http://www.thehinducentre.com/…/commenta…/article5951429.ece

http://muslimmirror.com/eng/ambedkar-and-nationalsim

http://www.tribuneindia.com/…/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.

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
societies.

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
justice.

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
constituencies.

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
Muslims.

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
envisaged.

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
Africa.)

http://www.assam123.com/america-enlisted-rss-one-biggest-t…/

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
rashtra.”

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.

http://www.abplive.in/…/uttar-pradesh-elections-bjps-legal-…

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/…/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
organisation.

“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.

“The
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
replaced.

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