The MRCM (Mine Rent for Citizens and Military) Party
Jai Jawan Jai Kisan
Main Page     Feedback?      Orkut Community For Discussions

Epilogue – II

  1. About myself and what lead to start MRCM Party?
  2. Some possible futures of struggle for land rent and mines’ royalties
  3. Tiberius Gracchus
  4. Gaius Gracchus
  5. Conclusions from Roman History
  6. Possible scenarios
         [This chapter is written solely by Rahul Chimanbhai Mehta, the second author of the Manifesto of MRCM Party and also the founder member of MRCM Party]

1.    About myself and what lead to start MRCM Party?

         I started taking interest in politics, administration, courts, police and its effects on commons’ lives since I was six-seven years old. So usual was having discussions on politics, administration at home, that I dont remember having discussion on any non-political topic with my father and his close friends. My father became MLA when I was young and many activists and common men started visiting our home. I spent hours and hours listening to what they said on economic, administrative etc issues with them. The real tales of corruption and atrocities, and injustice/delay in courts were becoming more and more horrifying each day.
         My father wanted me to join politics or IAS, IPS immediately after I finish my B. Tech, but I did not see any point. His days of late early 1940s were different --- no one joined politics early 1940s to collect bribes. But when I was in early 20s i.e. late 1980s, and the only reason youngsters were joining politics, IAS, IPS etc were to collect bribes or expand their business. If at all I were to join politics or civil services, I did not see any way by which chronic problems like corruption, poverty etc can be reduced. Many said that “corruption is OK, as long as development happens”, but my superstition has been that corruption causes implosion and undoes all the growth. I did not want to take bribes, and so “what would I do in politics and civil services ; how would deal with all these corrupt IAS, IPS and Ministers” was a question I had no answer back then. So in 1990, I decided not to join politics or civil services. And I defected to US for money and better life.
         The 10s of problems that existed in India simply did not exist in US. eg Very few policemen were corrupt ; courts were fast and not corrupt and so forth. At first, the US administration was mystery to me. And being an Engineer, I decided to “de-crypt” and reverse-engineer this mysterious very-low-corruption system. The intellectuals in India have been telling us that West has low corruption because people in West have better moral values, better culture and better political culture. And intellectuals say that we (sic) Indians have low moral values, low National Character and low political culture. I always found this culture based explanation a nonsense. It was my superstition that West is better ONLY because the citizens had developed a better system to deal with corrupt Ministers, officers, policemen, judges and so they have less corrupt regimes. The answer was incomplete --- what were those items better in their system? But my superstition was strong --- the difference between West and India lied in system and not at all in culture. It took me years and years to enumerate differences. But finally I found and enumerated the differences. By 1998, I had all the proofs that behind every problem India was still facing and West had solved, the reason was only flawed administrative code, and not culture. I had also started sketching details of administrative changes.
         I could never convince myself to dump Indian Citizenship, and so decided not to apply for Green Card as that may lead me to dump Indian Citizenship. I was also against dual citizenship (and plan to cancel PIO, Dual Citizenship laws using public support). So even when PIO and Dual Citizenship laws came, I did not apply for US Green Card. In 1999, I came back due to parents’ ailing health. Since then, I have been “ex-defectee , now stuckee”.
         The corruption in India had grown and was growing, with no end in sight. Due to reduction in real spending in Military, Police and Courts, govt education, govt health, and allocating that money in private sectors and porous NGOs, there was an economic boom in upper class and upper middle class. The boom was also due to massive infusion of new money which was going to cause huge inflation in years to come. The massive inflation would cause strife that weak Military, police and courts would not be able to contain. The results could be anything from splitting of nation, widespread naxal strife, widespread regional violence borne due to inflation and unemployment, growing influence of missionaries due to rising hunger in poor. IOW, in 1999, there were too many wrong trends in sight. Most MLAs , MPs, IAS, intellectuals etc could not care less about ailing Military, ailing police, ailing courts and money supply rising at 17% to 24% a year. I had prepared 10s of draft to bring 10s of small modification in Indian Military, Police, Courts, reduce poverty using Mine Royalties and Land Rent, controlling money supply etc. Most intellectuals I met were openly hostile to each and every (every) proposed change.
         My father since early days had strongly insisted that I must join politics. While I liked discussing politics with him, his this demand used to irritate me ---“what would do after joining politics”? That apart. I had some strong questions to him “how do you propose I deal with so many corrupt MLAs, IAS, IPS, judges?” or “can you tell me how to deal with issue 2.5 crore pending cases in courts?” and so forth. None of us had clear answers. So he would give up his demand, only to bring it back again after few days.
         One day, when he re-iterated his wish that I should join politics to improve India, I asked him a better question “Say, I am MP or say you are MP again ; what law would propose on the first day, second day , third day etc. Please just confine to law and drafts only ; after all, any honest person should have one and only one reason to become MP – to modify laws. So if I or you or anyone were to become MP, what would DRAFTS would you propose FIRST and then later”. My question was specific. Only DRAFTS, no vague policy statements. From then onwards, we had several constructive iterations. He would make some drafts, I would type them up, take print outs and show him scenarios of how corrupt Ministers, IAS, IPS, judges can blatantly and openly misuse the draft and leave citizens helpless. Next, I would propose the drafts, and based on his experience, he would point out some of the flaws. Meanwhile, I was also publishing the drafts on websites such as , Indian Politics community at orkut and so forth, and was also giving drafts to many activists.
         By 2007, we had a list 100-120 changes in administration with the an enumerated list of 250-300 drafts. Each proposed change was described to the last level of detail with no ambiguity and vagueness. In 2008, I decide to form a political party to give publicity to these drafts by using election as a tool. This manifesto is result of years of all this labor of years.
         And my special thanks to people in internet communities such as , “Indian Politics” community on orkut etc. Their response has played important role in making the drafts. I should also thank the people who hated these proposals but at least replied. The hostiles’ arguments against my proposals did enable me to improve the text of the proposals as well as create techniques using which now I am able convince a common that he who opposes MRCM demands is an enemy of the commons, and they must not support him.

