List of amendments of the Constitution of India

As of June 2009, there have been 94 amendments of the Constitution of India since it was first enacted in 1950.^[1]

No.		Amendments	Enforced since	Objectives
	1	Amend articles 15, 19, 85, 87, 174, 176, 341, 342, 372 and 376. Insert articles 31A and 31B.Insert schedule 9.[2]	18 June 1951	To fully secure the constitutional validity of zamindari abolition laws and to place reasonable restriction on freedom of speech. A new constitutional device, called Schedule 9 introduced to protect laws that are contrary to the Constitutionally guaranteed fundamental rights. These laws encroach upon property rights, freedom of speech and equality before law
	2	Amend article 81.[3]	1 May 1953	A technincal amendment to fix the size of each parliamentary constituency between 650,000 and 850,000 voters.
	3	Amend schedule 7.[4]	22 February 1955	Limits maximum no of seats in lok sabha up to 500.States would be divided into constituencies such that one member of a constituency will represent not less than every 750000 people but not more than every 500000 people.
	4	Amend articles 31, 31A and 305. Amend schedule 9.[5]	27 April 1955	Restrictions on property rights and inclusion of related bills in Schedule 9 of the constitution
	5	Amend article 3.[6]	24 December 1955	Provide for a consultation mechanism with concerned states in matters relating to the amendments to the territorial matters and in the re-naming of the state
	6	Amend articles 269 and 286. Amend schedule 7.[7]	11 September 1956	Amend the Union and State Lists with respect to raising of taxes
	7	Amend articles 1, 49, 80, 81, 82, 131, 153, 158, 168, 170, 171, 216, 217, 220, 222, 224, 230, 231 and 232. Insert articles 258A, 290A, 298, 350A, 350B, 371, 372A and 378A. Amend part 8. Amend schedules 1, 2, 4 and 7.[8]	1 November 1956	Reorganization of states on linguistic lines, abolition of Class A, B, C, D states and introduction of Union Territories
	8	Amend article 334.[9]	5 January 1960	Clarify state's power of compulsory acquisition and requisitioning of private property and include Zamindari abolishion laws in Schedule 9 of the constitution
	9	Amend schedule 1.[10]	28 December 1960	Minor adjustments to territory of Indian Union consequent to agreement with Pakistan for settlement of disputes by demarcation of border villages, etc.
	10	Amend article 240. Amend schedule 1.[11]	11 August 1961	Incorporation of Dadra, Nagar and Haveli as a Union Territory, consequent to acquisition from Portugal
	11	Amend articles 66 and 71.[12]	19 December 1961	Election of Vice President by Electoral College consisting of members of both Houses of Parliament, instead of election by a Joint Sitting of Parliament. Indemnify the President and Vice President Election procedure from challenge on grounds of existence of any vacancies in the electoral college
	12	Amend article 240. Amend schedule 1.[13]	20 December 1961	Incorporation of Goa, Daman and Diu as a Union Territory, consequent to acquisition from Portugal
	13	Amend part 21.[14]	1 December 1963	Formation of State of Nagaland, with special protection under Article 371A
	14	Amend articles 81 and 240. Insert article 239A. Amend schedules 1 and 4.[15]	28 December 1962	Incorporation of Pondicherry into the Union of India and creation of Legislative Assemblies for Himachal Pradesh, Tripura, Manipur and Goa
	15	Amend articles 124, 128, 217, 222, 224, 226, 297, 311 and 316. Insert article 224A. Amend schedule 7.[16]	5 October 1963	Raise retirement age of judges from 60 to 62 and other minor amendments for rationalizing interpretation of rules regarding judges etc.
	16	Amend articles 19, 84 and 173. Amend schedule 3.[17]	5 October 1963	Make it obligatory for seekers of public office to swear their allegiance to the Indian Republic and prescribe the various obligtory templates
	17	Amend article 31A. Amend schedule 9.[18]	20 June 1964	To secure the constitutional validity of acquisition of Estates and place land acquisition laws in Schedule 9 of the constitution
	18	Amend article 3.[19]	27 August 1966	Technical Amendment to include Unior Territories in Article 3 and hence permit reorganisation of Union Territories
	19	Amend article 324.[20]	11 December 1966	Abolish Election Tribunals and enable trial of election petitions by regular High Courts
	20	Insert article 233A.[21]	22 December 1966	Indemnify & validate judgments, decrees, orders and sentences passed by judges and to validate the appointment, posting, promotion and transfer of judges barring a few who were not eligible for appointment under article 233. Amendment needed to overcome the effect of judgement invalidating appointments of certain judges in the state of Uttar Pradesh
	21	Amend schedule 8.[22]	10 April 1967	Include Sindhi as a National Language
	22	Amend article 275. Insert articles 244A and 371B.[23]	25 September 1969	Provision to form Autonomous states within the State of Assam
	23	Amend articles 330, 332, 333 and 334.[24]	23 January 1970	Extend reservation for SC / ST and nomination of Anglo Indian members in Parliament and State Assemblies for another ten years i.e. up to 1980
	24	Amend articles 13 and 368.[25]	5 November 1971	Enable parliament to dilute fundamental rights through amendments to the constitution
	25	Amend article 31. Insert article 31C.[26]	20 April 1972	Restrict property rights and compensation in case the state takes over private property
	26	Amend article 366. Insert article 363A. Remove articles 291 and 362.[27]	28 December 1971	Abolition of privy purse paid to former rulers of princely states which were incorporated into the Indian Republic
	27	Amend articles 239A and 240. Insert articles 239B and 371C.[28]	15 February 1972	Reorganization of Mizoram into a Union Territory with a legislature and council of ministers
	28	Insert article 312A. Remove article 314.[29]	29 August 1972	Rationalize Civil Service rules to make it uniform across those appointed prior to Independence and post independence
	29	Amend schedule 9.[30]	9 June 1972	Place land reform acts and amendments to these act under Schedule 9 of the constitution
	30	Amend article 133.[31]	27 February 1973	Change the basis for appeals in Supreme Court of India in case of Civil Suits from value criteria to one involving substantial question of law
	31	Amend articles 81, 330 and 332.[32]	17 October 1973	Increase size of Parliament from 525 to 545 seats. Increased seats going to the new states formed in North East India and minor adjustment consequent to 1971 Delimitation exercise
	32	Amend article 371. Insert articles 371D and 371E. Amend schedule 7.[33]	1 July 1974	Protection of regional rights in Telengana and Andhra regions of State of Andhra Pradesh
	33	Amend articles 101 and 190.[34]	19 May 1974	Prescribes procedure for resignation by members of parliament and state legislatures and the procedure for verification and acceptance of resignation by house speaker
	34	Amend schedule 9.[35]	7 September 1974	Place land reform acts and amendments to these act under Schedule 9 of the constitution
	35	Amend articles 80 and 81. Insert article 2A. Insert schedule 10.[36]	1 March 1975	Terms and Conditions for the Incorporation of Sikkim into the Union of India
	36	Amend articles 80 and 81. Insert article 371F. Remove article 2A. Amend schedules 1 and 4. Remove schedule 10.[37]	26 April 1975	Formation of Sikkim as a State within the Indian Union
	37	Amend articles 239A and 240.[38]	3 May 1975	Formation of Arunachal Pradesh legislative assembly
	38	Amend articles 123, 213, 239B, 352, 356, 359 and 360.[39]	1 August 1975	Enhances the powers of President and Governors to pass ordinances
	39	Amend articles 71 and 329. Insert article 329A. Amend schedule 9.[40]	10 August 1975	Amendment designed to negate the judgement of Allahabad High Court invalidating Prime Minister Indira Gandhi's election to parliament. Amendment placed restrictions on judicial scrutiny of post of Prime Minister
	40	Amend article 297. Amend schedule 9.[41]	27 May 1976	Enable Parliament to make laws with respect to Exclusive Economic Zone and vest the mineral wealth with Union of India Place land reform & other acts and amendments to these act under Schedule 9 of the constitution
	41	Amend article 316.[42]	7 September 1976	Raise Retirement Age Limit of Chairmen and Members of Union and State Public Commissions from sixty to sixty two.
	42	Amend articles 31, 31C, 39, 55, 74, 77, 81, 82, 83, 100, 102, 103, 105, 118, 145, 150, 166, 170, 172, 189, 191, 192, 194, 208, 217, 225, 226, 227, 228, 311, 312, 330, 352, 353, 356, 357, 358, 359, 366, 368 and 371F. Insert articles 31D, 32A, 39A, 43A, 48A, 131A, 139A, 144A, 226A, 228A and 257A. Insert parts 4A and 14A. Amend schedule 7.[43]	1 April 1977	Amendment passed during internal emergency by Indira Gandhi. Provides for curtailment of fundamental rights, imposes fundamental duties and changes to the basic structure of the constitution by making India a "Socialist Secular" Republic
