Election Format Of Letter Of Authority: Fill & Download for Free

The President of India has unfettered prerogative in formation of the Government. He can consult many or any. But he is bound by none. His constitutional duty is to appoint a Prime Minister who will form a stable government. There is a convention to invite the leader of the largest party or pre-poll alliance. These opposition power brokers could not form any pre-poll alliance due to competing claims of their leaders for Prime Ministership. Now, they have hastened to plot a new game of the post-poll alliance. But such a proposition needs to meet the presidential discretion. The paramount need is a stable government. As the highest constitutional authority, the President needs to address that. However, such a need will not arise. The BJP led NDA will be in the majority.

It was a sad day in the history of Karnataka. One of the most pious, one of the most dharmic, and one of the communities whose culture is unique to Karnataka has been divided. At what cost and why has it been done? All in the name of elections! All in the name of politics. Basically, Veerashaiva-Lingayat communities have been viewed as one from a long time. Veerashaiva community is ancient and predates Basavanna. Lingayats are those who embraced the philosophy after the birth of Basavanna. Basavanna, a Brahmin by birth himself embraced Veerashaiva philosophy and encouraged a society which would be devoid of castes and people from various communities got inspired by his ideals and embraced the philosophy. One difference between Veerashaivas and Lingayats is that Veerashaivas follow some Vedic practices, thereby acknowledging them whereas Lingayats don’t do so.In Karnataka, as far as politics is concerned, Veerashaiva-Lingayat community is one of the most dominant ones in the state and from the late 1980s, it has generally supported the Bharatiya Janata Party or the BJP. In the 1980s, Chief Minister Veerendra Patil who was a Lingayat from Kalburgi, was insulted by the Congress leadership which was under Rajiv Gandhi. The community never forgot this and drifted apart from the Congress. Since, then, it has consistently backed the BJP. It is the only dominant community which the BJP can consider as its vote bank. Now, the Congress Party is in a desperate situation in the country. Reduced to power in just three states, it is imperative for them to retain power in Karnataka which quite frankly is the only major state apart from Punjab. Siddaramaiah government is by and large unpopular as is the opposition led by the BJP making it extremely difficult to predict the outcome of the upcoming elections.Now, the Siddaramaiah government realises that if it can split the votes within the Veerashaiva-Lingayat community, it can cause damage to BJP’s chances. Also, there have been protests going on from a long time from certain Lingayat groups that have called for a separate religion. It is a long term demand. But the interesting thing is that although Karnataka has seen 8 Lingayat Chief Ministers, not one of them actually implemented it. Although the Congress led UPA government had rejected the demand for a separate Veerashaiva-Lingayat religion in 2013, the present Congress government in Karnataka had constituted a committee under the leadership of Justice Nagamohan Das which submitted its report based on which the government has recommended that Lingayats must be considered a separate religion.However, there is a catch. Only Lingayats and Veerashaivas who follow Basavanna’s teachings are eligible to be considered as followers of this new religion. The thing is that not all Veerashaivas follow Basavanna and it is quite natural because the philosophy predates the great man which is why the Akhila Bharata Veerashaiva Mahasabha has condemned the state government for dividing the two communities.Govt decision height of injustice: Shamanur ShivashankarappaAlso, the committee which was formed by the state government consisted of the following members.Retired high court judge H.N. Nagamohan Das; former chairman of the Karnataka State Backward Classes Commission C.S. Dwarkanath; political scientist Muzaffar Assadi; head of the Kannada Language Chair at JNU Purushottam Bilimale; chairman of Kannada Development Authority S.G. Siddaramaiah; and noted journalist Saraju Katkar. Not one among them is a Lingayat.Lingayat row: Deadline set for panel to submit reportAfter the committee submitted its report, the state government was pressurised by both the parties, ones who wanted a separate religion tag for Lingayats and those who didn’t want to split the Veerashaiva-Lingyat community.Lingayat Seers Amp up Pressure on Siddaramaiah for Separate Religion Status, Veerashaivas Oppose itNow, yesterday, the state government accepted the committe’s demands and recommended to the centre to recognise Lingayatism as a separate religion. There was a severe backlash on social media and in the state as such and many people have condemned the state government. Stung by allegations, the CM responded on Twitter in the following manner to which my response was as shown below.In 1871, Mysore was still under the British administration as the Maharaja Chamarajendra Wodeyar was a minor. By admitting that you have used 1871 census data, you have admitted that your government has emulated the divide and rule policy of the British administration. pic.twitter.com/9vrk7NmZmW— Aditya Kulkarni (@adikulk) March 20, 2018I even checked with historian and author of The Splendours of Royal Mysore, Vikram Sampath and he confirmed what I reckoned.yes to Chamaraja Wodeyar X in 1881 in the "Rendition of Mysore" after they annexed it from his adopted father on maladmin charges— Vikram Sampath (@vikramsampath) March 20, 2018The state government is just using the issue for the benefit of its parent party. The move will not