Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Blind disliking, hatred and intolerance!

Expand Messages
  • MVS
    Dear Sir, Blind disliking, hatred and intolerance! In most countries some persons blindly dislike or hate or do not tolerate fellow citizens on racist or
    Message 1 of 5 , May 3 6:34 AM
      Dear Sir,

      Blind disliking, hatred and intolerance!

      In most countries some persons blindly dislike or hate or do not tolerate fellow citizens on racist or religious grounds if they were not part of the original population but migrated latter. More so if they are not like the nation’s majority population!. Such maladies in humans are difficult to change as every country has its own preferences and prejudices.
      But in India we are above that, we may generally be tolerant to foreigners who settle in India even of different faiths, language and customs. Peculiarly our country’s main strong inborn trait is we hate and cannot tolerate our own fellow countrymen and dislike in a vicious way based on religion, caste, sub-castes, language, dialect, region or political ideologies!. We have strong prejudices against our countrymen even if they are they are completely strangers!. Many blindly hate fellow citizens biased about their very existence! Even highly learned persons, including doctors of Philosophy, also express provocatively against fellow citizens in general!.
      I visited many countries and stayed some extended periods in other counties and continue to follow news of other countries or nations. I observed hating fellow countrymen is very uncommon and rarely expressed in any media, except may be in a jocular way. They love their country and tolerate their countrymen. But if any one follows our own media, foreigners may be wondering why such hatred and even unreasonable enmity exists in our country towards fellow countrymen!. May be that very weakness of disunity made us pave way for foreign invaders to conquer our land?!. Our opinion on democracy seems to be intolerant to opposition as if they are our bitter enemies!.
      Our country produced great thinkers, saints, and great writers, who propagated tolerance to others’ views and yet we never seemed to be following! We become blind to understand others point of views. I always remember our great poet Ravindranath Tagore’s lamenting views about this.

      ‘Where the mind is without fear and the head is held high’
      ‘Where knowledge is free
      Where the world has not been broken up into fragments
      By narrow domestic walls
      Where words come out from the depth of truth
      Where tireless striving stretches its arms towards perfection
      Where the clear stream of reason has not lost its way
      Into the dreary desert sand of dead habit
      Where the mind is led forward by thee
      Into ever-widening thought and action
      Into that heaven of freedom, my Father, let my country awake.’
      _ Ravindranath Tagore


      Sincerely,

      M.V.S.
    • rsubhash@rocketmail.com
      Indeed! When we point a finger against others, we should remember that three fingers are pointing at us. If asking for restoration of political rights (for
      Message 2 of 5 , May 5 12:36 PM
        Indeed! 

        When we point a finger against others, we should remember that three fingers are pointing at us.

        If asking for restoration of political rights (for demerger of Telangana from AP) - asking for their own State is blindly disliking, hating, and not tolerating fellow citizens then I wonder about Andhras asking for their own State from Tamils was also the same?

        Those of who are so ignorant of what our Rights the Constitution grants us need to be educated so that they don't work out a rage and accuse others of "disliking, hating, and being intolerant.

        Let me enlighten those folks who are not informed about the Articles 2 and 3 of the Constitution of India and what the Founding Fathers of our Nation as a Republic written into the Constitution these RIGHTS.

        I hope these souls in anguish read the following; the Constitution of India and the very wise thoughts and concerns of those who authored and voted for the Constitution.

        I urge these souls who have no understanding of India's Constitution and the Rights of People of India to stop insulting the Constitution and its democratic Principles all because of their ignorance and or inability to comprehend what it means to live in a Democratic Republic such as India.

        Subhash C Reddy, Ph.D.

        India - Constitution 
           Adopted on: 26 Jan 1950 }


        Preamble
        WE, THE PEOPLE OF INDIA, having solemnly resolved to constitute India into a SOVEREIGN SOCIALIST SECULAR DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC and to secure to all its citizens:
        JUSTICE, social, economic and political;
        LIBERTY of thought, expression, belief, faith and worship;
        EQUALITY of status and of opportunity; and to promote among them all FRATERNITY assuring the dignity of the individual and the unity and integrity of the Nation;
        IN OUR CONSTITUENT ASSEMBLY this twenty-sixth day of November, 1949, do HEREBY ADOPT, ENACT AND GIVE TO OURSELVES THIS CONSTITUTION.