	43	Amend articles 145, 226, 228 and 366. Remove articles 31D, 32A, 131A, 144A, 226A and 228A.[44]	13 April 1978	Amendment passed after revocation of internal emergency in the Country. Repeals some of the more 'Anti-Freedom' amendments enacted through Amendment Bill 42
	44	Amend articles 19, 22, 30, 31A, 31C, 38, 71, 74, 77, 83, 103, 105, 123, 132, 133, 134, 139A, 150, 166, 172, 192, 194, 213, 217, 225, 226, 227, 239B, 329, 352, 356, 358, 359, 360 and 371F. Insert articles 134A and 361A. Remove articles 31, 257A and 329A. Amend part 12. Amend schedule 9.[45]	6 September 1979	Amendment passed after revocation of internal emergency in the Country. Provides for human rights safeguards and mechanisms to prevent abuse of executive and legislative authority. Annuls some Amendments enacted in Amendment Bill 42
	45	Amend article 334.[46]	25 January 1980	Extend reservation for SC / ST and nomination of Anglo Indian members in Parliament and State Assemblies for another ten years i.e. up to 1990
	46	Amend articles 269, 286 and 366. Amend schedule 7.[47]	2 February 1983	Amendment to negate judicial pronouncements on scope and applicability on Sales Tax
	47	Amend schedule 9.[48]	26 August 1984	Place land reform acts and amendments to these act under Schedule 9 of the constitution
	48	Amend article 356.[49]	1 April 1985	Article 356 amended to permit President's rule up to two years in the state of Punjab
	49	Amend article 244. Amend schedules 5 and 6.[50]	11 September 1984	Recognize Tripura as a Tribal State and enable the creation of a Tripura Tribal Areas Autonomous District Council
	50	Amend article 33.[51]	11 September 1984	Technical Amendment to curtailment of Fundamental Rights as per Part III as prescribed in Article 33 to cover Security Personnel protecting property and communication infrastructure
	51	Amend articles 330 and 332.[52]	16 June 1986	Provide reservation to Scheduled Tribes in Nagaland, Meghalaya, Mizoram and Arunachal Pradesh Legislative Assemblies
	52	Amend articles 101, 102, 190 and 191. Insert schedule 10.[53]	1 March 1985	Anti Defection Law - Provide disqualification of members from parliament and assembly in case of defection from one party to other
	53	Insert article 371G.[54]	20 February 1987	Special provision with respect to the State of Mizoram.
	54	Amend articles 125 and 221. Amend schedule 2.[55]	1 April 1986	Increase the salary of Chief Justice of India & other Judges and to provide for determining future increases without the need for constitutional amendment
	55	Insert article 371H.[56]	20 February 1987	Special powers to Governor consequent to formation of state of Arunachal Pradesh
	56	Insert article 371I.[57]	30 May 1987	Transition provision to enable formation of state of Goa
	57	Amend article 332.[58]	21 September 1987	Provide reservation to Scheduled Tribes in Nagaland, Meghalaya, Mizoram and Arunachal Pradesh Legislative Assemblies
	58	Insert article 394A. Amend part 22.[59]	9 December 1987	Provision to publish authentic Hindi translation of constitution as on date and provision to publish authentic Hindi translation of future amendments
	59	Amend article 356. Insert article 359A.[60]	30 March 1988	Article 356 amended to permit President's rule up to three years in the state of Punjab, Articles 352 and Article 359A amended to permit imposing emergency in state of Punjab or in specific districts of the state of Punjab
	60	Amend article 276.[61]	20 December 1988	Profession Tax increased from a maximum of Rs. 250/- to a maximum of Rs. 2500/-
	61	Amend article 326.[62]	28 March 1989	Reduce age for voting rights from 21 to 18
	62	Amend article 334.[63]	20 December 1989	Extend reservation for SC / ST and nomination of Anglo Indian members in Parliament and State Assemblies for another ten years i.e. up to 2000
	63	Amend article 356. Remove article 359A.[64]	6 January 1990	Emergency powers applicable to State of Punjab, accorded in Article 359A as per amendment 59 repealed
	64	Amend article 356.[65]	16 April 1990	Article 356 amended to permit President's rule up to three years and six months in the state of Punjab
	65	Amend article 338.[66]	12 March 1992	National Commission for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes formed and its stututory powers specifed in The Constitution.
	66	Amend schedule 9.[67]	7 June 1990	Place land reform acts and amendments to these act under Schedule 9 of the constitution
	67	Amend article 356.[68]	4 October 1990	Article 356 amended to permit President's rule up to four years in the state of Punjab
	68	Amend article 356.[69]	12 March 1991	Article 356 amended to permit President's rule up to five years in the state of Punjab
	69	Insert articles 239AA and 239AB.[70]	1 February 1992	To provide for a legislative assembly and council of ministers for Federal National Capital of Delhi. Delhi continues to be a Union Territory
	70	Amend articles 54 and 239AA.[71]	21 December 1991	Include National Capital of Delhi and Union Territory of Pondicherry in electoral college for Presidential Election
	71	Amend schedule 8.[72]	31 August 1992	Include Konkani, Manipuri and Nepali as National Languages
	72	Amend article 332.[73]	5 December 1992	Provide reservation to Scheduled Tribes in Tripura State Legislative Assembly
	73	Insert part 9.[74]	24 April 1993	Statutory provisions for Panchyat Raj as third level of administration in villages
	74	Insert part 9A.[75]	1 June 1993	Statutory provisions for Local Administrative bodies as third level of administration in urban areas such as towns and cities
	75	Amend article 323B.[76]	15 May 1994	Provisions for setting up Rent Control Tribunals
	76	Amend schedule 9.[77]	31 August 1994	Enable continuance of 69% reservation in Tamil Nadu by including the relevant Tamil Nadu Act under 9th Schedule of the constitution
	77	Amend article 16.[78]	17 June 1995	A technical amendment to protect reservation to SC/ST Employees in promotions
	78	Amend schedule 9.[79]	30 August 1995	Place land reform acts and amendments to these act under Schedule 9 of the constitution
	79	Amend article 334.[80]	25 January 2000	Extend reservation for SC / ST and nomination of Anglo Indian members in Parliament and State Assemblies for another ten years i.e. up to 2010
	80	Amend articles 269 and 270. Remove article 272.[81]	9 June 2000	Implement Tenth Finance Commission recommendation to simplify the tax structures by pooling and sharing all taxes between states and The Centre
	81	Amend article 16.[82]	9 June 2000	Protect SC / ST reservation in filling backlog of vacancies
	82	Amend article 335.[83]	8 September 2000	Permit relaxation of qualifying marks and other criteria in reservation in promotion for SC / ST candidates
	83	Amend article 243M.[84]	8 September 2000	Exempt Arunachal Pradesh from reservation for Scheduled Castes in Panchayati Raj institutions
	84	Amend articles 55, 81, 82, 170, 330 and 332.[85]	21 February 2002	Extend the usage of 1971 national census population figures for statewise distribution of parliamentary seats
	85	Amend article 16.[86]	4 January 2002	A technical amendment to protect seniority in case of promotions of SC/ST Employees
	86	Amend articles 45 and 51A. Insert article 21A.[87]	12 December 2002	Provides Right to Education until the age of fourteen and Early childhood care until the age of six
	87	Amend articles 81, 82, 170 and 330.[88]	22 June 2003	Extend the usage of 1971 national census population figures for statewise distribution of parliamentary seats
	88	Amend article 270. Insert article 268A. Amend schedule 7.[89]	15 January 2004	To extend statutory cover for levy and utilization of Service Tax
	89	Amend article 338. Insert article 338A.[90]	28 September 2003	The National Commission for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes was bifurcated into The National Commission for Scheduled Castes and The National Commission for Scheduled Tribes
	90	Amend article 332.[91]	28 September 2003	Reservation in Assam Assembly relating to Bodoland Territory Area
	91	Amend articles 75 and 164. Insert article 361B. Amend schedule 10.[92]	1 January 2004	Restrict the size of council of ministers to 15 % of legislative members & to strengthen Anti Defection laws
	92	Amend article 270. Insert article 268A. Amend schedules 7 and 8.[93]	7 January 2004	Enable Levy of Service Tax & Include Bodo, Dogri, Santali and Maithali as National Languages
	93	Amend article 15.[94]	20 January 2006	To enable provision of reservation for other backward classes (O.B.C.) in government as well as private educational institutions
	94	Amend article 164.[95]	12 June 2006	To provide for a Minister of Tribal Welfare in newly created Jharkand and Chattisgarh States

