Divorce Marriage Bachelorism in Politics

 Tags: Divorce in Politics, Marriage in Politics, Bachelorism in Politics, Political alliances, Good Divorce, Eletoral, Jansevak

Electoral Cardiologist Counselor speaks to Jansevak candidates & Leaders; Electoral ruling powerloom Marriage-ism and Bachelorism; Divorce-ism in political alliances is different to divorce in family couple.


Eletoral ruling powerlooms Marriage-ism and Bachlorism

With regard to clerical, or priestly celibacy, modern leaders often mirror modern Luther’s viewpoint that chastity of fair election (Deprieved of fighting wthout fraud) is well-nigh impossible. Some contend that such a view is not ethical.

For there are eunuchs of getting votes who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the High Commands of political parties such as Italian, Mayavi, Mulayami High Commnds. He/she who is able to receive this, let him receive it. Such as Manmohan have aready rejected proposal to contest from Chandigarh. “I intend to contest assembly election from any constituency of Amritsar but I have not received any positive indication either from the Congress High Command or from my brother Manmohan Singh,” said by Surjeet Singh Kohli who is keen to contest

Other modern translations use the phrase “others have renounced marriage.” One might argue that Modern Jes… was merely describing this state of affairs, not sanctioning it, but this is made implausible by his concluding comment, “He who is able to receive this, let him receive it.”

But if it is to be denied that Jes… taught the desirability of celibacy (unmarried status) for those called to it, there can be little doubt about the following:

Wish that all were as Atal Bihari Vajpayee is. But each has his own special gift from God, one of one kind and one of another.

To the unmarried and the widows Ataljee and like him others may say that it is well for Jansevak leaders to remain single as Ataljee do.

But if Jansevak leaders cannot exercise self-control, they should marry with any foe or friend. For it is better to marry than to be aflame with passion . . .

Every one should remain in the state in which he was called . . . . .

Are you bound to a wife-ally? Do not seek to be free. Are you free from a wife-ally? Do not seek marriage.

But if you marry, you do not sin as NDA and UPA allies did not sin in the age of alliances of compulsion. Even behind this argument you can hide your sin of including tainted rapist murdrous in the cabinet as did by Manmohan Singh as said by his former guru Natwar Singh. . Yet those who marry will have worldly troubles, and I would spare you that. . .

I want you to be free from anxieties. The unmarried politician especially congress person is anxious about the affairs of the High Command Super PM, how to please that India’s pope;

But the married man is anxious about worldly affairs, how to please his wife-ally, as present government is pleasing from time to time DMK, RJD, NCP and even out side supporter Left communist parties.

And his interests are divided. And the unmarried woman is anxious about the affairs of the Lord-people, how to be holy in body and spirit; but the married woman is anxious about worldly affairs, how to please her husband-ally.

I say this for your own benefit, not to lay any restraint upon you, but to promote good order and to secure your undivided devotion to the Lord-people . . .

So that he who marries his betrothed does well; and he who refrains from marriage will do better.


Divorce-ism in political alliances

Divorce in political life is totally opposite to the divorce-ism in the family life.

The Divorced Identity:

ne of the biggest things I’m grappling with these days is how people can treat you differently when they find out that you are divorced even before you get to the sordid details.  Nobody warned that widow about how to reconcile the “Divorced Identity,” (DI) and a couple of recent experiences have almost motivated him to lie about it.


Most people prefer to date people who have never been married? “I’m not interested in dating divorced men – I think most people divorce too easily.” Opposite sec says each other generally. It is so often assumed that divorced people are somehow “bad” – that they failed to make it work, that they are incapable of the compromises necessary to make relationships work, and that they live in some kind of quiet immorality. 


Opposite to this truth version of DI in politics is a quality. Habitual of side changing (Dal Badal) are always wanted and honored in politics. Here is no need to hide the divorce identity. In politics it is ofter assumed that divorced leader or parties are somehow “good” – that they are cunning to make it work, that they are capable of the compromises necessary to make relationships work, and that they live in some kind of quiet immorality and immorality is the biggest quality in the politics. 


The Good Divorce: Keeping Your Family Together When Your Marriage Comes Apart by Constance Ahrons, Ph.D.

‘The Good Divorce’ is based on a groundbreaking longitudinal study of 98 divorced couples in the United States.  The author addresses challenges faced by people divorcing today, such as ‘divorcism’ (society’s prejudice regarding divorce), and encourages healthy support for divorcing families, all of whom are going through an excruciating process.  A great case is made for the importance of couples working together to make inevitable divorces GOOD divorces, and guidance is provided for working through the various stages of divorce in a healthy way.  (Structuring a good divorce process, family by family, is the goal of the Center for Healthy Divorce.  This book is used heavily in our work.)


I think that this book may be useful for politicians also. Every party and every leader should to learn good divorce.


Therre is another book. Spiritual Divorce: Divorce As a Catalyst for an Extraordinary Life by Debbie Ford, 2001.
Books Specifically for Parents
Child Friendly Divorce: A Divorce(d) Therapist’s Guide to Helping Your Children Thrive by Diane M. Berry, MSW, LCSW, JD, 2004.
“Why Did You Have to Get a Divorce? And When Can I Get a Hamster?” by Anthony E. Wolf, Ph.d.


I think that there is a scope to write a book on voters’ friendly divorces. It is fact that now voters have started to hate the parties and leaders who have taken divorces. So to avoid this danger above said book may be useful in politics.



By Premendra Agrawal

Nuke in Kargil : Shivaji and Shastri

Tags: Nuke in Kargil, Shivaji and Shastri, Widow of Martyr, Clinton reminded Sharif, Pakistan’s nuclear missiles, Jaswant Singh, US ambassador, Osama bin laden, Musharraf, Vajpayee, Musharraf, Militancy

History is Past. News is old.