2.    Some possible futures of struggle for land rent and mines’ royalties

         Predicting future is Astrology is something I hate. But guessing possible scenarios based on historical events is useful. Now one caution about History is I would state is --- due to Historians, History has become useless. Most Historians have been agents of elitemen, and so they have carefully plucked out pages on historical information that would give ideas to activists that elitemen dont like. And they have mixed their person viewpoints and opinion as “facts” or “opinions based on facts”. Still, for whatever the history is worth, here are scenarios I project, on what may happen if 1000s of activists do manage to convince millions of citizens to force CMs, PM to sign first GO.
         If the first GO is signed, then within weeks crores of commons’ demands to give land rents and mines’ royalties will become explicit. The elitemen’s wealth and incomes will drastically decrease if that happens. And intellectuals are agents of elitemen, and they too will see a decrease in their incomes. So elitemen and intellectuals will be OPENLY hostile all the GOs, be first one, third one, forth one or fifth one or 100th one. What would happen if non-80G-activists demand land rent or third GO and elitemen refuse? Here are some scenarios.

Scenario-1 : Intellectuals, elitemen will accept defeat without violence
         One scenario is that elitemen and their agents intellectuals will accept verdict of majority, let CMs, PM sign third GOs and other GOs approved by 50% of citizens and learn to live like commons. This is only one scenario without bloodshed, and I hope that happens.

Scenario-2 : Intellectuals, elitemen ask soldiers, policemen to kill non-80G-activists demanding third GO
         Please click here and also click here

