Think before you vote

Letter from Deivamuthu,
Editor, Hindu Voice,
210 Abhinav, Teen Dongri,
Yeshwant Nagar, Goregaon
West, Mumbai 400062.

Think Before You Vote

The coming elections to Parliament and State Assemblies (especially, Andhra Pradesh) are the most crucial for the country and for Hindus. It is a DO-OR-DIE election for Hindus.

Think very carefully before you cast your vote. Ponder over the issues and the risks. If you make a wrong choice you, your children, your grandchildren and all the future generations will be doomed forever.

If you vote for anti-Hindu, pseudo-secular parties, you can be assured that there will be no Hinduism left for the next election.

.Before you make a decision as to which party to vote for, answer these questions:

Do you want the terrorist attacks to continue, with the government taking no action to appease the Minorities?

Do you want to live always in fear of life and security?

Do you want that terrorists sentenced to death by the highest court of India not hanged just to appease the minorities?

Do you want terrorists to be released by the Government for electoral gains?

Do you want Hindu Swamijis, Sanyasins and other Holy Persons to be branded as Hindu Terrorists and subject to utmost cruelty and harassment, just for heinous political gains?

Do you want reservations in education and jobs for Muslims and Christians on the basis of religion?

Do you want India to be converted into a Christian country as the Pope has ordained? (More than  5,000 foreign Christian Missionaries are , working round the clock to convert India to Christianity. Billions of dollars of' foreign money is pouring in. Conversion is the gravest danger that India is facing. Yet, no political party, except BJP is talking about Conversions.)    

Do you agree that Hindus are so imbecile and impotent that a few foreigners with the collusion of some 'Secularists' can convert the oldest religion and culture?

Do you want a Government of 'the Christians, by the Christians, and for the Christians'? Do you want all the important government positions to be filled by Christians?

Do you want Hindus to be totally marginalized in government posts? (In ' 2004 when the UPA govt. was formed the President, Prime Minister, UPA chairperson were non-Hindus. Pseudo- secularists and pseudo-intellectuals hailed it as a triumph of 'Secularism". But, it is an ultimate humiliation for Hindus. Can it happen in any Western democracy? Hindus have to ponder over it.)

Do you want Christian symbols I to be printed on currency notes and I coins?

Do you want your children and grandchildren converted to Christianity by fraud, deceit and bribing? Do you want your daughters to I commit suicide when they are forced to convert to Christianity by the Vice Chancellor and other officials of the University? (Mrs. Veena Noble Das, I V.C. of Padmavati Mahila University in Tirupathi forced the students to convert and some girls committed suicide.)

Do you want all the Hindu temples destroyed by the state governments through Endowment Act?

Do you want your contributions to Hindu Temples spent on Haj for Muslims and for building Churches?

Do you want Hindu Temple lands grabbed by politicians and Churches built on those lands?

Do you want Lord Venkateswara be confined to only TWO HILLS (if Congress comes to power again, they will reissue the GO. to that effect)

Do you want Churches built all over the Tirumala Hills?

Do you want all the Maths and Ashrams taken over by the Government?

Do you want a situation in which you will be ashamed or afraid to call yourself a Hindu?

Do you accept the humiliation meted out to His Holiness Sri Sankaracharya of Kanchi?

Do you want that all iconic symbols of Hinduism such as Ram Sethu, Amarnath etc. be destroyed?

Do  you want famous temples like | Chidambaram to be destroyed by anti-Hindu governments?

Do you want Hindu Gods like Lord Krishna depicted in Government text books as thief and womanizer?

Do you want the Government of India to submit an affidavit in Supreme Court to declare that Lord Rama is a myth and Ramayana is just a story? Can the Government dare declare that Jesus is a myth?

Do you want great patriots like Bhagat Singh and Veer Savarkar described as "terrorists"? (Bhagat Singh was described as terrorist in UPSC examination)

Do   you   accept   "Secular" government   honoring   painter M.F.Hussain who depicts Hindu Goddesses and Bharat Mata in nude and obscene poses?

Do you want India to be fragmented again on the basis of religion?

Do you accept banning of 'symbols like tilak on forehead for  Hindu soldiers and no such restrictions for Muslim and Christian soldiers?

Do you want quota for Muslims and Christians in Armed Forces and Police?

Do you approve special budgets and special funding for Muslims?

Do you agree with Prime Minister Manmohan Singh's statement that Muslims have a first stake in India's assets?

