Native People's Party

Rascal Panditwadi Congress keeps quite when any innocent Muslim get hanged :

Panditwadi Congress did not open it's mouth when Yakub Memon was getting hanged . Perhaps they had Kela in their mouth . But this not new for Panditwadi Congress . From the begging they coined CIA for every wrong that Videshi Brahmin organizations like RSS etc made to protect them . Then they shifted calling China and Pakistan responsible for every bomb blast ,disturbance made by Videshi Brahmins and labellings as Maowadi to Native people who made any just demand . During eighties they invented new theory apart from blaming Pakistan , blame Bangadeshi particularly Buddhist Chakams rounding them as criminals . Then they felt all the time they can not blame these Muslim populated countries so they started adding local Native poor Muslims like Memon , Ansari etc so that young boys can be picked up from UP , Bihar , Kerala , Maharashtra and put in jail for long as suspect holding responsible for every Brahmin made mischief so that they can claim they are some thing to end terrorism etc.

Even not that Brahminwadis and Panditwadis have made arrangement to blame Muslims for Mahatma Gandhi murder arranging Videshi Brahmin Nathuram Godse's sunta so that when caught he can be presented as Muslim murderer of Gandhiji . Thanks to Sardar Patel and Dr Ambedkar both were alert and Panditwadi , Brahminwadi , Manuwadi failed in their cunning design .

Since then and from that time every Brahminwadi , Panditwadi , Manuwadi forces in power have been blaming and claiming Pakistan and Indian Muslim hand in every mischief carried out by Videshi Brahmin organization .
Yakub Memon in his dieing statement he is innocent , not involved in Mumbai Bomb blast. He told Tiger Memon and Dawood also have no hand in this gruesome sin . Dawood wanted to come back and prove he is innocent so was Tiger . It is told by Jethmalani . Then who carried these Bomb Blasts ? Need fresh Inquiry by Judiciary .

Babari Masjid was demolished then Godhra train burning incident took place then Gujarat riots and then Mumbai Bomb blasts . Recently Justice Kolse Patil said that the bullet which killed Karkare was not from Kasab's gun . Then who killed Karkare ? Every thing is Golmal . One can understand Brahminwadis , Pandits and Manuwadis are hands in gloves that is why congress never raised voice for innocent Muslim killing and inducting in fabricated cases . We therefore call Congress as Rascal Congress , do not shed now crocodile tears after killing Yakub .

Nv. D.D.Raut , President , NPP

Our Message to Nation : Janeu Chhodo , Bharat Jodo 

Mul Bhartiya Vichar Manch

 Court Terrorism : Death sentence to Socrates


Trial and death
Main article: Trial of Socrates

Socrates lived during the time of the transition from the height of the Athenian hegemony to its decline with the defeat by Sparta and its allies in the Peloponnesian War. At a time when Athens sought to stabilize and recover from its humiliating defeat, the Athenian public may have been entertaining doubts about democracy as an efficient form of government. Socrates appears to have been a critic of democracy,[46] and some scholars interpret his trial as an expression of political infighting.[47]
The Death of Socrates, by Jacques-Louis David (1787)

Claiming loyalty to his city, Socrates clashed with the current course of Athenian politics and society.[48] He praises Sparta, archrival to Athens, directly and indirectly in various dialogues. One of Socrates' purported offenses to the city was his position as a social and moral critic. Rather than upholding a status quo and accepting the development of what he perceived as immorality within his region, Socrates questioned the collective notion of "might makes right" that he felt was common in Greece during this period. Plato refers to Socrates as the "gadfly" of the state (as the gadfly stings the horse into action, so Socrates stung various Athenians), insofar as he irritated some people with considerations of justice and the pursuit of goodness.[49] His attempts to improve the Athenians' sense of justice may have been the cause of his execution.

According to Plato's Apology, Socrates' life as the "gadfly" of Athens began when his friend Chaerephon asked the oracle at Delphi if anyone were wiser than Socrates; the Oracle responded that no-one was wiser. Socrates believed the Oracle's response was a paradox, because he believed he possessed no wisdom whatsoever. He proceeded to test the riddle by approaching men considered wise by the people of Athens—statesmen, poets, and artisans—in order to refute the Oracle's pronouncement. Questioning them, however, Socrates concluded: while each man thought he knew a great deal and was wise, in fact they knew very little and were not wise at all. Socrates realized the Oracle was correct; while so-called wise men thought themselves wise and yet were not, he himself knew he was not wise at all, which, paradoxically, made him the wiser one since he was the only person aware of his own ignorance. Socrates' paradoxical wisdom made the prominent Athenians he publicly questioned look foolish, turning them against him and leading to accusations of wrongdoing. Socrates defended his role as a gadfly until the end: at his trial, when Socrates was asked to propose his own punishment, he suggested a wage paid by the government and free dinners for the rest of his life instead, to finance the time he spent as Athens' benefactor.[50] He was, nevertheless, found guilty of both corrupting the minds of the youth of Athens and of impiety ("not believing in the gods of the state"),[51] and subsequently sentenced to death by drinking a mixture containing poison hemlock.[52][53][54][55]
Bust of Socrates in the Vatican Museum

According to Xenophon's story, Socrates purposefully gave a defiant defense to the jury because "he believed he would be better off dead". Xenophon goes on to describe a defense by Socrates that explains the rigors of old age, and how Socrates would be glad to circumvent them by being sentenced to death. It is also understood that Socrates also wished to die because he "actually believed the right time had come for him to die."

Xenophon and Plato agree that Socrates had an opportunity to escape, as his followers were able to bribe the prison guards. There have been several suggestions offered as reasons why he chose to stay:

    He believed such a flight would indicate a fear of death, which he believed no true philosopher has.
    If he fled Athens his teaching would fare no better in another country, as he would continue questioning all he met and undoubtedly incur their displeasure.
    Having knowingly agreed to live under the city's laws, he implicitly subjected himself to the possibility of being accused of crimes by its citizens and judged guilty by its jury. To do otherwise would have caused him to break his "social contract" with the state, and so harm the state, an unprincipled act.
    If he escaped at the instigation of his friends, then his friends would become liable in law.[56]

The full reasoning behind his refusal to flee is the main subject of the Crito.[57]

Socrates' death is described at the end of Plato's Phaedo. Socrates turned down Crito's pleas to attempt an escape from prison. After drinking the poison, he was instructed to walk around until his legs felt numb. After he lay down, the man who administered the poison pinched his foot; Socrates could no longer feel his legs. The numbness slowly crept up his body until it reached his heart. Shortly before his death, Socrates speaks his last words to Crito: "Crito, we owe a rooster to Asclepius. Please, don't forget to pay the debt."

