ॐ नमः शिवाय defines my life

Shrimad Bhagavad Gita is Rashtriya Dharma Shastra - Prayagraj High Court

2013-10-19T10:59:00.002-08:00

Shrimad Bhagavad Gita is Rashtriya Dharma Shastra - Prayagraj Allahabad High Court by satyabhashnam

The Bhagwad Gita may also be considered as the Rashtriya Dharma Shastra - Prayagraj High Court

Rajesh Kumar Pandey, Hindustan Times
Allahabad, September 11, 2007

The Allahabad High Court has expressed the view that it is the duty of the State to recognise the Bhagwad Gita as the Rashtriya Dharma Shastra, which inspired our national struggle for freedom and also all walks of life.

“As India has recognised national flag, national bird, national anthem and national flower, the Bhagwad Gita may also be considered as the Rashtriya Dharma Shastra.”

“It is the duty of every citizen of India under Article 51A of the Constitution of India irrespective of caste, creed or religion to follow the dharma propounded by the Bhagwad Gita,” the High Court observed.

The view was expressed by Justice SN Srivastava while deciding on a writ petition filed by priest Shyamal Ranjan Mukherjee of the Gopal Thakur Mandir of Varanasi, challenging the sale of temple properties.

The court also directed the state government not to permit alienation of any property attached to any temple and other religious institutions (mutts, temples, specified endowments and samadhis) without prior permission of the district judge concerned.

Incredible Kashmir Visit: An Experience shared by Santhosh Prabhu

2013-07-27T11:07:00.001-08:00

Incredible Kashmir Visit: An Experience shared by Santhosh Prabhu
Vishwa Samvad Kendra, Karnataka

An Experience shared by Santhosh Prabhu, Bangalore on his visit to Jammu-Kashmir recently.

Recently I visited Kashmir Valley and got the opportunity to spend time and interact with Kashmiris staying in a remote village called Larnoo as well as few days in Srinagar city. It gave me a good insight into the Kashmir imbroglio and challenges that we as Indians have in front of us as a Nation which has its roots in plurality, diversity, democracy and mutual acceptance. My previous visit to Kashmir valley was in 2010, when the Separatist movement was at its peak with large scale violence, stone pelting, and firing happening almost every day in different parts of the Valley. This time there was relative peace all over, though few days ago, 8 Army men were killed in an ambush by terrorists near Srinagar.

One of the main purpose of the visit was to attend my friend Sandeep Bhat’s wedding in Anantnag. It was a great occasion meeting my friend after so many years. Sandeep Bhats family like hundreds of other Kashmiri Hindu families were forced to leave Kashmir Valley in 1989-1990, when separatists selectively targeted Kashmiri Hindus and created an atmosphere in which they had no option other than to leave the valley. But still there are few Hindu families in Kashmir Valley who did not leave during that time. And Sandeeps wedding happening in Kashmir is a welcome sign and an indication that there is a strong urge in hundreds of Kashmiri Hindu families who are right now settled in Jammu and Delhi to return back to their homes in Kashmir Valley. I was glad to attend the wedding and meet all his family members.

At around 5:30 in the evening, Mohammed Faizal, a School teacher, came to receive me in Anantnag. We both boarded a Sumo (the most used vehicle for public transport in Kashmir Valley) to Larnoo. Larnoo is a small village which is a one and half hour drive from Anantnag. The journey was very scenic and soothing with mountains, valleys, rivers, and streams on the way. I then started thinking about the turbulence that Kashmir has been going through the past few decades. But I felt that all these beautiful mountains and rivers were in peace with itself, unaffected by any external disturbance created by human interference. We reached Larnoo at around 7:30 and from there we had to go further up in the mountains to reach Lessoo. We reached the residence of Faizal at around 8 in the night. After having some refreshing Kashmiri tea (majority of Kashmiris drink salty tea) and snacks, I sat informally with all the family members of Faizal. There were 14 members who were staying in the house and were very glad to have me as their guest and every one of them made sure that I was feeling comfortable. After an hour or so we had our dinner. Like majority of south India and states such as Orissa, Bengal, and Assam, rice is the staple food in Kashmir. Chicken, Mutton, Paneer, Rajma are the major constituents of Kashmiri Cuisine. After dinner I spent some time with Faizal and discussed about the present situation in Kashmir and went to bed since we both were tired after the journey.

After having out tea and Kashmiri rotis (made of corn) the next morning, we went up to explore the mountains and valleys. It was an amazing feeling to walk through the valleys, and Faizal told me that at the peak of militancy all those places used to be the hideouts of terrorists. The terrorists moved freely in those areas as was a sign of bravery to be a militant. Faizal said his own uncle

had gone to Pakistan and received training in a Terrorist training camp during the 90s. While talking to Faizal, I felt a strong feeling of alienation exists amongst Kashmiri Muslims, they are really fed up of Militancy. Pro-Pakistan and Separatist rhetoric have reached to a critical point where they feel that their future lies with India. Even the villagers say that in all these 23 years we have lost everything as part of these agitations for Azaadi and we have gained nothing. One generation has gone without proper education because of which now we are suffering. They feel left behind when they go to places such as Jammu and Delhi. Many villagers also said that when their children go to other cities in India they are viewed with suspicion. School teachers feel they don’t even have access to information about the options that they have for higher education. While talking to them, it became clear to me that because of the misinformation campaign and lack of exposure to other cultures, there are a lot of stereotypes and bias against India and Hindus. Before I stayed and ate with them, they felt that as a Hindu it was not possible for me to do these things.

When we reached the top of the mountain, we had our tea which we had carried in a flask. There was no need to carry water bottles since there were several streams flowing through the mountain. Faizal told me that the name Anantnag has its origin from ’spring’. “Nag” in Kashmiri means ’spring’ and so Anantnag is “Endless Springs”. After spending some time in the mountains during the day in the evening we went to the banks of the river Brangi. It was serene, calm and peaceful. Faizals friend Zahoor also joined us and while walking we met 8-10 villagers who invited us for tea when they realized that I am Faizals guest. Kashmiri is the local language and not everyone speaks Hindi. Kashmiri is written in Arabic script, though I was told that there is an effort going on to re-embrace the original Kashmiri script. I also realized that many Kashmiri Muslims are also proud of their Hindu ancestry and personalities such as King Lalitaditya and Avantiverman, who ruled Kashmir, and historians such as Kalhana the author of “Rajatarangini” written in the 12th Century which gives a historical chronicle of Kashmir. Though I could see strong strains of Islamic fundamentalism in the youth, a sense of openness and eagerness for more exposure also existed. For instance, Faizal did not have any problem in me doing Surya Namaskar and Yogasan beside him while he did Namaaz;he also learnt few aasanas and pranayam from me later. In the villages, I found majority of women wearing traditional Kashmiri dress without burqa. We returned home in the night, after having dinner and an hour long chit-chat with other members of the family, and I went to bed.

The next morning Faisal and I visited Martand, a place near Anantnag where an ancient sun temple is situated. We reached Anantnag town at around 10 in the morning and took a bus to Mattan (the ancient name is Martand) and reached the Martand temple at around 11. The ancient Sun temple of Martand was built by King Lalitaditya in 500 AD. This temple was destroyed by the Islamic invader Sikander Butshikan and it is said that it took one whole year for him to destroy this temple completely. There is also a Gurudwara adjacent to the mandir and it is believed that Guru Nanak Dev had visited that site when he was returning from Tibet. Since that particular day was the birthday of Guru Hargobind, 6th Guru of Sikhs, there was a procession where hundreds of Sikhs were present. There is a spring nearby where water flows continuously to the pond in front of the Mandir, in the middle of which is a Shiv ling. After having darshan and spending some time in Mattan, we went to Nagdandi, another small town near Anantnag where there is an Ashram run by Vivekananda Kendra. I had visited this Ashram three years ago and I wanted to meet the Swamiji over there as he is not keeping well health wise. After meeting Swamiji, we had our lunch over there and spent some time in the Ashram. Several Kashmiri Hindu families have very strong ties with this Ashram, and during festivals and special occasions, hundreds of people come and stay over here. Swamiji of this Ashram has also developed good relationships with all the Muslim families of the Village. During my previous visit it was Nag Panchami day and there was Hawan, Pooja which was also attended by hundreds of Muslims of the locality. In this Ashram, there is a small temple dedicated to Ramakrishna Paramahamsa at the foot of wooded hills and Samadhi of Swami Ashokananda (A Yogi who lived in this area 40 years ago) is also within the precincts of the Ashram.

We returned to Larnoo by 4 in the evening that day, and rest of the day I tried to capture the beauty of the village, mountains, and rivers in my camera. Also while talking to local Kashmiri youth and elders about the exodus of Kashmiri Hindus, it became clear to me that they sincerely believe the Separatist propaganda that the then Governor Jagmohan who asked Kashmiri Hindus to stay away from the Kashmir Valley, so that he can wipe out Kashmiri Muslims without any difficulty. We all now know that there was no element of truth in that statement. But when I asked them whether they would like to see Kashmiri Hindus back in Kashmir, they all replied in affirmative.

The next day morning I started for Srinagar from Larnoo and reached Srinagar at around 2 in the afternoon. Shri B.L. Khan and his son Zaheer had come to receive me at Lal Chowk. Lal Chowk is the place where separatists hold their anti-India and pro-Pakistan rally every year when they try to show their strength hoisting Pakistani flag and burning Indian tri color. This is the same place where Murali Manohar Joshi of BJP had hoisted the tricolor in 1992. We reached B.L. Khan’s home at around 3. B.L. Khan is a well known and influential person in Srinagar, who was working previously in Civil Secretariat and was also actively involved in Trade Union. A staunch nationalist, B.L. Khan has always been a strong proponent of complete integration of Jammu and Kashmir with India. It was a great experience listening to B.L. Khan who is born and brought up in Srinagar and has witnessed all the major events in Kashmir firsthand . Khan explained to me how vested interests, including international forces, are working in Kashmir, and want to keep this issue alive for their own benefits. He further added that all the main stream political parties in Kashmir like National Conference, Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) and Congress are working as semi-separatists trying their best to keep Kashmir burning and doing nothing towards integration of Kashmir with the rest of India. Khan also talked about his past background when he used to work for the Communist Party and the reason for which he left Communism. He told me that in the early 90s a meeting was convened by the Communist Party, presided by Comrade Surjeet, which primarily focused on Kashmiri Muslims. In that meeting, Surjeet asked all Kashmiri Muslims to join hands with Militants and reiterated that the Communist Party stands for Self Determination of Jammu and Kashmir. Hearing this B.L. Khan got agitated and walked out from the meeting. After that incident, I came to know about the true colors of Communists, Khan added. That day I took some rest as I had sprained my leg the previous day. I also spent some time talking with Zaheer, who has just completed his Bachelor’s Degree in Commerce from Kashmir University. Zaheer shared his experience in the University where classes getting suspended is a usual norm because of the whole unrest and how education of thousands of Kashmiris is getting affected. University students are also lost because of lack of exposure and employment as there are hardly any companies in Kashmir Valley who can offer jobs to graduates. Because of all these factors, there is high level of frustration amongst youth. After having lengthy discussions on this topic with Zaheer, I went to bed that day night as my leg was still paining because of the sprain.

After breakfast the next morning, Zaheer and I went to Karan Nagar in Srinagar where Ramkrishna Mission Ashram is located. I had emailed Swami ji who is in charge of the Ashram, and had requested for his time. Swamiji was very happy to receive us, and when I introduced myself and Zaheer, he was pleasantly surprised and puzzled on how come a Sangh Pracharak has come along with a Muslim youth, that too in Kashmir Valley. Swami ji is native of Kerala, and is stationed in Srinagar center since last 5 years. He explained about the Dispensary and Coaching classes run by the Mission for the local people there. I also updated Swamiji about our Sangh activity, which is happening all over the country including Jammu and Kashmir. After having tea and spending some time with Swamiji, we returned back home. On our way back Zaheer took me to Jamia Masjid in Nowhatta area in Srinagar, where Mirwaiz Umar Farooq , Leader of Hurriyat Conference (M) gives his sermons every week after Friday prayers.

In the afternoon B. L. Khan, Zaheer and I went to have darshan at Mata Kheer Bhavani temple in Tula Mula, 25 kms north of Srinagar in Ganderbal District. Kheer Bhavani Mandir is a very important holy site for Kashmiri Hindus. It is called as Ksheer (which means milk) or Kheer Bhawani because thousands of devotees who come there offer milk and kheer (rice pudding) to the sacred spring on which the deity is worshipped. The legend associated with the temple goes that Lord Rama worshipped Ragnya Devi during his exile. After the exile period, Rama asked Hanuman to shift the seat of goddess . The seat of the goddess was brought by Hanuman first to Shadipora and later to the site where the temple is situated today. It is believed that it was the wish of mother Ragnya that her seat be placed in Kheer Bhavani Mandir in Kashmir. Another interesting thing I came to know was it is said that color of the spring goes on changing and if it becomes black, it is an indication of inauspicious time for Kashmir.

After having darshan at Kheer Bhavani, , we also visited Hazratbal shrine in Srinagar city which is the holiest Muslim shrine in Kashmir. It contains a relic which is believed by Muslims in Kashmir as hair of Mohammed, founder of Islam. This is the same masjid where terrorists were hiding in 1993, making it as their base. The Army cordoned off the whole area, but unfortunately all the terrorists who were hiding inside were given free passage by Congress Party led Central Government at that time. In the evening while having our tea, I asked B.L. Khan about the alleged Human Rights violations and excesses in Kashmir by Indian Armed forces. His replied back saying that such cases happen very rarely, but it is reported out of proportion and is used as a propaganda material by Separatists. He also added that when terrorists in civilian dress attack armed forces, public property, and plant bombs, strong action is required by the Army so that the situation is under control. That evening Zaheer and I went on his motor bike to enjoy the beauty of Srinagar City and Dal lake in the night. Shankaracharya mandir was standing majestically on the top of the hill, as if it was conveying a message of cultural unity of whole of India from Kerala to Kashmir, which is challenged by the terrorist and separatist forces. After enjoying the night ride we returned back home by 10.

The next morning we went to Dal lake to meet Sangh Karyakartas from Punjab who had come to Kashmir for sightseeing. After spending some time with them, we met Jayesh Kapoor, who owns a Cloth store in Srinagar. Jayesh is Swayamsevak from Punjab and was really glad to see us. In the afternoon I spent time with B.L. Khan. Spending time with Khan was indeed an enriching experience for me as many of my questions and doubts about Kashmir got cleared, and I also got a nationalist perspective of things happening in Kashmir. After bidding good bye to Khan, I went to Rajesh Kouls home. Rajesh, a Kashmiri Hindu from Shopian, is working in Civil Secretariat in Srinagar. Rajesh’s family had to move out of Kashmir Valley in the early 90s during the rise of Militancy and they are settled in Jammu now. Rajesh narrated his experiences in Kashmir on his perspective on how the Kashmir issue can be addressed. One incident he mentioned, was last year as he was returning from Anantnag to Kashmir along with his wife and daughter. There was a shutdown call that day by Separatists and on the way, his car was stopped by a mob. As they forced him to say slogans such as ” Naree Taqbir- Allaho Akbar” and ” hum kya chahte hain, azaadi” the tension was building up.His wife and daughter asked him to say the slogan, but he refused. But somehow he was allowed to go, though his windows got damaged as they threw stones at the car.

The next day morning was my flight from Srinagar. The previous day night, I was contemplating on my experience that I had in Kashmir, and I felt that one possible solution to this problem is people through people interaction and relationship. If Kashmiris get more and more exposure with the rest of India, like having education in other cities and meeting people of different backgrounds, this can widen their horizons and remove the negative notions and biases that they have about the rest of India and Indians. At the same time, people of rest of India also have a big role to play such as finding ways to build relationships with families in Kashmir and spending time interacting and living together, instead of just visiting as tourists. Unfortunately mainstream political parties are not doing this and in addition to that they are adding fuel to the fire. Similarly our Armed forces have a role to play, and they are doing an exemplary job by maintaining peace and countering terrorism in the Valley. But this person-to-person interaction, I feel, can address the issue of separatism, alienation as well as strengthen the nationalist forces in the Kashmir valley which will help in the complete integration of whole of Jammu and Kashmir with the rest of India.

Here I remember the quote of Ronald Reagan ”I’ve always believed that a lot of troubles in the world would disappear if we were talking to each other instead of about each other .” Many NGOs like Sewa Bharati, Ekal Viyalaya, Ramkrishna Mission, Vivekananda Kendra are doing an excellent work in Jammu and Kashmir by carrying out service activities and running schools serving the people of the State and it became very clear from my experience that Majority of people in Majority areas of Jammu and Kashmir are strongly with India, and the question is about that part of Jammu and Kashmir which is under the illegal occupation of Pakistan ( Gilgit, Baltistan, Muzzafarabad) and China ( Aksai Chin ). Also it is a fact that the whole of Jammu and Kashmir became an integral part of India, when Raja Hari Singh signed the instrument of accession on October 26th, 1947 and India as a nation has the strength to defeat the nefarious designs of Pakistan and Separatist forces.

Pictures of extreme Delhi Police brutality on Delhi gang rape protesters at India Gate

2013-01-27T12:43:00.000-08:00

Remember the following pictures and videos next time you vote. This could have been you or any of us. These photos and videos are an evidence of extreme barbaric Police brutality and serious Human Rights violations by Delhi Police, under the order of fascist and corrupt CONgress led Government of India, on peaceful protesters (of all age groups from 5 to 91 years old), who had peacefully assembled to demand justice for bestial gang rape victim in Delhi and other sexual assault and pedophilia victims around the country. These innocent protesters, mostly young school and college students, were brutally and indiscriminately beaten black and blue, and were subjected to a barrage of inordinate amount of tear gas and water cannons at Rashtrapati Bhavan, Raisina Hill, North Block, Vijay Chowk, Rail Bhawan, Jantar Mantar, Amar Jawan Jyoti, India Gate, Rajpath, and Ramlila Maidan in New Delhi. How Gandhian!

These were NOT 'lumpen elements' as CONgress mouthpiece NDTV claims to condone this barbaric police crackdown.

Please also read the following articles:

Delhi Protests - Lumpens In The Media - Media Crooks
Delhi outrage: A sycophantic, arrogant and insensitive govt - Live Mint. It has turned this entirely justifiable and courageous cry for justice into an ‘us versus them’ situation.
In pictures: Behind-the-scenes: PM Manmohan Singh’s response to the Delhi Gang Rape Protests - The Unreal Times
An alternative speech for Manmohan Singh - Live Mint. Coward Prime Minister appealed for peace this morning, but here’s what he should have actually said.
Home Minister Sushil Shinde's daughter's shamelessly partying. - Mid Day. As India weeps for rape, Home Minister Sushil Kumar Shinde's two daughters party with Big Builder Sunny Divan, Salman Khan, IPS Officer Parambir Singh - yogeshpsingh

Courtesy: SandeepWeb

Courtesy: parthesh_99

Courtesy: tajinderbagga

Courtesy: @parthesh_99

Unseen Footage; Delhi Police inhuman brutality on peaceful Baba Ramdev and other protesters at Jantar Mantar. Even animals are not beaten so mercilessly.
Courtesy: IBTL

Courtesy: satishsolanki

Courtesy: kbarthwal

Courtesy: Djjpn

Courtesy: amishra77

Courtesy: ravishndtv

Courtesy: awakeindian

Courtesy: Shiv Aroor AP

Courtesy: yadavkarnika AP

Young girls crying at India Gate protest during Police brutality while a Police woman smiles and mocks them.
Courtesy: AdityaRajKaul

Courtesy: Sudhir Tailang

चूड़ियों को अपने हाथ बदल लेने चाहियें।
Courtesy: Donkeyji

Sheila Dikshit ji, imagine in 18'C chill, if your son had to brave a water cannon like this, just for demanding justice?
Courtesy: KiranKS

Courtesy: parthesh_99

मन्नू के लिए चूड़ियाँ भेजी है एक बहन ने।
Courtesy: parthesh_99

Courtesy: indiantweeter

Courtesy: Indian Express

Courtesy: naveen1003

Courtesy: parthesh_99

Courtesy: diwakargc

Courtesy: riya043

Courtesy: alok_bhatt

Delhi police used expired teargas shells on peaceful protesters.
Courtesy: SiddharthyaRoy

Courtesy: meviplav

NewsX reporter Ridhima Tomar injured as police fire tear gas aiming at protesters

Justice Verma report on Delhi Gang Rape

2013-01-23T06:31:00.003-08:00

Justice Verma committee report on Delhi Gang Rape

Justice Verma, Justice Leila Seth, and Gopal Subramanium committee report on amendments to criminal law released on 23 January 2013 after bestial Delhi Gang Rape that happened on 16 December 2012 and Delhi Police brutality on peaceful Indian citizens at India Gate.

Justice Verma report on Delhi Gang Rape

"Objective" journalism of "secular" Indian media EXPOSED!!

2012-09-01T01:00:00.003-08:00

Do any of the following questions bother you: Why is NDTV biased? Why does the Husband-Wife duo of Rajdeep Sardesai-Sagarika Ghose on CNN-IBN mostly invite pro-Muslim, pro-Secessionist, & anti-India fanatics for debates? Why NDTV, CNN-IBN, Hindustan Times, Outlook, & Times of India primarily seem to have an anti-Hindu prejudicial viewpoint? Why Hindustan Times, Outlook, & Indian Express mostly carry pro-Congress news?

Irrespective of your answer, please continue to read on...

This page is an archive to showcase the NOT so objective and at times intentionally offensive bigotry by "secular" journalists belonging to mostly Indian news media, when it comes to topics concerning nationalistic pride, patriotism, Hindu civil rights & liberties, Vedic civilizational history, Vedic culture, etc. It documents their shameless display of bias and prejudice, controversies, and downright abusive and threatening misbehavior. It also exposes the hypocrisy of some public figures & personalities including Politicians, Celebrities, etc. Kindly make your own judgments.

Disclaimer: Copyright on the content/text shared through tweets or other sources belongs to the respective author of that content/text. Twitter is trademark of Twitter, Inc.

==

Editorial slandering of Hindu symbols by CNN-IBN

==

CNN-IBN Deputy Editor Sagarika Ghose frauds the nation by faking pre-recorded interview of Sri Sri Ravishankar ji as live debate

==

CNN-IBN, IBN7 - Criminally Communal Channels

==

CNN-IBN Deputy Editor Sagarika Ghose - Case Study on Biased and Racist Journalism

==

NDTV fools the viewers by faking tweets

==

NDTV Group Editor Barkha Dutt - Case Study on Corrupt Journalism

==

Insulting Tweets against Hindus, Saffron, RSS, and BJP by Sagarika Ghosh

==

Pallavi Ghosh, CNN-IBN on 5 September 2012.

First came the canard from corrupt CONgress PR management Pallavi Ghosh.

Washington post apologises..will print PM's reply
— pallavi ghosh (@pallavighcnnibn) सितम्बर 5, 2012

Then came the truth from Washington Post that shredded Ms. Ghosh's lies in to small pieces.