Do you want to live like a Third-class citizen in 'Secular India'?

If the answer to any of the above questions is YES, then you can vote for Congress and other "Secular" Parties. If your answer is NO and if you want to protect your Religion and Culture, think carefully and vote for the Parties who respect Hindus and Hinduism.

‘Indian Dharma is Sanatana Dharma’ – Sri Aurobindo

During the height of freedom struggle,

Sri Aurobindo was arrested and put into jail where he had soul-searching experience.

The result was that he came out with clearer goals of achieving Nationalism

through Sanatana dharma!

Later he shared his thoughts in a meeting at Uttarpara in Bengal, on 30 May 1909.

This speech is very much suitable for today's India

which is turning anarchist with internal bickering,

thanks to the divide and rule policy of present crop of politicians.

Sri Aurobindo's solution to Unity and development of our country

is to adopt Sanatana dharma as the Dharma of India!

To quote his words,

"We speak often of the Hindu religion, of the Sanatana

Dharma, but few of us really know what that religion is. Other

religions are preponderatingly religions of faith and profession,

but the Sanatana Dharma is life itself; it is a thing that has not

so much to be believed as lived. This is the dharma that for

the salvation of humanity was cherished in the seclusion of this

peninsula from of old. It is to give this religion that India is

rising. She does not rise as other countries do, for self or when

she is strong, to trample on the weak. She is rising to shed the

eternal light entrusted to her over the world. India has always

existed for humanity and not for herself and it is for humanity

and not for herself that she must be great…….

He (the Inner voice / Inner God) said to me, "This is the

young generation, the new and mighty nation that is arising at

my command. They are greater than yourself. What have you to

fear? If you stood aside or slept, the work would still be done.

If you were cast aside tomorrow, here are the young men who

will take up your work and do it more mightily than you have

ever done. You have only got some strength from me to speak

a word to this nation which will help to raise it." This was the

next thing He told me.

Then a thing happened suddenly and in a moment I was

hurried away to the seclusion of a solitary cell. What happened

to me during that period I am not impelled to say, but only this

that day after day, He showed me His wonders and made me

realise the utter truth of the Hindu religion. I had had many

doubts before. I was brought up in England amongst foreign

ideas and an atmosphere entirely foreign. About many things

in Hinduism I had once been inclined to believe that it was all

imagination; that there was much of dream in it, much that

was delusion and maya. But now day after day I realised in the

mind, I realised in the heart, I realised in the body the truths

of the Hindu religion. They became living experiences to me,

and things were opened to me which no material science could

explain. When I first approached Him, it was not entirely in

the spirit of the Bhakta, it was not entirely in the spirit of the

Jnani.

I came to Him long ago in Baroda some years before the

Swadeshi began and I was drawn into the public field.

When I approached God at that time, I hardly had a living

faith in Him. The agnostic was in me, the atheist was in me, the

sceptic was in me and I was not absolutely sure that there was a

God at all. I did not feel His presence. Yet something drew me

to the truth of the Vedas, the truth of the Gita, the truth of the

Hindu religion. I felt there must be a mighty truth somewhere in

this Yoga, a mighty truth in this religion based on the Vedanta.

So when I turned to the Yoga and resolved to practise it and

find out if my idea was right, I did it in this spirit and with this

prayer to Him, "If Thou art, then Thou knowest my heart. Thou

knowest that I do not ask for Mukti, I do not ask for anything

which others ask for.

I ask only for strength to uplift this nation,

I ask only to be allowed to live and work for this people whom I

love and to whom I pray that I may devote my life." I strove long

for the realisation of Yoga and at last to some extent I had it, but

in what I most desired, I was not satisfied. Then in the seclusion

of the jail, of the solitary cell I asked for it again. I said, "Give

me Thy adesh. I do not know what work to do or how to do it.

Give me a message."

In the communion of Yoga two messages

came. The first message said, "I have given you a work and it

is to help to uplift this nation. Before long the time will come

when you will have to go out of jail; for it is not my will that this

time either you should be convicted or that you should pass the

time as others have to do, in suffering for their country. I have

called you to work, and that is the adesh for which you have

asked. I give you the adesh to go forth and do my work."

