World

A US-based risk management and consulting company has put the Rashtriya
Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) in its category of ‘Threat Group’ and called it
“a shadowy, discriminatory group that seeks to establish a hndutva cult

Terrorism Watch & Warning provides intelligence,
research, analysis, watch and warning on international terrorism and
domestic terrorism related issues; and is operated by OODA Group LLC
that helps clients identify, manage, and respond to global risks and
uncertainties while exploring emerging opportunities and developing
robust and adaptive strategies for the future.

The RSS was
banned in 1948 following the assassination of Mahatma Gandhi by an
chitpawan brahmin as the owners of RSS member, Nathuram Godse.

Violence as ‘Group Activities’ for the RSS, “Violence has been a
strategy for the Sangh movement against minority groups. Stealth shadowy
discriminatory hindutva cult has been clear about the need for
violence, particularly communal riots. The Sangh has incited rioting to
cause further chasms between religions, and thus a further separation of
religions, and to rally the Hindu community around the philosophy of
hindutva cult.”

The Terrorism Watch & Warning database
contains over 1,00,000 Open source intelligence (OSINT) excerpts from
1999 to present on terrorism and security related issues, attack
database of over 10,000 attacks, original terrorism analysis, terrorism
document repository, Homeland Security Fact Sheets and profiles over 500
Terrorist/Threat Groups.…/uttar-pradesh-elections-bjps-legal-……/articlesh…/49943534.cms

KOLKATA: Claiming that the activists of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh
(RSS) have been indicted in at least 13 terror cases across India,
former Maharashtra inspector general of police S M Mushrif on Thursday
described the BJP’s ideological mentor as India’s number one terrorist

“RSS activists have been chargesheeted in at least
13 cases of terror acts in which RDX has been used. If organisations
like Bajrang Dal are taken into the account, then the number of such
cases goes up to 17,” Mushrif said at an event in Kolkata.

RSS is India’s number one terrorist organisation, there is no doubt on
this,” said Mushrif, referring to the 2007 Mecca Masjid bombing in
Hyderabad, the 2006 and 2008 Malegaon blasts in Maharashtra and the 2007
Samjhauta Express bombings among others.

During elections they
attempt to provoke violence by raking up issues such as Triple Talaq,
Removal of reservation, RSSIse Ram Temple, RSSised anti-reservationist
Sardar patel statue and RSSised Shivaji statue costing Rs 3000 crores
each.But not for replacing the entire EVMs which costs Rs 1600 crores
according to ex CEC Sampath because of which the ex CJI had committed a
grave error of judgement by ordering that the EVMs should be replaced in
a phased manner. Only 8 out of 543 lok Sabha 2014 were replaced. This
helped Murderer of democratic institutions (Modi) to gobble the Master
Key. Henve without any fear he is indulging in issues like the
DEMONItisation anti reservation etc.,
The present CEC says taht
only in 2019 the entire EVMs will be replaced. Till such time he never
ordered for Ballot Papers to be used which helped BSP of Ms Mayawati ti
win majority seats in UP Panchayat elections.

It is the duty of
all people for democracy, liberty, freedom, equality and fraternity as
enshrined in our Modern Constitution including the present CJI to
dissolve all Central and State governments selected by these fraud EVMs
and go for fresh elections with Ballot Papers till entire EVMs were

And to initiate legal action on BJP and RSS for their terrorist activities.And also ban these outfits.

US-based risk management and consulting company has put the Rashtriya
Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) in its category of ‘Threat Group’ and called it

LikeShow More Reactions
comments (0)
2121Sat 28 Jan 2017 LESSONS RSS: In Search of a Pedigree That It Does Not Have- 25 August 2014 National Ambedkar’s view Bhimrao’s Sharp Arrow-Sardar Patel and Dr Ambedkar
Filed under: Vinaya Pitaka, Sutta Pitaka, Abhidhamma Pitaka, Tipiṭaka
Posted by: site admin @ 3:29 am

2121 Sat 28 Jan 2017


Sardar Patel and Dr Ambedkar

25 August 2014

Ambedkar’s view

Bhimrao’s Sharp Arrow

RSS: In Search of a Pedigree That It Does Not Have


Murderer of democratic institutions (Modi)’s  construction began on building a colossal statue of RSSised Sardar
Vallabhbhai Patel on an inland
island called Sadhu Bet facing the Narmada Dam.

