We have politicians who create regional and religious hatred, politicians who oppose projects like Tata Nano for political gains.
We can change our political system by voting for the right person and persuading/educating people around you to vote for the right person.
Loksatta led by Jayaprakash Narayan(Former IAS)is the only party which said it will not use 1) Money 2) Liquor 3) Religious hatred 4) Regional hatred to win in elections.
It is the only party which said it will not go for strikes to protest against government polocies but will protest in a democratic way.
For a country like India which has a 14% power deficiency importing nuclear technology for power generation is very important. Loksatta is the only party which was not part of the UPA (ruling coilation) which supported the Nuclear deal and urged other parties to support the deal which is very essential for our country.
When govt increased fuel prices because of the increased prices in gulf countries all oppositon parties did unfruitful works like using bullock carts to goto assembly. But loksatta is the only party which said we should reduce our dependency on oil (petrol) we should start using unconventional resources and fuel efficient technologies.
It is the only party which talks about providing good education and health facilities,infrastructure.
Let us all contribute by voting for the right person and campaign for parties like Loksatta which have great principles
Re: Please vote for the right
by B Ravi Shankar on Apr 13, 2009 09:44 AM
Many people know Lok Sattha is best. But don’t know how to help Lok Sattha to win. Though my family votes for Lok Sattha, we need to do something for this genuine party to win.
Re: Please vote for the right
by siddharth on Apr 14, 2009 12:17 AM
Lok Satta is the best party in India. All are educated but no one will vote for it as it is not a branded party. BJP is the next best party besides Lot satta. Still Lok satta has to prove its promises even out side of Govt.
Aryans migrated to the east banks of Sindhu (Indus) to seek for food. But they did not bring a religion along with them. They got assimilated with the existing aboriginal societies, namely, remnants of Harappa society, Dravidian society, Santhal society and thus evolved a great way of life. That was not a religion. You can not imagine a religion in that old an age.
1500 BC - 500 AD:
The fusion of Aryan, Dravidian, Scithian, Shaka and Santhal societies continued to happen. The example are the gods and goddesses. Shiva, Vishnu, Kali, Ganesh, Lakshmi were not present in the most ancient Aryan literature. Early Aryans were worshipers of nature-gods - Indra, Varuna, Marut, Surya, Agni etc. Gradually the graceful fusion led them to embrace all gods of all societies. Ancient Dravidian goddess of snakes Manchamma became Manasa. Dravidian female goddesses of power and fertility amalgamated with Mother Divine of aboriginals to form Shaktis - Durga, Kali, Lakshmi. The different societies continued to form one unified, defined society - the Hindoos.
500 - 1200 AD:
Gautama extracted the monotheist principles of the Vedas & Vedantas and rejected the later Puranic rituals to start the great humane face of commune, which took shape of Buddhism. This gave birth to a number of colloquial dialects Pali, Prakrit out of Sanskrit. Caste was purely profession based in early Aryan society. Later it diverted to an inherited trait which was also rejected in Buddhism and Jainism.
Re: Narration of the great history of Bharat
by akchatte on Apr 13, 2009 03:59 AM
The Hindoo society kept up evolution toward the purity and extreme wisdom. A number of great rulers from Ram, Ashoka, Samudragupta, Vikramaditya, Harshavardhana, Krishnadeva Raya, Choladevas, Satkarni - from BC to AD marked the definition and demarcation of the great land of Hindoos - from the east banks of Sindhu (Indus) till the Himalayas, until Sindhu (oceans). This land was crisscrossed by Sapta-Sindhu - Ganga, Yamuna, Godavari, Saraswati, Narmada, Sindhu and Kaveri. The rise of a fertile, river-based, wealthy civilization too strong in agriculture, maritime commerce and medical science, astro-science and mathematics sprang up.
1200 - 1700 AD:
The Hindoo society, till now, reached to the extreme height of achievements. - from irrigation to invention of zero, Ayurveda, earth's revolution, quadratic mathematics, decimals, trigonometry, atoms and so on. Bharat became the heartland of wealth, diamonds, spices. But this period started the period of invasion. Pathans and Mughals started their ugly invasion from this era, which began since 1100 AD. Mention not, they not only came to loot wealth from people, treasuries and temples, but also carried with them a religion, an object fully unknown and alien to us. Bharat started suffering the forceful transition from the 'great way of life' to a 'mere religion'. From Mahmud, Ghori, Khaljis, Aibacks, Iltutmish, till Babur. All were just invaders. Barbaric and inhuman enough to destroy a civilization and their sacred treasures.