The second message came and it said,

"Something has been shown to you in this year of seclusion,

something about which you had

your doubts and it is the truth of the Hindu religion. It is this

religion that I am raising up before the world, it is this that

I have perfected and developed through the rishis, saints and

avatars, and now it is going forth to do my work among the

nations. I am raising up this nation to send forth my word. This

is the Sanatana Dharma, this is the eternal religion which you

did not really know before, but which I have now revealed to

you. The agnostic and the sceptic in you have been answered,

for I have given you proofs within and without you, physical

and subjective, which have satisfied you. When you go forth,

speak to your nation always this word that it is for the Sanatana

Dharma that they arise, it is for the world and not for themselves

that they arise. I am giving them freedom for the service of the

world.

When therefore it is said that India shall rise, it is the

Sanatana Dharma that shall rise.

When it is said that India shall be great,

it is the Sanatana Dharma that shall be great.

When it is said that India shall expand and extend herself,

it is the Sanatana Dharma that shall expand and extend

itself over the world.

It is for the dharma and by the dharma that India exists.

To magnify the religion means to magnify the country.

I have shown you that I am everywhere

and in all men and in all things,

that I am in this movement and I am not only working in those

who are striving for the country but I am working also in those

who oppose them and stand in their path.

I am working in everybody

and whatever men may think or do they can do nothing

but help on my purpose.

They also are doing my work; they are not my

enemies but my instruments.

In all your actions you are moving

forward without knowing which way you move.

You mean to do one thing and you do another.

You aim at a result and your efforts subserve one

that is different or contrary.

It is Shakti that has gone forth and entered into the people.

Since long ago I have been preparing this uprising and

now the time has come and it is I who will lead it to its fulfilment."

This then is what I have to say to you.

The name of your society is "Society for the Protection of Religion".

Well, the protection of the religion,

the protection and upraising before the world of the Hindu religion,

that is the work before us.

But what is the Hindu religion?

What is this religion which we call Sanatana, eternal?

It is the Hindu religion only because the

Hindu nation has kept it, because in this peninsula it grew up

in the seclusion of the sea and the Himalayas,

because in this sacred and ancient land it was given

as a charge to the Aryan race to preserve through the ages.

But it is not circumscribed by the confines of a single country,

it does not belong peculiarly

and for ever to a bounded part of the world.

That which we call

the Hindu religion is really the eternal religion,

because it is the universal religion which embraces all others.

If a religion is not universal, it cannot be eternal.

A narrow religion, a sectarian religion, an exclusive religion

can live only for a limited time

and a limited purpose.

This is the one religion that can triumph

over materialism by including and anticipating the discoveries of

science and the speculations of philosophy.

It is the one religion

which impresses on mankind the closeness of God to us

and embraces in its compass all the possible means

by which man can approach God.

It is the one religion which insists every

moment on the truth which all religions acknowledge,

that He is in all men and all things and

that in Him we move and have our being.

It is the one religion which enables us not only to

understand and believe this truth

but to realise it with every part of our being.

It is the one religion which shows the world

what the world is, that it is the lila of Vasudeva.

It is the one religion which shows us how we can best play our part

in that lila, its subtlest laws and its noblest rules.

It is the one religion which does not separate life

in any smallest detail from religion,

which knows what immortality is and

has utterly removed from us the reality of death.

This is the word that has been put into my mouth to speak

to you today.

What I intended to speak has been put away from

me, and beyond what is given to me I have nothing to say.

It is only the word that is put into me that I can speak to you.

That word is now finished.

I spoke once before with this force in me

and I said then that this movement is not a political movement

and that nationalism is not politics but a religion, a creed, a faith.

I say it again today, but I put it in another way.

I say no longer that nationalism is a creed, a religion, a faith;

I say that it is

the Sanatana Dharma which for us is nationalism.

This Hindu nation was born with the Sanatana Dharma,

with it it moves

and with it it grows.

When the Sanatana Dharma declines,

Then the nation declines,

and if the Sanatana Dharma were capable of perishing,

with the Sanatana Dharma it would perish.

The Sanatana Dharma, that is nationalism.

This is the message that I have to speak to you."