Right to Freedom

Right to Freedom

19. Protection of certain rights regarding freedom of speech, etc.—(1) All citizens shall have the right—

(a) to freedom of speech and expression;

(b) to assemble peaceably and without arms;

(c) to form associations or unions;

(d) to move freely throughout the territory of India;

(e) to reside and settle in any part of the territory of India; and

(f) to preach and practice any religion

(g) to practice any profession, or to carry on any occupation, trade or business.

(2) Nothing in sub-clause (a) of clause (1) shall affect the operation of any existing law, or prevent the State from making any law, in so far as such law imposes reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the right conferred by the said sub-clause in the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, public order, decency or morality, or in relation to contempt of court, defamation or incitement to an offence.

(3) Nothing in sub-clause (b) of the said clause shall affect the operation of any existing law in so far as it imposes, or prevent the State from making any law imposing, in the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India or public order, reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the right conferred by the said sub-clause.

(4) Nothing in sub-clause (c) of the said clause shall affect the operation of any existing law in so far as it imposes, or prevent the State from making any law imposing, in the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India or public order or morality, reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the right conferred by the said sub-clause.

(5) Nothing in sub-clauses (d) and (e) of the said clause shall affect the operation of any existing law in so far as it imposes, or prevent the State from making any law imposing, reasonable restrictions on the exercise of any of the rights conferred by the said sub-clauses either in the interests of the general public or for the protection of the interests of any Scheduled Tribe.