Planned at a cost of about Rs.3000 crores and to stand 182 meters (597
feet) tall, this Chinese made bronze statue would be the tallest in the
world to beat the Buddha’s statue in China which is at present the
tallest. There is no doubt that this statue when completed would become a

major place of political worship like the Rajghat and Indira Gandhi
memorial in New Delhi.

But beyond tourist commerce there is another reason driving for this
project. It is to give the RSS a genealogy it doesn’t have.

Manufactured genealogy is a recurring feature of our history.
Pre-Islamic invaders from Central Asia like the Hepthalites (White Huns)
and Ahir Gatae from the region extending from Bactria to present day
Xinjiang conquered a good part of northern part and established

The greatest of these invaders was Kanishka, whose realm stretched
from Turfan in the Tarim Basin in Xinjiang to Pataliputra on the Gangetic
Plain. Kanishka was of Turushka or Turkestani origin. These new rulers,
some of whom were Buddhists, were quickly absorbed into Hindu society
and were made Agnikula Rajputs (family of the Fire God), others got more
extravagant genealogies deriving from the sun and moon, hence
Suryavanshi and Chandravanshi Rajputs. In this manner the integrity of
the chitpawan brahminical varna system was preserved.

The chitpawan brahmin dominated RSS’s government in Maharashtra has embarked on
building another gigantic statue, this one of RSSised Chhatrapati Shivaji. This
is not without some irony as the varna of the Marathas is even now a
contested issue, some arguing for their being of the Kshatriya varna,
and others for their being of Kunbi peasant origins.

This issue was the subject of antagonism between the  chitpawan brahmins and
Marathas, dating back to the time of Shivaji. When it was time for
Shivaji’s coronation in 1674, the chitpawan brahmins of Poona baulked stating that
the Bhonsle’s were not Kshatriyas. The legend has it that a chitpawan brahmin
priest from Banaras, Gaga Bhatta, on receiving a generous payment
performed the ceremony.

The Chathrapati’s genealogy now showed that the Bhonsles were a branch
of the highly respected Sisodias of Mewar, the Kshatriyas of the purest
Rajput clan. Whatever might have been his caste antecedents, Shivaji
undoubtedly was one of Country’s greatest kings. His achievements didn’t
need a manufactured genealogy.

The ultra nationalist RSS is still in search of a genealogy that will
connect it to the nationalist movement that won the country its freedom.

The truth is that the contemporary writings and speeches of RSS leaders
have a very different story to tell. These leaders showed little
enthusiasm for the anti-British struggle. Though the founder of the RSS,
Dr. BR Hedgewar had an early association with the Congress and other
nationalist movements like Bhagat Singh and Chandrashekhar Azad’s
Hindustan Republican Association, he left it all behind to found the

He also stopped his followers from the nationalist path. In fact a later
Sarsanghchalak, BR Deoras, wrote approvingly of how“Dr.Hedgewar saved
him and others from the path of Bhagat Singh and his comrades.” With the
death of Dr.Hedgewar in 1940, the RSS lost all interest in freedom. Its
new leader MS Golwalkar drew inspiration from Adolf Hitler’s ideology
of race purity. Paradoxically Golwalkar also admired Jews for
“maintaining their religion, culture and language.”

Golwalkar’s focus was on religion, racial purity and exclusion. Freedom
was to be left to lesser mortals like Gandhiji and his Congress. He
wanted the RSS to be involved only in “routine work.”

In the words of Golwalkar: “There is another reason for the need of
always remaining involved in routine work. There is some unrest in the
mind due to the situation developing in the country from time to time.
There was such unrest in 1942. Before that there was the movement in
1930-31. At that time many other people had gone to Doctorji (Hedgewar).
This ‘delegation’ requested Doctorji that this movement (Congress) will
give independence and Sangh should not lag behind. At that time, when a
gentleman told Doctorji that he was ready to go to jail, Doctorji said:
‘Definitely go. But who will take care of your family then?’ That
gentlemen told- ‘he has sufficiently arranged resources not only to run
the family expenses for two years but also to pay fines according to the
requirements.’ Then Doctorji said to him-’if you have fully arranged
for the resources then come out to work for the Sangh for two years.’
Golwalkar’s point was crystal clear. Dharam came before Dharma.