Asclepius was the Greek god for curing illness, and it is likely Socrates' last words meant that death is the cure—and freedom, of the soul from the body. Additionally, in Why Socrates Died: Dispelling the Myths, Robin Waterfield adds another interpretation of Socrates' last words. He suggests that Socrates was a voluntary scapegoat; his death was the purifying remedy for Athens' misfortunes. In this view, the token of appreciation for Asclepius would represent a cure for Athens' ailments.[49]

Can we call this Court Terrorism ? May be !

Nv. D.D.Raut ,
Vicharak , Mul Bhartiya Vichar Manch​

Our Message to Nation : Janeu Chhodo , Bharat Jodo

Native People's Party :

Murderers of Mahatma Gandhi Won once again :

Yakub Memon is given Fasi at 6 .30 AM today 30 th July , 2015  in Nagpur Central Jail . He was hanged till death . His 22 years in Jail could not avert his hanging to life term punishment . He failed in his argument that he has not carried out Bomb Blast of Mumbai like Gandhi failed in his argument that he had not accepted partition of Hindustan and he was killed by Videshi Brahmin Nathuram Godse on 30 January , 1848 at Delhi . Native Non Brahmin Gandhi was killed by Videshi Brahmin Nathuram Godse . Is it not surprising ?

Why Native people expect from Videshi Brahmins truth and justice ?

Nv. D.D.Raut
President , NPP

Our Message to Nation : Janeu Chhodo , Bharat Jodo 

Native People's Party :

Children's Chacha Kalam :

Dr APJ Abdul Kalam has become real popular Chacha of children in schools and colleges and even play ground . He was by nature scientist and therefore always advised children to develop scientific approach in all walks of life . He inspired children to speak out and fearlessly even on those matters which are called field of seniors .

By birth he was Native Indian Non Brahmin following Islam faith . He was believing Dharmatma Kabir and Mahatma Gandhiji thinking of simple living and high thinking .

He surpassed popularity as Chacha of children even of sarkari Chacha Nehru . He proved Non Brahmin Native are competent and brilliant to lead this nation in all fields right from science to government . He will be always remembered as Real Chacha of Children of India .

Nv. D.D.Raut , President , NPP

Our Message to Nation : Janeu Chhodo , Bharat Jodo  

Native People's Party

Gandhiji was murdered by Brahmins , but Hindus were called Extremists ! Why so ? This is Brahmin and Brahminism !

Gandhiji was murdered by Videshi Brahmins whose Brahmin Vedic Dharm is separate from Native Satya Hindu Dharm yet Brahmin murderers were called as Hindus even knowing that they are Videshi Brahmins and they are not Hindus . Most of the news papers mentioned Gandhiji's Brahmin murderers as Hindus as the Panditwadi , Brahminwadi Pandit Nehru government has given insufficient statement hiding Nathuram Godse's Brahmin identity . In fact Brahmins have planed to make show that the killer is Muslim as Nathuram has made his Sunta a few days ago of doing this act of murdering Gandhi .

We call this is Brahmin and Brahminism or Brahminwad and every Brahmin in government under Pandit Nehru acted saving Videshi Brahmins from exposure .

Gandhi murder case was not properly handled , nor proper inquiry was made , Many loopholes were kept so as to save main planner of the murder of Gandhiji . Savarkar , Sandas Veer was even give award by Brahminwadi government .

This is Brahmin  !, this is Brahminwad !

Native Rule wants to end this permanently .

Nv. D.D.Raut , President , NPP

Our Message to Nation : Janeu Chhodo , Bharat Jodo  

Native People's Party
Congress never considered B. G. Tilak as national leader
B.G. Tilak born in1856 and working as Maths teacher in Pune and running an educational society and news papers joined congress in 1990 but he was never considered as National leader by congress and till his death he was not made congress president .

In fact Tilak felt high and dry in congress just after joining congress as the same was run by many that time stalwarts like Dadabahi Navroji etc.
In 1916 Tilak felt he is neglected by Congress and therefore , he started Home Rule League and soon after that in 1920 died without achieving any thing worth while .
It was Mahatma Gandhi who changed Congress from select people's organization to common Native people's organizations bringing many Non Brahmins to prominent positions. Netaji , Sardar Patel , Rajendra Prasad , Krupalani and Abdul Kalam Azad are Non Brahmin faces soon showed their merit and even surpassed Brahmins in many matter .
Congress suffered again during Nehru period after independence and Nehru made congress as Panditwadi house hold organization . Motilal Nehru , Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru , Indira Gandhi , Rajiv Gandhi and Sonia Gandhi finally made congress suffer so much as Panditwadi Congress that the congress is in very bad shape as small Pandittwadi organization begging votes from Dalit. Muslim and Backward classes as the policies of congress always remained confusing .
Nv. D.D.Raut , President , NPP
Our Message to Nation : Janeu Chhodo , Bharat Jodo

Mul Bhartiya Vichar Manch
Brahmin and Brahminism as defined by their originator Videshi Brahmins . They proposed , we disposed as the things stand :
Who are Brahmin ?
Brahmins are Videshi invaders . They invaded Hindustan and destroyed Native Hindustani Sindhu Civilizations , killing several lakhs of Native people . They say Brahmins are born from the mouth of Brahma their adi Purusha as per their Brahmin Dharm Granth Rigveda hymn of Purusha Sukta .
Brahmin is a Varn in Vedic Brahmin Dharm , and also Jaat or Caste of people who are members of it Members are sub divided into numerous communities of Brahmins known as Gotras . Brahmins are singular Varn and Jat and all other Non Brahmins are Native subordinate in various degrees . No Native Hindu who are called by Brahmins as Kshtriya , Vaishya , Shudra or Untouchable is equal in status with Videshi Brahmin .
What is Brahminism or Brahminwad ?
Videshi Brahmins say they are Lords of all Non Brahmins , Shudra etc desertion of life for the sake of a Brahmin causes the ultimate bliss of outcasts , Shudras ---.A Shudra should serve the Brahmins for the sake of heaven or for the sake of both Heaven and Livelihood ---. Mostly to serve the Brahmins is declared to be the most excellent occupation of Shudras , for he does anything other than this is profits to him nothing . His means of life should be arranged by Brahmins in accordance with what is fitting . The leaving of food should be given to him and old clothes so too the rotten part of the grain and so too the old furniture . An accumulation of wealth should not be made by Shudra even if he is able, for Shudra getting possession of wealth merely injures the Brahmins .
So it is clear fro above clarification that both Brahmin and Brahminism or Brahminwad are inseparable . No Brahmin on earth deny this .
Now the question is what made Non Brahmins to say Brahmins and Brahminism or Brahminwad are separate ? We see some Non Brahmin saying that Brahmins and Brahminsm are separate and they say Brahminism is condemnable not Varn or Jat Brahmin . It means they agree that there is Brahmin Varn born from mouth of rapist Brahmha and also they agree to chaturvarn , untochability , bhedbahv etc etc. Now they can not go to Brahmins house for Buttermilk and hide the Bowl they want to collect from Brahmin houses , people , their society , organizations and political parties . They go to the extent of making show that they are progressive , humanist etc etc.
Their other argument in favor of supporting or not criticizing Brahmin is that there are some good Brahmins . Their definition of Good Brahmin is wonderful and they never disclose that what is mean by Good Brahmin ? Their goodness is connected to their own interest and not not of whole society , Nation and Native people .
They say some of the good Brahmins were with Gandhiji and Ambedkar . We say Gandhiji and Dr Ambedkar were good enough to keep them with them and nothing had gone wrong had they not kept Brahmin company . In fact Nation would have gained tremendously had these so called Brahmins not been with these great leaders . We have No Brahmins , in our organizations and we find it is perfectly OK as we need not to wash dirty wounds and clothes of dirty Brahmins . The greatest and holiest duty of any citizen is to protect their house , land , family and country . These Brahamin lover Non Brahmiins do not want to perform that duty at the same time want all benefits on the toil of those Native people who perform these holy duty . We call such Non Brahmin , Videshi Brahmin lovers Jaichands . And only Jaichands can say Brahmin and Brahminism or Brahminwad are separate . We are not Jaichands , so we say Brahmin and Brahminwad are inseparable and both condemnable, fit for wiping out and finished .
Nv. D.D.Raut ,
Vicharak , MBVM
Our Message to Nation : Janeu Chhodo , Bharat Jodo

