Ramanisblog

Tag: Ambedkar

  • Constitution of India, Is it Legal for Independent India?

    Constitution of India, Is it Legal for Independent India?

    I wanted to check the discussions that took place in Indian Parliament while passing the resolution on the Constitution of India. All of us are aware of the skeletal facts, That a Constituent Assembly was formed consisting of eminent members and it was Ambedkar who with great effort and scholarship formed the Constitution and he is called the Father of Indian Constitution.But facts seem to be a little different.

    This article is a bit long. Please bear with me and read it in full. This contains mostly quotes from Discussion in The Constituent Assembly sourced from Parliamentary Records.You would find many surprises.

    A character in Frederick Forsyth’s book Dogs Of War days’ Stealing a Republic is the Greatest prize of all ‘ Now I understand the import fully.

    Questions and Answers.

    • Q.Was the Constituent Formed before or After India became Independent?
    • A.Before Independence,in 1946; Independence for India , August 15,1947.
    • Q.The Members of the Constituent Assembly,were they elected directly by the people of India?
    • A.No.The members of the Constituent Assembly were elected by the provincial assemblies by a single, transferable-vote system of proportional representation.
    • Q Was the Constituent Assembly truly representative of the People of India?
    • A.The Assembly was not elected on the basis of universal adult suffrage, and Muslims and Sikhs received special representation as minorities. The Muslim League boycotted the Assembly after failing to prevent its creation. Although a large part of the Constituent Assembly was drawn from the Congress Party in a one-party environment, the Congress Party included a wide diversity of opinions—from conservative industrialists to radical Marxists, to Hindu revivalists..Congress party , condescendingly , arbitrarily nominated members..
    • Q.Did India become Independent or British Power was transferred to Congress Party?
    • A.It was Tranfer of Power from the British.

    The Constitution of India was drafted by Members of a Committee called Constituent Assembly Committe.

    Constitution of India.

    Shri Damodar Swarup Seth (United Provinces: General):*[Mr. President, with your permission I want to place this amendment before the House:

         “Whereas the present Constituent Assembly was not elected on the basis of adult franchise and whereas the final constitution of free India should be based on the will of the entire people of India, this Constituent Assembly resolves that while it should continue to function as Parliament of the Indian Union, necessary arrangements should be made for convening a new Constituent Assembly to be elected on the basis of adult franchise and that the Draft Constitution prepared by the Drafting Committee be placed before it for its consideration and adoption with such amendments as it may deem necessary.”

         Sir, before speaking on this amendment I deem it necessary to point out that I had given notice of a separate resolution to the effect that the consideration of the Draft Constitution should for the time be postponed. But unfortunately for some reason that resolution of mine has not been admitted. Therefore I have no option but to move an amendment for the same purpose as the resolution.

         Sir, yesterday when Maulana Hasrat Mohani Sahib moved his amendment, it was with regret that I noted that some honourable members of this House were mocking at it and were in a way playing with it.].

    Shri S. Nagappa (Madras: General): Mr. President, I would like to know from the honourable member who is moving this motion whether, when he was elected to this august body, he did not recognise this as a sovereign body competent to act as the Constituent Assembly? It not why did he agree to become a member? (Laughter.)

         Mr. President: That is not a point of order.

         Shri S. Nagappa: I would like to know whether he is in order in saying that this body is not a Constituent Assembly and that a new Assembly should be constituted on the basis of adult franchise.

         Mr. President: He is in order in moving his motion. (Renewed laughter)