The BJP leadership is very keen to project the RSS as a component of the
freedom struggle. The BJP finds it embarrassing that the RSS - to which
the top leadership as well as the overwhelming majority of the cadre of
the BJP belong -was not a part of the freedom movement. The RSS lacks
the courage to categorically state that it did not participate in the
freedom struggle because its ideology prevented it from doing so.

There is the well-known concocted story of how the RSS tried to lionize
Atal Bihari Vajpayee’s role in the 1942 movement. This ended up in a
huge fiasco when it was discovered that Vajpayee actually made a
confessional statement disassociating himself from the event at his
hometown Bateshwar. In this confessional he wrote: “Ten or twelve
persons were in the Forest Office. I was at a distance of 100 yards. I
did not render any assistance in demolishing the government building.
Thereafter, we went to our respective homes.” Clearly this was leading

Hence the RSS is trying to attach themselves the legacy of RSSised Vallabhbhai
Patel, to get a leg into the nationalist movement. They forget that it
was Sardar Patel who had banned the RSS after learning that its workers
were distributing sweets to celebrate Gandhiji’s assassination.

In the run up to the 2014 elections Modi displayed his lack of
knowledge of history or willingness to distort it by saying that the
Congress Party wanted Patel to be the first PM. The fact is that
Jawaharlal Nehru became the President of the Congress in 1946, after
Maulana Azad was dissuaded from offering himself on the basis of the
system of rotation that the Congress informally followed. Patel was
never in the run. Given Nehru’s overwhelming popularity, even if Patel
contested Nehru would have defeated him.

Both, LK Advani and Narendra have tried to create a fissure between
Nehru and Patel. They seem to be confused between dissent and
dissidence. Dissent is a genuine difference of opinion, and there were
many between Nehru and Patel, as should be between two independent
minded individuals. Dissidence is a result of competing ambitions.

On this Patel was clear. He wrote: “It was, therefore, in the fitness of
things that in the twilight preceding the dawn of independence he
(Nehru) should have been our leading light, and that when country was
faced with crises after crises, following the achievement of our
freedom, he should have been the upholder of our faith and the leader of
our legions.” Patel tellingly added: “Contrary to the impression
created by some interested persons and eagerly accepted in credulous
circles, we have worked together as lifelong friends and colleagues,
adjusting ourselves each other’s advice as only those who have
confidence in each other can.”

Now the RSS is trying to make Sardar Patel its own. In this modern
version of the RSS’s history it tries to give itself an indirect lineage
deriving from RSSised Sardar Patel. The colossal statue is supposed to rewrite
its history. But it will only end up as a parvenu wanting in patriotism
when it mattered most

But Modi won’t know all this. History is not his forte, or else
he would not think that Alexander died on the west bank of the Ganges!

(Mohan Guruswamy, a scholar from Harvard, is a well known political commentator)

25 August 2014

Ambedkar’s view

Bhimrao’s Sharp Arrow

Anticipating majoritarianism’s danger, Ambedkar advocated safeguards for SC/STs

Bhimrao Ramji Ambedkar always feared that the Hindus,
specifically the caste Hindus, whom he often addressed with the cold
appellation—Touchables—would gang up communally, pose as a political
majority, and run away with what he called the ‘title deeds’ of
democ­racy. The usage of this heaped category that lumps close to 65 per
cent of the subcontinent’s population (52 per cent obcs plus the rest
of the privileged dwija/twice-born communities), problematic though it
is, indicates a shift from an earlier, more nuanced position Ambedkar
held in 1931. That was when he saw the various jatis belonging to the
four varnas—Shudra, Vaishya, Kshatriya, brahmin—as “a gradation of
castes forming an ascending scale of reverence and a des­cen­ding scale
of contempt”, a system he believed “gives no scope for the growth of
that sentiment of equality and fraternity so essential for a democratic
form of government”.

