Загрузка видео...

Не удалось загрузить видео

Возникла проблема при загрузке этого видео. Это может быть связано с временными проблемами сети или видео может быть недоступно.

На главную

‼️ Fun with Facts about constitution & Bhimta‼️ That one Ambedkar-paglu teacher: “Constitution sirf Papa Ambedkar ne likha tha. Baaki members unko pencil chheel-chheel ke de rahe the.” Student hits with actual history: >> 389-member Constituent Assembly >> Collective drafting, not one-man show. >> Nearly 75% taken from the... show more

Mr Parle G

5,765 subscribers

30,719 просмотров • 1 месяц назад •via X (Twitter)

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

Комментарии: 8

Фото профиля ठाकुर नीरज शाही विशेन (सनातनी हिंदू 🚩🚩)

ठाकुर नीरज शाही विशेन (सनातनी हिंदू 🚩🚩)1 месяц назад

Ye apne अच्छी बात बोली

Фото профиля Mr Parle G

Mr Parle G1 месяц назад

Fraud

Фото профиля Pratik Patidar

Pratik Patidar28 дней назад

Achha hai Sir ne SC/ST act nai lagaya student pe

Фото профиля iamurshadow

iamurshadow1 месяц назад

Truth hurts 😂

Фото профиля dalit but not bheemta

dalit but not bheemta29 дней назад

👌

Фото профиля ठाकुर नीरज शाही विशेन (सनातनी हिंदू 🚩🚩)

ठाकुर नीरज शाही विशेन (सनातनी हिंदू 🚩🚩)1 месяц назад

अच्छा वीडियो है भीमटो की तो रेल बना दिया भाइयों ने

Фото профиля TheBlank

TheBlank29 дней назад

@narendramodi ji इसी अध्यापक से पढ़ कर आए हैं

Фото профиля i hate corruption 😡

i hate corruption 😡1 месяц назад

👇

Похожие видео

This is on BJP. It’s the BJP which amended the SC-ST Act, to make sure that no one can speak truth about Ambedkar, Phule and Periyar. If anyone is blaming this on X, Y, Z leader or particular CM of BJP, they are trying to save BJP. Brahman men are being jailed, an Advocate with years of standing at the Bar is behind bars because Ambedkarite cretins cannot digest the truth about their false God. But Anil Mishra is not just a person today. He speaks for crores of people who refuse to bow down to Ambedkar and worship a British sepoy & Devnindak. The more you try to suppress him, the more it would embolden us to speak the truth. #Release_Anil_Mishra #BJPHatesBrahmin #Anti_Hindu_BJP

This is on BJP. It’s the BJP which amended the SC-ST Act, to make sure that no one can speak truth about Ambedkar, Phule and Periyar. If anyone is blaming this on X, Y, Z leader or particular CM of BJP, they are trying to save BJP. Brahman men are being jailed, an Advocate with years of standing at the Bar is behind bars because Ambedkarite cretins cannot digest the truth about their false God. But Anil Mishra is not just a person today. He speaks for crores of people who refuse to bow down to Ambedkar and worship a British sepoy & Devnindak. The more you try to suppress him, the more it would embolden us to speak the truth. #Release_Anil_Mishra #BJPHatesBrahmin #Anti_Hindu_BJP

Adv Deepika Sharma

49,610 просмотров • 9 месяцев назад

With just 240 MPs, a Govt. on borrowed time is attempting to REWRITE THE CONSTITUTION. Without following procedure, without even placing the Bills before members, BJP is trying to bulldoze democracy with the 130th Constitutional Amendment. This regime has mastered one thing: weaponising its “Double E” machinery. When the Election Commission could not be twisted to their tune, they unleashed the Enforcement Directorate, with an ulterior motive to jail Opposition leaders, topple elected govts, and steal people’s mandate. If corruption was the concern, why did Opposition leaders under probe get instant reprieve after joining BJP’s WASHING MACHINE? This Bill is not about cleansing politics, it’s about CLEANSING OPPOSITION. What we have today is a Govt. that wants to sell the soul of India, tear apart our Constitution, and hand over our beloved country to INEFFICIENT, POWER-HUNGRY TYRANTS to be run like their private estate. This is DICTATORSHIP in broad daylight. This is a SUPER EMERGENCY. But India will not bend, Bengal will not bow. We will fight, we will resist, and we will protect the India envisioned by Mahatma Gandhi and Dr. BR Ambedkar, not the India hijacked by PM Modi and HM Amit Shah.

With just 240 MPs, a Govt. on borrowed time is attempting to REWRITE THE CONSTITUTION. Without following procedure, without even placing the Bills before members, BJP is trying to bulldoze democracy with the 130th Constitutional Amendment. This regime has mastered one thing: weaponising its “Double E” machinery. When the Election Commission could not be twisted to their tune, they unleashed the Enforcement Directorate, with an ulterior motive to jail Opposition leaders, topple elected govts, and steal people’s mandate. If corruption was the concern, why did Opposition leaders under probe get instant reprieve after joining BJP’s WASHING MACHINE? This Bill is not about cleansing politics, it’s about CLEANSING OPPOSITION. What we have today is a Govt. that wants to sell the soul of India, tear apart our Constitution, and hand over our beloved country to INEFFICIENT, POWER-HUNGRY TYRANTS to be run like their private estate. This is DICTATORSHIP in broad daylight. This is a SUPER EMERGENCY. But India will not bend, Bengal will not bow. We will fight, we will resist, and we will protect the India envisioned by Mahatma Gandhi and Dr. BR Ambedkar, not the India hijacked by PM Modi and HM Amit Shah.

All India Trinamool Congress

96,756 просмотров • 1 год назад

This is India in 2026! A baba with ZERO children. ZERO wife. ZERO accountability. Is telling YOUR family to produce 4 kids, and hand one over to RSS. Not to ISRO. Not to the Army. Not to a school. To a private organisation with ZERO constitutional status. Facts they won’t show on Godi media: → India is the world’s most populous nation (overtook China in 2023) → India’s TFR is already 2.0; at replacement level → Article 21 of the Constitution protects your reproductive autonomy; no baba, no Sangh owns your womb → RSS has no constitutional mandate; it is a private body, period. Fraud Baba Dhirendra Shastri violated all of this in one sentence; in front of Bhagwat, Fadnavis & Gadkari. None objected. Nations that develop invest in education, employment & innovation. Nations that collapse invest in population for private armies. Ambedkar didn’t write the Constitution so a fraud baba could override it from a temple stage in Nagpur. RSS’s real hurdle to India’s development isn’t minorities; it’s this exact agenda. Wake up. 🇮🇳

This is India in 2026! A baba with ZERO children. ZERO wife. ZERO accountability. Is telling YOUR family to produce 4 kids, and hand one over to RSS. Not to ISRO. Not to the Army. Not to a school. To a private organisation with ZERO constitutional status. Facts they won’t show on Godi media: → India is the world’s most populous nation (overtook China in 2023) → India’s TFR is already 2.0; at replacement level → Article 21 of the Constitution protects your reproductive autonomy; no baba, no Sangh owns your womb → RSS has no constitutional mandate; it is a private body, period. Fraud Baba Dhirendra Shastri violated all of this in one sentence; in front of Bhagwat, Fadnavis & Gadkari. None objected. Nations that develop invest in education, employment & innovation. Nations that collapse invest in population for private armies. Ambedkar didn’t write the Constitution so a fraud baba could override it from a temple stage in Nagpur. RSS’s real hurdle to India’s development isn’t minorities; it’s this exact agenda. Wake up. 🇮🇳

Sincere Dibya

32,569 просмотров • 5 месяцев назад

#WATCH | Delhi: On Congress Parliamentary Party chairperson Sonia Gandhi's statement, BJP National Spokesperson and MP Sambit Patra says, "...I respectfully tell Sonia Gandhi that to preserve Nehru's legacy, the Congress Party has destroyed many great men's legacies, including Vallabhbhai Patel, who was marginalised within the party... Similarly, Subhash Chandra Bose was neglected for many years... The way Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru treated Babasaheb Ambedkar, who authored the Indian Constitution and was Chairman of the Drafting Committee of the Indian Constitution, is no secret... The BJP is trying to rectify history and give due credit to the people who really contributed to the independence of this country and to its various facets... We clearly say that without Pandit Nehru, there would have been no Kashmir problem... Sonia Gandhi said Nehru was the prime architect of the modern Indian nation-state, but we believe she is wrong on this point. It is Babasaheb Ambedkar who created the Constitution that guides India today. Therefore, this self-congratulation and prioritisation of the Gandhi-Nehru family should be stopped..." He adds, "...What contribution did Sonia Gandhi and her family make to India's freedom struggle? Everyone here, directly or indirectly, participated in some way. But she was not from this country, so she shouldn't ask about our contribution... Regarding finishing Nehru's legacy, I believe the present clan of Gandhis - who are out on bail in the National Herald case - will do best at finishing it... Tomorrow, when Vande Mataram is discussed in Parliament, the true character of Nehru will be revealed to everyone."

#WATCH | Delhi: On Congress Parliamentary Party chairperson Sonia Gandhi's statement, BJP National Spokesperson and MP Sambit Patra says, "...I respectfully tell Sonia Gandhi that to preserve Nehru's legacy, the Congress Party has destroyed many great men's legacies, including Vallabhbhai Patel, who was marginalised within the party... Similarly, Subhash Chandra Bose was neglected for many years... The way Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru treated Babasaheb Ambedkar, who authored the Indian Constitution and was Chairman of the Drafting Committee of the Indian Constitution, is no secret... The BJP is trying to rectify history and give due credit to the people who really contributed to the independence of this country and to its various facets... We clearly say that without Pandit Nehru, there would have been no Kashmir problem... Sonia Gandhi said Nehru was the prime architect of the modern Indian nation-state, but we believe she is wrong on this point. It is Babasaheb Ambedkar who created the Constitution that guides India today. Therefore, this self-congratulation and prioritisation of the Gandhi-Nehru family should be stopped..." He adds, "...What contribution did Sonia Gandhi and her family make to India's freedom struggle? Everyone here, directly or indirectly, participated in some way. But she was not from this country, so she shouldn't ask about our contribution... Regarding finishing Nehru's legacy, I believe the present clan of Gandhis - who are out on bail in the National Herald case - will do best at finishing it... Tomorrow, when Vande Mataram is discussed in Parliament, the true character of Nehru will be revealed to everyone."

ANI

61,475 просмотров • 10 месяцев назад

Shri Kameshwar Singh, a member of the Constituent Assembly, said - 'This Parliament, again, is a provisional one and it cannot be said to be reflecting the will of the people in the way the Constitution wants Parliament to reflect it. For a Government or a Parliament of this kind it is highly improper to make such fundamental changes in the Constitution without making any reference to public opinion, and that too at the fag end of a strenuous parliamentary session and almost on the eve of a General Election.' He again says - 'Do they not show utter disregard for the Constitution when they attempt to amend it simply because some of the laws have been criticised and found invalid by the Judiciary?' 'The Prime Minister, I am constrained to say, is creating a bad precedent by sowing the seed of executive despotism and playing with the supremacy of the Constitution for party advantages,' he further says. So, there was no doubt that the Amendment was brought for the sake of party, the Prime Minister, or the government's image. - Smt Nirmala Sitharaman in Rajya Sabha.

Shri Kameshwar Singh, a member of the Constituent Assembly, said - 'This Parliament, again, is a provisional one and it cannot be said to be reflecting the will of the people in the way the Constitution wants Parliament to reflect it. For a Government or a Parliament of this kind it is highly improper to make such fundamental changes in the Constitution without making any reference to public opinion, and that too at the fag end of a strenuous parliamentary session and almost on the eve of a General Election.' He again says - 'Do they not show utter disregard for the Constitution when they attempt to amend it simply because some of the laws have been criticised and found invalid by the Judiciary?' 'The Prime Minister, I am constrained to say, is creating a bad precedent by sowing the seed of executive despotism and playing with the supremacy of the Constitution for party advantages,' he further says. So, there was no doubt that the Amendment was brought for the sake of party, the Prime Minister, or the government's image. - Smt Nirmala Sitharaman in Rajya Sabha.

Nirmala Sitharaman Office

15,238 просмотров • 1 год назад

Constitution framers were very wise people who deeply believed in national welfare. They debated for 18 sessions for a little less than three years. There was no confrontation. There were no disturbance, no disruption. There were dialogue, debate, discussion and deliberation. They framed one rule. The judges will be appointed under Article 124 and the word consultation was used. Consultation is not concurrence. Consultation is consultation. Article 124 was very specific and with respect to it, we have a very important discourse by Dr. B. R. Ambedkar and I quote, “To allow the Chief Justice practically a veto upon the appointment of a judge is really to transfer the authority to the Chief Justice which we are not prepared to vest in the President or the Government of the day. I therefore think that is also a dangerous proposition.” But in the Second Judge’s case in 1993, the court interpreted consultation will be read as concurrence. The two words are different. But the bench did not notice that Indian Constitution uses these words consultation and concurrence in the same article. Article 370 with respect to the then state of Jammu and Kashmir has both expressions in the same sub-articles. How can these two words used differently by the constituent assembly members in the Constitution be read differently? Now the situation is engaging attention of everyone. And it is our obligation as citizens of this country to think about how things have to evolve. #RajyaSabha

Constitution framers were very wise people who deeply believed in national welfare. They debated for 18 sessions for a little less than three years. There was no confrontation. There were no disturbance, no disruption. There were dialogue, debate, discussion and deliberation. They framed one rule. The judges will be appointed under Article 124 and the word consultation was used. Consultation is not concurrence. Consultation is consultation. Article 124 was very specific and with respect to it, we have a very important discourse by Dr. B. R. Ambedkar and I quote, “To allow the Chief Justice practically a veto upon the appointment of a judge is really to transfer the authority to the Chief Justice which we are not prepared to vest in the President or the Government of the day. I therefore think that is also a dangerous proposition.” But in the Second Judge’s case in 1993, the court interpreted consultation will be read as concurrence. The two words are different. But the bench did not notice that Indian Constitution uses these words consultation and concurrence in the same article. Article 370 with respect to the then state of Jammu and Kashmir has both expressions in the same sub-articles. How can these two words used differently by the constituent assembly members in the Constitution be read differently? Now the situation is engaging attention of everyone. And it is our obligation as citizens of this country to think about how things have to evolve. #RajyaSabha

Vice-President of India

73,726 просмотров • 1 год назад

Also, there's a specific part that was completely misunderstood and taken entirely out of context! CHANYEOL was just explaining that he was super thin at debut (1st pic), then got obsessed with bulking up after his military discharge (2nd pic). He already shared before that he went through a hard time back then, and in this clip, he was JUST ADDRESSING the fans' reactions to that period. Then, he found a healthy, balanced routine that got him to his current body (last pic) which he achieved entirely for himself and because HE wanted to, NOT because it’s what fans preferred When one of the MCs asked him about fan preferences, he just answered that they usually like lean figures (WHICH IS WAY TOO FAR FROM HIS CURRENT BUILD). He was literally just answering a question, NOT saying that’s how he OR the members supposed to look! He was just saying he advised the members not to get too obsessed with bulking up THE WAY HE DID! He was referring to the unhealthy mindset and habits that came with it. He NEVER once told them to lose weight “가시” The build that fans prefer is something that neither CHANYEOL NOR any of the members look like, AND HE NEVER told anyone to look like that. I just hope people watch the full video and understand the full context instead of relying on mistranslations and misinformation that take his words completely OUT OF CONTEXT 🙏

Also, there's a specific part that was completely misunderstood and taken entirely out of context! CHANYEOL was just explaining that he was super thin at debut (1st pic), then got obsessed with bulking up after his military discharge (2nd pic). He already shared before that he went through a hard time back then, and in this clip, he was JUST ADDRESSING the fans' reactions to that period. Then, he found a healthy, balanced routine that got him to his current body (last pic) which he achieved entirely for himself and because HE wanted to, NOT because it’s what fans preferred When one of the MCs asked him about fan preferences, he just answered that they usually like lean figures (WHICH IS WAY TOO FAR FROM HIS CURRENT BUILD). He was literally just answering a question, NOT saying that’s how he OR the members supposed to look! He was just saying he advised the members not to get too obsessed with bulking up THE WAY HE DID! He was referring to the unhealthy mindset and habits that came with it. He NEVER once told them to lose weight “가시” The build that fans prefer is something that neither CHANYEOL NOR any of the members look like, AND HE NEVER told anyone to look like that. I just hope people watch the full video and understand the full context instead of relying on mistranslations and misinformation that take his words completely OUT OF CONTEXT 🙏

PCY BASE

10,958 просмотров • 3 месяцев назад

$1994. Constituent Assembly, Kampala. Akbar Adoko Nekyon paused to speak. He had been Obote's first cousin, a minister in the independence government, a key player in the 1966 crisis that shattered Uganda's first democracy. Now, before a chamber that included President Museveni, the old politician declared, "I have changed." The Maverick's Confession: Nekyon at the Constituent Assembly - 1994 To understand the weight of those words, one had to understand 1966. Nekyon had been a central figure in the UPC/KY alliance that brought Obote to power. He had helped build the very political order that Obote then destroyed, suspending the constitution and attacking the Kabaka's palace. Nekyon had crossed the floor to the Democratic Party after that fracture. Now, nearly three decades later, dressed in a cream Kaunda suit, he sat before the assembly tasked with writing Uganda's new constitution and made a declaration that was both personal and political: The ability to change one's mind is not a weakness but the "highest democratic virtue" and proof of a "living political mind". He then held up a mirror to the room. He listed the political migrations of those who might accuse him of hypocrisy, Vice President Speciosa Wandira Kazibwe, Ruhakana Rugunda, and even President Museveni himself. Change, he argued, was a constant in their political journeys too. By doing so, he dismantled the accusation of inconsistency and reframed the debate. His speech became not a defence of his own record, but a challenge to the entire political class to embrace a system that allowed for peaceful evolution. His tone softened as he concluded, shifting from combatant to elder statesman. His "I have changed" became a plea for a system robust enough to allow such evolution peacefully. The true measure of a democracy, he insisted, was not its ability to enforce orthodoxy but its capacity to tolerate and integrate change. The cream of his suit was a quiet beacon of a principled stand in a room swirling with the new politics of conformity. He had seen it all, independence, crisis, exile, return, and his final message was a warning: A nation that can not accommodate peaceful political change is destined for violent upheaval. What does it mean when an architect of a broken past stands before the builders of a new future and admits he has changed, not as a confession of guilt, but as a demand that the new system must allow others to do the same? Nekyon's 1994 speech was a masterclass in political honesty. He did not ask for forgiveness. He asked for a constitution that made future 1966s impossible. The chamber listened. The words remain. #ughistory Uganda Peoples Congress Official Yoweri K Museveni Parliament Watch Government of Uganda Uganda Media Centre Parliament of Uganda Speciosa Wandira Kazibwe Dr. Ruhakana Rugunda NRM Party Democratic Party Uganda Peoples Congress Official$

1994. Constituent Assembly, Kampala. Akbar Adoko Nekyon paused to speak. He had been Obote's first cousin, a minister in the independence government, a key player in the 1966 crisis that shattered Uganda's first democracy. Now, before a chamber that included President Museveni, the old politician declared, "I have changed." The Maverick's Confession: Nekyon at the Constituent Assembly - 1994 To understand the weight of those words, one had to understand 1966. Nekyon had been a central figure in the UPC/KY alliance that brought Obote to power. He had helped build the very political order that Obote then destroyed, suspending the constitution and attacking the Kabaka's palace. Nekyon had crossed the floor to the Democratic Party after that fracture. Now, nearly three decades later, dressed in a cream Kaunda suit, he sat before the assembly tasked with writing Uganda's new constitution and made a declaration that was both personal and political: The ability to change one's mind is not a weakness but the "highest democratic virtue" and proof of a "living political mind". He then held up a mirror to the room. He listed the political migrations of those who might accuse him of hypocrisy, Vice President Speciosa Wandira Kazibwe, Ruhakana Rugunda, and even President Museveni himself. Change, he argued, was a constant in their political journeys too. By doing so, he dismantled the accusation of inconsistency and reframed the debate. His speech became not a defence of his own record, but a challenge to the entire political class to embrace a system that allowed for peaceful evolution. His tone softened as he concluded, shifting from combatant to elder statesman. His "I have changed" became a plea for a system robust enough to allow such evolution peacefully. The true measure of a democracy, he insisted, was not its ability to enforce orthodoxy but its capacity to tolerate and integrate change. The cream of his suit was a quiet beacon of a principled stand in a room swirling with the new politics of conformity. He had seen it all, independence, crisis, exile, return, and his final message was a warning: A nation that can not accommodate peaceful political change is destined for violent upheaval. What does it mean when an architect of a broken past stands before the builders of a new future and admits he has changed, not as a confession of guilt, but as a demand that the new system must allow others to do the same? Nekyon's 1994 speech was a masterclass in political honesty. He did not ask for forgiveness. He asked for a constitution that made future 1966s impossible. The chamber listened. The words remain. #ughistory Uganda Peoples Congress Official Yoweri K Museveni Parliament Watch Government of Uganda Uganda Media Centre Parliament of Uganda Speciosa Wandira Kazibwe Dr. Ruhakana Rugunda NRM Party Democratic Party Uganda Peoples Congress Official

UgHistory

22,015 просмотров • 3 месяцев назад

🇺🇸 YES, THE CONSTITUTION ACTUALLY GIVES WASHINGTON THE LAST WORD ON ELECTIONS. WHY DOES NOBODY TALK ABOUT THIS?! States run the show on election day. But the Constitution never gave them the final say. That power sits with Congress and the federal government, and Trump just reminded everyone of it. He laid out the logic clean and simple. "A state is an agent for the federal government in elections." An agent works under someone else's authority. It does not get to write its own rules and ignore the standard. If the agent fails, the principal steps back in. That is exactly the argument Trump is making right now, and it is not some radical new theory. It is the actual structure the founders built. He named names too. Detroit. Philadelphia. Atlanta. Cities with a long, ugly track record of election chaos that somehow never seems to improve no matter how many complaints pile up. He also brought 2020 back into focus, saying the facts still surfacing point to rigged and crooked conduct in these same places. States administer elections. Fine. But administering is not the same as owning. When administration turns into repeated failure and corruption, the federal government stepping in is not an overreach. It is the Constitution doing exactly what it was designed to do. Americans do not want chaos dressed up as states rights. They want elections they can actually trust.

🇺🇸 YES, THE CONSTITUTION ACTUALLY GIVES WASHINGTON THE LAST WORD ON ELECTIONS. WHY DOES NOBODY TALK ABOUT THIS?! States run the show on election day. But the Constitution never gave them the final say. That power sits with Congress and the federal government, and Trump just reminded everyone of it. He laid out the logic clean and simple. "A state is an agent for the federal government in elections." An agent works under someone else's authority. It does not get to write its own rules and ignore the standard. If the agent fails, the principal steps back in. That is exactly the argument Trump is making right now, and it is not some radical new theory. It is the actual structure the founders built. He named names too. Detroit. Philadelphia. Atlanta. Cities with a long, ugly track record of election chaos that somehow never seems to improve no matter how many complaints pile up. He also brought 2020 back into focus, saying the facts still surfacing point to rigged and crooked conduct in these same places. States administer elections. Fine. But administering is not the same as owning. When administration turns into repeated failure and corruption, the federal government stepping in is not an overreach. It is the Constitution doing exactly what it was designed to do. Americans do not want chaos dressed up as states rights. They want elections they can actually trust.

Bill Mitchell

32,658 просмотров • 3 месяцев назад

How Britain Used India To Replace Slave Labour . Mauritius was completely uninhabited by humans before European arrival. There were no indigenous Africans, no tribes, no native population on the island. This is not opinion, it is established historical fact. The Dutch were the first to settle Mauritius in the 17th century, followed by the French and then the British. Under European colonial rule, African slaves were brought to Mauritius to work on plantations. When slavery was abolished in 1835, the British did not end exploitation, they rebranded it as “indentured labour.” Between 1834 and 1920, over 450,000 indentured labourers were shipped from British India to Mauritius, primarily from Bihar, Uttar Pradesh, Tamil Nadu, Andhra Pradesh, and Maharashtra. This was one of the largest forced labour migrations in human history. As a direct result: Indo-Mauritians form the majority of the population Around 68–70% of Mauritians are of Indian origin The rest of the population consists mainly of descendants of African slaves, mixed Creole communities, small Chinese communities, and a tiny Franco-Mauritian elite Mauritius did not become “African” because of an indigenous African civilisation — it became African geographically, while its demographic reality was shaped by British colonial labour extraction from India. Many Indo-Mauritians retain Indian cultural, religious, and linguistic identity because their ancestors were forcibly transported, not because they “refuse” to integrate. Hinduism, Indian languages, Indian festivals, and Indian customs dominate Mauritian public life precisely because Indians built the post-slavery economy. So no , this is not about denying geography. It is about understanding history. Mauritius is an African island with a majority Indian-descended population created by colonial exploitation after the abolition of slavery. Pretending otherwise is historical illiteracy. History matters. Facts matter.

How Britain Used India To Replace Slave Labour . Mauritius was completely uninhabited by humans before European arrival. There were no indigenous Africans, no tribes, no native population on the island. This is not opinion, it is established historical fact. The Dutch were the first to settle Mauritius in the 17th century, followed by the French and then the British. Under European colonial rule, African slaves were brought to Mauritius to work on plantations. When slavery was abolished in 1835, the British did not end exploitation, they rebranded it as “indentured labour.” Between 1834 and 1920, over 450,000 indentured labourers were shipped from British India to Mauritius, primarily from Bihar, Uttar Pradesh, Tamil Nadu, Andhra Pradesh, and Maharashtra. This was one of the largest forced labour migrations in human history. As a direct result: Indo-Mauritians form the majority of the population Around 68–70% of Mauritians are of Indian origin The rest of the population consists mainly of descendants of African slaves, mixed Creole communities, small Chinese communities, and a tiny Franco-Mauritian elite Mauritius did not become “African” because of an indigenous African civilisation — it became African geographically, while its demographic reality was shaped by British colonial labour extraction from India. Many Indo-Mauritians retain Indian cultural, religious, and linguistic identity because their ancestors were forcibly transported, not because they “refuse” to integrate. Hinduism, Indian languages, Indian festivals, and Indian customs dominate Mauritian public life precisely because Indians built the post-slavery economy. So no , this is not about denying geography. It is about understanding history. Mauritius is an African island with a majority Indian-descended population created by colonial exploitation after the abolition of slavery. Pretending otherwise is historical illiteracy. History matters. Facts matter.

JIX5A

31,377 просмотров • 8 месяцев назад

Probe Senator Dante Marcoleta You have to admit it! How Senator Panfilo Lacson called him out was satisfying! That is the Marcoleta brand — confusing people with his extreme emotions and nonsense rhetoric. Divert the conversation elsewhere, to save someone or something. It is definitely not okay when he made a deal with the Discayas without the approval of the whole committee when he was the chair. Later on, the affidavit of the Discaya was proven wrong a couple of times. Why are we even talking about the possibility of being a state witness? Well, it is not the first time that Senator Dante Marcoleta tried to defend sketchy personalities and/ or entities — truth be told, there’s a clear pattern. I am not surprised how he would go above, over and beyond for the Discayas because that’s how I’ve known him in the 19th Congress. I think that it is of national interest to probe the Date Marcoleta —- why is he protecting the Discayas? What was his stake with NGCP? And others. A clear pattern: Why focus on ____? This is one of the usual arguments of Marcoleta to shield the sketchy entities and people. He used this argument when the NGCP was on the hot seat for not complying with the tax requirements and the Chinese ownership in our state grip. —- this was also his argument to shield Sara Duterte from legitimate questions regarding the confidential funds of the OVP and Duterte-led DepEd. Flip-flopping opinion about COA To protect Sara Duterte, he defended the process of the Commission on Audit — but during the Senate Blue Ribbon Chair he lambasted the COA for not doing a pre-emptive audit. COA defended itself saying that their mandate is limited only to post-fact. Divert the conversation This is his ultimate tactic — stop or divert the conversation when the things are not looking good for whomever he is protecting. This was very evident when he chaired the Blue Ribbon Committee and was raised by other Senators. He interrupted the conversation when it’s heading towards the Duterte administration. Several times if I may add. This is the very reason why he’s stealing the show — to confuse the public and get the headlines. Not accepting a different answer It is one thing when the Resource Person is lying, that is one contemptible violation — but Dante Marcoleta formula is to pressure the person into what he wants to hear. I am pretty sure that this is very obvious once you want him in action

Just

155,886 просмотров • 1 год назад

Hate him or love him, President Emmerson Dambudzo Mnangagwa is undeniably one of Zimbabwe’s sharpest political minds,a man who understands timing, silence, and strategy better than most. I might not be a fan of his leadership style or governance, but politically speaking, the way he outmaneuvered Robert Mugabe, the man who ruled Zimbabwe for nearly four decades, was nothing short of legendary. While it’s true that Mugabe was aging and perhaps losing his political edge, Mnangagwa’s patience and discipline stood out. Even when subjected to repeated humiliation by the former First Lady, Grace Mugabe, he maintained composure and restraint. His calmness was not weakness, it was calculated patience. He played the loyal servant while quietly studying the battlefield, waiting for the right moment to strike. What makes his strategy even more remarkable is that Mnangagwa understood the importance of timing in Zimbabwean politics. He knew when not to move. For instance, he deliberately distanced himself from earlier succession plots such as the Tsholotsho Declaration and even meetings allegedly held at Philip Chiyangwa’s offices, which were meant to position him for the presidency. Mnangagwa avoided attending these gatherings because he understood the political temperature of the time,that Zimbabwe was not yet ready for such a takeover and that any premature move would destroy him. Those who remember his interactions with Grace Mugabe will recall how he played the part of a humble subordinate, even flattering her publicly, making it seem as though she was the real power behind Mugabe. It was pure political theatre , an act designed to protect his position until the moment was right. When the inevitable showdown came in late 2017, Mnangagwa appeared to be finished,fired as Vice President, in exile, and seemingly defeated. But true to his “Ngwena” (Crocodile) nickname, he had simply submerged, waiting for the current to shift. And when it did, he struck. Within weeks, Mugabe was out, and Mnangagwa returned as President the architect of one of Zimbabwe’s most dramatic political transitions. Today, whether one admires or despises him, one fact remains undisputed, Emmerson Mnangagwa is a master of the long game. He waited, he calculated, and when the time was right he took everything.

Hate him or love him, President Emmerson Dambudzo Mnangagwa is undeniably one of Zimbabwe’s sharpest political minds,a man who understands timing, silence, and strategy better than most. I might not be a fan of his leadership style or governance, but politically speaking, the way he outmaneuvered Robert Mugabe, the man who ruled Zimbabwe for nearly four decades, was nothing short of legendary. While it’s true that Mugabe was aging and perhaps losing his political edge, Mnangagwa’s patience and discipline stood out. Even when subjected to repeated humiliation by the former First Lady, Grace Mugabe, he maintained composure and restraint. His calmness was not weakness, it was calculated patience. He played the loyal servant while quietly studying the battlefield, waiting for the right moment to strike. What makes his strategy even more remarkable is that Mnangagwa understood the importance of timing in Zimbabwean politics. He knew when not to move. For instance, he deliberately distanced himself from earlier succession plots such as the Tsholotsho Declaration and even meetings allegedly held at Philip Chiyangwa’s offices, which were meant to position him for the presidency. Mnangagwa avoided attending these gatherings because he understood the political temperature of the time,that Zimbabwe was not yet ready for such a takeover and that any premature move would destroy him. Those who remember his interactions with Grace Mugabe will recall how he played the part of a humble subordinate, even flattering her publicly, making it seem as though she was the real power behind Mugabe. It was pure political theatre , an act designed to protect his position until the moment was right. When the inevitable showdown came in late 2017, Mnangagwa appeared to be finished,fired as Vice President, in exile, and seemingly defeated. But true to his “Ngwena” (Crocodile) nickname, he had simply submerged, waiting for the current to shift. And when it did, he struck. Within weeks, Mugabe was out, and Mnangagwa returned as President the architect of one of Zimbabwe’s most dramatic political transitions. Today, whether one admires or despises him, one fact remains undisputed, Emmerson Mnangagwa is a master of the long game. He waited, he calculated, and when the time was right he took everything.

Setfree Nherera Mafukidze 🇿🇼

39,463 просмотров • 11 месяцев назад

Did You Know⁉️ One of hip-hop’s most infamous late-’90s beefs—between LL Cool J and Canibus‼️started over a single line on the 1997 posse cut “4, 3, 2, 1” (featuring Method Man, Redman, DMX, and later Master P on the extended version)⁉️. If you dont, I gat you‼️ LL Cool J’s account‼️ LL has said (in interviews including the Joe Budden Podcast, Drink Champs, and others) that Canibus approached him outside the studio and mentioned wanting a tattoo just like the microphone on LL’s arm‼️. At the time, LL was “leading with my ego” and feeling territorial/immature, so he told Canibus to “get your own.”‼️ Then, when LL heard Canibus’s original verse—“Yo L, is that a mic on your arm? Let me borrow that”‼️he took it as a challenge or disrespect tied to that conversation, not a compliment‼️. He told Canibus the line had to go (or he’d be left off the record). Canibus changed it‼️. LL has later reflected that Canibus “really didn’t do nothing wrong,” that it was a compliment/admiration he misread due to his own mindset, and that the beef was more his fault‼️. He kept (or added) responsive lines on the final track that targeted the mic/tattoo reference‼️. Canibus’s account⁉️ Canibus has consistently said the line was pure respect and a term of endearment‼️not a diss‼️. In a recorded conversation with Mos Def, Big Pun, and DMX, he explained that the full original opening (“Yo Method Man, where the gods at? / Yo Redman, where the Squad at? / Yo L, is that a mic on your arm? Let me borrow that”) was him showing love and excitement at being included with veterans‼️. He has described asking about the tattoo idea as a salute (not biting), and stressed he wasn’t stupid enough to diss the host on his own record‼️. When LL called about 48 hours later accusing him of “playing” him, Canibus reportedly replied that he was arrogant and got busy when needed, “but I’m not stupid! I’m not gonna get on another ni**a’s record and [diss him].”‼️ He offered to re-record; LL indicated he’d adjust his own side too‼️. Canibus changed his verse (the released version starts more generally with lines about fighting for mics). He later felt betrayed when the final track dropped with LL’s responsive bars still in place (and Canibus was left out of the main video)‼️. That led him to drop “Second Round K.O.” (with Mike Tyson) in 1998‼️. Both sides agree on the core facts‼️: the original “mic on your arm / let me borrow that” line existed, LL objected and required a rewrite, Canibus complied, and LL’s final verse addressed the reference while Canibus’s did not‼️. The disagreement is intent and follow-through—LL initially heard a challenge (and has since owned his ego/immaturity); Canibus insists it was admiration and felt played when the response stayed in‼️. Redman (who was on the track and mentoring Canibus at the time) has backed Canibus’s view that it wasn’t aimed as disrespect‼️. The leaked original verse, phone call between the two, and later reflections from both have kept the story alive for decades‼️. They eventually appeared to squash it publicly years later, but the “4, 3, 2, 1” incident remains a classic example of how one ambiguous bar + egos + competitive culture can spark a full-blown rap war‼️💯. You're welcome‼️

Did You Know⁉️ One of hip-hop’s most infamous late-’90s beefs—between LL Cool J and Canibus‼️started over a single line on the 1997 posse cut “4, 3, 2, 1” (featuring Method Man, Redman, DMX, and later Master P on the extended version)⁉️. If you dont, I gat you‼️ LL Cool J’s account‼️ LL has said (in interviews including the Joe Budden Podcast, Drink Champs, and others) that Canibus approached him outside the studio and mentioned wanting a tattoo just like the microphone on LL’s arm‼️. At the time, LL was “leading with my ego” and feeling territorial/immature, so he told Canibus to “get your own.”‼️ Then, when LL heard Canibus’s original verse—“Yo L, is that a mic on your arm? Let me borrow that”‼️he took it as a challenge or disrespect tied to that conversation, not a compliment‼️. He told Canibus the line had to go (or he’d be left off the record). Canibus changed it‼️. LL has later reflected that Canibus “really didn’t do nothing wrong,” that it was a compliment/admiration he misread due to his own mindset, and that the beef was more his fault‼️. He kept (or added) responsive lines on the final track that targeted the mic/tattoo reference‼️. Canibus’s account⁉️ Canibus has consistently said the line was pure respect and a term of endearment‼️not a diss‼️. In a recorded conversation with Mos Def, Big Pun, and DMX, he explained that the full original opening (“Yo Method Man, where the gods at? / Yo Redman, where the Squad at? / Yo L, is that a mic on your arm? Let me borrow that”) was him showing love and excitement at being included with veterans‼️. He has described asking about the tattoo idea as a salute (not biting), and stressed he wasn’t stupid enough to diss the host on his own record‼️. When LL called about 48 hours later accusing him of “playing” him, Canibus reportedly replied that he was arrogant and got busy when needed, “but I’m not stupid! I’m not gonna get on another ni**a’s record and [diss him].”‼️ He offered to re-record; LL indicated he’d adjust his own side too‼️. Canibus changed his verse (the released version starts more generally with lines about fighting for mics). He later felt betrayed when the final track dropped with LL’s responsive bars still in place (and Canibus was left out of the main video)‼️. That led him to drop “Second Round K.O.” (with Mike Tyson) in 1998‼️. Both sides agree on the core facts‼️: the original “mic on your arm / let me borrow that” line existed, LL objected and required a rewrite, Canibus complied, and LL’s final verse addressed the reference while Canibus’s did not‼️. The disagreement is intent and follow-through—LL initially heard a challenge (and has since owned his ego/immaturity); Canibus insists it was admiration and felt played when the response stayed in‼️. Redman (who was on the track and mentoring Canibus at the time) has backed Canibus’s view that it wasn’t aimed as disrespect‼️. The leaked original verse, phone call between the two, and later reflections from both have kept the story alive for decades‼️. They eventually appeared to squash it publicly years later, but the “4, 3, 2, 1” incident remains a classic example of how one ambiguous bar + egos + competitive culture can spark a full-blown rap war‼️💯. You're welcome‼️

(st_ides)

92,064 просмотров • 1 месяц назад

Game being hurt about that Super Bowl still makes sense if you sit with how the night was built‼️. Dr. Dre puts on the biggest hip-hop halftime in Super Bowl history: Snoop, Mary J. Blige, Eminem, Kendrick, and then 50 Cent swinging in upside down for “In Da Club.” It was sold as an L.A. homecoming‼️. The city was on the field‼️. Compton was on the field‼️. Aftermath’s whole lineage was on the field‼️. Except one of Dre’s actual Compton products wasn’t⁉️. Game said it out loud a few months later on *I Am Athlete*‼️. He was hurt‼️. Not “the culture won” Instagram caption he posted right after the show‼️. Hurt‼️. He pointed at the obvious: Eminem is not from L.A. 50 is not from L.A. If it had been a Detroit Super Bowl or a New York Super Bowl, L.A. niggas would not have been invited just because they were legends‼️. The Rams were playing‼️. The stadium was in Inglewood‼️. Dre produced it‼️. And the call never came‼️. He even said YG should have been there too‼️. He called himself not a “safe” artist‼️. That part tracks with how Game has always moved‼️. The 50 Cent piece is the part that stings extra‼️. Eminem made sure 50 was on that stage‼️. That’s not rumor — 50 and people around the camp have said it for years‼️. Em wasn’t going to let his guy get left off Dre’s night‼️. Fair‼️. Loyalty‼️. Same energy Game has always claimed he gives people‼️. The difference is nobody in that circle fought to put Game on the bill‼️. Twelve minutes, Snoop later said‼️. Politics, Game said. Either way, the Compton artist who actually came up under Dre on *The Documentary* watched two outsiders and the younger Compton guy who inherited the “voice of the city” slot get the moment‼️. That’s where the Kendrick part lives‼️. It’s not that Game and Kendrick ever had a public war in 2022‼️. It’s that Kendrick was the other Compton name Dre and the NFL were comfortable putting next to Dre and Snoop‼️. Game has said he put Kendrick on early mixtapes, took him on tour, showed love when it was still a come-up‼️. Then years later he can’t get him on the phone, but he can get Drake‼️. That’s the current documentary-era complaint‼️. The Super Bowl snub sits underneath it like old scar tissue‼️. Same city, same Dre orbit, same “who gets to represent L.A. on the biggest stage” question — and Game wasn’t the answer they picked‼️. He has spent 2026 saying he doesn’t have a problem with the Boogeyman and the Boogeyman doesn’t have a problem with him‼️. He also put Drake on *The Documentary III*, rapped about not having to pick sides, and still couldn’t resist the “they say I’m beefing with Kendrick, how the fuck do that sound⁉️” line. That’s Game‼️. He will deny the beef while listing every reason the distance exists‼️. Resentment doesn’t always come out as a diss record the next week‼️. Sometimes it sits for four years until the next album cycle, the next Drake feature, and the next time somebody asks why the original Compton Aftermath artist wasn’t standing on that white house set while Em made sure 50 got his “In Da Club” moment‼️. Game watched it happen in his city‼️. He said he was hurt‼️. The rest is just whether he ever stopped being hurt‼️. The future will tell‼️

Game being hurt about that Super Bowl still makes sense if you sit with how the night was built‼️. Dr. Dre puts on the biggest hip-hop halftime in Super Bowl history: Snoop, Mary J. Blige, Eminem, Kendrick, and then 50 Cent swinging in upside down for “In Da Club.” It was sold as an L.A. homecoming‼️. The city was on the field‼️. Compton was on the field‼️. Aftermath’s whole lineage was on the field‼️. Except one of Dre’s actual Compton products wasn’t⁉️. Game said it out loud a few months later on I Am Athlete‼️. He was hurt‼️. Not “the culture won” Instagram caption he posted right after the show‼️. Hurt‼️. He pointed at the obvious: Eminem is not from L.A. 50 is not from L.A. If it had been a Detroit Super Bowl or a New York Super Bowl, L.A. niggas would not have been invited just because they were legends‼️. The Rams were playing‼️. The stadium was in Inglewood‼️. Dre produced it‼️. And the call never came‼️. He even said YG should have been there too‼️. He called himself not a “safe” artist‼️. That part tracks with how Game has always moved‼️. The 50 Cent piece is the part that stings extra‼️. Eminem made sure 50 was on that stage‼️. That’s not rumor — 50 and people around the camp have said it for years‼️. Em wasn’t going to let his guy get left off Dre’s night‼️. Fair‼️. Loyalty‼️. Same energy Game has always claimed he gives people‼️. The difference is nobody in that circle fought to put Game on the bill‼️. Twelve minutes, Snoop later said‼️. Politics, Game said. Either way, the Compton artist who actually came up under Dre on The Documentary watched two outsiders and the younger Compton guy who inherited the “voice of the city” slot get the moment‼️. That’s where the Kendrick part lives‼️. It’s not that Game and Kendrick ever had a public war in 2022‼️. It’s that Kendrick was the other Compton name Dre and the NFL were comfortable putting next to Dre and Snoop‼️. Game has said he put Kendrick on early mixtapes, took him on tour, showed love when it was still a come-up‼️. Then years later he can’t get him on the phone, but he can get Drake‼️. That’s the current documentary-era complaint‼️. The Super Bowl snub sits underneath it like old scar tissue‼️. Same city, same Dre orbit, same “who gets to represent L.A. on the biggest stage” question — and Game wasn’t the answer they picked‼️. He has spent 2026 saying he doesn’t have a problem with the Boogeyman and the Boogeyman doesn’t have a problem with him‼️. He also put Drake on The Documentary III, rapped about not having to pick sides, and still couldn’t resist the “they say I’m beefing with Kendrick, how the fuck do that sound⁉️” line. That’s Game‼️. He will deny the beef while listing every reason the distance exists‼️. Resentment doesn’t always come out as a diss record the next week‼️. Sometimes it sits for four years until the next album cycle, the next Drake feature, and the next time somebody asks why the original Compton Aftermath artist wasn’t standing on that white house set while Em made sure 50 got his “In Da Club” moment‼️. Game watched it happen in his city‼️. He said he was hurt‼️. The rest is just whether he ever stopped being hurt‼️. The future will tell‼️

(st_ides)

110,082 просмотров • 1 месяц назад

Name of the Book: Why do we need MKS as PM of India? Chapter: 1 Page: 4 In 1982, when the youth wing was formed there was a proposal that Stalin should be appointed as coordinator, but Karunanidhi was the first person to reject the idea and walk out of the meeting saying “There are already two members from my family in the party; my son in law Murasoli Maran and I. I believe that is the limit and I don't want one more member from my family " The youth wing cadres and senior party members present in the meeting were in utter shock. Stalin was their nearperfect choice to lead the newly formed youth wing of DMK but Karunanidhi was very firm about not including another family member into the official ranks of the party. The meeting was inconclusive and no one was able to convince Karunanidhi about Stalin being a good choice to lead the youth DMK wing. A senior cadre K. Subbu stood up and put forward his opinion which was the opinion of almost all the youth wing cadres. He said “We are not asking Stalin to lead the youth DMK because he is Kalaignar's son. If we wanted Kalaignar's son to be the youth wing coordinator we would have asked for Muthu, Alagri, or Tamil Arasu but the majority of us want Stalin to be the coordinator. When the emergency was declared in 1976, Stalin was arrested and taken away from his home by the police. Karunanidhi should have stopped them and declared that Stalin was not an official member of the party but he did not do so. Eventually, Stalin had undergone numerous hardships during imprisonment for the sake of the party and that demonstrates his devotion to the party. Kalaignar did not stop Stalin from being arrested that day hence he should not stop him from being the coordinator of the youth DMK today.” After this representation and the unwavering support from the members of the party, Karunanidhi couldn’t interfere with the democratic decision of the party cadres. It was the first official position given to Stalin in the DMK party. Created by Kathir RS

Name of the Book: Why do we need MKS as PM of India? Chapter: 1 Page: 4 In 1982, when the youth wing was formed there was a proposal that Stalin should be appointed as coordinator, but Karunanidhi was the first person to reject the idea and walk out of the meeting saying “There are already two members from my family in the party; my son in law Murasoli Maran and I. I believe that is the limit and I don't want one more member from my family " The youth wing cadres and senior party members present in the meeting were in utter shock. Stalin was their nearperfect choice to lead the newly formed youth wing of DMK but Karunanidhi was very firm about not including another family member into the official ranks of the party. The meeting was inconclusive and no one was able to convince Karunanidhi about Stalin being a good choice to lead the youth DMK wing. A senior cadre K. Subbu stood up and put forward his opinion which was the opinion of almost all the youth wing cadres. He said “We are not asking Stalin to lead the youth DMK because he is Kalaignar's son. If we wanted Kalaignar's son to be the youth wing coordinator we would have asked for Muthu, Alagri, or Tamil Arasu but the majority of us want Stalin to be the coordinator. When the emergency was declared in 1976, Stalin was arrested and taken away from his home by the police. Karunanidhi should have stopped them and declared that Stalin was not an official member of the party but he did not do so. Eventually, Stalin had undergone numerous hardships during imprisonment for the sake of the party and that demonstrates his devotion to the party. Kalaignar did not stop Stalin from being arrested that day hence he should not stop him from being the coordinator of the youth DMK today.” After this representation and the unwavering support from the members of the party, Karunanidhi couldn’t interfere with the democratic decision of the party cadres. It was the first official position given to Stalin in the DMK party. Created by Kathir RS

We Dravidians

10,784 просмотров • 9 месяцев назад

1994. Parliament Lobby. Kampala. The Constituent Assembly was debating the shape of a new Uganda when a young army captain, Noble Mayombo, rose to move a motion. It was a small thing, on paper: Change the name of the national army. But Mayombo understood that names carry power. The Name and the Man: Mayombo's Motion for the UPDF - 1994 "This is no longer the army of a resistance," he told his fellow delegates. "It must be the defence force of a people." The motion was simple in phrasing but profound in meaning: That the National Resistance Army, born of the bush war, be renamed the Uganda People's Defence Forces. Mayombo reminded the Assembly that while the NRA had fought valiantly, it belonged to a chapter of struggle. A constitution, he argued, must speak for all citizens, not for a movement. The army's name had to project neutrality, professionalism, and national ownership. Mayombo's words carried weight beyond his years. He had fought in the bush, but he understood that the new constitution was meant to bury the divisions of the past and build a common future. By proposing the name change, he was not merely editing a document; He was redefining the relationship between the soldier and the citizen. The word "People's" was not cosmetic but constitutional, a signal that the guns were now bound by law, accountable to Ugandans rather than to a party. Outside the chamber, in the Parliament lobby, seasoned journalist Bart Kakooza intercepted Mayombo for an interview. Standing tall, the young captain repeated the essence of his argument into Kakooza's microphone. Through radio and newspapers, his vision reached far beyond Kampala. For many Ugandans, that was the first time they heard the phrase Uganda People's Defence Forces. It carried a freshness that suggested rebirth, a shift from partisan struggle to shared nationhood. When the Assembly finally voted and Article 208 enshrined the UPDF in the 1995 Constitution, the moment was sealed. The NRA passed into history, and the UPDF was born in law. For Noble Mayombo, it was more than a legal victory; it was his signature contribution to the republic. The image endures: A young man in Parliament, moving a motion with conviction, then stepping into the lobby to explain to a journalist, and to the nation, why Uganda's army must belong to the people. Mayombo's motion ensured that the army would no longer be the instrument of a movement, but the shield of a nation. It was not just semantics. It was a declaration that Uganda had moved from revolution to constitution, from the bullet to the ballot. The name change may have been a small clause in a long document, but it was the mark of a mind that understood that the words you choose determine the nation you build. What does it take to stand up in an assembly of elders and veterans and suggest that the revolution's army should be renamed for the people it serves? Noble Mayombo was a young captain when he moved that motion. He understood that constitutions are not just about power, they are about identity, and the names we give our institutions define the country we become. The NRA won the war. The UPDF was built to keep the peace. #UPDF #NRA #Ughistory NRM Party Uganda Peoples' Defence Forces (UPDF) Government of Uganda Bart Kakooza Uganda Media Centre

1994. Parliament Lobby. Kampala. The Constituent Assembly was debating the shape of a new Uganda when a young army captain, Noble Mayombo, rose to move a motion. It was a small thing, on paper: Change the name of the national army. But Mayombo understood that names carry power. The Name and the Man: Mayombo's Motion for the UPDF - 1994 "This is no longer the army of a resistance," he told his fellow delegates. "It must be the defence force of a people." The motion was simple in phrasing but profound in meaning: That the National Resistance Army, born of the bush war, be renamed the Uganda People's Defence Forces. Mayombo reminded the Assembly that while the NRA had fought valiantly, it belonged to a chapter of struggle. A constitution, he argued, must speak for all citizens, not for a movement. The army's name had to project neutrality, professionalism, and national ownership. Mayombo's words carried weight beyond his years. He had fought in the bush, but he understood that the new constitution was meant to bury the divisions of the past and build a common future. By proposing the name change, he was not merely editing a document; He was redefining the relationship between the soldier and the citizen. The word "People's" was not cosmetic but constitutional, a signal that the guns were now bound by law, accountable to Ugandans rather than to a party. Outside the chamber, in the Parliament lobby, seasoned journalist Bart Kakooza intercepted Mayombo for an interview. Standing tall, the young captain repeated the essence of his argument into Kakooza's microphone. Through radio and newspapers, his vision reached far beyond Kampala. For many Ugandans, that was the first time they heard the phrase Uganda People's Defence Forces. It carried a freshness that suggested rebirth, a shift from partisan struggle to shared nationhood. When the Assembly finally voted and Article 208 enshrined the UPDF in the 1995 Constitution, the moment was sealed. The NRA passed into history, and the UPDF was born in law. For Noble Mayombo, it was more than a legal victory; it was his signature contribution to the republic. The image endures: A young man in Parliament, moving a motion with conviction, then stepping into the lobby to explain to a journalist, and to the nation, why Uganda's army must belong to the people. Mayombo's motion ensured that the army would no longer be the instrument of a movement, but the shield of a nation. It was not just semantics. It was a declaration that Uganda had moved from revolution to constitution, from the bullet to the ballot. The name change may have been a small clause in a long document, but it was the mark of a mind that understood that the words you choose determine the nation you build. What does it take to stand up in an assembly of elders and veterans and suggest that the revolution's army should be renamed for the people it serves? Noble Mayombo was a young captain when he moved that motion. He understood that constitutions are not just about power, they are about identity, and the names we give our institutions define the country we become. The NRA won the war. The UPDF was built to keep the peace. #UPDF #NRA #Ughistory NRM Party Uganda Peoples' Defence Forces (UPDF) Government of Uganda Bart Kakooza Uganda Media Centre

UgHistory

13,109 просмотров • 3 месяцев назад

*On State Police* “No, the President has not dropped the ball. He has pressed the switch. As journalists, we also record history. The debate on state police first became prominent about 19 years ago. Records show that President Bola Tinubu was one of the earliest and strongest advocates for state police. Over the years, the argument was weakened by fears that governors might turn state police into personal militias. However, when one looks at the facts, the rising insecurity and the shortage of police officers in critical areas across the states have made the case for state police much stronger. The President could have stayed silent. Instead, as he did with the tax reforms, he made his position clear in public and stood by it firmly in a bold and unexpected way. It is unusual for a sitting President to speak so directly on this matter. I was present when he addressed a group of leaders in the federal chamber. He stated that Nigeria needs state police and that he would ask the National Assembly to take the matter forward, because it is the right thing to do.”

On State Police “No, the President has not dropped the ball. He has pressed the switch. As journalists, we also record history. The debate on state police first became prominent about 19 years ago. Records show that President Bola Tinubu was one of the earliest and strongest advocates for state police. Over the years, the argument was weakened by fears that governors might turn state police into personal militias. However, when one looks at the facts, the rising insecurity and the shortage of police officers in critical areas across the states have made the case for state police much stronger. The President could have stayed silent. Instead, as he did with the tax reforms, he made his position clear in public and stood by it firmly in a bold and unexpected way. It is unusual for a sitting President to speak so directly on this matter. I was present when he addressed a group of leaders in the federal chamber. He stated that Nigeria needs state police and that he would ask the National Assembly to take the matter forward, because it is the right thing to do.”

Sunday Dare,CON

17,598 просмотров • 3 месяцев назад