WHERE IS RULE OF PEOPLE IN REPUBLIC INDIA?
Several people have no information about difference between Independence Day-Republic Day. This is because information about that is deliberately not disclosed to people as part of a plan. Information about that was not disclosed earlier also. It is not a problem that illiterate people have no information about that, but problem is that even the educated are in darkness. Illiterate people have no information is not a big problem, but even well educated do not know why 26 January is celebrated as Republic Day. In the education that is given in our country today, those who are teaching, those who have prepared this syllabus do not give information about that. Why the difference between the Independence Day-Republic Day is not made clear in syllabus is serious problem. Several people have no understanding about its importance. In fact, those who know the difference do not want to tell others about that. They do not want to tell those who do not know about that. Therefore, friends, it is very important to tell you about that. There is one more thing you must understand before following it.
Hon. Waman Meshram Saheb further said that those who wrote history of Movement of Independence tell us that India became independent on 15 August 1947. History that is taught is written history. Our people are taught that history like a parrot! After that opinion of our people is formed, it becomes like a thought. What is that thought? That India became independent on 15 August 1947. In 1848 Rashtrapita Jotirao Phule started his movement. You might have heard name of Brahmin Justice Govind Ranade. Rashtrapita Jotirao Phule refused to take part in Justice Ranade’s Movement of Independence. Do our people know about that? Today educated people have become clever than Rashtrapita Jotirao Phule, who fought for our Independence. We must understand this. Therefore, I am telling you about that. Rashtrapita Jotirao Phule refused to take part in Movement of Independence. Not only he refused to take part in that movement, but he exhorted our people, “Till British are in India, we have an opportunity. You should make use of this opportunity to liberate our (Shudra, Ati-Shudra) people from slavery of Brahmins.” There is documentary evidence about it. He further said, “Make hurry to get freedom from the slavery of Brahmins”. Justice Govind Ranade was inviting Rashtrapita Jotirao Phule for getting involved in Movement of Freedom, but he declined his request. Not only Rashtrapita Jotirao Phule was opposing, but explained that our people should try to get rid of slavery of Brahmins. Mahatma Phule exhorted our people, we have an opportunity till British are in India.
Slavery of British, slavery of Brahmins are two different things. Justice Govind Ranade was urging Jotirao Phule for taking part in Movement of Freedom from slavery of British. I am explaining things to our clever people. Mahatma Jotirao Phule used to say that you should try to get rid of slavery of Brahmins. Do not miss this opportunity till British are in India! After that Bal Gangadhar Tilak who also was Brahmin, went to Shahu Maharaj saying, “If a King like you takes part in Movement of Freedom, this movement will get momentum”. Shahu Maharaj replied, “You Brahmins do not let me understand things, then what will happen to our people when your independence comes?” Thus, Shahu Maharaj also refused to take part in so-called Movement of Freedom. Have our people become smarter than Shahu Maharaj? When Lala Lajpat Roy went to see Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar when was studying in America, urging him to join Movement of Independence, Dr. Ambedkar also refused.
I am not telling only about Rashtrapita Jotirao Phule, Chhatrapati Shahu Maharaj but Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar also refused to take part in Independence Movement. Arun Shourie had said that Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar was not involved in Movement of Independence. Arun Shourie should have written that Dr Babasaheb Ambedkar was not involved in Movement of Independence of Brahmins. If he had complained of Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar this way, there was no need to answer people. Nothing new in this complaint. Dr. Ambedkar was living then. Even Gandhi, Congress complained of Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar. That only was repeated by Arun Shourie. He was nudged by Congress to write book. Perhaps, you do not know that that book was written at house of Jagajivan Ram! After Jagajivan Ram’s death, it was written at house of his wife. Its proofreading was done at house of Jagajivan Ram’s daughter Miera Kumar. Evidence about that is given in that book. Reference of diary by Saraswatibai, wife of Jagajivan Ram, is given in that book. That diary is not published yet. Where from it was obtained? It would have been provided either to Miera Kumar or to Arun Shourie.
Rashtrapita Jotirao Phule was not involved in so-called Movement of Independence. Shahu Maharaj, Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar also did not take part in so-called Movement of Independence. In Bahishkrit Bharat, Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar wrote (in Marathi), in foreign rule, where we cannot endure curses of these (Brahmins) people, we will be persecuted in their independence. Our educated people read about that Movement of Independence, believe that to be our own history, form their opinion that that Movement of Independence was Movement of Independence.
