Ramanisblog

Tag: Constitution of India

  • 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

  • Article 370 Text and The Unknown Background

    The new Government led by Narendra Modi is caught in a controversy over the remark of a Minister that Article 370 of the Constitution of India will be

     

    scrapped.

     

    Mehbooba Mufti on Article 370.Image.jpg.
    Mehbooba Mufti on Article 370.

     

    The Article ostensibly grants special status to  Jammu and Kashmir,India.

     

    Or is it?

     

    Omar Abdulla the hereditary Chief Minister of Jammu and Kashmir(His father, Grand father, reported to be a step brother of Jawaharlal Nehru) have b

     

    been Chief Ministers) tweeted .

     

    ‘ Come clean on Article 370’

     

    Let us seen what is ‘unclean’ in repealing this Act?

     

    Many may not aware of the Full Text of this act.

     

    The Text of Article 370 of The Constitution of India, granting Special Powers to Jammu and Kashmir.

     

    370. Temporary provisions with respect to the State of Jammu and Kashmir.

    (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Constitution,—

    (a) the provisions of article 238 shall not apply now in relation to the state of Jammu and Kashmir;
    (b) the power of Parliament to make laws for the said state shall be limited to—

    (i) those matters in the Union List and the Concurrent List which, in consultation with the Government of the State, are declared by the President to correspond to matters specified in the Instrument of Accession governing the accession of the State to theDominion of India as the matters with respect to which the Dominion Legislature may make laws for that State; and
    (ii) such other matters in the said Lists as, with the concurrence of the Government of the State, the President may by order specify.

    Explanation: For the purpose of this article, the Government of the State means the person for the time being recognized by the President on the recommendation of the Legislative Assembly of the State as the Sadr-i-Riyasat (now Governor) of Jammu and Kashmir, acting on the advice of the Council of Ministers of the State for the time being in office.[1][a]

    (c) the provisions of article 1 and of this article shall apply in relation to that State;
    (d) such of the other provisions of this Constitution shall apply in relation to that State subject to such exceptions and modifications as the President may by order specify:
    Provided that no such order which relates to the matters specified in the Instrument of Accession of the State referred to in paragraph (i) of sub-clause (b) shall be issued except in consultation with the Government of the State:
    Provided further that no such order which relates to matters other than those referred to in the last preceding proviso shall be issued except with the concurrence of that Government.

    (2) If the concurrence of the Government of the State referred to in paragraph (ii) of sub-clause (b) of clause (1) or in the second proviso to sub-clause (d) of that clause be given before the Constituent Assembly for the purpose of framing the Constitution of the State is convened, it shall be placed before such Assembly for such decision as it may take thereon.

    (3) Notwithstanding anything in the foregoing provisions of this article, the President may, by public notification, declare that this article shall cease to be operative or shall be operative only with such exceptions and modifications and from such date as he may specify:
    Provided that the recommendation of the Constituent Assembly of the State referred to in clause (2) shall be necessary before the President issues such a notification.[2]

     

    ”

    Jawahar Lal Nehru The handsome Harrow educated aristocrat who gave up a life of luxury to join the freedom movement. Babu’s choose heir and darling of the masses, he had a fatal flaw. He cared for personalities rather than issues and institutions, be it selection of Lord Mountbatten as the first Governor General of free India, retaining a senior British officer as the Commander-in-Chief of India Army or backing Sheikh Abdullah to the hilt – his choices were unfortunate. Finally the Chinese aggression of 1962 shattered his image of a world statesman.

    Sardar Patel The Iron Man of India — silent, strong and pragmatic with a complete hold on congress party organization — rightly credited with creating a unified India by integrating 565 princely states in it — he would have included Kashmir also in it if allowed to do so by Nehru. The only blot on him was the insinuation that he failed to protect his beloved Bapu. The slur only hastened his end in Dec 1950.

    Nehru’s promise that Article 370 was a temporary provision and will get eroded over a period of time has turned out to be a chimera.