@padmajajoshi1 Might have been nice if you had checked with Washington Post before tweeting that we had apologized!
— Simon Denyer (@simondenyer) सितम्बर 5, 2012

Couple of things to add: interviews were requested some time back with T.K.A. Nair, Pulok Chatterji and PM himself.All requests denied.
— Simon Denyer (@simondenyer) सितम्बर 5, 2012

@kabirtaneja Its not true. No threats were issued from their side, no apology was offered from mine.
— Simon Denyer (@simondenyer) सितम्बर 5, 2012

@avinashshukla29 @fakingnews @abpnewstv There has been absolutely no apology from Washington Post over article.
— Simon Denyer (@simondenyer) सितम्बर 5, 2012

@pallavighcnnibn Now that WaPo has denied apologising, would you please apologise for spreading rumours? @sardesairajdeep
— S Siddhartha (@siddhu_75) सितम्बर 5, 2012

==

Sanjay Jha on 1 September 2012.

Dear Team Congress,Many thanks for your amazing support against hugely funded propaganda machine of #VoteModiOut. We won! Congratulations!
— Sanjay Jha (@JhaSanjay) सितम्बर 1, 2012

Gutter-mouth Digvijaya Singh wannabe Sanjay Jha of corrupt CONgress admitting that CONgress is funding propaganda against Shri Narendra Modi. Appalling is an understatement.

==

Raksha Kumar, New York Times on 26 July 2012.

I spent all afternoon translating #Modi's latest interview.One conclusion: he is shameless! nyti.ms/QaThv t #Gujarat #Godhra
— Raksha Kumar (@Raksha_Kumar) जुलाई 26, 2012

@cosmicwondrous he should be ashamed for not regretting or apologising. Also, because he seems unscathed by it all.
— Raksha Kumar (@Raksha_Kumar) जुलाई 26, 2012

Such is the state of journalism in India today that people write prejudiced articles full of personal bigotry and jaundiced opinion masqueraded as news. Raksha Kumar is boasting of her massively shoddy job of transcribing Honorable Gujarat Chief Minister Shri Narendra Modi's interview with Shahid Siddiqui, Editor of Urdu Newspaper Nai Dunia, for The New York Times. As per Ms Kumar's jaundiced mindset, Shri Modi is already guilty without any trial or even single First Information Report (Police FIR) of alleged crimes that he has been accused of during 2002 riots, which followed Islamic terrorist attack on Hindus in Godhra, without bringing forward even a shred of evidence against him in past 10 years. This when even the Supreme Court's Special Investigative Team (SIT) has absolved and exonerated Shri Narendra Modi of all allegations. Ms Kumar has shamelessly [sic] presumed and assumed that Shri Modi is guilty of unproven canards and baseless allegations spread against him and goes as far as calling him "shameless" "for not regretting or apologizing" for crimes he did not commit.

First of all, her transcription of the audio interview of Shri Narendra Modi is el cheapo to say the least. Her transcription is not comprehensive and is selectively censored. Her translations from Hindi to English have glaring mistakes. I doubt that she even understands Hindi. Secondly, Ms Kumar has not given any convincing argument for declaring Shri Narendra Modi as "shameless". She has not answered when did Shri Modi behaved shamelessly during the entire interview. Is Ms Kumar calling Shri Modi "shameless" because he did not witness against himself, for crimes he did not do, just to satisfy the whims of bigoted journalists such as Ms Kumar. Shri Modi has a Right to Free Speech to say what he wants and when he wants. Clearly Ms Kumar did not learn First, Fifth, and Sixth amendments to Bill of Rights in US Constitution during her education at Journalism School at Columbia University. Specifically,

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, .... nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

It is a shame that newspapers such as The New York Times employees such sloppy journalists who do not understand Hindi and Rights of the people guaranteed in US Constitution. But then what can you expect from a person who was supposedly mentored by another Hinduphobic, Narendra Modi hater, and Niira Radia's alleged ministership horse-trading tapes accomplice, Ms Barkha Dutt.

==

Rajdeep Sardesai, Editor-in-Chief of CNN-IBN on 24 July 2012.

@Prasad_Paatkar 21 died in Assam, more than a 1000 in Gujarat. scale and intensity, plus logistics will determine media coverage.
— Rajdeep Sardesai (@sardesairajdeep) July 24, 2012

Brutal murder of 21 Hindus and displacement of 200,000 Hindus by illegal Bangladeshi Muslims under patronage of divisive CONgress govt is NOT news worthy for Rajdeep Sardesai until 1000 Hindus get massacred. Showboating egalitarianism?!

Clearly, ambulance chasing riots cottage industry discriminates on the basis of religion of the person in the ambulance. How Secular! Who is the real Maut Ka Saudagar? Media.

==

John Dayal, Hinduphobic self proclaimed Human Rights activist, Sonia Gandhi's extra-constitutional National Advisory Council (NAC) member.

John Dayal in this tweet is intensionally and deliberately trying to cause enmity between Hindus and Sikhs despite knowing the fact that 1984 pogrom was committed by CONgress party goons (When a big tree falls, Earth shakes) and not by Hindus. He is a certified Asshole of worst kind!

==

Nikhil Wagle, Editor of CNN-IBN Lokmat on 11 November 2011.

On 9 November 2011, Sagarika Ghose allegedly faked a LIVE interview of world-renowned Dharmic Guru and Hindu Saint Sri Sri Ravishankar ji. This whole fiasco is documented below (scroll down). As soon as the story broke, of course not on any news media but on Twitter only, a tsunami of righteous emotions flooded Twitterverse and Blogsphere with demands that Sagarika Ghose should be reprimanded for the alleged fraud on the viewers and with calls for her resignation. It is common knowledge that different people react in different ways to the same situation. Some people were civil in their call and some were abusive in their reaction. We may not agree with them, but either way it is their Right to Freedom of Speech.

But not so for hypocrites in media. As evident in the tweet above by brown-nosing employee and Hinduphobe Nikhil Wagle in which he chimed in (vis-a-vis his employer Sagarika/Rajdeep) with his extreme opinion to throw people in jail just for speaking their mind. What are we communist China or Sharia-ridden Saudi Arabia/Iran? Free Speech is BASIC Human Right, can't take that away bitch!

==

Sagarika Ghose, Deputy Editor of CNN-IBN and wife of her boss Rajdeep Sardesai on 10 November 2011.

A fellow Internet Hindu Kiran Kumar S aptly put it,

NDTV = Milking fake tweets ; #CNNIBNLies = Milking Fake Interviews ; Dynasty = Milking fake surname. Welcome to the Republic of Fakistan!

In utter disregard to viewer's intelligence and journalistic ethics, Sagarika Ghose of CNN-IBN allegedly defrauded the nation on her Face The Nation show on 9 November 2011. She allegedly misused a pre-recorded interview of world-renowned Dharmic Guru and Hindu Saint Sri Sri Ravishankar ji in a LIVE debate on 'Sri Sri on 4 day yatra in UP: should spiritual leaders take part in anti-corruption campaigns?'. The topic of the debate was to clearly caste aspersions on Sri Sri ji's anti-corruption movement. Prejudicial media has to of course question Sri Sri ji's intentions because he is a Hindu saint, and conveniently never questions political aspirations of and interference by Islamic organizations Deoband, Wakf, PFI (an extremist Muslim group which hacked the hand of a Christian professor).

Be as it may, it is okay for Sagarika to question Sri Sri ji's intentions as much as it is Sri Sri ji's Right to lead a people's movement against corruption (a noble nationalistic cause). But to, as alleged, blatantly misuse his pre-recorded interview in a cut and paste job to fool the viewers into believing that it is a LIVE interview is nothing short of immoral and yellow journalism.

Sagarika Ghose showed utter disregard to Sri Sri ji by allegedly faking his interview and projecting it to viewers as being LIVE part of an ongoing debate, essentially denying him the Right to Respond and Rebut. Even in Bharatiya Parliament, no one is allowed to accuse or quote an alive person unless He or She is present to defend his or her position. But when was the last time Bharatiya Main Stream Media acted as an ethical institution? CNN-IBN played a joke on viewer's intelligence by not informing them that Sri Sri ji's answers were pre-recorded and were being cut and paste in a LIVE debate.

Many viewers instantly caught discrepancy during the show such as Sri Sri ji's video was looping every 5 seconds (watch it in this Youtube video between 1:42 and 2:30) and immediately complained on Twitter about CNN-IBN's lies (#CNNIBNLies). Unfortunately, even after enormous uproar by Hindusthanis on Twitter, CNN-IBN hasn't taken any action against Sagarika Ghose (obviously because she is Editor Rajdeep Sardesai's wife). It instead issued a half-hearted apology which looks more like an advertisement showboating this joke of a show Face The Nation than remorse. Face The Nation... rather Fool/Fraud The Nation!

Lo' and behold, what does Sagarika Ghose do when caught? First hamam mein sab nange hain and every channel does what her channel did. Then play the gender bias victim-hood card that she loves play all the time. You allegedly did a fraud on viewers, half-heartedly apologized to the viewers, and then play a ridiculous victim-hood card. Pathetic.

This is not the first time CNN-IBN has Fooled The Nation. Dalal Media blog has well documented how this channel used fake nonexistent twitter accounts to inappropriately reflect and change public opinion. Similar to what NDTV has also been accused of in the past. Later CNN-IBN channel tendered an apology for the same. See a pattern? In January 2011, both NDTV and CNN-IBN claimed to have Mani Shankar Aiyar LIVE on their respective channels at the same time.

Please also read "Editorial slandering of Hindu symbols by CNN-IBN".

==

Smita Prakash, Editor, Asian News International (ANI) on 28 October 2011.

US-based music group Metallica was scheduled to perform in Gurgaon, Haryana on 28 October, 2011. But due to alleged mismanagement of the concert by the organizers and MTV India, concert was postponed due to technical snags. On hearing the news that concert was postponed, as a result of which the crowd got rowdy and vandalized the location. Metallica, henceforth, canceled their Gurgoan performance. Now instead of blaming dysfunctional Haryana Police and inept CONgress govt in Haryana for not controlling the crowd, elitist editor Ms. Smita Prakash showcased her shallow mindset by making insulting and disrespectful generalized remarks about North Indians. As per her, North Indians, specifically those who live in Delhi, should go to Satsangs & Jagrans only. First of all, the alleged hooliganism happened in Gurgaon, Haryana and it has nothing to do with Delhi. She should know Bharatiya Geography better. Secondly, she spoke of Satsangs & Jagrans in such a condescending way as if those people who partake in Satsangs & Jagrans belong to some downtrodden lower-class society as compared to those upper-class head-banging gang-banging drug-snorting rich-snob elitists who go to such English music concerts. Sick. Thirdly, her ridiculous generalization about North Indians and Satsang-goers was borderline racist and anti-Hindu, and very offensive.

==

Abhijit Majumder, Resident Editor, Hindustan Times on 21 October 2011.

In a voluntarily-admitted drunken rampage, Hindu phobic journalist Abhijit Majumder tweeted Anti-Hindu abusive rants. He abused Hindus as "Motherchod". He derided Hindu system of Varna Vyavastha as "great flaw".

==

Karti P Chidambaram, Son of former Finance and External Affairs Minister, and present Home Minister of India, P Chidamabaram on 22 August 2011.

This gem comes from Karti P Chidambaram, whose only qualification to fame is that he is Son of current Union Home Minister of Bharat, P Chidambaram. P Chidambaram is allegedly one the most corrupt ministers in history of India since 1947, so much so that even his dubious victory in general election of 2009 is under the scrutiny of courts. As shown in the tweet above, as per Karti P Chidambaram Anti-Hindu fascist Suzanne Arundhati Roy who rallies against Indian Union and lend support to secessionists Islamic terrorists in Kashmir and leftist Maoist terrorists in other parts of India is part of "civil society". How SICKENING is it that Son of "Union" Home Minister of India is calling a fascist & secessionist as civil society!

==

Pankaj Pachauri, Editor, NDTV on 14 July 2011.

In the first tweet above, Anti-Hindu leftist fart Pankaj Pachauri shows his communal fangs again by making a ludicrous statement that annual Ganesh Chaturthi festival should be scrapped to stop Islamic terrorism. It's absurd to even think of this primarily Hindu festival is cause of Islamic terror and then ask to suspend it is directly giving in to the intolerant Islamic ideology of Darul Islam which is the root cause of Islamic terrorism. Who the heck is Anti-Hindu Pankaj Pachauri to tell Indian citizens to not spend latter's private property as funds to celebrate Ganesh Chaturthi but rather use the funds as public property to build security infrastructure. Totally illogical.

In 1894, Lokmanya Bal Gangadhar Tilak transformed household worshiping of God Shri Ganesh into Sarvajanik Ganeshotsav and made Shiv Jayanti (birth anniversary celebrations of Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj) as a social festival to unite all Indians irrespective of religion as one nation. To ask such pluralist Hindu festival to be cause of Islamic terror and hence be scrapped is pathetic.

Of course, demented mind continues to churn out verbal diarrhea as Mr. Pachauri conveniently tags the opposite view as communal and confirms his bias by suggesting that Haj subsidy should go to protect Mosques. Think of his ridiculous argument for a moment. Private funds of Hindu citizens should NOT be spent to celebrate Hindu festival but rather be used as public money to protect the public property from Islamic terrorists. But Millions of Rupees of Indian tax payers and Hindu Temple donation money, which is currently re-directed to subsidize private vacation of Muslims in Mecca, should be used to protect private Mosques instead of public property. How secular!

In other tweets above, Mr. Kanchan Gupta calls out Pankaj Pachauri's communal agenda. More such bigotry from Pankaj Pachauri is documented below.

==

Palki Sharma, CNN-IBN on 3 July, 2011.

Irrespective of the means including corruption through which Mayawati has become rich from rags, still such disgusting elitist bias shown by Palki Sharma of CNN IBN in this tweet is totally un-called for. Don't know if her discriminatory comment was because Mayawati is presumed "dalit" even though latter is a millionaire but certainly it was because Mayawati does not talk English, walk English and think English as do these spoiled brats such as Palki. Seems she is toeing her employer Sagarika Ghose's line very well.

==

Kushan Mitra, Associate Editor, Business Today on 23 June, 2011.

Aren't we all taught not to poke our nose in other's business. Apparently Kushan Mitra who likes to use F-bombs, "gandu" and sexist-misogynistic-degrading abusive terms such as "cunt" in almost every sentence, self-admittedly even at home, hasn't learned this lesson. This barrage of abusive rants directed primarily towards Hindu Right started when Kushan Mitra poked his nose in an ongoing conversation between Mrs. Meena Das Narayan, Editor-in-Chief & Managing Partner of Gulf Connoisseur & Editor of The Address Magazine and Ms. Nidhi Razdan of NDTV (scroll below for past gems from her). When confronted for using abusive language targeting a woman, Mr. Mitra displayed utter disregard for modesty on public forum and indifference to the fact that it may also directly or indirectly reflect on his employer's editorial standards. Later he used the infamous Indian lame-excuse "tum jante ho mera baap kaun hai" (do you know who is my Father) by flaunting his Father's credentials of being Executive Member of political party BJP. Who knows why does that matter or how does that justify his abusive harangues? He also played the same old victimhood card & cliché excuse used by some Leftist Indian journalists of being attacked by Hindu Right. Which is hypocritical because he was the one who started all this when he poked his nose in other women journalists business and even used F-bomb with one of them. And how can questioning someone's abusive rants be termed as being attacked is beyond any sane logic.

==

Barkha Dutt, NDTV on 15 June 2011.

Barkha Dutt is known to question others intelligence at a drop of hat, other than suing them for defamation on ludicrous charges (Search "shoddy journalism ckunte"). Especially if others question her journalistic ethics as in this case where Devendra Pai pointed to her relationship with controversial political lobbyist Nirra Radia and Niira Radia's infamous phone tapped conversations with Barkha Dutt, Politicians, Businessmen, et al about allegedly fixing ministerial posts. Expose popularly known as RadiaGate and BarkhaGate. All the tapes are available on Outlook Magazine's website. Barkha Dutt was also booed for the same during Anna Hazare's Anti-Corruption rally at India Gate in New Delhi. Watch it here. 23 years old Devendra Pai is a respected individual who saved the life of Mrs. Rajbala of Gurgaon during CONgress led govt's state sponsored police brutality on Mahatma Baba Ramdev and his followers (tens of thousands of Women, Children, Old and Men) who were sleeping at Ramlila Maidan after day long Anti-Corruption protest. Mr. Pai saved Mrs. Rajbala who is now unfortunately paralyzed for life and is the face of police atrocities on common Indian people. But for Barkha Dutt, he is an "idiot" for calling out her alleged corrupt practices.

==

Pankaj Pachauri, Editor, NDTV on 10 June 2011.

Pankaj Pachauri who hosts NDTV's Hindi show "Hum Log" showcased his Anti-Vedic bigotry by slandering over 20000 years old Yog & Ayurved and by ranting against Mahatma Baba Ramdev in similar derogatory tone as CONgress thug Digvijay Singh. Mr. Kanchan Gupta called out Pankaj Pachauri's for latter's shameless bigotry.

==

Joji Philip Thomas, Assistant Editor, Economics Times on 10 June 2011. Hat tip Piyush Kulshreshtha (@thinkerspad)

Notice the first tweet. He admits that he doesn't care about the beliefs of great Hindu saint Mahatma Baba Ramdev. Hence, he doesn't care about Hindu beliefs and faith. Hatred for Hindus, which he intentionally displayed amply by repeatedly suggesting that Baba Ramdev, a strict vegetarian Hindu guru (seer), should eat Beef. Despite knowing that Hindus respect Cow and murdering a Cow is one of the greatest sin in humanity as per Sanatan Dharm (Hinduism). Mr. Thomas should be charged for intentionally committing crime under IPC section 153.

==

Pallavi Ghosh, CNN-IBN on 9 June 2011.

With such prejudiced mindset, she was the one reporting for CNN-IBN from ground zero when Sonia Gandhi's CONgress govt brutalized peaceful assembly of sleeping Anti-Corruption protesters including Mahatma Baba Ramdev and his over 100,000 followers.

==

Smita Prakash, Editor, Asian News International on 8 June 2011. Hat tip Kiran Kumar S (@KiranKS)

While a citizen journalist Aditya Raj Kaul (@AdityaRajKaul) tweets that the crowd at Anna Hazare's protest at Rajghat unconditionally support Mahatma Baba Ramdev, "secular" journalist such as Smita Prakash had to prove their credentials by pointing out the fictitious divide.

==

Priya Ramani, Editor, Mint to Nidhi Razdan, NDTV on 5 June 2011.

With such prejudiced mindset against proud nationalist Indians, Priya Ramani & Nidhi Razdan should block cricketers Sachin Tendulkar and Zaheer Khan who have declared themselves as "Proud Indian" on their resp. twitter accounts.

==

Nidhi Razdan, NDTV on 5 June 2011.

One of the most cocky, abusive and openly prejudiced commentators on NDTV, Nidhi Razdan displays her utter disregard and indifference to the seriousness of the news at hand. Over 100,000 protesters and a world famous respected Hindu saint Mahatma Baba Ramdev have been brutalized and their human rights been violated by CONgress government, but at the moment, what does this self-proclaimed journalist thinks of doing? Drink wine to enjoy the moment.

==

Shashi Tharoor, Member of Parliament, Lok Sabha on 9 June 2011. Hat tip Kiran Kumar S (@KiranKS)

This incident displays the hypocrisy and subtle Anti-Hindu bigotry of Mr. Shashi Tharoor. In the tweet he is saying that he is deeply saddened due to the death of old perverted Indian painter M F Hussein whose only craftsmanship was to draw NAKED Hindu Goddesses & Bharat Mata (depiction of India as Mother) to intentionally provoke and hurt Hindu sentiments. Never did he dare to draw Prophet Mohamed, his 9 years old wife Aisha (pedophile anyone?), his daughters Zainab or Fatimah, or even draw Jesus or his mother Mary as naked. He didn't want his head chopped off, right. Anyways, seems Mr. Tharoor's state of sadness is as hypocrite as him, as documented by Ravinar in his blogpost "Shashi Tharoor: The new ‘happy-tongue’ hypocrite - Secularism means “don’t offend muslims". Following is an excerpt from it:

However, this latest smooth-talking Congress minister, is the latest in the long line of Congressmen who believe Secularism means not offending muslims, but all other communities can be offended under freedom of speech rights. He reveals this philosophy in a debate with Christopher Hitchens (Author: God Is Not Great) some years back.

1. In the first instance Tharoor narrates a story carried in a Bangalore newspaper about a boy called Mohammad, an “idiot-boy” (No reference or connection to the Prophet as Tharoor confirms) This seemed to have angered muslims who attacked the office and the editor of the newspaper. The editor had to later apologise. Tharoor mentions that even if the article was never intended to refer to Prophet Mohammad, the editor should have been careful enough to avoid misinterpretation and should have been aware that this would cause trouble. Sure, the victim of the violent attacks was wrong and should be the one to apologise. That is freedom of speech according to Tharoor.

2. In the second instance with reference to the Danish cartoons issue, Tharoor continues the same argument. That the Danish paper/cartoonist would have known well the publication of the cartoon would cause a world wide backlash and should have resisted going ahead with it and exercised restraint. Tharoor strongly maintains that free speech/expression should not be used to hurt anyone. I suppose nobody told this scholar that “consensus” does not require a freedom of speech law.

3. It’s the third issue that is striking. The discussion moves to the M.F. Hussain paintings. Here’s where our happy-tongue minister reveals his true self. He argues strongly that it was Hussain’s freedom of expression for which he should not have faced a backlash. Well, obviously Hussain was so blissfully ignorant that his controversial paintings would cause friction or offend a whole community. It needed Mr.Happy-tongue to defend him. But that newspaper editor and the Danish cartoonist shouldn’t have exercised their free expression rights as they would have been aware of the consequences. And that’s not all. Tharoor goes on to state that Hussain paints these Hindu Gods in various forms. That Hussain had once painted Indira Gandhi as Durga Ma ! Tharoor equates painting Indira Gandhi as Durga Ma to nude paintings of Hindu Gods. Even a moron can see that the Indira Gandhi painting would be seen as a compliment rather than an offence. This is how he misleads international audiences with his happy-tongue glib talk.

==

Sagarika Ghose, Deputy Editor of CNN-IBN and wife of her boss Rajdeep Sardesai on 10 February 2010.

@sagarikaghose You arent even remotely the liberal with a fierce independent streak that i used to think you wereWed Feb 10 17:57:32 via webPrasanna Viswanathan
prasannavishy

@prasannavishy you're a gutter snipeWed Feb 10 17:59:09 via webSagarika Ghose
sagarikaghose

If there is one "news" channel, after NDTV, that is staunchly Anti-Hindu to the core, it is CNN-IBN which is run by Rajdeep Sardesai-Sagarika Ghose (Husband-Wife duo). Please read "Editorial slandering of Hindu symbols by CNN-IBN". Sagarika Ghose is known for threatening people on twitter with IPC section 506-507 if she doesn't agree with latter's viewpoints. Her ramblings and threats are very well documented by Reality Check in his post "Indian mainstream media showcase – Sec 507". And just like her counterparts Barkha Dutt and Nidhi Razdan from rival news channel NDTV, Sagarika Ghose is known to use filthy abusive language. The tweet shown above is an example of the same.