        Article 2  Admission or establishment of new States
        Parliament may by law admit into the Union, or establish, new States on such terms and conditions as it thinks fit.
         
        Article 2a  Sikkim to be associated with the Union
        {...}
         
        Article 3  Formation of new States and alteration of areas, boundaries or names of existing States
        Parliament may by law -
        (a) form a new State by separation of territory from any State or by uniting two or more States or parts of States or by uniting any territory to a part of any State;
        (b) increase the area of any State;
        (c) diminish the area of any State;
        (d) alter the boundaries of any State;
        (e) alter the name of any State:
        Provided that no Bill for the purpose shall be introduced in either House of Parliament except on the recommendation of the President and unless, where the proposal contained in the Bill affects the area, boundaries or name of any of the States, the Bill has been referred by the President to the Legislature of that State for expressing its views thereon within such period as may be specified in the reference or within such further period as the President may allow and the period so specified or allowed has expired.
        Explanation I: In this article, in clauses (a) to (e), "State" includes a Union territory, but in the proviso, "State" does not include a Union territory.
        Explanation II: The power conferred on Parliament by clause (a) includes the power to form a new State or Unionterritory by uniting a part of any other State or Union territory to any other State of Union territory.


        The first meeting of the Constituent Assembly of India took place in Constitution Hall, New Delhi, on Monday, the 9th December 1946. at Eleven of the Clock.  Acharya J. B. Kripalani (United Provinces: General):  requested Dr. Sachchidananda Sinha to take the Chair as temporary Chairman.

        Article 3 was debated on November 17th and 18th, 1948.  Dr. B.R. Ambedkar served as its Chairman.  Members present included stalwarts such as

        Prof. K.T. Shah,

        K. Santhanam,

        Pandit H.N. Kunzru, United Provinces

        Pandit Thakur Dass Bhargava, East Punjab


        The Founding Fathers of India's Constitution anticipated changes in the Territorial boundaries of existing States for administrative reasons as well as by popular demands of citizens, and the formation of more and new States by reorganization and accession.

        What is more startling and revolutionary about their Thinking, Foresight, and Wisdom is that they recognized the inherent Right of the citizens of various States of India for Self-Determination to form their own areas into a separate State majorly because of their dissatisfaction, disenchantment, disaffection, feeling of discrimination in their present State, and to fulfill their cherished desire to chart their own future and development.


        Prof. K. T. Shah:

        "Lest I should be misunderstood, I would at once add that I am certainly not in love with the present position, or the continuance of the alignment of the provinces and States as they stand today. They need to be altered, they must be altered. But they must be altered only as and how the people primarily affected desire them to be altered, and not in accordance with the preconception, the notion, of such adjustment that those at the Centre may have, even if some of those at the Centre are the representatives of  the people concerned.

        I make it imperative, therefore, that the first proposition, the initiation of the movement either to integrate or to separate, either to readjust the boundaries or to bring about any new form of configuration, must commence with the people themselves. I admit that in democracy majority rule should prevail. But the majority has not the monopoly of being always right and still less to be always just."

        The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar:

        "Mr. Vice-President, if one were to compare the amended proviso with the original proviso as it was set out in the Draft Constitution, the Members will see that the new amendment introduces two changes. One is this: in the original draft the power to introduce the Bill was given exclusively to the Government of India. ….this was a somewhat sever and unnecessary curtailment of the right of the members of Parliament..."The second change is this:…. all that is necessary is consultation. Consent is not required. All that the President is called upon to do is to be satisfied, before making the recommendation, that their wishes have been consulted.