(6) Nothing in sub-clause (g) of the said clause shall affect the operation of any existing law in so far as it imposes, or prevent the State from making any law

imposing, in the interests of the general public, reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the right conferred by the said sub-clause, and, in particular, nothing in the said sub-clause shall affect the operation of any existing law in so far as it relates to, or prevent the State from making any law relating to,—

(i) the professional or technical qualifications necessary for practicing any profession or carrying on any occupation, trade or business, or

(ii) the carrying on by the State, or by a corporation owned or controlled by the State, of any trade, business, industry or service, whether to the exclusion, complete or partial, of citizens or otherwise.

20. Protection in respect of conviction for offences.—(1) No person shall be convicted of any offence except for violation of a law in force at the time of the commission of the Act charged as an offence, nor be subjected to a penalty greater than that which might have been inflicted under the law in force at the time of the commission of the offence.

(2) No person shall be prosecuted and punished for the same offence more than once.

(3) No person accused of any offence shall be compelled to be a witness against himself.

21. Protection of life and personal liberty.—No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.

122. Protection against arrest and detention in certain cases. —(1) No person who is arrested shall be detained in custody without being informed, as soon as may be, of the grounds for such arrest nor shall he be denied the right to consult, and to be defended by, a legal practitioner of his choice.

(2) Every person who is arrested and detained in custody shall be produced before the nearest magistrate within a period of twenty-four hours of such arrest excluding the time necessary for the journey from the place of arrest to the court of the magistrate and no such person shall be detained in custody beyond the said period without the authority of a magistrate.

(3) Nothing in clauses (1) and (2) shall apply—

(a) to any person who for the time being is an enemy alien; or

(b) to any person who is arrested or detained under any law providing for preventive detention.

(4) No law providing for preventive detention shall authorise the detention of a person for a longer period than three months unless—

(a) an Advisory Board consisting of persons who are, or have been, or are qualified to be appointed as, Judges of a High Court has reported before the expiration of the said period of three months that there is in its opinion sufficient cause for such detention:

1.On the commencement of s. 3 of the Constitution (Forty-fourth Amendment) Act, 1978, art. 22 shall stand amended as directed in s. 3 of that Act. For the text of s. 3 of that Act, see Appendix III.

Provided

Constitution and Mis Governance

Constitution and Mis Governance

I have uttered so many times that the only way to have prosperous, undiscriminating and non oppressive India than inevitably Constitution of India will have to be changed. I have written on times and again about its necessity sighting examples at that point of time.

Since almost last six months what we are seeing is very important to understand how Indian Constitution of India is a hindrance in our progress and makes Govt. an autocratic Government.

Trying to prevent Each and every action of Civil society, Govt. took the excuse staying behind the constitutional provisions. Some were false, some were genuine. Now I would draw your attention towards some fact in anticipation that my brief information will be made detailed by you yourself.

Some Questions and answers which are very basic but VV Important.

· Do You Know on what basis the first Govt. of India was formed in 1947 and whether there was vote or not? Proportional Electorate.

· Who were the voters for any election took place in between 1947 – 1952? Only those who paid the Chowkidari Tax.

· Do you accept the voters being only tax payers, if not, than how can you accept the constitution made by a Government elected by tax payers (Chowkidari Tax) and not by citizen as a whole.

· Why British did not conduct the general election to choose the government to whom They could hand over the power? They (Wavell) tried that but Nehru, Gandhi & Mountbatten Trio did not allow it to happen.

· Was the concept of standing committee there in the Constitution? No.

· If not, when it was added? In 1991.

· What are the duties and purpose of standing Committee? To get opinion of Civil Society (Citizens of India) on the proposed bill and make recommendations as per society wish.

· What was the arrangement before 1991? Parliamentarians use to take the copy of bill to there respective constituencies to seek mandate and report to the Parliament.

· Why this was changed? So called self proclaimed God of us, the than Parliamentarians can answer only.

· Is illiterate and incompetent are unparliamentarily word (Abusive and insulting)?

· Is mimicking (mimickery) is an insult? As illiterate and incompetent are adjectives and comparative words it can never be an insulting word. Mimickery is an expression (may be copying some one).

· Is Initiation of Privilege motion on these grounds is not suppression of fundamental right of a citizen of India which is right to expression?

· Must not citizen needs to take this issue to streets?

· Does not it say who will participate with you we will punish? I will have to elaborate on it. This is a tactics created and practiced by Britishers. “In a mob if you punish the top man it will aggravate, if you punish the man at lowest pedestal it will have no impact. So harass the man next to the man at top.” That is what Govts have practiced.(In Ramdev case also Baba Ramdev was not punished but Balkrishan, the second man is being persecuted.)

· As per our constitution MP is representative of people of its constituency in parliament to raise the interest and voice of its voters and dwellers of its constituency?

· Does anti defection law not prevent an MP from speaking or doing what he thinks good for his constitution people, An MP has been empowered by constitution to voice for persons whom he represents but in order not to loose his membership he had to say what his Party President says to say.

· Is it not suppression of our voice in Parliament and oppression of our MPs?

It is very difficult to write on these matters as thoughts and anger starts mingling making it impossible to have stable thought and suppressed anger. That is how we live. It is the Constitution which has compelled a person like even Anna to get into the political gimmicks like breaking fast from hand of a muslim and a harijan, and adding something like hindu, muslim, sikh and Isai in Nara which was never present in his other regional agitations and in this national agitation also prior to end of his fast. Constitution and Politics has made it mandatory for one and all to get into there Hamam the way they have entered and remain Nanga as they are. Living for something for next time but Think….. Think ……. And act now or never in near future.

Mahatma Gandhi might have fasted but not for country and for issues of national Importance. As his fast and Nehru's fight (Independence) were baseless so method of propganda was used. That is the reason you will not get any consolidated information. Here I have compiled the detail of Gandhi Fast mentioning why, when and where to let you know the truth.

