Sunday, June 15, 2008 5:24:30 PM
world, iraq, Freedom, india
with due respect 2 india and its constitution as wel othr's country i would like to criticise upon sum important topic,.....
Now a day its a good topic to criticise terorists 4wht they usd2do.its the pesons against whom they use force think them like devil or an evil.on the othr hand 4those ppl 4 the protection of whos rights they fightng against any govt or ruling power are the 2nd name of god.they r freedom fightrs.4exampl subhash ch. Bose or khudiram they were terorists 4 British govt bt they r freedom fightrs 4 indians.its only the point of view frm whr ur lookng.if u look 4rm 1angle they seems2b terorists coz they creat teror in the mind of sum ppl betr 2say govt.but if u c frm anothr angle i mean if u think urself as a membr of those groups ppl 4whm they(terorist as most of the ppl think) r fightng u'l find them 2b freedom fightrs.its nt that a person cum 2this world as terorists.but they become terorist subsequently.has any1 evr tried 2knw why they r becoming terorist?why they sacrificng thr lifes?what kind of oppresion they sufferd?No we wil nt evn attempt2 knw.what we cn do is 2 read news papers while takng tea and 2 criticise them as bad men stigmatisng them with the adjective like terorist or evil.
Whtr they dont hv family?whtr they dont dream 2lead a happy life?why they r choosng the destination of death?
If in front of a fathr his daughtr is raped what he wil do?whtr he would think 2 tak revenge or he wil shake hand with the rapist?why our secuirity forces frequenty rape girls of bordr area?and why those rapist nvr punishd?what happen in gujrat?the whole world knws this.1000of muslim females were raped and died evn more and we evry1knws gujrat govt and police activly take part in such massaquer but they were nt covictd rather they again form govt.why this is happening?why??nw if any 1 frm the victim's family take reveng againt those police he wil b stigmatisd as terorist.why?u say what he wil do.he was thrown away frm the doors of law.whtr he is 2 do compromise whose mothr was being raped by an govt official or supportr of ruling party.what wrong his mothr had done?only because she belongs2 a particuler/minority comunity?why govt didnt take any action in this respect?
howevr the main thing is that those who r terorist to an atocratic ruler r the freedom fightr 4 an oppressd people.and there is no ruler betr to say thr cant b any ruler with out an atocratic tendncy in him.the atocracy is a thing which is inherent in evry ruler.and with out an atocratic tendency no person could become a ruler.therefore 4 evry ruler the person who attempts to raise any voice against him is a terorist.on the othr hand the subjects who were being subjectd 2 oppretion by the ruler,4them the same person who was stigmatised by the ruler as terorist, is a freedom fightr.Thus til a atocrat govt or ruler rules the persons who rais voice against him is a terorist and if any day such atocrat ruler lose his power or if such ruler b defeatd by any such protestant or protestants then the protestant who was a terorist b4 fal of the atocrat ruler would become a freedom fightr.and the transition point is called independence.
Now as i said there cn b no ruler with out atocratic tendency therefore the protestant who would become a ruler,someday he would also become an atocrate and again some ppl frm his subjects wil come forward and again the protest wil b raisd.and again that person wil b stigmatisd as terorist til the transition point cum i.e independence.and this cyclic process would go on til the earth exist.
Therefore a person cant b a freedom fightr with out the stigma of 'terorism',just like ther cant b a man with out leading a period of childhood.
4example take iraq.when suddam was rulng protestants belonging 2 sia community were terorist 2 suddam and many of them were killd by him in the name of adjudging in court of law as establishd by him.but those protestant r nw freedom fightr 4 the sia community as reign of suddam come 2 an end.on the othr hand aftr suddam was kild in the name of court proceedin he became freedom fightr 4 sunni community and the sia govt as establisd with the help of usa is an atocratic govt in the eye of sunni community.again at the time whn suddam had made revolution and defeatd the previous atocratic ruler he was a freedom fightr 4 whole iraqi citizens.U cn c the same thing in case of afganistan.
i wil discuss about the same later
Ohh its11pm nw.i'l post more latr.til then frnds coment.
Sunday, June 15, 2008 11:14:38 AM
Democracy, india
Abrahum Linkon said democracy standing upon three pillars i.e WE THE PEOPLE ,FOR THE PEOPLE, BY THE PEOPLE...but what it mean?whether its really exist in any state??