Native All India Daily Workers' Union ( NAIDU )

Constitutional rights of Workers :

Today 46 National Labor Conference is taking place at Delhi to which PM Narendra Modi is inaugurating at Delhi at 10 .30 AM

India does not have figures on Daily Wage Workers . From this one can understand the sordid conditions of Daily Workers in India . 

Main article: Constitution of India
    Wikisource has original text related to this article:
Constitution of India

In the Constitution of India from 1950, articles 14-16, 19(1)(c), 23-24, 38, and 41-43A directly concern labour rights. Article 14 states everyone should be equal before the law, article 15 specifically says the state should not discriminate against citizens, and article 16 extends a right of "equality of opportunity" for employment or appointment under the state. Article 19(1)(c) gives everyone a specific right "to form associations or unions". Article 23 prohibits all trafficking and forced labour, while article 24 prohibits child labour under 14 years old in a factory, mine or "any other hazardous employment".

Articles 38-39, and 41-43A, however, like all rights listed in Part IV of the Constitution are not enforceable by courts, rather than creating an aspirational "duty of the State to apply these principles in making laws".[1] The original justification for leaving such principles unenforceable by the courts was that democratically accountable institutions ought to be left with discretion, given the demands they could create on the state for funding from general taxation, although such views have since become controversial. Article 38(1) says that in general the state should "strive to promote the welfare of the people" with a "social order in which justice, social, economic and political, shall inform all the institutions of national life. In article 38(2) it goes on to say the state should "minimise the inequalities in income" and based on all other statuses. Article 41 creates a "right to work", which the National Rural Employment Guarantee Act 2005 attempts to put into practice. Article 42 requires the state to "make provision for securing just and human conditions of work and for maternity relief". Article 43 says workers should have the right to a living wage and "conditions of work ensuring a decent standard of life". Article 43A, inserted by the Forty-second Amendment of the Constitution of India in 1976,[2] creates a constitutional right to code termination by requiring the state to legislate to "secure the participation of workers in the management of undertakings".

Nv. D.D.Raut , President , NPP

Our Message to Nation : Janeu Chhodo , Bharat Jodo

Native People's Party

Brahmins can not be Hindu Dharm spokesman 

Videshi Brahmin organizaton RSS is not spokesman of Native Hindus . Vedic Brahmin Dharm is not Hindu Dharm . Hindu Dharm is separate from Videshi Brahmin Vedic Vikruti of Varn , Jaati , Bhedbhav system . There is no need for RSS to become spokesman of Hindus as they follow Videshi Brahmin Dharm and not Hindu Dharm as revealed by Dharmatma Kabir in Holy Bijak .

Nv. D.D.Raut , President , NPP

Our Message to Nation : Janeu Chhodo , Bharat Jodo

Native People's Party

True Gandhians condemn Videshi Brahmin Pandit Nehru for his Anti Mahatma Gandhi policies :

There are very few True Gandhians in the country . True Gandhians condemn Videshi Brahmin Pandit Hehru for his Anti Mahatma Gandhi policies . Brahminwadi Pandit Nehru started pro Brahmin policies from very beginning . During Nehru's time first time corruption was detected . Dr Ambedkar was always against corruption and warned Nehru to check the corruption in the bud itself , but Nehru told him in such big purchases for country defense , how corruption can be stopped ? Nehru not only failed to stop corruption but seems encouraging it as no purchases could be done without his knowledge . Gandhiji was always against corruption as like Dr Ambedkar he felt that corruption not only affects National Moral but makes citizen's life miserable , particularly of poor .

Can any body tell which policies Vdeshi Brahmin Pandit Nehru followed which can be called Gandhian Policy ? In fact Gandhiji wanted Native Prime Minister . Jinha was OBC Koli before his father converted to Islam due to Videshi Brahmin Dharm vikruti of Varnwad and jaatiwad etc. Gandhiji was in favor of OBC or SC , he wanted Dr Ambedkar as PM so that Gandhiji's desire of Native Poor and so called neglected section person take over the government and bring such a system where there is no corruption , nepotism , bhedbhav and in true sense Native Rule which Gandhiji called Swaraj .

We are for such Swaraj , Native Rule , therefore , as True Gandhian we condemn Videshi Brahmin Pandit Nehru's misrule .and anti Gandhi policies .

Nv. D.D.Raut , President , NPP

Our Message to Nation : Janeu Chhodo , Bharat Jodo    

Native People's Party

PM 's Skill India or Kill India program ?

Is PM

Nv. D.D.Raut , President , NPP

Our Message to Nation : Janeu Chhodo , Bharat Jodo

aware how many ITI certificate holders in country are job less ? Is PM aware how many Diploma and Degree holders are job less ? Is PM aware how many Post Graduates , Ph.D holders are jobless ? He can collect data from at least Government Employment Exchanges . Unskilled , Skilled and Highly Skilled all are waiting for jobs , industry growth , government vacancy filling . Where as PM is wasting money on Kumbha Melas , Cheap publicity on Clean Ganga and other useless programs , this is one more addition by PM . PM 's policy is anti Native people and eye washing . We are not impressed by show things . Why PM is not taking concrete steps for driving out 3 per cent Videshi Brahmins who are seating and eating poor people's money in the form of Vikrut Brahmin Dharm ? Is that not Skill development ?