When Southborough Commission came to India in 1918, British planned to leave India gradually. They envisaged that they could not stay in India any longer. Before leaving India, British made a plan. When British came to India, they seized right of Brahmins to make laws, took control of that. B. P. C., that is, Brahmin Penal Code or Manusmriti was rescinded, Indian Penal Code was introduced. I am not telling you unfounded things. Southborough Commission came to India in 1918 to ensure that after British leave India, right to make laws should not remain with Brahmins only, legislative assembly should be constituted, people of India from all communities should get representation in legislative assembly. Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar gave written memorandum to Southborough Commission in 1918, demanded representation. Upon hinting by Shahu Maharaj, Bhaskarrao Jadhav, who was Chairman of Satyashodhak Samaj, also demanded representation to other backward classes in Parliament. Bal Gangadhar Tilak (Brahmin) was then prominent leader of Congress. He knew that Shahu Maharaj is backing Bhaskarrao Jadhav. If he opposes, Bal Gangadhar Tilak should face Shahu Maharaj. If he gave speeches in some village in State of Kolhapur of Shahu Maharaj, he was afraid that Shahu Maharaj was not only King, he was also a wrestler, would have smashed him. Therefore, Tilak thought that Shahu Maharaj should not come to know, so he spoke at a village Athani, outside Kolhapur State, on border of Kolhapur-Belgaon in Karnataka. That can be seen even today. It was ruled by British.
At Athani, Tilak said, “Do Telis, Tambolis, Kunbhats (castes belonging to OBC) want to plough in Parliament?” Thus, when Shahu Maharaj demanded representation to OBC in Parliament, Tilak opposed it. In public meeting, Tilak said whether Telis, Tambolis Kunbhats want to go to Parliament for ploughing. This speech was printed in Marathi daily ‘Kesari’ whose owner, editor, publisher was Tilak himself. That speech was repeated by Tilak in Pandharpur also. Gadge Maharaj was present in that meeting. Tilak said so in front of Sant Gadge Maharaj. He was sitting in the last row in a corner. When Tilak saw Gadge Maharaj, he went to him, brought him on stage, requested him to guide Brahmins. Gadge Maharaj had heard what Tilak had said in meeting. In reply to Tilak Gadge Maharaj said, “I am sorry. We used to wash your clothes. But, now, I gave up that job of washing clothes, started guiding people. Treat us (Mulnivasi) equal to Brahmins.” Friends, this was reply by Gadge Maharaj to what Tilak said, that whether Telis, Tambolis, Kunbhats want to plough in Parliament! Gadge Maharaj requested Tilak to give Mulnivasi treatment equal to Brahmins, because only Brahmins were to enter Parliament. Tilak was humbled on stage itself.
Our people learn by rote whatever is printed on paper. Text books mention, ‘Swarajya is my birth right, I ought to get that’. Our people are made to learn things by rote. Our people are so moved! Their heart is full of pride. This false pride is taught to our people. We do not say that you do not teach this. But with ‘Swarajya is my birth right, I ought to get that’ you should teach ‘Do Telis, Tambolis and Kunbhats (castes belonging to the OBCs) want to go to the Parliament for ploughing?’ Teach this as well. If this is taught simultaneously, our people will come to know that Movement of Swarajya run by Tilak was not Movement of Swarajya for all people. People will immediately come to know, there will not be any need to explain that further. Did you understand meaning of Swarajya by Tilak! What Tilak used to call ‘Swarajya’ in Marathi was translated ‘Home Rule’ in English. His speeches in meeting at Yavatmal, then at Akola after Yavatmal, after Akola in Bhusawal, if you come towards Mumbai, wherever he went he spoke about ‘Swarajya’ or ‘Home Rule’. You do not have real information of ‘Swarajya’ or ‘Home Rule’. What is meaning of ‘Swarajya’ of Tilak? He says ‘Swarajya’ (‘Home Rule’) does not mean that British have to leave India.