Hindi Transcript of Narendra Modi's interview with Shahid Siddiqui of Urdu weekly Nai Duniya

2012-07-28T09:37:00.003-08:00

Hindi Transcript of Narendra Modi's interview with Shahid Siddiqui of Urdu weekly Nai Duniya

Narendra Modi's Interview by Shahid Siddiqui of Urdu weekly Nai Duniya

Sources:
Narendra Modi Interview

Audio tape of Gujarat CM Narendra Modi’s interview with Urdu daily Nai Dunia

Audio tape of Narendra Modi's interview with Nai Dunia Urdu newspaper

Keep "Communal Mindset" Justice Aftab Alam Away From Gujarat Cases, Justice Soni asks Chief Justice of India

2012-07-28T00:07:00.009-08:00

Keep 'Communal Mindset' Justice Aftab Alam away from Gujarat cases: Justice Soni to Chief Justice of India

Keep Communal Mindset Justice Aftab Alam Away From Gujarat Cases Justice Soni to Chief Justice of India

Sources:
Keep 'Communal Mindset' Justice Aftab Alam away from Gujarat cases: Justice Soni to Chief Justice of India

Ex-Lokayukta says SC judge 'communal'

Remove Justice Aftab Alam from Gujarat cases: Justice Soni to CJI

Learn to read, write, and speak Sanskrit every Ravivaar

2012-07-15T12:21:00.019-08:00

Every Sunday I will try to tweet basic Sanskrit words and sentences so that we can all learn or revise Sanskrit together. Idea is to use Sanskrit in Day to Day conversation. Will try to do it during legendary and famous time slot (११ पूर्वाह्न / 11 AM) when Ramayan and Mahabharat used to be telecasted on Doordarshan (DD National). Embedded below are those tweets in weekly order. Feedback, Correction, or Criticism is welcome.

अनुक्रमणिका / Index
सप्ताह १ / Week 1
सप्ताह २ / Week 2
सप्ताह ३ / Week 3

Inspiration to do this purusharth is drawn from the following speech of Shri Narendra Modi:

====
सप्ताह १ / Week 1

Will try to tweet basic Sanskrit words every Sunday so tht we can all learn or revise Sanskrit together. Use them in day to day conversation
— ॐ सत्यभाषणं (@satyabhashnam) जुलाई 15, 2012

I will try to tweet both in Devnagri & English to cover length & breadth of India. But wud recommend friends to learn Sanskrit in Devnagri
— ॐ सत्यभाषणं (@satyabhashnam) जुलाई 15, 2012

सः = वह। त्वम् = तू। अहम् = मैं। गच्छति = वह जाता है। गच्छसि = तू जाता है। गच्छामि = मैं जाता हूँ। सः गच्छति =वह जाता है। #sanskrit
— ॐ सत्यभाषणं (@satyabhashnam) जुलाई 15, 2012

Sah = He/She. Tvam = You. Aham = Me. Gachchati = He goes. Gachchasi = U go. Gachchami = I go. Sah Gachchati = He goes. #sanskrit
— ॐ सत्यभाषणं (@satyabhashnam) जुलाई 15, 2012

I thing u will notice as v learn more #Sanskrit tht words consistently end with मि, सि, or ति depending on the first, second or third person
— ॐ सत्यभाषणं (@satyabhashnam) जुलाई 15, 2012

Correct. or त्वं गच्छसि। #susanskrit RT @thinkerspad:@satyabhashnam So, its अहम् गच्छामी। त्वम् गच्छसि। सः गच्छति। is that right?
— ॐ सत्यभाषणं (@satyabhashnam) जुलाई 15, 2012

====
सप्ताह २ / Week 2

First of all pranam to Maharishi Panini ji for giving us the great language Sanskrit. #LearnSanskrit
— ॐ सत्यभाषणं (@satyabhashnam) जुलाई 22, 2012

Next pranam to Shripad Damodar Satvalekar ji for writing easy to understand books to #LearnSanskrit
— ॐ सत्यभाषणं (@satyabhashnam) जुलाई 22, 2012

सप्ताह १ में हमने सीखा। अहं गच्छामि। - मैं जाता हूँ। त्वं गच्छसि। - तू जाता है। सः गच्छति। - वह जाता है। #LearnSanskrit
— ॐ सत्यभाषणं (@satyabhashnam) जुलाई 22, 2012

Here is a recap of week 1 sentences. Aham Gachchami – I go. Tvam Gachchasi – U go. Sah Gachchati – He goes. #LearnSanskrit
— ॐ सत्यभाषणं (@satyabhashnam) जुलाई 22, 2012

कुत्र - कहां। यत्र - जहां। अत्र - यहां। तत्र - वहां। सर्वत्र - सब स्थान पर। #LearnSanskrit सप्ताह २
— ॐ सत्यभाषणं (@satyabhashnam) जुलाई 22, 2012

Kutra – Where? Yatra – Wherever. Atra – Here. Tatra – There. Sarvatra – Everywhere #LearnSanskrit week 2
— ॐ सत्यभाषणं (@satyabhashnam) जुलाई 22, 2012

किं - क्या। न - नहीं। अस्ति - है। कः - कौन। नास्ति - नहीं है। #LearnSanskrit सप्ताह २
— ॐ सत्यभाषणं (@satyabhashnam) जुलाई 22, 2012

Kim – What/Is? Na – No. Asti – Is/Exists. Kahah – Who? Naasti – Isn’t/Doesn’t exist. #LearnSanskrit week 2
— ॐ सत्यभाषणं (@satyabhashnam) जुलाई 22, 2012

त्वं कुत्र गच्छसि। - तू कहां जाता है। यत्र सः गच्छति। - जहां वह जाता है। त्वं सर्वत्र गच्छसि। - तू सब स्थान पर जाता है। #LearnSanskrit
— ॐ सत्यभाषणं (@satyabhashnam) जुलाई 22, 2012

Tvam Kutra Gachchasi – Where are you going? Yatra Sah Gachchati – Where he is going. Tvam Sarvatr Gachchasi - U go everywhere #LearnSanskrit
— ॐ सत्यभाषणं (@satyabhashnam) जुलाई 22, 2012

Here is week 2 #SanskritQuiz. Translate किं सः गच्छति। अहं न गच्छामि। किं सः न गच्छति। कः तत्र गच्छति। तत्र कः अस्ति। #LearnSanskrit
— ॐ सत्यभाषणं (@satyabhashnam) जुलाई 22, 2012

Week 2 #SanskritQuiz. Translate - Kim Sah Gachchati| Aham Na Gachchami| Kim Sah Na Gachchati| Tatra Kahah Asti| #LearnSanskrit
— ॐ सत्यभाषणं (@satyabhashnam) जुलाई 22, 2012

Advanced #SanskritQuiz for sharp minds - यत्र योगेश्वर: कृष्णो यत्र पार्थो धनुर्धर:। तत्र श्रीर्विजयो भूतिर्ध्रुवा नीतिर्मतिर्मम।
— ॐ सत्यभाषणं (@satyabhashnam) जुलाई 22, 2012

Please send me your answers for this week’s #SanskritQuiz and I will post the results at satyabhashnam.blogspot.com/2012/07/learn-… Good luck. #LearnSanskrit
— ॐ सत्यभाषणं (@satyabhashnam) जुलाई 22, 2012

====
सप्ताह ३ / Week 3

Coming soon....

Dictator Indira Gandhi's Emergency in 1975

2012-06-24T00:20:00.000-08:00

Prime Minister Indira Gandhi, the despotic daughter of the Blunder of Century Jawaharlal Nehru, gave Hindusthan THE darkest days in Bharatiya Democracy by unethically and unjustifiably declaring Emergency on June 25, 1975 till March 21, 1977. She followed in the footsteps of her corrupt Socialist and British stooge father Jawahar Lal Nehru, who had also imposed an Emergency when the bravado he had encouraged during the early stages of the war with China evaporated after humiliation in the Himalayas by the armies of Chairman Mao Zedong. During the dark period of Emergency, dictator Indira made many immoral changes to the Constitution including to the Preamble of the Bharatiya Constitution. Here are some famous pictures from the days of Emergency.

The famous cartoon by Abu Abraham showing the former President of India, Fakhruddin Ali Ahmed, signing the proclamation of Emergency from his bathtub.

Dictator Indira Gandhi's despotic regime found this cartoon by Abu Abraham in Indian Express not fit for publication as it was critical of her censorship. Cartoon was CENSORED. See the rejection stamp.

One MAN Government.

श्रमेव-जयते or Shram-eva-Jayate was another slogan then. Indira Gandhi's stooges colleagues labored hard.

One of the outputs generated from Dictator Indira Gandhi's propaganda machine: Price of Liberty Indian people had to pay.

Dictator Indira Gandhi had ministerial colleagues during dark days of Emergency who all resembled this.

Frontpage of Indian Herald Newspaper when Emergency (Darkest days of Indian Democracy) was enforced by Indira Gandhi & Indian National Congress and opposition including great stalwart Indian leaders like Mr. Atal Bihari Vajpayee, Mr. Lal Krishna Advani, et al, the then opposition, were thrown in jail.

Frontpage of The Hindu Newspaper when Emergency (Darkest days of Indian Democracy) was enforced by Indira Gandhi & Indian National Congress and press censorship was imposed.

Jayaprakash Narayan (JP) leading people to Parliament Street against Emergency.

All vacant sites of outdoor media and billboards had to display such dictatorial messages.

Few examples of her tyrannies which made complete mockery of the Bharatiya Constitution and civil liberties:
* Suspension of Fundamental Rights
* Article 14 – Right to Equality before Law
* Article 21 – Right to Life and Personal Liberty
* Article 22 – Protection against Arrest and Detention in certain cases
* Gain of extraordinary power
* 39 th Amendment – Made proclamation of Emergency non-justiciable
* 40 th Amendment – Courts prevented from hearing against President, PM, Speaker
* 41 st Amendment – Conferred immunity to PM against criminal proceedings in just about every conceivable case
* 42 nd Amendment – Authorised President to amend Constitution for 2 years
* Abolished the need for quorum in Parliament (2/3 could make laws for India!)

Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger's Taped conversation: Indira Gandhi is a Bitch and an Old Witch

Experiences of AS Raghunath

GenNext must know what had led to Emergency, 37 years ago. Situation no different today. At least, there was JP then. Today? No one.

Emergency back grounder: Raj Narain, a socialist who was defeated by Indira Gandhi in the Rae Bareilly LS constituency, submitted to the Allahabad High Court charges of corruption in the election process against Mrs. G. In 1974, Jayaprakash Narayan, ex-socialist began to organize a campaign in Bihar to oust Indira Gandhi and her congress party from office on charges of corruption.

On June 12th, 1975, Justice Jagmohanlal Sinha of the Allahabad High Court, found the PM guilty on the charge of misuse of government machinery for her election campaign. The court declared her election "null and void" and unseated her from the Lok Sabha.

The court also banned her from contesting in any election for an additional six years. She was held guilty on charges such as building of a dais by state police and provision of electricity by the state electricity department and height of the dais from which she addressed the campaign rally.

The Times of India, a pro-establishment newspaper described her arrest as "firing the Prime Minister for a traffic ticket."

Strikes by labour and trade unions, student unions and government unions swept across the country. Protests led by Raj Narayan and Moraji Desai flooded the streets of Delhi close to the Parliament building and the Prime Minister's residence.

Justice Sinha stayed the operation of his judgment for 20 days allowing the Congress party to elect a successor to the Prime Minister.

Unable to find a competent successor, Mrs. Gandhi, on June 23rd 1975 appealed for “complete and absolute” stay which would have permitted her to be a voting Member of Parliament, as well as Prime Minister.

On June 24th 1975 Justice Iyer granted Indira Gandhi “conditional stay”. This decision gave rise to outcries from the opposition that she should resign. Mrs. Gandhi did not resign.

On the evening of June 25th 1975, JP Narayan called for a civil disobedience campaign to force the resignation of the Prime Minister. In response, the authority of the maintenance of Internal Security Act was used in the early hours of June 26th to arrest more than a hundred people who opposed Mrs. Gandhi and her party.

People arrested included JP Narayan, Raj Narain, Jyortimoy Basu (communist party-marxist), Samar Guha (president of the Jana Sangha). A proclamation of Emergency was issued on June 26th by President Fakhruddin Ali Ahmed, on the advice of Prime Minister Gandhi.

Democracy is alien to dynasties - By Kanchan Gupta, The Daily Pioneer

Thirty seven years ago this week, the Constitution was brutalised to turn India into a police state. One of the men who helped enforce Mrs Gandhi’s dictatorship is set to become the keeper of the Constitution.

News would travel fast in Jamshedpur, a small sleepy town in the 1970s where there were few distractions from the daily routine. This was some three decades before the advent of the Internet and cell phones. Computers were unheard of and television notionally existed, courtesy Doordarshan, in the big metropolitan cities. Few homes had telephones and still fewer had telephones that were not perpetually ‘out of order’.

In Jamshedpur, life was played out, frame by frame, in monotonous black and white, with occasional stretches of technicolour excitement. Jump cuts were considered too startling, but they couldn’t be avoided entirely: These usually came by way of unsettling news from the world beyond Jamshedpur, either borne by the Calcutta papers that came by the morning train and were distributed late in the afternoon, or riding the radio waves of Akashvani. People tuned into All India Radio to listen to Lotika Ratnam and Nilima Sanyal, not so much for what they had to say but to hear their voice so that they could imitate their accent. But that was okay, because, as I said, news travelled fast in Jamshedpur.

And so it was that although the Calcutta papers did not arrive on June 26, 1975, everybody knew by mid-morning of the events with cataclysmic consequences of the previous evening in faraway New Delhi. Prime Minister Indira Gandhi had ‘recommended’ to President Fakhruddin Ali Ahmed the declaration of Internal Emergency as she had information that there was “an imminent danger to the security of India being threatened by internal disturbances”. The President had complied without a murmur of protest.

At the stroke of the midnight hour, civil liberties and fundamental rights had been suspended; censorship imposed; Opposition leaders arrested; and, dictatorship of the dynasty had replaced democracy of the people. India was in chains all over again, this time enslaved by its own. “Don’t talk to strangers,” parents instructed their teenaged children.

Over the next few days a strange fear descended upon the people of this country — the fear of being punished and persecuted by the Emergency regime through its many agents and agencies. The dreaded midnight knock became the metaphor of those dark, terrible days when friends stopped trusting friends, relatives shunned relatives, teachers squealed on students and vice versa, and censors eager to please Congress bosses decided what was fit to print.

Not everybody, though, was appalled by Mrs Gandhi’s tanashahi — I learned that word from our physics teacher who was a tyrant in the classroom but would incessantly rage against the tyranny of what he would bitingly describe as an “illegitimate Government”. There were middle-class collaborators who, convinced that imitation was the best form of flattery, mimicked Sanjay Gandhi’s mannerisms and style of speech, and wore white kurta-pajamas similar to his. Hoodlums wore white kurtas over drainpipe pants and ran extortion rackets. Many people thought the Emergency was a good idea because trains ran on time and Vinoba Bhave endorsed Mrs Gandhi’s evil decision, calling the Emergency “Anushasan Parv”. Newspapers, barring honourable exceptions, caved in without a fight: Journalists, asked to bend, chose to crawl.

Meanwhile, dissent and its expression through protest was met with swift retribution. The RSS, which mobilised its vast network of swayamsevaks to launch an underground movement against Mrs Gandhi's dictatorship, was banned. But that did not deter swayamsevaks from persisting with their movement that was described by The Economist as “the only non-left revolutionary force in the world … its platform at the moment has only one plank: To bring democracy back to India.” The only other organisation which led from the front in the fight-back was the Akali Dal. Mrs Gandhi tried to coopt the Akalis, but they rebuffed her gesture; for them, freedom was far more important than power.

The Intelligence Bureau and the Central Bureau of Investigation were used for intimidating and harassing both rich and poor on mere suspicion of anti-Emergency activism. The Income Tax Department was instructed to let loose a reign of terror on trade union leaders. People were arrested and packed off to jail; many of them were brutally tortured to extract a confession that would serve the Emergency regime’s political interests — for instance, that he/she was a CIA agent.

The Constitution was slyly amended to declare India a Sovereign Socialist Secular Democratic Republic, an absurdity whose burden we are still forced to carry. To inspire confidence in the Supreme Leader, a massive Soviet-style propaganda offensive was launched. Billboards were put up with slogans like “The Leader is right, the nation’s future is bright!”In offices, including those in the private sector, Congress goons put up posters, urging people to “Work more, Talk less.” It was all very darkly reminiscent of the Third Reich.

Mrs Gandhi had the Supreme Court packed with handpicked ‘committed’ judges whose job it was to overturn the Allahabad High Court’s judgement of June 15, declaring her 1971 election as void and disqualifying her from contesting elections for the next six years. To demonstrate their ‘commitment’ to her, the judges also suspended the provision for habeas corpus without which India is no different from a police state ruled by a tin pot dictator.

By the time Mrs Gandhi called a general election in the spring of 1977, the people had made up their minds. On voting day they voted out the Congress! Mrs Gandhi and her son Sanjay were trounced in constituencies they considered to be their family heirloom and, therefore, theirs by right. A chastened Mrs Gandhi lifted the Emergency on March 21, 1977.

Thirty-seven years later, the excesses of the Emergency era may appear too distant in the past to be worthy of recall. But to believe that would be incorrect. There has been no change in the attitude of the Congress and the party’s first family makes no effort to hide its unshakeable belief that it has the divine right to rule India, either directly or indirectly, and not be held accountable for the many sins of omission and commission of which the Nehru-Gandhis are guilty. Indeed, to forget the Emergency would be a grave injustice to those who suffered so that liberty and rights would be ours.

It will forever be a matter of abiding shame for Bengalis that one of their own — Chief Minister Siddhartha Shankar Ray — came up with the idea of using the Constitution to kill freedom in India and drafted the declaration of Emergency to which Fakhruddin Ali Ahmed meekly appended his signature.

Those who are not well-disposed towards Mr Pranab Mukherjee would add the name of a second Bengali to the list of the villains of 1975-77 — his. As Minister of State for Finance (October 1974-December 1975) and later Minister of State with independent charge of Banking and Revenue (December 1975-March 1977) in those dark days he did Mrs Gandhi’s bidding and more than helped keep dissenters at bay through the expedient means of getting the Income Tax Department to ruthlessly hound them. Seen in this context, it’s only apt that he should resign from the Cabinet close to June 26, the 37th anniversary of Mrs Gandhi’s Emergency, to assume the charge of ‘Keeper of the Constitution of India’ as President of the Republic.

India Emergency 35th Anniversary – chronology of events

Corrupted And Perverted Mind Of Nehruvian Congress

Bursting bloated bladders of lies and pomposity

The Economist‘s Indira Gandhi circa 1984

The artwork for a cover of Indira Gandhi (1984) that led to The Economist being confiscated at airports in India

Penned just months before her assassination, It seems to have pretty much hit off every single thing you can think of: she’s in a vaguely Bharat Mata-gone-crazy pose that brings back memories of the “Indira is India” quote, wearing a sort of kitschy Bollywood rustic belle outfit, holding on to an angry man in a turban (a Sikh I suppose), a scimitar, another angry man trying to get her attention (the common man or a party worker?), a big bag full of cash, and stomping on Sri Lanka. She also has Madonna-worthy muscles, a couple of snakes for a necklace, a walnut for an eye and a pouchy tummy.

Image courtesy: Atlanta Journal-Constitution

Image courtesy: The Economist

Image courtesy: http://www.mccord-museum.qc.ca/ObjView/M2006.142.52-P1.jpg

The man of simple lines By H.K. Dua, Editor-in-Chief, The Tribune India

Those were bad times in India. Indira Gandhi had placed the country under emergency raj. Thousands of opposition leaders were arrested after midnight on June 25, 1975 and sent to undisclosed destinations.

A severe press censorship was imposed. Electricity of newspaper offices was switched off; the printing presses were locked. No one knew what would be the shape of things to come. The mood across the country was of anxiety and uncertainty.

Vidya Charan Shukla had been asked to take over the Information and Broadcasting Ministry. Apparently, Mrs Gandhi and her son Sanjay thought that he would do the job ruthlessly and Inder Gujral whom he had replaced would not. Shukla thought of addressing a press conference clearly to pass on the emergency message.

"We have imposed press censorship to stop the spread of rumours", Shukla said imperiously.

1975: The Emergency - "Democracy had been hijacked to serve personal interests"
By MJ Akbar

The Emergency of 1975, imposed by Indira Gandhi, was like mumps or chicken pox on the body politic of India: you had to suffer from it once in order to become immune. If it had come later, it might have proved fatal.

It was not the first proclamation of the Emergency by the Union Government. Indira Gandhi's father, Jawaharlal Nehru, also imposed an Emergency when the bravado he had encouraged during the early stages of the war with China evaporated after humiliation in the Himalayas by the armies of Chairman Mao Zedong.

But in 1962 Indians responded to the Emergency with a passionate display of unity and sacrifice, particularly after they learnt the bitter truth of defeat. The 1975 Emergency was imposed not because India was in danger but because Indira was in danger. The nation's reaction was stunned anger. Democracy had been hijacked to serve personal interests. It was the ultimate betrayal.

Everything that can be said has been written about when and why this Emergency was declared, and how it was manipulated through a craven Congress, an imprisoned Opposition and an obedient judiciary. Less is known about why it was lifted.

According to a source very close to Mrs Gandhi, and one important enough in the political pecking order to be mentioned in the succession stakes after her assassination, she took the decision in December 1976 to call for the overdue general election.

Word was put out to intelligence agencies and confidants to check the national mood. Her son Sanjay Gandhi, young, arrogant, dictatorial and completely insensitive to democracy and its values, was furious when he heard that his mother had gone "soft".

In Sanjay's scheme of things, they could have continued with the Emergency for another 20 years and, as he argued, "put this country right". Like Mussolini, he wanted the trains to run on time. That this would have turned India into another tinpot dictatorship of the kind prevalent all across the Third World was of little consequence to him. He put enormous pressure on his mother to reverse gear.

In the meantime, astrologers, the usual musicians of India's political symphonies, came into play and proclaimed that any announcement could be made only in the more auspicious second half of January.

The decision remained in doubt, said my source, till the first few days of January, when Mrs Gandhi decided that she needed the legitimacy of a popular victory to remain in power. Her words were significant as she took her decision: "If we do not go to the people now, we will never go to them again."

Cynics might take a less flattering view, and heaven knows that Mrs Gandhi gave sufficient reason for cynicism. But, with the perspective of three decades, I do believe that she was more a child of Nehru than the mother of Sanjay.

Power was important to her, but, in the final analysis, not more important than nationalism. We were lucky that the Emergency was a weapon that she chose to use, because by reversing it, Mrs Gandhi also made this Constitutional provision impotent forever.
Indian unity has shown the tensile strength to withstand rebellions in the north-west and north-east and murmurs in the south. But it is only as strong as Indian democracy, for it is democracy that gives every Indian a practical stake in his country's present and future. The Emergency of 1975 was a turning point precisely because time stood still during those 19 months.

