References to RSS, BJP MLA OP Sharma and Godse expunged from Lok Sabha record, Smriti Irani’s references to JNU students stay

9

On Wednesday jantakareporter.com was the first to report how the Lok Sabha Speaker, Sumitra Mahajan, was visibly pained to see the Congress chief whip Jyotraditya Scindia make references to the RSS, BJP MLA OP Sharma (Patiala House Court fame) and Nathuram Godse.

Well Mahajan’s displeasure didn’t just remain confined to her verbal interjection.

A day later when the LS secretariat issued the list of expunged words from Wednesday’s proceedings, thetc three words Mahajan had taken objection to.

And if her criticics felt this smacked of her biases towards the saffron party that she’s always been accused of, they would have been even more enraged to learn that the names of the eight JNU students identified by the HRD Minister Smriti Irani had stayed on the record.

This despite No 352 of the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in Lok Sabha clearly stating that a member “shall not refer to any matter of fact on which a judicial decision is pending”.

The eight students Irani named in parliament are facing investigation by Delhi Police for their role in organising a protest in JNU against the hanging of Parliament attack convict Afzal Guru during which “anti-national slogans” were allegedly raised. But none of them have been pronounced guilty yet by any court of law.

An official spokesperson of the secretariat told The Indian Express that expunging references to RSS, OP Sharma and Godse was “because of the context of its usage and not the word per se.”

And what about the decision to not expunge names that Irani stated? The spokesperson said, “The context in which the minister listed their names was relevant and therefore, there was no expunction.”

Mahajan appears to have exercised the Rule No 380 which stipulates, “If the Speaker is of opinion that words have been used in debate which are defamatory or indecent or unparliamentary or undignified, he may, in his discretion, order that such words be expunged from the proceedings of the House.”

Speaking on what constituted sedition, Scindia on Wednesday said that Delhi Police arrested Kanhaiya just because he had defeated the ABVP candidate in the students’ body elections.

Read full coverage on JNU controversy

He said, “Opposing RSS ideology is not sedition..Delhi Police arrested Kanhaiya Kumar just because he had defeated the ABVP candidate.”

No sooner had he finished making his point, the Lok Sabha Speaker Sumitra Mahajan intejected saying, ‘baar baar RSS ka naam lene ki zaroorat nahi hai (There’s no need to make reference to RSS that often). You can make your point even without mentioning the RSS.”

Also Read | Was there murder, don’t discuss about one scuffle, says Modi’s MoS (Home) on Patiala House Court attacks

The post of the Speaker is a constitutional appointment and the incumbant is expected to discharge his or her role with neutrality. But Mahajan has often been accused by opppsition parties of being biased in favour of her party, she won her last Lok Sabha election i.e. the BJP.

9 COMMENTS

      • India Dumped #CorruptCongress. #DelhiDumpedModi #BiharDumpedModi #RuralGujaratDumpedModi Overdue #DumpCorruptCriminalBJP. #10ClassPM #DegreeDikhaoPM #NarendraModi #ModiTheMassMurderer #MurderScam #ModiTheTerrorist #BJPBitch #SumitraMahajan Thoo #Thoo

        • DUMP YOURSELF IT WILL BE OVER YOU NEVER BE ABLE TO SPEAK LIKE ROHIT VEMULA WHO SUPPORTS YACUB MEMON BEING A PHD STUDENT ARE WE GOING TOLERATE THIS NONSENSE IN HIGHEST LEARNING PLACES WHERE ONLY INTOLERANCE IS MAIN.

          • LIKE AK OF DELHI MAJORITY OF PEOPLE OF INDIA CHOOSE BJP TO RULE COUNTRY> BUT IF NO PARTY EXISTS AND ONLY BASING ON GOOD QUALITIES IF A PERSON IS CHOOSEN AND VOTED LEAVING A SIDE PARTY BANNER, WILL THINK OF DOING GOOD TO THE PEOPLE IN A FAIR MANNER> POLITICIANS IN A PARTY ARE WORST AND THEY THINK OF INCREASING THEIR VOTES CORRUPT PRACTICES TO GAIN CONTROL OF power, properties AND MONEY> YOUR AK IS ALSO SUCH A CROOK> FIRST ASK FOR VOTER RECALLING POWER AND ELIMINATE MAKING LAWS BY THESE CORRUPTED POLITICIANS AND GO FOR E VOTING SYSTEM> THERE ARE MORE INTELLECTUALS IN THE FIELD RATHER THAN DEGREED PEOPLE WHO EARN CERTIFICATES FROM UNIVERSITIES AND FEEL AS THINK TANKS.