What is meaning of ‘Swarajya’ (‘Home Rule’), if British are to leave India? Tilak only is saying this! In ancient times, King would run administration of Kingdom with advise of Brahmins. But if British want to run administration with advise of learned Brahmins, there is no need for British to leave India. British can stay in India only. Britishers’ King will be also our King. Britishers’ Emperor will be our Emperor also. There is no need at all for British to leave India. This is real meaning of ‘Swarajya’ of Tilak. This is meaning of ‘Swarajya’ that is glorified before you. This is meaning of ‘Swarajya’ by only mention of that you are so overwhelmed! Do you understand? This means nothing but Brahmins wanted to make British partners in administration of country. If this is meaning of ‘Swarajya’, what is your role in it? You are so overwhelmed by idea of ‘Swarajya’, but do Brahmins speak of giving you your share in it? Movement of ‘Swarajya’ is run by Brahmins for obtaining rights for Brahmins. They are calling it ‘Swarajya’. Do our people know that history? Our people have no information of that history.
Bal Gangadhar Tilak expired in 1920. Gandhiji became his successor. Till 1916, Gandhiji was not in India at all. For 31 years, from 1885 to 1916, he was not in India. Then, where he was? Gandhiji was in South Africa. He worked as lawyer in South Africa. He wound up his stay in South Africa, came to India. When he was in South Africa, he had correspondence with the British. What did he write? He wrote that we (Aryans in India), you (British) are of same stock. If we are of same Aryan race why we should not come together? This means Gandhiji was considering that we (Aryans in India), you (British) both are foreigners. Gandhiji wrote this himself.
I was telling you about Independence. Republic is still ahead. If you understand this you will understand Republic easily. If you know history you will understand Republic quickly. If we are of same Aryan stock, why are you behaving with us in this way? Gandhiji wrote to British that it was not good that people of same race (Aryans of England) are ruling the other Aryans (in India). We have published speeches, writings of Gandhiji justifying Varna system, casteism, untouchability in form of volume. Our ignorant people have no information about that. Our people feel, ‘No, no! How Mahatma will say like this?’ Yes, newspapers made him a Mahatma. Our people have no information about that.
Friends, when Gandhiji came to India after death of Tilak, there was discussion in 1918 about representation to our people. First law in this regard was made in 1919. Accordingly, it was ensured that Simon Commission will again come to India after 10 years. Gandhiji refused to accept this when he was leader. Not only that, he even started movement against Simon Commission. Gandhiji started movement against Simon Commission so that they should not give representation to SC, ST, OBC. He gave slogan, “Simon, Go Back”.
Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar went to attend first Round Table Conference. Gandhiji did not attend first Round Table Conference. Opposing Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar, Gandhiji said that all people who had come are not representatives of people of India. I am real representative of people of India, not others. I am telling you things that are on record. Several people do not have this information. Gandhiji said that if people of Scheduled Castes want to become Muslim, I don’t have any objection, if they want to become Christian, I do not have any opposition, but I am not ready to give any rights to people of Scheduled Castes, when they are in Hindu fold. Can you believe Gandhiji might have said this? I am telling you this on basis of documentary evidence.
When British granted rights to Dr Babasaheb Ambedkar on 17 August 1932, according to the ‘Communal Award’ Gandhiji started his fast against that, took away all rights. If Gandhiji was running Movement of Freedom for all people, what was reason to fast against rights that Dr Babasaheb Ambedkar obtained from British. Dr Babasaheb Ambedkar knew this situation very well. Dr Babasaheb Ambedkar organized national convention of Scheduled Castes Federation in Nagpur on 18, 19, 20 July 1942. Convention was very big; 50,000 men, 25,000 women delegates participated in it. When this Convention was organized, British called Dr Babasaheb Ambedkar, made him Cabinet Labour Minister in Viceroy Council. Soon after becoming Labour Minister, he declared 8% reservation for SCs/STs.
As soon as Dr Babasaheb Ambedkar declared 8% reservation for SC/ST, Gandhiji hatched a plan, started nation-wide movement. Gandhiji lost his self-constraint. He gave up principle of non-violence which he professed throughout his life, exhorted people against his principle of non-violence. Thus, Gandhiji was taking every care that Mulnivasi should not get any rights. Again, you will be surprised to know that before Lord Mountbatten became Governor-General of India, Lord Wavell was Governor-General in 1946. Before leaving India, he made a speech on radio. That speech is given in book ‘What Gandhi, Congress Have Done to the Untouchables?’ written by Dr Babasaheb Ambedkar.