actually benefit the Lingayat community as the Congress is claiming that it is helping the community. Rather, it will deprive them of benefits they are already getting.Why minority status is only a tag and will not benefit Lingayats in realityAlso, the suit that was filed questioning the formation of a committee in the first place is pending in the Karnataka High Court. Just imagine if the court rules that the committee formed is void because there is no Lingayat member in the committee.I wonder how come the CM of Karnataka can suddenly declare that 17% of the state population are not Hindus. How can the state government create a new religion just like that. One of the biggest blunders of the 20th century was Max Mueller and other Western philosophers translating Dharma as religion which was exploited to the maximum extent by British colonial rulers. So, Jainism, Buddhism, and Sikhism became separate religions.The Congress Party has inherited the “divide and rule” policy of the British which is why this issue has got escalated to this extent. Funny thing is that in 2013, the same Congress party had rejected the demand while it was ruling the centre in the form of UPA. Equally funny is the fact that BS Yeddyurappa had supported this demand in the same year when he was in the Karnataka Janata Paksha or the KJP.UPA had denied separate religion tag to Lingayat in 2013Yeddyurappa's doublespeak on Lingayat row: Letter shows he had supported demand for separate religionPersonally I feel that this move will hurt the Congress rather than benefit it as its leaders are hoping. And it will hurt in a very bad way. Judging by the huge backlash this has caused among Veerashaiva-Lingayat community members, the Congress is appearing as a villain. Meanwhile, the BJP and the JDS are playing it safe. Both have condemned the move as an election gimmick and have declared that they will abide by the decision taken by the Akhila Bharata Veerashaiva Mahasabha. What this move will do is that it will lead to polarisation of votes. Many people will feel and are already feeling that Congress divides Hindus. There was even a hashtag of the same on Twitter. History suggests that whenever a political party tries to divide, it bites the dust in the elections.In 2014, the Congress ridiculously split Andhra Pradesh into two states which led to the formation of Telangana. It was routed in the subsequent elections in both the states. In 2016, I’m told that the Akali Dal-BJP alliance tried to divide the Sikh community which backfired on them and they lost the Punjab elections. Same thing might happen in Karnataka as well judging by the initial reactions in which many members of Lingayat-Veerashaiva community have condemned the state government as have intellectuals like Santosh Hegde.Footnotes:Lingayat issue: Santosh Hegde slams Karnataka govt, says it has no business in recognising any community as religion - FirstpostFor Lingayats here, only unity and values matterHave You Set Out To Abandon The Very Fundamentals Of Basavanna‘s Teachings?

There’s a lot of ways to go on this one - as one person has already noted, George III was not the leading force in the various acts that fueled the American Revolution (by which I mean the political movement, not the American Revolutionary War that was a subset of the above). It was the British Parliament that passed the various taxation acts to which the nascent revolutionaries objected. But I think the best question to ask is whether or not anything the British did, past a certain point, could have avoided the formation of the United States.Let’s look at the actual events. From 1756 - 1763, the United Kingdom engaged in the first true global war - the Seven Years War (known in the United States as the French and Indian War) against the Kingdom of France. This war involved theatres of battle as far-flung as Poland, as modern-day Ohio, as India, as Senegal. This war was provoked by the clash of French and British colonial expansion in what is now Pennsylvania, and quickly accelerated into the largest war the world had ever seen in terms of material and money. Although ultimately successful, British gains in the Seven Years War were not lucrative. The colony of Quebec was the largest British gain - giving them a large and hostile population of Francophones to rule in a place with minimal economic gain. Some small Caribbean islands were also included in the transfer, and from Spain the British received the swampy and disease ridden peninsula of Florida. France was able to keep its extensive Caribbean possessions, specifically Haiti, that brought in crazy money from sugar; Spain kept Mexico and its other gold-producing colonies. Quite frankly, Britain needed more money, and it only seemed fair to Parliament that the area that had required protection pay for it.The original taxes passed were not severe - they did not cripple large sections of the American economy as the Molasses Act did in 1733, for example - but it coincided with the growing belief in the United States that it was unfair for England to expect to collect taxes from the colonies - colonies full of English citizens, it should be noted - without representation in Parliament. Quite a few names you’ll recognize wished no more than to elect their own members of Parliament in the early years of the Revolution, led by none other than Benjamin Franklin. Indeed, Franklin’s arguments caused several contentious acts to be repealed rather than enforced, though the situation grew more dire with every subsequent act.One of the reasons the situation got more intense was because there was a segment of the American population that was incredibly opposed to all attempts at taxation. This group, run out of Boston, was called the Sons of Liberty. Although regarded as heroes in the modern day, I suspect their tactics would raise some