    Sheikh Mohammed Abdullah Charismatic Kashmiri leader who never let go of his dream of ruling an independent Kashmir even while masquerading as a secularist — architect of Article 370 along with Nehru. He must share with Nehru the grave consequences. Lion of Kashmir brought Nehru under his spell from 1938 onwards to the extent that in May 1947 when he was arrested by the Maharaja for sedition, Nehru represented Sheikh as his lawyer and was even arrested in Jun 1947 by the Maharaja while trying to enter J&K. Finally Nehru had to eat the humble pie by arresting Sheikh Abdullah for sedition on 9 Aug 1953.

    Maharaja Hari Singh The Maharaja saw an opportunity at the end of British Raj to keep Kashmir as the Switzerland of the East. Trying to repeat history when his ancestors – Maharaja Gulab Singh and Ranbir Singh gained handsome dividends by keeping aloof during the Sikh War and Great Mutiny, Hari Singh tried to sign a standstill Agreement with India and Pak at the time of independence, Pakistan signed, India declined. Maharaja died a lonely man, forced to abdicate and exiled from his beloved land.

    The Drama Unfolds

    Having finalized the text of Article 370 with Sheikh Abdullah, Nehru brought in Gopalaswamy Ayyangar, IAS, as a minister without portfolio to help him deal with Kashmir portfolio and plead the case of Article 370 in the Constituent Assembly. Gopalaswamy Ayyangar had been prime minister of Kashmir for six years with Maharaja Hari Singh. When Sardar Patel expressed his misgivings, this is what Nehru had to say on Dec 27, 1947.

    “Gopalaswamy Ayyangar has been especially asked to help in Kashmir matters. Both for this reason and because of his intimate knowledge and experience of Kashmir, he had to be given full latitude. I really do not know where the States Ministry (Sardar Patel’s ministry) comes into the picture except that it should be kept informed for the steps taken. All this was done at my instance and I do not propose to abdicate my functions in regard to matters for which I consider myself responsible. May I say that the manner of approach to Gopalaswamy was hardly in keeping with the courtesy due to a colleague.”

    It speaks volumes of Patel’s loyalty to a colleague that despite his own and others misgivings, he managed to convince the members of Constituent Assembly and Congress Party Executive. But to V Shankar he said “Jawaharlal Royega”.

    The Sardar thereupon resigned and the matter fell in Gandhiji’s lap to bring the two colleagues together. During this period, V Shankar, IAS was the personal secretary to Patel and had maintained a record of all events. It is clear from these records that Nehru finalized the draft of Article 370 alongwith Sheikh Abdullah without even informing Patel. Thereafter it fell to Gopalaswamy Ayyangar to get the draft passed in the Constituent Assembly discussions. The proposal was torn to pieces by the Constituent Assembly and also Congress Party Executive.

    Nehru, who was abroad at the time, swallowed his pride and rang up Patel and requested him to get the Article 370 approved It speaks volumes of Patel’s loyalty to a colleague that despite his own and others misgivings, he managed to convince the members of Constituent Assembly and Congress Party Executive. But to V Shankar he said “Jawaharlal Royega”. V Shankar, in his record has described the meeting of the Congress Executive Committee “The meeting was one of the stormiest I have ever witnessed barring the party meeting which discussed the proposition relating to Rajaji becoming the first President of Indian Republic. The opinion in opposition to Gopalaswamy’s formula was forcefully and even militantly expressed and the issue even brought in the sovereignty of the Constituent Assembly to draw up the Constitution without being tied down to the apron-strings of the Kashmir State Constituent Assembly. In such a situation even Maulana Azad was shouted down.