What really happened during Emergency in India?
By Tejasvita Apte

This answer is both legal and political as law and politics played a major role before, during and after the emergency. It will therefore get a little technical. If you have any questions, I urge you to comment and ask.

Short answer -

The first thing you need to know about emergency is -

During emergency, Fundamental Rights are suspended. This means that the state can take any action and people have no recourse. During emergency thousands of people from the opposition were arrested and put behind bars without a trial. The press had absolutely no freedom to report. There was extreme censorship. Extreme measures like forced mass sterilization were conducted. The state policies were implemented completely.

This in short is what happened in Emergency.

Long answer -

Emergency was declared in India from 1975-1977. 21 months. Indira Gandhi was the Prime Minister and Fakruddin Ali Ahmad was the President.

Background

From the beginning, there was a clash between the Legislature and the Judiciary in India. Immediately after independence, the government in view of its socialist policy carried out land reforms. Land was acquired by the government.
At that point of time, Right to property was still a Fundamental Right. A lot of amendments were carried out including removal of Right to property from Part III (It is now a legal right), creation of IXth schedule ( A schedule in the Constitution that gives immunity to laws. If a law is put in the IXth schedule, it cannot be challenged on the grounds of violation of Fundamental Rights).

The Supreme Court initially was very pro government as it saw these amendments as necessary to carry out reforms. In the cases of Sajjan Singh and Shankari Prasad, therefore, the Union of India won.

But 17 years after, the misuse of IXth schedule slowly came to light.

I.C. Golaknath v. State of Punjab

This was a landmark case in which the Petitioner won. This was a bench of 11 judges. Constitutional validity of a bunch of amendments as well as land laws (which were included in the IXth schedule were challenged).

The question was - Whether the Parliament has unlimited power to amend the Constitution or not.

Article 13 of the Constitution lays down that the State shall not pass any law which violates Fundamental Rights. The meaning of the word 'law' came up for interpretation. Did it include Constitutional amendments? That was the second question.
If it did, then amendments could not be made to the Fundamental Rights. If it did not apply to Constitutional amendments, then the Parliament could amend the Fundamental Rights (even take them away) but could not pass a law that violated them (Ironically!).

The SC held by a majority of 6:5 that the word 'law' in article 13 included Constitutional amendments.

Effect -

The effect of this judgment was that Parliament became powerless to amend, alter any part of the Fundamental rights enshrined from 14-32.

This verdict (highly criticized) resulted in creating a major rift between the judiciary and the legislature. It also resulted in a legal battle that continued through a series of cases and a lot of Judicial transfers!

These landmark cases are - Privy purses case, Benett Coleman Case, Bank Nationalization case, Kesavananda Bharti case, Minerva Mills case, etc.

Privy Purses case and Bank Nationalization case did not go as the government desired.

The Political storm

Meanwhile, a political storm was brewing which was owing a lot to the economic situation in India. In hindsight everyone today would agree that India's socialism hasn't really helped her, but at that point of time, it was highly in vogue.

1971 - Garibi Hatao (Eliminate poverty)

This was the catchy slogan used by Indira Gandhi to win a stunning victory in 1971. Immediately after that, the government's top priority was to over rule Golaknath's case along with Privy purses and Bank Nationalization cases. Consequently, Constitution was amended. There was many vicious changes like the word 'compensation' was replaced with 'amount'.
So initially, if a person's land was acquired, the government as per law was required to pay them compensation. Now, they were required to pay an 'amount' which could very well be Rs. 1/-.

Meanwhile from 1973-75, there was huge unrest with strikes and lockouts in the country. The government was highly criticized and it faced several no confidence motions in the Parliament.

Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narayan

This case further added to Mrs. Gandhi's troubles. Raj Narayan who had contested against Indira Gandhi and lost, filed cases of election malpractice against the sitting Prime Minister!

Justice Jagmohan Sinha of the Allahabad High Court found the Prime Minister guilty of the charges. Apparently, the judge's stenographer was forced to live in the judge's house with his family as there were threats to his life! Indira Gandhi appealed and lost.

This case was like the final nail in the coffin!

Jayprakash Narayan was organizing rallies against the government and this was probably the time Indira Gandhi would have thought of declaring emergency and seizing power. In her biography, it is written that this was probably the most difficult time for her and she was extremely insecure.

Emergency was declared on 25 June 1975 citing threats of national security and bad economy.

There were widespread arrests without trials, violation of Human rights, police brutality, mass sterilization, etc.

Aftermath -

The Emergency came to an end on 23 March 1977. Fresh Elections were called for and Janata Party (opposition) won. Ironically, in 1980, Indira Gandhi again won majority owing to ideological divides in the Janta government.

Current legal position as to amendability of the Constitution -

The SC in partially over ruled Golaknath's case in the landmark case of Kesavananda Bharti v. State of Kerala.
It has laid down that the Parliament has the power to amend any part of the Constitution as long as it doesn't violate the Basic Structure of the Constitution.

Educating Dr Manmohan Singh

View more OpenOffice presentations from bjpuploader.

Following is a summarize chronology of her autocratic rule during emergency:

Educating Dr Manmohan Singh - Presentation Transcript

1. Educating Dr. Manmohan Singh ‘ What is L.K. Advani’s contribution to our national life?’ -Dr. Manmohan Singh, when releasing Congress Party Manifesto on 24 March 2009
2. An online volunteer recounts the horrifying, yet true story of the darkest days of Indian democracy that every Indian should know and take lessons from! Emergency: Democracy Imprisoned
3. LK Advani was one of the leading fighters for the country’s freedom when the Emergency threatened our very existence Dr. Manmohan Singh, when releasing Congress Party Manifesto on 24 March 2009, asked: ‘ What is L.K. Advani’s contribution to our national life?’
o Dr. Singh conveniently forgot India’s traumatic experience of the Emergency Rule (June 1975 till March 1977), when L.K. Advani, along with many other stalwarts of the Opposition courageously fought for the restoration of democracy.
o The incumbent Congress Government headed by Indira Gandhi sent Advani, along with tens of thousands of pre-democracy activists to jail for 19 months.
o Dr. Singh does not consider this a worthy contribution to our national life. Not surprising since he didn’t utter a word of protest against the Emergency – then or later.
“ Freedom and hope don’t go hand in hand. They can steal your freedom, but can’t take away your hope.” - Laurie Hendricks, Amsterdam (one of the many international messages sent to L.K. Advani while in prison) Advani revisits Bangalore Central Jail where he had spent 19 months during Emergency (2000)
4. Why is there a need for this today? Emergency took away our most prized possession: FREEDOM
* Without Freedom, a Nation is stripped of its honour
* A lot of blood and tears were shed before we earned our Freedom
* However, it was lost in 1975 during Emergency
* Thousands, including the stalwarts from the Opposition, were put behind bars
* No recourse for appeal to courts
* Newspapers became stenographers to Government
* Foundations of judiciary were hacked
“ Those who do not learn from history are condemned to repeat it.” - George Santayana Wide-spread ignorance about facts related to Emergency
* No mention of post-Independence era in our history books
* A large section of our country still ignorant about Emergency
* Congress party, that enforced Emergency, is still at the helm
* Politicians like Smt. Indira Gandhi that enforced Emergency, are still eulogized
5. The Emergency lasted for almost 2 years – the darkest days in the history of Free India “ Freedom of the human personality, freedom of the mind and freedom of the spirit has become the passion of my life and I shall not see it compromised for bread, for security, for prosperity, for the glory of the state or for anything else.” - Jayaprakash Narayan
6. The Allahabad High Court ruling triggered a chain of events that converted the world’s largest democracy to the second largest dictatorship “ I have decided to declare an Emergency. The President has agreed. I will inform the Cabinet tomorrow.” - Indira Gandhi (on the night Emergency was imposed) Political Unrest
* Congress practiced electoral fraud to win 1971 elections
* Jayaprakash Narayan’s agitation in Bihar for change in provincial government
* Congress defeated in Gujarat by Janata Party
Allahabad Conviction
* Case filed against Indira Gandhi for election fraud and misuse of state machinery
* Allahabad High Court finds PM guilty on the charge of misuse for election campaign
* Declares her election null and void; unseated from her Lok Sabha seat
* Huge protests all over the country by students, trade-unions against the PM
* Persistent efforts received praise worldwide
Declaration of Emergency
* President Fakhruddin Ali Ahmed declared a state of Emergency upon the advice of PM on the midnight of 26 June 1975
* The Cabinet did not even meet to pass the resolution before Emergency was declared
Famous cartoon by Abu Abraham showing Fakhruddin Ali Ahmed (the then President of India), signing the proclamation of Emergency from his bathtub
7. Invoking Article 352, PM granted herself extraordinary powers and launched a massive crackdown on civil liberties and political opposition. Justice HR Khanna (Supreme Court) - “If a person jailed during the Emergency is shot down by those in authority for personal reasons, do you mean to suggest that his associates have no judicial remedy?” Attorney General – “I do not feel happy saying this, but legally, Lordship, that is precisely the position.” Thousands of protestors and strike leaders were arrested
* Notable politicians arrested
* Jayaprakash Narayan - L.K. Advani
* Morarji Desai - Chandrasekhar
* A.B. Vajpayee -Ramkrishna Hegde
* LK Advani authored 5 underground essays while in prison used by people campaigning against Emergency
* Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh and many other organizations were banned
Complete mockery of the Indian Constitution and civil liberties
* Suspension of Fundamental Rights
* Article 14 – Right to Equality before Law
* Article 21 – Right to Life and Personal Liberty
* Article 22 – Protection against Arrest and Detention in certain cases
* Gain of extraordinary power
* 39 th Amendment – Made proclamation of Emergency non-justiciable
* 40 th Amendment – Courts prevented from hearing against President, PM, Speaker
* 41 st Amendment – Conferred immunity to PM against criminal proceedings in just about every conceivable case
* 42 nd Amendment – Authorised President to amend Constitution for 2 years
* – Abolished the need for quorum in Parliament (2/3 could make laws for India!)
8. Freedom of Press was curtailed as never before, even worse than during the British Raj “ Is it an accident that nowhere in the (new) Code of Conduct (for the Press) does the word ‘freedom appear?” - V.K. Narasimhan, Chief Editor, The Indian Express (during Emergency) Press was abused and misused to meet PM’s objective
* Atrocities committed on Press
* - 253 journalists were arrested (110 - MISA, 110 - DIR, and 33 – other laws)
* Entry into India was banned for 26 foreign journalists (including Mark Tully)
* Govt. disaccredited 51 journalists and expelled 7 of them
* Strict censorship imposed
* Govt. officer appointed as censor for every newspaper/news agency
* Incompetent censors indiscriminately censored anything remotely ‘politically incorrect’
* New code of conduct prepared and foisted upon Press
* Crime even to publish any information about who was in detention and where
* Media used for propaganda and brainwashing public
* All India Radio and the entire mass media used for propaganda
* People made to believe that liberty, civil-rights, press freedom, judicial independence were ‘elitist’ concepts
* National Herald (Congress party’s own daily newspaper) eulogised one-party system in countries like Tanzania
9. There were serious charges against the Government, under Prime Minister Indira Gandhi Abuse and torture of detainees and political prisoners Misuse of public and private media institutions Arbitrary destruction of the slum and low-income housing Complete disregard for Indian Constitution
o Prisoners were segregated on the basis of religion
o No distinction made between political prisoners and criminals
Wanton detention of innocent people
o 34,988 persons were detained under MISA
o 75,818 were arrested under Defense of India Rules (DIR)
Forced vasectomy
o Thousands of men forced to undergo vasectomy
o Abusive and forcible treatment of poor people
o Slum and low-income housing in Turkmen Gate and Jama Masjid area destroyed
o Hundreds of relatively prosperous families reduced to the status of impoverished and needy
o AIR and Doordarshan used as tools for propaganda
o Indian Press subjected to censorship which was worse than during the British Raj
o Almost all parts of Constitution including the Preamble was changed
o Aimed at substituting a democratic form of government by an authoritarian form of government
“ As borne out by the records of the Government and the depositions of several responsible Government servants, dishonesty and falsehood became almost a way of official life during the Emergency” - Shah Commission (appointed to inquire into all the excesses committed during Emergency)
10. However, there were heroes who fought a determined battle against all odds and championed the cause of democracy “ If India ever finds its way back to the freedom and democracy, someone will surely erect a monument to Justice H.R. Khanna” - New York Times, 1976 Jayaprakash Narayan
* Called for Indira Gandhi to resign after Allahabad HC ruling
* Inspired millions to fight against the Emergency
* Championed the coalition of Opposition parties against Congress
Justice Hans Raj Khanna
* Stood up against the might of a muffling Indian state during Emergency
* Adjudged : Parliament cannot take away the basic rights of an individual
* Adjudged : Parliament cannot change the basic structure of Constitution
Mahommedali Currim Chagla
* Fought case for Emergency detenus against the Indian government
* Argued against detention of Opposition leaders under MISA
* Stood resolute despite of failing health and having quit legal practice
11. … And ultimately, it was the people of India that came out triumphant Janata Party voted to power; Congress trounced
* PM forced to announce elections because of increasing isolation
* Elections announced on 23 rd January, 1977; held in March
* Jayaprakash Narayan declares formation of Janata Party
* Members of Janata Party – Jana Sangh (pre-curser of BJP, Congress (O), Socialist Party and Lok Dal
* Janata Party wins a clear majority of 295 seats in a House of 542 seats; Indira Gandhi loses her own LS seat
LK Advani restores freedom of Press as I&B Minister
* Morarji Desai sworn in as new PM; L.K. Advani gets Information and Broadcasting portfolio; A.B. Vajpayee becomes External Affairs Minister
* Advani’s First task: Presented a White paper on misuse of media during Emergency
* Ensured all restrictions and controls imposed during Emergency were removed
* Restored freedom of Press – an integral part of a true democracy
“ If the Emergency was the darkest period in India’s post-Independence history, the righteous struggle following it was undoubtedly the brightest” - L.K. Advani LK Advani undertaking oath of office as I&B minister in 1977 Jayaprakash Narayan administering an oath of unity and service to Nation to all Janata Party MPs at Rajghat
12. Shri LK Advani was one of the leading fighters against Emergency which threatened the basic ideals of Justice, Liberty and Peace that our country is built upon If this is not contribution to National life, then what is?
* Authored 5 underground essays in prison
* Smuggled out of prison by anti-Emergency fighters
* Circulated across the country in anti-Emergency campaigns
* Strong defiance of censorship imposed by Government
* Inspired thousands to join protest against Emergency
* Full text: http://www.lkadvani.in/eng/content/blogcategory/96/422/
* Spent 19 months in prison during anti-Emergency struggle
* Challenged the Government in Karnataka High Court
* Received mass support from people all over India
* Restored Freedom of Press as I&B Minister
* Withdrew all directives issued for Press censorship
* Repealed the Prevention of Publication of Objectionable Material Act
* Restored the Parliamentary Proceedings Act
* For the first time, allowed all national and state-level political parties to broadcast their election campaigns with equal time
“ I see in Advaniji a multitude of roles ..as an erudite journalist with Organiser, .. as a crusader for democracy and fellow-prisoner during the Emergency.. , as one who assisted me in forging the NDA; and as my able deputy in steering the ship of nation for six years.” - Atal Bihari Vajpayee
13. Dear fellow citizens! The country looks up to you again… Perform your duty… Think and Vote! - by An Indian

Remembering Emergency days

Prime Minister Shri Narendra Modi recounting excesses, atrocities, and brutalities by Indira Gandhi during Emergency

Divisive communal votebank politics of CONgress

2012-05-28T17:02:00.003-08:00

Chasing that bank of votes again
By Arun Shourie, Indian Express

13 May 2004: The Congress Government with Y S Reddy as Chief Minister is sworn-in as the new Government of Andhra Pradesh.

2 June 2004: The Chief Secretary holds a meeting. Secretaries of various departments attend. The Chief Secretary announces that the Government has decided to provide reservations for Muslims.

4 June 2004: So as to include them in the list of Other Backward Classes and thereby give them reservations in educational institutions and public employment under Articles 15(4) and 16(4), the Andhra Government issues an order directing a department of its own, the Commissionerate of Minority Welfare to submit a report recording the social, economic and educational backwardness of Muslims.

5 July 2004: The Commissionerate duly submits the report that the Government has asked for. It recommends that Muslims be given 5 per cent reservations in both educational institutions and public employment.

7 July 2004: The Government issues an order—5 per cent reservations are granted to the Muslim community.

The Government’s order is challenged in the Andhra Pradesh High Court. The challenge is heard by a Bench of five judges. The Court strikes down the Government Order as wholly unconstitutional. The Court comes to this conclusion on several grounds.

Before a group can be accorded reservations in educational institutions under Article 15, it has to be established that the group is ‘socially and educationally backward.’ And before the group can be granted reservations in public employment under Article 16(4), the authorities have to establish both — that the group is ‘backward’ and that it is inadequately represented in governmental employment. The Government has decreed reservations for the entire Muslim community, but the Muslims are not a homogenous group: there are caste-like stratifications among them, the High Court noted, observing:

Non-Hindu religions like Islam, Christianity, and Sikh, do not recognize caste as such, but the existence of caste like social stratification among the Muslims is well recognized that in spite of egalitarian philosophy of Islam, which opposes all kinds of discriminations, almost all types of caste groups have emerged in the Muslims. The Muslims have developed different caste-groups at different places, but they call themselves as Jamat or Biradari and do not use the term Jat or caste e.g. Nadaf or Mansoori Jamat or Biradari, but in actual practice, they possess practically all the traits of caste structure such as endogamy, stratification, occupational monopoly, dress-code and their own different Mosques.’

Therefore, there can be a case for identifying specific groups from among the Muslims as being backward and thereby according reservations for them, the High Court said. But what has the Government and its Commissionerate done? This is how the High Court sets out what it finds:

The process of identification of Muslims as a group as socially backward by the Commissionerate of Minorities Welfare is totally vitiated since it did not determine any specific criteria for the purposes of identifying the Backward Classes and applied the same in order to find out as to whether the Muslims qualify to categorise them as socially backward and as well as backward for the purposes of Articles 15(4) and 16(4). The Commissionerate acted in undue haste. The Commissionerate failed to undertake any serious investigation and enquiry as is required before identifying the Muslim Community as a socially Backward Class. In the absence of laying down the criteria for ascertaining the backwardness, the entire report is to be treated as an exercise in futility. The approach adopted by the authority is improper and invalid. In the absence of any such finding as to the social backwardness, the Muslims cannot be classified as Backward Classes either for the purposes of Article 15(4) or Article 16(4) of the Constitution of India.

When, in the face of differentia within a religious community, the required investigation is not undertaken, and the entire community is proclaimed to be backward and reservations are decreed for that religious community, two fatal consequences follow:

* Unequals — the socially, educationally and economically advanced sections among Muslims, and those among them who are backward — get treated as equals. And equals—say, the advanced sections among non-Muslims and those among Muslims — get treated unequally: the advanced among non-Muslims do not get reservations and those among Muslims do. This strikes at the very root of the fundamental principle enshrined in Articles 14, 15(1) and 16(1), the principle of equality which, the Supreme Court has held times without number, is an essential ingredient of the Basic Structure of the Constitution.

* As no effort has been made to take account of differentiations within the Muslim community and as reservations have been made available to the entire community as such, the decision — of giving reservations to an entire religious community when in fact there is inequality between groups of adherents — is clearly based on religion per se, and this is expressly prohibited by the Constitution under Articles 15(1) and 16(2).

To not exclude the better off in a religious group, the ‘creamy layer’ as the Supreme Court had characterized them in Indra Sawhney, has the same effect that not doing so has in the case of a caste, and, in the light of judgments of the Supreme Court, is ‘totally illegal’, the High Court observes. ‘Such an illegality offending the root of the Constitution cannot be allowed to be perpetuated even by constitutional amendment.’

Next, under the A.P. Commission for Backward Classes Act, which has been on the statute book since 1993, the Government can add a group to or take away a group from the list of Backward Classes only after the case for doing so has been examined by the state’s Backward Classes Commission constituted under that Act. It turned out that the state had not sought the advice of the Commission at all in regard to the backwardness or otherwise of Muslims. Nor had the Commission examined the matter at all. Two earlier Commissions—the Anantaraman Commission and the Murlidhara Rao Commission—had examined the issue, and had come to the conclusion that as a class, Muslims are not socially and educationally backward, and that, except for a few sects, the other sects of Muslims enjoy equal status with followers of other religions. Those few sects that did suffer from social and educational backwardness—Dudekula, Mehtar, etc.—the Commissions had said should be included in the list of Backward Classes, and given reservations. This had been done.

The decision of the Government is ‘entirely based’ on the report of its own department, the Commissionerate, the High Court noted. And what kind of a report had this Commissionerate produced? This what the High Court found on examination:

* ‘The report on hand, to say the least, is somewhat peculiar . . . The Commissionerate report does not contain the details of any investigation or enquiry as regards the social backwardness of Muslim Community,’ the High Court noted. ‘There is no finding recorded by the Commissionerate as to the social backwardness of the community.’

* ‘The report, in our considered opinion,’ the High Court held, ‘is vitiated for the reason of not taking relevant factors into consideration. It is also vitiated for the reason of non-application of mind. This Court cannot help but observe that the Commissionerate acted in undue haste in submitting the report. The Commissionerate failed to realise the complex nature of investigation and enquiry that was required to be made. No scientific or reasoned investigation or enquiry has been made. In the absence of laying down the criteria for ascertaining the backwardness, the entire report is to be treated as an exercise in futility. The approach adopted by the authority is improper and invalid.’

The Government, as we just noted, was also duty-bound under Article 16(4) to determine that the Muslims as a community are inadequately represented in governmental services. This fact also cannot be ascertained mechanically for the expression that has been used in Article 16 is not ‘proportional representation’ but ‘inadequate representation’. Hence, one cannot just look up the proportion that a group forms of the total population and compare that with the proportion of posts that its members have in governmental services. On this aspect also, the High Court concluded, the Government had been totally remiss in what it was required to do by the Constitution and the relevant judgments of the Supreme Court:

* ‘In the instant case, there is no material that was available with the Government to form its opinion, which may be a purely subjective process to arrive at any conclusion that the Muslim Community is not adequately represented in the services of the State. The data collected from Kurnool District [just one of 23 districts in the state] and incorporated in the report in no manner reveals inadequate representation of Muslim Community in the services of the state. There were no material and circumstances on which the Government could have formed the opinion as to the adequacy of representation of Muslim Community in the services of the state. In fact, the impugned G.O. [Government Order] does not reflect any formation of opinion as to the adequacy of representation. The G.O., is therefore, vitiated on the ground of non-application of mind.’

Finally, the High Court noted that reservations under Articles 15(4) and 16(4) in Andhra already totaled 46 per cent. With another 5 per cent now being reserved for Muslims, the ceiling of 50 per cent was being breached. The state has not been able to explain the compelling reasons on account of which this ceiling should be allowed to be breached, the High Court concluded.

The response

As resounding a slap on the face of the Government as one could imagine. And how did the Government respond? It was headed by a committed secularist, remember, by a Chief Minister who was even then known as a go-getter—a reputation that would get reinforced in more ways than one in the ensuing years.