***********************

(Excerpted from the text published in the Bengalee, an

English-language newspaper of Calcutta,

on 1 June; thoroughly revised by Sri Aurobindo

and republished in the Karmayogin on 19 and 26 June,1909)

Related posts:-

http://jayasreesaranathan.blogspot.com/2009/03/india-as-hindu-nation-to-protect.html

http://jayasreesaranathan.blogspot.com/2009/04/are-you-follower-of-sanatana-dharma.html

***************

News report:-

Advani to consult seers

New Delhi,

http://www.dc-epaper.com/DC/DCC/2009/04/12/ArticleHtmls/12_04_2009_001_016.shtml?Mode=0

LETTERS TO 1,000 SPIRITUAL LEADERS SOON

BJP’s Prime Ministerial candidate L K Advani has promised to set up a “consultative mechanism” involving religious leaders if voted to power to discuss “issues facing the nation.” “It will be our endeavour to seek on a regular basis the guidance of spiritual leaders of all denominations on major challenges and issues facing the nation. For this, we shall evolve a suitable consultative mechanism,” Advani said in a letter to religious leaders on Saturday.

The letter said to be send to more than 1000 spiritual leaders across the country, says it had been the lifelong ambition of Advani that “politics, governance and other national affairs should be guided by lofty ideals as enshrined in the concept of Ram Rajya (ideal state), popularised by Mahatma Gandhi.” “At the present crucial juncture in our nation’s life, when people are looking for a decisive change, I seek your blessings, guidance and support with ‘Sashtang Namaskar’ (utmost reverance),” says the letter.

When contacted, Advani’s office said the copies of the letter have been send to Baba Ramdev, Shri Shri Ravi Shanker, Maulana Waihuddin and several archbishops of different churches.

Treating the LTTE Chief like Porus!!

Mr Karunanidhi has appealed to the Lankan Government to treat Mr Prabhakaran, the LTTE chief with respect and dignity just as how Alexander treated Porus!

This appeal is surprising to say the least.

Does this mean that Mr Karunanidhi is foreseeing the defeat of the LTTE chief?

Does he envisage a situation where Mr Prabhakaran would be caught alive- similar to how Saddam was caught from a hide-out – and that he must not be treated and tried like a prisoner but let off like how Alexander let off Porus?

Is he so sure that the LTTE chief, who propagated the culture of his men biting the cyanide capsule if apprehended, himself would not subject himself to the same fate?

What a warrior he would be then if he is to be caught alive and 'treated with dignity'!!!!

Did Mr Karunanidhi think about all this before making his appeal which has all the trappings of 'Me too in the game, speaking for the LTTE'?

This appeal gets me into thinking of two different issues.

One is about the analogy of Alexander's treatment of Porus.

The other is about the fate of the LTTE Chief, as indicated by his horoscope.

Taking up the first issue,

Mr Karunanidhi as he used to be always, is wrong in his knowledge of history.

He had bungled enough by equating Dravidians with Tamils.

He has also bungled in seeing some 'paguttarivu'

in the story of Alexander winning Porus and letting him off!

Is there logic in thinking that a highly ambitious warrior like Alexander,

who set out on a world tour of aggression,

would give back the kingdom he has won,

to the one from whom he snatched it in a battle ?

This seems to be the spin of the British masters of those times who,

when coming to know of Alexander's war with Porus,

could not think of a victory for the Indian king.

On the hand, there is some logic in thinking that an Indian (Hindu) king

who was habituated to a dharmic war

defeated Alexander and pardoned him off

coming to know of his ambition and origins.

Such a king could have pardoned him and sent him off

with a friendly hand-shake.

Such a king could have treated him well as an athithi!!

The kind of spurt in exchange of people and thoughts

between Greece and India in the period of and later of Alexander,

goes to show that Porus and other Indians had utilized

the coming of Alexander

for exchange of Thought and culture.

Most of Mlechha principles in astrology are dated back to that period only.

This goes to show that there was either exchange of astrological principles

between Indians and Greeks

or that the Greeks had simply learnt from the Indians

and assimilated them in their existing Thought.

The 18 year cycle of eclipses of the nodes

(one round of Rahu-ketu around the zodiac)

was formulated around that time in Greece.

Perhaps their earlier knowledge of observing the eclipses

was added with astrological principles gotten from India.

They probably developed their astrology from this amalgamation,

which later formed the basis of western astrology.

These were also incorporated by Varahamihira later.

Coming to the issue in hand,

it is being agreed nowadays that Alexander did not defeat Porus.

It was Porus who defeated Alexander.

The Karanataka government is said to be making this change in its history books.

When such awareness is developing about our valiant past,

here is our Chief Minister, harping on a questionable version.

But we can not expect him to speak differently.

The truth about Alexander -Porus is just one among the other issues

such as Aryan invasion and equating Tamils with Dravidas

that were meticulously used by him

for brain-washing an entire generation of people!

