Discussion Karnataka Legislative Assembly election-2018.

  • Thread starter Thread starter jeetu007
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies Replies: Replies 242
  • Views Views: Views 23,296

Who Will Win In Karnataka Election 2018 ?

  • BJP

    Votes: 15 45.5%
  • INC

    Votes: 15 45.5%
  • JDS

    Votes: 2 6.1%
  • OTHERS

    Votes: 1 3.0%

  • Total voters
    33
  • Poll closed .
Status
Not open for further replies.
Its started from Delhi when bjp was largest party in 2013 and congress and AAP formed the govt. BJP could have fought like congress and go crying to SC, but they respected the Governor that time, and sat in opposition.

In Goa, congress didn't go to governor cause they thought BJP dont have majority and were enjoying in resort. In Manipur n Meghalya also they did same. So is the Delhi situation in 2013 and Goa/Manipur/Bihar/Meghalay situation in 2017/18 different ???

Also in Chattisgharh / Jharkhnad independent Madhu Koda become a CM cause of congress.

Congress never went to governor to stake claim, you dont expect governor to come to their house.
 
Its started from Delhi when bjp was largest party in 2013 and congress and AAP formed the govt. BJP could have fought like congress and go crying to SC, but they respected the Governor that time, and sat in opposition.

In Goa, congress didn't go to governor cause they thought BJP dont have majority and were enjoying in resort. In Manipur n Meghalya also they did same. So is the Delhi situation in 2013 and Goa/Manipur/Bihar/Meghalay situation in 2017/18 different ???

Also in Chattisgharh / Jharkhnad independent Madhu Koda become a CM cause of congress.

Congress never went to governor to stake claim, you dont expect governor to come to their house.
It isn't about who formed coalition with whom .all political parties are same power-hungry just to earn black money.
But why the gov allowed yedu to form Govt when he hasn't majority and allowed 15 days for proving majority.and what he had done and took decision before proving majority which could have been avoided by BJP.
What I have learnt post-2014 is that, if you give absolute majority to any party, they wouldn't do any pro-people reforms .They will do dictatorship, will interfere with all state matters, willnt heed to any demand if the states which are run other parties, will indulge in demolishing of independence of all constitutional institutions autonomy of our country so that no corruption will came out.They will waste more public money in advt rather than any people's scheme etcetc

So it is better to have coalition govt as people have not gave a mandate to any party.Though one party have got highest seats another have got highest votes.One policy by union govt for goa Manipur and another for karnataka wah wah
 
Its started from Delhi when bjp was largest party in 2013 and congress and AAP formed the govt. BJP could have fought like congress and go crying to SC, but they respected the Governor that time, and sat in opposition - Why aren't they doing it now in karnataka? What's different?
 
I know its big but Let us first take the Congress president's "mockery of the Constitution" comment. If he looks into history, he will find some outrageous instances of mockery of the Constitution by his own party.

Way back in 1957, the Communist Party of India won the Assembly elections in Kerala and EMS Namboodripad became the chief minister. However, the first communist elected government could last only for two years. Jawaharlal Nehru, the then prime minister, using the ruse of 'breakdown of constitutional machinery' in the state, threw the Namboodripad government out, imposed President's rule in the state for a while and then dissolved the state Assembly.

During Indira Gandhi's reign at the Centre in 1982, Haryana Governor GD Tapase set a new low in terms of constitutional impropriety. He prevented Devi Lal (supported by the BJP) from being sworn in and foisted Bhajan Lal of the Congress as the chief minister. Bhajan Lal was sworn in without following any protocol, an act by the Governor which angered Devi Lal so much that he couldn't restrain himself from manhandling Tapase.

On several instances, Indira Gandhi disregarded constitutional propriety while removing chief ministers of states ruled by Opposition parties. She had also misused Article 356 of the Constitution for the imposition of President's rule and engineered defections both at the Centre and the states.

Governors like Ramlal during Indira's reign make for a case study on how constitutional norms could be thrown to the winds to satisfy personal whims of the political boss at the Centre. In August 1984, Ramlal summarily dismissed the first non-Congress government in Andhra Pradesh led by NT Rama Rao, even though the latter had an absolute majority in the Assembly. Although Nadendla Bhaskara Rao was sworn in as the chief minister, a resilient NTR forced Indira to reverse her decision and allow the reinstatement of the Telugu Desam Party leader at the helm.
The imposition of the Emergency, of course, was the darkest hour of Indian democracy.
Romesh Bhandari, the governor of Uttar Pradesh in the late 1990s, also did not care for constitutional propriety. He dismissed Kalyan Singh's government at night and immediately administered the oath of the chief minister's office to Jagdambika Pal (a man who led a hopeless minority). The high court severely indicted Bhandari and for the first time, a composite floor test took place in the Assembly on the orders of the court. Kalyan Singh won that composite floor test and became the chief minister again. Pal was the chief minister for only a day and his name does not figure in the list of chief ministers in Uttar Pradesh, as per directions of the court.
Similar examples existed during the Manmohan Singh-led government, which was effectively controlled by Sonia Gandhi. Governors like Syed Sibte Razi in Jharkhand and Buta Singh in Bihar contravened all constitutional, ethical and moral norms to prevent the BJP, or a coalition of which BJP was a part, to come to power. In both the cases, the Supreme Court severely indicted the governor's role. In Bihar, the Manmohan Singh government also came in for severe embarrassment after the Union Cabinet recommended the dissolution of the Assembly. (The then President APJ Abdul Kalam was made to sign the notification and fax it from Moscow)
As for Rahul's "Pakistan" analogy, it would suffice to say that post-midnight hearings have happened twice in recent times. The first one was to prevent the hanging of Yakub Memon on 30 July, 2015. At that time, a three-judge bench had heard the matter at 3 in the morning. The second one was on 17 May, 2018, when a three-judge bench heard a petition seeking to prevent the BJP's BS Yeddyurappa from being sworn in as chief minister of Karnataka.
The Congress president should realise that this does not happen in Pakistan.
 