The High Court had given its judgment in Muralidhar Rao on 21 September 2004. On 18 November 2004, the Government wrote to the Andhra Pradesh Backward Classes Commission to examine the question of the backwardness of the Muslim community for assessing their eligibility for being given reservations in educational institutions and public employment. The Commission gave its report—we shall soon learn what kind of a report this was—on 14 June 2005. Within the week, on 20 June 2005, the Congress Government issued an Ordinance—again reserving 5 per cent seats in educational institutions and governmental jobs for Muslims.

The Ordinance was challenged in the Andhra High Court. When the judges gathered in Court to deliver their judgment, they were told that the Ordinance on which they had been hearing arguments and on which they were about to pronounce judgment had lapsed. It had been replaced by an Act. The Court saw that there was no material change in the provisions, and merely noted in its judgment that wherever the word ‘Ordinance’ occurs, it shall be taken to refer to the Act. Delivered by a five judge Bench, the second judgment of the High Court—in B. Archana Reddy v State of Andhra Pradesh—was an even tighter slap than the first one. The Ordinance/Act was struck down as unconstitutional and violative of Articles 15(4) and 16(4), the two Articles under which it had ostensibly made the reservations.

An even tighter slap

The first feature that made the Ordinance and the Act wholly unconstitutional was precisely the one that had made them so attractive to a Government so eager to pander to a vote-bank—the boon that it was conferring was based wholly and solely on religion! From the title of the Act—A.P. Reservation of Seats in the Educational Institutions and of Appointments or posts in the Public Services under the State to Muslim Community Act, 2005—to its Preamble, down to individual provisions, every bit of the text was designed to leave no doubt that it was intended for giving reservations to the Muslims as a religious community solely because it was the Muslim community. The classification of those who would get the reservations that were being provided and those who would not was based only on religion—something that is explicitly prohibited by Articles 14, 15(1), 15(2), as well as 16(1) and 16(2).

In any event, this single feature—of basing the discrimination, in this case between Muslims and non-Muslims, only on the ground of religion—was the one on which the High Court judges came down first.

The Ordinance is ‘religion specific’, the judges noted. It ‘imposes illegitimate, discriminatory and grossly burdensome impact on citizens, on those belonging to the existing notified Backward Classes and on those who are not members of Backward Classes, as well,’ they noted. ‘The inference is therefore compelling that the entirety of the state action manifested in the provisions of the Ordinance, is a crude camouflage to shield what is clearly a naked and exclusively religion based programme of reservation in educational institutions and public employment,’ they observed. The classification—of those who will get reservations and those who would not—is based exclusively on religion, they held.

In this round, the Government had indeed referred the question to the Backward Classes Commission for examination. But the Commission had just done a pro forma job. The Commission’s report ought to have been of the standard of a commanding performance, the Court observed quoting the petitioners with approval, rather than a performance on command. This was made manifest by several facts.

The Commission had not published in advance the criteria on which it would be assessing backwardness—this alone would have given those who had objections or suggestions a chance to assist the Commission with their views. ‘The prior non-publication of criteria and data collected by the B.C. Commission renders the report of the B.C. Commission illegal and contrary to provisions of B.C. Commission Act and principles of fairness.’

In fact, whereas ‘an expert body like the Backward Classes Commission has to necessarily evolve absolutely relevant criteria for the purpose of caste test, occupation test and means test,’ in the case at hand, ‘the B.C. Commission did not evolve any criteria for identifying social backwardness and did not apply the three tests in a scientific and objective manner.’

And such criteria as it used, and such data-gathering as it did were inappropriate and worse. So that it may determine whether a group is eligible for reservations, the Commission had to identify those groups among Muslims who were socially, educationally and economically backward—only such groups can be given benefit of reservations. As had been the case with the Commissionerate in the first round, in this round the Backward Classes Commission too had ‘totally ignored the existence of castes and communities and proceeded as if the entire Muslim community is a homogenous group without any visible divisions among the community. The entire approach therefore suffers from a fundamental flaw.’ Treating Muslims of Andhra as a homogenous group thereby papering over the internal differentia among them, ‘constitutes a fatal flaw in the conceptual foundation, adopted methodology and social survey of the Commission’s exercise and introduces an irremediable infirmity to its conclusions and recommendations.’

And the Court gave a telling analogy to pronounce what the Commission had done as ‘grotesque and unconstitutional’. It noted,

‘Classes of Muslims already recognized and identified as backward classes constitute a dissimilar and distinct class from those Muslims who have not been so identified. Conceptually treating such dissimilar classes as one violates the established principle of classification, a doctrine underwriting the equality injunctions mandated by Articles 14-16 of Constitution. The equivalence of the Commission's endeavour and exercise, in the Hindu context, would be to take the entire Hindu collectivity including the several castes, groups and classes including the notified Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and other Backward Classes, and including the indisputable forward castes among the Hindus, like say the Brahmins, proceeding to survey, collect data, apply the criteria to such data and thereafter characterize the entire Hindu population including Brahmins as a backward class. Such an exercise would compellingly require to be characterized as grotesque and unconstitutional. This is what the exercise of the Commission is, but for the difference that the Commission's exercise involved the entirety of the Muslim collective.’

The consequence is fatal, the High Court noted: ‘In treating the identified Backward Classes of Muslims in the State of Andhra Pradesh and the other Muslims as an integral homogeneous social class, as the basis for its entire exercise, the Commission was led into a fatal error from which there is no redemption. As a consequence its exercise is rendered an exercise in futility. For this error its report including the Recommendations therein must perish as must the Ordinance based exclusively on the Recommendations of the Commission.’

Several of the so-called criteria that the Commission had deployed—occupation, extent of poverty, access to medical services, low life expectancy, etc.—the High Court held, were neither germane to nor peculiar to the Muslims. Nor had the Commission made any effort to establish any causal relationship between these traits and belief in Islam or of belonging to the Muslim community. As such, the criteria that the Commission had used were ‘defective, unscientific, unreasonable and absurd.’

In regard to several other indices and data that the Commission had brandished, examination showed that its conclusions in instance after instance were ‘based on no relevant evidence or material,’ that for them ‘there is neither data nor details of the survey, incorporated on record,’ that ‘the Commission had no basis, in concept or fact to support the conclusion that Muslims are socially backward,’ that ‘the Commission’s conclusions based on a composition of erroneous assumptions, are therefore unsustainable...’

The Commission had not just pronounced all Muslims of Andhra to be backward, it had also declared that none of the existing backward classes have attained levels of advancement that warrant any revision of the existing reservations—this it had done manifestly so as to make out the case for exceeding the 50 per cent ceiling. ‘This conclusion,’ the Court said of this business of no backward group having advanced, is ‘extravagant and unfounded,’ it is based on no reference, no evidence, is perverse, invalid and is accordingly declared.

In fact, the situation had been worse. Far from identifying and differentiating those groups among Muslims in Andhra who really were backward, in the reliance it placed on some data, the Commission had not even differentiated Muslims in Andhra from Muslims in the rest of the country! For instance, to show that a proportion of Muslims in Andhra were unemployed, the Commission had deployed what turned out to be aggregate National Sample Survey data for the country as a whole!

And in other instances, the Commission had deliberately shut its eyes to data that could be seen from a mile to be intrinsic to the question it was examining. To show that Muslims as a whole were educationally backward, it had used data regarding enrollment in only the general educational institutions—it had totally shut out data about students enrolled in minority institutions, when these are legion in the state!

‘From the text and texture of the report of the Commission,’ the High Court was compelled to conclude, ‘it is apparent that the Commission considered that it had to record a conclusion regardless of whether time and organizational constraints permit a degree of exercise relevant to the goal obligated by the Constitution and the provisions of the 1993 Act.’

Such was the ‘performance on command’ that the backward Classes Commission of the state had turned in—and the state had justified its decision solely by the report of this Commission. But, the Court noted, the Government had gone one better!

While the Commission recommended 5% of reservation to all Muslims including those distinct classes/ groups of Muslims already included as Backward Classes (Laddaf, Dudekula etc), the Ordinance provided 5% reservation only in favour of Muslims excluding those already included in the list of Backward Classes. The existing Groups of Backward Classes A, B, C and D remain undisturbed.

As a result, Muslims would get reservations for more than the 5 per cent that the Ordinance/Act had provided!!

For these, and other reasons of the kind we encountered in the case of the first round, the 5-judge Bench of the High Court struck down the Ordinance/Act as wholly violative of the Constitution and wholly contrary to what the Supreme Court had laid down in its decisions.

The High Court handed down this stinging rebuke on 7 November 2005. The Government requested that it be given leave to appeal to the Supreme Court. Leave was granted.

That leave petition remains pending to this day. But how could that mere fact come in the way of that go-getter’s Government?

The third slap

17 April 2007: The Andhra Government asked the Backward Classes Commission to do the exercise again, and, this time, identify the socially and educationally backward groups among Muslims. Incidentally, in making that request the Government quoted the wrong section of the relevant Act!

18 May 2007: Even as the Commission was ostensibly carrying out the exercise, the Government appointed a retired IAS officer, P.S. Krishnan as Advisor and asked him to identify the backwards among Muslims.

11 June 2007: A month had not passed, and Krishnan submitted his report to the Government.

11 June 2007: The same day, the Government sent Krishnan’s report to the Backward Classes Commission.

23 to 26 June 2007: The Commission declared that it would conduct its own state-wide survey during these—all of three—days. Even on its own telling, this state-wide survey was to be done in—the easily accessible areas, chiefly towns—of just six of the state’s 23 districts.

29 June 2007: The Commission completed ‘the collection of the data, compilation of the survey material and discussion on the collected material.’

2 July 2007: That is, within two days of completing the collection, compilation and discussion of the data, the Commission handed its 204-page report to the Government!

6 July 2007: The Government issued an Ordinance—once again decreeing 5 per cent reservations for Muslims in educational institutions and in government services.

13 August 2007: The Andhra legislature passed the corresponding Act—The Andhra Pradesh Reservation in favour of Socially and Educationally Backward Classes of Muslims Act, 2007.

There was one manifest improvement! While the title of the 2005 Act had stated that the reservations were being made for the ‘Muslim Community,’ the 2007 Act maintained these were for ‘Socially and Educationally Backward Classes of Muslims’!

The Act was challenged in the High Court. The case was heard by a seven judge Bench. By a majority judgment, the Court struck down the Act as ‘unsustainable’. Apart from the other reasons which the Court set out in detail, and which traversed the grounds that we have already encountered, there were others. Among these was the basic one: the Act had proceeded to classify beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries in an unconstitutional way—that is, on the basis of religion only. To take just two instances, examination showed that the identification of backward classes among Muslims was both irrational and unsustainable, and thereby ‘exclusively religion specific’; and, second, in a give-away, the Act had prescribed benefits for ‘other Muslim groups’.

Apart from the fact that the Act was unconstitutional for this basic reason, the High Court drew attention to another consequence of this religion-specific identification of beneficiaries. The point is best considered by reading what the Court itself said:

If a person, who is not a Muslim and who belongs to a forward caste embraces Islam, then the question would arise as to in which group he would fall. If he does not belong to any of the groups specifically narrated in the Schedule appended to the impugned Act, he would be included in ‘other Muslim groups’ i.e. he would be in Item No. 15; but as he would not be in groups which have already been referred to in Item No. 15 (i.e. the excluded communities), he would be a member of ‘other Muslim groups’ and would be eligible for the reservation provided he is not a member of a creamy layer. In such an event, in our opinion, anyone can avail of the benefit of reservation under the impugned Act and that would be against the spirit of secularism and in equal measure subversive of the purposes for which the 2007 Act has been enacted as well. This is a significant aspect which has not been considered at all while enacting the impugned Act and this would have disastrous consequences. Not only unscrupulous persons embracing Islam would get the benefit of reservations, but that would result in depletion of opportunities of enjoying reservations by those Muslim groups who are otherwise entitled to the benefit of reservation in pursuance of the impugned enactment.

The other reason on account of which the judgment declared the Act to be unsustainable was that it was based exclusively on the report of the Backward Classes Commission, and this report, it turned out, was even more of a farce than the previous so-called reports on which the Government had ostensibly based its largesse.

To begin with, even the Advocate General admitted that ‘in certain cases there was perhaps no justification for including certain Muslim groups in the list of Backward Classes, except for the reason that their Hindu counterparts were already included as SEBCs, and for this reason, the Commission, without any survey to ascertain their way of living, level of education and economic condition, had recommended certain groups to be included in the list of Backward Classes.’

And what of the cases in which the Commission had actually conducted a survey?

The Court found, to begin with, that in the overwhelming proportion of cases, the Commission had in fact not conducted any survey at all. It had just reproduced passages and narrative from the study by the Anthropological Survey of India and that report of P.S. Krishnan! And even in doing so, it had both mis-stated facts, and worse.

In regard to a group—‘Atchukatlavandlu (Muslims)’—the Commission stated that it had conducted a survey in Kadapa and Adilabad districts of the state. But the Anthropological Survey study on which it was relying contained no discussion about this group of Muslims! What the latter had described was the Hindu counterparts of this group!

In regard to another group—‘Faqir/Fhakir Budbudki’—the Commission had stated that they reside in certain areas, which it had listed, of the Rayalseema Region. But the staff of the Commission had conducted their survey of this group in the Telangana Region! And that survey, did not establish backwardness to boot.

As regards another group—‘Siddi’—the only justification that the Commission could come up with for their being included in the list of backwards was that a group with the same name in Gujarat was recognized as a Scheduled Tribe, and one in Karnataka of that same name had been included in that state’s list of backwards!

In regard to another group—‘Garadi’—the Commission had indeed conducted a survey. It had surveyed all of seven households comprising 40 persons in one district, Medak! And, surprise of surprises, ‘Of those who had been surveyed, 100 per cent of them had stated that they were not given any discriminatory treatment by the society and they were also not in their traditional occupation. Moreover, they had all submitted that they were treated as normal social beings by the other members of the society.’ ‘In spite of the above facts gathered by the Commission,’ the High Court observed, ‘it had recommended that “Garadi” community be treated as socially and educationally backward.’ ‘It is also pertinent to note,’ the High Court continued, ‘that the total population of the Garadi community was not known...’

In regard to the ‘Gosangi’ community which too the Commission had anointed as backward, ‘data from only one family had been gathered by the Commission in Nizamabad district...’

Similarly, the Commission had recommended the inclusion of ‘Chakketakare community’ among backwards on the strength of having surveyed six households comprising 29 persons in one district.

As for the ‘Guddi Eluguvallu’ whom also the Commission declared should be recognized as backward, ‘no survey whatsoever had been conducted and no data had been collected by the Commission.’

‘Likewise,’ the High Court noted in conclusion, ‘with regard to other communities also, we find that the Commission had not conducted the survey objectively to justify its recommendations.’ The Commission just could not have conducted a survey in the extremely short time between its being asked to examine the matter, and the date on which it submitted its report, the High Court noted. As already pointed out, the records of the Commission themselves showed that some of the so-called data had been gathered by it on 28 and 29 June 2007. And within two days the Commission had not just analyzed the data, and had discussions on it. The Commission had completed and submitted a written report covering 204 pages!

After a detailed analysis of the so-called survey that the Commission had claimed to have conducted, the judges concluded that the Commission had failed to evolve and spell out proper and relevant criteria for identifying those who were socially and educationally backward, and for those who were inadequately represented in public employment; that it had failed to obtain even the figures of total population of the groups it was ostensibly identifying; that it had failed to utilize any scientific and statistically rational method of sampling the groups—the size of the sample, the locations where it would be conducted, etc.; that it had failed to apply uniformly such criteria or even standards as it had alighted upon; and that, instead, it had relied on the study of the Anthropological Survey of India which ‘had no relevance or nexus with the affirmation action/reservation under Articles 15(4) and 16(4); that ‘no material’ had been placed before the Court to prove that the classifications on which the Act was based had any nexus with the policy and objectives that had to be achieved; that, in the absence of such material, the state Government ‘has utterly failed to discharge its onus of proof to establish that the reservations are for socially and educationally Backward Classes of citizens and that the enactment is based on sufficient material to support the classification . . .’ And hence that the investigation carried out by the Commission ‘is not sufficient, and the report submitted by it is not based on real facts, data or analysis and is without any proper survey...’, and, therefore, that the report should be held to be mechanical, and perfunctory in nature and to have been prepared without application of mind . . .

A portent

Incidentally, before we move on we have to note one feature of the judgments in this case as it presages what is to come. In a case such as this, they were bound to examine the basis on which the legislature and the Government had acted, the judges pointed out. They had to subject the provisions of the law and the basis on which benefits under it had been assigned to ‘rigorous’ or ‘strict’ scrutiny, they pointed out, citing a number of Supreme Court judgments and even weightier reasons. One judge demurred. Such scrutiny is not warranted, he maintained. When the legislature passes an Act, we must proceed on the presumption of constitutional validity of the enactment. The others pointed out that ‘All the judgments touching upon reservations consistently applied exacting scrutiny. In Indra Sawhney’s case... the Hon’ble Supreme Court analysed the Mandal Report minutely, which, in our view, exemplifies application of rigorous and exacting standard of scrutiny.’ They agreed that, yes, in the normal course, there should be a presumption of constitutionality, ‘However, such a presumption of constitutionality of a statute is not available if it can be shown that facially [sic.] the law or the surrounding circumstances on which the classification is based did not warrant such a classification and the statute made an invidious discrimination among citizens similarly situated . . .’ And when the constitutionality is challenged and a prima facie case is made out regarding the defectiveness of the statute, the burden of establishing constitutionality shifts to the state . . .

Both the fact that the classification in the Act was based on religion only, as well as the cavernous lacunae in the survey on which the list of backwards had been drawn up established the infirmity of the Act prima facie. But that judge’s response was astonishing.

As for the identification of groups being religion-specific—something that is expressly forbidden by the Constitution—the judge held, that is no flaw, in fact it is justice being done at last! Here is how he put his conclusion:

When the state of A.P., holds the view that coverage under Articles 15 and 16 of the Constitution in respect of certain social groups among Muslims have [sic.] been missed until the impugned Act even while the same coverage in respect of other religious communities have [sic.] been in existence since long time, the Court cannot accept any challenge to the Act on the ground that it is religion-specific. On the contrary, the impugned Act is an act of delayed rectification of injustice done to them all along and extending justice to the now included social groups who have been identified not on the basis of their religion but on the parameters of social and educational backwardness...

And as for the gross infirmities in the ‘survey’, as for the Commission having relied—to the extent of having reproduced verbatim—reports that had no nexus with the question it had to examine and the identification it had to carry out, the judge was equally large-hearted! He declared,

Irrespective of any inadequacies or deficiencies in the APCBC [Andhra Pradesh Commission for Backward Classes] report and other materials

In the light of what we have seen were the facts regarding the report of the Commission and its ‘survey’, how tender are the words the judge had chosen, ‘inadequacies or deficiencies’!

once a legislation is enacted the judiciary has to take into account the principle of presumption of constitutional validity of any legislation under the Indian Constitution and set it aside only if there is anything in the legislation which strikes the conscience and strikes the eye as totally unreasonable. This is not the position in the present case.

If only such large-hearted judges were an exception.

The second, and even more ominous portent came from the way the matter moved in the Supreme Court itself.

The Andhra Pradesh Government had accepted the judgment of the High Court in the first round. In the second round, when the High Court struck the Ordinance and Act down as unconstitutional, it sought leave to appeal. As we noted above, the appeal was granted.

The Government went to the Supreme Court and asked that the judgment be reviewed and in the interim its operation be stayed. A three-judge Bench of the Supreme Court, headed by the Chief Justice, directed that, in view of the substantial questions of public importance that are involved, the matter be placed before a Constitution Bench. It turned down the Andhra Government's request to stay the operation of the judgment of the High Court. From the order of the Supreme Court, you will see the sort of specious arguments that are advanced.

The Government said, in effect, identification of social and educational backwardness is a precondition only when it comes to giving reservations in educational institutions under Article 15(4). Article 16(4) allows us to make reservations in public employment for classes that are not adequately represented. So, we should be allowed to proceed at least with the latter, and the High Court judgment should be stayed.

Of course, Article 16(4) lays down two conditions: not just that the classes for whom reservations are being made in government services are inadequately represented but also that they are `backward'. Hence, determination that the classes for whom reservations are being made are backward is as essential in the context of Article 16(4) as it is in regard to reservations being made under Article 15(4). The Supreme Court focused on another telling point. The Ordinance which was in question itself stated the objective for which the reservations were being made. In doing so it referred to “social, educational and economic backwardness” of the members of the Muslim community residing in Andhra. Hence, identification of the groups that are actually backward was of the very essence of the exercise in this instance also.

“Having heard the learned counsel and having perused the Constitutional provisions and the report [of the Andhra Pradesh Commission for Backward Classes] as also the impugned judgment, we are not inclined to stay the operation of the impugned judgment and make operational a law which has been invalidated by the High Court, as an interim measure.”

That was the second round -- the appeal of the Andhra Government has remained where it was, pending before the Supreme Court for the last five years.

It is the third round in which the portentous thing happened. As we have seen, the High Court had again struck down the 2007 Act as unsustainable and unconstitutional. The Andhra Government went to the Supreme Court in appeal-it requested that the High Court judgment be reviewed, and that pending the review, it be stayed. The Bench headed by the then Chief Justice K.G. Balakrishnan, did the opposite of what the Bench headed by the then Chief Justice of the same Supreme Court had done earlier. It referred the case to a Constitution Bench all right, but, even as it did so-that is, even as it concluded that the constitutionality of the Act had to be determined and “several constitutional issues are involved” -- it stayed the judgment of the High Court: thereby, to use the words of the earlier Bench, making operational a law which the High Court had found to be wholly unconstitutional. “As an interim measure,” it said, the 4 per cent reservations that have been given to Muslims listed in the Schedule of the Act shall continue-save that they shall not be extended to “Other Muslim groups.” “This is a temporary measure,” it said, “till the matter is decided.'

The order of the Supreme Court concluded with the words, “These matters are referred to the Constitution Bench to be listed in the 2nd week of August 2010 along with C.A. 7513/2005 for appropriate directions.”

We are in January 2012 as I write this -- hence, a two-year-long foot-in-the-door! And the argument will be that, reservations having been available to Muslims now for over two years and their having got accustomed to availing of them, reversing course now will inflict great injustice and lead to massive resentment and backlash...

For the present, it will be enough to bear two points in mind.

First, The prohibition against basing largesse and classification on religion alone is so stern and so patent, it has been reiterated by the courts so very often that one is left wondering as to what the Andhra Government was doing, and that too repeatedly. Was it just being audacious and proud—‘I am the State. Who can come in the way of what I decree?’ Or was it being cleverer than we imagine? Was it the case that it did not really care whether or not it lived up to its promise of giving reservations to Muslims and, therefore, did not care that it was going about the matter in a way that was certain to be struck down by the courts?