Native Edunet​ :

Native People's Party :

Students Failed in Exam ? Don't get dishearten , even Gandhiji failed in Matric in 1890 London Exam . Take seriously second time . Success is yours !

Mahatma Karamchand Gandhi Timeline 1890-1899

1890 - 1899

1890

January 13-18, Gandhi took Matric exam.

January 23-30,Attended Vegetarian Congress at Ventor.

February 19, Result of Matric exam is published. He failed Latin.

June, Passed the London Matric examination on his second attempt. Later in the year, he met two theosophists with whom he read Arnold's The Song Celestial. Invited to read the original Gita with them. He had never read the Gita before and it impressed him immensely. Later, it became the book of his daily reading.

Attended lectures by Dadabhai Naoroji, but spoke to him only once.

September 19, Selected to Executive Committee of London Vegetarian Society.

October, Attended meetings of Vegetarian Society but took no part in proceedings.

Started taking eggs on Dr. Oldfield's advice but soon gave it up, remembering his vow to his mother.

November, Studied the Bible: the New Testament impressed him. Also read some books on atheism. Attended the funeral of Bradlaugh in the workers' cemetery. But his prejudice against atheism remained. Was introduced to Madame Blavatsky and Mrs. Besant. Read Mme. Blavatsky's Secret Doctrine.

November 15-20, Gandhi sat for final Bar examination.

What is the lesson from Gandhiji's Matric failure is work hard next time .

Nv. D.D.Raut , President , NPP

Our Message to Nation : Janeu Chhodo , Bharat Jodo 

Dr. B. R. Ambedkar in explanation of his

RESIGNATION

The House I am sure knows, unofficially if not officially, that I have ceased to be a Member of the Cabinet. I tendered my resignation on Thursday the 27th September to the Prime Minister and asked him to relieve me immediately. The Prime Minister was good enough to accept the same on the very next day. If I have continued to be a Minister after Friday the 28th, it is because the Prime Minister had requested me to continue till the end of the Session—a request to which I was, in obedience to constitutional convention, bound to assent.

Our Rules of Procedure permit a Minister who has resigned his office, to make a personal statement in explanation of his resignation, Many members of Cabinet have resigned during my tenure of office. There has been however no uniform practice in the matter of Ministers who have resigned making a statement. Some have gone without making a statement and others have gone after making a statement. For a few days I was hesitant what course to follow. After taking all circumstances into consideration I came to the conclusion that the making of a statement was not merely necessary, but it was a duty which a member who has resigned owes to the House.

The House has no opportunity to know how the Cabinet works from within, whether there is harmony or whether there is a conflict, for the simple reason that there is a joint responsibility under which a member who is in a minority is not entitled to disclose his differences. Consequently the House continues to think that there is no conflict among members of Cabinet even when as a matter of fact a conflict exists. It is, therefore, a duty of a retiring Minister to make a statement informing the House why he wants to go and why he is not able to continue to take further joint responsibility.

Secondly, if a Minister goes without making a statement, people may suspect that there is something wrong with the conduct of the Minister, either in his public capacity or in his private capacity. No Minister should, I think, leave room for such suspicion and the only safe way out is a statement.

Thirdly we have our newspapers. They have their age-old bias in favour of some and against others. Their judgements are seldom based on merits. Wherever they find an empty space, they are prone to fill the vacuum by supplying grounds for resignation which are not the real grounds but which put those whom they favour in a better light and those not in their favour in a bad light. Some such thing I see has happened even in my case.

It is for these reasons that I decided to make a statement before going out.

It is now 4 years, I month and 26 days since I was called by the Prime Minister to accept the office of Law Minister in his Cabinet. The offer came as a great surprise to me. I was in the opposite camp and had already been condemned as unworthy of association when the interim Government was formed in August 1946. I was left to speculate as to what could have happened to bring about this change in the attitude of the Prime Minister. I had my doubts. I did not know how I could carry on with those who had never been my friends. I had doubts as to whether I could, as a Law Member, maintain the standard of legal knowledge and acumen which had been maintained by those who had preceded me as Law Ministers of the Government of India. But I kept my doubts at rest and accepted the offer of the Prime Minister on the ground that I should not deny my co-operation when it was asked for in the building up of our nation. The quality of my performance as a Member of the Cabinet and as Law Minister, I must leave it to others to judge.

I will now refer to matters which have led me to sever my connection with my colleagues. The urge to go has been growing from long past due to variety of reasons.

I will first refer to matters purely of a personal character and which are the least of the grounds which have led me to tender my resignation. As a result of my being a member of the Viceroy's Executive Council, I knew the Law Ministry to be administratively of no importance. It gave no opportunity for shaping the policy of the Government of India. We used to call it an empty soap box only good for old lawyers to play with. When the Prime Minister made me the offer, I told him that besides being a lawyer by my education and experience, I was competent to run any administrative Department and that in the old Viceroy's Executive Council I held two administrative portfolios, that of Labour and C.P.W.D., where a great deal of planning projects were dealt with by me and would like to have some administrative portfolio. The Prime Minister agreed and said he would give me in addition to Law the Planning Department which, he said, he was intending to create. Unfortunately the Planning Department came very late in the day and when it did come I was left out. During my time, there have been many transfers of portfolios from one Minister to another. I thought I might be considered for any one of them. But I have always been left out of consideration. Many Ministers have been given two or three portfolios so that they have been overburdened. Others like me have been wanting more work. I have not even been considered for holding a portfolio temporarily when a Minister in charge has gone abroad for a few days. It is difficult to understand what is the principle underlying the distribution of Government work among Ministers which the Prime Minister follows. Is it capacity? Is it trust? Is it friendship? Is it pliability? I was not even appointed to be a member of main Committees of the Cabinet such as the Foreign Affairs Committee or the Defence Committee. When the Economic Affairs Committee was formed, I expected, in view of the fact that I was primarily a student of Economics and Finance, to be appointed to this Committee. But I was left out. I was appointed to it by the Cabinet, when the Prime Minister had gone to England. But when he returned, in one of his many essays in the reconstruction of the Cabinet, he left me out. In a subsequent reconstruction my name was added to the Committee, but that was as a result of my protest.

The Prime Minister, I am sure, will agree that I have never complained to him in this connection. I have never been a party to the game of power politics inside the Cabinet or the game of snatching portfolios which goes on when there is a vacancy. I believe in service, service in the post which the Prime Minister, who as the head of the Cabinet, thought fit to assign to me. It would have, however, been quite unhuman for me not to have felt that a wrong was being done to me.

