Re: [IAC#RG] Heads must roll for Uri

Dear Shri Gaur

AFAIK, that old name was last used in 1920's when the original
founders were fighting the British Empire's dominion over India.

'Apolitical' means being politically neutral and unbiased, whereas
'Non-political' describes those who are against politics and with
beliefs such as that politics is opposed to a free society.

'Secular' in our context describes not mingling government with religion.

Voting during elections is primarily for governance, whereby a citizen
selects and authorises another to represent him. However, the system
of having political parties is clearly against the concepts of true
democracy and has led to serious distortions in the electoral system.
In any event, IAC does not view simply voting in elections as equating
to democracy.

Annie Besant was another foreigner meddling in India. Whatever
secularism she practiced / promoted would not qualify as secularism
today. BTW, secularism does not equate to tolerance.

IAC is apolitical, non-political and secular. .However, this does not
mean that we shall blissfully ignore religion and politics which are
among the most corrupting forces invented.

Sarbajit

.



On 10/2/16, Gaur J K <gaurjk@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Dear Mr. S. Roy thanks for clarifying the change in the name of I.a.c.
> similarly I would appreciate to clarify the word apolitical or nonpolitical
> and secular in a democracy. In my opinion every citizen in a democracy
> ceases to be apolitical once he has exercised the right to vote in favour of
> a political party or its nominee. Merely becoming a member of a political
> party does not make a person or organisation political.
> Like secular party which was formed in England during the time of Annie
> Besant before she shifted to India was against church and its conceptof god.
> In the context of India it should be for the govt. To be secular in dealing
> with citizens . but at individual level one' s own religion will always be
> preferred. But everyone should be tolerant of other religions. Secularism is
> not more than this in my opinion Regds since I.a.c is apolitical and
> secular pls bear with me for the clarification.
>
> On 2 Oct 2016 17:30, Sarbajit Roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com> wrote:
> Dear Shri Gaur,
>
> We are quite open that IAC primarily opposes foreign Imperialism over India,
> whether by UK or USA or China or Russia or any other state. Opposing
> Imperialism / Colonialism does not mean we are communists, far from it.
> Bhagat Singh was not a communist either, no matter what some Left parties
> depict.
>
> BTW: The original name for IAC was "India Against Colonialism".
>
> After 1930 the HRA has consistently operated from behind the scenes and
> intervened at key moments in India's history to preserve the nation, its
> liberties and freedoms.
>
> Sarbajit
>
>
> On Sun, Oct 2, 2016 at 11:12 AM, Gaur J K
> <gaurjk@hotmail.com<mailto:gaurjk@hotmail.com>> wrote:
>
> Since iac is primarily to fight against corruption they should stick to
> exposing corruption. Also because it is nonpolitical why go into extraneous
> issues about social or religious matters whether it is m.Gandhi' s life or
> RSS ideology. If there is corruption certainly expose otherwise don't
> badmouth them or expose your true agenda to fight neo colonialosm of u.s to
> support any other ism you espouse where it is communism or your brand of
> nationalism. Shahid bhagwat Singh is revered by all Indians. But he had a
> short life. So it is matter of conjuncture how he would have shaped life of
> the country if he had lived s full life. Please also enlighten us about
> hindustan republican party' s role after 2930_31 in freedom struggle and
> after independence. Regds n best wishes. Jkgaur
>
>