ॐ नमः शिवाय defines my life

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!

2012-02-17T23:49:00.010-08:00

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

2012-02-13T19:18:00.011-08:00

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

TEDxSRM - Swaminathan Gurumurthy - What Today's Youth Can Do

2011-11-27T01:48:00.004-08:00

Little-known till the mid-1980s, this Chennai-based Chartered Accountant shot into the limelight with a series of exposes against Dhirubhai Ambani and Reliance in "The Indian Express". Swaminathan Gurumurthy is an acclaimed writer whose columns have found place on several dailies and periodicals. He is known for his radical views and opinions while his intense combination of words and moods are a testimony of his passion towards raging issues. Gurumurthy's knowledge of economics and accounting principles is outstanding and his articles, though polemical, are always painstakingly well researched and crafted. He is a staunch proponent of the Swadeshi model of economic development and is a leading light of the Swadeshi Jagran Manch (SJM), which is currently spearheading the agitation against some of the economic policies. Besides politics, he also enjoys considerable clout in corporate circles.

Lord Ram as Harry Potter
S Gurumurthy, Daily Pioneer

ASI needs stones to read history and historians need bones to understand it. Neither are there any stones left by Lord Ram, nor do his bones exist. Ironically, certain sections of the UPA were more than willing to buy this ‘secular logic’

It was a drama that lasted less than 48 hours. On September 9, Lord Ram, who existed in the hearts of millions and millions of faithfuls for thousands of years, ceased to exist, and became a myth for the UPA Government. Like a stone thrown at a beehive, this set off a reaction that made the Government run for cover. On September 11, the Congress-led ‘secular’ UPA Government quickly turned round and admitted that Lord Ram was real.

See the sequence to this somersault. On 9/11, the UPA Government told the Supreme Court on oath that Lord Ram was just a myth and Ramayan no more than fable. Besides trashing Lord Ram, the Government had also dismissed Sita, Lakshman, Hanuman and others as just ‘characters’ in the play, Ramayan. The Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) told us so, swore the Government.

Left historians welcomed the Government’s stand, calling it ‘objective’. What is the logic that made Lord Ram a myth? That was the logic of stones and bones. ASI needs stones to read history and historians need, in addition, bones to understand it. Neither does any stone left by Lord Ram, nor does any bone of Lord Ram, exist. So, they ask, how could Lord Ram have existed without the bone-stone testimony.

Human beings do not matter to ASI. And historians cannot accept that human beings are as objective as bones and stones are. So, oral traditions of human beings are no evidence to either of them. On this bone-stone objective test, Valmiki and Tulsidas, the Government told the Supreme Court, are all like Joanne K Rowling. And Lord Ram, just another Harry Potter, the character Rowling has created. Reports say that the Government had filed over 400 pages of records to assert this. But why did the Government try to make a Harry Potter out of Lord Ram who resides in the heart of crores of people?

The case in the Supreme Court was no issue of inheritance from any of those “characters”, as the affidavit would describe Lord Ram and others in Ramayan, claimed by their heirs of today. It was an issue of heritage of Lord Ram and Ramayan claimed by Hindu faithfuls – the heritage of Ram Setu – the bridge, they believe, was built by the army of monkeys to cross the seas to Sri Lanka to take on Ravan. But the DMK, a critical UPA partner, is hell-bent on cutting Ram Setu to build the Sethusamudram Channel to create ship-way between Sri Lanka and India.

Ramayan, whether written by Valmiki in Sanskrit or Tulsidas in Hindi or Kamban in Tamil, testifies that Lord Ram’s engineers led by Nal and Neel built the bridge. So, the faithfuls who oppose the Sethusamudram Ship Channel Project that cuts Lord Ram’s bridge, rely on Valmiki’s testimony. They contend that if Ramayan were true, then Ram Setu ought to be true. Consequently, they want Ram Setu to be protected, not destroyed.

They took the case to court. It is there that the UPA Government decided to establish, once and for all, the fact that Ram Setu was no monument. To prove that it took short-cut. If Lord Ram was a mythical character, Ram Setu, too, would be a myth. That is why, on September 9, the Government declared Lord Ram as non-est.

Unfortunately, the UPA Government’s affidavit on Lord Ram as a myth coincided with the pre-fixed VHP agitation on the streets all over the country against the destruction of Ram Setu. So, the issue was already on the streets when the Government filed the explosive affidavit. With the media disclosing the affidavit, there was spontaneous uproar from the people.

The rediff.com, which had put out the news of the affidavit, had opened its website for comments from surfers. In less than 24 hours, over 2,800 surfers responded, with a vast majority of them criticising the Government. Apart from BJP leaders, Mr Prakash Singh Badal and Ms J Jayalalithaa, from the non-saffron ranks, also demanded apology from the Government. Even Mr Lalu Prasad Yadav and Mr AB Bardan condemned the affidavit filed by the Government.

The BJP, as was to be expected, went on a war-mode and demanded the withdrawal of the affidavit, and apology from Ms Sonia Gandhi and Mr Manmohan Singh, besides seeking the removal of the concerned Minister. This forced the Government to began the disowning game.

The Prime Minister told Mr LK Advani that he was not aware of anything about the affidavit. This should be taken as true as Mr Manmohan Singh is unaware of most things in the Government. The Home Minister repeated the same thing; so did the Law Minister. In hours, the affidavit saying Lord Ram was a myth stood orphaned.

Then entered Ms Sonia Gandhi – an ‘expert’ on Lord Ram and Ramayan and also archaeology and history – who, the story goes, called the Additional Solicitor General, Mr Gopal Subramaniam, and disapproved the affidavit declaring Lord Ram as mythical. Mr Subramaniam reported it to the Law Minister, who, in turn, held a Press conference and announced: “Ram is Ram; he exists like Ganga and Himalaya.” So, all experts and their opinions and those of the legal pundits were overruled.

Ms Sonia Gandhi did not even have to use her pen to do it. The UPA’s style of ruling India is self-evident. When the Government does unpopular things, whether it is petrol price hike or affidavit on Lord Ram, Mr Manmohan Singh and company will take the hit. But whenever it does anything popular, like petrol price cut or employment guarantee announcement, or the withdrawal of the affidavit on Lord Ram, Ms Gandhi will take the credit. Now she gets the acclaim for restoring Lord Ram to history from mythology.

It is new experience for Lord Ram. He was exiled by his father, Dasaratha, under the pressure of his aunt, Kaikeyi, for years. But, now, when Lord Ram was declared as non-est by Mr TR Balu, Ms Gandhi overruled him and recovered Lord Ram in just two days. So, Kaikeyi’s wrong to Lord Ram has been atoned by Ms Gandhi, thousands of years later.

Post Script: The experts, who could alone testify on whether Ram Setu is man-made or natural formation, are the geologists and oceanographers, not archaeologists or historians. But their view was totally kept out. Why? Simple. Some of them had already expressed that Ram Setu could not be a natural formation, meaning that it could be man-made – that is, it could be monkey-made.

If the Government had heard them, the results are obvious. There would be no Sethusamudram Ship Channel Project; no contract for Rs 2500 crore; and, no profit to anyone. So the reverse logic – destroy Ram Setu and for that turn Lord Ram into a mythical character.

A Perfect Terrorist: Frontline PBS & ProPublica documentary on David Headley & 26/11

2011-11-22T23:45:00.008-08:00

PBS FRONTLINE and ProPublica investigate the mysterious circumstances behind Pakistani-American Dawood Gilani aka David Coleman Headley's rise from heroin dealer and government informant in DEA to plotting the २६/११/२००८ terrorist attacks on Mumbai. Despite repeated warnings, how did Headley slip into India to scout targets? And how much did U.S. officials know about his relationship with terrorist group Lashkar-i-Taiba and ISI?

The American Behind The २००८ Attack On Mumbai on NPR Fresh Air with Terry Gross and ProPublica reporter Sebastian Rotella.

Please also read "Could This Man’s Warnings Have Prevented the Mumbai Attacks?"

FRONTLINE: A Perfect Terrorist

Chapter १ of ६

Watch A Perfect Terrorist on PBS. See more from FRONTLINE.

Chapter २ of ६

Watch A Perfect Terrorist on PBS. See more from FRONTLINE.

Chapter ३ of ६

Watch A Perfect Terrorist on PBS. See more from FRONTLINE.

Chapter ४ of ६

Watch A Perfect Terrorist on PBS. See more from FRONTLINE.

Chapter ५ of ६

Watch A Perfect Terrorist on PBS. See more from FRONTLINE.

Chapter ६ of ६

Watch A Perfect Terrorist on PBS. See more from FRONTLINE.

Indian government's spineless stand on persecution of Hindu minorities in Pakistan

2011-11-13T23:13:00.006-08:00

CONgress led Indian government hides behind Simla Agreement and refuses to protect Hindu minorities in Pakistan.