Second, the same question arises with the new announcements that have been made on behalf of the Congress now. The occasion speaks volumes: elections in U.P. are round the corner, and the Congress is wooing the Muslims again. Similarly, while the largesse will be camouflaged in the well-known ways, the fact is under the promise the Congress has made nine per cent reservations are to be set aside for the Muslims. That is clearly based on religion—something explicitly prohibited by the Constitution. Is the Party again counting on amenable judges? Or is cynicism in command again? Who cares if the courts strike down the promise later? By that time those who have to be fooled, would have been fooled; what is to be won, would have been won.

(Extracted from the expanded edition of Arun Shourie’s FALLING OVER BACKWARDS, that is being published by HarperCollins in April, 2012)

=====================================

Andhra Pradesh High Court spikes CONgress led UPA’s Muslim illegal reservation quota
Pioneer News Service

Five months after the Congress-led UPA Government rolled out 4.5 per cent reservation benefit for minorities in central admissions and jobs, the Andhra Pradesh High Court on Monday called its bluff on the “casual” policy terming it as based on religious grounds having no justification.

The HC bench of Chief Justice Madan B Lokur and Justice Sanjay Kumar struck down the office memorandum (OM) and resolution adopted by Cabinet in this regard on December 22, 2011 terming it as being unconstitutional.

In a stinging criticism of the Centre’s lack of preparedness in designing this welfare scheme, the bench said the very use of the words “belonging to minorities” or “for minorities” indicates that the sub-quota has been carved out only on religious lines and not on any other intelligible basis.

“We must express our anguish at the rather casual manner in which the entire issue has been taken up by the Central Government,” it stated.

The decision came as a huge blow to the Congress which harped on the benefits available under this policy to Muslims. The Centre had come out with it just before the UP Assembly polls and the likes of Union Law Minister Salman Khurshid wooed Muslims by doling out this sub-quota bait. The Election Commission too had subsequently intervened and put on hold the decision.

The 4.5 per cent minority reservation was carved out of the existing 27 per cent OBC quota that had earlier received Supreme Court nod. A PIL filed by R Krishnaiah, backward caste leader from AP, questioned its constitutional validity since it pandered to appeasement of a particular religion.

The bench found substance in the petition as the judgement said, “No evidence has been shown to us by the learned Assistant Solicitor General to justify the classification of these religious minorities as a homogeneous group or as more backward classes deserving some special treatment.”

With the judicial pronouncement coming just before Assembly election in Gujarat later this year, the Centre’s credibility to pursue the deal as an affirmative action for the minorities, rather than a short-term policy designed to benefit the party during polls, has come under cloud.

Court had earlier shot down Muslim quota

New Delhi: The Andhra Pradesh High Court’s order striking down a Central law providing 4.5 per cent reservation to minorities as a whole comes just in time when a similar decision passed by the same court on February 8, 2010 striking down a four per cent Muslim quota brought in by the State Government is under Supreme Court scrutiny.

A Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court is yet to decide the validity of the AP High Court decision passed by a majority verdict of 5:2. In March 2010, an apex bench headed by then CJI KG Balakrishnan had lifted the stay on the HC ruling on the ground that the set of 15 Muslim groups sought to be benefited under this law should not be deprived till the time a final decision from the court is pronounced.

The controversial legislation titled — The Andhra Pradesh Reservation in Favour of Socially and Educationally Backward Classes of Muslims Act, 2007 — had proposed to allocate four per cent seats in State-run educational institutions and public jobs to the 15 Muslim groups identified as backward by an Expert Commission in 2007.

In AP, Muslims constitute 9.2 per cent of the total population, of which the State claimed that majority was found to be socially and educationally backward.

Vindicated, says BJP

The Congress remained tightlipped on the Andhra Pradesh High Court’s order quashing the Centre’s decision to carve out a 4.5 per cent minority sub-quota within the OBC reservation while the BJP described the order as a “good development”.

Congress spokesperson Manish Tewari said the party would react only after studying the judgement. Incidentally, the party had unsuccessfully used minority sub-quota to woo the Muslims in the recent UP Assembly polls.

BJP, which had earlier opposed the Government’s move, maintained its stand had been vindicated with the order. BJP spokesman Rajiv Pratap Rudy said, “When these reservations were announced we had clearly said it is against the Constitution.”

However, National Commission for Backward Classes Shakeel Ansari termed the court verdict unfortunate and urged the Centre to take up the matter in the court in an effective manner so that the final decision was favourable.

हिंदी व्याकरण।

2012-05-27T14:28:00.003-08:00

हिंदी व्याकरण।

Tags: हिंदी व्याकरण hindi vyakaran grammar free pdf ebook download read online

Does India Needs Secularism? - Tapan Ghosh

2012-05-25T22:26:00.003-08:00

Does India Needs Secularism?

A passionate but logical speech delivered by Shri Tapan Ghosh of Hindu Samhati, Kolkata.

Shri Tapan Ghosh cogently argues that since Bharat was divided in 1947 on the basis of two nation theory how come Hindus are still being insulted and treated like second class citizens in their own country and Muslims are pampered by the Government of India.

Shri Tapan Ghosh firmly believes and cautions Hindus that Secularism as practiced in India will obliterate Hinduism from Indian soil and will pave the way for Islamization of Bharat.

Indian Supreme Court SIT Closure Report exonerates Narendra Modi in 2002 Gujarat Riots case

2012-05-08T21:58:00.014-08:00

Indian Supreme Court appointed Special Investigation Team (SIT) has categorically said in its 788 pages long extensive report that there is NO evidence of Shri Narendra Modi's direct or indirect involvement in any communal Muslim-Hindu Gujarat riots of 2002. It has impartially investigated and found all allegations against Shri Narendra Modi by Jakia Jafri, Teesta Javed Setalvad, Sanjiv Bhatt, Javed Ahmed, Times of India journalist Manoj Mitta, et.al. as baseless concocted lies, canards, and untrue.

Download SIT Closure report from Scribd or read it below:

Indian Supreme Court SIT Closure Report exonerates Narendra Modi in 2002 Gujarat Riots case

===================================================

Gujarat Riots: Highlights of SIT Closure Report

The SIT closure report, which gave a clean chit to Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi in post-Godhra riots, puts light on a conspiracy behind the charges against Modi. The report says that Narendra Modi and the state took all possible measures to prevent the massacre.

Here are some points from the SIT report, complied by Vijay (@centerofright) in twitter:

1. What everyone forgets is that 27th February 2002 was a Budget day.

2. When Smt Swarnakanta Verma , then acting secretary was shown the picture of Sanjiv Bhatt, said did not see him in the meeting or in any meeting.

3. Ashok Narayan then ACS Home says Sanjiv Bhatt was not present and DGP gave sequence of events

4. Both Ashok Narayan and Swarna Kant verma says Narendra Mdi did not say anything about venting of Anger

5. Everyone who was present in the meeting recollected everyone who was present in the meeting, Sanjiv Bhatt could not say if PK Mishra was there

6. Every particpant said the other was present and everyone said Bhatt was not there and no statements were made.

7. Another Lie nailed – No Movement diary System Submission there and Sanjiv Bhatt has not submitted anything – GC Raiger

8. State Intelligence Bureau was headed by Additional DG, IGP security, DIG (Pol & Communal), 3 DCP Intelligence and other officers and support staff

9. Cver and above this Intel units headed by Inspectors/Deputy SSP work Independently in districts. All collect info and pass it on

10. Sanjiv Bhatt says that He went in Car along with K Chakravarthi from his office in his car to the meeting. Chakravarthi went from DD studio

11. KD Panth says he was on casual leave on 27th february 2002

12. SIT demolished Sanjiv Bhatt’s affidavit and in turn Amicus Curae report brick by brick

13. Even when Tarachand Yadav, the driver who was dismissed and was of Sanjiv Bhatt, being interrogated by SIT, was receiving calls from Bhatt

14. Even Sreekumar said Bhatt was not present in meeting

15. Call records of ******9398 of Sanjiv Bhatt. He was in Ahmedabad till 10.57 and no way he could attend CM’s residence meeting that started at 10.30 and was 25 KMs away

16. Another Lie that Sanjiv Bhatt has seen I K Jadega and in DGPs’ office is wrong as at 11.00 his location was at Vastrapur

17. 40 Pages just to take apart Sanjiv Bhatt’s Affidavit in SIT closure report – You know why SIT was confident

18. As I said of the contradictions way back in the Concerned Citizens report and R B Sreekumar’s affidavit, same points taken up in their report

19. 54 Dead bodies were transported in 5 vehicles from Godhra to Ahmadabad with police security and reached ahd by 0400 Hrs on 28th feb 2002

20. All Kar sevaks’ bodies were taken on vehicle for cremation at a distance with police security so that no incident flares up

21. 35 bodies were handed over to legal heirs guardians of the deceased by police after completing documentation

22. 19 Unidentified dead bodies of those killed in Sabarmati train burning were cremated quietly on the same evening by local admin and police. No media mentions this at all.

23. Dead bodies of Karsewaks were escorted by Police from Godhra to Ahmadabad Sola hospital and handed over to legal heirs or cremated quietly

24. So Sreekumar’s Fictitious register with Secret and Round stamp were not given to him as Per O P Mathur.

25. It was a blank register given on 18 Apr 2002 but had entries from earlier date

26. By the way Ashok Bhatt was present in Control room, but not as you folks think, he was there with George Fernandes for 10 Mins as per SIT report

27. After 7 to 8 allegations, you realize that even officers of outstanding calibre like Dr P K Mishra were not spared by Teesta

28. From 28th feb 2002 to 30-04-2002 : 442 Deaths in Ahmadabad – 113 hindus, 329 Muslims out of which 100 alone dead in police firing.

29. 33 dead in private Firing – 780 Criminal cases filed 2862 persons arrested 1755 were hindus

30. On 28t feb 2002 Police firing 17 died out of which 11 were Hindus

31. Ii shows the contradiction in Kuldeep sharma on one side blamed by Zakia and on another hand praised by Teesta & Javed Anand

32. Army Personal though at border due to tense situation after Parl attack were Airlifted and started arriving on 28th Feb Midnight to Ahmadabad

33. 40 Airplanes were used to airlift Army personnel – First flight landed on 28th Feb 2002 Midnight and last one on 01/03/2002 at 2300 Hrs

34. In all 26 columns of Army were deployed at the peak of riots in Gujarat

35. Over and above this – 11 Coys of BSF, 6 Coys of CISF, 5 Coys of Border wing Homeguards 4 Coys of RAF were deployed in state by 3rd March 2002

36. Gujarat Government made requests to Maharashtra, Rajasthan, MP to spare Armed reserve police on 28th feb. Only Maharashtra sent 2 Coys of SRP whereas Rajasthan & MP didn’t

37. Not from SIT – just reminder – MP was ruled by Shri Digvijay Singh and Rajasthan was also with Cong, Shri Ashok gehlot was CM

38. Army was requisitioned by Gujarat government on afternoon of 27th of February

39. No force was available as same had been deployed to the border

40. Army reached Gujarat within 21 hours of requisitioning from Gujarat from forward areas

41. Housing Assistance for riot victims by Gujarat Government – 18,037 families were provided 12.28 Crores in Urban areas and rural had 17.82 Cr for 11204

42. Read pages 183 – 196 for the detailed Relief and rehabilitation efforts underatken by Gujarat Government to riot victims in SIT report

43. SIT report read from pages 423 on SIT completly puts on record the conspiracy behind Sanjiv Bhatt

44. Sanjiv Bhatt’s emails to Nasir Chippa to influence Amicus Raju ramachandran and also influence Home Minister PC thru US pressure groups

45. Shri Sanjeev Bhatt has been persuading various NGOs and other interested groups to influence AC RR and SC of India using Media Card & Pressure groups

46. Shri Bhatt writes a mail to Jowaher that a PIL has to be filed by K Vakharia (Sr Advocate & Chairman of Legal cell of Cong Party, Gujarat)

47. Ms teesta Setalvad, her lawyer, Journalist Manoj Mitta of TOI were in constant touch with Sanjiv Bhatt, instrumental in drafting affidavit

48. SIT – from the study of Emails it appears that certain vested Interests including Sanjiv Bhatt, NGOs and Political leaders were using honorable Supreme Court/SIT as a forum for settling Personal Scores.

49. From Page 515 Onwards SIT takes Amicus Curae on the Primafacie thing that media bajaaoed for full day yesterday

50. 5411th page at the very End comes this paragraph.

All answer to Amicus Curae take that all those who hounded Narendra Modi

51. Every Point raised by Zakia Jaffri , Sreekumar, Teesta, Interim Amicus report, Final Amicus report

===================================================
‘Journalism’ and the Modi Bashing Cottage Industry - Vineetha Menon, India Wires

The riots that took place in Gujarat in 2002 were unfortunate, akin to any riot that take place in the country or in the world. However, the Gujarat riots stand isolated in nature, for a unique purpose. The episode is seen more as an unending conspiracy crusade by a relentless team comprising of Teesta Setalvad, Sanjiv Bhatt, Sreekumar, Mukul Sinha and yes: some inevitable ubiquitous journalists. Their end goal is obvious and specific: vilify, demonize and slander Chief Minister of Narendra Modi. And the garb they use? ‘The so called justice’.

What we have been witnessing for quite some time in India is biased news at its best: this time Times of India has done complete justice to the aspect. Mainstream media, especially TOI has been quite vocal about the report related to Gujarat riots given by Raju Ramakrishnan, the Amicus Curiae. The entire report has never given any dismal picture about Narendra Modi. It has however a sentence which means vaguely that if circumstances go in a certain direction, there might be a possibility of Modi being prosecuted. Mainstream media swooped down on the sentence, made a monster out of the same and plastered the walls of their news displays “Amicus Curiae says investigate Modi”. DNA at least had the sense to edit their title at a later stage (see the image). Many news sources still shamelessly retain their old titles.

Here comes the obvious question: why is the mainstream media silent about the SIT report which has given a clean chit to Modi? Mainstream media says everything under the sun, except the clean chit given to Modi. Instead the bandwagon has been highlighting the Amicus Curiae’s statement which is a fragment of a complete report, which further is a chip of the major SIT report.

This is not the first time TOI has done its dirty trick. In 2012, the Godhra episode trailed behind by 10 years. TOI decided to capitalize the event. They embarked on their favourite pastime : Modi hunting, this time with a special dedication to their Ahmedabad edition. The front page was streaked with a ‘Godhra Report, TOI Version’. The day was referred to as ‘Doomsday’, with a title ‘Action, Reaction and Inaction’. For those of you who have perused the report, they had proclaimed their version of judgement, a multiple number of times, before the Honourable Court of India pronounced the real judgement. TOI’s judgement was based on assumption and myths, with a glaring absence of any shred of evidence. The judgement was declared in title: ‘inaction’, obviously daggering the Chief Minister. What followed on the entire page was a single sided report, supposedly a list of occurrences of the day.

I am curious: the Anti-Sikh Riots and Massacre of Kashmiri Pundits are some of the worst episodes of gore witnessed by modern India. Does TOI and other mainstream media houses observe the 1984 Anti-Sikh Riots the same way? So far, nothing has been seen on the Decennial, Vicennial observances of the gruesome incident which spanned for 4 days from 31 October 1984 − 3 November 1984, where Congressmen mercilessly slaughtered 2,700 Sikhs. No reports ever, so far voicing concern for those 20, 000 who fled Delhi and 50, 000 who were displaced. TOI has not yet taken up similar campaigns on the largely displaced and badly scarred Kashmiri Pandit community that still awaits justice.

SIT report, which is the outcome of a long investigation, prepared by a team after 3 years has not even a murmur in the media. But solitary utterances by a person or so gets blown out of proportion. The ‘controversial meeting convened by Narendra Modi’ was attended by other senior officers as well. Has any one of us ever heard their statements ringing out? However, the statement made by a rogue elephant gets full coverage. Sanjiv Bhatt is media’s latest darling as his statements and views are palatable to media houses. The larger picture is easily discernible: there is a vested interest behind their stories.

Coming to the present scenario, lets begin with the shocking revelation made by the Special Investigation Team, regarding the role of media, to be precise ‘Times of India’, in the ‘Narendra Modi Vilification Campaign’: the reports reveal how Manoj Mitta, TOI journalist helped in the drafting of a cleverly structured ‘anti-Modi affidavit’. He was the one who added flesh and spice into a cartload of defamation originally framed by Sanjiv Bhatt. And so with the entire affidavit looking spruced up, Sanjiv Bhatt marched to the Supreme Court.

Quoting the paragraph in the report where the SIT exposes one among those numerous dirty plots hatched by the Anti-Modi conspirators:

That Ms. Teesta Setalwad, her lawyer Shri Mihir Desai and Journalist Shri Manoj Mitta of Times of India were in constant touch with Shri Sanjiv Bhatt, IPS and were instrumental in arranging / drafting of the affidavit for filing the same in honourable Supreme court. Vide email dated 10-4-2011, Shri Bhatt solicited “Co-ordinates” from Ms. Teesta Setalwad, who had also arranged for a meeting with her lawyer Shri Mihir Desai at Ellis bridge Gymkhana, Ahmedabad. Shri Sanjiv Bhatt sent the first draft of his proposed affidavit to Shri Manoj Mitta on 13-4-2011, after meeting Shri Mihir Desai, Advocate and invited his suggestions. Shri Manoj Mitta advised Shri Sanjiv Bhatt to incorporate a few more paragraphs drafted by him which were incorporated by Shri Sanjiv Bhatt in his final affidavit sent to honorable Supreme Court of India as suggested by Shri Mitta.

Let us cast Mitta aside for some time and tackle the main perpetrator: mainstream media house, this time, again, Times of India. The news house seems to have gone rabid by splashing their website with so- called news clips, which contain anything but credibility. Taking up 3 of their latest news pieces:

The first one speaks of Sanjiv Bhatt being a ‘pivot’. Bhatt has been a proven conspirator in more than a single way. 9 police officers who were quizzed in the most intricate manner, separately have testified that Sanjiv Bhatt was not present in the meeting. This is enough for any discerning human to understand that Bhatt is lying. And if this is meagre evidence, the SIT has a 40 page section dedicated solely to Bhatt and his misgivings.
“certain vested interests including Shri Sanjiv Bhatt, different NGOs, and some political leaders were trying to use honorable Supreme Court/SIT as a forum for settling their scores”.
“Shri Sanjiv Bhatt had been colluding with the persons with vested interests to see that some kind of charge-sheet is filed against Shri Narendra Modi and others.”
However, TOI has been craftily avoiding everything else, coming up with the statement saying that the statements given by other police officers in the meeting is the only evidence that stands against Bhatt. Either they wrote the story without reading the SIT report (which is open to the general public now) or they turned chef and cooked a brilliant lie with the most obvious intention. According TOI, the 3 years of rigorous ground work put in by the SIT commissioned by the Supreme Court of India stands void.

The second news piece published by TOI voices a doubt if Narendra Modi paid for SIT Chief Raghavan’s foreign trips. The clip is not a news piece. It is based on multiple suppositions and assumptions and with a plunge into conclusion that Raghavan might have undertaken a foreign trip for which the Gujarat Government might have paid.Any proof TOI?Going by this wonderful logic of clubbing together suppositions to arrive at a conclusion, let us come back to the curious case of Manoj Mitta, a die hard anti-Ayodhya writer (his articles gives one the feeling that he never wants the temple to be built). Now, the Karsevaks returning from Ayodhya, were burnt in the train in 2002- the very same Karsevaks, who demolished the mosques, seeking the Hindu’s rights for re-establishing their temple. The scorching of the Karsevaks was obviously by an anti-Ayodhya crowd. And since Manoj Mitta has been ‘anti-Ayodhya’ in outlook, is it sane and sensible to suppose that he had a hand in the Godhra riots? (The same logic behind ‘if A=B and B=C, then A=C’)

No, is it not? Well, TOI, you need to learn much from your own stories!!

The third news clip speaks of the Chief Minister doing his best to curb the lawlessness that engulfed his land, but with a dig referring to him as ‘awfully busy Narendra Modi‘. Now, Narendra Modi is, as stated by media (truthfully, for once) a busy man. Step into the state of Gujarat and you can see what the person has been doing to justify for his ‘busy-ness‘. The state looks bloomed- not superficially, but from its very depths. Coming back to the riot-ridden days, Narendra Modi was indeed ‘awfully busy’, not lazing about sun-warming himself.
‘Narendra Modi‘, the Chief Minister of Gujarat, whose land was seized by riots, was “awfully busy with the steps to control the law and order situation, providing medical treatment to the riot victims, their rehabilitation, giving ex-gratia payment to the riot affected, NGO relief camps and with the payment of compensation for destruction of properties during the riots, and also with his efforts to restore peace and normalcy in the state,” says the SIT report. The report even states that the Army was brought in, at the right time. Why has TOI conveniently chosen the first two words of an entire paragraph, blissfully choosing to ignore the rest of the statement?

Not just now, but from the very minute the riots began, nasty journalism reinvented itself, with a new face. Quoting as example, Modi’s answer to SIT team, when he was thoroughly interrogated, where he exposed how Times of India ‘conducted an interview with him, without even contacting him’. When exposed, they hurriedly cooked up their denial story, which was cozily tucked up in some remote corner of the TOI newspaper.

(This is an interpolation done on 11 may, 2012) Here is an NDTV piece: Gujarat riots: Illegal orders within a room no offence, says SIT report on Modi

Is it so, NDTV? The actual SIT report says this:

What NDTV has done is selective quoting, by omitting a large section, making it appear again that …. Narendra Modi resorted to ‘illegal orders’ ! Shame on you NDTV. CNN IBN is not the least behind, when it comes to this kind of selective reporting.

This is not an isolated case of title manipulation by NDTV. Another interesting case was a mammoth blunder made by NDTV. Here goes it: 15 February, 2012, when many were waiting for the Gujarat court’s verdict: will a copy of the SIT report be handed over to Zakia Jaffrey or not? Court verdict said ‘No”. But NDTV had a kept ready, a copy of what can be termed as ‘media’s verdict’: ‘Give the 2002 riot reports to Zakia Jaffrey: Gujarat Court to SIT’. With the report ready, the same was published by them on their website, without actually looking into the real facts. There must have been jubilation and celebrations and the channel repeatedly nailed Narendra Modi on TV. Suddenly the story went off air, for mysterious reasons. Later the reason was known- the actual verdict by the court was something else: ‘No Report for Zakia in Gujarat Riots Case: Court’ . NDTV hurriedly made its correction and covered its folly by not taking up the issue for a couple of hours.

For mainstream media, ‘Narendra Modi’ continues to be its favourite fodder, vital for existence. Blame Narendra Modi, vilify Narendra Modi, add Narendra Modi as spice to the most irrelevant aspect and garner fame… the media tactics spinning around the Chief Minister of Gujarat are numerous. Media, as we see, will do anything to remain in the limelight and increase its viewership. They will also do anything to earn a few extra coins. They have known well enough that demonizing Narendra Modi incessantly will keep their pockets jingling with the yellow metal and so they continue to do it for ever….