A lot had
changed from 1931 to 1945, but Ambedkar was still smarting
from the defeat inflicted on him by the blackmail fast his principal
adversary, Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi, undertook in Poona in 1932. Till
the success at the Round Table Conference in 1931, Ambedkar was coasting
along. With the Mahad Satyagraha (1927) and stellar performances in the
Bombay Legislative Council behind him, he had come to be seen as the
distinctive voice of the Untouchables. He consistently argued that the
Untouchables should not be clubbed with Touchable Hindus. This
position—echoed previously by Panditar Iyothee Thass (1845-1914), the
radical Tamil Buddhist thinker—was first articu­lated by Ambedkar during
his submission to the South borough Franchise Commis­sion in 1919,
he submitted that the Untouchables formed “a separate element in
Country’s social life”, and hence were a social minority.  “That was
Ambedkar’s first political statement.”

After eight years, when Ambedkar led 3,000 SC/STs to drink water from
a tank in Mahad maintained with public funds, and thus establish “the
norm of equality”, the obduracy of the caste Hindus and Gandhi’s
conspicuous silence on the thirst of the Untouchables for equality made
him arrive at a conclusion historians of the Left, Right, Congress and
Subaltern Studies have refused to acknowledge: “The satyagraha movement
started by Gandhi was backed by the people as it was against foreign
domination. Our struggle is against the mass of caste Hindus and
naturally we have little support from outside.” All his life, Ambedkar
identified the Hindus (which translated into the brahmin-baniya
Congress) as the principal adversaries of SC/STs in the social and
political field.

Despite all efforts to keep him out of the Constituent Assembly, Jogendranath Mandal got him elected.

Yet, Ambedkar convinced the British to accept the fact
that Untouchables deserved separate electorates and the double vote.
This was granted by the Communal Award of August 16, 1932. What did this
entail? The Scheduled Castes were to have their own electorates and
exclusi­vely choose their representati­ves. Additi­onally, they would
have a second vote—to choose who among the Tou­chables would be the
least inimical to them. Untouchables, regarded habitually by Touchables
as lesser humans unfit for association, needed such protection if they
were to be treated as equal. Democ­racy, premised on ‘one person one
vote’, needed to be modified to suit the subcontinental context composed
of multiple minorities. Ambedkar was making an immense moral demand of
the Hindus: for the crime of practising untouchability over centuries,
Hindus will not be allo­wed to vote for Untou­chables for 10 years. But
the Scheduled Castes will have a say in choosing who among the Hindus
could possibly be their friend. This was a modest price he was seeking
of Touchables who owed an unrepayable debt for generations of slavery
and dehumanisation of 15 per cent of the population whose very shadow
they were afraid of.

After Gandhi stymied this scheme, Ambedkar faced one electoral
humili­ation after another. He found it impossible to get
self-respecting, independent SC/STs into legislatures. Several times,
his own defeat was inevitable. In fact, his election to the Constituent
Assembly required a miracle.

Padma-award-friendly court historians and Films Division-style propaganda by the likes of Shyam Benegal (his Sam­vidhan
series for Doordarshan) would have us believe that it was at Gandhi’s
benevolent and large-hearted suggestion that Ambedkar was made chairman
of the drafting committee of the Constitution. The truth is every effort
was made to ensure that Ambedkar did not even enter the Constituent
Assembly. In the 1946 elections to the provincial assemblies, Ambedkar’s
Scheduled Caste Federation suffered crushing defeats. The
first-past-the-post (FPTP) system led to only pliable SC/STs—‘Harijans’—being elected from reserved constituencies. In the
July 1946 elections to the Constituent Assembly, then Bombay prime
minister B.G. Kherat engineered Ambed­kar’s defeat at Vallabhbhai
Patel’s behest. Jogendra­nath Mandal, SCF leader from Bengal, stepped in
to get Ambedkar elected to the Constituent Assembly from Bengal where
Mandal had forged an alliance with the Muslim League.