UNDER RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT

Central Public Information Officer

Prime Minister’s Office

South Block, NEW DELHI-110101

Sir

I will be obliged if your honour kindly provides me complete and detailed information on under-mentioned aspects together with related documents/correspondence/file-notings etc:

Approximate number of Pakistani nationals presently in the country whose visa-period has already expired. Please provide details according to years of overstay, if feasible
Approximate number of Bangladeshi nationals presently in the country whose visa-period has already expired. Please provide details according to years of overstay, if feasible
Approximate number of other foreign nationals presently in the country whose visa-period has already expired. Please provide details according to years of overstay, if feasible
Steps taken to send back Pakistani and Bangladeshi nationals back to their countries whose visa-periods stand expired
Steps taken to send back other foreign nationals back to their countries whose visa-periods stand expired
Rules including punishment for over-stay or illegal stay of foreign-nationals in India
Is it true that many foreign-nations especially from countries like Pakistan and Bangladesh are living illegally in India entering India without any visa?
If yes, approximate number of such persons according to country of their origin and Indian states where such illegal migrants are living
Rules about nationality of children (having taken birth in India) of foreign nationals either residing in India illegally without obtained any visa, or over-staying on expired visa
Is it true that many Hindus and/or their families from Pakistan have come to India with a desire to get Indian citizenship?
If yes, approximate number of Hindus separately from Pakistan and Bangladesh who are over-staying or illegally living in India in anticipation of Indian citizenship
Rules to grant Indian citizenship to migrant Hindus from Pakistan and Bangladesh
Is India government aware of pitiable situation of minority Hindus living in Pakistan and Bangladesh with their percentage in population there fast declining?
If yes, steps taken if any, by Indian government to safeguard and protect rights of Hindu nationals of Pakistan and Bangladesh
Any other related information
File-notings/correspondence/documents etc every aspect of this RTI petition

In case queries relate to some other public-authority, please transfer this RTI petition to CPIO there under section 6(3) of RTI Act. Postal-order number 92E 298759 for rupees ten is enclosed towards RTI fees in name of “Accounts Officer” as per DoPT circular-number No.F.10/9/2008-IR dated 05.12.2008.

Regards

SUBHASH CHANDRA AGRAWAL

(Guinness Record Holder & RTI Activist)

1775 Kucha Lattushah

Dariba, Chandni Chowk

DELHI 110006 (India)

Mobile 9810033711 Fax 23254036

E-mail subhashmadhu@sify.com

Web www.subhashmadhu.com

13.06.2011

Indian Government stand on persecution of Hindu minorities in Pakistan

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

2011-11-12T07:24:00.000-08:00

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 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

==

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.

Barkha Dutt-Niira Radia nexus popularly known as BarkhaGate vis-a-vis 2G scam

2011-11-11T23:40:00.006-08:00

Barkha Dutt reacts to other editors on Nirra Radia tapes controversy

Media and misogyny. By Aditya Sinha, The New Indian Express

The other night, on a programme meant to clarify to viewers that her recorded conversations with corporate public relations manager Niira Radia were merely news-gathering, NDTV group editor Barkha Dutt faced questions by four male journalists, three of them veterans. Towards the end of the show, Barkha commented to her channel colleague and show moderator: “Anyway, there’s been a lot of misogyny here today”. Given that Barkha is the first woman editor of a major media organisation, and given that she has for long served as a major inspiration for youngsters, especially women (before television, the media was a career fit only for men who were perhaps good at nothing else), the impact of her words should not be underestimated. Whatever else may have transpired during that show, the mention of misogyny has resonance for any woman who lives and works in India.

The fact that Barkha is the first, and still the only Editor of a mainstream media outfit in India itself speaks volumes. Till now, women journalists in major newspapers or magazines have become resident editors, but no higher. The majority of women find they reach the ceiling when they become features editor or magazine editor, which in a sense is their being told that they are capable of nothing more than commissioning or reporting on ‘soft stories’. This is of course a crock of crap. Some women do become Editor of a publication, but that is usually at a niche magazine like such pertaining to glamour or health, etc.

If women aren’t given the ultimate responsibility in editorial management, then the blame is not only that of senior journalists who have overlooked or not groomed their women colleagues for the top job, but also the media barons who perhaps are not comfortable with the idea. It surprises me, for instance, that the proprietor of my former newspaper, the Hindustan Times, despite being a woman who herself had to overcome the prejudice and misgivings of an entrenched union and old-style management when her father passed control to her, never thought of hiring a woman for the top job. It may simply be a matter of her not yet finding the right person; but it hasn’t happened yet.

This is not to say that the Times of India, despite having had a woman as resident editor in its flagship edition, is any better. Sure, it hires a lot of women and journalists, but that’s true everywhere nowadays because women appear to be better-qualified and better-driven than the boys wandering into the profession. The paper also appears to be women-friendly in its content, but again that’s another illusion; it’s merely the outcome of a cynical marketing strategy resting on the premise that women are either the biggest consumers or influence “big purchase” decisions. The newspaper shrewdly disguises commodification as empowerment.

And then there’s the sneering attitude to women in stories by even the most liberal publications, and by even women writers. Take the incident of Sunanda Pushkar’s involvement in the bid for an IPL team in Kochi. It was a simple case of nepotism involving the then minister of state for external affairs, Shashi Tharoor. (In hindsight, what they were alleged to have done pales in comparison with the scams that have surfaced since, and they weren’t even fingering public money). Yet it turned into a barely-veiled personal attack on Ms Pushkar; the tone of most articles was salacious. It was shameful.

Thus it is true that there is a pervasive misogyny in the big media. It is so deeply entrenched that most top male editors usually have a core team which is akin to a boys club. It reflects the attitudes in our working life throughout India; while women may feel physically safer on the streets of some cities, they perhaps find the workplace even more stifling in those same cities. Every woman knows this. Which is why Barkha Dutt’s comment about misogyny, made by a woman who’s risen to the top through visible labour and good work (such as in Kargil and Kashmir), is one that ought not to be taken lightly, even if other journalists or even men in general are dismissive of it. As the Radia tapes show, a good chunk of journalists are increasingly out of touch with what their readers think or feel.

In the leaked portions of her conversations with Radia, Barkha Dutt is heard discussing the back-and-forth of the UPA-II ministry formation. In hindsight, one of Radia’s aims was to ensure A Raja’s return to the telecom ministry, despite his having caused a loss of `1.76 lakh crore to the nation during the allotment of 2G Spectrum. Barkha did not appear to know this aspect, and so there is actually nothing wrong, illegal or corrupt that she did. Wittingly or unwittingly, however, she became a party, however tangentially, to the immense pressure that was brought upon the Congress and upon Prime Minister Manmohan Singh (who, it now transpires, had an inkling that Raja was up to no good) to retain Raja in the same ministry. To the common viewer/reader, Barkha Dutt now exemplifies the cozy relationship between business, politics and the media: of networking, privilege and power. It is likely that she was too dazzled by all this to see the murkiness of what was unfolding before her very eyes, and so you can believe she did not see a story in the fact of a corporate fixer acting as a mediator between two political parties over ministry allocation.

The four men chosen for the panel (Outlook’s Vinod Mehta wisely declined) tried to question her about it but the fact is that Barkha Dutt did not give satisfactory answers. (The Hindu’s N Ram was categorical in his assessment of the show). If anything, the men genuinely tried to be accommodating or avuncular; only Open’s Manu Joseph refused to offer no resistance to Barkha’s steady descent into attacks of a personal and pulmonary nature. Yet at no point did any of them allude to her gender; and at no point did they gang up against her (asking a follow-up to another person’s questions is a standard practice). She, on the other hand, questioned Manu’s understanding of political journalism; she evaded answers by alleging that the questioners had changed goalposts (an allegation that politicians perhaps want to make of journalists but wisely refrain from doing); and she made the reference to misogyny. In short, she lost her composure.

You may wonder that if misogyny was going to be an issue, then NDTV should have just called four women to the panel. Perhaps Barkha sensed that the grilling would have been far worse. And then she would have had nothing to blame for her unconvincing defence of why she figured in the Radia tapes.

editorchief@expressbuzz.com

About The Author

Aditya Sinha is the Editor-in-Chief of The New Indian Express and is based in Chennai.

Dr. Subramanian Swamy explains 2G scam in detail

2011-11-10T09:02:00.002-08:00

Former Union Commerce Minister, renowned Economist, proud Hindu, and Harvard faculty Dr. Subramanian Swamy explains in great detail how 2G Scam was allegedly committed by corrupt Sonia Gandhi run CONgress govt. Dr. Swamy explains how special laws were allegedly enacted by P Chidambaram and Pranab Mukharjee to facilitate black money involved in the scam. He also exposes the national security issues involved in 2G Scam as Dawood Ibrahim man Shahid Balwa was key figure in buying spectrum & ISI front companies were also involved as per Home Ministry reports. Dr. Swamy further explains the alleged revelations done by A Raja about Sonia Gandhi, Karunanidhi, Kanimozhi, Chidambaram, Kapil Sibal, et.al. and their share in the total loot of 2G scam.

At IIM, Karnavati, Gujarat

At Begaluru (Bangalore), Karnatak

At Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU), Indraprasth (Delhi)

Subramanian Swamy exposing Sonia Gandhi, Robert Vadra and P Chidambaram on Chauthi Duniya

At Tilak Mandir, Poona (Pune), Maharashtra

BBC Documentary Oct 2011 - Secret Pakistan: "Double Cross USA"

2011-10-29T21:56:00.008-08:00

BBC documentary Secret Pakistan: "Double Cross USA" about Pakistan ISI connections with Taliban and Haqqani Networks, to counter attack USA and NATO allies. From last 10 years, Pakistan covertly played the double cross game against USA in Afghanistan and sponsored Islamic terror against Bharat (Hindusthan/India).