Judas knew Jesus, he knew His mission, and yet for a few coins he betrayed him.‎

(Extending my heart felt gratitude to Vijay, Kiran Kumar, DeshGujarat.com and Sreeharsha Perla for all the vital and valuable information they fed me with)

Dr Subramanian Swamy's letter against Sonia Gandhi to President Abdul Kalam in 2004

2012-05-03T20:26:00.010-08:00

Dr Subramanian Swamy letter against Sonia Gandhi to President Abdul Kalam in 2004

FIRST APPEAL UNDER SECTION 19(1) OF RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT

Smt Rasika Chaube

Joint Secretary & Appellate Authority

President’s Secretariat

Rashtrapati Bhawan

New Delhi-110004

Sir

I vide my RTI petition dated 11.04.2012 sought complete and detailed information together with related documents/file-notings/correspondence etc on under-mentioned aspects relating to formation of government at the centre when Dr Manmohansingh was appointed Prime Minister for the first time in the year 2004:

1. Complete and detailed information together related correspondence/documents/file-notings etc on Honourable President of India inviting Dr Manmohansingh to take charge as Prime Minister of India

2. Copies of letters/correspondence etc by individuals, political parties and others etc staking claim to form the government before Dr Manmohansingh was ultimately invited to form the government

3. Copies of replies, if any, by Honourable President of India and/or President’s Secretariat to any such claims to form the government together with related correspondence/doicuments/file-notings etc

4. Is it true that certain individuals, political parties and/or others etc had objected against some particular person being invited to form the government?

5. If yes, copies of all such letters together with replies, if any, by Honourable President of India and/or President’s Secretariat to any such objections together with related correspondence/doicuments/file-notings etc on drafting such replies

6. Is it true that Dr Subramanium Swamy has also made some correspondence with Honourable President of India and/or President’s Secretariat on the aspect/s referred in queries above?

7. If yes, copies of letters by Dr Subramanium Swamy together with replies if any enclosing also file-notings/correspondence/documents etc on drafting such replies

8. Any other related information

9. File-notings on movement of this RTI petition also

Learned CPIO vide response number 0062/RTI/04/12-13 dated 26^th April 2012 declined information on points (6) and (7) exempted under section 8(1)(e) of RTI Act. It is surprising that when author of the letter namely Dr Subramanium Swamy is openly revealing through media about contents of the letter, how President’s Secretariat could claim information to be fiduciary in nature! Significantly CPIO has himself confessed that the then Honourable President of India exercised his to appoint thr Prime Minister based on that letter. At the most, CPIO could invite ‘Third Party’ comments under section 11 of RTI Act on disclosing the said letter from Dr Subramanium Swamy within five days of receipt of RTI petition, which was not done making the provision infructuous now at this stage.

Otherwise also, it is an aspect requiring disclosure under section 8(2) of RTI Act which allows access to information if public-interest outweighs the harm to be protected, because the important issue relates to possible denial of claim for the post of Prime Minister to an Indian citizen and distinguished Parliamentarian as evident from media-reports. People have right to know how and why the claim for the post of Prime Minister by the said dignitary was refused because of objection raised by Dr Subramanium swamy. Honourable Mr Justice S Ravindra Bhatt of Delhi High Court in the matter “Bhagat Singh Vs. CIC (W.P.(C) No.3114/2007)” has held that the Right to Information Act being a right based enactment is akin to a welfare measure and as such should receive liberal interpretation. I appeal that learned CPIO may kindly be directed to provide sought information together with related and sought documents but now to be provided free-of-cost under section 7(6) of RTI Act.

SUBHASH CHANDRA AGRAWAL

(Guinness Record Holder & RTI Activist)

1775 Kucha Lattushah

Dariba, Chandni Chowk

DELHI 110006 (India)

03.05.2012

Shouting Fire: The Edge of Free Speech HBO Documentary

2012-04-30T22:17:00.009-08:00

Shouting Fire: The Edge of Free Speech HBO Documentary

The first amendment of the United States Constitution clearly states that Congress will make no law "abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press," but the fact that the Bill of Rights protects free speech doesn't mean that everyone likes it. Expressing controversial or unpopular opinions has sometimes caused people to be silenced by others, and in the wake of the 9/11 terrorists attacks, some Americans have found that speech isn't always as free as they'd imagine. Shouting Fire, a riveting exploration of the current state of free speech in America is crucially relevant. Interweaving historical cases-The New York Times' fight to publish the Pentagon Papers and the Nazis' insistence on marching in Skokie, IL. among them-with contemporary free-speech battles, the film documents the way both the Right and the Left have lashed out in fear. We think of First Amendment rights as inviolable; but in fact, they're profoundly vulnerable. Prominent First Amendment attorney--and the filmmaker's father-Martin Garbus, leads us through this perilous landscape and wisely warns, if we don't fight for our freedoms every day, we will lose them.

Shri Ram Janam Bhoomi at Holy City Ayodhya - Prayagraj Allahbad High Court Verdict

2012-04-09T17:39:00.022-08:00

Shri Ram Janam Bhoomi Ayodhya Verdict Part 1 of 14

Shri Ram Janam Bhoomi Ayodhya Verdict Part 2 of 14

Shri Ram Janam Bhoomi Ayodhya Verdict Part 3 of 14

Shri Ram Janam Bhoomi Ayodhya Verdict Part 4 of 14

Shri Ram Janam Bhoomi Ayodhya Verdict Part 5 of 14

Shri Ram Janam Bhoomi Ayodhya Verdict Part 6 of 14

Shri Ram Janam Bhoomi Ayodhya Verdict Part 7 of 14

Shri Ram Janam Bhoomi Ayodhya Verdict Part 8 of 14

Source: Official website of Prayagraj High Court's verdict on Holy city Ayodhya

चाणक्य अर्थशास्त्र नीति / Chanakya Niti Arthashastra

2012-03-31T18:39:00.010-08:00

चाणक्य अर्थशास्त्र नीति हिंदी अनुवाद सहितचाणक्य अर्थशास्त्र निति का हिंदी में अनुवाद।

Chanakya Arthashastra Neeti/Niti in EnglishChanakya Arthshastra Neeti in English

Other sources:
चाणक्य अर्थशास्त्र नीति हिंदी अनुवाद सहित
Chanakya Arthashastra Neeti/Niti in English

Tags: चाणक्य नीति कौटिल्य चन्द्रगुप्त मौर्या भारत हिंदुस्तान अर्थशास्त्र संस्कृत हिंदी अंग्रेजी रामावतार विद्याभास्कर chanakya neeti niti arthasastra arthshastra kautilya chandragupta maurya sanskrit hindi english free pdf ebook download read online ramavatar vidyabhashkar india bharat

US should give Narendra Modi visa

2012-03-25T16:13:00.007-08:00

===================FORWARDED MESSAGE===================

Ms. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen,
Hon'ble Congresswoman
Chairman, Committee on Foreign Affairs
US House of Representatives

Dear Ms. Ros-Lehtinen,

This is regarding non-binding resolution (H Res 569) "recognising the 10th anniversary of the tragic communal violence in Gujarat", which was introduced in the House of Representatives by Congressman Keith Ellison. I would like to condemn this resolution, register my protest against it, and would request you to please reject it in toto by voting against it. It tramples on the democratic freedom enshrined in the Indian constitution and interferes with the workings and sovereignty of the world's largest democracy. Rest assured world's largest democracy (India) is mature enough to take care of itself and does not need world's oldest democracy (USA) to encroach on former's freedom and pontificate to it. In this prejudiced resolution, Shri Narendra Modi is needlessly accused of committing a fictitious "pogrom" without any shred of evidence against him but rather on the basis of mere hearsay of some professor and an article from a disreputable magazine. Canards spread by anti-Modi campers are no different than those spread by vile individuals who claim that 9/11 was an inside job. Really? US allegedly pulled of massacre of its own 8000 citizens and no one involved in the know-how called it out. Unbelievable! Similarly it is not possible that Shri Narendra Modi did any of what is being alleged and I prove it below in detail as to why and how.

Professor Ashutosh Varshney, who is a self proclaimed "expert" on riots in India (as if riots happen there everyday), has casually claimed that 2002 Gujarat riots were "first full-blooded pogrom in independent India". This is far from true and absolutely abhorring. Other than the fact that Mr. Varshney is making a mockery of human misery, he and Congressman Ellison are misleading the House as the "first full-blooded pogrom in independent India" was in 1984 when over 8000 Sikhs were mass murdered and displaced in a state sponsored pogrom by then ruling CONgress party goons under the alleged order of the then Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi who trivialized the mass murder of Sikhs by saying "When a big tree falls, the earth shakes" (http://www.tribuneindia.com/2003/20031102/spectrum/main1.htm). I know because my Hindu family gave shelter to some of our Sikh brethren and countrymen in our house to protect them from CONgress party goons. As unfortunate as Gujarat riot was, what happened there was Muslim-Hindu riot in which 270 Hindus and 720 Muslims died. It started after a Muslim mob burnt alive 59 children, women, and men by locking them in a train, drowsing train in petrol and lighting it on fire in a terrorist attack. They were Hindu pilgrims who were returning in a train after visiting one of Hindus holiest sites of Ayodhya. 2002 Gujarat riot was not a pogrom.

Tehelka (means "spread fear" in Hindi) magazine that Congressman Ellison has quoted from is known for writing canards and provocative prejudiced articles. Such references cannot hold water in any court of law, let alone be enough to be used as corroboration for indicting a 3 times democratically elected Chief Minister against whom even the Honorable Indian Supreme Court has not found any evidence of complicity, commission and omission. All these allegations are mere hearsay.

In addition to above, this resolution seems to be categorically written to target peace loving Hindu community and its repugnant language is clearly written to provoke backlash against Hindus. This resolution will gratuitously demonize 3.5 million strong and patriotic Hindu-American community. Congressman Ellison should rather be censured for wasting tax payers money and for maligning Hindus. His actions are totally uncalled for.

I would like to bring to your kind notice the following a well balanced article by Brookings Institution on the excellent work that Shri Narendra Modi is doing in Gujarat. Fruits of Shri Modi's relentless efforts are reaching every citizen without any discrimination on the basis of caste, color, creed or religion. http://www.brookings.edu/opinions/2012/0316_modi_antholis.aspx

Rather than dumbing down the aforementioned article with Hinduphobic bigotry as most of Shri Modi's detractors in the media do, because they find him to be an easy punching bag, Mr. Antholis chose to write a seemingly unbiased article. It is hard to find an article on Shri Modi that is not filled with hearsay canards and baseless allegations leveled against him without a shred of an evidence. In such case, this article has come as a breath of a fresh air and I commend Brookings Institution and Mr. Antholis for this effort.

At the outset, I would like to make my opinion very clear that I believe it would be an honor for US to give Shri Narendra Modi visa. I think US should give him visa and extend him an official state invitation to come and do business with US based companies. He is the man whom we need right now to help us jump start our dwindling US economy by creating partnership between us and Gujarat based businesses in specific and Bharatiya companies in general. Why? Following are some of my observations to support my viewpoint:

I do not think that Shri Modi needs US endorsement per-say in the form of a visa, rather it is in the best interest of our economy to give him visa and invite him to freely travel to US. Many US based companies are already benefiting by doing business in his state and are finding his no-nonsense incorruptible leadership extremely gratifying. Recently Ford Motors laid foundation for $1 billion car factory in Sanand, one of Shri Modi's many pet projects. Then why deny him a chance to visit US to accelerate and extend these partnerships? Partnering with Shri Modi and his government will create hundreds of American jobs. http://deshgujarat.com/2012/03/22/ford-lays-foundation-for-1-billion-car-factory-in-sanand/
The very ambulance chasers in the media, Leftist apologists, and Muslim lobbyists, who do not miss an iota of opportunity to discredit Shri Modi cannot resist giving accolades to him for his leadership. Here is a case in example in which he was honored for his “outstanding contribution to the cause of Indian Business” http://www.narendramodi.in/gujarat-chief-minister-shri-narendra-modi-honored-for-outstanding-contribution-to-the-cause-of-indian-business/
There is not a single shred of evidence against him that anyone has produced in 10 years for his alleged complicity in the 2002 Muslim-Hindu riots, which followed the terrorist attack on Sabarmati Express in which 59 children, women, and men were burnt alive. All there is out there is mere hearsay. Lies repeated and regurgitated a thousand times. To say that a person without any political background who became new Chief Minister (or for that matter any minister) of a large state like Gujarat not more than six months before the Godhra terrorist attack, who had spent most of his time attending the grievances of his fellow citizens after the massive earthquake in 2001, had somehow allegedly stage managed a state sponsored massacre of Muslims by allegedly telling his policemen down to a constable rank and file to not perform his or her duty, while at the same time deploying the army within 2 two days, knowing that doing so would be detrimental to his alleged "evil plan" is the most ludicrous argument I have ever heard from his detractors.
How can a Chief Minister of such a big state personally know policemen down to a constable rank and file within 6 months of getting into public office?
How can a person with no political background whatsoever leverage such a control over state machinery within a few months of democratically getting into power that he personally prevented local city level police from stopping alleged massacres?
Howsoever ludicrous it may sound, even if we assume that he prevented the police from protecting a specific section of society. It is very hard for us to believe that if not hundreds but at least tens of people, out of thousands of policemen and other armed forces who were on the ground zero, would have some conscience to expose such plan and would have revolted and refused to partake into aforementioned alleged unethical doings?
How can a Chief Minister who publicly appealed for peace and calm from his fellow citizens via state television Doordarshan (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BIRMR8zW0iI) on the very night of Godhra terrorist attack plan and execute such an elaborate "evil plan" to massacre his subjects while at the same time with emotions running so high be so smart as to not leave behind any trail of his alleged commission and omission? All of this in one night.
In 1984, when Delhi was burned, 8000 Sikhs were massacred and displaced in state sponsored pogrom by CONgress party goons, and no army was called in for 3 days, the then Prime Minister Rajiv 'Nero' Gandhi shamelessly justified the pogrom as "Big tree falls, earth shakes" (http://www.tribuneindia.com/2003/20031102/spectrum/main1.htm). In Gujarat's case the Chief Minister made continuous public calls for peace (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BIRMR8zW0iI), officially requested for Army on the very night of Godhra terrorist attack and deployed it as soon as it was available, why would he do so if his intentions were to target a section of citizens?
Why does Shri Modi detractor's heart not bleed for 59 Hindu pilgrims who were burnt alive in the train and 270 Hindus who died thereafter in the riots? Isn't spreading lies that thousands of Muslims died while the actual number is far less at 720 doing an injustice to the innocent Hindus who died as well. Please do not take me wrong. Every life lost, irrespective of the religion, is a loss for that great nation. But it seems that a Hindu's life is not as important and equal to a Muslim's life for anti-Modi bigots.
There has not been a single riot since 2002. Doesn't that reflect good on Shri Modi's leadership that as he got a hang of his public office, he has managed state machinery well. He could not do so in 2002 as he was new to any kind of public office, let alone post of Chief Minister.
Anti-Modi CONgress party's own Union Minister for Home Sriprakash Jaiswal admitted on the floor of Indian Parliament in Rajya Sabha that Shri Narendra Modi's government has full filled all its obligation of distributing relief and rehabilitating all the citizens, who were displaced due to riots, without any discrimination.
Then there are complete dolts who claim that Shri Modi has done such a marvelous job in progressing his state and its development as a contra to 2002. Really? I did not know that people could overnight develop such great leadership skills to brush under the carpet their alleged past activities. Lamest excuse ever! By the same logic, Delhi should have been a world class city by 1986 after anti-Sikh pogrom by CONgress party goons. But it only developed and got basic infrastructure such as Metro not until in 2001 under BJP government. Similarly, Bhagalpur, Varanasi, Nandigram, Bareilly, Gauhati, Bharat-Pakistan border area just after dreadful partition, etc. all should have become world class cities by now as most the Chief Ministers or local Ministers were allegedly complacent during riots in these areas. Most of were from CONgress party.
Foreign funded NGOs whose full time job is to level baseless accusations against Shri Modi have been many times found committing perjury, forging documents, falsifying witnesses, and have been reprimanded by courts.
Irrespective of whether Shri Modi may admit or not, but he is the best possible alternative Prime Minister to the current corrupt Sonia Gandhi led CONgress UPA government. And most of the Indian people want to see him as the next Prime Minister.

I think US has no locus standi to pass judgment on Shri Modi, Gujarat or Bharat when our own Human Rights records are very dismal. I believe it is highly hypocritical for US to

sabotage the local politics of Indian state of Gujarat, which has a democratically elected government and conducts free and fair election, by passing vile accusations on its workings.
interfere in the local politics of Indian state of Gujarat by condemning and passing immature judgment on a 3 times democratically elected Chief Minister who was elected after free and fair elections.
give or deny certificate of religious freedom to India which has seen origin of at least four different religions: Sanatan Dharam (Hinduism), Jain, Buddhist and Sikhism. It is Indian Hindus who protected and gave shelter, ironically in Gujarat, to those who were persecuted around the world: Parsis and Jews. When US's own body on religious freedom USCIRF does not even have a single Hindu member (to represent 1.2 Billion strong Hindu community) on its board and is filled with evangelical Christians and Muslims, how can we talk of religious equality? US is a country where most people will simply reject a Mitt Romney just because he is a Mormon. Talk about pontificating religious freedom!
deny visa to a democratically elected public official on mere hearsay of Leftist and Muslim lobbyists who spread canards without a shred of evidence. There is not even a single police FIR complaint registered in 10 long years even remotely implicating Shri Modi. So much so that even Honorable Indian Supreme Court monitored Special Investigation Team (SIT) has found no evidence of Shri Modi's complicity, commission and omission.
still not fixing the mistake of denying visa to Shri Narendra Modi, whom the US Consul-General in Mumbai, Michael S Owen, described as a "no-nonsense, effective administrator who has reduced corruption in public life in Gujarat" and Owen admitted US government's hypocrisy and embarrassment of publicly giving Shri Modi a cold shoulder on visa issue.

Finally, not that there is any comparison and nor am I drawing any between the following two individuals. But the following facts do contrast and highlight the most hypocritical attitude of US. While we allow radical Islamic mass murderer Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who wants to blast Israel off the face of the earth, to freely travel to US and give lecture at Columbia University despite the fact the he oppresses minorities in Iran, Hindus and Jews cannot build temples in Iran, Gays are persecuted, youngsters are murdered for keeping Elmo hair style, democracy movements are crushed, there are no free and fair elections, there is no freedom of speech, women rights are flouted and women are publicly flogged. But it is all OK. On the other hand we imprudently deny visa to 3 times democratically elected Chief Minister who has taken his state from rags to riches. Shri Modi under whose rule, Muslim citizens of his state are economically and socially much more well off than in any other Indian states especially those (mis)ruled by CONgress party. Shri Modi under whose rule in Gujarat anyone can freely build Temple, Synagogue, Mosque or Church and practice his or her religion as they wish. An effective administrator who is the only no-nonsense incorruptible politician who is the rightful contender to be next prime minister of India. But we injudiciously deny him visa on a mere hearsay without a shred of evidence while contemptuously snubbing the Indian law of the land and jaundicing peoples mind that Shri Modi is guilty of fictitious charges without judge, jury or trial. Can we in the US call ourself democracy? When I see above mentioned facts, I am ashamed to say NO.

If this is not US hypocrisy that what is?! Give Shri Modi visa and give it now. And for God Sakes stop interfering in other democracies. We are not holier than thou.

Please reject Hinduphobic House Resolution 569 by Congressman Keith Ellison. It has religious bigotry written all over it and it will only make Hindu - US relation worse. If not rejected, this resolution will gratuitously demonize peace loving and patriotic Hindu-American community.

CC: Mr. Antholis, Brookings Institution

Lal Krishna Advani's scintillating speeches

2012-02-20T16:26:00.002-08:00

L K Advani speech at Bhartiya Sindhu Sabha, Mumbai in 1991, on current affairs of Nation

L K Advani full speech in BJP Maha Adhiveshan 1995 Mumbai Mahalaxmi

List of 1259 recommended names for 2012 Padma Awards. Suggestions for fair selection process rejected!

2012-02-17T23:49:00.011-08:00

After much delay, Ministry of Home Affairs has finally released the recommendation list for 2012 Padma awards thanks to relentless persuasion by award winning RTI activist Shri Subhash Chandra Agrawal. Following documents show a list of whopping 1259 names recommended for 2012 Padma awards through an unfair selection process done behind closed doors by mostly unelected and unaccountable individuals and no minutes or text of their selection process and meetings are maintained.

Unfortunately, recommendations to make Padma awards selection process fair, transparent, and unbiased put forward by Shri Subhash Chandra Agrawal have been rejected by Ministry of Home Affairs.

=======Forwarded Message========

FIRST APPEAL UNDER SECTION 19(1) OF RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT

Shri RP Nath

Joint secretary (Admn) & Appellate Authority

Union Home Ministry

Room No. 194, North Block

NEW DELHI 110001

Sir

I vide my RTI petition dated 25.11.2011 sought information as under together with relevant documents/correspondence/file-notings etc:

1. Last date for receipt of nominations for Padma Awards 2012

2. Complete and detailed list of nominations for Padma Awards 2012 having reached to Union Home Ministry by the stipulated last date of receiving such nominations mentioning also names of those recommending such nominations, authority through which Union Home Ministry received such nominations and dates on which such nominations reached separately to recommending authorities and to Union Home Ministry

3. Names of members of ‘Search Committee’ formed to recommend for Padma Awards 2012

4. Names considered by ‘Search Committee’ for being recommended before Awards Committee for Padma Awards 2012

5. Names of nominees recommended by ‘Search Committee’ for Padma Awards 2012

6. Days and time-duration on which ‘Search Committee’ met to finalize nominations

7. Minutes of meetings held by ‘Search Committee’

8. Any other related details

9. File-notings on movement of this RTI petition as well

Learned CPIO vide a much-delayed and back-dated response No. 24/19/2012-Public dated 21.01.2012 (received by me on 02.02.2012) demanded a sum of rupees sixty towards copying charges which had to be submitted by me because of urgency to get documents. Since demand having been made much beyond 30 days of receipt of RTI petition at Union Home Ministry, these copying charges are to be waived under section 7(6) of RTI Act. Even last year, your honour was kind enough to provide such documents relating to Padma awards 2011 free-of-cost for similar reasons under section 7(6) of RTI Act. I appeal that learned CPIO may kindly be directed to refund rupees sixty charged as copying charges.

Learned CPIO in response to query (2) has declined to reveal names of recommending persons for nominees of Padma awards 2012 as claimed to be ‘Third Party Information’. But section 11 of RTI Act relating to ‘Third Party Information’ requires a CPIO to invite comments/objections from Third Parties concerned within five days of receipt of RTI petition. Since CPIO failed to comply with provisions of section 11 of RTI Act, she should be directed to provide names of recommending persons but now free-of-cost under section 7(6) of RTI Act. Attention is also invited towards section 8(2) of RTI Act which stipulates that a public-authority may allow access to information if public-interest in disclosure outweighs the harm to the protected interests. In this case public-interest is involved because earlier such responses have revealed that some recommending individuals burden the search-procedure by obliging every one approaching them for recommendations for Padma awards. A Parliamentarian had once recommended as many as 16 names for Padma awards in a single year. There have been controversies about certain Padma awardees in past years, where intentions of recommending persons were also questioned in media. It is beyond understanding that if such similar information was being provided without any reservation till Padma awards 2010, how and why these are denied now! Honourable Mr Justice S Ravindra Bhatt of Delhi High Court in the matter “Bhagat Singh Vs. CIC (W.P.(C) No.3114/2007)” has held that the Right to Information Act being a right based enactment is akin to a welfare measure and as such should receive liberal interpretation. Significantly my suggestions for limiting an individual (except authorities like President, Vice president, Prime Minister, Ministers etc through their respective Secretariats and Ministries) to recommend only one recommendation was turned down by Union Home Ministry. I appeal that learned CPIO may kindly be directed to provide names of recommending persons also because she did not comply with provisions of section 11 relating to ‘Third Party Information’ (as cited by her in her response) in stipulated time-period of five days of receipt of RTI petition. It is prayed accordingly.

