December 17, 2011
https://www.facebook.com/notes/rahul-chimanbhai-mehta-rrg/301011-differences-between-rrg-and-other-parties-eminent-intellectuals/10150423041206922
301.011 : Differences between RRG and other parties, eminent intellectuals
https://www.facebook.com/notes/rahul-chimanbhai-mehta-rrg/301011-differences-between-rrg-and-other-parties-eminent-intellectuals/10150423041206922
(for downloading complete PDF , containing 50 chapters on full law-drafts needed to reduce MNC-domination, nepotism in courts, corruption in police/courts/education, improve education, improve Military, reduce cow slaughter, see http://rahulmehta.com/301.htm )
(For index, see notes #301.Index at http://facebook.com/note.php?note_id=10150422423416922 )
==============
11.1 Basic differences
We radically differ from most parties and most intellectuals. Following are main differences
What we at RRG say What other parties’ MPs andthe eminent intellectuals of India say
The leaders of Congress, BJP, CPM and all eminent intellectuals of India have firmly said that the mineral mines and Govt plots are the property of “State” of India and common Indians shall have no ownership, control over them. And they have categorically refused to give rents to Indians (citizens) over IIMA, JNU and airport plots.
-----
2. We are Democracyists , MPs of other parties and eminent intellectuals of India are fascists
We at MRCM Group are the only ones in political arena who insist that we commons MUST have legislative powers and we commons MUST have powers to expel and replace officers/judges. IOW, we are Democracyists
All other parties and all eminent intellectuals of India consider us commons and voters as fools, and insist that we commons should have no say in law-making and appointments/replacements of officers, policemen, judges. And we commons should have no say in taking judgments in the courts. India’s most intellectuals have fascists mentality and so they firmly insist that all discretion in administration should be with Ministers, IAS, IPS, judges and intellectuals only. Forget discretionary powers, so fascists are Indian intellectuals that they even oppose RTI2 – merely letting citizens post complaints on PM’s website. We abhor their fascism, and they abhor over Democracyism.
-----
3. Citizens’ interpretation of Constitution shall be final ; SCjs’ interpretation shall not be final
We are the only group in India who believe that India’s Constitution as interpreted by us Citizens of India shall be the final voice, and the Constitution’s interpretation by the two dozen Supreme Court judges may be important but not final. We agree that Supreme Court judges’ interpretation is above the interpretation of Ministers, and is indeed important for Citizens to take note of. But it is not final. Our Constitution itself in the Preamble clearly says that India shall be a Democracy and a Republic which clearly supports the “Citizens’ Review System” which states that the Constitution as interpreted by Citizens is final and it is above the Judocratic Review. Which is why we insist on Jury Systems from lower courts to the Supreme Court, and demand citizens Review System where in citizens can register YES/NO on Constitutional validity of SCjs’ judgments. IOW, we believe in Constitutional Democracy.
All other parties’ MPs and all eminent intellectuals of India have always opposed to the Citizens’ Review System and also opposed the Jury System. They have always supported the judge system and the judocratic review. While all other parties and all intellectuals insist that Constitution as interpreted by the two dozen Supreme Court judges as final and us common’s interpretation is some garbage. All parties and intellectuals insist that us Citizens’ interpretation of Constitution should be ignored, and our YES/NO on SCjs’ judgments should not be even taken. And all intellectuals insist the interpretation of SCjs should be mercilessly and ruthlessly imposed over the commons using media, education and Police and Military if the need be. IOW, other parties and intellectuals believe in Constitutional judocratic Fascism.
------
4. Disclosing drafts of GNs (Gazette Notifications) and GOs (Govt Orders , Ordinances)
We are the first and only group in India, who show the drafts of GNs we demand. We do not ask people to put faith in us. We request people to read our GNs and decide on their own if these GNs are something they would support. That way a citizen voter shall have full opportunity to decide whether he should support us or oppose us.
Every group makes policy promises, but each party’s MPs and MLAs refuse to publish the drafts of the GOs they would pass. Their answer is “you vote for us first and we will show you the drafts after we become Ministers”. Well, Mr. Candidate, what if the drafts turn out be useless and against the well being of us commons? Their answer is “Have faith in me”. We dont give us such obscure and vague answers
------
5. On the myth of the ‘Political Culture’
The problems of India are due to bad law drafts intellectuals and other Party’s MPs have enacted. Nothing is wrong with the culture of us commons.
The eminent intellectuals have created a myth of political culture and claim that problems of India are due to this culture of us common Indians and not due to flawed laws they support.