         Shri Damodar Swarup Seth: *[Sir, I was saying that it is easy to ridicule a resolution or amendment or to ridicule the views of its supporters but it requires some courage to understand the reality and to appreciate it. I am afraid that this amendment of mine may displease some of my friends. But everyone has a duty to perform. It is the duty of every man unhesitatingly and fearlessly to give expression to the voice of his conscience and nature before his fellow beings regardless of the consequences that may follow or of the opinion people may form about him and this because I believe, Sir, that in the lives of nations as in the lives of individuals also there is sometimes a situation in which they have to swallow the bitterest pill. I think that the consideration of the Draft Constitution has brought such an occasion in our country and therefore we need not worry about our views being welcome or unwelcome to one person or the other. We have to perform out duty. I shall at first try to throw light on the representative character of this Constituent Assembly which is assembled here and which is going to consider the Draft Constitution and to pass it….Sir, the first characteristic which a constitution-making body of a free country should possess is that it should be able to claim that it represents the will of the entire people of that country. Sir, with your permission I would put it to the Honourable Members present in this House whether they can sincerely claim that they represent, in this House, the entire people of India. I can emphatically say that this House cannot claim to represent the whole country. At the most it can claim to represent that fifteen per cent of the population of India who had elected the members to the provincial legislatures. The election too, by virtue of which the members of this House are here, was not a direct one, they are here by virtue of an indirect election. In these circumstances, when eighty-five percent of the people of the country are not represented in this House and when they have no voice here, it will be in my opinion a very great mistake to say that this House is competent to frame a Constitution for the whole country. Besides the representative character of the Draft Constitution that is being placed before the house, we have also to consider its nature. We see that the Constitutions of United States of America and Britain have been copied in this Constitution. Some articles have been borrowed from the Constitutions of Ireland, Australia and Canada. A paper has rightly remarked that this is a slavish imitation of the Constitutions of these countries. Sir, the conditions that prevailed in America, Britain, Canada or Australia do not obtain in our country. The conditions prevalent in our country can be compared only with those of Russia – Russia of pre-Soviet Republic days. Besides, we have seven lakh villages in our country and the village is its smallest unit. Thanks to Mahatma Gandhi, our struggle of freedom reached the villages and it was because of the villages and because of their might that India became free…..Read more CONSTITUENT ASSEMBLY OF INDIA DEBATES (PROCEEDINGS)-  VOLUME VII. Friday, the 5th November 1948

    An idea for a Constituent Assembly was proposed in 1934 by M. N. Roy, a pioneer of the Communist movement in India and an advocate of radical democracy. It became an official demand of the Indian National Congress in 1935,The Indian National Congress held its session at Lucknow in April 1936 presided by Pt. Jawahar Lal Nehru. The official demand for Constituent Assembly was raised and Government of India Act, 1935 was rejected as it imposed the Constitution which was against the will of the Indians. C. Rajagopalachari voiced the demand for a Constituent Assembly on 15 November 1939 based on adult franchise, and was accepted by the British in August 1940.……

    On 8 August 1940, a statement was made by Viceroy Lord Linlithgow about the expansion of the Governor-General’s Executive Council and the establishment of a War Advisory Council. This offer, known as the August Offer, included giving full weight to minority opinions and allowing Indians to draft their own constitution. Under the Cabinet Mission Plan of 1946, elections were held for the first time for the Constituent Assembly. The Constitution of India was drafted by the Constituent Assembly, and it was implemented under the Cabinet Mission Plan on 16 May 1946. The members of the Constituent Assembly were elected by the provincial assemblies by a single, transferable-vote system of proportional representation. The total membership of the Constituent Assembly was 389 of which 292 were representatives of the provinces, 93 represented the princely states and four were from the chief commissioner provinces of Delhi, Ajmer-Merwara, Coorg and British Baluchistan.

    The elections for the 296 seats assigned to the British Indian provinces were completed by August 1946. Congress won 208 seats, and the Muslim League 73. After this election, the Muslim League refused to cooperate with the Congress and the political situation deteriorated. Hindu-Muslim riots began, and the Muslim League demanded a separate constituent assembly for Muslims in India. On 3 June 1947 Lord Mountbatten, the last British Governor-General of India, announced his intention to scrap the Cabinet Mission Plan; this culminated in the Indian Independence Act 1947 and the separate nations of India and Pakistan. The Indian Independence Act was passed on 18 July 1947 and, although it was earlier declared that India would become independent in June 1948, this event led to independence on 15 August 1947. The Constituent Assembly met for the first time on 9 December 1946, reassembling on 14 August 1947 as a sovereign body and successor to the British parliament’s authority in India…The Constituent Assembly of India, consisting of indirectly elected representatives, was established to draft a constitution for India (including the now-separate countries of Pakistan and Bangladesh). It existed for approx. three years, the first parliament of India after independence in 1947. The Assembly was not elected on the basis of universal adult suffrage, and Muslims and Sikhs received special representation as minorities. The Muslim League boycotted the Assembly after failing to prevent its creation. Although a large part of the Constituent Assembly was drawn from the Congress Party in a one-party environment, the Congress Party included a wide diversity of opinions—from conservative industrialists to radical Marxists, to Hindu revivalists. .At 11 am on 9 December 1946 the Assembly began its first session, with 211 members attending. By early 1947, representatives of the Muslim League and princely states joined, and the Assembly approved the draft constitution on 26 November 1949. On 26 January 1950 the constitution took effect (commemorated as Republic Day), and the Constituent Assembly became the Provisional Parliament of India (continuing until after the first elections under the new constitution in 1952)….