Democracy is a word which is of somewhat vague meaning.is there any stat or country where this exist in essence?answer is no.this concept was evolved only to enjoy power by using powers of d subjects of a country.what it literally mean?that people will b the rulers.but can u show any such instance where people rules?answer is no.can u show any instance where people enact laws?no.
some will argue persons elected by them enacts law.but here is the fallacy.the person so elected make laws only for there own benefit so that if any1raise any voice against them they could destroy them upon the allegation that such people wages war against govt.and thus way they always tried to rule for unlimited time.example b4 u is the art.31A,B,and C of Indian constitution.what law the legislatures enacted therein;its that if state make any law2giv effect any of the d.p.s.p( ie duty of state 2uplift its subjects)and if by such enactment they infringe any of the fundamental right or human right then also such law could not be challenge in any court including supreme court on any ground even if it is found that such enactment did not gave any effect to the d.p.s.p for giving effect to which the law originally enacted.thus the legislatures can do anything at there wish.what is this?is this not autocracy?
theoretically who represents we the people of India whether they are the representative of the majority of indian citizens?ans is no and i can prove that.for example let us assume A,B,C are 3constituencies.A&B belong to X party and C belong2 Y party.Now in 2 constituencies A, and B won defeating Y party each by 50votes.and C who belongs to Y party won by 50,000votes.so over all majority is with Y party but the fallacy is that X party will form Govt as par indian constitution.So we can't even say that the govt so form is the govt elected by we the people of india.
Now i come to the point.what is democracy?it is that peoples are rulers of their country and no one could infringe any of his natural rights.and the opposite is autocracy ie rulers will rule people and if at the estimate of that ruler there is any apprehension that any of its subject may raise voice against him he shall be punished and in such cases people shall have no natural right.in india such element of autocracy is present in art.368.even fundamental rights may b deleted from constitution by amendment and such amendment can not be called into question in any court as because such amendment is not law within the meaning of art13.we can see its practical example when right2property as fundamental right was deleted from art19 of constitution.i can c the day when right to life as fundamental right will also be deleted from constitution.in some less develop country like u.a.e there is also a bills of right but we can not find any such law in india.in such bills of rights as enacted in u.k,u.s.a,chaina,u.a.e there is specific provision that no right as embodied in such bill shall be deleted by amendment or otherwise but new rights may b added.why no such bills of rights yet been enacted in india??reason is very clear.its not made because if such law is enacted the autocrat rulers of our country will face difficulty in suppressing voice of the protestants.
In fact thee seeds of autocracy has been embedded at the inception of framing of constitution by inserting art. 368 whereby the legislatures better to say ruling party has been given unfettered power to amend constitution;the power to delete even fundamental rights;and such amendment can even not be called into question before any court to struck the same down in as much as the same has been declared not to be law within the meaning of art.13.and in abuse of such unrestricted power the irreversible blow has been made to the heart of constitution by insertion of art.31A,31B,31C of constitution.The scope what was under art.31 for becoming autocratic has been extended by art31A,31B,31C and the addition of entries in 9th schedule.the 9th schedule is such a strong arm that entire democracy can be destroyed by it.it is such a protection for autocratic concept that any autocratic legislature meaning thereby ruling party can easily infringe fundamental rights of it's subjects but court can not do anything even after seeing it and in fact judiciary can be made helpless.unlike other democratic country where by no amendment of their constitution a subject's fundamental right could be taken away,in india an extraordinary power for becoming autocrat has been given by the constitution itself.whereas in other democratic country a check has been given upon legislatures by subjecting the amendments under the scope of judicial review,in india the same has been excluded from such scope.in other democratic country like U.K,U.S.A,and even U.A.E the only reason why the list of fundamental rights has been made in-deletable and unalterable is to curtail the scope of becoming autocratic as it is the basic instinct of every human-being to become autocrat if get scope and the legislatures and rulers are not above human being and they are also human beings.but in india we do not find any such check rather scope of becoming autocrat has been given in the constitution from it's inception;and the 1st autocratic attempt has already been made by deletion of subject's right to property from the list of fundamental rights and in india no subject enjoys the fundamental right of property right now though in a democratic country it should be.and in india any subject may be deprive of his property by the state.However the hope is that the supreme court now reviewing how a check may be given to legislatures or better to say rulers if any autocratic attempt is taken by them lifting the veil of their constitutional protections for their arbitrary actions.lets see how far this can be effective.
Later i'll publish what is the meaning of politics in india as understood by politicians....til then bye
My Opera