--------
6. Other parties’ are to win elections, collect bribes ; we are ONLY to enact laws we demand
Our primary goal is to get some Govt Orders enacted and NOT winning the elections. We are contesting only to give publicity to Govt Orders and laws we demand and promise. We do not insist that voters vote for us - we insist that citizens force their CMs, PM, MLAs and MPs to enact laws we are proposing. And we ask voters to vote for us only if they are convinced that the leaders of other group shall not sign these Govt Orders.
Every other party, their main goal is to win elections and they are not committed to any change in administration.
--------
7. Reducing corruption, nepotism in courts
We are the only group who speaks against nepotism in courts.
All other group leaders and intellectuals have been supporting nepotism in courts by supporting the laws (such as interview system and judge system) that promote nepotism in courts. And they have opposed laws like Jury System and abolition of interviews which are must to put an end to nepotism in the courts.
------
8. Respect for commons
We have utmost respect for commons, and insist that his YES/NO on legal administrative issues should be registered and given weight
The other Parties’ leaders and all intellectuals of India have nothing but insults for us commons. They consider us commons as “immature” (read : idiot, moron etc) and so insist that us commons’ YES/NO on laws, judgments, appointments etc should not be even registered forget giving any weightage.
------
9. Against donations
We are against donations. We believe that activists must allocate time, and may spend money on xeroxes, newspaper advertisements etc but should send no money at top.
All parties ask workers to gather donations. And by giving donations, the donors are only spoiling the parties and worsening political scene in India.
-----------
10. Some 100-120 more differences
And there are about 120 differences. So many? Yes, so many, and many more. We have proposed about over 120 Govt Orders to bring changes in administration. To see these differences, please see the list of Govt Orders we demand and promise onhttp://www.rahulmehta.com/all_drafts.htm .
And the other parties and all intellectuals of India oppose each one and every one of them. And thus there are about 120 differences between MRCM party and other parties’ MPs and all intellectuals of India.
----
11. Approach with other Party’s volunteers
The leaders of other parties always ask activists to leave other parties and join their own parties.
Whereas, I and other volunteers at RRG never ask activists of other parties, NGOs to leave their parties, NGOs. Instead we request them – “can you convince your leaders to add Right to Recall PM, RTR CM, RTR Supreme Court judges etc drafts in your Manifesto? My goal is to convert as many political parties as possible into RRG clones by injecting RTR, RTI2 etc drafts in their manifesto by influencing their own workers.
===========
11.2 The most important difference in campaign method
There are at least 50+ more differences. The 11th difference cited above shows a fundamental difference in method as well as motive. The leaders of other parties always ask activists to leave other parties and join their own parties, because these leaders want to become center of power. Whereas, I and my other volunteers at Right to Recall Group never ever ask activists of other parties, NGOs to leave their parties, NGOs. Instead we request them – “can you convince your leaders to add Right to Recall PM, RTR CM, RTR Supreme Court judges etc drafts in your Manifesto”?
And I openly insist that I would be happier if activists form one more different competing RRG or continue to force their leaders to add RTI2 , RTR, MRCM drafts in their organization’s agenda !! Why? Why do I ask a non-80G-activists to form a competing Prajaa-aadheen Raajaa Party? Or why do I ask them to add RTR drafts in their organization’s agenda? Because instead of one Right to Recall Group campaigning for RTI2 draft, MRCM draft and RTR drafts, I would prefer to have 100 Right to Recall Groups each asking for MRCM draft, RTR draft etc. Now if 100 Right to Recall Groups demand RTR drafts and unleash a extremely competitive politics for RTR drafts, then all Right to Recall Groups may lose elections due to division in votes. But information on RTR drafts would spread amongst maximal number of citizens of India at fastest possible speed. Also, if there are 100 organizations demanding RTR drafts, it will be more difficult for opponents to finish the demand for RTR drafts. As I said several times, my goal is not to win elections --- my goal is to get the RTI2 drafts, RTR drafts passed. And so 100 RRGs and organizations each demanding RTR draft will do better than one RRG demanding RTR draft. And so I am happy when a true activist doesn’t join me, but he starts one more RRG or tries to add RTR drafts in the agenda of his organization.
========
11.3 Importance of drafts of the proposed laws
I believe that every honest candidate and every honest political party must declare all GNs (and legislations) he intends to enact to solve the existing problems of India. We also believe that every citizen must ask for the drafts of the laws that the candidate intends to pass. The draftless proposed changes are all handsome but useless. The citizens after election cannot take manifesto statements to the collector’s office or courts and demand the benefits the policies cite. Inside the government offices and courts, what counts is the draft of GNs that Ministers have signed matter. Which is why we have given full importance to drafts of the GNs we plan to sign and we give zero value to policy statements. This chapter describes the First Gazette Notification we demand and promise.