In his speech, Lord Wavell said, “When we leave India there should be three shares in power: 1) Hindu, 2) Muslim, 3) SC/ST.” Lord Wavell was Governor-General of India till 1946. This means that that was official policy of British. But, as 15 August 1947 arose, only two shares were given in power: 1) Hindu, 2) Muslim. Even Muslims did not believe Gandhiji. Muslims told British, “We do not believe Gandhiji. Till you (British) are here in India, give us freedom. If you give freedom to Gandhiji alone, if we have to obtain it from Gandhiji, we do not believe him. Babasaheb also used to say same thing. What did he used to say? He used to say, “Give freedom to Brahmins. But before giving freedom to Brahmins, you give us freedom, at least one day earlier so that we do not have to go to them asking for our freedom.” Even Muslims were demanding same thing. Therefore, Pakistan was created on 14 August 1947. Do you know reason behind this? Gandhiji got freedom on 15 August 1947, Pakistan on 14 August 1947. Do you know history? Why Gandhiji got freedom on 15 August 1947; Pakistan got freedom on 14 August 1947? There is some reason behind anything. Pakistan got freedom on 14 August 1947. Muslims got their share. On 15 August 1947, Gandhiji got freedom. Brahmins got their share.
Three shares were proposed originally. Where did third share disappear? Who was fiend that was behind this? People must know his name. Separate share for SC/ST did not mean separate country for SC/ST, like Pakistan for Muslims. Share for SC/ST in power was to be given within territory of India, within constitutional framework. Even matter of three shares was to be resolved within territory of India. This was to be enshrined in Constitution. You must know history about how third share disappeared, who took that away. For explaining matter of republic, first I am explaining matter of independence so that you can understand it clearly. The matter of Republic is still ahead. Now we are speaking of 1946, 26 January 1950 is still ahead.
Lord Wavell left India and Lord Mountbatten came in his place. Greatest problem before him was to find solution for partition of India. This was a very big problem. Mountbatten told Jawaharlal Nehru, “If matter of India-Pakistan is not solved soon, your dream of becoming Prime Minister of India will not be realized soon. Therefore, if you agree for partition, soon you can become Prime Minister of India”. Nehru agreed to what Mountbatten said. Then, Mountbatten called Sardar Patel. Also, he convinced Sardar Patel saying, “You will become older day by day. If you continue fighting in this way, I do not know whether you will be able to see India become independent in your lifetime. I wish India becomes independent when you are alive, also you should enjoy power”. Mountbatten told Sardar Patel that Nehru had already agreed for Pakistan. Therefore, Sardar Patel thought that he should agree. Thus, Sardar Patel also agreed for Pakistan. Jawahar, Sardar Patel were like two hands of Gandhiji; one left, other right.
Mountbatten was from royal family. Therefore, politics was in his blood. He thought that greatest obstacle in partition was Gandhiji. How to get rid of this obstacle? As a part of strategy, he first convinced Jawahar, Sardar Patel, then called Gandhiji. When Gandhiji got invitation, he informed Maulana Azad. Even ignorant Banias are clever. He asked Maulana Azad, “If I oppose Pakistan, whom you will support?” Maulana Azad said, “If you oppose Pakistan, I will support you.” Gandhiji was taking stock of situation. He thought that Jawahar, Sardar Patel have already agreed for Pakistan.
Taking support of Maulana Azad, Gandhiji went to Mountbatten. Gandhiji went to place what we call Rashtrapati Bhavan now. No documentary evidence is available what was discussed between Gandhi-Mountbatten. But when he returned from meeting, Gandhiji was in favour of Pakistan. Gandhiji organized meeting of Congress Working Committee. Congress Working Committee moved resolution for partition of India in presence of Gandhiji, it was moved. We are taught that Gandhiji was against partition of India, that Gandhiji used to say that his body can be broken into pieces but he would not agree for partition of India. Then question arises, if Gandhiji was against partition of India, why did he agree for partition of India. If he agreed for partition of India, then according to official policy of British, there should have been three shares? Question here is why Gandhiji agreed for partition of India? Why British made only two shares instead of three as proposed originally? Documentary evidence about discussion is not available but we only know that Gandhiji agreed for Pakistan. This is documented. That British refused to make three shares is also documented. What was discussion between Gandhiji-Mountbatten is not documented. I am explaining it in details so that you should understand it easily.