Re: Re: Narration of the great history of Bharat
by akchatte on Apr 13, 2009 04:19 AM
Only from Akbar, the Mughals showed a tendency to settle in Bharat. Akbar realized that the history will never forgive them to forcefully transition the peaceful Hindoos with an alien religion and language and livelihood. He tried to befriend everyone and even attempted to make one faith for all which he initiated as 'Din-i-Ilahi', which still could be labeled as a faith of the soil. But Musl1m clergies and ulemas rejected this attempt of Akbar. Nevertheless, Akbar was too little and too trivial in front of a global expansionism known as Isslaam.
After Akbar, essence of Bharat again started decaying till Aurangzeb.
1700 - 1947 AD:
Though the first British tradesmen came to Bharat much before Aurangzeb,it was the last breath of Aurangzeb that the Britishers found great prospect to their hegemony.
A period of tyranny phased out to pave the way to another.
Britishers plundered wealth as well. They exploited Bhaarat's peasants, farmers, laborers to furnish oil in their living rooms.
But one difference was distinctly visible. They encouraged but never forced Hindoos to become X-tians. Or a c0nvertion would not make them a British.
When they invested money in improving the education and infrastructure in Bharat, from roads, to railways, to colleges, they were all targeted at generation workforce and work environment for their own interest. This was the time which experienced the rise of a saint (or in disguise?) called Gandhi. A saint among politicians and vice versa.
Re: Re: Re: Narration of the great history of Bharat
by akchatte on Apr 13, 2009 04:32 AM
Gandhi started his revolution against British in a non-violent way but gradually was convinced that he can only survive in arena if he sticks to it.
This was the time, another revolutionary organization RSS took its birth.
In Haripura Congress Gandhi ousted Subhas. Gandhi purposefully embraced ahimsa as he well knew that there were taller champions in the other path of revolution.
Toward this end, Gandhi, not only dejected and deceived the revolutionaries, but started a new curse of Bharatiya politics - known as appeasement. He extended his support to Wahabi and Khilafat movement, from Turkey to Bharat, which was more anti-Hindoo in Bharat than anti-British. I must say, this Khilafat is the pre-cursor to Jihad in Asia.
In 1947, when Bharat was running close to freedom, which was brought by all contributions from all ways of revolution and not only Gandhi, as it is perceived, two opportunists - Jinnah and Nehru cornered Gandhi and got involved in power hunger games.
I recall Maulana Azad in 'India wins Freedom' that why he opposed Jinnah's theory of separate Musl1m nation as if Jinnah followed Maluana Azad's theory, in another 25 years, Musl1ms would have got a whole, not a fraction, of the country with all benefits of a Pakistan. What a blasphemy.
If Maulana Azad can be treated as secular, why not Jinnah?
Bharat got partitioned. Fractured. Riots broke up in all corners. Thousands of Hindoos were killed in Noakhali, Bombay, Calcutta, Delhi.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Narration of the great history of Bharat
by akchatte on Apr 13, 2009 05:07 AM
RSS well realized that their revolution was against British and now since Bharat is free, their revolution should be to save Hindoos. They made every attempt to save Sikhs and Hindoos in these riots from Musl1m hands. They started giving shape to a new revolution - restoring the great glory of Bharat.
Bharat anyways, got fragmented. But while Shyama Prasad Mookherjee initially opposed it, started realizing that partition seemed to be beneficial to Bharat as, it is Pakistan's agenda to get the full Bharat Islumized. Which Bharat could evade.
But could Bharat evade? And if yes, how long? After 50 years of freedom, the same question is chasing us like the ghost of partition, how long can you evade Bharat?
The bhagyavidhata of Bharat, i.e. her people are in deep dilemma and pain. Can we restore our glory? Cam we really stand up tall amidst others, can we outsmart the world again? Can we not only evade, but rather repel any invasion, henceforth?
Well, this has to be answered by you, the Bhagyavidhata. The time has come again, to test.