eyebrows. They organized boycotts, yes, and spread pamphlets; they also burned buildings and looted houses to those whom they opposed. The question that Franklin was able to pose to Parliament changed from “Is it fair to tax us without representation?”, to “Are you willing to send an army to the colonies to enforce this tax?” With each escalation; each new tax and each new act of violence (there’s a word that describes it better, but you can come up with it on your own. Hint, it starts with the letter T), the cycle continued.I am somewhat over-simplifying the role of the Sons of Liberty as a group. It became more of a nom de guerre for those who wished to perform violence against the Crown as time went on, and less of an organized group as it had originally been in 1765, but the process of taxation followed by violence increased over time. When the British seized John Hancock’s ship Liberty for smuggling against the Townshend Acts, there was a riot. In response, the British re-instituted the Treason Acts, which led to the Boston Massacre. After the Massacre (and subsequent trial, in which John Adams got the soldiers off most charges), the British rescinded, again, all taxes, save one on tea.The story of escalation followed by de-escalation continued, as Samuel Adams, yes, the beer guy, among others pushed for further action. This led to the burning of a British warship, which understandably upset the British side further. The British began discussing counters; these letters were leaked by Franklin, who was tired of the cycle and was clearly emphasizing more with the revolutionary side of things. This was then used as a pretext for further violence.At this point, most of us should know the rest of the story - the Intolerable Acts were passed, Boston especially got pissed off, the British sent soldiers, the Americans sent minutemen, and at Lexington the second true global war began - the American Revolutionary War. Something else happened around the same time, though - the First Continental Congress was formed, and there we can see the truth of the matter: there were a core of brilliant, charismatic men who were truly dedicated to a permanent break with the United Kingdom. Men like Samuel Adams and his cousin John; a fellow like Patrick Henry of Virginia; someone like Roger Sherman, who is the only signatory of all four of the primary founding documents of the United States. Their own words show their goals:“If you, or Colonel Dalrymple under you, have the power to remove one regiment you have the power to remove both. It is at your peril if you refuse. The meeting is composed of three thousand people. They have become impatient. A thousand men are already arrived from the neighborhood, and the whole country is in motion. Night is approaching. An immediate answer is expected. Both regiments or none!” - Samuel Adams, Address to Governor Thomas Hutchinson following the Boston Massacre, March 6, 1770, seeming to invite a conflict.“The virtuous asserter of the rights of mankind merits a reward, which even a want of success in his endeavors to save his country, the heaviest misfortune which can befall a genuine patriot, cannot entirely prevent him from receiving. I have the most animating confidence that the present noble struggle for liberty will terminate gloriously for America.” - John Hancock, Boston Massacre Oration, March 5, 1774, placing the struggle for American rights as the utmost cause.“Opposition, nay, open, avowed resistance by arms, against usurpation and lawless violence, is not rebellion by the law of God or the land. Resistance to lawful authority makes rebellion. … Remember the frank Veteran acknowledges, that "the word rebel is a convertible term." - John Adams in Novanglus Essays No. 5, arguing that fighting a supposed tyrant is a virtue - and indeed, the old adage that the term “rebel” depends on the point of view.“It is vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, Peace, peace! But there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!” - Patrick Henry to the Second Virginia Convention, 23 March, 1775.All of these men were writing or speaking before Lexington and Concord, and progressively preparing and encouraging what would become the American people towards an armed insurrection against their British overlords and forebears. These voices were influential, and there are more - many more. They convinced enough of the colonists to move towards revolutionary independence, rather than taking a softer approach as other colonial nations did. To the adherents of American Revolutionary thought, it was completely untenable for the British to quarter troops and levy taxes upon the Colonies without representation, and eventually, at all; for the British, it was completely untenable for the colonies to have such say or to go lawless. The two were at complete and total odds.The American Revolutionaries wished the war to come; they used violence as well as cajolery to push the British into more untenable positions; each one another nail in the coffin that was peaceable relations. This is why there is no chance that a more lenient crown might have offered a more peaceful resolution - there were factions in the Thirteen Colonies that absolutely desired a violent end to British rule in the same lands, fueled on by the political change known as the American Revolution, possibly the most important political movement in Western history. In American common parlance, the Patriots were men cornered by an evil tyranny, but in reality, they were far more complex. They were men who believed they had a better way of doing things. That they could form - to steal a phrase from a later American patriot you might have heard of - a more perfect union than the British had. And that is why the war was inevitable - that is why the formation of the United States had become a near certainty.