When British officially declared that only two shares will be made, Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar, who was champion of third share, was communicated about decision of making only two shares, instead of three, as earlier promised. There was change of government in England. Clement Attlee of Labour Party became Prime Minister defeating Churchill. Churchill was leader of Opposition party. Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar went to England from Bombay. He discussed with several ministers of Labour Party there. But ministers told Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar that they cannot do anything for him. When government told him that they can do nothing about that, he went to see Opposition party leader Churchill. Churchill said that he cannot do anything more than raising problem in Parliament as leader of Opposition.
That was promised by Churchill to Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar. Before going to India as Governor-General, Mountbatten put condition before Prime Minister Atlee that he should be given freedom to work in India, otherwise he will not go to India as Governor-General. Therefore, Atlee told Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar that he cannot do anything for him because he already promised Mountbatten that he (Atlee) would not interfere in matters related to India. All this I am telling you on basis of documentary evidence. Now, the question is: why British refused to give third share? Why Gandhiji agreed to partition of India? This is veiled under discussion between Gandhiji-Mountbatten. That discussion is not documented. Taking into account documented fact that Gandhiji agreed for partition of India, that British made only two shares instead of three, we can only think over what could have happened. We can only think what could have been discussion between Gandhiji-Mountbatten on basis of historical facts. Because Mountbatten had invited Gandhiji, Mountbatten might have started the discussion. Suppose Mountbatten had started the discussion. Mountbatten would have said, “Jawahar agreed for Pakistan. Sardar Patel also agreed for Pakistan. Both your hands, right-left, have agreed for Pakistan. I wish you also agree to that”. Mountbatten was British. Britishers of the East India Company who had come to India were Banias. Person sitting before him was also a Bania.
Suppose what Gandhiji would have said then, “Mountbatten, Jawahar, Sardar Patel agreed for Pakistan, because due to partition, Jawahar would get power, Sardar Patel would get power what I am going to get from that?” Banias will generally speak of give-take. Suppose, Gandhiji would have said, “If I agree for Pakistan what I will get?” Mountbatten would have asked, “Gandhi what do you wish? If you are going to support Pakistan, what do you want?” Then Gandhiji would have said, “I came to know that before transfer of power, you have taken decision of making three shares. Shares are to be given to Hindu, Muslim, SC/ST. I also know that that is your official policy. But I demand that instead of three, only two shares be made, people of SC/ST should not be given separate share in transfer of power. Then I can agree for Pakistan.” On what basis I am saying so? This is because when Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar secured rights from British for SC/ST on 17 September 1932, then also he took away all those rights. This is the historical basis. What is another basis? Another basis is that Gandhiji agreed for Pakistan, British denied third share. There is one more evidence. When Lord Wavell declared on radio that third share will be given only one person opposed it throughout India. Name of that person is Gandhiji. Gandhiji protested that speech by Lord Wavell.
Thus, second time Gandhiji opposed share to SC/ST in power. Third, British refused to give third share in power. Therefore, definitely it can be said that Gandhiji only was responsible for taking away third share. This can be clarified from behavior of Gandhiji. Decision to accept Pakistan after discussion is proof of fact that there would have been some bargaining. In this bargaining Mountbatten would have said, “If you agree to Pakistan, we also would not give third share to SC/ST.” Thus, Gandhiji accepted Pakistan, British refused to give third share to SC/ ST. Thus, Pakistan was created on 14 August 1947, Muslims got freedom, on 15 August 1947 Gandhiji got freedom. With freedom, Muslims got power, with freedom Gandhiji also got power. After getting power Gandhiji was killed. Gandhiji already declared Jawahar as his successor. When there was first parliamentary election in 1952, Jawahar gave 60% tickets to 3% Brahmins, 56% Brahmins were elected. Thus, Brahmins took control of Parliament. This control of Parliament was taken when Constitution of India came into force from 26 January 1950.