Do vote for your government. On governance, prosperity and security - our three basic needs.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Narration of the great history of Bharat
by Sanjay Baxi on Apr 13, 2009 10:08 AM
Mr. Akchatte, there was a time in India, when millions used to practice Buddhism. There is no mention in your writings about how Buddhism ended in India. Also what about the tyrrany of the Brahmins over the sudras? What about all the kings fighting constantly with each others, and in the process killing millions of poor soldiers. It is true that the Muslims rulers in India did a lot of unimaginable things, but it was not the first time it happened in India. If we believe Aryans came to India from outside, which RSS oppose as a theory, then we will also have to believe that they were responsible for the demise of Indus valley civilization, and forced the Dravidians out of northern plane. All in all before the muslims arrived in India, a lot of bloodshed already took place in the name of religion.
The left will face a rout in its bastion - Kerala. In West bengal, they will fare a little better, but still worse than what they did in 2004. In 2004 they secured 35 out of 42 in West Bengal, this time the tally may come down to around 30. However, there are indications that the left may manage 3-5 seats from some other states, including Andhra and Orissa. Still, they will be around 12-15 seats less than 2004 tally.
Re: The left
by Sanjay Baxi on Apr 13, 2009 10:15 AM
I hope Mamta (TMC = Trailer-trash Maggot Congress) does not win in Bengal. She represent the worst form of Indian politics. They are a bunch of desperate anarchists, who can do anything to grab power. Previously they sided BJP, this time they are with Congress. Mamta will die a terribly frustated woman due to old age.
it shows the lack of political understanding of the survey. Chiranjeevi and Praja rajyam is contesting for 294 assembly and 42 Loksabha seats even though it is a new party. They will get a minimum of 10 seats.
Re: One seat for Praja Rajyam
by xxx yyy on Apr 13, 2009 01:28 AM
BTW, there are rumors that TDP and PR may tie up after the elections. Is there any truth to it?
Re: One seat for Praja Rajyam
by xxx yyy on Apr 13, 2009 01:26 AM
What happens in AP is going to be interesting. There are 2 main parties, and PR is a new party that may well give the other two a knockout punch (or maybe not), who knows?
If BJP and Congress are such great parties that it has so many loyal supporters, why can't they win a majority on their own? Why do they need to be part of a coalition?
Re: Why can't they win on their own?
by Public Voice on Apr 13, 2009 10:06 AM
Because people are divided on cast, state, religion and many other numerous things. The day they will learn to vote for development and progress, and all will be united for that to make everbody body's life better, India will be a great nation like "sone ki chiriya" in old kingdom days.
1. Deny Abdul Kalam a second term and Make Killer patil the Prez.
2. Not hanging Afzal Guru -saying waitng list has to be cleared ...
3. Demanding Probe against Policemen for gIVING Life for the nation ..Delhi Blast..
4. Doubting on Encounters in Mumbai Firing ,saying Karkaray may not have been gunnned down by terrorist..
5. Giving Heavy Subsidy on HAZ yatra & Denying AMARNATH land in very own country .
6. Promishing First right to Minorities , denying the "equal rights" of the constitution ..
7. Denying Existence of RAM
8. Having MQM , and MIM as "secular allies "
9. Kandhamal a Hindu Priest is killed and Central Govt waits for Violence to occur , so as to drive Political Milage later ....
10 . A Sadhvi is drugged , Narco done 12 times ,s till no truth Out ,Basic rights to a wOMEN IS DENIED AND mEDIA kEEPS sILENT (remember same media , which is very found of "secular Terrorist")
Re: Secularism: Defnitions
by Indian on Apr 13, 2009 09:01 AM
Completely agree with you. Add to it the following:
1) Anti-Maharashtrian riots in 1948 (after Mahatma Gandhi was killed by Nathuram Godse)
2) Anti-Sikh riots of 1984 (after Indira Gandhi was killed by her sikh bodyguards),
3) Manipulating CBI to get clean chit for Quatrocci in Bofors Scam
4) Manipulating CBI to get clean chit for Tytler in Anti-Sikh riots when the witnesses are speaking on TV openly that they saw Tytler involved in the riots
6) Nourishes such politicians who in their tenure of Chief Minister backs up criminals like Arif Aqueel of Bhopal who was responsible for the dreaded riots in 1992 in which about 200 hindus were killed.