Years of Fasts of Mahatma Gandhi
1913 (Phoenix)	Penitential fast for a week for moral lapses of two immediate at the settlement
1914 (Phoenix)	Fourteen days fast for similar reason
01 June, 1915	Fasted for a day on detecting untruth among Ashram boys
11 September, 1915	Gave up evening meal due to some Ashramaties objection to the admission of a Harijan in the Ashram
15 March, 1918	For a rise in the wages of mill workers of Ahmedabad
06 April, 1919	First day of Satyagraha fight
13 April, 1919	Began fast for 72 hours for Jallianwala Bagh massacre at Amritsar and disturbances at Bombay and Ahmedabad.
19-21 Nov., 1921	Fasted owing to disturbances at Bombay
28 November, 1921	Took vow to fast for 24 hours every Monday till Swaraj was won and started it from that day.
12-16 Feb., 1922	Owing to the massacre at Chauri Chaura
17 Sep. to 7 Oct., 1924	For communal unity
24-30 Nov., 1925	For having detected sexual aberrations in some boys and girls of the Ashram.
22-24 June, 1928	Owing to moral lapse of an Ashram inmate
20-25 Sept., 1932	In protest against the decision to setup separate electorate for the Harijans.
03 December, 1932	In protest against Government not allowing a fellow prisoner to do scavenging work
08-29 May, 1932	For self purification and of his colleagues.
16-22 August, 1933	In protest against Government’s decision not to grant all the facilities for Harijan work which he was having previously in Jail.
07-13 August, 1934	An irrate reformer attacked an opponent of the Harijan upliftment movement with a lathi. Started fast to atone.
03-06 March, 1939	For the breach of promise by the Rajkot ruler.
12-13 Nov., 1940	Fasted for two days for minor thefts in the Ashram
05-07 May, 1941	Because of communal riots in Bombay and Ahmedabad
29 June, 1941	For communal unity
10-03 March, 1943	In protest against Government’s propaganda that the responsibility of disturbances after Quit India resolution was that of Congress.
30 November, 1944	Fasted or thought of fasting for one or more days. Details and reason could not be traced.
20 October, 1946	Probably on account of an error by the person who prepared the fair copy of a letter written during negotiations with the Muslim League.
15 August, 1947	Against partition of the country
01 to 03 Sept., 1947	For communal harmony
11 October, 1947	Birth date according to Vikram calendar. Fasted instead of celebrating it.

Indian Money How and from where.

What was Rajiv Gandhi’s fatal error in politics? It does not need a seer to say that it was his claim to honesty — branding himself as ‘Mr Clean’ — that proved fatal to him. Indira Gandhi was his contrast. Asked about corruption in her government, she said nonchalantly, ‘it was a global phenomenon’. This was in 1983. An honest Delhi High Court judge even lamented how could corruption be controlled when someone holding such a high position had almost rationalised it. The result, no one could ever charge Indira Gandhi with corruption, because she never claimed to be clean. But, ambitious to look ideal, Rajiv proclaimed honesty and so provoked scrutiny; in contrast, Indira, opting to be practical, immunised herself against scrutiny. Eventually, Rajiv’s claim to honesty became the very cross on which he was crucified in the 1989 elections when the Bofors gun shot the Congress out of power. The lesson to the political class was: don’t claim to be honest, if you really are not so. The hard lesson seems forgotten now by the Gandhi family itself. Sonia Gandhi, instead of following Indira’s safe path, is wrongly caught on Rajiv’s risky steps. The consequences seem to be ominous. Will the politics of 1987 to 1989 repeat?

Following Rajiv and forgetting Indira, Sonia Gandhi proclaimed ‘zero tolerance’ to corruption at a party rally in Allahabad in November 2010. She repeated it at the Congress plenary in Delhi weeks later. Asking the cadre to take the corrupt head on, she said that her party was ‘prompt’ in acting against the corrupt; ‘never spared the corrupt’ because corruption impedes development’. This was almost how Rajiv Gandhi spoke in the Congress centenary in Mumbai 25 years ago. Two crucial differences marked Rajiv away from Sonia. First, when Rajiv claimed to be ‘Mr Clean’, he had no scams to defend against. But, Sonia claims to be honest amidst huge and continuing scams — CWG, Adarsh, 2G Spectrum allocation scam…. Next, Rajiv had a clean slate to begin with, with no known skeletons in his cupboard till the Bofors scam smashed his ‘Mr Clean’ image. In contrast, Sonia’s slate is full of credible exposures of bribes and pay-offs in billions of dollars secreted in Swiss bank accounts, not counting Quattrocchi’s millions from Bofors. To make it worse, for almost two decades now, she has not dared to deny the exposures or sue the famous Swiss magazine or the Russian investigative journalist who had put out evidence of bribe against the Sonia family. Seen against this background, Sonia’s vow to act against the corrupt seems like a suspect hooting ‘catch the thief’ and scooting away. This is the main story that unfolds here.

$2.2 billions to 11 billions!

A stunning exposure on Sonia Gandhi’s secret billions in Swiss banks came, surprisingly, from Switzerland itself, where the world’s corrupt stash away their booty. In its issue of November 19, 1991, Schweizer Illustrierte, the most popular magazine of Switzerland, did an exposé of over a dozen politicians of the third world, including Rajiv Gandhi, who had stashed away their bribe monies in Swiss banks. Schweizer Illustrierte, not a rag, sells some 2,15,000 copies and has a readership of 9,17,000 — almost a sixth of Swiss adult population. Citing the newly opened KGB records, the magazine reported ‘that Sonia Gandhi the widow of the former Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi was controlling secret account with 2.5 billion Swiss Francs (equal to $2.2 billion) in her minor son’s name’. The $2.2 billion account must have existed from before June 1988 when Rahul Gandhi attained majority. The loot in today’s rupee value equals almost Rs 10,000 crore. Swiss banks invest and multiply the clients’ monies, not keep them buried. Had it been invested in safe long-term securities, the $.2.2 billion bribe would have multiplied to $9.41 billion (Rs 42,345 crore) by 2009. If it had been put in US stocks, it would have swelled to $12.97 billion (Rs 58,365 crore). If, as most likely, it were invested in long-term bonds and stocks as 50:50, it would have grown to $11.19 billion (Rs 50,355 crore). Before the global financial meltdown in 2008, the $2.2 billion bribes in stocks would have peaked at $18.66 billion (Rs 83,900 crore). By any calculation the present size of the $2.2 billion secret funds of the family in Swiss banks seems huge — anywhere between Rs 43,000 plus to some Rs 84,000 crore!