Part 1: Double Cross

Part 2: Backlash

Analysis of Anti-Hindu Communal Violence Bill of CONgress

2011-10-26T04:54:00.006-08:00

Communal Violence Bill by Hinduphobic CONgress is a downright vicious Anti-Hindu propaganda bill.

कांग्रेस द्वारा लिखित हिन्दू विरोधी और मुसलमानों तथा ईसाईओं का तुष्टीकरण करने वाले संप्रदायक हिंसा रोकथाम विधेयक का डाक्टर सुब्रमनियन स्वामी के द्वारा हिंदी में विश्लेषण।
Analysis of Anti-Hindu Communal Violence Bill in Hindi by Dr. Subramanian Swamy at Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) in Indraprasth (Delhi)

Dr. Subramanian Swamy files an FIR with Delhi Police against Sonia Gandhi & NAC members for inciting violence and hatred against Hindus

By Dr. Subramanian Swamy

PRESS RELEASE OF DR.SUBRAMANIAN SWAMY ISSUED ON 25-10-2011

Yesterday I posted to the SHO of the Crime Branch of Delhi Police, located in Rohini, Delhi a written complaint for registering a FIR against Ms.Sonia Gandhi, Chairperson of the National Advisory Commission (NAC) and 14 other unnamed persons who are members of the NAC.

The offences alleged to have been committed arises from a draft Bill prepared by the NAC and known as Prevention of Communal and Targeted Violence Bill of 2011. This was widely circulated as also posted on the NAV website.

The charge is that Ms.Sonia Gandhi and her NAC members have by writing and drafting such a Bill for adoption by Parliament have incited the Christians and Muslims to attack the Hindus by rioting and mayhem of rape promising legislative protection to them as a “group”, and giving immunity under the provisions of the Bill when enacted, from prosecution even if the said “group” attacks the “dominant” Hindu community.

Hence, Ms.Sonia Gandhi and the members of the NAC are culpable under Section 153A & B, 295A and 505 (2) of the IPC.

If the Delhi Police does not register this FIR by November 10th, I shall approach the court to seek directions to the Delhi Police to register the FIR.

I am giving below THE FULL TEXT of the FIR sent by Dr.Subramanian Swamy yesterday (24-10-2011) to SHO/Insp: D.P.Singh, Crime Branch, Sector 18, Rohini, New Delhi.

Dr Subramanian Swamy , President of Janata Party, A-77, Nizamuddin East, Sector 18, Rohini, New Delhi-110013:

To:

SHO/Insp: D.P. Singh, Sector 18, Rohini, Crime Branch, New Delhi.

Re: Registering of FIR u/s 153A & B, 295A & 505(2) of Indian Penal Code.

Dated: October 24, 2011.

1. In public interest I am sending by Courier service a complaint in my name against Chairperson Ms. Sonia Gandhi of National Advisory Council, which has its office at 2 Motilal Place, New Delhi-110011, Tel: 23062582, and also against unnamed other members of the said NAC for committing offences of propagating hate against the Hindu community of India by circulating for enacting as law a Draft Bill described as PREVENTION OF COMMUNAL AND TARGETED VIOLENCE BILL OF 2011. This Draft Bill has been posted on the NAC official website, is dated July 21, 2011 and sent for adoption by Parliament. That this 2011 Draft Bill is mischievous in content of targeting the Hindu community, malafide, unreasonable and prejudicial to public order, is apparent from the second section of Explanatory Note [Annexed herein] to the Draft Bill titled “Key Provisions of the Bill”, thereby inciting crimes against the Hindu community with impunity, and thus committing offences u/s 153A & B, 295A and 505(2) of the Indian Penal Code.

2. The UPA Government in December, 2005 had introduced earlier a Draft Bill [2005] in the Parliament described as THE COMMUNAL VIOLENCE (PREVENTION, CONTROL AND REHABILITATION OF VICTIMS) BILL (2005).

3. The Draft Bill however did not find favour with any Party. Leaders of several political parties felt that the Draft Bill provided sweeping powers to the Central Government thus undermining the authority of the State Governments. But the most vocal opposition to this draft Bill came from the Muslim, Christian and so called secular quarters. Their contention was just the opposite of what the political leaders were saying. The view of Muslim and Christian groups was that the 2005 Draft Bill was “completely toothless”. They demanded that the powers of managing communal violence be vested in non-government actors and make governments and administration at all levels accountable them for communal violence.

4. The All India Christian Council was in the forefront of this campaign against the 2005 Draft Bill as being “too weak”. In a letter written to the Prime Minister, Ms Sonia Gandhi, herself a Christian, through the AICC had conveyed to the PM the Christian Council concerns about the 2005 Draft Bill, and then revised the same as the 2009 Draft Bill.

5. The Muslim bodies too joined in the protest campaign against the draft as being too weak. They wanted provisions to make police and civil administration and state authorities “accountable” to public bodies. The Joint Committee of Muslim Organizations for Empowerment (JCMOE) made the demand on behalf of these organizations. JCMOE also urged the government to convene a meeting of leaders of “targeted communities” to note their views on the Bill as follows:

“The Bill does not make police or administration or state authorities accountable and provide for timely and effective intervention by the National Human Rights Commission, if the communal violence spreads or continues for weeks, or by the Central Government under Articles 355 and 356 of the Constitution, duly modified. On the other hand, ironically, the Bill grants more power to the local police and administration, which, more often than not acts in league with the rioters by declaring the area as ‘communally disturbed area’ JCMOE statement said.

6. It is interesting to note that these two statements, the Muslim and the Christian, come at around the same time as though they were premeditated. They probably were.

7. From their arguments in opposition to the Draft Bill, it is clear that they wanted a Bill that would consider only the Christians and Muslims as the “generally targeted” victims of communal violence; and that the word ‘communal violence’ be re-defined in such a way that only the Muslims and Christians are treated as victims and Hindus as predators, and that the local police and administration, including the State administration, considered hand-in-glove with the perpetrators of violence. Hence the Bill should empower the Central Government to invoke Art. 355 and 356 of the Constitution against any state in the event of such communal violence.

8. Since the Prevention of Communal Violence Bill (2005) does not discriminate between the perpetrators and victims of communal violence on religious grounds and also it does not envisage the State administration as committed in preventing such violence, these groups wanted the Bill to be withdrawn.

9. The National Advisory Council (NAC) was re-constituted in 2009 by the UPA Government again under the chairmanship of Ms. Sonia Gandhi. The UPA Government promptly handed over the re-drafting of the Bill to the newly constituted NAC and asked it to come up with a fresh draft.

10. The basic communally provocative premise of the re-drafted Bill is that: a) there is a non-dominant group in every State in the form of religious and linguistic minority which is always a victim of violence; b) the dominant majority (usually Hindus) in the State is always the perpetrator of violence; and c) the State administration is, as a rule, biased against the non-dominant group.

11. The object of the re-drafted Bill thus was the basic premise of the NAC that the majority community – read Hindus – are the perpetrators of communal violence in India and the minority – read Muslims and Christians – are the victims, clearly is incitement of religious strife.

12. What is more important is to conclude is that in all cases of communal and targeted violence, dominant religious and linguistic group at the State level is always the perpetrator and the other the victims. Similarly the conclusion that the State machinery is invariably and always biased against the non-dominant group is a gross misstatement of the sincerity and commitment of millions of people who form State administration in the country.

13. This dangerous premise is the incitement of communal strife in this Bill.

14. One can safely conclude that the script writers of this Bill are themselves blinded with religious biases. In India communal violence happens mostly because of politico-communal reasons. In many instances, as documented by several Commissions of Inquiry, it is the so-called minority group that triggers the trouble. We hence need laws that can prevent such violence irrespective of whoever perpetrates it. To argue that since the administration is always biased in favour of the dominant group we need acts that are biased in favour of the non-dominant group is imprudent and puerile.

15. The final Draft is available on the NAC website now. One is not sure when the same will be placed before the Parliament. However, a close scrutiny of the Draft is essential to understand the serious implications of and threats from it to our national integration, social harmony and Constitutional Federalism.

16. This Bill when it becomes an Act will apply to whole country except the State of Jammu and Kashmir. Note that J&K is one of the two States in India (excluding the North East and other tiny UTs) that has Hindus as minority – the ‘non-dominant group’ according to this Bill. Punjab is the other State where the Sikhs constitute the majority, while in the rest of the entire country it is the Hindus who constitute ‘dominant group’ and by implication the perpetrators of communal violence, according to this Draft Bill.

17. The mischief in the drafting primarily lies in the ‘Definitions’ part contained in Art.3 of the first chapter. Art. 3 (c ) defines Communal and Targeted Violence as under:-

“Communal and targeted violence” means and includes any act or series of acts, whether spontaneous or planned, resulting in injury or harm to the person and or property knowingly directed against any person by virtue of his or her membership of any group”.

18. The mischief is centered round the word ‘Group’. Art 3(e) defines what constitutes a ‘Group’.

“Group” means a religious or linguistic minority, in any State in the Union of India, or Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes within the meaning of clauses of the Constitution of India;

19. Having thus established that the individual member of the Minority community is always considered a part of the Minority group the Draft Bill goes on to add several detrimental clauses subsequently. Art.3 (f) defines ‘Hostile environment against a group’ thus:

“Hostile environment against a group” means an intimidating or coercive environment that is created when a person belonging to any group as defined under this Act, by virtue of his or her membership of that group, is subjected to any of the following acts:

(i) boycott of the trade or business of such person or making it otherwise difficult for him or her to earn a living; or

(ii) publicly humilitate such person through exclusion from public services, including education, health and transportation of any act of indignity; or

(iii) deprive or threaten to deprive such person of his or her fundamental rights;

or,

(iv) force such person to leave his or her home or place of ordinary residence or livlihood without his or her express consent; or

(v) any other act, whether or not it amounts to an offence under this Act, that has the purpose or effect of creating an intimidating, hostile or offensive environment.”