    The Party was in uproar. The Sardar had to plead that because of the international complications, a provisional approach alone could be made leaving the question of final relationship to be worked out according to the exigencies of the situation and mutual feelings and confidence that would have been by then created. Once the Sardar had taken charge, all opposition to the draft was silenced” And how Nehru responded to this great act of loyalty on part of Sardar? On 24 July 1952, after Sardar was no more, Nehru made a detailed statement on Kashmir in the Parliament on slow integration of Kashmir into India Union and mentioned that “Sardar Patel was all the time dealing with these matters.” Even Gopalaswami Ayyangar was dismayed at this blatant lie and mentioned to V Shankar “It is an ill return to the Sardar for the magnanimity he had shown in accepting Panditji’s point of view against his better judgment.”

    Consequences of Article 370

    Article 370 has been the biggest impediment to integration of J&K State into Indian Union. That it was incorporated in the Indian Constitution by the machination of two individuals – Shiekh Abdullah and Nehru is all the more regrettable. Nehru had to eat the humble pie when he had to arrest the Sheikh for his divisive and anti national stance on 8 Aug 1953 but he did not let go of his concept of keeping J&K a separate entity. In 1957, some top leaders of National Conference led by Mr Qasim split the party and formed a group called Democratic National Conference (DNC).

    Article 370, included in the Constitution on a temporary provision should have been gradually abrogated. This has not happened in sixty years.

    It had abrogation of Article 370 on its agenda. Nehru would not brook any opposition to his policy of keeping J&K a separate entity. He told the leaders that a new threat (China) is emerging and it is an inopportune time to raise this issue and forced them to drop their demand. Nehru thereafter decided to withdraw the Kashmir conspiracy case against Sheikh Abdullah. This case had been going on since May 21, 1958. The formal orders however were issued by Govt of India on 8 April 1964.

    It is often forgotten that J&K state is not a homogeneous entity. Apart from Valley Muslims, Jammu has a predominantly Hindu population while Ladakh has a mix of Buddhist and Muslims. Then you have the Gujjars & Bakarwals. Why is Article 370 detrimental to the full integration of J&K state into Indian Union. Firstly the Central Govt can make laws only with concurrence of the State govt, practically giving it the Veto power. Article 352 and 360 for declaration of national and financial emergency respectively cannot be applied in Kashmir. While a citizen of India has only Indian citizenship, J&K citizens have two citizenships. Anti Defection Law is not applicable to J&K. No outsider can buy property in J&K state.

    The beneficial laws such as Wealth Tax, Gift Tax & Urban Land Ceiling Act and intermarriage with other Indian nationals do not operate in J&K State. Even Article 356 under which President of India can impose his rule in any state cannot be enforced in J&K without consent of the Governor who himself is an appointee of the President. State of J&K can refuse building of any cantonment on any site or refuse to allot land for defence purposes.

    Article 370, included in the Constitution on a temporary provision should have been gradually abrogated. This has not happened in sixty years. In fact whenever someone mentions this, vested interests raise an outcry that legitimate rights of Kashmiris are being trampled upon. Stated agenda of National Conference is return to pre 1953 status. Why should a state of Indian Union have a special status? It conveys a wrong signal not only to Kashmiris but also to the separatists, Pakistan and indeed the international community that J&K is still to become integral part of India, the sooner Article 370 is done away is better.

     

     

    Citation.

     

    Text of the Act from wiki.

    Article 370 The Untold Story.

    Related articles
    Enhanced by Zemanta

  • 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/

  • Make The Brahmins Shiver-Karunanidhi. You are Shivering.

    Kanimozhi with Rajapakshe
    Kanimozhi and Rajapakshe.

    Karunanidhi, the self-appointed Dravidian Leader of Dravidians(?) and Leader Of Tamils( who sat through the killing of Tamils in Sri Lanks and whose daughter Kanimozhi hobnobbed with Rajapakshe in SriLanka and accepted bouquets and gifts from him ),having been made to bite the dust in the Tamil Nadu hustings,unable to stem the war of acrimony and struggle to capture his party by his sons and besieged by 2 G scam has been trying vigorously to capture the imagination of the voters.

    His Party’s Self-determination for Tamil Nadu and a separate Statehood  has been given a decent burial and he can not revive it now for fear of the party being banned.