KGB papers

The second exposé, emanating from the archives of the Russian spy outfit KGB, is far more serious. It says that the Gandhi family has accepted political pay-offs from the KGB — a clear case of treason besides bribe. In her book The State Within a State: The KGB and its Hold on Russia-Past, Present, and Future, Yevgenia Albats, an acclaimed investigative journalist, says: “A letter signed by Victor Chebrikov, who replaced Andropov as the KGB head in 1982 noted: ‘the USSR KGB maintains contact with the son of the Premier Minister Rajiv Gandhi (of India). R Gandhi expresses deep gratitude for the benefits accruing to the Prime Minister’s family from the commercial dealings of the firm he controls in co-operation with the Soviet foreign trade organisations. R Gandhi reports confidentially that a substantial portion of the funds obtained through this channel are used to support the party of R Gandhi’.” (p.223). Albats has also disclosed that, in December 2005, KGB chief Victor Chebrikov had asked for authorisation from the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, “to make payments in US dollars to the family members of Rajiv Gandhi, namely Sonia Gandhi, Rahul Gandhi and Ms Paola Maino, mother of Sonia Gandhi.” And even before Albats’ book came out the Russian media had leaked out the details of the pay-offs. Based on the leaks, on July 4, 1992, The Hindu had reported: “the Russian Foreign Intelligence Service admits the possibility that the KGB could have been involved in arranging profitable Soviet contract for the company controlled by Rajiv Gandhi family”.

Indian media

Rajiv Gandhi’s sad demise delayed the Swiss and Russian exposé on Sonia being picked up here. But Indian media’s interest in it actually coincided with Sonia Gandhi assuming leadership of the Congress. A G Noorani, a well-known columnist, had reported on both Schweizer Illustrierte and Albats’ exposés in Statesman (December 31, 1988). Subramanian Swamy had put out the photocopies of the pages of Schweizer Illustrierte and Albats’ book in his website along with the mail of the Swiss magazine dated February 23, 2002 confirming that in its article of November 1991 it had named Rajiv Gandhi with a total of Swiss Franc 2.5 billion ($2.2 billion) in secret account; it had also offered to supply a original copy of the magazine to Swamy. (See: http://www.janataparty.org/annexures/ann10p43.html) These facts were again recalled in my article in The New Indian Express (April 29, 2009) written in response to Sonia Gandhi speech at Mangalore (April 27, 2009) declaring that, “the Congress was taking steps to address the issue of untaxed Indian money in Swiss banks”. The article had questioned her about her family’s corrupt wealth in Swiss banks in the context of her vow to bring back the monies stashed away abroad. Rajinder Puri, a reputed journalist, has also earlier written on the KGB disclosures in his column on August 15, 2006. Recently, in India Today (December 27, 2010) the redoubtable Ram Jethmalani has referred to the Swiss exposé, asking where is that money now? So the Indian media too has repeatedly published the details of the secret billions of the Gandhi family investigated by the Swiss and Russian journalists. Amal Datta (CPI(M)) had raised the $2.2 billion issue in Parliament on December 7, 1991, but Speaker Shivraj Patil expunged the Gandhi name from the proceedings!

Self-incriminating

But, what has been the response of Sonia or Rahul, major after June 1988, to the investigation by Schweizer Illustrierte and Albats and to the Indian media’s repeated references to their investigation? It can be summed up in one word: Silence. Thus, apart from the exposés, the deafening silence of the Gandhis itself constitutes the most damaging and self-incriminating evidence of the family’s guilt. When Schweizer Illustrierte alleged that Sonia had held Rajiv Gandhi’s bribes in Rahul’s name in Swiss banks, neither she nor the son, protested, or sued the magazine, then or later; nor did they sue A G Noorani or Statesman when they repeated it in 1998, or later; nor would they sue Subramanian Swamy when he put it on his website in 2002; neither did they sue me, or the Express when the article was carried in April 2009. When major papers, The Hindu and The Times of India included, had carried the expose on KGB payments in the year 1992 itself adding that the Russian government was embarrassed by the disclosures, neither of the Gandhis challenged or sued them; nor did they sue Yevgenia Albats when she wrote about KGB payments to Rajiv Gandhi in 1994. Neither did they act against Swamy when he put Albats’ book pages on his website or when Rajinder Puri, a well-known journalist, wrote about it in his column on August 15, 2006. However, a feeble but proxy suit was filed by Sonia loyalists to defend her reputation when Albats’ exposé was made part of the full-page advertisement in The New York Times in 2007 issued by some NRIs to ‘unmask’ Sonia to the US audience, as they claimed. The suit was promptly dismissed by a US court because Sonia herself did not dare file the suit. Shockingly even that suit did not challenge the $2.2 billion Swiss account at all!Imagine that the report in Schweizer Illustrierte or in Albats book was false and Sonia Gandhi did not have those billions in secret accounts in Rahul Gandhi’s name or the family was not paid for its service to the KGB as alleged. How would they, as honest and outraged people, have reacted? Like how Morarji Desai, then retired and old at 87, responded in anger when, Seymour Hersh, a Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative journalist, had mentioned in his book that Morarji Desai was a ‘paid’ CIA mole in the Indian Cabinet. Morarji Desai forthwith filed a libel suit. Commenting in The American Spectator, Rael Jean Isaac wrote in 2004, five years after Morarji Desai had passed away, that Hersh habitually indulged in character assassination; and in his attempt to do down Henry Kissinger, Morarji Desai became the victim. Isaac added that Desai, 87, calling it a “sheer mad story”, reacted in outrage with a libel suit seeking $50 million in damages. When the suit came up, as Desai, 93, was too ill to travel to US, Kissinger testified on Desai’s behalf, flatly contradicted Hersh’s charge and stated that Desai had no connection to the CIA. That is how even retired and old persons, honest and so offended and outraged, would act. But see the self-incriminating contrast, the complete absence of such outrage, in Sonia, who is reigning as the chairperson of the UPA now, neither retired or tired like the nonagenarian Morarji Desai, being just 41 when the story broke out in Schweizer Illustrierte. Imagine, not Sonia or Rahul, but Advani or Modi had figured in the exposés of Schweizer Illustrierte or Albats. What would the media not have done to nail them? What would the government of Sonia not have done to fix them?

Rs 20.80 lakh-crore loot

The billions of the Gandhi family being both bribes and monies stashed away in Swiss banks, they are inextricably linked to the larger issue of bringing back the huge national wealth stashed abroad. All world nations, except India, are mad after their black wealth secreted in Swiss and like banks. But India has shown little enthusiasm to track the illicit funds of Indians in Swiss and other banks. Why such reticence?