I will now refer to another matter that had made me dissatisfied with the Government. It relates to the treatment accorded to the Backward Classes and the Scheduled Castes. I was very sorry that the Constitution did not embody any safeguards for the Backward Classes. It was left to be done by the Executive Government on the basis of the recommendations of a Commission to be appointed by the President. More than a year has elapsed since we passed the Constitution. But the Government has not even thought of appointing the Commission. The year 1946 during which I was out of office, was a year of great anxiety to me and to the leading members of the Scheduled Castes. The British had resided from the commitments they had made in the matter of constitutional safeguards for the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Castes had no knowing as to what the Constituent Assembly would do in that behalf. In this period of anxiety I had prepared a report^*[f14] on the condition of the Scheduled Castes for submission to the United Nations. But I did not submit it. I felt that it would be better to wait until the Constituent Assembly and the future Parliament was given a chance to deal with the matter. The provisions made in the Constitution for safeguarding the position of the Scheduled Castes were not to my satisfaction. However, I accepted them for what they were worth, hoping that the Government will show some determination to make them effective. What is the position of the Scheduled Castes today? So far as I see, it is the same as before. The same old tyranny, the same old oppression, the same old discrimination which existed before, exists now, and perhaps in a worst form. I can refer to hundreds of cases where people from the Scheduled Castes round about Delhi and adjoining places have come to me with their tales of woes against the Caste Hindus and against the Police who have refused to register their complaints and render them any help. I have been wondering whether there is any other parallel in the world to the condition of the Scheduled Castes in India. I cannot find any. And yet why is no relief granted to the Scheduled Castes? Compare the concern the Government shows over safeguarding the Muslims. The Prime Minister's whole time and attention is devoted for the protection of the Muslims. I yield to none, not even to the Prime Minister, in my desire to give the Muslims of India the utmost protection wherever and whenever they stand in need of it. But what I want to know is, are the Muslims the only people who need protection? Are the Scheduled Castes, the Scheduled Tribes and the Indian Christians not in need of protection? What concern has he shown for these communities? So far as I know, none and yet these are the communities which need far more care and attention than the Muslims.

I could not contain within myself the indignation I have felt over the neglect of the Scheduled Castes by the Government and on one occasion I gave vent to my feelings at a public meeting of the Scheduled Castes. A question was asked, from the Hon'ble the Home Minister, whether my charge that the Scheduled Castes had not benefited by the rule which guaranteed to them 12 1/2, per cent representation was true. In answer to the question the Hon'ble the Home Minister was pleased to say that my charge was baseless. Subsequently for some reason—it may be for satisfying the qualms of his conscience—he, I am informed, sent round a circular to the various Departments of the Government of India asking them to report how many Scheduled Caste candidates had been recently recruited in Government service. I am informed that most Departments said in reply ' NIL ' or nearly nil. If my information is correct, I need make no commentary on the answer given by the Hon'ble the Home Minister.

From my early childhood I have dedicated myself to the upliftment of the Scheduled Castes among whom I was born. It is not that there were no temptations in my way. If I had considered my own interests, I could have been anything I wanted to be and if I had joined the Congress I would have reached to the highest place in that organisation. But as I said, I had dedicated myself to the upliftment of the Scheduled Castes and I have followed the adage which says that it is better to be narrow-minded if you wish to be enthusiastic about a cause which you wish to accomplish. You can therefore, well imagine what pain it has caused me to see that the cause of the Scheduled Castes has been relegated to the limbo of nothing.

The third matter which has given me cause, not merely for dissatisfaction but for actual anxiety and even worry, is the foreign policy of the country. Any one, who has followed the course of our foreign policy and along with it the attitude of other countries towards India, could not fail to realise the sudden change that has taken place in their attitude towards us. On 15th of August 1947 when we began our life as an independent country, there was no country which wished us ill. Every country in the world was our friend. Today, after four years, all our friends have deserted us. We have no friends left. We have alienated ourselves. We are pursuing a lonely furrow with no one even to second our resolutions in the U.N.O. When I think of our foreign policy, I am reminded of what Bismark and Bernard Shaw have said. Bismark has said that " politics is not a game of realising the ideal. Politics is the game of the possible. " Bernard Shaw not very long ago said that good ideals are good but one must not forget that it is often dangerous to be too good. Our foreign policy is in complete opposition to these words of wisdom uttered by two of the world's greatest men.

How dangerous it has been to us this policy of doing the impossible and of being too good is illustrated by the great drain on our resources made by our military expenditure, by the difficulty of getting food for our starving millions and by difficulty of getting aid for the industrialisation of our country.

Out of 350 crores of rupees of revenue we raise annually, we spend about Rs. 180 crores of rupees on the Army. It is a colossal expenditure which has hardly any parallel. This colossal expenditure is the direct result of our foreign policy. We have to foot the whole of our Bill for our defence ourselves because we have no friends on which we can depend for help in any emergency that may arise. I have been wondering whether this is the right sort of foreign policy.

Our quarrel with Pakistan is a part of our foreign policy about which I feel deeply dissatisfied. There are two grounds which have disturbed our relations with Pakistan—one is Kashmir and the other is the condition of our people in East Bengal. I felt that we should be more deeply concerned with East Bengal where the condition of our people seems from all the newspapers intolerable than with Kashmir. Notwithstanding this we have been staking our all on the Kashmir issue. Even then I feel that we have been fighting on an unreal issue. The issue on which we are fighting most of the time is, who is in the right and who is in the wrong. The real issue to my mind is not who is in the right but what is right. Taking that to be the main question, my view has always been that the right solution is to partition Kashmir. Give the Hindu and Buddhist part to India and the Muslim part to Pakistan as we did in the case of India. We are really not concerned with the Muslim part of Kashmir. It is a matter between the Muslims of Kashmir and Pakistan. They may decide the issue as they like. Or if you like, divide it into three parts; the Cease-fire zone, the Valley and the Jammu-Ladhak Region and have a plebiscite only in the Valley. What I am afraid of is that in the proposed plebiscite, which is to be an overall plebiscite, the Hindus and Buddhists of Kashmir are likely to be dragged into Pakistan against their wishes and we may have to face the same problems as we are facing today in East Bengal.

I will now refer to the Fourth matter which has a good deal to do with my resignation. The Cabinet has become a merely recording and registration office of decisions already arrived at by Committees. As I have said, the Cabinet now works by Committees.

There is a Defence Committee. There is a Foreign Committee. All important matters relating to Foreign affairs are dealt with by it. All matters relating to Defence are disposed of by the Defence Committee. The same members of the Cabinet are appointed by them. I am not a member of either of these Committees. They work behind an iron curtain. Others who are not members have only to take joint responsibility without any opportunity of taking part in the shaping of policy. This is an impossible position.