Note the Clause (v) – ‘Any other act, whether or not it amounts to an offence under this Act’. The intention here seems to be to make anything and everything an offence, even if it doesn’t come under any definition of an offence. It is clear that the entire definition of ‘hostile environment’ is malafide.

Clause (k) defines who is a ‘victim’. Here the draft makers are very explicit:

“victim” means any person belonging to a group as defined under this Act, who has suffered physical, mental, psychological or monetary harm or harm to his or hr property as a result of the commission of any offence under this Act, and includes his or her relatives, legal guardian and legal heirs, wherever appropriate;

“Victim” can only be belonging to a ‘group’ as defined under this Act. And the group as defined under this Act is the Minority – the ‘non-dominant group’. That means this act will consider only the Minority as the victims. And he or she will become a ‘victim if he or she has suffered physical, mental, psychological or monetary harm….’ Now, physical harm is measurable, mental harm is difficult to gauge, but how on earth can anyone define ‘psychological harm’? The Bill does not define it. Then how can be so-called ‘psychological harm’ be one of the reasons for victimhood?

Similarly, Art. 4 (a) states as follows:

4. Knowledge. – A person is said to knowingly direct any act against a person belonging to a group by virtue of such person’s membership of that group where;

(a) he or she means to engage in the conduct against a person he or she knows belongs to that group;

20. Art 7 of the draft Bill defines ‘sexual assault’. It is by far the most widely covered definition that is very much needed to protect women from becoming targets of sexual violence as part of communal violence. But against the problem is that this definition is applicable to the women belonging to Minority group and women of the Majority community cannot benefit from it. Secondly, it also states that in a case of communal violence sex by consent also can be construed as a crime.

21. Patriotic Indians now realize that the present draft Bill is a standing proof that neo Jinnah-ism – the belief that the minority is perpetually oppressed in India by the Hindu majority – is still poisoning our minds even today by mischievous minds..

22. The present Draft Bill will only promote disharmony. With these kind of laws the LeTs and Hujls across the border need not have to promote terrorism in our territory anymore. All that they need to do is to encourage a minor communal riot and they can achieve what they want – huge rift between the Majority and Minority communities.

23. Hence, the NAC, with Ms Sonia Gandhi as Chairperson, and other members have jointly committed offences under IPC Sections 153A & B, 295A, and 505(2).

24. It is significant that even well known persons of secular credentials have condemned this Bill as divisive. The Tamil Nadu Chief Minister Ms. J. Jayalalitha has in a Press Release dated July 29, 2011 [Annexed] has concluded that “the remedy sought [in the Draft Bill] to be provided against communal and targeted violence is worse than the disease itself”.

25. Therefore, this complaint be taken as a basis to register an FIR and conduct investigation into the communal mentality of the NAC chairperson Ms. Sonia Gandhi and other members and take necessary action under the law to prosecute the offenders under the cited sections of the IPC.

Source: http://visakeo.blogspot.com/2011/10/dr-subramanian-swamy-files-complaint.html

Dr. Subramanian Swamy wrote letter to PM Manmohan Singh to drop the proposed Communal and Targeted Violence Prevention Bill

By Dr. Subramanian Swamy

October 17, 2011.

Dr. Manmohan Singh,
Prime Minister of India,
South Block,
New Delhi.

Dear Prime Minister,

Patriotic Hindus who constitute the overwhelming majority of Indian population, feel that the draft of the Communal and Targeted Violence (Prevention) Bill as unconstitutional. I am writing therefore to you to drop from further consideration, the draft Bill of 2011 authored by Ms. Sonia Gandhi, Chairperson of the National Advisory Council. This Bill violates individual and State rights as well as the principles of equality under the law, separation of powers, innocent- until- proven- guilty principles underlying due process, and democracy.

Communal violence is a tragedy that must indeed be prevented. It mars India’s long history of religious pluralism and respect. No doubt India’s brand of pluralism is a direct extension of the inter-religious respect promoted by its indigenous and majority Hindu traditions and related faiths.

The Bill, while arguably intended to protect against and prevent such violence, unfortunately ignores obvious historical and contemporary realities, and will consequently only serve to further instigate inter-religious and communal tensions as it wrongly singles out a particular community – the Hindu majority for blame.

It is impossible to read the Bill without seeing the blatant politicization of the issue of protecting victims, with a “special focus on disadvantaged groups”: This Bill even on a quick reading exhibits the following flaws:

1. The Bill creates two “groups” of citizens. The language used in defining “group” is mischievously, vague. It is unclear as to whether a ‘group’ is a religious minority as determined by national demography or by state demographics –

(a) If the Bill intends to determine groups as religious minorities based on national demographics as seems to be the intention, it leaves unprotected large groups of religious and linguistic minorities, namely, the Hindu minority in the States of Jammu and Kashmir, Nagaland, Mizoram and Meghalaya -

Example : A dozen Hindu women in a small village are mass gang raped by a mob of Muslim men because of the women’s religious identity or ‘membership’ in the Hindu community, the Bill will fail to protect these victims.

(b): If however the Bill intends to determine groups as religious minorities based on State demographics (i.e. non-Sikhs in Punjab), it leaves unprotected religious and linguistic minorities that may constitute a minority in the context of smaller geographically definable regions such as a district, village, section of a city, despite being members of the majority according to State demographics -

Example: Two of the only Christian businesses in a predominantly Hindu village in Mizoram are boycotted by the Hindu villagers. Under the Bill, boycotts on the basis of group membership is a chargeable offence. Christians constitute a majority in Mizoram. If minority status is determined by the State demographics, the Bill fails to protect these victims.

© While linguistic minorities are presumably based on State demographics, the Bill’s language is unclear because it conjoins “religious” and “linguistic” without a logical qualifier.

(d) The way in which the Bill has defined “group” and afforded special protection on the basis fails to address and acknowledge the historical reality of communal and targeted violence perpetrated by minority groups against the majority and minority against another minority.

Example: In 2007, inter-communal violence erupted between Sikhs and followers of Dera Sacha Sauda, a distinct religious institution and followers from Hinduism, Sikhism and Islam. The Akal Takht, “the highest temporal seat of the Sikhs,” called for a “social boycott” of Dera Sacha Sauda members and of their leader, and called for a “closure of all deras” of the Sacha Sauda in the Punjab. The religious majority of Punjab is Sikh. The Bill does not deal effectively with such complex scenarios, especially where both groups can be considered minorities by national demographics or one group has members belonging to the majority, and both engage in offenses under the Bill. This Bill fails to address the complexities of communal relations.

2. The Bill will lead to uneven application across Indian States and fail to protect minority Buddhist, Sikh and SC/ST populations from communal and targeted violence in the State of Jammu and Kashmir, should the State not consent. Minority Hindus in Kashmir, who have been on the receiving end of communal and targeted violence for several decades and have been ethno-religiously cleansed from the Valley, according to this Bill would not be afforded protection as a member of the National majority, regardless of whether the State of Jammu and Kashmir consents to the Bill.

3. The Bill, in establishing a National Authority and various State Authorities, grants bodies of unelected citizens the power to interfere, obstruct, and override some of the essential functions of both National and State governments, namely law enforcement and adjudication of the law. The powers of these bodies violate basic principles of separation of powers and rights of States.

4. The Bill violates the basic common law principle of the right of the accused to confront one’s accuser by empowering the National Authority with duty to protect the identity of informants.

5. The Bill provides blanket immunity from criminal prosecution to any person who provides a statement before the National Authority, regardless of his/her role in engaging in or orchestrating violence related to the matter under investigation.

6. The Bill establishes parallel National and State Authorities creating unnecessary bureaucracy, conflicts of interest, as well as confusion, let alone violating basic principles of State autonomy and separation of powers and the rights of States.

7. The Bill usurps State police powers through broad and sweeping language, such as “through any means in whatsoever manner,” providing unchecked police and/or investigative powers to State Authorities under the Bill.

8. The Bill violates the basic common law principle of “innocent until proven guilty” by failing to provide an equivalent right for an accused to file a complaint of bias, lack of impartiality, or unfairness with the National or State Authority in general. This chapter does not lay out any procedures to protect the due process rights of the accused, including rights to a fair trial and legal representation, and ensuring investigations are conducted in a fair manner.

9. The Bill presumes that an offence is communal rather than a purely criminal act, based solely on the fact that the victim was a member of a particular community as defined under this Bill. It allows inferences to be made without imposing any burden of proof or requiring the prosecution to actually prove that the offence is a communal act.

10. The Bill removes the prosecutional burden to prove that the accused knowingly and intentionally committed an act of communal and targeted violence, and assumes, it was communal based simply on the victim’s membership in a protected group.

11. The Bill again violates the common law principle of “innocent until proven guilty,” by failing to provide any remedy to an accused in the event the Public Prosecutor shows bias against the interest of the accused.