========
Review questions
========
Exercises
(For index, see notes #301.Index at http://facebook.com/note.php?note_id=10150422423416922 )
==============
11.1 Basic differences
We radically differ from most parties and most intellectuals. Following are main differences
What we at RRG say What other parties’ MPs andthe eminent intellectuals of India say
- Ownership of mineral mines and the Govt plots
The leaders of Congress, BJP, CPM and all eminent intellectuals of India have firmly said that the mineral mines and Govt plots are the property of “State” of India and common Indians shall have no ownership, control over them. And they have categorically refused to give rents to Indians (citizens) over IIMA, JNU and airport plots.
-----
2. We are Democracyists , MPs of other parties and eminent intellectuals of India are fascists
We at MRCM Group are the only ones in political arena who insist that we commons MUST have legislative powers and we commons MUST have powers to expel and replace officers/judges. IOW, we are Democracyists
All other parties and all eminent intellectuals of India consider us commons and voters as fools, and insist that we commons should have no say in law-making and appointments/replacements of officers, policemen, judges. And we commons should have no say in taking judgments in the courts. India’s most intellectuals have fascists mentality and so they firmly insist that all discretion in administration should be with Ministers, IAS, IPS, judges and intellectuals only. Forget discretionary powers, so fascists are Indian intellectuals that they even oppose RTI2 – merely letting citizens post complaints on PM’s website. We abhor their fascism, and they abhor over Democracyism.
-----
3. Citizens’ interpretation of Constitution shall be final ; SCjs’ interpretation shall not be final
We are the only group in India who believe that India’s Constitution as interpreted by us Citizens of India shall be the final voice, and the Constitution’s interpretation by the two dozen Supreme Court judges may be important but not final. We agree that Supreme Court judges’ interpretation is above the interpretation of Ministers, and is indeed important for Citizens to take note of. But it is not final. Our Constitution itself in the Preamble clearly says that India shall be a Democracy and a Republic which clearly supports the “Citizens’ Review System” which states that the Constitution as interpreted by Citizens is final and it is above the Judocratic Review. Which is why we insist on Jury Systems from lower courts to the Supreme Court, and demand citizens Review System where in citizens can register YES/NO on Constitutional validity of SCjs’ judgments. IOW, we believe in Constitutional Democracy.
All other parties’ MPs and all eminent intellectuals of India have always opposed to the Citizens’ Review System and also opposed the Jury System. They have always supported the judge system and the judocratic review. While all other parties and all intellectuals insist that Constitution as interpreted by the two dozen Supreme Court judges as final and us common’s interpretation is some garbage. All parties and intellectuals insist that us Citizens’ interpretation of Constitution should be ignored, and our YES/NO on SCjs’ judgments should not be even taken. And all intellectuals insist the interpretation of SCjs should be mercilessly and ruthlessly imposed over the commons using media, education and Police and Military if the need be. IOW, other parties and intellectuals believe in Constitutional judocratic Fascism.
------
4. Disclosing drafts of GNs (Gazette Notifications) and GOs (Govt Orders , Ordinances)
We are the first and only group in India, who show the drafts of GNs we demand. We do not ask people to put faith in us. We request people to read our GNs and decide on their own if these GNs are something they would support. That way a citizen voter shall have full opportunity to decide whether he should support us or oppose us.
Every group makes policy promises, but each party’s MPs and MLAs refuse to publish the drafts of the GOs they would pass. Their answer is “you vote for us first and we will show you the drafts after we become Ministers”. Well, Mr. Candidate, what if the drafts turn out be useless and against the well being of us commons? Their answer is “Have faith in me”. We dont give us such obscure and vague answers
------
5. On the myth of the ‘Political Culture’
The problems of India are due to bad law drafts intellectuals and other Party’s MPs have enacted. Nothing is wrong with the culture of us commons.
The eminent intellectuals have created a myth of political culture and claim that problems of India are due to this culture of us common Indians and not due to flawed laws they support.
--------
6. Other parties’ are to win elections, collect bribes ; we are ONLY to enact laws we demand
Our primary goal is to get some Govt Orders enacted and NOT winning the elections. We are contesting only to give publicity to Govt Orders and laws we demand and promise. We do not insist that voters vote for us - we insist that citizens force their CMs, PM, MLAs and MPs to enact laws we are proposing. And we ask voters to vote for us only if they are convinced that the leaders of other group shall not sign these Govt Orders.
Every other party, their main goal is to win elections and they are not committed to any change in administration.
--------
7. Reducing corruption, nepotism in courts
We are the only group who speaks against nepotism in courts.
All other group leaders and intellectuals have been supporting nepotism in courts by supporting the laws (such as interview system and judge system) that promote nepotism in courts. And they have opposed laws like Jury System and abolition of interviews which are must to put an end to nepotism in the courts.