On 15 August, India became so-called independent. But in Independent India all people have no liberty. Why they do not have liberty? Because when British had not come to India, Brahmins were independent. When Brahmins were independent, we were still slaves. They have enslaved us on basis of Varna system, untouchability, segregation of Adivasi, slavery of women. When British came to India, they enslaved Brahmins; they did not enslave slaves of Brahmins, because there was no need to do so. When British came to India, we became double slaves. Before British came to India, we were slaves of Brahmins; after British came to India, they enslaved Brahmins. Thus, we became slaves of slaves. Brahmins were slaves of British, we were slaves of Brahmins. Movement of Freedom against British was run, Brahmins became independent. On 15 August 1947 Brahmins became independent, but those who were slaves of Brahmins did not become independent.
This was problem. Because of this problem, Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar was independently running Movement of Freedom. He told British that I am not ready to accept transfer of power. Also, I am not ready to accept any Constitution that does not give safeguards to our people. Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar was elected to Constituent Assembly from West Bengal. Gandhiji, Congress hatched a plan that if Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar was defeated in election, it will be easy for them to convince British that Ambedkar did not have support. Those who were with Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar had entered Congress. So, nobody was with him. Therefore, there was election in 1946. Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar, instead of contesting from Maharashtra, contested from West Bengal. People of W. Bengal elected him, sent him to the Constituent Assembly. To avenge people who elected Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar to Constituent Assembly, four districts viz. Khulna, Jasore, Borisal, Faridpur of W. Bengal were given to Bangladesh. Unless you know this history of independence properly you will not understand anything. This game of check, conquest is going on. Those people who were playing this game, those people who were running Movement of Independence, did not want to give anything to others.
Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar was not ready to accept any Constitution that did not give any safeguards to common people. When Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar was elected to Constituent Assembly, plan of Gandhi, Congress failed. Therefore, due to compulsion, Gandhi, Congress accepted Babasaheb Ambedkar chairman of Drafting Committee. Thus, Gandhi, Congress accepted Babasaheb Ambedkar due to compulsion, not due to favour as propagated by people of Congress. This is wrong. Had Gandhi, Congress done favour to Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar, newspapers of that time would have written editorials claiming that Gandhiji, Congress did favour to Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar. But, fact that newspapers did not write any editorial nor they publish this news is proof of fact that no favour was done to Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar. It was political decision.
Our people say that Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar was made chairman of Drafting Committee, because of expertise of constitutional matters, that is of course not true. He was made chairman of Drafting Committee, because he declared that he would not agree to any Constitution that does not give safeguards to our people. Thus, Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar wrote Constitution for people who were not independent after 15 August 1947. Problem of people, who did not become independent due to the Independence of 15 August 1947, was before Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar. How to liberate them? People would get independence if they get rights given to those people. If they are not given written rights, they would not be Independence. Therefore, Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar created Constitution comprising 395 articles. 69 Articles are written for SC, ST, OBC, converted religious minorities. On 25 November 1949, Constitution was moved in Constituent Assembly. On 26 January 1950, Constitution was presented to people of India by themselves.
Why did I tell you this long history? To make you understand concept of Republic. Those who were not ready to give you constitutional rights during Movement of Independence, were compelled to do so. Friends, Constitution came into force from 26 January 1950. What was situation before that? There were 650 states in India. These states were ruled by kings. King took birth in house of the king, from womb of the queen. King was declaring his successor. Three things (were happening before). One, king was taking birth in house of the king. Second, king used to take birth from womb of the queen. Third, king was declaring his successor. This was happening before 26 January 1950. On 26 January 1950, Constitution came into force, India was declared as Republic. This is the English term. In Hindi, it is called as Ganatantra. In Marathi, it is called as Prajasattak. We should know meaning of these words.
Before 26 January 1950, king was taking birth in house of the king, king was taking birth from womb of the queen, king was declaring his successor. This should not happen henceforth. This is meaning of Prajasattak, Ganagtntra or Republic. This means people will be actual rulers. What does it mean? King should not be born in house of the king. King should not be born from womb of the queen, king should not declare his successor. Then arises new question. From where should the king come for people? Answer to this question was given by Constitution. Right to decide the king should be with people. People should exercise their right to vote, king should be decided through ballot box. Thus, king will not be born in the house of the king, king will not be born from womb of the queen, king would not appoint his successor. The right to decide the king will be with people. Is this situation in India? Is the king elected by people as written in Constitution?