12. The Bill provides relief and reparation to victims, whether or not they are minorities, and therefore contradicts other provisions of the Bill if the Bill provides relief to victims of the majority community, it should also provide for prosecution of minorities involved in communal and targeted violence.

13. The Bill denies legal remedies to any person (s) wrongfully accused prosecuted or convicted under this Bill. The Bill once again implements unnecessarily and sufficiently vague language such as “protection of action taken in good faith” by government, thus providing protection to government officials who may have acted negligently or improperly in accusing prosecuting or convicting a person (s) under the Bill.

I therefore urge the Government to reject this Bill.

The Prevention of Communal and Targeted Violence Bill as it is drafted is to target the Hindu community, and hence a blow to India’s democracy, which is secular because the Hindus of the country want it so. This Bill therefore might ignite a mass upheaval amongst Hindus that would jeopardize secularism and usher in a theocratic Hindu state. The Bill thus is a cure worse than the disease it claims to cure.

Yours sincerely,
( SUBRAMANIAN SWAMY )

National Advisory Council's (NAC) Bill will kill harmony

By A Surya Prakash, Daily Pioneer

The proposed Communal Violence Bill, which paints Hindus as criminals and minorities as their victims, is downright dangerous.

Determined to promote its minority-appeasement agenda, the United Progressive Alliance regime is readying itself to introduce an obnoxious Bill that could disturb communal harmony, wreck the federal features of the Constitution and give the Union Government a fresh set of excuses to interfere in the governance of States.

The aim of this Bill — called the Prevention of Communal and Targetted Violence (Access to Justice and Reparations) Bill — is ostensibly to curb communal violence and hatred, but it rests on the flawed premise that in all situations the religious majority perpetrates violence and members of the religious minority are the victims. Therefore, ab initio it treats the Hindus, who constitute the majority in 28 of the 35 States and Union Territories, as the offenders and Muslims, Christians and other religious minorities as the victims of communal hatred and violence. The draft of this abominable law has come from the National Advisory Council, which has among its members some pseudo-secularists, Hindu-bashers and Nehru-Gandhi camp followers, all of whom have been hand-picked by its chairperson, Ms Sonia Gandhi.

The Bill describes “Communal and Targetted Violence” in Section 3 ( c ) as “any act or series of acts … knowingly directed against any person by virtue of his or her membership of any group”. The biggest mischief is in the definition of the word “group” that occurs in Section 3(e). It says a “group” means “a religious or linguistic minority, in any State in the Union of India, or Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes…”. This means that Hindus, who today constitute the majority in most States and Union Territories, will not constitute a “group” under this law and, therefore, will not be able to invoke its provisions, even if they are victims of Muslim or Christian communalism, hatred or violence.

In other words, if this law had been in force in 2002, the relatives of the 59 Hindus who were burnt to death by a Muslim mob at Godhra Station in Gujarat would not have had the right to lodge an FIR under this law because Hindus constitute a majority in that State, but the Muslims would have used its provisions to prosecute the perpetrators of the post-Godhra violence. If enacted, this Bill will amount to treating Hindu victims of communal violence as second class citizens and would approximate to the kind of anti-Hindu laws that prevail in the Islamic Republic of Pakistan.

The Bill describes a “victim” as a member of a religious minority who has suffered “physical, mental, psychological or monetary harm or harm to his or her property as a result of the commission of any offence under this Act, and includes his or her relatives, legal guardian and legal heirs, wherever appropriate”. Going by this description, a Muslim or Christian in most parts of India who is aggrieved with a Hindu neighbour over some issue can turn around and accuse him or her of causing “psychological harm”. Further, if the “victim” is not inclined to deploy this mischievous provision, the Bill allows his or her relatives to do so.

Hindu-bashing appears to be the primary aim of this exercise. The Bill says once enacted the law will extend to the whole of India. However, when it comes to the only Muslim-majority State in the Indian Union — Jammu & Kashmir — it says that “the Central Government may, with the consent of the State of Jammu & Kashmir, extend the Act to that State”. One must see what other caveats will be put in place in respect of the only Muslim-majority Union Territory — Lakshadweep — where Hindus constitute just 3.7 per cent of the population.

However, though Hindus will bear the brunt of this Bill’s obnoxious provisions, Muslims, Christians and Sikhs could also find themselves in trouble because the State is the unit to determine the issue of majority-minority. As per the religion data in the 2001 Census, Sikhs constitute 59.9 per cent of the population in Punjab, whereas the Hindu population in that State is 36.9 per cent. If this law comes into force, the Sikhs (constituting the majority) will face the music if Hindus begin accusing them of promoting communal hatred and anti-secular policies. Similarly, Christians, who have an overwhelming majority in three States — Nagaland ( 90 per cent ), Mizoram ( 87 per cent) and Meghalaya (70.3 per cent ) — will find themselves in deep trouble if the Hindu minority in these States begins to leverage this law and lodge complaints against the religious majority.

Therefore, citizens who are Muslims, Christians or Sikhs should not be taken in by the claims of the Congress that this Bill will strengthen secularism. Because this law does not treat all perpetrators of communal violence and hatred equally, these citizens will face the heat in all States where they are in a majority. Also, the demographic reality in some States will place the Hindus at a disadvantage. For example, there are States like Manipur (46 per cent Hindu) and Arunachal Pradesh (34.6 per cent Hindu) where no religious group has a clear majority. So, who is the “culprit” and who is the “victim” in these States?

Further, if you exclude the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes from the Hindu population, what will be the percentage of Hindus in these States? Kerala, with 56.2 per cent Hindus, is also a case in point. If you exclude Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (22 per cent approximately), what is the percentage of the Hindu “majority” in that State? Can this so-called “majority” be seen as the oppressor of the Muslim “minority” (24.7 per cent) or the Christian “minority” (19 per cent)? The Bill also tends to intimidate the bureaucracy and the police in the States. These provisions, which are repugnant to the federal features of our Constitution, will have to be discussed separately.

Finally, far from being a “Prevention of Communal and Targetted Violence Bill”, this is a “communal” and “targetted” Bill because it empowers only religious minorities and targets not all communalists but only the religious majority. Should Ms Gandhi and her cohorts have their way, the country’s unity and integrity will be in peril. Instead of promoting communal harmony, this law will promote communal strife. Such a Bill could only have come out of the Devil’s workshop! It could not have been drafted by persons who care for India’s unity and integrity. Where has the original draft come from? We must investigate.

Centre as the Big Brother

By A Surya Prakash, Daily Pioneer

The proposed Communal Violence Bill aims to slip in provisions that will restore the dadagiri of the Union Government over the States.

Apart from generating communal strife and pitting religious minority communities against the majority community in every State and Union Territory, the proposed Prevention of Communal and Targetted Violence (Access to Justice and Reparations) Bill, prepared by the National Advisory Council, incorporates some extremely dangerous provisions which seek to re-impose the ‘dadagiri’ of the Centre on the States and even promote insubordination in the administration in the States. There is also an attempt to introduce some mischievous provisions to classify crimes on communal lines.

In the earlier article on this proposed Bill, this writer had referred to provisions that ab initio treat members of religious minority communities as ‘victims’ and members of the religious majority community as ‘culprits’ in every instance of communal violence. The other insidious aspect of the proposed law is the attempt to use communal violence as a pretext to usurp the States’ right to maintain law and order and to signal to bureaucrats and policemen that Big Brother in New Delhi is watching them.

It is obviously a cunning attempt to re-acquire the unbridled powers which the Union Government had exercised under Article 356 of the Constitution before the Supreme Court’s verdict in the Bommai case. Prior to the Bommai case, the Union Government imposed Article 356 with reckless abandon. The Congress, which was ill at ease with the growth of regional parties, used this provision regularly to sack duly elected State Governments and to impose President’s rule on the States.

For example from 1950, when the Constitution came into being, to 1994, when the Supreme Court pronounced its judgement in the Bommai case, Article 356 was used by the Union Government on 102 occasions. On 77 of these occasions the Congress was in power at the Centre and just one Prime Minister — Mrs Indira Gandhi — used this provision 50 times. The Supreme Court stopped such misuse of Article 356 through its judgement in the Bommai case.

The court declared that henceforth the proclamation issued under Article 356 would be judicially reviewable and the court would examine whether the proclamation was issued for mala fide reasons. It said the court would retain the power to reverse the actions taken by the President if they were found to be mala fide. This judgement virtually put an end to the misuse of Article 356. The Communal Violence Bill now offers scope for mischief via a backdoor entry of Article 356 as it stood prior to the Bommai case in the guise of ensuring minority rights.

Initially the proponents of the Bill wanted organised communal violence in a state to be classified as “internal disturbance”. Article 355 imposes a duty on the Union Government “to protect every State against external aggression and internal disturbance”. Therefore, this was a clever move to snatch away the basic constitutional right of every State to manage law and order and to impose Central rule.

However, following public protests, the NAC has recently announced that this provision has been deleted from the draft Bill. But the threat to the independence of State Governments is not over because of certain other provisions in the Bill, like Sections 9, 13, 14 and 16 pertaining to the bureaucracy and the police in the States and Section 15 which directly targets office-bearers of political parties. Section 13 pertains to dereliction of duty and is so worded that every public servant working in the district or State administration (with some responsibility in regard to maintenance of law and order) can be hauled up in the event of a communal flare-up.