When during the run-up to the 2009 Lok Sabha elections, the BJP leader L K Advani promised to bringing back, if voted to power, Indian money was estimated between $500 billion and $1.4 trillion stashed abroad, the Congress first denied that there was such Indian money outside. But when the issue began gathering momentum, Manmohan Singh and Sonia Gandhi had to do damage control and promise that the Congress too would bring back the national wealth secreted abroad. Global Financial Integrity (GFI), a non-profit institution working against global black funds, has recently estimated that the Indian wealth secreted away is about $462 billion, approximately equal to Rs 20.80 lakh-crore. The GFI says that more than two-thirds of it was looted away under the liberalisation regime. This is what the GFI says about the character of the loot: “From 1948 through 2008, India lost a total of $213 billion in illicit financial flows (or illegal capital flight)” through “tax evasion, corruption, bribery and kickbacks, and criminal activities”. Does one need a seer to say under what head would the $2.2 billion in Sonia family’s secret account (which would have grown to $9 to $13 billion by now) fall? But accretions, if any, from the loot in 2G and CWG where the numbers are even bigger are not still accounted. Now comes the more critical, yet practical issue. When the Sonia Gandhi family is among the suspects who have secreted away monies abroad, how will it affect the efforts to bring back the wealth stashed away by others?

Looters safe

Just a couple of examples will demonstrate how the government is unwilling to go after Indian money secreted abroad. As early as February 2008 the German authorities had collected information about illegal money kept by citizens of different countries in Lichtenstein bank. The German finance minister offered to provide the names of the account holders to any government interested in the names of its citizens. There were media reports that some 250 Indian names were found in the Lichtenstein Bank list. Yet, despite the open offer from Germany to provide the details, the UPA-II government has never showed interest in the Indian accounts in Lichtenstein Bank. The Times of India reported that “the ministry of finance and PMO have, however, not shown much interest in finding out about those who have their lockers on the secret banks of Liechtenstein which prides itself in its banking system”. But under mounting pressure the Indian government asked for details not under the open offer but strategically under India’s tax treaty with Germany. What is the difference? Under the tax treaty the information received would have to be kept confidential; but, if it were received openly, it can be disclosed to the public. Is any further evidence needed to prove that the government is keen to see that the names of Indians who had secreted monies abroad are not disclosed?

The second is the sensational case of Hasan Ali, the alleged horse-breeder of Pune, who was found to have operated Swiss accounts involving over Rs 1.5 lakh-crore. The income tax department has levied a tax of Rs 71,848 crore on him for concealing Indian income secreted in Swiss accounts. This case is being buried now. The request sent to the Swiss government was deliberately made faulty to ensure that the Swiss would not provide details. Some big names in the ruling circles are reportedly linked to Hasan Ali. That explains why the government would not deepen the probe. It is Hasan Alis and the like who transport through hawala the bribes of the corrupt from India. If Hasan Ali is exposed, the corrupt will stand naked. This is how the hawala trader and the corrupt in India are mixed-up.

Is it too much to conclude that thanks to Sonia family’s suspected billions in Swiss accounts the system cannot freely probe the $462 billion looted from India at all? Tail-pieces: The total wealth of both Gandhis, as per their election returns, is just Rs 363 lakh, Sonia owning no car. Sonia lamented on November 19, 2010, that graft and greed are on the rise in India!! Rahul said on December 19, 2010, that severe punishment should be given to the corrupt!!! Amen.

Fogging Fundamental Right by Govt.

Article 13 (2) provides for the protection of the fundamental rights of the citizen. Parliament and the state legislatures are clearly prohibited from making laws that may take away or abridge the fundamental rights guaranteed to the citizen. They argued that any amendment to the Constitution had the status of a law as understood by Article 13 (2). In 1952 (Sankari Prasad Singh Deo v. Union of India5) and 1955 (Sajjan Singh v. Rajasthan6), the Supreme Court rejected both arguments and

upheld the power of Parliament to amend any part of the Constitution including that which affects the fundamental rights of citizens. Significantly though, two dissenting judges in Sajjan Singh v.Rajasthan case raised doubts whether the fundamental rights of citizens could become a plaything of

the majority party in Parliament.

The Golaknath verdict

In 1967 an eleven-judge bench of the Supreme Court reversed its position. Delivering its 6:5 majority judgement in the Golaknath v. State of Punjab case7, Chief Justice Subba Rao put forth the curious position that Article 368, that contained provisions related to the amendment of the Constitution, merely laid down the amending procedure. Article 368 did not confer upon Parliament the power to amend the Constitution. The amending power (constituent power) of Parliament arose from other provisions contained in the Constitution (Articles 245, 246, 248) which gave it the power to make laws (plenary legislative power). Thus, the apex court held that the amending power and legislative powers of Parliament were essentially the same. Therefore, any amendment of the Constitution must be deemed law as understood in Article 13 (2).

Basic Features of the Constitution according to the Kesavanada verdict

Each judge laid out separately, what he thought were the basic or essential features of the Constitution. There was no unanimity of opinion within the majority view either.

Sikri, C.J. explained that the concept of basic structure included:

• supremacy of the Constitution

• republican and democratic form of government

• secular character of the Constitution

• separation of powers between the legislature, executive and the judiciary

• federal character of the Constitution

Shelat, J. and Grover, J. added two more basic features to this list:

• the mandate to build a welfare state contained in the Directive Principles of State Policy

• unity and integrity of the nation

Hegde, J. and Mukherjea, J. identified a separate and shorter list of basic features:

• sovereignty of India

• democratic character of the polity

• unity of the country

• essential features of the individual freedoms secured to the citizens

• mandate to build a welfare state

Jaganmohan Reddy, J. stated that elements of the basic features were to be found in the Preamble

of the Constitution and the provisions into which they translated such as:

• sovereign democratic republic

• parliamentary democracy

• three organs of the State

He said that the Constitution would not be itself without the fundamental freedoms and the directive principles. Only six judges on the bench (therefore a minority view) agreed that the fundamental rights of the citizen belonged to the basic structure and Parliament could not amend it.

The minority view

The minority view delivered by Justice A.N. Ray (whose appointment to the position of Chief Justice over and above the heads of three senior judges, soon after the pronunciation of the Kesavananda verdict, was widely considered to be politically motivated), Justice M.H. Beg, Justice K.K. Mathew and Justice S.N. Dwivedi also agreed that Golaknath had been decided wrongly. They upheld the validity of all three amendments challenged before the court. Ray, J. held that all parts of the Constitution were essential and no distinction could be made between its essential and non-essential parts. All of them agreed that Parliament could make fundamental changes in the Constitution by exercising its power under Article 368.