        The Honourable Shri K. Santanam:

        "Mr. Vice-President, I wonder whether…, it would mean that no minority in any State can ask for separation of territory, either for forming a new province or for joining an adjacent State unless it can get a majority in that State legislature. …Take the case of the madras Province for instance. The Andhras want separation. They bring up a resolution in the madras legislature. It is defeated by a majority. There ends the matter. The way of the Andhras is blocked altogether. They cannot take any further step to constitute an Andhra province. On the other hand, as re-drafted by the Honourable Dr. Ambedkar, if the Andhras fail to get a majority in the legislature, they can go straight to the President and represent to him what the majority did in their case and ask for further action removing the block in the way of a province for them. If they are able to convince the President, he may recommend it and either the Government of India may themselves sponsor legislation for the purpose or any private Member or a group in the Central legislature can take up the question. Therefore, by Mr. Shah's amendment instead of democracy we will have absolute autocracy of the majority in every province and State. That is certainly not what professor Shah wants.

        Pandit Thakur Dass Bhargava (East Punjab: General):

        "The first point which I would like to submit is that every part of India should be given this facility, that, should it decide to secede from one part and to accede to another, then there should be no impediment in its way

          Since the war we have been hearing that everyone has got the right of self-determination…. If the people of an area want separation, then the right of self-determination should be given to them…. I would like the Congress Government to respect the wishes of the areas, which desire to separate from any province and that no hurdles are placed in their way; on the other hand, all legal aid should be given for the formation of a new province.

        Views of the provincial legislature may be taken but the changes should be effected in accordance with the wishes of the people of the area, who want separation. If this is not done then the principle of self-determination would be nowhere. We used to hear that after the attainment of Swaraj the right of self-determination would be given to all…. Views of the legislatures may be invited, and may be taken into consideration; but the determining factor should be the vote of the people of the area, which wants to separate."


        Prof. Shibban Lal Saksena:

         Mr. Vice-President, Sir, this is a fundamental matter, .... if the President feels that the people of an area - the majority of them - are of the opinion that they would be happier if they go to some other State or Province, he would advise the Prime Minister, and probably the Prime Minister also will agree with him that the motion should be allowed and that Parliament should be allowed to discuss the question. I think that gives full liberty and opportunity to every area which desires a change of boundaries.

        Chaudhari Ranbir Singh (East Punjab: General): 
        "…I am afraid the amendment would reduce the chance of success of any community which is in majority in any area but happens to be in minority in that State and I am afraid it would also reduce the importance of their demand and narrow the opportunity of their having a say in the matter….The provision as it stands in the draft lays down that if the majority of the people in any area demand that their area be joined to any other State or to a new State, their demand can be taken into consideration… I am afraid their demand would lose some of its weight, and particularly this would be the case of the people of such areas as have no leader of their own, no press of their own and no other means to make their voice heard.... when the Centre consults the provincial legislature the opinion of the majority of the representatives of the territory, which wants to separate itself and join another province, should also be on record and that their recorded opinion should appear before the Central Assembly so that it may know what that particular territory desires.]"