Officials can also be accused of helping or harbouring culprits belonging to the majority community. Section 14 deals with public servants for breach of command responsibility, meaning their failure to control the men in their command. In other words, police officers can be prosecuted if men under their control commit an offence or are accused of committing an offence against a religious minority community. The law proceeds on the assumption that the officer ought to have known that persons under his command would commit an offence.

But the worst provision is Section 16, which is directly aimed at promoting insubordination in the police and para-military forces deployed in a troubled State. It says, “Where an offence has been committed under this Act, the fact that it was committed by a person pursuant to an order of a superior shall not relieve that person of criminal responsibility...”. In other words, it encourages every policeman to question or challenge his superior right up the line of command and, if he so believes, to disobey his superior. Every policeman will need to worry about how the Union Government (and not the State Government) will view his actions. It is difficult to find a more irresponsible provision in any law.

The law proposes for the establishment of a National Authority for Communal Harmony, justice and reparation and similar authorities in the States. It empowers the national authority to enter any building and seize any documents, which means it has the authority to intrude into State Government offices and even the chambers of Chief Ministers. Several other provisions also hit at the root of federalism and weaken the States.

Equally disgusting is the communal colour that this Bill gives to every major offence. Though the Indian Penal Code deals with all such crimes, the proposed law draws a distinction between rape of a ‘minority’ woman and a ‘majority’ woman and assault of a ‘minority’ person and a ‘majority” person. The victim acquires an exalted status if he or she belongs to a ‘minority” community. Nowhere in the democratic world does one get to see such communalidation of crimes.

Finally, politicians belonging to parties which are not part of the political dispensation at the Centre had better watch out. Section 15, which talks of offences committed by “other superiors”, says, “Whoever, being any non-state actor or superior or office-bearer of any association…”. The implication of this is that office-bearers of political parties and associations and organisations affiliated to political parties in power in the States can be hauled up under this law. This is obviously a provision to enable the Union Government to haul up political opponents and their affiliates in the States.

The net result is that this Bill will destroy communal harmony, weaken the federal structure and encourage authoritarian trends at the Centre. The Communal Violence Bill must be rejected lock, stock and barrel.

Communal Violence Bill dangerous, against majority: BJP

Terming the proposed Communal Violence Bill as "dangerous", the BJP on Saturday opposed the legislation at the National Integration Council meeting here, saying it presumes that the majority community is always responsible for such riots.

"We feel that the Communal Violence Bill is a dangerous Bill as it harms the federal structure of the Constitution. It allows the Centre to hold all the powers. Moreover, it does not consider anybody a citizen and treats a person only as one belonging to either a majority or a minority," leader of opposition in the Lok Sabha Sushma Swaraj told reporters.

Her Rajya Sabha counterpart Arun Jaitley and chief ministers of three BJP-ruled states -- Ramesh Pokhriyal Nishank (Uttarakhand), Sadanand Gowda (Karnataka) and Raman Singh (Chhattisgarh) -- echoed these sentiments at the NIC meeting.

The BJP made it clear that the Bill in its present form, which has been drafted by UPA Chairperson Sonia Gandhi-led National Advisory Council, should not come to Parliament.

"You will write off a person as a criminal, just because he or she is born in a majority community and you will presume that a person would be a victim only because you are born in a minority community. This bill is very dangerous," Swaraj said.

The main opposition insisted that if passed, this legislation will encourage communal tension instead of reducing it, as it seeks to divide the country into majority and minority communities.

"The draft bill presumes that the majority community is unjust, and the minority community is the victim. But in our country, various sections of community are in a minority in one state and a majority in another state. The provisions of the Bill will go against the majority community in various states," Swaraj said.

Swaraj said that a person should be judged by his character and style of working, and not by the religion in which he or she is born.

She insisted that it is wrong for the proposed Act to presume that those belonging to the majority community are always guilty of starting communal violence.

"It is also wrong to assume that a person born in a particular community would belong to the majority everywhere in the country. Some communities are a majority in one region and a minority in another," the BJP leader said.

Citing examples, she said Christians may be a minority in north India but are a majority in some north-east states. Similarly, the Muslims would be a majority in some pockets and a minority in others.

The BJP also argued at the NIC meeting that a discussion on communal violence at this juncture was not at all relevant as there have been no instances of such acts in the recent past.

"There have been two major terror incidents in Mumbai and Delhi recently. The incidents of naxal attacks are also on the rise. Therefore, today's agenda is not relevant as there has been no incident of communal violence in the country in the recent past. A discussion on naxalism and terrorism would have been more productive," Swaraj said.

She also pointed out that holding a meeting of the NIC once in three years make the body virtually redundant and this should be an annual affair. The last NIC meeting was held in 2008.

Prevention of Communal and Targeted Violence Bill
By Dr Mrs Hilda Raja, Vadodara

I belong to a minority community and the reading of the so called Prevention of communal and targeted violence bill was shocking to say the least. I have touched only on one aspect-namely the ‘Group’ and ‘the others’ The proposed Prevention of Communal and Targeted Violence Bill 2011 seems to be drafted by Nazi mentality persons who are hell bend on communalizing the nation and ultimately destroying this country. It is just not senseless but drafted with malice intention and purport. The very terminology is misleading because this is no Prevention of communalism but arousing and abetting communalism. Again why the term ‘Targeted Violence’? It should have been simply violence. It starts thus with assumptions and presumptions that violence is targeted which means violence is directed against specific targets (read here Muslims) this assumes that the perpetrators are non Muslims. It is flawed right from the caption and the minds that sat down to scribble-not draft this Bill had preconceived notions and a hidden agenda which found its expression in the so called bill.

First I would like to question the authority of the NAC to draft such a bill. Why an extra constitutional body should be engaged in this task. Do we not have ministers-the cabinet and government advisors to the Prime Minister-Group of empowered ministers to take up the task. All these are paid by the common people’s tax money and apart from these a super body with handpicked anti-Modi, anti Hindu persons to form the NAC with an Italian heading it to abet the disintegration of this nation. This cannot go and it will be relevant if Baba Ramdev and Anna team joins together to throw this bill into the dustbin of history. This is their obligatory duty because corruption is one but the survival of the country as a nation comes first. This so called bill cannot go even if redrafted because from A to Z it is flawed. It is seditious and treason.

A blatant and arbitrary division of the Indian people into ‘group’ and ‘others’ is made by the drafters of the Bill, which reveals the mal-intent. It goes beyond mere appeasement of the Muslims but aims at disintegration of the country. The drafters have given the Muslims and the religious Minorities a free run of violence including rape which is a crime but they have the license to commit these and go scot free. The same criminality and violence committed by a Hindu calls for stringent punishment but if committed by the Muslims escape the law (this is worse than the jungle law).This because the Muslims and the Minorities are the ‘group’ and the Hindus are ‘the others’ ungrouped. The people thus are grouped into two-the victims-which is ‘the group’ and the perpetrators which are ‘the others.’ No country in the world except the Nazis had this mind set when it came to the Jews. No civilized country would accept such blatant miscarriage of law and justice. The Congress had right from the beginning been sowing divisive politics in the country- on the basis of region, religion, caste and language. Now it is emboldened to reveal its devilry. Just two camps of people in the country-the victims and the perpetrators. So even before the violence the NAC has envisaged violence and that is directed against the Muslims and Minorities. Indian history does not vouch to this assumption. The drafters of the Bill presume that riots and violence are perpetrated by ‘the others’ (read Hindus)This is not true and not the reality. ‘According to Ms Zenab Banu’s ‘Politics of communalism: a politico-historical analysis of communal riots in post independence India with special reference to the Gujarat and Rajasthan riots” (1989), there have been 74 communal riots between 1953 and 1977 of which 75 percent were instigated by Muslims’ Even today 98 percent of terrorism cross borderand /or Indian born is planned, instigated and perpetrated by Muslims.Only Islam has the Jihad and hence Jehadis. Yet PC could coolly make a reference to ‘saffron’ terror. This clearly indicates the mindset of the Congress.

The Communal Violence Bill is based on hate philosophy but even in this it is skewed. There have been riots in which Hindus were victims and Indian history stands testimony to the atrocities against Hindus, by the Muslim invaders-the destruction of temples and the desecration of Hindu gods and goddesses. In recent time the fate of the Kashmiri pundits will vouch for this. The Hindus have been massacred, their homes have been burned and they have been driven out of the Valley. Till date no justice has been done. Is this because they belong to the ‘others’?

Violence is violence and criminality is criminality it cannot change because of the victim and the perpetrator. These must to be snuffed out and the same penal code must address these crimes. The same laws must be applicable to the citizens of India. This is their Right. The proposed Bill violates the Constitution with immunity not only on Federalism but on Fundamental Rights. How can a Parliament even look at it and waste its time. I shudder to think that the NAC have people sitting in it with such a mindset. And are to pay for them by out tax money? To make this feasible the NAC is proposing to bring out two penal codes-one for the Hindus and the other for the religious minorities. It would be better then to say that the religious minorities do not come under any penal code-they can run amuck commit crimes and indulge in violence .They will not be apprehended. If a nation divides its people on the basis of two sets of penal code; next it will seek two flags for the country-one for the group and the other for the Hindus. So a nation quietly and ingeniously divided into two. Do we need geographical partition? And in this divide which flag will the NAC hold? What about the national anthem? Which flag will be unfurled on the Independence Day? It is simply beyond my comprehension that the NAC could draft such an atrocious bill aimed at dividing the nation and get away with it. They must be charged for treason.