3.    Tiberius Gracchus

         (From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)
         Tiberius was born in 168 BC; he was the son of Tiberius Gracchus Major and Cornelia Africana. The Gracchi were one of the most politically connected families of Rome. His maternal grandparents were Publius Cornelius Scipio Africanus and Aemilia Paula, Lucius Aemilius Paulus Macedonicus's sister, and his own sister Sempronia was the wife of Publius Cornelius Scipio Aemilianus, another important general. Tiberius's military career started in the Third Punic War, as military tribune appointed to the staff of his brother in law, Scipio Aemilianus. In 147 BC he was appointed quaestor to consul Gaius Hostilius Mancinus and served his term in Numantia (Hispania province). The campaign was not successful, and Mancinus's army suffered a major defeat. It was Tiberius, as quaestor, who saved the army from destruction by signing a peace treaty with the enemy. Back in Rome, Scipio Aemilianus considered Tiberius's action cowardly and persuaded the Senate to nullify the peace. This was the start of the political enmity between Tiberius and the Senate
Land crisis
         Rome's internal political situation was not peaceful. In the last hundred years, there had been several wars. Since legionaries were required to serve in a complete campaign, no matter how long it was, soldiers often left their farms in the hands of wives and children. As estates in this situation went steadily into bankruptcy and were bought up by the wealthy upper class, latifundia or large estates, were formed. Furthermore, some lands ended up being taken by the state in war both in provinces in Italy and elsewhere. After the war was over much of the land would then be sold to or rented to various members of the populace. Much of this land was given to only a few farmers who then had large amounts of land that were more profitable than the smaller farms. The farmers with larger farms had their land farmed by slaves and didn't do the work themselves, unlike the farmers with smaller farms. When the soldiers returned from the legions, they had nowhere to go, so they went to Rome to join the mob of thousands of unemployed who roamed the city. Due to this, the number of men with enough assets to qualify for army duty was shrinking as was the military power of Rome. In 133 BC Tiberius was elected tribune of the people. Soon he started to legislate on the matter of the homeless legionaries. Tiberius noted how much of the land was being concentrated into latifundia, being held by owners of large farms and worked by slaves, rather than small estates owned by small farmers working the land themselves.
The Lex Sempronia Agraria
         In opposition to this, Tiberius proposed the laws called Lex Sempronia Agraria. They recommended that the government should confiscate public land that had previously been taken by the state in earlier wars, and was being held in amounts larger than the 500 iugera, approximately 310 acres (1.3 km²), allowed under previous land laws. Some of this land had been held by large land holders who had bought, settled, or rented the property in much earlier time periods, even several generations back. Sometimes it had been leased, rented, or resold to other holders after the initial sale or rental. In some ways, this was an attempt to implement the Licinian Laws passed in 367 B.C., which had never been repealed and never enforced. This would solve two problems: increase the number of men that could be levied for service and also take care of homeless war veterans.
         The Senate and its conservative elements were strongly against the Sempronian agrarian reforms, and were also particularly opposed to Tiberius’s highly unorthodox method of passing the reforms. Because Tiberius clearly knew the Senate wouldn’t approve his reforms, he side stepped the Senate altogether by going straight to the Concilium Plebis (the Popular Assembly) who highly supported his measures. This actually was neither against the law or agianst tradition (Mos Maiorum), but was somewhat insulting to the senate and ran the risk of alienating senators who otherwise might show support. But the Senate had a trick up their sleeves: a tribune who said “No”, or used a veto, always prevailed. So, in an effort to stop Tiberius, the Senate persuaded Octavius, another tribune, to use his veto to prevent the submission of the bills to the Assembly. Gracchus then moved that Octavius, as a tribune who acted contrary to the wishes of his constituents, should be immediately deposed. Octavius remained resolute. The people began to vote to depose Octavius, but the tribune vetoed their actions. Tiberius had him forcefully removed from the meeting place of the Assembly and proceeded with the vote to depose him. These actions violated Octavius' right of sacrosanctity and worried Tiberius' supporters, and so instead of moving to depose him, Tiberius commenced to use his veto on daily ceremonial rites in which Tribunes were asked if they would allow for key public buildings, for example the Markets and the Temples, to be opened in this way he effectivly shut down the entire city of Rome including all businesses, trade, and production, until the senate and the Assembly passed the laws. The Assembly, fearing for Tiberius's safety, escorted him home.
         The Senate gave trivial funds to the agrarian commission that had been appointed to execute Tiberius's laws. However, late in 133 BC, king Attalus III of Pergamum died and left his entire fortune (including the whole kingdom of Pergamum) to Rome. Tiberius saw his chance and immediately used his tribunician powers to allocate the fortune to fund the new law. This was a direct attack on senatorial power, since it was traditionally responsible for the management of the treasury and for decisions regarding overseas affairs. The opposition of the senate increased.
Tiberius' death
         Tiberius Gracchus' overruling of the tribunician veto was considered illegal, and his opponents were determined to impeach him at the end of his one year term, since he was regarded as having violated the constitution and having used force against a tribune. To protect himself further, Tiberius Gracchus sought re-election to the tribunate in 133 B.C, promising to shorten the term of military service, abolish the exclusive right of senators to act as jurors, and admit allies to Roman citizenship. On election day, Tiberius Gracchus appeared in the Roman senate with armed guards and in a mourning costume, implying that his defeat would mean his impeachment and death. As the voting proceeded, violence broke out on both sides. Tiberius's cousin, Publius Cornelius Scipio Nasica, saying that Tiberius wished to make himself king, led the senators down towards Tiberius. In the resulting confrontation, Tiberius was killed. Several hundred of his followers, who were waiting outside the senate, perished with him. Plutarch says "Tiberius' death in the senate was short and quick although he was armed it did not help him against the many senators of the day."
Opposition to Tiberius Gracchus
         Tiberius was opposed by three men: Marcus Octavius, Scipio Nasica and Scipio Aemilianus. Octavius opposed Tiberius because Tiberius would not let him veto the Lex Sempronia Agraria. This offended Octavius, who then entered into a conspiracy with Scipio Nasica and Scipio Aemilianus to assassinate Tiberius. Nasica would benefit from this because Tiberius had bought some land from a place that Nasica wanted. Because of this, Nasica lost out on 500 sesterces. Nasica would often bring this up in the senate to mock Tiberius. Aemilianus opposed Tiberius Gracchus because Tiberius convinced him to marry his sister Sempronia. The marriage was a failure and cost Aemilianus much in separation settlements. Aemilianus was also bitter because Tiberius was a better public speaker, which often left Aemilianus embarrassed in the senate.
         The Senate then sought to placate the plebeians by consenting to the enforcement of the Gracchan laws. An increase in the register of citizens in the next decade suggests a large number of land allotments. Nonetheless, the agrarian commission found itself faced with many difficulties and obstacles. Tiberius' heir was his younger brother Gaius, who would share Tiberius' fate, a decade later, while trying to apply even more revolutionary legislation.

4.    Gaius Gracchus

         (From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)
Early life
         Gaius was born in 154 BC, the son of Tiberius Sempronius Gracchus (Tiberius Gracchus Major, who died in the same year) and Cornelia Africana, and brother of Tiberius Sempronius Gracchus. The Gracchi were of noble descent and were one of the politically most important families of Rome, very rich and well connected. His mother, Cornelia Africana, was daughter of Scipio Africanus Major and his sister Sempronia was the wife of Scipio Aemilianus, another important general. Gaius was raised by his mother, a Roman matrona of high moral standards and virtue. Gaius’ military career started in Numantia, as a military tribune appointed to the staff of his brother in law, Scipio Aemilianus. As a young man, he watched the political turmoil caused by his older brother Tiberius Gracchus, as he tried to pass laws for agrarian reforms. Tiberius was killed in 133 BC near the Capitol, during an armed confrontation with political enemies, led by Publius Cornelius Scipio Nasica, their cousin. With this death, Gaius inherited the estate of the Gracchii family. History would prove that he inherited his brother's ideals too.
Quaestorship and first tribunate
         Gaius had been on the Aguarian comission along with his bother and Appius Cladius. Gaius started his political career in 126 BC, as quaestor to consul Lucius Aurelius Orestes in Sardinia. After a few years of political peace in Rome, in 123 BC, Gaius was elected for the tribunate of the plebs, as every man in his family before him. The conservatives soon understood that they might expect trouble from him. Gaius had similar ideals as Tiberius, but he had time to learn from his brother's mistakes. His program included not only agrarian laws, that stated that lands illegally acquired by the rich should be redistributed to the poor, but also laws that regulated the price of grain. He also tried to limit the number of years and campaigns a man was obliged to serve in the army. Other measures included the reformation of the extortion court, which prosecuted illegal appropriations of money by members of the senate and a law concerned with the constitution of juries, which were previously composed only of senators, subject to bribery, who would judge their peers . His law changed the jury-draft pool to include equites . He also proposed the extension of Roman citizenship to several Italian allied nations. All of this displeased the senators.
Second tribunate and death
         In 122 BC, Gaius ran, unconstitutionally,[citation needed] for another term as tribune of the plebs – and succeeded, with the overwhelming support of Rome's lower classes. During this year, he continued to pursue his reforms and to deal with increasing opposition of the senate. Gaius tried to run for a third time, with Marcus Fulvius Flaccus as his colleague and partner, but they lost and could do nothing but watch the removal of all their laws by the new conservative consuls, Quintus Fabius Maximus and Lucius Opimius. In order to prevent the loss of all his work, Gaius and Fulvius Flaccus resorted to violent measures. The senate responded by tagging them as enemies of the Republic and they eventually had to run. Fulvius Flaccus was murdered with his sons, but Gaius managed to escape with Philocrates, his faithful slave. Upon coming to the Grove of the Furies, he likely ordered Philocrates to kill him. Following his death, about 3,000 men suspected of supporting him were killed and their estates were confiscated. According to Plutarch's Lives of the Noble Greeks and Romans Gaius Gracchus was killed by Philocrates, who then killed himself. One of Gracchus's enemies decapitated the body, and the head was taken by Septimuleius (a client of Opimius) who, it was said, cracked the skull open and filled it with molten lead, which was then taken to Opimius. It weighed in on the scale at over seventeen pounds, so Opimius paid Septimuleius this weight in gold, as he had promised.[1]