    29 August 1947: Drafting Committee appointed with B. R. Ambedkar as its Chairman. The other six members of committee were Munshi, Muhammed Sadulla, Alladi Krishnaswamy Iyer, N. Gopalaswami Ayyangar, Khaitan and Mitter. 16 July 1948: Along with Harendra Coomar Mookerjee, V. T. Krishnamachari was also elected as second vice-president of Constituent Assembly. 26 November 1949: The Constitution of India was passed and adopted by the assembly. Source.https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_Indiahttps://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_India

    The constitution has been, in more recent times, critiqued on the basis of the fact that the members of the Constituent Assembly were chosen not by universal suffrage, but rather, they were predominantly members of the Congress party.[citation needed] It has been argued that the Congress party aimed not to overthrow British power, but rather transfer its power into Indian hands.[citation needed] In his book The Constitution of India: Miracle, Surrender, Hope,Rajeev Dhavan has argued that the Indian people did not have much say in the making of the Constitution which was they had no choice but to accept…https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constituent_Assembly_of_India

    ,

    Join 4,576 other subscribers
  • Lord Ram Sita Drunkards Debauch Amebedkar Insults Reply

    Lord Ram Sita Drunkards Debauch Amebedkar Insults Reply

    One of the Holy Cows of India, Dr.Ambedkar, others being Gandhi,Nehru,Annadurai of Tamil Nadu and MGR, is not to be commented upon by any one for they are perfect and what they utter is the Ultimate Truth, whatever non sense it might be.

    Ambedkar, a man who ,according to his followers has written the Constitution of India(the other members of the Draft committee were fools),studied with the financial help of a Brahmin, who married a Brahmin woman,became a Buddhist stating that Buddhism has no divisions.

    Those who say that Buddhism has many schools of thought and practices are idiots.

    Ramayan Sites Sri Lanka
    Ramayana Sites, Sri Lanka

    He had written that Cow was slaughtered,eaten and was sanctioned by the Vedas.

    Hinduism practices Caste system which was inhuman.

    Please read my posts where I have replied to his half-baked, ill-informed, mischievous and misleading researches(?)

    He had no spared the Ramayana , Mahabharata, Rama  and Krishna.

    His observations on Rama are highly insulting to Hindus and they are totally in correct.

    What he states about Rama has no references though he seems to quote .

    If one checks the source of his references one can see through this game.

    Normal tendency of the people, if some one says he is quoting an ancient text, is to take it for granted as True.

    Ambedkar says Ramayana is a fraud and a mere story and yet at the same time goes about denying the Ramayana.

    If the Ramayana is a Story, why take the trouble of denying it?

    If the Ramayana is a mere story of Valmiki’s fertile imagination(why do you accept Valmiki as real, you could have denied him as well), then the facts,

    The date of Ramayana has been authenticated through Archeology,History by internal and external evidence,

    The route traveled by Rama in search of Sita  exist even today with the landmarks as described by Valmiki,

    The Planets configuration described by Valmiki during Rama’s Birth, Marriage, Ramayana War all check out .

    Apart from the places mentioned in India on the incidents of Ramayana, these places, like the Asokavadi, Pond where Sita took bath in Sri Lanka, the place where she was imprisoned by Ravana, Ravana’s Airstrip, his Pushpaka Vimana’s Axle, and the ruins of his palace are found in Sri Lanka.