Last edited:
I know its big but Let us first take the Congress president's "mockery of the Constitution" comment. If he looks into history, he will find some outrageous instances of mockery of the Constitution by his own party.

Way back in 1957, the Communist Party of India won the Assembly elections in Kerala and EMS Namboodripad became the chief minister. However, the first communist elected government could last only for two years. Jawaharlal Nehru, the then prime minister, using the ruse of 'breakdown of constitutional machinery' in the state, threw the Namboodripad government out, imposed President's rule in the state for a while and then dissolved the state Assembly.

During Indira Gandhi's reign at the Centre in 1982, Haryana Governor GD Tapase set a new low in terms of constitutional impropriety. He prevented Devi Lal (supported by the BJP) from being sworn in and foisted Bhajan Lal of the Congress as the chief minister. Bhajan Lal was sworn in without following any protocol, an act by the Governor which angered Devi Lal so much that he couldn't restrain himself from manhandling Tapase.

On several instances, Indira Gandhi disregarded constitutional propriety while removing chief ministers of states ruled by Opposition parties. She had also misused Article 356 of the Constitution for the imposition of President's rule and engineered defections both at the Centre and the states.

Governors like Ramlal during Indira's reign make for a case study on how constitutional norms could be thrown to the winds to satisfy personal whims of the political boss at the Centre. In August 1984, Ramlal summarily dismissed the first non-Congress government in Andhra Pradesh led by NT Rama Rao, even though the latter had an absolute majority in the Assembly. Although Nadendla Bhaskara Rao was sworn in as the chief minister, a resilient NTR forced Indira to reverse her decision and allow the reinstatement of the Telugu Desam Party leader at the helm.
The imposition of the Emergency, of course, was the darkest hour of Indian democracy.
Romesh Bhandari, the governor of Uttar Pradesh in the late 1990s, also did not care for constitutional propriety. He dismissed Kalyan Singh's government at night and immediately administered the oath of the chief minister's office to Jagdambika Pal (a man who led a hopeless minority). The high court severely indicted Bhandari and for the first time, a composite floor test took place in the Assembly on the orders of the court. Kalyan Singh won that composite floor test and became the chief minister again. Pal was the chief minister for only a day and his name does not figure in the list of chief ministers in Uttar Pradesh, as per directions of the court.
Similar examples existed during the Manmohan Singh-led government, which was effectively controlled by Sonia Gandhi. Governors like Syed Sibte Razi in Jharkhand and Buta Singh in Bihar contravened all constitutional, ethical and moral norms to prevent the BJP, or a coalition of which BJP was a part, to come to power. In both the cases, the Supreme Court severely indicted the governor's role. In Bihar, the Manmohan Singh government also came in for severe embarrassment after the Union Cabinet recommended the dissolution of the Assembly. (The then President APJ Abdul Kalam was made to sign the notification and fax it from Moscow)
As for Rahul's "Pakistan" analogy, it would suffice to say that post-midnight hearings have happened twice in recent times. The first one was to prevent the hanging of Yakub Memon on 30 July, 2015. At that time, a three-judge bench had heard the matter at 3 in the morning. The second one was on 17 May, 2018, when a three-judge bench heard a petition seeking to prevent the BJP's BS Yeddyurappa from being sworn in as chief minister of Karnataka.
The Congress president should realise that this does not happen in Pakistan.
I am asking again, If BJPs actions are justified by quoting what congress did in the past, then what is the difference between the two parties? Where is the CHANGE that we all anticipated?
 
I am asking again, If BJPs actions are justified by quoting what congress did in the past, then what is the difference between the two parties? Where is the CHANGE that we all anticipated?
I am not saying bjp or congress right or wrong but they way he came out in public and gave speech regarding mockery of democracy specially regarding judiciary which infact everyone keep in high regard you may have problem with politics but draging court in this is worst then he should first look what his party did. It shouldn't be like glass half empty or half full. And also supreme court should give clear verdict that either you should be single largest party or you should have largest coliation number. So that it set precedent for future.
 
Thank you Shri. Yeddurappaji for resigning as CM of Karnataka and proving that all allegations of Hijacking and Horse Trading falls flat.

People of KA will surely respect you for this step. Let the JDS-INC now form a Govt and lets see how long they rule

In 1996, Sonia Gandhi pulled out support from HD Devegowda Govt when he was the PM, expect Rahul Gandhi to do the same thing if JDS doesnt toe the congress line.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom