The Renaming Of India To Bharat: Causes And Effects

There has been debate in the nation of India that its name should be changed to Bharat. It appears that India's Prime Minister Narendra Modi has addressed this to the parliament of that nation.

Naturally may believe that this name change is a racist measure that favors Hindu Nationalism. But does it really? The following that is cited must be taken into consideration.

"The term "Hindu" traces back to Old Persian which derived these names from the Sanskrit name Sindhu (सिन्धु), referring to the river Indus. The Greek cognates of the same terms are "Indus" (for the river) and "India" (for the land of the river)"- Wikipedia.

This Wikipedia reference clearly indicates that India and Hindu have the same root morphology. Therefore India is more associated with Hindu than Bharat is. This reference also cites that Hindu is derived from Sindh and Indus. Two of the first Indian civilizations, Harappa and Mahenjo Daro, were in that region. Because Sindh and the Indus River are now in Independent Pakistan and not Independent India, this name change to Bharat seems to be viable and more appropriate.

The country (varṣam) that lies north of the ocean and south of the snowy mountains is called Bharatam; there dwell the descendants of Bharata. —Vishnu Purana (2. 3. 1) (Ancient Hindu scripture)

The preceding phrase, while stipulated in Ancient Hindu Scripture, has nothing to do with the descendants' religion. Hinduism itself is not a religion. It is a heritage of a people from the country of Bharatam. The Old Testament of The Holy Bible can also be described as a heritage with all its folklore and parables. Both Christianity and Islams are both faith-based, however, and are considered religions due to its core principles and edicts.

In lieu of the foregoing, Bharat refers to a specific geographical land mass from the Indian Ocean in the south to the snowy mountains in the Himalayas and even in those bordering the Afghanistan regions. That describes the Indian sub-continent today.

In the last decades of the 18th century, the British started to refer to that sub-continent as India as the British East India Company had extensive land holdings in South Asia, including the Indus Valley. The name stuck. The name India furthermore received more permanence when that sub-continent became an official colony of the British Empire in 1857. That colony was called British India. While Sindh, the Indus Valley, and the Indus River were part of British India and also previously of the British East Indian Company, they have never been part of Independent India. Hence one reason why today's India would want to be renamed.

So as India is now rapidly trying to remove the colonialist yoke of the British Empire from its nation, would it not be appropriate to rename itself as Bharat? After all, nearly all non-Hindus (one-fifth of India's population) in that nation are viewed as descendants of Bharata and thus hail from Bharatam. The religion/faith, or lack thereof, of any of its people is not a factor. Due to the fact that the name Bharat is far more an irreligious name than India, perhaps this name change is in order.

Representative Republic Ideals-Secondary Features (The United States Senate"s Approval Of Treaties With Foreign Entities)

All prospective legislation for domestic purposes has to originate in the lower house (House Of Representatives). All prospective legislation that deal with all foreign matters, including ratification of treaties, should be approved by the upper house (The U.S. Senate) with a simple majority. Presently a 2/3rds majority vote by the U.S. Senate for treaties with foreign entities is required as cited in the U.S. Constitution. This requirement of voting percentage must change.

The reason for this needed change is simple. The federal government became the sovereign government authority in the aftermath of the American Civil War. This change was designed to make the federal government much more effective and act with much more unison in implementing both foreign and even domestic policy. Therefore ratification of any treaties with foreign entities should only require approval by a simple majority of the U.S. Senate, provided quorum limits are met.

Population-Based Democracy Vs. Area-Based Democracy-(Part Sixteen)

Population-Based Democracy Vs. Area-Based Democracy-(Part Sixteen)

Members of the United States House Of Representatives should be elected by the electoral vote process.

Members of a state delegates/assemblypersons in every state should be elected by the electoral vote process.

Members of the United States Senate for each state should be chosen by the legislatures in each state.

Members of the state senate in each state should be chosen by the legislatures in every locality.

The reason for this is simple. The people who are supposed to be generally sovereign have their electorate choose (elect) members of both the state and federal lower legislative houses. They do this via electoral voting and not by direct voting.

However in the choosing (selection) of members of both the state and federal upper legislative houses, the local and state legislatures should make this choosing (selection) of these state and federal upper legislative houses respectively.

The reason for this difference is the state and federal upper legislative houses should not be extensions of the state and federal lower legislative houses respectively. In order to protect the sovereignty of the People, its electorate must not be given the unbridled authority and responsibility to make the choosing of lawmakers in both houses at both levels. That is too direct democratic and that panders to the "Winds Of Populism".

The core tenant of the protection of People's sovereignty is the protection of rights of the individual(s) except when public safety is at stake and when basic general welfare needs have to be maintained. That is why the choosing of state and federal upper house legislative members must be different than how state and federal lower house legislative are chosen.

It must be noted that in a Representative Democratic Republic mode, sovereign entities do not always do the choosing of public office holders. As a matter of fact, head executives of local governments are chosen by officeholders of subordinate and inferior authority. Federal and state senators must also be chosen by officeholders who have subordinate and inferior authority.

The only difference, in this choosing of local head executives and state and federal upper legislative house members by those of subordinate/inferior authority, is that local legislatures choose its own head executives while state and federal senators are chosen by legislators at a different level.

"Top Two" Primaries- Government Modes

 "Top Two" Primaries- Government Modes

"Top Two" Primaries is a primary which decides the top two candidates who only will be allowed to stand in the general election later in that year.

Imperial Democratic Mode- This mode will use this activity as it will give impetus to the most powerful political party in that specific constituency. This type pf primary could restrict a smaller major political party or a minor party from fielding candidates in the general election. This would also prevent Independents who are not the Top Two candidates from contesting the general elections.

By restricting competition for the general election, this runoff between these two candidates definitely has to be categorized as Imperial Democratic Mode. This mode could have two Republicans running against each other or it could have two Democrats running against each other in the general election. As cited previously, this mode could and would benefit the strongest political party in that constituency.

direct democratic mode- This mode would never use this activity. direct democratic mode allows as many as possible candidates to contest the general election. This mode would actually call for an election system that is converse to the "Top Two Primary".

This mode would mandate that every political party be represented by more than just one eligible political office candidate in the general election. If a political party(s) would be unable to be represented by two or more eligible candidates for a political office in a general election, that political party(s) would be banned from fielding any candidate for that office in a general election.

The preceding implemented measure would certainly limit the stranglehold the political party(s) has over the body politic.

Representative Democratic mode- This mode could use this activity. Representative Democratic mode would allow candidates to freely contest the general election without undermining the political party process. This mode would have an election system that is different to both the "Top Two Primary" system and to the direct democratic system. This mode would have the following.

This mode would allow but not mandate that every political party be represented by more than just one eligible political office candidate in the general election. A political party could still be permitted to field just eligible candidates for a political office. Representative Democratic Mode would all the political party to decide this issue on its own.

The preceding implemented measure would certainly limit the stranglehold a political party would have over the body politic but it would not neuter the effectiveness of the political party process. This mode would not allow the political party(s) to dominate the elections by having exclusive domain over the selections of eligible candidates for political office(s) in a general election. However it would recognize the justifiable importance that political party(s) should have in Representative Democratic governance. Therefore this mode would not mandate but would only permit that political party(s) can have more than that just one representative in the general election if it so chooses.

Representative Democratic mode could allow "Top Two Primary" if it was allowed by a state's constitution or by a locality's by-laws which are approved by the majority of members in both legislative houses, pro quorum limits being met. However anyone can still contend for office in the general election. Only the two candidates who receive the highest and second highest number of votes in the "Top Two Primary" will have their names on the general election ballot. The other candidates who wish to compete in the general election will have to be a write-in candidate.

Russia-Ukraine Conflict- The Consequences (Part Three & Part Four)

 Russia-Ukraine Conflict- The Consequences (Part Three)

It is not just NATO nations who want Ukraine to fight to its last man as NATO is using Ukraine as its Private Military Contractor. While only 2% of the elected officials in Kyiv Parliament belong to Far Right parties, a significant minority if not the majority of Ukrainians in Western and even Northern Ukraine harbor strong anti-Russian sentiments. So many Ukrainians would "cut their own throat" than meekly surrender to the Russians.

They have utmost contempt for the "Bolshevik hordes" from the East. The Azov Battalion (militia), the Armed Forces Of Ukraine, the Ukraine's secret police (SBU), and its regular police force in those regions in Ukraine strongly reflect this.

Russia-Ukraine Conflict- The Consequences (Part Four)

As Ukraine continues to protract this "war" with Russia, it will do so at its own peril. Ukraine has at least 300,000 soldiers who will never be able to contribute to the war effort again. That is well over 40% of its total military. More importantly the majority of their highly competent professional soldiers have been totally depleted. This means even if NATO continues to send to Ukraine much more sophisticated military equipment, Ukraine will not have the sufficient staff to operate all of this.

Russia has nearly 200,000 soldiers who will never be able to fight for it again. However their military is stronger than it has ever been in terms of equipment (quantity and quality) and in terms of troop numbers. In the last two years, Russia has only spent 30% of its government budget on defense while Ukraine's gross national product is far less than one half of what it was prior to the Russian invasion. As Ukraine will sooner or later collapse at the pace of fighting, Russia will change its objectives for the third time to achieve the following.

1. De-militarization of all of Ukraine and not just de-militarization of Ukraine of its NATO military presence.

2. De-nazification of all of Ukraine and not just de-nazification of the Donbas.

3. Takeover of most of the Kharkiv Oblast (state) to "liberate" the ethnic Russians as they did claim to have done in the Donbas. Many ethnic Russians in the Kharkiv Oblast, according to Russia, have complained about discrimination meted out to them by the Ukrainian government.

4. Extending the land bridge through the Mykolaiv Oblast to the Odesa Oblast. This would landlock Ukraine as it would totally cut of its access to the Black Sea.

5. The foregoing will cause Russia to state its new objective: the removal of the current Western Powers-controlled Kyiv regime.

Ukraine will collapse by next year if they continue to fight Russia in the attempts of taking over the territory that Russia annexed at its territory 1.5 years ago. When it does, Russia may have to go into the interior of Ukraine to stave off collapse of the Ukrainian people. Poland and Romanian may have to do the same in Western Ukraine. Once everything is stabilised in Ukraine, no one should be surprised if Poland and Romania also slice off chunks of Ukrainian territory for themselves.

Russia-Ukraine Conflict- The Consequences (Part One and Part Two)

Russia-Ukraine Conflict- The Consequences (Part One)

In early April 2022, six weeks after the Russian intervention, the heads of both Russia and Ukraine had a chance to reach permanent peace without Russia acquiring one extra inch of Ukrainian territory.

All Russia asked of Ukraine were these five conditions.

1. Ukraine must get rid of any and all foreign military presence on its soil. 2. Ukraine must never join NATO and must always be neutral. 3. Ukraine must recognize the independence sovereignty of the Donetsk People's Republic (DPR) and the Luhansk People's Republic (LPR) at least on a de facto basis. This means Ukraine would renounce all attempts to re-acquire the LPR and DPR as its sole purpose by military means. 4. Ukraine must recognize Crimea as part of the Russian Federation on a de jure basis. Since the Russian takeover of Crimea in 2014, Ukraine has not recognized Crimea as part of Russian territory even on a de facto basis. 5. Ukraine must protect the rights of Ukrainian citizens in Donbas who are of Russian ethnicity. Ukraine must allow these citizens to be taught in the language of their choice and they must also allow them to attend religious institutions of their choice. In other words, Russia wanted Ukraine to enforce most of the basic tenants of the Minsk 2 Accords.

United Kingdom's Prime Minister Boris Johnson told Ukrainian President V. Zelensky to not accept this peace deal with Russia. If Ukraine was truly a sovereign and independent nation, Zelensky would not have been influenced by Johnson and the UK. Since the U.K. actively collaborates with the USA Deep State, it certainly would appear that the USA also pressured Zelensky to not accept this totally reasonable peace deal with Russia. This conflict could, would, and should have ended in early April 2022.

Russia-Ukraine Conflict- The Consequences (Part Two)

Russian President V.Putin stated in the Tucker Carlson interview on February 8th of this year that Russia would settle for a permanent ceasefire with Ukraine if Ukraine did the following.

1. Ukraine must recognize the de facto status of the Russian Federation takeover of most of the Donbas, Zaporizhzhia, and Kherson regions as they have already given such recognition to the Russian takeover of Crimea, which took place ten years ago.

2. Ukraine must change its recognition status of Crimea as part of the Russian from de facto to de jure.

3. Ukraine cannot just freeze the conflict with Russia as Russia demands a peace treaty.

4. Ukraine must incorporate in its constitution that it cannot have a foreign military presence on its "soil". Russia insists that the Ukraine military be indigenously operated.

The following demands that V. Putin laid out are totally reasonable. These demands do not call for any type of "de-nazification" of the Ukrainian government. In addition these demands do not prohibit Ukraine from importing military weapons nor do they restrict Ukraine's military in any manner. Furthermore these demands do not at all ban Ukraine from joining the European Union if Ukraine chooses to do so. Finally Russia is not prohibiting any Western nation from giving Ukraine war guarantees if Russia were to invade in the future.

Yet Ukraine has declined this offer that Russia has been offering for over a year and a half. Russia has held back and has only fought defensively since "liberating" those territories in the summer of 2022. Russia chose to act with restraint because the Russian government have fraternal sentiments in their view of the Ukrainian people. Quite a few members of the Russian government have labeled this war as a civil war and not a war between disparate nations. Putin has often expressed his solidarity with the Ukrainian people as he has said that Ukrainians and Russians are the same people just living in two nations.

Because Ukraine has rejected this offer as it is presumed that the Collective West will not allow Ukraine to accept, Russia may have no alternative but to do the following. That following will be detailed in the next post. Since Ukraine due to the insistence of NATO nations demands that Russia abandon all territory it took from Ukraine (including Crimes), Russia will have no choice but to pursue the objectives outlined in the next post.

They have utmost contempt for the "Bolshevik hordes" from the East. The Azov Battalion (militia), the Armed Forces Of Ukraine, the Ukraine's secret police (SBU), and its regular police force in those regions in Ukraine strongly reflect this.They have utmost contempt for the "Bolshevik hordes" from the East. The Azov Battalion (militia), the Armed Forces Of Ukraine, the Ukraine's secret police (SBU), and its regular police force in those regions in Ukraine strongly reflect this.All reactions:

All reactions