        ________________________________________________________________________________


        --- In karmayog-hyd@yahoogroups.com, "MVS" wrote:
        >
        > Dear Sir,
        >
        > Blind disliking, hatred and intolerance!
        >
        > In most countries some persons blindly dislike or hate or do not tolerate fellow citizens on racist or religious grounds if they were not part of the original population but migrated latter. More so if they are not like the nation’s majority population!. Such maladies in humans are difficult to change as every country has its own preferences and prejudices.
        > But in India we are above that, we may generally be tolerant to foreigners who settle in India even of different faiths, language and customs. Peculiarly our country’s main strong inborn trait is we hate and cannot tolerate our own fellow countrymen and dislike in a vicious way based on religion, caste, sub-castes, language, dialect, region or political ideologies!. We have strong prejudices against our countrymen even if they are they are completely strangers!. Many blindly hate fellow citizens biased about their very existence! Even highly learned persons, including doctors of Philosophy, also express provocatively against fellow citizens in general!.
        > I visited many countries and stayed some extended periods in other counties and continue to follow news of other countries or nations. I observed hating fellow countrymen is very uncommon and rarely expressed in any media, except may be in a jocular way. They love their country and tolerate their countrymen. But if any one follows our own media, foreigners may be wondering why such hatred and even unreasonable enmity exists in our country towards fellow countrymen!. May be that very weakness of disunity made us pave way for foreign invaders to conquer our land?!. Our opinion on democracy seems to be intolerant to opposition as if they are our bitter enemies!.
        > Our country produced great thinkers, saints, and great writers, who propagated tolerance to others’ views and yet we never seemed to be following! We become blind to understand others point of views. I always remember our great poet Ravindranath Tagore’s lamenting views about this.
        >
        > ‘Where the mind is without fear and the head is held high’
        > ‘Where knowledge is free
        > Where the world has not been broken up into fragments
        > By narrow domestic walls
        > Where words come out from the depth of truth
        > Where tireless striving stretches its arms towards perfection
        > Where the clear stream of reason has not lost its way
        > Into the dreary desert sand of dead habit
        > Where the mind is led forward by thee
        > Into ever-widening thought and action
        > Into that heaven of freedom, my Father, let my country awake.’
        > _ Ravindranath Tagore
        >
        >
        > Sincerely,
        >
        > M.V.S.
        >
      • Janardhan
        Dear Subhash Reddy garu, Namasthe, Thank you for an enlightening presentation of the matter.Hope our friends will spend their valuable time to read and
        Message 3 of 5 , May 6 4:25 PM
          Dear Subhash Reddy garu,
          Namasthe,
          Thank you for an enlightening presentation of the matter.Hope our friends will spend their valuable time to read and appreciate the constitutional provisions and the democratic intentions of our honourable founding fathers of our constitution on the demand for a separate state and stop their hollow sermonizing and ludicrous commentary on our constitution.
          J R Janumpalli