5.    Conclusions from Roman History

         IOW, these elitemen, intellectuals do scream about human rights and liberty etc. But they all know that without mines royalties and land rent, their so call “merits” are of no use and they would beccome common the day they lose favorable access to banks, mines, GoI plots etc. So they might resort to full violence against those who demand first GO, as the they can see that the first GO would lead to third GO, which would need to forth GO and so forth. This is exactly what happened in Rome 2000 years ago, and has happened 1000s of times in History. So realistically speaking, there is a possibility that Indian elitemen and intellectuals will ask soldiers and policemen, via legal authorities to kill non-80G-activists who are demanding first GO. If that happens, the non-80G-acvistists will have no option but to strike back with force. There are 15 lakh policemen and 10 lakh soldiers. To create a force that would make middle management in police and soldiers decide not to kill commons demanding first GOs, the commons would need at least 5 lakhs armed, trained cadets. Which is why I insist that every MRCM member must provide rifle training course to as many youth as possible.

6.    Possible scenarios

Scenario-1 : Intellectuals, elitemen will accept defeat without violence
         One scenario is that elitemen and their agents intellectuals will accept verdict of majority, let CMs, PM sign third GOs and other GOs approved by 50% of citizens and learn to live like commons. This is only one scenario without bloodshed, and I hope that happens.

Scenario-2 : Intellectuals, elitemen ask soldiers, policemen to kill non-80G-activists demanding third GO
         Please read about Tiberius Gracchus and Gaius Gracchus above.

Scenario-2A : Soldiers, policemen agree to kill commons demanding third GO
         Most IPS are corrupt and would gladly kill pro-common activists. But out of 35000 officers in Army, over 33,000 are non-corrupt and aware of dire circumstances that result if soldiers are asked to kill ordinary non-secessionists commons for their political demands. But soldiers are trained to follow orders and I would not expect or even wish them to disobey the orders from PM. So if PM orders the soldiers to kill non-80G-activists demanding third Govt Order, the result will be mayhem.

Scenario-2B : Soldiers top/middle management convinces elitemen not to kill commons
         The middle management of Indian Military is largely non-corrupt (unlike IPS) and consists of committed officers interested in ensuring that India does not become slave of foreign power like Nepal has become. So they might be able to convince Ministers not to kill commons and non-80G-activists and accept the demand of third signing Govt Order. This is what I hope for. I sincerely hope that Military officers will be able to persuade Ministers, intellectuals and elitemen not to impose a police/Military state in India. However, if Indian elitemen, Ministers override the middle management of Military and impose a Military state in India, then India will become another Nepal or worse another Pakistan with many mini-Bangladesh popping out all over. Most of these new states will be loyal to the

         -Rahul Mehta
         ph: 91-98251-27780
         email :
         website :

Main Page     Feedback?      Orkut Community For Discussions