The second issue is about the horoscope of the LTTE chief.

I reserve it for a future post!

To read about the factual story of Alexander vs Porus, click the following links:-

http://jayasreesaranathan.blogspot.com/2008/07/did-alexander-defeat-porus.html

http://www.hinduwebsite.com/history/research/alexandermyth.asp

http://www.hinduwebsite.com/history/alexander.asp

- jayasree

News report:-

http://www.dc-epaper.com/DC/DCC/2009/04/10/ArticleHtmls/10_04_2009_003_002.shtml?Mode=0#

MK TELLS SRI LANKA TO TREAT TAMILS WITH DIGNITY

Chief minister MKarunanidhi has called upon the Sri Lankan government to treat the LTTE chief Prabhakaran and also the Tamils with due respect and dignity.

"Even if the LTTE is defeated as Mr Rajapaksa desires, he should treat Prabhakaran with due respect and dignity just as Alexander the Great treated King Porus," the chief minister said addressing a huge gathering of the DMK and its allies — the Congress, VCK, TMMK and the public in front of the Chepauk guest house here on Thursday night at the end of a rally taken out to demand an immediate ceasefire in Lanka so as to protect the Tamils there.

"I am not saying this for the sake of Prabhakaran, but I appeal on behalf of the Tamils, even in the event of the LTTE losing the battle, the Lankan government should treat the Tamils as equals and devolve powers to them as envisaged in the Indo-Sri Lanka accord," he said and warned Mr Mahinda Rajapaksa that "history would not forgive him if he wiped out the Tamil race in Lanka." Referring to the resolution passed by AIADMK general secretary Jayalalithaa during her tenure as chief minister, Mr Karunanidhi said if Mr Rajapaksa wanted to go by the Assembly resolution he could extradite Prabhakaran to India (to face trial in former Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi's assassination case) in case he was captured.

He made a fervent appeal to the UPA chairperson Sonia Gandhi to "protect the Lankan Tamils without brooking delay." Pointing out that the present circumstances were not the same as they were during the tenure of Indira Gandhi as Prime minister (who airdropped food packets), the DMK stalwart said the Centre should act swiftly and safeguard the Tamils.

India, a ‘flawed democracy’??

 

 

It does not come as a surprise to know that India is rated as a 'flawed democracy'

by a global research organization.

 

 

The world's biggest democracy is 'flawed' due to the ills of political culture, the kind of political participation, the electoral process and a score of other issues.

 

 

The division of the electorate into convenient constituencies on the basis of castes, self-interest outfits etc have played havoc with the way India can function as a robust economy catering to its over-all development.

 

 

While some stringent changes in the election process such as introducing a two-party system and non recognition of caste, religious and self-interest outfits will go a long way in changing the quality of our democracy, it is worth recalling here PC Alexander's thought provoking article on the un-holy alliances that are now taking shape purely for grabbing power and not for any ideology.

 

 

"One of the major weaknesses of the party system in India has been the lack of any ideological identity for most political parties….

Already the cash-for-votes scam has become a tolerated feature of India's political scene.

When different political formations try after the election to form the government at the Centre, politics will become commerce and the parliamentary system will come into greater disrepute and decline.

Since the time for pre-election alliances and seat adjustments is practically over, the only thing left is to create strong awareness among the people about the dim prospects which our young democracy now faces."

 

To read the complete article, click here:-

 

http://dc-epaper.com/DC/DCC/2009/04/08/ArticleHtmls/08_04_2009_010_006.shtml?Mode=0

 

 

 

 

 

The news report on rating India as the 'flawed democracy"

 

 

http://dc-epaper.com/DC/DCC/2009/04/08/ArticleHtmls/08_04_2009_009_003.shtml?Mode=0

 

 

India may rank well above many other emerging economies in terms of its democratic climate, but it still remains a "flawed democracy", according to global research organisation Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU).

 

In the latest edition of its annual Democracy Index, published on Tuesday, EIU placed India among the 50 countries found to be "flawed democracies".

 

This dubious distinction for the country comes amidst India's democracy being highlighted by preparations for the forthcoming general election, which EIU has also termed as "the world's largest democratic exercise".

 

The index, in which Indian democracy has been ranked at 35th position out of the total 167 countries under review, is based on a collective score of electoral process and pluralism, civil liberties, functioning of government, political participation and political culture. The report has named 30 countries as full democracies, 50 of them as "flawed" democracies, 36 as hybrid regimes and another 51 as authoritarian regimes.