          --- In karmayog-hyd@yahoogroups.com, "rsubhash@..." <rsubhash@...> wrote:
          >
          > Indeed!
          >
          > When we point a finger against others, we should remember that three
          > fingers are pointing at us.
          >
          > If asking for restoration of political rights (for demerger of Telangana
          > from AP) - asking for their own State is blindly disliking, hating, and
          > not tolerating fellow citizens then I wonder about Andhras asking for
          > their own State from Tamils was also the same?
          >
          > Those of who are so ignorant of what our Rights the Constitution grants
          > us need to be educated so that they don't work out a rage and accuse
          > others of "disliking, hating, and being intolerant.
          >
          > Let me enlighten those folks who are not informed about the Articles 2
          > and 3 of the Constitution of India and what the Founding Fathers of our
          > Nation as a Republic written into the Constitution these RIGHTS.
          >
          > I hope these souls in anguish read the following; the Constitution of
          > India and the very wise thoughts and concerns of those who authored and
          > voted for the Constitution.
          >
          > I urge these souls who have no understanding of India's Constitution and
          > the Rights of People of India to stop insulting the Constitution and its
          > democratic Principles all because of their ignorance and or inability to
          > comprehend what it means to live in a Democratic Republic such as India.
          >
          > Subhash C Reddy, Ph.D.
          >
          > India - Constitution
          > Adopted on: 26 Jan 1950 }
          >
          > Preamble
          > WE, THE PEOPLE OF INDIA, having solemnly resolved to constitute India
          > into a SOVEREIGN SOCIALIST SECULAR DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC and to secure to
          > all its citizens:
          > JUSTICE, social, economic and political;
          > LIBERTY of thought, expression, belief, faith and worship;
          > EQUALITY of status and of opportunity; and to promote among them all
          > FRATERNITY assuring the dignity of the individual and the unity and
          > integrity of the Nation;
          > IN OUR CONSTITUENT ASSEMBLY this twenty-sixth day of November, 1949, do
          > HEREBY ADOPT, ENACT AND GIVE TO OURSELVES THIS CONSTITUTION.
          >
          > Article 2 Admission or establishment of new States
          > Parliament may by law admit into the Union, or establish, new States on
          > such terms and conditions as it thinks fit.
          >
          > Article 2a Sikkim to be associated with the Union
          > {...}
          >
          > Article 3 Formation of new States and alteration of areas, boundaries
          > or names of existing States
          > Parliament may by law -
          > (a) form a new State by separation of territory from any State or by
          > uniting two or more States or parts of States or by uniting any
          > territory to a part of any State;
          > (b) increase the area of any State;
          > (c) diminish the area of any State;
          > (d) alter the boundaries of any State;
          > (e) alter the name of any State:
          > Provided that no Bill for the purpose shall be introduced in either
          > House of Parliament except on the recommendation of the President and
          > unless, where the proposal contained in the Bill affects the area,
          > boundaries or name of any of the States, the Bill has been referred by
          > the President to the Legislature of that State for expressing its views
          > thereon within such period as may be specified in the reference or
          > within such further period as the President may allow and the period so
          > specified or allowed has expired.
          > Explanation I: In this article, in clauses (a) to (e), "State" includes
          > a Union territory, but in the proviso, "State" does not include a Union
          > territory.
          > Explanation II: The power conferred on Parliament by clause (a)
          > includes the power to form a new State or Unionterritory by uniting a
          > part of any other State or Union territory to any other State of Union
          > territory.
          >
          >
          > The first meeting of the Constituent Assembly of India took place in
          > Constitution Hall, New Delhi, on Monday, the 9th December 1946. at
          > Eleven of the Clock. Acharya J. B. Kripalani (United Provinces:
          > General): requested Dr. Sachchidananda Sinha to take the Chair as
          > temporary Chairman.
          >
          > Article 3 was debated on November 17th and 18th, 1948. Dr. B.R.
          > Ambedkar served as its Chairman. Members present included stalwarts
          > such as
          >
          > Prof. K.T. Shah,
          >
          > K. Santhanam,
          >
          > Pandit H.N. Kunzru, United Provinces
          >
          > Pandit Thakur Dass Bhargava, East Punjab
          >
          >
          > The Founding Fathers of India's Constitution anticipated changes in the
          > Territorial boundaries of existing States for administrative reasons as
          > well as by popular demands of citizens, and the formation of more and
          > new States by reorganization and accession.
          >
          > What is more startling and revolutionary about their Thinking,
          > Foresight, and Wisdom is that they recognized the inherent Right of the
          > citizens of various States of India for Self-Determination to form their
          > own areas into a separate State majorly because of their
          > dissatisfaction, disenchantment, disaffection, feeling of discrimination
          > in their present State, and to fulfill their cherished desire to chart
          > their own future and development.
          >
          >
          > Prof. K. T. Shah:
          >
          > "Lest I should be misunderstood, I would at once add that I am certainly
          > not in love with the present position, or the continuance of the
          > alignment of the provinces and States as they stand today. They need to
          > be altered, they must be altered. But they must be altered only as and
          > how the people primarily affected desire them to be altered, and not in
          > accordance with the preconception, the notion, of such adjustment that
          > those at the Centre may have, even if some of those at the Centre are
          > the representatives of the people concerned.
          >
          > I make it imperative, therefore, that the first proposition, the
          > initiation of the movement either to integrate or to separate, either to
          > readjust the boundaries or to bring about any new form of configuration,
          > must commence with the people themselves. I admit that in democracy
          > majority rule should prevail. But the majority has not the monopoly of
          > being always right and still less to be always just."
          >
          > The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar:
          > "Mr. Vice-President, if one were to compare the amended proviso with the
          > original proviso as it was set out in the Draft Constitution, the
          > Members will see that the new amendment introduces two changes. One is
          > this: in the original draft the power to introduce the Bill was given
          > exclusively to the Government of India. ….this was a somewhat sever
          > and unnecessary curtailment of the right of the members of
          > Parliament..."The second change is this:…. all that is necessary is
          > consultation. Consent is not required. All that the President is called
          > upon to do is to be satisfied, before making the recommendation, that
          > their wishes have been consulted.
          > The Honourable Shri K. Santanam:
          > "Mr. Vice-President, I wonder whether…, it would mean that no
          > minority in any State can ask for separation of territory, either for
          > forming a new province or for joining an adjacent State unless it can
          > get a majority in that State legislature. …Take the case of the