------
8. Respect for commons
We have utmost respect for commons, and insist that his YES/NO on legal administrative issues should be registered and given weight
The other Parties’ leaders and all intellectuals of India have nothing but insults for us commons. They consider us commons as “immature” (read : idiot, moron etc) and so insist that us commons’ YES/NO on laws, judgments, appointments etc should not be even registered forget giving any weightage.
------
9. Against donations
We are against donations. We believe that activists must allocate time, and may spend money on xeroxes, newspaper advertisements etc but should send no money at top.
All parties ask workers to gather donations. And by giving donations, the donors are only spoiling the parties and worsening political scene in India.
-----------
10. Some 100-120 more differences
And there are about 120 differences. So many? Yes, so many, and many more. We have proposed about over 120 Govt Orders to bring changes in administration. To see these differences, please see the list of Govt Orders we demand and promise onhttp://www.rahulmehta.com/all_drafts.htm .
And the other parties and all intellectuals of India oppose each one and every one of them. And thus there are about 120 differences between MRCM party and other parties’ MPs and all intellectuals of India.
----
11. Approach with other Party’s volunteers
The leaders of other parties always ask activists to leave other parties and join their own parties.
Whereas, I and other volunteers at RRG never ask activists of other parties, NGOs to leave their parties, NGOs. Instead we request them – “can you convince your leaders to add Right to Recall PM, RTR CM, RTR Supreme Court judges etc drafts in your Manifesto? My goal is to convert as many political parties as possible into RRG clones by injecting RTR, RTI2 etc drafts in their manifesto by influencing their own workers.
===========
11.2 The most important difference in campaign method
There are at least 50+ more differences. The 11th difference cited above shows a fundamental difference in method as well as motive. The leaders of other parties always ask activists to leave other parties and join their own parties, because these leaders want to become center of power. Whereas, I and my other volunteers at Right to Recall Group never ever ask activists of other parties, NGOs to leave their parties, NGOs. Instead we request them – “can you convince your leaders to add Right to Recall PM, RTR CM, RTR Supreme Court judges etc drafts in your Manifesto”?
And I openly insist that I would be happier if activists form one more different competing RRG or continue to force their leaders to add RTI2 , RTR, MRCM drafts in their organization’s agenda !! Why? Why do I ask a non-80G-activists to form a competing Prajaa-aadheen Raajaa Party? Or why do I ask them to add RTR drafts in their organization’s agenda? Because instead of one Right to Recall Group campaigning for RTI2 draft, MRCM draft and RTR drafts, I would prefer to have 100 Right to Recall Groups each asking for MRCM draft, RTR draft etc. Now if 100 Right to Recall Groups demand RTR drafts and unleash a extremely competitive politics for RTR drafts, then all Right to Recall Groups may lose elections due to division in votes. But information on RTR drafts would spread amongst maximal number of citizens of India at fastest possible speed. Also, if there are 100 organizations demanding RTR drafts, it will be more difficult for opponents to finish the demand for RTR drafts. As I said several times, my goal is not to win elections --- my goal is to get the RTI2 drafts, RTR drafts passed. And so 100 RRGs and organizations each demanding RTR draft will do better than one RRG demanding RTR draft. And so I am happy when a true activist doesn’t join me, but he starts one more RRG or tries to add RTR drafts in the agenda of his organization.
========
11.3 Importance of drafts of the proposed laws
I believe that every honest candidate and every honest political party must declare all GNs (and legislations) he intends to enact to solve the existing problems of India. We also believe that every citizen must ask for the drafts of the laws that the candidate intends to pass. The draftless proposed changes are all handsome but useless. The citizens after election cannot take manifesto statements to the collector’s office or courts and demand the benefits the policies cite. Inside the government offices and courts, what counts is the draft of GNs that Ministers have signed matter. Which is why we have given full importance to drafts of the GNs we plan to sign and we give zero value to policy statements. This chapter describes the First Gazette Notification we demand and promise.
========
Review questions
- Whose interpretation of Constitution is final in our RRG views? Whose interpretation of Constitution is final in the intellectuals’ views?
- Do intellectuals consider minerals as the property of us commons? Do intellectuals consider GoI plots such as Delhi airport or IIMA plot as the property of us commons?
- Does RRG believe in “Political Culture” theory?
========
Exercises
- Please obtain draft of law Shourie or other BJP MPs or any other MP proposed in Parliament to enact National ID system.
- Please obtain draft of law that the MPs of CPM, BJP, Congress etc proposed in the Parliament to reduce the nepotism in Supreme, High and Lower courts
- Please obtain draft of law Congress, BJP and CPM MPs proposed in Parliament to recall MPs, MLAs, CMs, PM etc.
- Please obtain draft of law that Jayprakash Nayaran proposed to recall MPs, MLAs, CMs, PM etc.
No comments:
Post a Comment