Lasting legacy Dalits in Mumbai on his 51st death anniversary

It was at this juncture that, unsure of his place and role in the
Constituent Assembly, Ambedkar prepared a memorandum in March 1947: States and Minorities: What are Their Rights and How to Secure them in the Constitution of Free India.
This ‘Constitution of the United States of India’ offe­red a unique
solution so that a communal majority did not wear the garb of political
majority. The minorities—Muslims, SC/STs or Sikhs—if they were not to be
“crushed and overwhel­med by the communal majority”—ought to have
greater representation in a legislative body than their actual share in
the population.

Had Ambedkar’s formula been accepted, we wouldn’t have had the aberration of a party with 31% voteshare winning.

States and Minorities echoed Ambedkar’s
presidential address to the SCF in 1945, where he said: “In our country, the
majority is not a political majority. In this country, the majority is born; it
is not made. That is the difference between a communal majority and a
political majority.” He offered a prescient formula to thwart the
communal majority from claiming a political majority. In the Central
Assembly, the Hindus, who form 54.68 per cent of the population, should
get 40 per cent representation; Muslims with 28.5 per cent should get 32
per cent; Scheduled Castes with their 14.3 per cent should get 20 per
cent; 1.16 per cent  Christians 3 per cent; 1.49 per cent Sikhs 4
per cent; and 0.05 per cent Anglo-Indians 1 per cent. In Bombay, the
Hindus, who are 76.42 per cent of the population, should get 40 per cent
representation in the legislature; Muslims, 9.98 per cent of the
population, 28 per cent; 9.64 per cent Scheduled Castes, 28 per cent,
and so on. The minorities must get representation positively
disproportionate to their ratio in population while for the majority
community it is capped at 40 per cent. That is, less should have more,
and more should have less. Where Hindus were outnumbered, like in
pre-partition Punjab, Muslims comprising 57.06 per cent would get 40 per
cent representation; Hindus at 22.17 per cent, 28 per cent, and so
forth. This formula could well have even prevented Partition.

This is because Ambedkar believed “majority rule is untenable in
theory and unjustifiable in practice. A majority community may be
conceded a relative majority of representation but it can never claim an
absolute majority”. In Thoughts on Linguistic States (1955),
he says, “It would be enough to have plural member constituencies (of
two or three) with cumulative voting in place of the system of
single-member constituency embodied in the present Constitution.”

Had the FPTP system been modified according to Ambed­kar’s formula,
we would not have had the gross statistical aberration in the 2014
general election: with just 31 per cent of the total voteshare (not the
share of the total population), the BJP won 282 Lok Sabha seats. No
party ever has won so many seats with so less a voteshare. The Hindus
have ganged up communally. In the 2007 Gujarat election, Muslims at 9
per cent of the population could elect only five MLAs (2.7 per cent) to
the 182-member assembly. In 2012, only two got elected. For 25 years
now, Gandhi’s Gujarat has not elected a single Muslim to the Lok Sabha.
The ‘Gujarat model’ Ambe­dkar feared is now being experimented with in
Uttar Pradesh. Caste has found a perfect fit with parliamentary

Had Ambedkar had his way, someone like Narendra Modi would have found
it difficult to get elected even to a pancha­yat. And we would not have
had Amit Shah’s mug staring at us from every hoarding in the capital.

(Anand is publisher, Navayana.)

Sardar Patel and Dr Ambedkar

BR Ambedkar and Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel, the BJP and the
government’s latest totems. A few days ago, Murderer of democratic
institutions (Modi)  commissioned Patel’s statue at Kevadia in Gujarat,
which is billed
as being the tallest in the world.But not for Ambedkar.

Meanwhile, Hardik Patel, who has rapidly become somewhat of a rather
painful pinprick for the BJP, continues to agitate for scrapping the
system of reservations altogether, or to accede to his demand for the
Patel quota. While the celebrations and commemoration is on today, he,
presently behind bars for arson and vandalism, and his supporters are
raring to play a disruptive role.

Thus, in this perplexing crucible, it would be worthwhile to
delve into the tomes of history and see whether both the icons –
Ambedkar and Patel – saw eye-to-eye on caste and reservations

Did You Know?