          > madras Province for instance. The Andhras want separation. They bring up
          > a resolution in the madras legislature. It is defeated by a majority.
          > There ends the matter. The way of the Andhras is blocked altogether.
          > They cannot take any further step to constitute an Andhra province. On
          > the other hand, as re-drafted by the Honourable Dr. Ambedkar, if the
          > Andhras fail to get a majority in the legislature, they can go straight
          > to the President and represent to him what the majority did in their
          > case and ask for further action removing the block in the way of a
          > province for them. If they are able to convince the President, he may
          > recommend it and either the Government of India may themselves sponsor
          > legislation for the purpose or any private Member or a group in the
          > Central legislature can take up the question. Therefore, by Mr. Shah's
          > amendment instead of democracy we will have absolute autocracy of the
          > majority in every province and State. That is certainly not what
          > professor Shah wants.
          > Pandit Thakur Dass Bhargava (East Punjab: General):
          >
          > "The first point which I would like to submit is that every part of
          > India should be given this facility, that, should it decide to secede
          > from one part and to accede to another, then there should be no
          > impediment in its way
          >
          > Since the war we have been hearing that everyone has got the right of
          > self-determination…. If the people of an area want separation, then
          > the right of self-determination should be given to them…. I would
          > like the Congress Government to respect the wishes of the areas, which
          > desire to separate from any province and that no hurdles are placed in
          > their way; on the other hand, all legal aid should be given for the
          > formation of a new province.
          >
          > Views of the provincial legislature may be taken but the changes should
          > be effected in accordance with the wishes of the people of the area, who
          > want separation. If this is not done then the principle of
          > self-determination would be nowhere. We used to hear that after the
          > attainment of Swaraj the right of self-determination would be given to
          > all…. Views of the legislatures may be invited, and may be taken
          > into consideration; but the determining factor should be the vote of the
          > people of the area, which wants to separate."
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          > Prof. Shibban Lal Saksena:
          > Mr. Vice-President, Sir, this is a fundamental matter, .... if the
          > President feels that the people of an area - the majority of them - are
          > of the opinion that they would be happier if they go to some other State
          > or Province, he would advise the Prime Minister, and probably the Prime
          > Minister also will agree with him that the motion should be allowed and
          > that Parliament should be allowed to discuss the question. I think that
          > gives full liberty and opportunity to every area which desires a change
          > of boundaries.
          >
          >
          > Chaudhari Ranbir Singh (East Punjab: General):
          > "…I am afraid the amendment would reduce the chance of success of
          > any community which is in majority in any area but happens to be in
          > minority in that State and I am afraid it would also reduce the
          > importance of their demand and narrow the opportunity of their having a
          > say in the matter….The provision as it stands in the draft lays down
          > that if the majority of the people in any area demand that their area be
          > joined to any other State or to a new State, their demand can be taken
          > into consideration… I am afraid their demand would lose some of its
          > weight, and particularly this would be the case of the people of such
          > areas as have no leader of their own, no press of their own and no other
          > means to make their voice heard.... when the Centre consults the
          > provincial legislature the opinion of the majority of the
          > representatives of the territory, which wants to separate itself and
          > join another province, should also be on record and that their recorded
          > opinion should appear before the Central Assembly so that it may know
          > what that particular territory desires.]"
          > ________________________________________________________________________\
          > ________
          >
          >
          > --- In karmayog-hyd@yahoogroups.com, "MVS" wrote:
          > >
          > > Dear Sir,
          > >
          > > Blind disliking, hatred and intolerance!
          > >
          > > In most countries some persons blindly dislike or hate or do not
          > tolerate fellow citizens on racist or religious grounds if they were not
          > part of the original population but migrated latter. More so if they are
          > not like the nation’s majority population!. Such maladies in
          > humans are difficult to change as every country has its own preferences
          > and prejudices.
          > > But in India we are above that, we may generally be tolerant to
          > foreigners who settle in India even of different faiths, language and
          > customs. Peculiarly our country’s main strong inborn trait is we
          > hate and cannot tolerate our own fellow countrymen and dislike in a
          > vicious way based on religion, caste, sub-castes, language, dialect,
          > region or political ideologies!. We have strong prejudices against our
          > countrymen even if they are they are completely strangers!. Many
          > blindly hate fellow citizens biased about their very existence! Even
          > highly learned persons, including doctors of Philosophy, also express
          > provocatively against fellow citizens in general!.
          > > I visited many countries and stayed some extended periods in other
          > counties and continue to follow news of other countries or nations. I
          > observed hating fellow countrymen is very uncommon and rarely expressed
          > in any media, except may be in a jocular way. They love their country
          > and tolerate their countrymen. But if any one follows our own media,
          > foreigners may be wondering why such hatred and even unreasonable enmity
          > exists in our country towards fellow countrymen!. May be that very
          > weakness of disunity made us pave way for foreign invaders to conquer
          > our land?!. Our opinion on democracy seems to be intolerant to
          > opposition as if they are our bitter enemies!.
          > > Our country produced great thinkers, saints, and great writers, who
          > propagated tolerance to others’ views and yet we never seemed to
          > be following! We become blind to understand others point of views. I
          > always remember our great poet Ravindranath Tagore’s lamenting
          > views about this.
          > >
          > > ‘Where the mind is without fear and the head is held
          > high’
          > > ‘Where knowledge is free
          > > Where the world has not been broken up into fragments
          > > By narrow domestic walls
          > > Where words come out from the depth of truth
          > > Where tireless striving stretches its arms towards perfection
          > > Where the clear stream of reason has not lost its way
          > > Into the dreary desert sand of dead habit
          > > Where the mind is led forward by thee
          > > Into ever-widening thought and action
          > > Into that heaven of freedom, my Father, let my country awake.’
          > >
          > _ Ravindranath Tagore
          > >
          > >
          > > Sincerely,
          > >
          > > M.V.S.
          > >
          >
        • jeevananda reddy
          Namaskar, 1. Andhras asking for their own state from Tamils was not the same -- here the major barrier was Tamil & Telugu. 2. Nobody is ignorant as you are --
          Message 4 of 5 , May 7 9:28 PM
            Namaskar,