I will now deal with a matter which has led me finally to come to the decision that I should resign. It is the treatment which was accorded to the Hindu Code. The Bill was introduced in this House on the 11th April 1947. After a life of four years, it was killed and died unwept and unsung, after 4 clauses of it were passed. While it was before the House, it lived by fits and starts. For full one year the Government did not feel it necessary to refer it to a Select Committee. It was referred to the Select Committee on 9th April

1948. The Report was presented to the House on 12th August 1948. The motion for the consideration of the Report was made by me on 31st August 1948. It was merely for making the motion that the Bill was kept on the Agenda. The discussion of the motion was not allowed to take place until the February Session of the year

1949. Even then it was not allowed to have a continuous discussion. It was distributed over 10 months, 4 days in February, I day in March and 2 days in April 1949. After this, one day was given to the Bill in December 1949, namely the 19th December on which day the House adopted my motion that the Bill as reported by the Select Committee be taken into consideration. No time was given to the Bill in the year 1950. Next time the Bill came before the House was on 5th February 1951 when the clause by clause consideration of the Bill was taken. Only three days 5th, 6th and 7th of February were given to the Bill and left there to rot.

This being the last Session of the present Parliament, Cabinet had to consider whether the Hindu Code Bill should be got through before this Parliament ended or whether it should be left over to the new Parliament. The Cabinet unanimously decided that it should be put through in this Parliament. So the Bill was put on the Agenda and was taken up on the 17th September 1951 for further clause by clause consideration. As the discussion was going on the Prime Minister put forth a new proposal, namely, that the Bill as a whole may not be got through within the time available and that it was desirable to get a part of it enacted into law rather than allow the whole of it to go to waste. It was a great wrench to me. But I agreed, for, as the proverb says " it is better to save a part when the whole is likely to be lost". The Prime Minister suggested that we should select the Marriage and Divorce part. The Bill in its truncated "form went on. After two or three days of discussion of the Bill the Prime Minister came up with another proposal. This time his proposal was to drop the whole Bill even the Marriage and Divorce portion. This came to me as a great shock—a bolt from the blue. I was stunned and could not say anything. I am not prepared to accept that the dropping of this truncated Bill was due to want of time. I am sure that the truncated Bill was dropped because other and more powerful members of the Cabinet wanted precedence for their Bills. I am unable to understand how the Benaras and Aligarh University Bills, how the Press Bill could have been given precedence over the Hindu Code even in its attenuated form? It is not that there was no law on the Statute Book to govern the Aligarh University or the Benaras University. It is not that these Universities would have gone to wreck and ruins if the Bills had not been passed in this session. It is not that the Press Bill was urgent. There is already a law on the Statute Book and the Bill could have waited. I got the impression that the Prime Minister, although sincere, had not the earnestness and determination required to get the Hindu Code Bill through.

In regard to this Bill I have been made to go through the greatest mental torture. The aid of Party Machinery was denied to me. The Prime Minister gave freedom of Vote, an unusual thing in the history of the Party. I did not mind it. But I expected two things. I expected a party whip as to time limit on speeches and instruction to the Chief Whip to move closure when sufficient debate had taken place. A whip on time limit on speeches would have got the Bill through. When freedom of voting was given there could have been no objection to have given a whip for time limit on speeches. But such a whip was never issued. The conduct of the Minister for Parliamentary Affairs, who is also the Chief Whip of the Party in connection with the Hindu Code, to say the least, has been most extraordinary. He has been the deadliest opponent of the Code and has never been present to aid me by moving a closure motion. For days and hours filibustering has gone on a single clause. But the Chief Whip, whose duty it is to economise Government time and push on Government Business, has been systematically absent when the Hindu Code has been under consideration in the House. I have never seen a case of a Chief Whip so disloyal to the Prime Minister and a Prime Minister so loyal to a disloyal Whip.

Notwithstanding this unconstitutional behaviour, the Chief Whip is really a darling of the Prime Minister. For notwithstanding his disloyalty he got a promotion in the Party organisation. It is impossible to carry on in such circumstances.

It has been said that the Bill had to be dropped because the opposition was strong. How strong was the opposition? This Bill has been discussed several times in the Party and was carried to division by the opponents. Every time the opponents were routed. The last time when the Bill was taken up in the Party Meeting, out of 120 only 20 were found to be against it. When the Bill was taken in the Party for discussion, 44 clauses were passed in about 3 1/2 hours time. This shows how much opposition there was to the Bill within the Party. In the House itself there have been divisions on three clauses of the Bill—2, 3 and 4. Every time there has been a overwhelming majority in favour even on clause 4 which is the soul of the Hindu Code.

I was therefore, quite unable to accept the Prime Minister's decision to abandon the Bill on the ground of time. I have been obliged to give this elaborate explanation for my resignation because some people have suggested that I am going because of my illness. I wish to repudiate any such suggestion. I am the last man to abandon my duty because of illness.

It may be said that my resignation is out of time and that if I was dissatisfied with the Foreign Policy of the Government and the treatment accorded to Backward Classes and the Scheduled Castes I should have gone earlier. The charge may sound as true. But I had reasons which held me back. In the first place, most of the time I have been a member of the Cabinet, I have been busy with the framing of the Constitution. It absorbed all my attention till 26th January 1950 and thereafter I was concerned with the Peoples' Representation Bill and the Delimitation Orders. I had hardly any time to attend to our Foreign Affairs. I did not think it right to go away leaving this work unfinished.

In the second place, I thought it necessary to stay on, for the sake of the Hindu Code. In the opinion of some it may be wrong for me to have held on for the sake of the Hindu Code. I took a different view. The Hindu Code was the greatest social reform measure ever undertaken by the Legislature in this country. No law passed by the Indian Legislature in the past or likely to be passed in the future can be compared to it in point of its significance.

To leave inequality between class and class, between sex and sex which is the soul of Hindu Society untouched and to go on passing legislation relating to economic problems is to make a farce of our Constitution and to build a palace on a dung heap. This is the significance I attached to the Hindu Code. It is for its sake that I stayed on notwithstanding my differences. So if I have committed a wrong it is in the hope of doing some good. Had I no ground for such a hope connection to refer only to three of the statements made by the Prime Minister on the floor of the House, for overcoming the obstructionist tactics of the opponents? I would like in this n 28th November, 1949 the Prime Minister gave the following assurance. He said:

" What is more, the Government is committed to this thing (Hindu Code). It is going through with it."

***

" Government would proceed with that. It is for this House to accept a measure, but if a Government takes an important measure and the House rejects it, the House rejects that Government and the Government goes and another Government comes in its place. It should be clearly understood that this is one of the important measures to which the Government attaches importance and on which it will stand or fall."

