Rahul Mehta Gandhinagar LsCandidate

A question to all
.
How many "good" MPs did people of India had elected and sent to British Parliament to get "Indian Indepdence Act" passed? NONE. Then is election contesting needed today to get RTR , Jury etc law-drafts passed?
.
I at Right to Recall Party is asking many many to contest Loksabha / Assembly polls to promote RTR-law-drafts, JurySys-law-drafts, wealth tax, TCP, MRCM etc etc.
.
And I say that without election contesting, it is IMPOSSIBLE to get these laws passed. And I add --- election winning may not be must , but election contesting is must !!!
.
And we have a complete counter example ---- in 1946, citizens of India had elected ZERO MPs in British Parliament, and yet British MPs printed Indian Independence Act !!! IOW, in 1946, activists of India could force British MPs to pass law without contesting any election in British Parliament.
.
So what are your views?
.
Do you say that RTR laws cant come without election winning and / or election contesting? And if you support election contesting , then how do you address the counter argument that " activists of India could force British MPs to pass Indian Indepence law without contesting any election in British Parliament, and so it is possible to pass RTR laws without contesting / winning elections?".
.
I will post my views after 3-4 days
.
added later ---
.
Dear all,
.
There are several plus points of election contesting eg election contesting will enable us to take information to more number of voters. But does election contesting offer something UNIQUE?
.
eg say one recallist contests one loksabha election and say that takes information to say election contesting takes information to say 1 lakh voters. But same could have been done by pamphlets and newspaper advt. So what does election contesting offer UNIQUE that other means dont? OR, do they offer nothing unique
.
------
.
There is one more xample where law-passing happened without election contesting, Across Induia, in 1947-48, right after freedom, several communist party activists started agitation for land reforms i.e. taking land from landowners who have 1000s of acres of land and giving it to the landless. To stop them, in many states such as AP, Orissa, UP, Bihar, Kerala, WB etc the Congress leaders decided to massacre communist party workers en-masse. In Gujarat, Congress leaders decided to hijack the agitation by talking about land reforms !!! And so finally Congress leaders got hijacked and they were forced to implement land reforms. In Kerela, the communist party workers won elections and got dismissed by Congress govt in center and then congress started to implement land reforms. In WB, the communist party workers won election in 1960s and started land reforms. In rest of India, communist party workers could not get elected and land reforms didnt happen either.
.
IOW, in Gujarat, woithout contesting election, communist party workers got land reforms implemented --- i.e. they could force / motivate congress to implement land reforms !! IOW, this is one more example to show that agitation and mass movement can inded bring REAL change without election contesting.
.
So coming back ---- do you thing it is MUST to contest election? MUST --- not just helpful. Is that without election contesting RTR laws can simply never come? Why / why not?