Let us hypothetically envisage that this Prevention of Communal and Targeted Violence Bill is passed and becomes a Bill. Then posthumously Rajiv Gandhi must be tried and sentenced. The Congress leaders-Jagdish Tytler ,Sajjan Kumar must be put on trial-the Congress government which was in power at the Centre with all those officers then in service must be tried and punished because they failed to prevent the butchering of the Sikhs, the arson and the rapes The Congress party must be banned. The history of this country does not start with the NAC and end with NAC. One should have a sense of history and thus the same Bill drafted by the NAC will be first directed against the Congress party headed by Mrs Sonia Gandhi. It will end the NAC and will throw the Congress party out of the relevance of Indian history. What you sow you reap.

Dr Mrs Hilda Raja
Vadodara

Source: http://hildaraja.wordpress.com/2011/10/09/prevention-of-communal-and-targeted-violence-bill/

Communal Violence Bill Only to Appease Minorities: Himachal Pradesh Govt

The BJP government in Himachal Pradesh today opposed the proposed bill against communal violence alleging it was an attempt to appease the minorities.

Speaking at the National Integration Council meeting in here, Himachal chief minister Prem Kumar Dhumal termed "Prevention of Communal and Targeted Violence (Access to Justice and Reparations) Bill, 2011", as an "interference" in the domain of states, which is against the federal structure of the country.

He said the present laws should be effectively implemented to deal with communal violence.

Dhumal also asked the Centre to extend the industrial package for Himachal upto the year 2020 and said the industrial incentive package was sanctioned for 10 years in the year 2003 but it was curtailed by the present UPA government, thus "badly hitting" the industrial development of the state.

Dhumal sought enhanced assistance from the Centre under border area development scheme for accelerating the developmental programmes in areas near the 201-km-long international border with Tibet and China.

He said the budget of Rs 2,000 lakh has been allocated by the Centre for these areas for 2011-12 and pleaded for more budgetary support keeping in view the tough geographical and topographical locations as all these areas were in the tribal snow-bound areas where construction cost is much higher in comparison to plains.

He also sought sanction for two additional police battalions for maintaining peace in border areas.

Dhumal urged the Centre to fully reimburse the cost of providing security to Tibetan spiritual leader Dalai Lama and the 17th Karmapa Ogyen Trinley Dorje. He said, at present, around 33,500 Tibetan refugees are living in the state.

Dhumal asked the Centre to provide special package of Rs 5,214 crore for 2011-12 for the state as compensation due to under-assessment of Himachal's committed liabilities by the 13th Finance Commission, which resulted in lesser devolution of funds.

He also sought special plan assistance of Rs 2,500 crore for the state's annual plan for 2012-13, saying the Finance Commission had scaled down the projected liabilities of the state by projecting average growth of around 2 per cent in pay for the year 2010-15, even as the actual expenditure growth is estimated around 10 per cent and salary bill has escalated to Rs 2,000 crore annually.

An increase in the borrowing ceiling from the present Rs 1,647 crore to Rs 2,034 crore on realistic assessments was also sought.

He also urged the Centre to adopt uniform funding pattern for all special category states and sought 90 per cent central funding for all centrally-sponsored schemes in the state.

He called for early construction of Pathankot-Leh railway line of strategic importance and said it will promote tourism and generate economic activities in the state.

Videos of Shameless or Corrupt Chief Ministers, MPs & MLAs

2011-10-23T07:05:00.007-08:00

CONgress MP Prakash Jaiswal: Become a Terrorist get paid by Government

CONgress MP & heir Raul Vinci aka Rahul Gandhi: Disgusting general knowledge

CONgress MP Atma Singh Gill, Sirsa: Found drunk with two women in a govt guest-house room

Maharashtra CM Vilasrao Deshmukh: २६/११ Islamic terror tourism with Ram Gopal Verma and Ritesh Deshmukh

NCP MP Udayanraje Bhosale, Satara: In Drunken state blasts his own corrupt party & Sharad Pawar in a press briefing

Indian-Americans protest against Sonia Gandhi & in support of Dr. Subramanian Swamy

2011-10-16T10:06:00.005-08:00

Indian-American community protests against Antonia Maino aka Sonia Gandhi and in support of Dr. Subramanian Swamy outside Indian Embassy in New York city.

==

Dear Colleagues:

MEMORANDUM SUBMITTED TO CONSULATE GENERAL OF INDIA IN NEW YORK RE: HARASSMENT OF DR. SUBRAMANIAN SWAMY

Enclosed herewith please find a copy of the Memorandum which was submitted today to the Consulate General of India in New York, expressing our legitimate revulsion against the unwarranted harassment of Dr. Subramanian Swamy by governmental agencies.

Dear Friends you will be happy to note that a lot of supporters of Dr. Swamy are flying from Chicago and driving more than 250 miles from neighboring states to participate in this Protest on Sunday, October 16th from 11:00 to 01:00 pm at 64th Street and 5th Ave.

Please join us in a big number with your friends.

Respectfully yours,

Narain Kataria

(718) 478-5735/(718) 271-0453.

_________________________

INDIAN AMERICAN INTELLECTUALS FORUM

Tel: (718) 478-5735/ (718) 271-0453

Katarian@aol.com

MEMORANDUM TO CONSULATE GENERAL OF INDIA October 13, 2011

Consulate General of India

3 East 64th Street

New York, New York 10065

PROTEST AGAINST UNWARRANTED HARASSMENT OF

DR. SUBRAMANIAN SWAMY, PRESIDENT, JANATA PARTY

Hon. Prabhu Dayal ji: Saadar Namaskar:

We, the undersigned, hereby submit this Memorandum to you to express our disgust and abhorrence against the unwarranted harassment of Dr. Subramanian Swamy, President, Janata Party and a prominent Indian leader who has emerged as the embodiment of resistance against totalitarian and corrupt system.

India is neither a Banana Republic nor a fiefdom of any Dynasty. It is a full-fledged and vibrant democracy in which freedom of diverse views is constitutionally guaranteed to all the citizens.

Dr. Swamy is being hounded by the Governmental agencies for writing an article three months ago in an Indian newspaper in which he had expressed his opinion as to how to solve the problem of Islamic terror in India. In that article he had also appealed to all the Hindus to unite against the challenge of Islamic terrorism. There were no communal disturbances due to that article.

Calling Dr. Swamy “anti-Muslim” is a lie perpetrated by corrupt and anti-nationalists.

It is a matter of great regret and shame that truthful, bold and honest Indian leaders like Dr. Subramanian Swamy are being threatened by Congress volunteers and Jihadists.

It is alleged that under pressure from Home Minister Shri Chidambaram, a frivolous FIR has been registered against Dr. Swamy in New Delhi.

In addition to that India Govt. refuses to act on his request for housing in a safer environment in New Delhi to protect himself and his family from ruffians. Here are some examples of attacks:

Aug 8, 2011: Dr. Swamy’s house in New Delhi was attacked by Congress workers
Feb 21, 2009: Dr. Swamy was physically assaulted in Tamilnadu by lawyers, right in front of High Court Judge.
Oct 25, 2008: Dr. Swamy’s party office was ransacked in Madurai.

The intent behind all the above insidious activities is to muzzle Dr. Swamy’s voice, slander him in the eyes of public and ultimately put him in jail.

We are afraid that once Dr. Swamy is put in the jail, sinister attempt would be hatched to immobilize him physically as well as mentally for ever.

Hence, we request you to please convey our feelings to the Government of India.

We would also like to bring to your attention that our protest should not be construed as an anti-India activity. India is the country of our origin. We assure you that we will never do anything that would bring disrepute or indignity to our Motherland. However, we are compelled by the circumstances to resort to this type of action.

Respectfully yours,

sd/-

Narain Kataria

President/Organizer

Sd/-

Arish Sahani

Vice President/Organizer

Out of the box - Dr. Subramanian Swamy - Organiser Weekly

2011-10-09T09:03:00.004-08:00

Out of the box - By Dr. Subramanian Swamy
Organiser Weekly, December 21, 2008

The India of today would not have been in existence had the attempts to divide Hindus succeeded.

In the 20th century, a sinister attempt to divide the Hindu community on caste basis was made in 1932 when the British imperialists offered the scheduled castes a separate electorate.

What does the despicable terror and mayhem in Mumbai on November 26 signify for India? Shorn of the human tragedy, wanton destruction, and obnoxious audacity of the terrorists, it signifies a challenge to the identity of India from radical Islam.

Cinema actor Shahrukh Khan may wax eloquent about the "true Islam" on TV, but it is clear that he and other such Muslims have not read any authoritative translations of the Koran, Sira and Hadith which three together constitute Islam as a theology, and which is a complete menu of intolerance of peoples of other faiths derisively labeled as kafirs. Hence, instead of talking about the "correct interpretation" of Islam they ought instead be urging for a new Islamic theology consistent with democratic principles.

In 2003, two years after the 9/11 murderous and perfidious Islamic assault on USA, resulting in killing of more than 3000 persons within two hours, and which was perpetrated by leveraging the democratic freedoms in USA, the Saudi Arabian Embassy in the website of its Islamic Affairs Department [www.iad.org] laid down what a "good" Muslim is expected to do.