    The city founded by Lava, son of Rama ,Lahore is now in Pakistan.

    Ramayana is found in the far-east,in their languages.

    Yes all this is non sense and only Ambedkar is intelligent and others are fools.

    Ambedkar’s facts (?) of Ramayana are wrong.

    Now read what Ambedkar has on say on Rama.

    ”

    Valmiki also gives a detailed description of how Rama spent his life in the Zenana. This Zenana was housed in a park called Ashoka Vana. There Rama, used to take his meal. The food according to Valmiki consisted of all kinds of delicious viands. They included flesh and fruits and liquor. Rama was not a teetotaller. He drank liquor copiously and Valmiki records that Rama saw to it that Sita joined with him in his drinking bouts*[f81] . From the description of the Zenana of Rama as given by Valmiki it was by no means a mean thing. There were Apsaras, Uraga and Kinnari accomplished in dancing and singing. There were other beautiful women brought from different parts. Rama sat in the midst of these women drinking and dancing.

    They pleased Rama and Rama garlanded them. Valmiki calls Rama as a ‘Prince among women’s men ‘. This was not a day’s affair. It was a regular course of his life.

    As has already been said Rama never attended to public business. He never observed the ancient rule of Indian kings of hearing the wrongs of his subjects and attempting to redress them.”

    I do not from know where Ambedkar has this source.

    I have replied here the most obnoxious statement of Ambedkar.

    Other comments by him are mild when compared to this.

    This post is to highlight the misinformation by self-styled Rationalists for self-aggrandizement with no real grasp of what they speak about.

    This is caution to Hindus not to be misled by seemingly authentic quoted by people who have been built up as Great in India.

    Please read my posts on.

    Dating tools of Ramayana, Mahabharata,

    Date of Ramayana.

    Route taken by Rama.

    Ravana’s Palace,Pushpaka Vimana Axle.

    Sita’s Pond.Sita’s Cell.

    Ahokavana,Asokavatika.

    The date of Ramayana Battle.

    Ambedkar on Untouchability, Vedas,Cow slaughter,Reservation muddle and more.

    These posts are filed under Hinduism.

    Citation.

    http://fateh.sikhnet.com//sikhnet/discussion.nsf/ca32680024ff68b487256a08007e86d8/daf9fa36ea63a5ea87256afc0072869c!OpenDocument

    Through this booklet Ambedkar questions the authenticity of so called Lord Rama and Krishna being worshiped as God by Hindus. He highlights numerous erroneous activities of Rama and Krishna that shakes people’s conscience to accept them as Lord. He quotes Valmiki Ramayana in which Ram’s cunning acts of killing Bali, Ravana and Shambook has been exposed. In all of these killings Ram has not shown honesty on any account. He exposes Ram’s and Krishna’s lust for women. Krishna has as many as 16108 wives and Ram too was never loyal to Sita and spends all his time in his harem among women. Ambedkar very categorically illustrates Krishna’s decisions during Mhabharata war and each one was guided by special mystical power and no real power of strength. And hence most of the men killed by Arjun was with the help Krishna or otherwise he could not have done it.

    http://ff1.dalitresourcecentre.com/activities/the-riddles-of-rama-and-krishna/

    Related articles

  • Ambedkar Untouchability Meat Beef Eating

    Having failed to find a common factor to define Untouchables and how to expalin the phenomena of the down trodden and the ostracized( I will deal with Ostracism when I discuss how the so-called Caste system and intermarriages, Taboos and criminality), the apologists tried to locate a factor.

    They found,nay seemingly found, what they were searching for..

    Meat eating and Beef eating,!