          • no need to be educated first educate your self how to behave with elders. i too donot support any party. i donot need any religions . dont yell azadi, it hurts human beings instead of that come out of barriers of selfrule and region religion , my motto is one nation one currency equal pay to all humans to the work of similar, no land ownership, recalling power lot more to change the world in to vasudhyka kutumbakam. donot feel . your short sighted ness as pill petitioner. DO U COME OUT OF YOUR SHALLOW IDEAS.GO ON BLOWING WHISTLE NOTHING WILL HAPPEN ONE DAY U WILL BE TREATED AS MAD MAN.

  1. BECAUSE I POST THIS AS JANTAKAREPORTER IS BLIND TO SEE WHY NATHURAM GODSE KILLED GANDHI IN HIS OWN CONFESSION BEFORE THE COURT______________________-__________
    WHY I KILLED GANDHI!!! – NATHURAM GODSE ‘S ADDRESS IN COURT

    rajee kushwahaRajee Kushwaha / 6 yrs ago / 174

    My grand ma always told me that one must listen to other man ‘s view, even if he is a known devil. For all you know, he might spill out the pearls of wisdom you were looking for. Therefore, I might not agree with the gentleman who sent me this mail because I am not enthusiastic about religion but I would like to see on the other side of the hill. I as much abhor HINDU ZEALOTS as I do the MUSLIM EXTREMISTS OR CHRISTIAN and SIKH RADICALS.

    To me religion is an outlandish concept of explaining human phenomenons which can not be explained by science and logic or should I say which are beyond the human mind. To me, GOD is there but HE lives within you—we are all with some fractions or elements of gods in us—therefore searching for GOD in the PALATIAL BUILDINGS called TEMPLES, MOSQUES, CHURCHES and GURDWARAS and what have you, is not my way of looking at a religion. All I am saying is that before you brand me as a HINDU ZEALOT because I am talking about NATHU RAM GODSE, you better be warned that it would expose your mental bankruptcy. It shows as to how irrational your mind has become because years of falsehoods dumped on us on WHY GANDHI WAS KILLED.

    This is an interesting Mail , I got. It was great to know the mind of NATHU RAM GODSE and why he resorted to extreme action. Here I do not agree with him but whatever he has said about GANDHI and the CONGRESS PARTY including NEHRU—-is worth pondering about. They sure got the independence but only to ensure their dynasties take over from where BRITISHERS left us. Gandhi might not have propped up his own children but he sure imposed on us NEHRU DYNASTY which continues to take India towards disaster.

    Therefore, do read this mail and formulate your own conclusions. Read on:-

    @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

    Gandhiji Assassin: Nathuram Godse’s Final Address to the Court.

    Nathuram Godse was arrested immediately after he assassinated Gandhiji, based on a F. I.. R. filed by Nandlal Mehta at the Tughlak Road Police station at Delhi . The trial, which was held in

    camera, began on 27th May 1948 and concluded on 10th February 1949. He was sentenced to death. An appeal to the Punjab High Court, then in session at Simla, did not find favourable and the sentence was upheld. The statement that you are about to read is the last made by Godse before the Court on the 5th of May 1949.

    Such was the power and eloquence of this statement that one of the judges, G. D. Khosla, later wrote, “I have, however, no doubt that had the audience of that day been constituted into a jury and entrusted with the task of deciding Godse’s appeal, they would have brought a

    verdict of ‘not Guilty’ by an overwhelming majority”

    ****************************************************************************

    WHY I KILLED GANDHI?

    Born in a devotional Brahmin family, I instinctively came to revere Hindu religion, Hindu history, and Hindu culture. I had, therefore, been intensely proud of Hinduism as a whole. As I grew up I developed a tendency to free thinking unfettered by any superstitious allegiance to any isms, political or religious. That is why I worked actively for the eradication of untouchables and the caste system based on birth alone. I openly joined RSS wing of anti-caste movements and maintained that all Hindus were of equal status as to rights, social, and religious and should be considered high or low on merit alone and not through the accident of birth in a particular caste or profession.

    I used publicly to take part in organized anti-caste dinners in which thousands of Hindus, Brahmins, Kshatriyas, Vaisyas, Chamars and Bhangis participated. We broke the caste rules and dined in the company of each other. I have read the speeches and writings of Ravana, Chanakiya, Dadabhai Naoroji, Vivekanand, Gokhale, Tilak, along with the books of ancient and modern history of India and some prominent countries like England , France , America , and Russia .Moreover I studied the tenets of Socialism and Marxism. But above all I studied very closely whatever Veer Savarkar and Gandhiji had written and spoken, as to my mind these two ideologies have contributed more to the molding of the thought and action of the Indian people during the last thirty years or so, than any other single factor has done.

    All this reading and thinking led me to believe it was my first duty to serve Hinduism and Hindus both as a patriot and as a world citizen. To secure the freedom and to safeguard the just interests of some thirty crores (300 million) of Hindus would automatically constitute the freedom and the well-being of all India , one fifth of human race. This conviction led me naturally to devote myself to the Hindu Sanghtanist ideology and program, which alone, I came to believe, could win and preserve the national independence of Hindustan , my Motherland, and enable her to render true service to humanity as well.

    Since the year 1920, that is, after the demise of Lokamanya Tilak, Gandhiji’s influence in the Congress first increased and then became supreme. His activities for public awakening were phenomenal in their intensity and were reinforced by the slogan of truth and non-violence which he paraded ostentatiously before the country. No sensible or enlightened person could object to those slogans. In fact there is nothing new or original in them. They are implicit in every constitutional public movement. But it is nothing but a mere dream if you imagine that the bulk of mankind is, or can ever become, capable of scrupulous adherence to these lofty principles in its normal life from day to day.

    In fact, honour, duty, and love of one’s own kith and kin and country might often compel us to disregard non-violence and to use force. I could never conceive that an armed resistance to an aggression is unjust. I would consider it a religious and moral duty to resist and, if possible, to overpower such an enemy by use of force. [In the Ramayana] Rama killed Ravana in a tumultuous fight and relieved Sita.. [In the Mahabharata], Krishna killed Kansa to end his wickedness; and Arjuna had to fight and slay quite a number of his friends and relations including the revered Bhishma because the latter was on the side of the aggressor. It is my firm belief that in dubbing Rama, Krishna , and Arjuna as guilty of violence, the Mahatma betrayed a total ignorance of the springs of human action.

    In more recent history, it was the heroic fight put up by Chhatrapati Shivaji that first checked and eventually destroyed the Muslim tyranny in India . It was absolutely essentially for Shivaji to overpower and kill an aggressive Afzal Khan, failing which he would have lost his own life. In condemning history’s towering warriors like Shivaji, Rana Pratap and Guru Gobind Singh as misguided patriots, Gandhiji has merely exposed his self-conceit. He was, paradoxical as it may appear a violent pacifist who brought untold calamities on the country in the name of truth and non-violence, while Rana Pratap, Shivaji, and the Guru will remain enshrined in the hearts of their countrymen for ever for the freedom they brought to them.

    The accumulating provocation of thirty-two years, culminating in his last pro-Muslim fast, at last goaded me to the conclusion that the existence of Gandhi should be brought to an end immediately. Gandhi had done very well in South Africa to uphold the rights and well-being of the Indian community there. But when he finally returned to India he developed a subjective mentality under which he alone was to be the final judge of what was right or wrong. If the country wanted his leadership, it had to accept his infallibility; if it did not, he would stand aloof from the Congress and carry on his own way.

    Against such an attitude there can be no halfway house. Either Congress had to surrender its will to his and had to be content with playing second fiddle to all his eccentricity, whimsicality, metaphysics and primitive vision, or it had to carry on without him.

    He alone was the Judge of everyone and every thing; he was the master brain guiding the civil disobedience movement; no other could know the technique of that movement. He alone knew when to begin and when to withdraw it. The movement might succeed or fail, it might bring untold disaster, and political reverses but that could make no difference to the Mahatma’s infallibility. ‘A Satyagrahi can never fail’ was his formula for declaring his own infallibility and nobody except himself knew what a Satyagrahi is. Thus, the Mahatma became the judge and jury in his own cause. These childish insanities and obstinacies, coupled with a most severe austerity of life, ceaseless work and lofty character made Gandhi formidable and irresistible.

    Many people thought that his politics were irrational but they had either to withdraw from the Congress or place their intelligence at his feet to do with as he liked. In a position of such absolute irresponsibility Gandhi was guilty of blunder after blunder, failure after failure, disaster after disaster. Gandhi’s pro-Muslim policy is blatantly in his perverse attitude on the question of the national language of India . It is quite obvious that Hindi has the most prior claim to be accepted as the premier language. In the beginning of his career in India , Gandhi gave a great impetus to Hindi but as he found that the Muslims did not like it, he became a champion of what is called Hindustani.. Everybody in India knows that there is no language called Hindustani; it has no grammar; it has no vocabulary. It is a mere dialect, it is spoken, but not written. It is a bastard tongue and cross-breed between Hindi and Urdu, and not even the Mahatma’s sophistry could make it popular. But in his desire to please the Muslims he insisted that Hindustani alone should be the national language of India . His blind followers, of course, supported him and the so-called hybrid language began to be used. The charm and purity of the Hindi language was to be prostituted to please the Muslims. All his experiments were at the expense of the Hindus.

    From August 1946 onwards the private armies of the Muslim League began a massacre of the Hindus. The then Viceroy, Lord Wavell, though distressed at what was happening, would not use his powers under the Government of India Act of 1935 to prevent the rape, murder and arson. The Hindu blood began to flow from Bengal to Karachi with some retaliation by the Hindus. The Interim Government formed in September was sabotaged by its Muslim League member’s right from its inception, but the more they became disloyal and treasonable to the government of which they were a part, the greater was Gandhi’s infatuation for them. Lord Wavell had to resign as he could not bring about a settlement and he was succeeded by Lord Mountbatten. King Log was followed by King Stork. The Congress which had boasted of its nationalism and socialism secretly accepted Pakistan literally at the point of the bayonet and abjectly surrendered to Jinnah. India was vivisected and one-third of the Indian territory became foreign land to us from August 15, 1947.

    Lord Mount batten came to be described in Congress circles as the greatest Viceroy and overnor-General this country ever had. The official date for handing over power was fixed for June 30, 1948, but Mount batten with his ruthless surgery gave us a gift of vivisected India ten months in advance. This is what Gandhi had achieved after thirty years of undisputed dictatorship and this is what Congress party calls ‘freedom’ and ‘peaceful transfer of power’. The Hindu-Muslim unity bubble was finally burst and a the ocratic state was established with the consent of Nehru and his crowd and they have called ‘freedom won by them with sacrifice’ – whose sacrifice? When top leaders of Congress, with the consent of Gandhi, divided and tore the country – which we consider a deity of worship – my mind was filled with direful anger.

    One of the conditions imposed by Gandhi for his breaking of the fast unto death related to the mosques in Delhi occupied by the Hindu refugees. But when Hindus in Pakistan were subjected to violent attacks he did not so much as utter a single word to protest and censure the Pakistan Government or the Muslims concerned. Gandhi was shrewd enough to know that while undertaking a fast unto death, had he imposed for its break some condition on the Muslims in Pakistan , there would have been found hardly any Muslims who could have shown some grief if the fast had ended in his death. It was for this reason that he purposely avoided imposing any condition on the Muslims. He was fully aware of from the experience that Jinnah was not at all perturbed or influenced by his fast and the Muslim League hardly attached any value to the inner voice of Gandhi. Gandhi is being referred to as the Father of the Nation.

    But if that is so, he had failed his paternal duty in as much as he has acted very treacherously to the nation by his consenting to the partitioning of it. I stoutly maintain that Gandhi has failed in his duty.

    He has proved to be the Father of Pakistan. His inner-voice, his spiritual power and his doctrine of non-violence of which so much is made of, all crumbled before Jinnah’s iron will, and proved to be powerless. Briefly speaking, I thought to myself and foresaw I shall be totally ruined, and the only thing I could expect from the people would be nothing but hatred and that I shall have lost my entire honor, even more valuable than my life, if I were to kill Gandhiji. But at the same time I felt that the Indian politics in the absence of Gandhiji would surely be proved practical, able to retaliate, and would be powerful with armed forces. No doubt, my own future would be totally ruined, but the nation would be saved from the inroads of Pakistan. People may even call me and dub me as devoid of any sense or foolish, but the nation would be free to follow the course founded on the reason which I consider to be necessary for sound nation-building.

    After having fully considered the question, I took the final decision in the matter, but I did not speak about it to anyone whatsoever. I took courage in both my hands and I did fire the shots at Gandhiji on 30th January 1948, on the prayer-grounds of Birla House. I do say that

    my shots were fired at the person whose policy and action had brought rack and ruin and destruction to millions of Hindus. There was no legal machinery by which such an offender could be brought to book and for this reason I fired those fatal shots. I bear no ill will towards anyone individually but I do say that I had no respect for the present government owing to their policy which was unfairly favorable towards the Muslims. But at the same time I could clearly see that the policy was entirely due to the presence of Gandhi.

    I have to say with great regret that Primes Minister Nehru quite forgets that his preaching’s and deeds are at times at variances with each other when he talks about India as a secular state in season and out of season, because it is significant to note that Nehru has played

    a leading role in the establishment of the theocratic state of Pakistan, and his job was made easier by Gandhi’s persistent policy of appeasement towards the Muslims. I now stand before the court to accept the full share of my responsibility for what I have done and the judge would, of course, pass against me such orders of sentence as may be considered proper. But I would like to add that I do not desire any mercy to be shown to me, nor do I wish that anyone else should beg for mercy on my behalf. My confidence about the moral side of my action has not been shaken even by the criticism leveled against it on all sides. I have no doubt that honest writers of history will weighs my act and find the true value thereof some day in future.

LEAVE A REPLY