Humbly submitted

SUBHASH CHANDRA AGRAWAL

(Guinness Record Holder & RTI Activist)

1775 Kucha Lattushah

Dariba, Chandni Chowk

DELHI 110006 (India)

Padma awards 2012 recommendations list. Suggestion for fair selection rejected.

Alliance Air RTI disclosure of illegal Chartered Flight allegedly involving Praful Patel's daughter Poorna Patel

2012-02-13T19:18:00.012-08:00

Government public documents (via RTI) given below show how Union Aviation Minister Praful Patel and his daughter Poorna Patel allegedly abused former's ministerial position to misuse public airline (by removing passengers from a scheduled Air India flight) for private purposes (ferrying IPL team). A Union Minister has no right to run a public-sector undertaking like his private business-firm by making it dance to requirements of his family-members. What a shame!
=======Forwarded Message========
BEFORE HONOURABLE CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION

PETITION UNDER SECTION 19(3) OF RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT

Petitioner

Subhash Chandra Agrawal

1775 Kucha Lattushah

Dariba, Chandni Chowk

Delhi-110006

Respondent

Shri Arun K Goyal

CPIO & Company Secretary

Alliance Air

Airline Allied Service Limited

Adjacent to office of ED (NR) Air India Ltd

Terminal-1, IGI Airport, New Delhi-110037

&

Shri Vipin K Sharma, In-charge

& Appellate Authority

Alliance air

Airline Allied Service Limited

Room Number 205, 2nd floor

Terminal-1, IGI Airport

New Delhi-110037

Brief Facts

I through a fresh RTI petition dated 26.03.2011 (first one dated 26.04.2010) requested to provide copy of complete documents/correspondence/file-notings etc on dealing with request of M/s India Cements Limited, Chennai for the chartered flight operated on 20th April 2010 including also copy of request-letter of India Cements Limited, Chennai and confirmation-letter from Alliance Air on the said request made by M/s India Cement Limited, Chennai for the said chartered flight as also referred in Alliance Air letter Ref No AASL/C.S./HQ/2011/194 dated 22.03.2011 which was sent to me in response to esteemed CIC verdict in file No. CIC/SS/A/2010/000931 and 933 wherein it was disclosed that flight IC 7603 on 20.04.2010 was aborted for a chartered flight at request of M/s India Cements Limited, Chennai.

I through my original RTI request dated 26.04.2010 through its initial paragraph did request for complete and detailed information together with related documents/correspondence/file-notings etc on each of aspects relating to news-clippings 'Praful Patel's daughter pulled out scheduled AI flight for IPL' and 'Clear violation of norms if plane was diverted for Poorna' (TOI 23.04.2010). But the response dated 22.03.2011 did not include documents/correspondence/file-notings etc relating to query-number (12) of my first RTI petition dated 26.04.2010 replied only after esteemed CIC-directions.

After clear instructions from Honourable Central Information Commission in the matter, no exemption-clause applies in present RTI petition dated 26.03.2011. But the CPIO after seeking time to respond vide his earlier letter CA/RTI/2011/756 dated 28.04.2011, ultimately declined sought information and documents as exempted under section 8(1)(d) of RTI Act vide response Ref No AASL/CS/HQ/2011/215 dated 18.05.2011. This is an unnecessary over-clever tactics to embarrass and harass RTI petitioners, requiring strict-most action against concerned ones at Alliance air for obstructing and delaying information sought which was even allowed by Honourable Central Information Commission.

Section 8(1)(d) clearly stipulates that disclosure would be made if larger public interest warrants. It will be in larger public interest to reveal sought information because news-report mentions about daughter of the then Union Civil Aviation Minister to be the person whose name is being tried to be hided under exemption-cover by Alliance Air, a public-sector company working under Union Ministry for Civil Aviation. It is definitely a matter of impropriety rather of commercial confidence, if the enclosed news-report is correct. A Union Minister has no right to run a public-sector undertaking like his private business-firm by making it dance to requirements of his family-members. However if the news-report is wrong, it will rather clear position of all concerned including Alliance Air and the concerned Union Minister. Therefore it is in interest of all including public-interest to reveal the sought information. Honourable Mr Justice S Ravindra Bhatt of Delhi High Court in the matter "Bhagat Singh Vs. CIC (W.P.(C) No.3114/2007)" has held that the Right to Information Act being a right based enactment is akin to a welfare measure and as such should receive liberal interpretation.

I filed my first appeal dated 21.05.2011 which was subsequently dismissed vide order dated 16.06.2011. I appeal that Alliance Air may kindly be directed to provide sought information together with related documents but now to be provided free-of-cost under section 7(6) of RTI Act. CPIO should be made liable for department-action apart from penalty payable under RTI Act. I also appeal for adequate and exemplary under section 19(8)(b) of RTI Act for harassment through mental agony/monetarily/man-hours. Already sought information is much delayed when the documents sought now should have been provided with response dated 22.03.2011 in compliance to esteemed CIC verdicts in appeal numbers CIC/SS/A/2010/000931 and 933.

Humbly submitted

SUBHASH CHANDRA AGRAWAL

04.07.2011

Verification

I, Subhash Chandra Agrawal s/o late Shri Om Prakash and resident of 1775, Kucha Lattushah, Dariba, Delhi-110006 verify that the facts mentioned above are correct to best of my knowledge.

SUBHASH CHANDRA AGRAWAL

1775 Kucha Lattushah

Dariba DELHI 110006 (India)

04.07.2011

Copies enclosed:

RTI petition dated 26.03.2011 with Alliance air letter dated 22.03.2011

CPIO's letter dated 27.04.2011 seeking extension to respond

CPIO's response dated 18.05.2011

First Appeal dated 21.05.2011

Appeal-order dated 16.06.2011

Praful Patel's daughter pulled out scheduled AI flight for IPL
TNN Apr 23, 2010

MUMBAI: A Delhi to Coimbatore Air India flight, IC 7603, scheduled to leave at 5.20am on April 20, was aborted less than 12 hours before its departure to allow the aircraft to be deployed as a chartered flight for ferrying civil aviation minister Praful Patel's daughter, Poorna Patel, and some IPL players from Chandigarh to Chennai.

Technically, the airline combined this flight with another one by putting passengers onto a flight which departed later. Diverting an aircraft from a scheduled passenger flight for charter operations is forbidden under the law if the airline does not have another aircraft to operate the said passenger flight at the scheduled time.

Yet the Bombardier CRJ 700 aircraft was pulled out of its scheduled flight allegedly on the demand of Poorna, the IPL's hospitality manager. The aircraft (registration number VT-RJB), belonging to Alliance Air, was scheduled to fly the three-hour Delhi-Coimbatore route and return to the capital after leaving Coimbatore at 8.55am the same day.

"But Poorna Patel called the airline on Monday evening and asked for an aircraft to do a chartered flight to Chennai from Chandigarh. So the aircraft was pulled out of the fleet. IPL paid for the chartered flight but the violation here was getting an aircraft scheduled for a passenger flight pulled out at the last moment for a chartered flight," said an official.

A civil aviation ministry spokesperson said the ministry had nothing to do with the charter. Praful Patel was not available for comment. An AI spokesperson confirmed the aircraft was given for a chartered flight but did not divulge details about the client.

"The decision to operate this chartered flight was taken the previous evening and we informed our call centre at 7.20pm. The call centre called passengers on flight 7603 and told them they would be put on the Delhi-Mumbai-Coimbatore flight, IC 657," the spokesperson said.

Coimbatore-bound passengers reached their destination at 11.45am, three hours behind schedule. Passengers booked on Coimbatore-Delhi flight 7604 were put on a Coimbatore-Mumbai-Delhi flight. In all, 75 passengers were re-assigned.

The Bombardier did an empty ferry flight to Chandigarh on Tuesday morning. The new flight plan had the chartered flight, LLR-0001, leaving Chandigarh for Chennai at 10.20am. "The departure was postponed to 11.45am as the passengers got delayed. It was airborne at 12.10pm with Poorna Patel and some IPL players," a person in the know said.

National carrier Air India had to violate Directorate-General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) norms on April 20 to accommodate the demand of aviation minister Praful Patel's daughter Poorna, an IPL hospitality manager.

Director-general of civil aviation Nasim Zaidi said an airline did not need to seek permission from the DGCA to operate a chartered flight. But the DGCA's role starts when there was a violation, he said.

Air Passengers' Association of India president Sudhakara Reddy said: ''The DGCA should conduct a fair inquiry into the matter. If the aircraft indeed was diverted for a chartered flight, it is a gross abuse of power. Passengers have been inconvenienced by this.''

It is to follow this Civil Aviation Requirement that airlines take up chartered flights only with aircraft that are not scheduled to do regular passenger flights. Delhi and Coimbatore airport officials said the flight plans filed by Air India for the Delhi-Coimbatore-Delhi sector on Tuesday at both the airports pointed to the fact that Air India had to make last-minute changes and pull out its aircraft from a passenger flight to accommodate the demand for a chartered flight.

Alliance Air disclosure of illegal Chartered Flight allegedly involving Praful Patel's daughter Poorna Patel

Indian Express slanders & defames Narendra Modi

2012-01-15T02:06:00.004-08:00

There is not even a single FIR against Mr. Narendra Modi for his alleged complicity in 2002 Gujarat riots, rather only bunkum allegations spread by Anti-Hindu bigots. But lies repeated a thousand times is enough for Indian Express to write such slanderous article about thrice democratically elected Chief Minister of Gujarat. What a Shame!

Leftist New York Times, Jay Rosen, Clay Shirky, Amy Ellis Nutt, Sree Srinivasan caught on tape

2011-12-17T11:52:00.007-08:00

Bombshell! New York Times, Jay Rosen, Clay Shirky Caught on Tape - AtlasShrugs.com

ProjectVeritas.com investigation. New York Times Consultant and New York University Journalism professors of the self-identified media "elite" discuss strategy to legitimize Obama, help Occupy Wall Street, NPR tax loophole, defeating Perry and Bachmann. Jay Rosen says, "We are the one percent."

Yellow journalism?

Pulitzer Prize winning reporter at Star-Ledger and adjunct professor Amy Ellis Nutt at Columbia Journalism School on tape agreeing for need to 're-elect' Obama, disparaging Chris Christie as "asshole," "liar." We attempt to get comment from the Star-Ledger newsroom.

Also shown in the video is Sree Srinivasan, Dean of Student Affairs, Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism.

Would Harvard now stop giving courses in Islamic theology?

2011-12-10T22:34:00.003-08:00

===========Forwarded Message===========
To,
Faculty & Staff,
Harvard University

Dear Sir/Madam,
I am absolutely appalled and would like to register my protest against your injudicious and illadvised decision to remove Economics Professor Dr. Subramanian Swamy from teaching roster. (http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2011/12/7/faculty-final-meeting/) Dr. Swamy is not some unknown new figure at Harvard rather a respected faculty member, whose so far proud association with the University goes back at least 4 decades. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IteO05kaY-8) I do not find any merit in your argument to classify his article "How to wipe out Islamic terror" as hate speech. Bold and alternative political speech may be, but far from hate speech. (http://janamejayan.wordpress.com/2011/07/29/how-to-wipe-out-islamic-terror-dr-subramaniam-swamy/) He was merely exercising his basic human right of Right to Free Speech guaranteed under our First Amendment, which even protects, as it should, worst of the worse hate speeches. With all due respect, your unwise decision smacks of clear ideological and selection biases, and decision process influenced by emotions and various cognitive traps such as anchoring and confirming evidence.

Expression of Free Speech especially alternative Political & Religious viewpoints are basic human needs and these should not be denied to anyone. Political and Hate Speech are both protected under First Amendment as they are subjective. Because who is to decide what is hate speech and what is not? You, me or other Harvard faculty? Just because I don't agree with what some other person said in his personal capacity, I have no Right to discriminate against him because of his political or religious views. It is very unfortunate that some of the Harvard faculty members have allegedly let their personal ideology and religious biases affect their professional decision making process. It a matter of shame and grave concern that Harvard has reprimanded Dr. Swamy for his protected political speech, which he gave in a different country on a topic which is completely unrelated to what he teaches at Harvard in the US.

Dr. Swamy is an Economics professor and Harvard administration has a right to judge his subject knowledge merits and teaching history only. Certainly not on the basis of what religious or political ideology he ascribes to or on grounds of his protected political speech. It is an alleged case of discrimination based on political ideology and civil liberties violated. This is a very bad precedence unwittingly set by Harvard which may have a chilling effect on the campus as student and faculty will now be scared to freely share and speak alternative viewpoints. Best way to deal with hate speech is either debate it or ignore it. Harvard allegedly did neither in case of Dr. Swamy. If the faculty found his views distasteful, why didn't they challenge him for an open debate to publicly present and defend his views rather than unilaterally punishing him for speaking his mind in personal capacity? This may set an unhealthy precedence as per which every Harvard faculty member may now be held accountable and may face excoriation, at the whims of Harvard's few biased faculty members, for anything he or she may say anywhere in world, without being given any fair chance to defend himself or herself. Should all those anti-Swamy faculty members who spearheaded this allegedly prejudicial campaign against Dr. Swamy's free speech be now held accountable in India for what these people say, write or print in the US? Reprehensible. Correct, Dean Pfister?

What is even more ridiculous is that those who decided and coerced other faculty members to drop Dr. Swamy's courses are not even related to his subject of expertise. Could Harvard please explain to us how and why is a History Professor Sugata Bose, known for his far-Left political ideology, deciding if Dr. Swamy should continue to teach Economics? That too when Dr. Swamy wasn't even present there to defend himself. What Economics subject credentials does Prof Bose have to decide Dr. Swamy's courses fate? How Dr. Swamy's personal viewpoints on how to deal with terrorism in India can be used as a yardstick to censor him in the US and throw out his economics courses? How can Dr. Swamy's protected political speech on dealing with terrorism in India influence his capabilities to teach Economics in US? There is no bridge between these two acts then how can he be reprimanded for it? This is essentially Heckler's Veto to curb Dr. Swamy's civil liberties. Will Harvard now reprimand anyone whose political and religious views doesn't align with few of its faculty's political leaning?

It is sad to see that Philosophy Department Chair Sean Kelly got "persuaded" to be part of those who like to censor others protected political speech.

Let us consider the faculty's justification to censor Dr. Swamy. Is the faculty claiming that there is no Islamic terror in the world? As per terrorism research experts, there have been over 18000 Islamic terrorist attacks (small to big events classified by number of people murdered) in the world since 9/11. Just because main stream media doesn't cover all them doesn't mean these attacks aren't happening. I am sure all you learned people have heard of Schrödinger's cat experiment. India has been suffering at the hands of Muslim extremists for over 25 years. Third anniversary of brutal 26/11 terrorist attacks in Mumbai just passed a few days ago. Do you expect Dr. Swamy and other Indians to simply ignore these facts because Harvard faculty is just too uncomfortable and sensitive to face the truth? Political correctness cannot be an excuse for poltroonery and censorship.

Until a few decades ago, it was mostly Pakistan sponsored terrorists attacking India. Since past decade, various domestic terrorist groups like Students Islamic Movement of India (SIMI), Popular Front of India (PFI), Indian Mujahideen, etc. have also started committing terrorist attacks in India. Now it is clear that US citizens are involved in worldwide terrorist activities also. As exposed by PBS Frontline-ProPublica (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/david-headley/), American-born Dawood Gilani aka David Coleman Headley was one of the main co-conspirators of 26/11 Mumbai terrorist attacks. He was trained and indoctrinated in Islamic theology by Pakistani intelligence agency ISI. Then there is Faisal Shazad (Times Square bomber), Major Nidal Hassan (Fort Hood), Anwar Al-Awaki, Underwear bomber, et.al. Unfortunately they are all self-proclaimed Islamic terrorists. You cannot just brush these facts under the carpet.

It is not Dr. Swamy who is calling Muslim terrorists as Islamic terrorists, rather it is these terrorists themselves who are proudly proclaiming themselves to be Mujahideen i.e. Islamic warriors fighting for Allah. Then why is Harvard allegedly punishing Dr. Swamy for speaking against these self-proclaimed Islamic warriors? Why is Harvard allegedly shooting the messenger? There is no line, let me say it again, there is no line in that article where Dr. Swamy has "demonized an entire religious community" as terrorists. I am sorry to say but Professor Diana Eck is wrong and her inference is grossly exaggerated. There is no way all of the decision making faculty members could have construed Dr. Swamy's argument as a call for destruction of religious places. This shows a clear case of selection bias and anchoring. Dr. Swamy said the following (an excerpt from the article),

In a brilliant research paper published by Robert Trager and Dessislava Zagorcheva this year (‘Deterring Terrorism’ International Security, vol 30, No 3, Winter 2005/06, pp 87-123) has provided the general principles to structure such a strategy.

Goal-strategy

Applying these principles, I advocate the following strategy to negate the political goals of Islamic terrorism in India, provided the Muslim community fail to condemn these goals and call them un-Islamic:

Goal 2: Blast our temples and kill Hindu devotees.

Strategy: Remove the masjid in Kashi Vishwanath temple complex, and 300 others in other sites as a tit-for-tat.

Dr. Swamy has not proposed that Hindus or Government of India should proactively remove Mosques (aka masjid) rather as a consequence of an unfortunate event (tit-for-tat). As per his proposal, if Islamic terrorists continue to blast Hindu temples and devotees then instead of cowing down, remove their controversial Mosques from encroached land. For those who may not know, Kashi aka Varanasi is the holiest site in the world for Hindus just like Kabba is for Muslims and Wailing wall is for Jews. About 600 years ago a Muslim bandit ruler ordered destruction of Holy Hindu temple of Kashi Vishwanathji and built a Mosque on top of it, compare it to Dome of Rock controversy. Not only at Kashi but Muslim Mughal bandit rulers did the same to prime Hindu temples at other holy sites such as Ayodhya, Mathura, Somnath, etc. Can you see a pattern? Prof Diana Eck is a professor of comparative religious studies, she ought to know better. Rather than thinking rationally, some faculty decision makers seem to have taken an extreme position influenced by an emotional reaction to a rational viewpoint (based on well thought out research).

For the sake of argument let us agree for a moment with the standards that Harvard faculty has applied to misconstrue Dr. Swamy's free speech as hate speech. Then the same standards should be applied to the following,

Quran (2:190-193) - "Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you. And slay them wherever ye find them, and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution [of Muslims] is worse than slaughter [of non-believers]... but if they desist, then lo! Allah is forgiving and merciful. And fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is for Allah."

Bukhari (2:28) - Women comprise the majority of Hell's occupants.

Quran (9:73) - O Prophet! strive hard against the unbelievers and the hypocrites and be unyielding to them; and their abode is hell, and evil is the destination

Quran (4:56) - Those who disbelieve Our revelations, We shall expose them to the Fire. As often as their skins are consumed We shall exchange them for fresh skins that they may taste the torment Lo! Allah is ever Mighty, Wise

Quran (56:92-94) - But if he is of the rejecters, the erring, then the welcome will be boiling water and roasting at hell-fire

Quran (5:60) - Say: "Shall I point out to you something much worse than this, (as judged) by the treatment it received from Allah? those who incurred the curse of Allah and His wrath, those of whom some He transformed into apes and swine, those who worshipped evil;- these are (many times) worse in rank, and far more astray from the even path!"

Bukhari (59:727) - Allah's Apostle [said]... "Allah's curse be on the Jews and the Christians"

Verse 59:727 was spoken on Mohamed's death bed, and was one of the last things that he ever said. Isn't Mohamed preaching annihilation of non-Muslims? Hasn't Mohamed crossed the line by demonizing an entire non-Muslim religious community and calling for violence against their sacred places? So would the esteemed faculty at Harvard now call for censorship of Quran, Hadith, Sira and other Islamic texts and publicly reprimand Mohamed for hate speech? Would Harvard now stop giving courses in Islamic theology? Would Harvard now cancel classes by Professors who euoligize Mohamed and teach such hate speech? Would Harvard now throw out students who emulate Mohamed? If no then isn't it hypocrisy on part of the same decision making faculty and Harvard administration? Standards set and enforced by the faculty in Dr. Swamy's case should be unambiguously applied in this case also.

Since Harvard is willing to overlook Dr. Swamy's professional accumen and rather use his personal views as a yardstick to decide if he should continue, let us analyze this fallacy also. Dr. Swamy has already publicly clarrified in this interview http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K3lv71xEBs0 that he doesn't have any problem with Muslims. He is one of the most pluralist public figure I have ever known of. He is a Hindu who is married to a Parsi (Zorashtrian) and one of his daughter is married to a Muslim. Cannot get more Secular than that.

Now lest I am accused of being some fringe Right winger, let me prove my Centrist credentials by giving another rational argument that will sound tune to the Leftist gallery. For those who may not know, Dr. Swamy, as a lawyer, has been spearheading a massive anti-graft lawsuit against some of the most corrupt and powerful politicians and corporates in the world who have allegedly committed at least $50 Billion scam during the distribution 2G spectrum in India. Think of it as the Occupy Wall Street but this one actually works, and has a clear direction and goals. The anti-corruption movement has a leader in Dr. Swamy, who has already fell many politicians, bureaucrats and corporate heads, and there are some big fishes yet to be brought to book. One of the alleged corrupt big fish is ironically a Harvard alumni. Now since Harvard disassociated itself from Dr. Swamy's political viewpoints on terrorism, hence, by applying its faculty's logic as a corollary we can inference that Harvard would not agree with Dr. Swamy's political position on bringing corrupt individuals including the alleged person who is also a Harvard alumni to justice. Therefore, it may be concluded that Harvard supports corruption in Politics and Business. Sounds weird right? Doesn't make sense as this sounds like a far-fetched conclusion. Harvard would never support corruption. So now you can see how some of your biased faculty's emotional argument, that there is a connection between a political speech on the menace of theologically sanctioned terror and teaching economics, sounds-like to a rational mind.

In the end I would like to thank you for reading my protest letter and I hope some sanity will prevail in Harvard administration. I hope that you will promptly apologize to Dr. Subramanian Swamy, reinstate his popular courses without prejudice, and invite him back with all due courtesy. Please null and void this reprehensible precedence set by Harvard, before it is too late. My respects where due as I mean no malice to anyone. Just speaking against the injustice done.

Best Regards,
Seema

Ann Barnhardt "Islamic Sexuality: A Survey of Evil"

2011-11-28T18:43:00.005-08:00

Ann Barnhardt "Islamic Sexuality: A Survey of Evil"

Part १ of ४

Part २ of ४

Part ३ of ४

Part ४ of ४