    He is a chap who went on to bury The Constitution of India(that’s what he said, while burning a copy of the Constitution)  only to declare later in the Court that he had burned a piece of paper and not the Constitution!

    He is a guy who laid down on Rail Track knowing pretty well that there are no Trains that will pass through then.

    He is the moral authority on Kannagi who has a Wife and ‘Thunaivi’ openly

    Nor can he cry hoarse on the domination of North over South by shouting ‘வடக்கு வாழ்கிறது ,தெற்கு தேய்கிறது ‘ as his son’s post as a Central Minister and the fate of his Daughter Kanimozhi and great-nephew  Dayanidhi Maran hinges on Sonia Gandhi‘s whims; he had to wait on wheel chair to get postings for his relatives at the Centre,wait for hours to meet Sonia Gandhi.

    What of his much touted ‘Self Respect?’

    His call for demanding Devikulam and Peermedu from Kerala for Tamil Nadu in the wake of Mullai Periyar Dam issue had no takers.

    Nor can he talk about Hindi as he is  at the feet of Hindi.

    So his favorite whipping  boy is Brahmins(that his statements that he is against Brahminism and not against Brahmins is another comedy).

    Brahmins do not beg for Reservations nor do they call other Communities names.

    They do not harass SC/ST.

    Take the Statistics of SC/ST harassment cases-how many Brahmins were involved?

    When DMK came to power late Bhaktavatsalam,former CM of Tamil Nadu, stated that vermin has infested Tamil Nadu, which has come true and Tamil Nadu has not been able to get rid of these thugs, who find opportunity in every thing to steal from the Public.

    Brahmins never retaliated for it is not in their blood.

    They quietly slipped away from Tamil Nadu to other States and Countries.

    Will Karunanidhi  divulge the names of his Doctors, Lawyers and other Professionals whom he goes to for advice?

    I know personally a couple of Doctors , Lawyers and Accountants who are Brahmins with whom Karunanidhi consults.

    What is Karunanidhi’s contribution to Tamil Literature as compared to Nakkerar(not porn tabloid Nakkeran), Agasthiyar, Tholkappiyar,Uruthinkannanaar,Kapilar,Gnana Sambandar,Periyazhvaar,and a host of others from the Sangam period to Bharathi,U.Ve.Saminatha Iyer,Ki,Va.Jagannathan?

    Karunanidhi can write street Prose which sounds nice to the ears but does not  stand the scrutiny of Tamil Grammar, convert Tholkaapiyam, a great Work, into soft porn in Tholkappiyappoonga.

    He has not so far replied to mistakes pointed out in his Tholkaapiyappoonga in a Book , which incidentally was not written by a Brahmin

    To day nobody bothers about castes, ask any youngster,he will ask you’what’.

    If Tamil Magazines/Papers praise him then they are’நடு நிலை ஏடுகள் ; other wise they are’மவுண்ட் ரோடு மஹா விஷ்ணு, பார்ப்பன ஏடுகள்’

    Disgusting creature worthy to be ignored.

    I write this piece only to high light his non sense and double speak.

    This author does not believe in divisions in the Society as portrayed by Karunanidhi nor is he against those who do nor happen to be Brahmins.

    In the strictest sense of Hinduism there is no Brahmin today.

    (Why cant the Government take action against him for inciting violence and breeding enmity between Communities amounting to Law and Order problem?

    ”

    Make Brahmins shiver, says Karunanidhi.
    பார்ப்பனக் கூட்டம் நடுங்க வேண்டும்

    http://epaper.dinamalar.com/PUBLICATIONS/DM/MADHURAI/2012/02/24/index.shtml?ArtId=007_009&Search=Y

  • Reinstate TN workers- Judgement . Court Whistling in the dark?

    English: Chennai high court view taken by myse...
    Image via Wikipedia

    The High Court of Tamil Nadu has been ordered to take back the people Welfare Workers ,appointed by the last DMK Government.