Again on 19th December 1949, the Prime Minister said :

" I do not wish the House to think in the slightest degree that we consider that this Hindu Code Bill is not of importance, because we do attach the greatest importance to it, as I said, not because of any particular clause or anything, but because of the basic approach to this vast problem in problems, economic and social. We have achieved political freedom in this country, political independence. That is a stage in the' journey, and there are other stages, economic, social and other and if society is to advance, there must be this integrated advance on all fronts."

On the 26th September 1951 the Prime Minister said:

It is not necessary for me to assure the House of the desire of Government to proceed with this measure in so far as we can proceed with it within possibilities, and so far as we are concerned we consider this matter as adjourned till such time as the next opportunity—1 hope it will be in this Parliaments—offers itself.

This was after the Prime Minister had announced the dropping of the Bill. Who could not have believed in these pronouncements of the Prime Minster? If I did not think that there could be a difference between the promises and performances of the Prime Minister the fault is certainly not mine. My exit from the Cabinet may not be a matter of much concern to anybody in this country. But I must be true to myself and that I can be only by going out. Before I do so I wish to thank my colleagues for the kindness and courtesy they have shown to me during my membership of the Cabinet. While I am not resigning my membership of Parliament I also wish to express my gratitude to Members of Parliament for having shown great tolerance towards me.

New Delhi,

10th October 1951                     

B. R. AMBEDKAR

---

 [F1]P.D., Vol. XV, Part II, 21st September 1951, pp. 2974-3008,

Native People's Party ;

Brahmin Guru Ghantals :

What is this Brahmin Guru Ghantals ? We should go by each word . Brahmins means Videshi Brahmins. Guru means Teacher and Ghantals means making noise without doing any work .

In the past we have come across two three such cases .

First case is Videshi Brahmin Dronacharya who did not teach Eklaya the Native Boy any thing yet asked for his thumb in Daxina .
Second case is Videshi Brahmin Ramdas who never met Native King  Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj yet made propagand that he was guru of Shivaji and Shivaji has placed his kingdom in his Zoli as Guru Daxina .

Third case is Videshi Brahmin Namdar Gokhale who is called Guru of  Native Hero Mahatma Gandhi after Gandhi becoming National Leader and Mahatma . This propaganda was done by both Jahal and Moderate Videshi Brahmins which Gandhiji very politely rejected telling that he was working in socio -political field in South Africa even before meeting Gokhale in Pune . Gandhiji acknowledged greatness of Anni Besant , Dada Abdulha and Dada Bhai Navroji apart from Arnold whose book on Gita Gandhiji read at young age at London . Apart from that Gandhiji was influenced by Raichand and his Kabir Panthi Mother . Finally Gandhiji was Kabir follower of Satya Hindu Dharm .

In short we reject Guru Ghantals Dronacharya , Ramdas and Gokhale as they were sound makers and not actual gurus .

Nv. D.D.Raut , President , NPP

Our Message to Nation : Janeu Chhodo , Bharat Jodo

MUL BHARTIYA VICHAR MANCH :

Question of Brahmins in Non Brahmin Organizations and Non Brahmins in Brahmin Organizations , a matter of serious thought :

We see there are two types of organizations , political , non political working in Hindustan . For example Congress was founded in 1885 by A.O.home , a Non Brahmin , Britisher . Many Brahmins joined it as office bearers and they took over control of that organization very soon by Brahmins and Tilak , Agarkar , Malviya , Nehru , etc . were in such a position that the whole organization was Brahminized . Only from 1920 and onwards entry of Non Brahmin M.K Gandhi from 1916 made Congress felt presence of Non Brahmins and Muslims and Brahmins immediately founded Brahminwadi RSS in 1925 helping other Brahminwadi organizations like Hindu Mahasabha etc to eliminate and create problems of Non Brahmin leadership of Gandhiji .

There were also Brahmin organizations like Hindu Mahasabha , Ram Raj Party where some Non Brahmins were members but primarily they were either fund givers , jamidars , businessmen supporting Brahminwad or those small workers for cleaning pandal, as unimportant workers. They were always told by Brahmins that they are masters and others are workers .

Now same position we see in present day political organizations founded by Brahmins and Non Brahmins . They have cells like OBC , SC , ST , Muslims in Brahmin founded parties as they are founded for Brahmin Rule and others are considered as Cells .

In Non Brahmin political parties there are cells like Minority , Christians , Muslims but not a separate cell for Brahmins . Brahmins join these parties with direct big positions like second in command and soon take whole charge of that organization or threaten to leave this organization ,party . In any case Brahmins never want to work as subordinate and never want to leave his Brahminism , Varn and Brahmin Dharm Vikruti of Vedas , Hom - Havan , Janeu , caste-ism etc .

Now the question is how good these Videshi Brahmins are for Non Brahmins in both Brahmin formed organizations and organizations formed by Non Brahmins . And in both the case we find they are useless for Non Brahmins , Native people . Therefore , we feel , Non Brahmins should not waste their time in such organizations where Brahmins are Members as the movement of Non Brahmins get stagnated and without final results such as Videshi Brahminless Society .

We see some of the organizations trying to make Videshi Brahmin faltu leaders great taking shelter of Mahatma Gandhi . Some Brahmins worked under Gandhiji , some Brahmins worked under Dr . Ambedkar but non of them said they are Not Brahmin or Left Brahmin Dharm For Ever . In fact they used Pandit , Brahmarshi , Arya etc words to show that they are Brahmins . Nehru , Malyiya , Tagore were Brahmins and remained Brahmins always .

Similarly , Non Brahmins working in Brahmin organizations were remained subordinate even after reaching the position PM . See the case of Modi , who is Non Brahmin , in Brahmin organization but can not say he will carry out census for OBC even though he himself is OBC . So Shudra remains Shurda in Brahmin organizations .

Mul Bhartiya Vichar Manch wants Native Rule , means our organization, our mind and our benefits . We reject both the types of organizations infected by Videshi Brahmins .