 

The full democracies list is topped by Sweden, followed by Norway, Iceland, the Netherlands, Denmark, Finland, New Zealand, Switzerland, Luxembourg, Australia, Canada, Ireland and Germany, among others.

 

Other full democracies include Japan, the US, the United Kingdom, Greece, France, Portugal, Mauritius, South Korea and Italy.

 

Countries like Singapore, Hong Kong, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Russia, Bhutan, Turkey, Nepal and Iraq have been named hybrid regimes.

 

The authoritarian regimes include Jordan, Egypt, Morocco, Nigeria, Kuwait, Afghanistan, Oman, China, Qatar, Iran, the United Arab Emirates, Vietnam and North Korea.

 

Did you register yourself as a voter?

 

From

Vandana Krishnan,
Communications Manager
Jaago Re! One Billion Votes

Jaago Re! One Billion Votes campaign commends your effort to register yourself as a voter and make India a better democracy.

The voter list in Chennai has not been released in English. Thus, we are unable to directly inform you of your voter registration status.

However, you can check your names on the revised voters' list published by the State's Chief Electoral Officer on January 10 at http://www.elections.tn.nic.in/ if you submitted the form before November 25.

If you submitted the form after November 25 please check your names on the updated supplementary list that will be released by the Election Commission of India approximately ten days before the polling date May 13. You can find this on the CEO's website or at your ERO's office.

Please note, forms with sufficient address proof, age proof and correct entries will be duly processed to be included in the voter list at the discretion of the ERO.

 

**************************
 

Jaago Re! One Billion Votes is a non-partisan campaign to facilitate informed civic participation amongst youth. By simplifying the voter registration process through www.jaagore.com and enabling youth to be the change agents, we aim to improve the functioning of Indian democracy. This is a joint initiative of Janaagraha and Tata Tea.

 

Constitution envisages only a Lok Sabha member as PM

From

http://offstumped.nationalinterest.in/2009/03/27/founding-fathers-elect-prime-minister-by-direct-adult-suffrage/

Founding Fathers - Elect Prime Minister by Direct Adult Suffrage

Prime Minister Manmohan Singh gave us a lame excuse on Tuesday for his not contesting the Lok Sabha election.

His hypocrisy apart, this stance of his is a direct repudiation of the Founding Father's original intent in the Constitution, evidence of which can be found in multiple instances within the Constituent Assembly Debates.

The most direct reference to this question is posed by Professor Shibban lal Saxena on 31st December 1948 when the Constituent Assembly debated Article 62 of the Draft Constitution.

I do feel that unless everybody who is a Minister has got the confidence of the electorate, he should not be appointed as one.

Every Minister who is a memberof a Cabinet must seek open election and if he is returned,only then he should be appointed a Minister

Probably, this was the purpose of my honourable Friend Dr.Ambedkar and what he meant was that if a Minister does not become a member of either House within six months, he ceasesto be a Minister. By this, he surely meant that he should beelected and I would very much welcome it from him if that is his purpose

In response Ambedkar speaking on the same day makes this point about "Ministers"

it is perfectly possible to imagine that a person who is otherwise competent to hold the post of a Minister has been defeated in aconstituency for some reason which, although it may beperfectly good, might have annoyed the constituency and he might have incurred the displeasure of that particular constituency.

It is not a reason why a member so competent as that should be not permitted to be appointed a member of the Cabinet on the assumption that he shall be able to get himself elected either from the same constituency or fromanother constituency.

After all the privilege that is permitted is a privilege that extends only for six months.Itdoes not confer a right to that individual to sit in the House without being elected at all.

It is important to note however that the Indian Constitution makes a clear and unambiguous distinction between a "Minister" and the "Prime Minister".

Ambedkar in fact had clarified this in the context of the same issue on the very previous day, 30th December 1948.

I do not understand why it is undemocratic to permit a Prime Minister, who is chosen by the people, to appoint Ministers from a House which is also chosen on adult suffrage, or by people who are chosen on the basis of adult suffrage, or by people who are chosen on thebasis of adult suffrage. I fail to understand why that system is undemocratic.

Not only is Ambedkar very clear on the original intent of the Founding Fathers that the Prime Minister must be someone who has been elected by the people, Ambedkar is also clear that "Direct Adult Suffrage" is the method by which such a Prime Minister can claim legitimacy as opposed to other "Ministers" who could be chosen by directly or indirectly.