    Ambedkar, who is reputed to have written the Constitutions of India single handedly- forget about the  facts below,

    “On the 14 August 1947 meeting of the Assembly, a proposal for forming various committees was presented.[9] Such committees included a Committee on Fundamental Rights, the Union Powers Committee and Union Constitution Committee. On 29 August 1947, the Drafting Committee was appointed, with Dr B. R. Ambedkar as the Chairman along with six other members assisted by a constitutional advisor. These members were Pandit Govind Ballabh Pant Kanaiyalal Maneklal Munshi (K M Munshi, Ex- Home Minister, Bombay), Alladi Krishnaswamy Iyer (Ex- Advocate General, Madras State),N Gopalaswami Ayengar (Ex-Prime Minister, J&K and later member of Nehru Cabinet), B L Mitter (Ex-Advocate General, India), Md. Saadullah (Ex- Chief Minister of Assam, Muslim League member) and D P Khaitan (Scion of Khaitan Business family and a renowned lawyer). The constitutional advisor was Sir Benegal Narsing Rau (who became First Indian Judge in International Court of Justice, 1950–54). Later B L Mitter resigned and was replaced by Madhav Rao (Legal Advisor of Maharaja of Vadodara). Owing to death of D P Khaitan, T T Krishnamachari was chosen to be included in the drafting committee. A Draft Constitution was prepared by the committee and submitted to the Assembly on 4 November 1947. Draft constitution was debated and over 2000 amendments were moved over a period of two years. Finally on 26 Nov. 1949, the process was completed and Constituent assembly adopted the constitution. 284 members signed the document and the process of constitution making was complete'(wiki)

    Ambedkar Writings and Speeches.
    What is the cause of the nausea which the Hindus have against beef-eating? Were the Hindus always opposed to beef-eating? If not, why did they develop such nausea against it? Were the Untouchables given to beef-eating from the very start? Why did they not give up beef-eating when it was abandoned by the Hindus? Were the Untouchables always Untouchables? Why should beef-eating give rise to Untouchability at a later stage? If the Hindus were eating beef, when did they give it up? These questions impinge on our understanding of the Jhajjar killings. Ambedkar sought some answers in 1948.

    had hunted texts to find Meat eating/Beef eating as the criteria and his findings are as under…

    “In the first place, we have the fact that the Untouchables or the main communities which compose them eat the dead cow and those who eat the dead cow are tainted with untouchability and no others..”

    ”

    There is really no necessity to enter upon any speculation as to whether beef-eating was or was not the principal reason for the rise of Untouchability. This new theory receives support from the Hindu Shastras. The Veda Vyas Smriti contains the following verse which specifies the communities which are included in the category of Antyajas and the reasons why they were so included

    L.12-13 “The Charmakars (Cobbler), the Bhatta (Soldier), the Bhilla, the Rajaka (washerman), the Puskara, the Nata (actor), the Vrata, the Meda, the Chandala, the Dasa, the Svapaka, and the Kolika- these are known as Antyajas as well as others who eat cow’s flesh.”

    This statement is correct but does not prove that untouchability originated because of this- a wrong conclusion.

    Eating of Cow meat and beef eating is mentioned in the Rig Veda .

    Eating Cow’s Meat is prohibited in the Rig Veda,

    ”

    There is really no necessity to enter upon any speculation as to whether beef-eating was or was not the principal reason for the rise of Untouchability. This new theory receives support from the Hindu Shastras. The Veda Vyas Smriti contains the following verse which specifies the communities which are included in the category of Antyajas and the reasons why they were so included

    L.12-13 “The Charmakars (Cobbler), the Bhatta (Soldier), the Bhilla, the Rajaka (washerman), the Puskara, the Nata (actor), the Vrata, the Meda, the Chandala, the Dasa, the Svapaka, and the Kolika- these are known as Antyajas as well as others who eat cow’s flesh.”

    But Satapatha Brahmana  says otherwise..

    To give only one instance. Among the Kamyashtis set forth in the Taittiriya Bramhana, not only the sacrifice of oxen and cows are laid down, but we are even told what kind and description of oxen and cows are to be offered to what deities. Thus, a dwarf ox is to be chosen for sacrifice to Vishnu; a drooping horned bull with a blaze on the forehead to Indra as the destroyer of Vritra; a black cow to Pushan; a red cow to Rudra; and so on. The Taittiriya Bramhana notes another sacrifice called Panchasaradiya-seva, the most important element of which was the immolation of seventeen five-year old humpless, dwraf-bulls, and as many dwarf heifers under three year-old.….