  • Sardar Patel and Dr Ambedkar strongly differed on reservation and caste.
  • They sparred over this in the Constituent Assembly Debates.
  • Ambedkar wanted to protect SC/ST rights via quotas in education and employment.
  • Patel
    felt quotas “quotas are anti-national”.

  • The Constituent Assembly Debates,
    which took place from 9 December 1946 to 24 January 1950, provide the
    richest source of material for pursuing this inquiry. This is because
    reservations, which are now enshrined in the Constitution as a part of
    the fundamental right to equality and non-discrimination, were one of
    the most hotly debated issues.

    On 24 January 1947, the Advisory Committee on Rights of
    Citizens, Minorities, and Tribal and Excluded Area was set up, with
    Patel as the head, and Ambedkar a member of one of the sub-committees,
    the one on Fundamental Rights. On one hand, the Committee was clear that
    the scourge of the caste-system and all the oppression it brought in
    its wake has to be eradicated, and there must be constitutional and
    legal safeguards to ensure that discrimination and practice of
    untouchability in any form was disposed of in the trashcans of history.

    Ambedkar was the Chairman of the Drafting Committee of the
    Constituent Assembly, but he also had a very determined agenda – to
    safeguard the rights of SC/STs and ensure that their continued
    subjugation was brought to an end, even if it required a persistent and
    ‘combative’ approach. He was in no doubt that it would not be possible
    without securing political and economic rights – that is, through quotas
    in public education and employment. Therefore, he proposed that the
    government must set aside, by prescription, a certain percentage of
    posts for the backward and depressed classes.

    Patel, on the other hand, and many members of the Congress,
    predominantly upper-castes, especially KM Munshi and Pandit Thakur Das
    Bharghava, were vehemently opposed to this. Munshi and Bharghava
    insisted that the SC/STs were part of Hinduism, and they should eschew
    their demands for quotas and separate electorates, because that would
    make them stand out as separate, thereby causing a schism in the Hindu
    community and polity.

    Ambedkar, who had demanded separate electorates for guaranteeing equal
    opportunities in political representation resolutely pressed ahead. He
    did so in spite of being forced on the backfoot by Gandhi to accede to
    the Poona Pact of 1932 (which considerably diluted the stakes of the Scheduled Castes).

    At this moment, one could perhaps pause and wonder who all Patel had in
    mind while insisting that the reality of centuries of slurs, torture,
    and abject deprivation be ‘forgotten’? Just because Ambedkar and a few
    other SC/STs, whose tales of overcoming seemingly insurmountable
    barriers are legion, had made their way to the Constituent Assembly ?
    Also, doesn’t his stance resonate exactly with what Hardik and his
    cohorts are demanding – that economic status should be the sole
    criterion for deciding upon reservations?

    Enforced Civility towards Determination and “Merit”?

    in any discussion or debate on reservations, “merit” is bound to
    feature. Demands that it should be the only criterion for opening doors
    to opportunities in both education and employment are rampant. By merit,
    those who oppose reservations, mean ‘performance’ – in terms of
    examination scores and professional accomplishments. They fervently
    believe that any other factor – social discrimination and exclusion –
    which have a significant bearing on an individual or a group’s
    performance in certain spheres, must be left at the wayside.

    In this context, historian Christophe Jaffrelot’s seminal treatise
    on Ambedkar’s battle against untouchability provides illuminating
    insights into how he could even make it to the Constituent Assembly in
    the first place. It assumes all the more significance because of late,
    there have been consistent efforts to “whitewash” Ambedkar – scrub him clean of his SC/ST identity
    and present him as a shining constitutional scholar and statesman
    (which he undoubtedly was) only. Efforts are also underfoot to present
    him as someone who is given more respect than he deserves, and someone who hugely benefited from Gandhi and Patel’s magnanimity. These have come mostly from the BJP, whose Arun Shourie heaped scorn on Ambedkar.