The most unambiguous validation of this original intent comes a year later on 18th November 1949 when the Constituent Assembly was in its final phases of passing the Motion on the Draft that was to become the Constitution of India.

Gokulram Daulatram Bhatt had this to say on the method of electing the Prime Minister and President.

At one time however we had said that our President would be elected on the basis of adult franchise and we had as a matter of fact accepted in principle that proposal.

But later on we began to feel that this is not possible because on the one side Prime Minister would be elected by means of adult franchise while on the other the President would also be so elected and if any difference of opinion occurred in these two officials who had been elected by the same body of people it would be difficult to overcome those differences.

Therefore, we felt that reality and practical considerations demanded that we should give up our insistence on the direct election of the President and agreed for his being elected in some other way.

We agree to this because we felt that ourrepresentatives at the Centre and in the Provinces would be elected on the basis of adult franchise.

This should leave no one in doubt that the Founding Fathers who drafted the Indian Constitution intended the Prime Minister to have derived his legitimacy by being directly elected by the people through Adult Suffrage.

That the Founding Fathers did not choose to make this explicit in the text of the Constitution was simply because to them it was inconceivable that a perversity would be perpetrated on the Constitution where a Prime Minister would enjoy office for his entire 5 year term without getting elected directly by the people.

It is futile to expect someone like Congress President Sonia Gandhi who has never demonstrated any great understanding of the Constitution to show moral and intellectual leadership on this issue

But Dr. Manmohan Singh cannot be let off the hook on this one.

If he has any faith or conviction in the original intent of the Constitution as manifested in the remarks by Dr. B.R. Ambedkar and others, he must explain why he did not contest the Lok Sabha elections for the last 5 years and why he has no intention of doing so in 2009.

************************************************

 Constitution envisages only a Lok Sabha member as PM

By Justice Dr M Rama Jois March 22, 2009 

A two judge bench of the Supreme Court comprising of the then Chief Justice of India and another judge held that as a person can be a minister for a period of six months without being a Member of the Legislature, the same principle applies to the office of the Prime Minister and upheld the appointment.

Two important questions relating to the interpretation of provisions of the Constitution namely whether for being a Prime Minister of the country, the person concerned should be a Member of the Lok Sabha or for being a Chief Minister of a State the person concerned should be a Member of the State Legislative Assembly merits consideration by the Supreme Court. An analysis of the relevant provisions of the Constitution indicates that for being eligible to be a Prime Minister, an individual concerned should be a Member of the Lok Sabha and a person to be a Chief Minister of a State, must be a Member of the Legislative Assembly of the State concerned. The relevant articles of the Constitution which requires interpretation is Article 75 in respect of Prime Minister and Article 164 which is similarly worded regarding the appointment of Chief Minister.

Clause (5) of Article 75 provides that a minister who for a period of six consecutive months is not a Member of either House of Parliament shall at the expiration of that period cease to be a Minister. Clause (4) of Article 164 of the Constitution is exactly similarly worded in so far it relates to the minister of a State. It reads: "a minister who for any period of six consecutive months is not a Member of the Legislature of the State shall at the expiration of that period cease to be a Minister." In the first instance, the question is whether the word minister used in clause (5) of Article 75 and clause (4) of Article 164 includes Prime Minister or the Chief Minister of the State?

This question first came up before the Allahabad High Court in the case of KN Singh. In the said case, the petitioner therein had challenged the appointment of KN Singh as the Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh without being a Member of the Legislature. The petitioner therein conceded that the word minister under clause (4) of Article 164 includes Chief Minister. Consequently, the Court held that a person can be appointed as Chief Minister even if he is not a Member of the Legislature but he should get elected to the Legislature within a period of six months. Thereafter, after nearly 28 years, similar question was raised in the case of HD Deve Gowda when he was appointed as Prime Minister of the country though he was not a Member of either House of the Parliament. A two judge bench of the Supreme Court comprising of the then Chief Justice of India and another judge held that as a person can be a minister for a period of six months without being a Member of the Legislature, the same principle applies to the office of the Prime Minister and upheld the appointment. This case which involved the interpretation of a very very important provision of the Constitution ought to have been referred to a bench comprising of minimum number of five judges as is mandatory under Article 145(3) of the Constitution. Neither the parties nor the Court applied their minds to this important constitutional question. Whatever that may be, the fact remains that the two judges bench held that as a person who is not a Member of either House of the Parliament can be a minister in the Centre for six months, a non-Member can be appointed as Prime Minister and that the word minister includes Prime Minister, the appointment of HD Deve Gowda as Prime Minister was upheld. 