Santosh Kanwar, widow of Martyr Mangej Singh swore ”I shall not hesitate to send all my three sons to the front and will be proud if they die defending the country like their father”

High than Mount Everest height emotional words of the martyr-memorial at Kohima:


When you go home
tell them of us
And say
for your tomorrow
we gave our today


(1) LONDON, MAY 12, 2002:

The Pakistani Army mobilised its nuclear arsenal against India in 1999 — during the Kargil conflict — with the full knowledge of its then prime minister Nawaz Sharif, the Sunday Times reported today, quoting Bruce Riedel, who was a senior adviser to the then US President Bill Clinton on India and Pakistan.


While Clinton reminded Sharif how closes the US and Soviet Union had come to nuclear war in 1962 over Cuba, Sharif agreed it would be a catastrophe even if a single bomb was dropped.


John Pike, director of the Washington-based Global Security Organisation, said intelligence channels could have become aware of the trucks that carry Pakistan’s nuclear missiles being moved from their bases at Sargodha, near Rawalpindi.


(2) MARCH 29, 2005:

Ex-defence minister Jaswant Singh said a former US ambassador was responsible for spreading paranoia about an impending India-Pakistan nuclear war during the 1999 Kargil war. There was this US ambassador, whom I shall not name, who was saying these things. And I asked (former minister of state for defence) Arun Singh to go and have a word with him,” Singh said.


(3) As news agencies reporting on July 7, 2006:

There was a deployment of certain variety of missiles that Indian Authority saw. Jaswant Singh has sighted that site in his book which is under print and will come in public soon.


(4) “American Diplomacy and the 1999 Kargil Summit at Blair House,”

by former White House official Bruce Riedel, says whole truth of the kargil War:


Prime Minister Sharif had seemed genuinely interested in pursuing the Lahore process when he met with Vajpayee…he wanted an end to the fifty year old quarrel with India. His military chief, General Pervez Musharraf was said to be a hardliner on Kashmir, a man some feared was determined to humble India once and for all.


When Clinton later reveals the extent of Islamabad’s nuclear preparedness, Sharif “seemed taken aback and said only that India was probably doing the same,” Clinton then berates Sharif, asking “did he know how crazy that (getting nuclear missiles ready) was?”

An angry Clinton had asked repeatedly for Pakistani help to bring Osama Bin Laden to justice from Afghanistan. Sharif had promised often to do so but had done nothing. Instead the ISI worked with Bin Laden and the Taliban to foment terrorism, Riedel discloses Clinton as telling Sharif. (More recent reports say Musharraf sabotaged a CIA project to train Pakistanis commandos to catch Bin Laden).


Sherif tells Clinton that unless the US gives him some face-saving formula for withdrawing from Kargil, the fundamentalists back home will gun for him and this might be his last meeting with the US President.


Sharif had a choice, withdraw behind the LoC and the moral compass would tilt back toward Pakistan or stay and fight a wider and dangerous war with India without American sympathy.


Finally in September 1999, Sharif sends his brother Shahbaz. But all that Shahbaz wants to discuss is what the US could do to help his brother stay in power. “He all but said that they knew a military coup was coming,” recalls Riedel. It did, a few weeks later, when Musharraf toppled Sharif.


The above printed version of Riedel is now in public domain.

Spokesman, Colonel Bikram Singh, said there was every reason to believe the Pakistanis were equipped with chemical weapons as they had left behind some gas masks. Pakistan is a signatory to the Chemical Weapons Convention and has declared that it does not have any chemical arms.


In the summer of 1999, India and Pakistan fought a 73 day military conflict merits intensive study.


(1) Shivaji and Afzal Khan

Shivaji to follow ‘Tit for tat’ policy, pretended to be extremely afraid of Afzal Khan and his army, and offered to surrender personally to him provided his well-being was guaranteed. When the meeting took place, Afzal Khan (a big, stocky and giant of a figure, compared to short and agile figure of Shivaji) tried to kill Shivaji with a big embrace and stab at Shivaji in the back, but ‘Hindu Rashtra’ founder was quick and he passed his arm around the Khan’s waist and disemboweled the Khan with a small and sharp dagger called the ‘bichwa’.


(2) Lal Bahadur Shastri

He was also of short figure as Shivaji. Shastri promised to meet force with force, and by early September the second Indo-Pakistan war had commenced. He instructed the army if needed march towards Lahore. Though the Indian army reached the outskirts of Lahore, Shastri agreed to withdraw Indian forces.


(3) Atal Bihari Vajpayee

Heading the Cabinet Committee on Security gave the armed forces a simple unencumbered task: to evict the intruders without crossing the Line of Control.


(4) Why religious head count in Army?

We should salute our soldiers when they are alive, not just when they become martyr?


(5) General Ved Prakash Malik

He said in an interview: Also, though India and Pakistan are nuclear nations, it is not true to say there cannot be a conventional war between them. Kargil proved that. There is a threshold under which a conventional war is possible. We must always be conscious of the fact that terrorist operations and militancy are part of a conflict spectrum. It can escalate and shift into a conventional war quite easily. It happened in 1947, it happened in 1965 and it happened in 1999. Today’s law-and-order problem can turn into a war tomorrow. We need to monitor the situation carefully and be prepared physically and mentally in case it escalates.


‘Kargil is not the end. Militancy is not going to die down’ Lieutenant General Y N Sharma (retired), who lost a leg in the 1971 Indo-Pak war, said Pakistan had fought five jihad wars, including a proxy from 1985-98. The neighbour was repeating ‘a cycle of hate and aggression’.


By Premendra Agrawal