Nv. D.D.Raut
Vicharak , MBVM

Our Message to Nation : Janeu Chhodo , Bharat Jodo

MUL BHARTIYA VICHAR MANCH :
Question of Brahmins in Non Brahmin Organizations and Non Brahmins in Brahmin Organizations , a matter of serious thought :
We see there are two types of organizations , political , non political working in Hindustan . For example Congress was founded in 1885 by A.O.home , a Non Brahmin , Britisher . Many Brahmins joined it as office bearers and they took over control of that organization very soon by Brahmins and Tilak , Agarkar , Malviya , Nehru , etc . were in such a position that the whole organization was Brahminized . Only from 1920 and onwards entry of Non Brahmin M.K Gandhi from 1916 made Congress felt presence of Non Brahmins and Muslims and Brahmins immediately founded Brahminwadi RSS in 1925 helping other Brahminwadi organizations like Hindu Mahasabha etc to eliminate and create problems of Non Brahmin leadership of Gandhiji .
There were also Brahmin organizations like Hindu Mahasabha , Ram Raj Party where some Non Brahmins were members but primarily they were either fund givers , jamidars , businessmen supporting Brahminwad or those small workers for cleaning pandal, as unimportant workers. They were always told by Brahmins that they are masters and others are workers .
Now same position we see in present day political organizations founded by Brahmins and Non Brahmins . They have cells like OBC , SC , ST , Muslims in Brahmin founded parties as they are founded for Brahmin Rule and others are considered as Cells .
In Non Brahmin political parties there are cells like Minority , Christians , Muslims but not a separate cell for Brahmins . Brahmins join these parties with direct big positions like second in command and soon take whole charge of that organization or threaten to leave this organization ,party . In any case Brahmins never want to work as subordinate and never want to leave his Brahminism , Varn and Brahmin Dharm Vikruti of Vedas , Hom - Havan , Janeu , caste-ism etc .
Now the question is how good these Videshi Brahmins are for Non Brahmins in both Brahmin formed organizations and organizations formed by Non Brahmins . And in both the case we find they are useless for Non Brahmins , Native people . Therefore , we feel , Non Brahmins should not waste their time in such organizations where Brahmins are Members as the movement of Non Brahmins get stagnated and without final results such as Videshi Brahminless Society .
We see some of the organizations trying to make Videshi Brahmin faltu leaders great taking shelter of Mahatma Gandhi . Some Brahmins worked under Gandhiji , some Brahmins worked under Dr . Ambedkar but non of them said they are Not Brahmin or Left Brahmin Dharm For Ever . In fact they used Pandit , Brahmarshi , Arya etc words to show that they are Brahmins . Nehru , Malyiya , Tagore were Brahmins and remained Brahmins always .
Similarly , Non Brahmins working in Brahmin organizations were remained subordinate even after reaching the position PM . See the case of Modi , who is Non Brahmin , in Brahmin organization but can not say he will carry out census for OBC even though he himself is OBC . So Shudra remains Shurda in Brahmin organizations .
Mul Bhartiya Vichar Manch wants Native Rule , means our organization, our mind and our benefits . We reject both the types of organizations infected by Videshi Brahmins .
Nv. D.D.Raut
Vicharak , MBVM
Our Message to Nation : Janeu Chhodo , Bharat Jodo

Native People's Party - News & Views​

Will Modi visit Videshi Brahmin Home land in North Pole ?

Tilak found out Videshi Brahmins home land in North Pole . During Tilak period and earlier to that Native Hindus were asking Videshi Brahmins to Quit India . This made Tilak to do sincere research of home land of Videshi Brahmins so that in future , like Jews , they can go back and settle .
He wrote his book named : The Arctic Home in Vedas :

The Arctic Home in the Vedas is a book on the origin of Aryans by  Bâl Gangâdhar Tilak, a mathematician turned astronomer, historian, journalist, philosopher and political leader of India during 1880 to 1920. It propounded the theory that the North Pole was the original home of Aryans during pre-glacial period which they had to leave due to the ice deluge around 8000 B.C. and had to migrate to the Northern parts of Europe and Asia in search of lands for new settlements. In support to his theory Tilak has presented certain Vedic hymns, Avestic passages, Vedic chronology and Vedic calendars with interpretations of the contents in detail.

The book was written at the end of 1898, but was first published in March 1903

It looks RSS is sincerely working on this book and Modi is also interested in RSS work . Will Modi visit Videshi Brahmin home land in North Pole  as his Five Year World Tour Program ? It will be interesting to watch .

Nv. D.D Raut , President , NPP

Our Message to Nation : Janeu Chhodo , Bharat Jodo

Native People's Party - Maharashtra​

Namaskar and Jai Hind are Native People's Party common salutations

Native People's Party does not believe in Caste and Varn system . We do not give membership of Native People's Party to any Brahmin as we believe that Brahmins are Videshi . Membership can not be given to Videshi people . We ask only two questions and declaration from applying person whether he is Non Brahmin or Brahmin . We reject Brahmin and give membership of NPP to Non Brahmins subject to fulfilling second condition that he agrees that Mahatma Gandhi is Father of Nation and Dr Ambedkar is Bharat Bhagy

Since we are Main Stream  Non Brahmin political party we as Party ideology say Namaskar and Jai Hind as salutation at all party functions . However we do not stop using his liked salutation in private . We do not inquire anybody's Caste , Sub Caste , Varn and Religion as Videsh Brahmins are filtered out keeping rest as Native people only irrespective of their religion .

We encourage Satya Hindu Dharm as revealed by Dharmatma Kabir in his Vani Holy Bijak as it totlly rejects Videshi Brahmin Dharm vikruti of Varn , Caste , Uchnich , Bhedbhav .

Nv. D.D.Raut , President , NPP

Our Message to Nation : janeu Chhodo , Bharat Jodo

a Vidhata and have no contradiction in their thinking and ideology concerning Native people and Native Nation . Both wanted Native Rule that is Swadeshi Movement , Hindvi Swaraj or Native Rule Movement .

Native People's Party

To solve problematic Videshi Brahmin resettlement in their Home Land in Artic , Modi should take Bhagwat and Advani to Russia

Tilak had already found out Home land of Videshi Brahmins in Artic which is now in and above present day Russia . Brahmins have been going to their Swa - Grah  that is Swarg frequently as per their Brahmin Dharm Vedic literature . That is Brahmha , Vishnu , Indra Lok where plenty of Somraas, Hom - Havan Cow , Horse meat and Apsaras cum Prostitutes like Rambha , Urvashi , Menaka were always available to anybody and Brahmin enemies for deceiving them . This place , they said is Swarg and said one goes to Swarg after death if one donates and give Dan , Daxina to Videshi Brahmins . It seems this was some sort of entry fee collected by brothel keeper Brahmins .

Now our PM Modi is visiting Russia . We think , he is aware how Videshi Brahmins are problematic to India and people of Hindustan . Even every Brahmin wants his Swarg and therefore , we think Modi should take RSS chief Bhagwat and waiting in PM Advani to Russia so that settlement of Videshi Brahmins in the Artic home of Brahmins can be discussed with Russian authorities and soon Advani becomes PM of Brahmin home land and Bhagwat as President . Other Brahmins can leave India once this settlement is reached . This would be peaceful solution to Videshi Brahmins problem in India as no Non Brahmin can tolerate Videshi Brahmin Dharm Vikruti any more .

Nv. D.D.Raut , President , NPP

Our Message to Nation : Janeu Chhodo , Bharat Jodo