In summary the majority verdict in Kesavananda Bharati recognised the power of Parliament to amend any or all provisions of the Constitution provided such an act did not destroy its basic structure. But there was no unanimity of opinion about what appoints to that basic structure. Though the Supreme Court very nearly returned to the position of Sankari Prasad (1952) by restoring the supremacy of Parliament's amending power, in effect it strengthened the power of judicial review much more.

Basic Structure concept reaffirmed- the Indira Gandhi Election case

In 1975, The Supreme Court again had the opportunity to pronounce on the basic structure of the Constitution. A challenge to Prime Minister Indira Gandhi's election victory was upheld by the Allahabad High Court on grounds of electoral malpractice in 1975. Pending appeal, the vacation

judge- Justice Krishna Iyer, granted a stay that allowed Smt. Indira Gandhi to function as Prime Minister on the condition that she should not draw a salary and speak or vote in Parliament until the case was decided. Meanwhile, Parliament passed the Thirty-ninth amendment to the Constitution

which removed the authority of the Supreme Court to adjudicate petitions regarding elections of the President, Vice President, Prime Minister and Speaker of the Lok Sabha. Instead, a body constituted by Parliament would be vested with the power to resolve such election disputes. Section 4 of the

Amendment Bill effectively thwarted any attempt to challenge the election of an incumbent, occupying any of the above offices in a court of law. This was clearly a pre-emptive action designed to benefit Smt. Indira Gandhi whose election was the object of the ongoing dispute.

Amendments were also made to the Representation of Peoples Acts of 1951 and 1974 and placed in the Ninth Schedule along with the Election Laws Amendment Act, 1975 in order to save the Prime Minister from embarassment if the apex court delivered an unfavourable verdict. The mala fide intention of the government was proved by the haste in which the Thirty-ninth amendment was passed. The bill was introduced on August 7, 1975 and passed by the Lok Sabha the same day. The Rajya Sabha (Upper House or House of Elders) passed it the next day and the President gave his assent two days later. The amendment was ratified by the state legislatures in special Saturday sessions. It was gazetted on August 10. When the Supreme Court opened the case for hearing the next day, the Attorney General asked the Court to throw out the case in the light of the new amendment.

Counsel for Raj Narain who was the political opponent challenging Mrs. Gandhi's election argued that the amendment was against the basic structure of the Constitution as it affected the conduct of free and fair elections and the power of judicial review. Counsel also argued that Parliament was not

competent to use its constituent power for validating an election that was declared void by the High Court.

Four out of five judges on the bench upheld the Thirty-ninth amendment, but only after striking down that part which sought to curb the power of the judiciary to adjudicate in the current election dispute. One judge, Beg, J. upheld the amendment in its entirety. Mrs. Gandhi's election was declared valid on the basis of the amended election laws. The judges grudgingly accepted Parliament's power to pass laws that have a retrospective effect.

Constitution and Mis Governance

I have uttered so many times that the only way to have prosperous, undiscriminating and non oppressive India than inevitably Constitution of India will have to be changed. I have written on times and again about its necessity sighting examples at that point of time.

Since almost last six months what we are seeing is very important to understand how Indian Constitution of India is a hindrance in our progress and makes Govt. an autocratic Government.

Trying to prevent Each and every action of Civil society, Govt. took the excuse staying behind the constitutional provisions. Some were false, some were genuine. Now I would draw your attention towards some fact in anticipation that my brief information will be made detailed by you yourself.

Some Questions and answers which are very basic but VV Important.

· Do You Know on what basis the first Govt. of India was formed in 1947 and whether there was vote or not? Proportional Electorate.

· Who were the voters for any election took place in between 1947 – 1952? Only those who paid the Chowkidari Tax.

· Do you accept the voters being only tax payers, if not, than how can you accept the constitution made by a Government elected by tax payers (Chowkidari Tax) and not by citizen as a whole.

· Why British did not conduct the general election to choose the government to whom They could hand over the power? They (Wavell) tried that but Nehru, Gandhi & Mountbatten Trio did not allow it to happen.

· Was the concept of standing committee there in the Constitution? No.

· If not, when it was added? In 1991.

· What are the duties and purpose of standing Committee? To get opinion of Civil Society (Citizens of India) on the proposed bill and make recommendations as per society wish.

· What was the arrangement before 1991? Parliamentarians use to take the copy of bill to there respective constituencies to seek mandate and report to the Parliament.

· Why this was changed? So called self proclaimed God of us, the than Parliamentarians can answer only.

· Is illiterate and incompetent are unparliamentarily word (Abusive and insulting)?

· Is mimicking (mimickery) is an insult? As illiterate and incompetent are adjectives and comparative words it can never be an insulting word. Mimickery is an expression (may be copying some one).

· Is Initiation of Privilege motion on these grounds is not suppression of fundamental right of a citizen of India which is right to expression?

· Must not citizen needs to take this issue to streets?

· Does not it say who will participate with you we will punish? I will have to elaborate on it. This is a tactics created and practiced by Britishers. “In a mob if you punish the top man it will aggravate, if you punish the man at lowest pedestal it will have no impact. So harass the man next to the man at top.” That is what Govts have practiced.(In Ramdev case also Baba Ramdev was not punished but Balkrishan, the second man is being persecuted.)

· As per our constitution MP is representative of people of its constituency in parliament to raise the interest and voice of its voters and dwellers of its constituency?

· Does anti defection law not prevent an MP from speaking or doing what he thinks good for his constitution people, An MP has been empowered by constitution to voice for persons whom he represents but in order not to loose his membership he had to say what his Party President says to say.

· Is it not suppression of our voice in Parliament and oppression of our MPs?

It is very difficult to write on these matters as thoughts and anger starts mingling making it impossible to have stable thought and suppressed anger. That is how we live. It is the Constitution which has compelled a person like even Anna to get into the political gimmicks like breaking fast from hand of a muslim and a harijan, and adding something like hindu, muslim, sikh and Isai in Nara which was never present in his other regional agitations and in this national agitation also prior to end of his fast. Constitution and Politics has made it mandatory for one and all to get into there Hamam the way they have entered and remain Nanga as they are. Living for something for next time but Think….. Think ……. And act now or never in near future.