    …The killing of cow for the guest had grown to such an extent that the guest came to be called ‘Go-ghna’ which means the killer of the cow. To avoid this slaughter of the cows the Ashvateyana Grahya Sutra (1.24.25) suggests that the cow should be let loose when the guest comes so as to escape the rule of etiquette….

    There fore, the eating of Cow’s meat and prohibition against eating,  both were in place.

    Hence there seems to have been no reason for both the groups to practice untouchability as both had their adherents already and there was no need to classify on group anew as such.

    Notwithstanding this Logic, Ambedkar goes on to build a case as to why Brahmins gave up eating meat, how Kshatriyas followed suit.

    Another hilarious fact is that  Brahmins gave up meat-eating because they watned to regain Supremacy from the Buddha Bhiksus”

    ‘That the object of the Brahmins in giving up beef-eating was to snatch away from the Buddhist Bhikshus the supremacy they had acquired is evidenced by the adoption of vegetarianism by Brahmins. Why did the Brahmins become vegetarian? The answer is that without becoming vegetarian the Brahmins could not have recovered the ground they had lost to their rival namely Buddhism. In this connection it must be remembered that there was one aspect in which Brahmanism suffered in public esteem as compared to Buddhism. That was the practice of animal sacrifice which was the essence of Brahmanism and to which Buddhism was deadly opposed. That in an agricultural population there should be respect for Buddhism and revulsion against Brahmanism which involved slaughter of animals including cows and bullocks is only natural. What could the Brahmins do to recover the lost ground? To go one better than the Buddhist Bhikshus not only to give up meat-eating but to become vegetarians- which they did. That this was the object of the Brahmins in becoming vegetarians can be proved in various ways.”

    Ambedkar got the facts wrong.

    When was Buddhism Founded and who was Siddhartha?

    The Kshtriya Prince was later known as The Buddha, having renounced his family, Kingdom and attaining Nirvana.

    I believe this was later to Krishna, let alone Vyasa, Rama and the Vedas

    Lord Rama, being a Kshatriya ate Meat,

    In the Sundara Kanda, the 36th sarga, the 41st sloka describes how Hanuman tells Sita, ” When you were away, Sri Rama refrained from eating deer meat.”

    ”
    If a man wishes that a son should be born to him who will be a famous scholar, frequenting assemblies and speaking delightful words, a student of all the Vedas and an enjoyer of the full term of life, he should have rice cooked with the meat of a young bull or of one more advanced in years and he and his wife should eat it with clarified butter. Then they should be able to beget such a son. -Brhadaranyaka Upanishad 6.4.18″

    Surely God is above a Brahmin?

    Sage Agasthya ate not only meat but even digested Vatapi , an Asura and exclaimed ‘Vatapi, Jeerno Bhava”

    Vasishta ate meat and in fact Saptha Rishis from Kasyapa ate Meat.

    They were not ostracized, they are worshiped.

    Meat eating by humans has been in existence and none can deny the fact.

    But those who are wanted to evolve spiritually or the Spiritually  evolved, found that Meat eating is a hindrance to self-realization in terms of disturbing concentration and Dispositions.

    So, they gave up and propagated the idea of shunning Meat and especially Cow; Meat as they used Cow’s products for their livelihood.

    In fact the Chamaka Prasna specifically prays Lord Rudra for Cows!

    So they gave up meat-eating and beef eating later.

    The argument that Caste/Untouchability sprang from Meat”Beef eating is erroneous.

    How did it come into being then?

    Sources.

    http://www.outlookindia.com/article.aspx?217660

    http://www.indiadivine.org/audarya/spiritual-discussions/28150-did-rama-eat-meat.html

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_India#Drafting

     

     

    Related Articles

    * The Excerpts are from The Book

    VOLUME 7 OF DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR WRITINGS AND SPEECHES
    BY
    B.R. AMBEDKAR
    GOVERNMENT OF MAHARASHTRA

    The book is not available with Amazon.com.Try out in Cupnation.

    https://www.cuponation.in/