            1. Andhras asking for their own state from Tamils was not the same -- here the major barrier was Tamil & Telugu.

            2. Nobody is ignorant as you are -- you know only pouring the quotes from reports but you don't understand the real way of interpretation -- under political democracy it depends up on several questions why, what, how, etc. Please enlighten your self before you enlighten others. Take the case of judiciary, with the not before me clause the judiciary helping the corrupt/criminals and helping to punish opponents.  Same way investigating agencies are using quid pro co to punish opponents.  Both these are bad under law.

            3. Our constitution says ten year reservations but now even after 65 years of independence the process is going on extending to other castes, human races, etc, etc.  This plays a major role in vote bank politics.  When it was proposed to link reservations to economic status, rich politicians who are enjoying reservation benefits fought tooth-and- nail against it.  Same is the separate state movements.  Very very rich people are enjoying reservations as well white ration cards and the benefits such as Arogyasree, etc.

            4. Every other day Harish Rao raises discrimination -- first he raised on free power and now on seed subsidy. In all parts of Andhra Pradesh wells & bore-wells are in operation.  In Harish Rao's region they are more than other two regions and in a year more dys are enjoyed free power in his region due to several reasons.  As a result the free power subsidy is going to his region -- more than 65-70%.  In his region free power is used in water business and minting crores of rupees.  Yet he says in his area free power is given for less than 7 hours and other area it is given 7 hours. He did not mentioned how many days in a year free power is used in his region and other regions.