    In its order has condemned the practice of a Government to nullify the decisions of the previous Government.

    Questions arise.

    1.Where was the Court when The Central Government and State Governments  changed the decisions of the earlier Governments?

    2.Does the Court have jurisdiction in these affairs as these are passed by The Legislature?

    Please check the Rules empowered to State Government by The constitution of India.

    The present judgement is called ‘whistling in the dark’

    ”

    Chennai, Jan 24 (TruthDive):  The Madras High Court on Monday struck down the Tamil Nadu government order sacking People Welfare Workers appointed during the previous DMK regime.

    Ms Jayalalithaa had sacked all the 13,000-odd “Makkal Nala Paniyalargal (People Welfare Workers), appointed during the previous DMK regime  in one go in November last year on the grounds that their services were redundant and there were enough staff to look after their works. This triggered a wave of protests by the sacked workers.

    The workers were first appointed in 1990 by the DMK regime and all of them were sacked after Ms Jayalalithaa assumed office in 1991. After the DMK came to power in 1996, they were reinstated again, only to be sacked by Ms Jayalalithaa in 2001. When DMK came to power again in 2006, Mr Karunanidhi appointed them again and brought them under Special Time Scale of pay.

    But, after she came back to power in May this year, the workers again become victims of politics when the AIADMK government disbanded their posts and sacked them in one go. This triggered a wave of protests by the sacked workers. The Opposition DMK also staged a demonstration and various political parties condemned the government’s action and demanded that all of them should be reinstated.

    Petitions were filed by Tamil Nadu Makkal Nala Paniyalargal Munnetra Sangam and the Dindigul Mavatta Makkal Nala Paniyalargal Nala Sangam in the Madras High Court. Ms Justice K Suguna directed the government to reinstate all the sacked workers. Quashing the GO sacking the 13,000-odd workers,the Judge also directed the government to restore all the benefits extended to them.”

    http://truthdive.com/2012/01/24/setback-for-jaya-high-court-orders-reinstatement-of-people-welfare-workers.html

    THE FUNDAMENTAL RULES OF THE
    TAMIL NADU GOVERNMENT.

    CHAPTER I—EXTENT OF APPLICATION
    1. These rules may be called the Fundamental Rules. They shall come into force with effect
    from the 1st January 1922.
    RULING.
    The President of the Republic of India and the State Government may, by general or special
    orders, permit deviations from any provisions of a purely procedural nature contained in any rules
    made or confirmed under Article 309 of the Constitution of India provided that such deviations shall
    not affect the conditions of service, the pay and allowances or the pensions of officers subject to the
    rule-making control of the President of the Republic of India.
    2. The Fundamental Rules apply, subject to the provisions of Rule 3, to all Government
    servants paid from the Consolidated Fund of the State and to any other class of Government
    servants to which Government may by general or special order declare them to be applicable.
    The Government may, in relation to service, under their administrative control, other than AllIndia Services, make rules modifying or replacing any of the Fundamental Rules:
    Proviso deleted (G.O.Ms.No.90 P&AR (FR.IV) dt. 5.7.2003 – w.e.f. 19.3.2003).
    Note 1.—A Government servant who is paid from the Consolidated Fund of the State and who is
    temporarily transferred to any of the Defence Services shall remain subject to these Fundamental
    Rules.
    Note-2.—The Service Rules shall be taken to embody and indicate fully all the provisions
    governing the services concerned. As laid down in the Service Rules the Fundamental Rules shall
    govern a service, only in the matter of leave, leave salary, pension and other such conditions of
    service, as have not been provided for in the Service Rules. If any provision of the Fundamental Rules
    is repugnant to any provisions of the Service Rules, then the provisions of the Service Rules shall
    prevail and the provisions of the Fundamental Rules shall, to the extent of the repugnancy, be void.

    http://www.tn.gov.in/acts-rules/pandar/tngovfr.pdf

    “