I will explain what is situation, so that you have some information. Nehru became Prime Minister, Nehru’s daughter became Prime Minister, son of Nehru’s daughter Became Prime minister; son, daughter of son of Nehru’s daughter, are also in the queue for becoming Prime Minister. Is that not truth? I am telling you facts. Constitution says king should not be born in house of the king, king should not be born from womb of the queen, king should not appoint his successor. Jawaharlal became Prime Minister, his daughter became Prime Minister, her son became Prime Minister, son, daughter of son of Nehru’s daughter are also in queue for becoming Prime Minister. Rule of the king is rule of family or dynasty. Some member of family becomes king or ruler. Person from family of Nehru is going to become Prime Minister.
What does it mean? Instead of establishing Republic or Ganatantra, people of India were betrayed by Nehru. Quite opposite is case of George Washington, who was President of America. He was an excellent President. He refused to contest second time for presidentship. Also, Washington was member of Constituent Committee in America. When people of America forced him to contest he said, “for sake of you, I will contest only one more time, not any further. There are many people in America, who are not only eligible but have right to rule country.” Had Nehru followed Washington?
Friends, I am telling you fundamental things. Rajatantra is rule by family (dynasty). Jawaharlal established rule of dynastic. Nehru not only established rule of dynasty but he took such control of Congress that in each state family rule was established. In Maharashtra, there are few families whose control is on Congress.
Congress established Rajatanra in India. This was done all over India by Brahmins. Second, Brahmins did this with a plan, therefore there are Congress, BJP, Communist Party of 3% Brahmins. First thing is dynastic rule, second thing is rule by Brahmin caste. Second is more dangerous. Overall, Brahmins took control of legislature, executive, there are 80% Brahmins in executive (IAS, IRS, IPS, etc.). Judiciary is in their control, media in their control. All four pillars of democracy are under their control. Today all democratic institutions are under control of Brahmins. Control on UGC, control on syllabus of universities, control on vice-chancellor of universities, control on ambassadors, high commissioners in foreign, control on governors. These are the institutions of democracy. All of them are under the control of Brahmins.
British would say that Indians cannot rule. Brahmins tell us, you do not have merit. There is no difference between what British were saying, or what Brahmins are saying. British were foreigners, Brahmins are also foreigners. Only foreigners can say this. They are saying. Friends, this makes clear that Constitution of India says that rule of people should be established. But in India, rule of Brahmins is established with planning. In various states, castes that are dominant are given leadership, that in turn accept rule in Delhi (Centre). In this way, in Delhi (Centre) minority people are given right to rule majority. Thus, nasty conspiracy is going on in India against Ganatantra or Republic. Therefore, friends, there is no rule of people in India.
You have to elect (or defeat) candidate that Congress gives ticket to. Whom do you elect? To those whom Congress, BJP, Shiv Sena, etc. gives ticket that is to candidate whom party high-command gives ticket. You do not elect any other candidate. If party high-command is in their control, candidate listens to party high-command throughout his life. If you go to Member of Parliament, ask him why you are not raising our problems? Member of Parliament says, “You do not give ticket to us.” Our people say, “We do not give ticket, but we gave our votes to you.” Member of Parliament says, “You are giving your vote to me, when party high-command gives ticket. If I do not get ticket, what is meaning of your vote?” This is Tantra (system) they have established. Our people cannot understand this.
This is against the idea of Republic. Its root lies in Movement of Independence. But, people who had taken control of organization during Movement of Independence, had taken control of democracy, they refused to give rights to our people. Thus, Republic envisaged in Constitution of India does not exist reality. Therefore, you elect a candidate, who comes to you asking for your vote for one day, but you are there for 4 years, 11 months, 29 days standing before him with folded hands. But he does not pay heed to you. This is because Republic (Ganatantra), in reality, is not in existence in India. Therefore, if you want to establish Republic (Ganatantra) in reality you have to raise nation-wide movement. If people want to bring rule of people in reality, people have to raise nation-wide movement.
– Hon. Waman Meshram Saheb, National President, BAMCEF/Bharat Mukti Morcha, New Delhi