            5.  Cotton and groundnut are grown all over the state.  Seed policies are same for all the regions.  If cotton seed is not getting subsidy, then it is for all the regions of the state.  So also, if groundnut seed gets subsidy then it is for all the regions and not only to Rayalaseema.  Here we must not forget that cotton gets more subsidies in terms of free power and chemical fertilizer.  With BT-cotton this is an important issue.  Dr. YSR fought with the Bt-cotton seed companies brought down the price by around 40-50%.  In the case of groundnut, the seed is produced by government agencies and farmers.  Groundnut in Rayalaseema is grown under rainfed condition in major part.  They rarely use fertilizer subsidy.  To instigate the locals they make such statements. 

            6. You wanted separate state on self respect or self rule you fight on that and please do not indulge on creating bad atmosphere among people of the state. This is bad policy which may affect later to your region itself.

            Thanks

            Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy
             

          • rsubhash@rocketmail.com
            ... here the major barrier was Tamil & Telugu. ... from reports but you don t understand the real way of interpretation -- under political democracy it depends
            Message 5 of 5 , May 8 7:57 AM
              --- In karmayog-hyd@yahoogroups.com, jeevananda reddy wrote:
              >
              > Namaskar,
              >
              > 1. Andhras asking for their own state from Tamils was not the same --
              here the major barrier was Tamil & Telugu.
              >
              > 2. Nobody is ignorant as you are -- you know only pouring the quotes
              from reports but you don't understand the real way of interpretation --
              under political democracy it depends up on several questions why, what,
              how, etc. Please enlighten your self before you enlighten others. Take
              the case of judiciary, with the not before me clause the judiciary
              helping the corrupt/criminals and helping to punish opponents. Same way
              investigating agencies are using quid pro co to punish opponents. Both
              these are bad under law.
              >
              > 3. Our constitution says ten year reservations but now even after 65
              years of independence the process is going on extending to other castes,
              human races, etc, etc. This plays a major role in vote bank politics.
              When it was proposed to link reservations to economic status, rich
              politicians who are enjoying reservation benefits fought tooth-and- nail
              against it. Same is the separate state movements. Very very rich
              people are enjoying reservations as well white ration cards and the
              benefits such as Arogyasree, etc.
              >
              > 4. Every other day Harish Rao raises discrimination -- first he raised
              on free power and now on seed subsidy. In all parts of Andhra Pradesh
              wells & bore-wells are in operation. In Harish Rao's region they are
              more than other two regions and in a year more dys are enjoyed free
              power in his region due to several reasons. As a result the free power
              subsidy is going to his region -- more than 65-70%. In his region free
              power is used in water business and minting crores of rupees. Yet he
              says in his area free power is given for less than 7 hours and other
              area it is given 7 hours. He did not mentioned how many days in a year
              free power is used in his region and other regions.
              >
              > 5. Cotton and groundnut are grown all over the state. Seed policies
              are same for all the regions. If cotton seed is not getting subsidy,
              then it is for all the regions of the state. So also, if groundnut seed
              gets subsidy then it is for all the regions and not only to Rayalaseema.
              Here we must not forget that cotton gets more subsidies in terms of free
              power and chemical fertilizer. With BT-cotton this is an important
              issue. Dr. YSR fought with the Bt-cotton seed companies brought down
              the price by around 40-50%. In the case of groundnut, the seed is
              produced by government agencies and farmers. Groundnut in Rayalaseema
              is grown under rainfed condition in major part. They rarely use
              fertilizer subsidy. To instigate the locals they make such statements.
              >
              > 6. You wanted separate state on self respect or self rule you fight on
              that and please do not indulge on creating bad atmosphere among people
              of the state. This is bad policy which may affect later to your region
              itself.
              >
              > Thanks
              >
              > Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy
              >
              >
            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.