    Here, one needs to read Jaffrelot, who shows how the Indian National Congress scuttled his election
    to the Constituent Assembly, and Patel, who always maintained a cordial
    demeanour, did have a hand in it. Ultimately it was Jogendra Nath
    Mandal, a SC leader from Bengal, who later went on to become
    Pakistan’s first Law Minister, who helped him get elected.

    as the BJP and its allies surge ahead, Hardik rages on, and the Congress
    clambers on to the criticism bandwagon, a travel into the past rakes up
    some revelatory truths.…/cm-drops-letter-banning-religious…

    Maharashtra CM drops letter banning religious photos in govt offices

    State government employees’ union has strongly protested actions being taken against the officer.

    Mumbai: Chief minister Devendra Fadnavis has ordered the withdrawal of a
    letter by the state rural development department banning religious
    pictures in government offices after meeting Shiv Sena ministers. But
    the said letter is based on a government circular issued in June 2002.

    The Asian Age has copies of the 2002 circular as well as the recent
    letter issued by the department reiterating the former’s contents. But
    overlooking the 2002 circular, the government has sought explanation
    from the concerned desk officer who issued the guidelines afresh earlier
    this month. The state government employees’ union has strongly
    protested actions being taken against the officer, against whom a show
    cause notice was served today. The desk officer, A.V. Warkade, was asked
    to give his explanation in writing by his superiors. When contacted by
    The Asian Age, Mr Warkade however refused to talk. “I am not authorised
    to speak to media,” he said.

    On Friday morning, Mr Fadnavis
    ordered an inquiry into the said letter sent sent by Mr Warakade on
    January 4 of this year. “Any pictures of Gods, as well as religious
    festivals, writing slogans in government offices is not permitted under
    government rule and according to the Constitution,” stated the letter.
    The ruling Shiv Sena party strongly objected the letter reaching its
    peak on Thursday when Shiv Sena chief Uddhav Thackeray raised the issue
    in his political rally as well.

    However, the issue of the letter
    was not a manifestation of a single man’s whim. In a government circular
    of rural development ministry from 2002, a copy of which is in
    possession of The Asian Age, clearly instructed their employees not to
    post any religious pictures in offices.

    However, Mr Warakade
    issued the letter in his capacity as a desk officer, after receiving it
    from the Chief Minister’s Office (CMO). Maharashtra Cast Tribe
    Government Employees Welfare Union as well as Secular Movement
    Organisation had sent the letters to CMO demanding issuance of
    instructions on religious pictures in government offices.

    asked if blaming the officer was justified, Shiv Sena leader and
    Industry Minister Subhash Desai said, “There is no issue of
    generalisation. Be it circular from 2002 or 1947. This rule was not in
    actual implication, then why pushing it now? It is an emotional issue
    for us and till we are in the government we will never allow officers to
    disrespect emotions of Hindus.”

    The State Government Employees
    Union has also showed their discontent for taking actions against the
    officer. The union’s general secretary G.D. Kuthe said, “The officer
    shall not be punished as the letter was sent with good intentions. Union
    will see that there won’t be an injustice.”

    Once The EC had passed orders to drape all the BSP symbols Elephant in the last assembly elections for ‘level playing ground’. But noe the same order is not passed to drape the cycles the symbol of SP or its ally Congress’s Hand. The BJP’s lotus symbol must also be draped and in Maharashtra gods pictures must not be displayed because most of the gods or either sitting or standing on Lotus which is the symbol of BJP and also the national flower Lotus must be frozen for level playing ground.
    Abki Baar BSP Ki Sarkar
    BSP का विदेश में भी बजा डंका, ऑस्ट्रेलिया के अप्रवासी भारतीयों ने की मायावती को जीताने की अपील

    Abki Baar BSP Ki Sarkar
    सच्चे भीम सिपाही का क्या है फर्ज । Bheem Mission Song by Haryanvi Bhim

    ●► Subscribe on YouTube: ●►Like on Facebook:https://ww…
    सपना को दिया मुँह तोड़ जवाब । Manjeet Mehra Song for Sapna Nalayak | Bheem Jagran Jhajjar

    सपना को दिया मुँह तोड़ जवाब । Manjeet Mehra Song for Sapna Nalayak | Bheem Jagran Jhajjar ●► Subscribe…
    कैलाश खेर का बहुजन समाज पार्टी के लिए गाना । BSP UP

    comments (0)