This very important constitutional question has been raised in a writ petition filed by Adhivakta Parishad, an All India Association of Advocates along with 13 Senior Advocates questioning the correctness of the earlier decision of the Supreme Court in HD Deve Gowda's case while challenging the appointment of Bhupendra Singh Huda as the Chief Minister of Haryana, when he was not a Member of the State Legislature. The two judges bench before whom the matter came up, referred the matter to a larger bench having regard to the fact that the main plea raised in the petition by the petitioners was that the judgment in HD Deve Gowda's case requires reconsideration. Accordingly, the matter came up before a three judge bench presided over by the Chief Justice of India and two other judges. The matter has been admitted and is pending consideration. 

The important question raised in the petition was that the word minister used in clause (5) of Article 75 and clause (4) of Article 74 does not include Prime Minister or Chief Minister as the case may be, for the reason that if in a council of ministers one or two ministers are not Members of the Legislature and they are not elected within six months, all that happens is that they will cease to be ministers after six months, but in a case where the Chief Minister is not a Member of the Legislature and is not elected within a period of six months, the consequences will be serious and the entire ministry collapses, resulting in even all the elected Members who are ministers going out of office. This clear distinction between the minister/Chief Minister/Prime Minister neither has been raised nor considered by the Supreme Court. Thus, this is a live issue pending before the Supreme Court.

Another question which has now become a matter for public debate is whether a Member of the Rajya Sabha can be appointed as a Prime Minister or a Member of the Legislative Council can be appointed as a Chief Minister in a State. The clearest implication available from the provisions of the Constitution itself is that he is not eligible. The relevant provision which implies this distinction is Article 75(3), which reads that "the council of minister shall be collectively responsible to the House of People." Similarly Article 164 (2) reads that "the council of ministers shall be collectively responsible for the Legislative Assembly of the State." A comparison of these two clauses along with clause (5) of Article 75 and clause (4) of Article 164 clearly indicates that a distinction has been made by the provisions of the Constitution itself. 

Whereas clause (5) of Article 75 states that a person can be a minister for a period of six months, states that he should within that period become a Member of the Parliament which means either the Lok Sabha or the Rajya Sabha. Article 164(4) is similarly worded and states that a non-Member minister in the State should become a member of either of the two Houses within six months. This differentiation made in the two clauses of Article 75 unmistakbly implies that a person who is not a Member of either the Lok Sabha or the Rajya Sabha can be a minister for a period of six months and further an elected Member of either House of People or the Rajya Sabha can be a Central Minister. However, for being a Prime Minister he should be a Member of Lok Sabha as indicated in clause (2) of Article 75 which provided that the Prime Minister and his council of ministers are to be responsible to the House of People. As by and large we are following the British pattern of Parliamentary system, it is appropriate to refer to the well established constitutional convention in Britain according to which only a Member of the House of Commons is eligible to be the Prime Minister. Similarly, the difference in the wording between clause (2) of Article 164 and clause (4) of Article 164 clearly indicates that a person who is a Member of the Legislative Assembly or the Legislative Council of the State can be a Minister. However, for being a Chief Minister, he should be a Member of the Legislative Assembly, as the council of ministers headed by the Chief Minister and his council of ministers are to be responsible to the Legislative Assembly and not to the Legislative Council. This difference of vital importance has been lost sight off. Further, any practice or precedent which is on account of mistaken understanding or wrong interpretation of the provisions of the Constitution cannot be taken as the law of the land which would mean that 'once a mistake always a mistake' which is not permissible in interpreting the Constitution. Whenever the question arises specifically, the matter is required to be considered or reconsidered by a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court. This question has to be decided purely on the principle on which the Constitution has to be interpreted and has nothing to do with the eligibility of an individual to become a Chief Minister or Prime Minister. This Article should not be misunderstood as directed against the present Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, whom I hold in highest esteem, as the consideration of this question is necessary as the Constitution has to hold the field for all times to come

 

(The writer is a Member of the Parliament (Rajya Sabha), Former Chief Justice of Punjab and Haryana High Court and former Governor of Jharkhand and Bihar.)

http://www.organiser.org/dynamic/modules.php?name=Content&pa=showpage&pid=282&page=30