Dr. Steven Stalinsky of the Middle East Media Research Institute[MEMRI] based in Washington DC accessed it and published it in issue No.23, of the Institute newsletter, dated November 26[what irony!] 2003. I have to thank a NRI in US, Dr. Muthuswamy for this reference. In that site it is stated:

"The Muslims are required to raise the banner of Jihad in order to make the Word of Allah supreme in this world, to remove all forms of injustice and oppression, and to defend the Muslims. If Muslims do not take up the sword, the evil tyrants of this earth will be able to continue oppressing the weak and helpless"

Now who is more authoritative—Sharukh Khan or Saudi Arabia ? Obviously the latter. The above quote is what in substance is being taught in every madrassa in India, and can be traced back to the sayings of Prophet Mohammed.

I can quote a plethora of verses from a Saudi Arabian translated Koran [e.g., verses 8:12, 8:60, and 33:26] which verses justify brutal violence against non-believers. If I delved into Sira and Hadith for more quotes, then I could risk generating much hatred, so it will suffice to say that Islam is not only a theology, but it spans a brutal political ideology which we have to combat sooner or later in realm of ideas.

Some may quote back at me verses from Manusmriti about brutality to women and scheduled castes. But as a Hindu I have the liberty to disown these verses [since it is a Smriti] and even to seek to re-write a new Smriti as many, for example, Yajnavalkya have done to date. Reform and renaissance is thus inbuilt into Hinduism.

But in Islam, the word of the Prophet is final. Sharukh Khan and other gloss artists cannot disown these verses, or say that they would re-write the offensive verses of the Koran. If they do, then they would have to run for their lives as Rushdie and Taslima have had to do.

Leave alone re-writing, if anyone draws a cartoon of Prophet Mohammed, there will follow world-wide violent rioting. But if Hussein draws Durga in the most pornographic posture, the Hindus will only groan but not violently rampage.

We Hindus have a long recognised tradition of being religious liberals by nature. We have already proved it enough by welcoming to our country and nurturing Parsis, Jews, Syrian Christians, and Moplah Muslim Arabs who were persecuted elsewhere, when we were 100 per cent Hindu country.

Moreover, despite a 1000 years of most savage brutalisation of Hindus by Islamic invaders and self-demeaning brain washing by the Christians, even then, Hindus as a majority have adopted secularism as a creed. We have not asked for an apology and compensation for these atrocities.

But the position of Hindus in this land of Bharatmata, where Muslims and Christians locally are in majority, in pockets—such as in Kashmir and Nagaland, or in small enclaves such as town panchayats of Tamil Nadu, is terrible and despicable. Even in Kerala where Hindus are 52 per cent of the population, they have only 25 per cent of all the prime jobs in the state, and are silently suffering their plight at the hands of 48 per cent who vote as a vote bank.

The 26/11 Mumbai slaughter therefore should teach us Hindus that the time has come to wake up and stand up—it is now or never. If we do not stand up now to Islamic terrorism, then India will end up like Beirut, a permanent battlefield of international terrorists, buccaneers, pirates and missionaries.

What does it mean in the 21st century for Hindus to stand up ? I mean by that a mental clarity of the Hindus to defend themselves by effective deterrent retaliation, and also an intelligent co-option of other religious groups into the Hindu cultural continuum.

Mental clarity can only come if we are clear about the identity of the nation. What is India? An ancient but continuing civilisation or is it a geographical entity incorporated in 1947 by the Indian Independence Act of the British Parliament ?

What then does it mean to say "I am an Indian"? A mere passport holder of the Republic of India or a descendent of the great seers and visionaries of more than 10,000 years ? Obviously our identity should be of a nation of an ancient and continuing Hindu civilisation, legatees of great rishis and munis, and a highly sophisticated sanatana philosophy.

If Hindu culture is our defining identity then how can we co-opt non-Hindus, especially Muslims and Christians ? By persuading them by saam, dhaam, bheda and dand that they acknowledge with pride the truth that their ancestors are Hindus. If they do, it means that they accept Hindu culture and enlightened mores. That is, change of religion does not mean change of culture. Then we should treat such Muslims and Christians as part of our Brihad Hindu family.

Noted author and editor M.J. Akbar calls this identity as of "Blood Brothers". It is an undeniable fact that Muslims and Christians in India are descendents of Hindus. In a recent article in the American Journal of Physical Anthropology, an analysis of genetic samples [DNA] show that Muslims in north India are overwhelmingly of the same DNA as Hindus proving that Muslims here are descendents of Hindus who had been converted to Islam, rather repositories of foreign DNA deposited by waves of invaders.

Akbar thus asks rhetorically: "When have the Muslims of India gone wrong?" and answers: "When they have forgotten their Indian roots". How apt !

Enlightened Muslims like Akbar therefore must rise to the occasion and challenge the reactionary religious fundamentalists. That is India is not Darul Harab to be trifled with.

In a conciliatory atmosphere the minorities would willingly accept this. It is also in their interest to accept this reality. Hindus must persuade by the time honoured methods Muslims and Christians to accept this and its logical consequences.

This identity was not understood by us earlier because of the distorted outlook of Jawaharlal Nehru who occupied the Prime Minister's chair for seventeen formative years after 1947 and for narrow political ends, had fanned a separatist outlook in Muslims and Christians.

The failure to date, to resolve this Nehru created crisis, has not only confused the majority but confounded the minorities as well in India. This confusion has deepened with winter migratory birds such as Amartya Sen descending on the campus of the India International Centre to preach inane taxonomies such as "multiple identities".

There has to be an over-riding identity called national identity, and hence we should not be derailed by pedestrian concepts of multiple or sub-identities.

"Without a resolution of the identity crisis today, which requires an explicit clear answer to this question of who we are, the majority will never understand how to relate to the legacy of the nation and in turn to the minorities.

Minorities would not understand how to adjust with the majority if this identity crisis is not resolved.

In other words, the present dysfunctional perceptional mismatch in understanding who we are as a people, is behind most of the communal tension and inter-community distrust in the country.

"In India, the majority is the conglomerate or Brihad Hindu community which represents about 81 per cent of the total Indian population, while minorities are constituted by Muslims [13 per cent] and Christians [3 per cent]. Sikhs, Jains, Parsis, and some other microscopic religious groups, represent the remaining three per cent.

Though also considered minorities, but really are so close to the majority community in culture that they are considered as a part of Hindu society. Unlike Islam and Christianity, these minority religions were founded as dissenting theologies of Hinduism. Even Zoroaster can be traced to leader of Vahikas in Mahabharata who migrated to Persia. Kaikeyi in Ramayana was from Persia when that country was hundred per cent Hindu. Thus these religions share the core concepts with Hindus such as re-incarnation, equality of all religions, and ability to meet God in this life.

That they feel increasingly alienated from Hindu society nowadays is also the consequence of India's identity crisis caused by British historians and their Indian tutees in JNU.

The India of today would not have been in existence had the attempts to divide Hindus succeeded.

In the 20th century, a sinister attempt to divide the Hindu community on caste basis was made in 1932 when the British imperialists offered the scheduled castes a separate electorate. But shrewdly understanding the conspiracy to divide India, Mahatma Gandhi by his fast unto death and Dr. Ambedkar by his visionary rejection of separate electorate, foiled the attempt by signing the Poona Pact.

But the possibility that such attempts at dividing India socially may be made again in the future, a possibility that cannot be ruled out. Indian patriots will have to watch such attempts very carefully.

Segmentation, fragmentation, and finally balkanisation have been part of the historical process in many countries to destroy national identity and thereby cause the political division of the nation itself. Yugoslavia is a recent example of this, which has now been divided into four countries, largely due to Islamic separatism and Serbian over-reaction.

Virat Hindutva can be achieved in the first stage by Hindu consolidation, that is achieved by Hindus holding that they are Hindus first and last, by disowning primacy to their caste and regional loyalties.

This would require a renaissance in thinking and outlook, that can be fostered only by patient advocacy and intellectual ferment.

For this we need a new History text, and a proper understanding of the distinction between the four varnas [not birth based but by codes of behavior for devolution of power in society] and jati [which is birth based and mostly for marriages].

Just as Valmiki and Vyasa are regarded as Maharshis despite being of different jati from Parasuram, hence Dr. Ambedkar should be called a Maharishi for his sheer depth of knowledge of Indian history.

That he had become bitter because of Nehru systematically sidelining him is no reason not to do so.

India thus needs a Hindu renaissance today that incorporates modern principles, e.g., of the irrelevance of birth antecedents, fostering gender equality, ensuring equality before law, and accountability for all. It is also essential to integrate the entire Indian society on those principles, irrespective of religion.

Uniform Civil Code for example, is something that the vast majority of Muslim women want, but because this demand has been usurped by those who deny the equality of nationality to the Muslims, hence comes the resistance to a eminently reasonable value.

The Muslims think that this is the first step in several to subjugate them or wipe out their identity. But Muslims have quietly accepted Uniform Criminal Code [the IPC] despite that it contradicts the Sharia.

In other words, Hindutva has two components—one that Hindus can accept [such as caste abolition, eradication of dowry etc.] without any other religion's interests to consider. The other is the embracing by minorities of the core secular Indian values which have Hindu roots.

This would require, particularly Muslims and Christians, to acknowledge that their ancestry is Hindu, and thus own the entire Hindu past as their own legacy, and to thus tailor their outlook on that basis. This would integrate Indian society and make the concept of an inclusive[Brihad] Hindutva and rooted in India's continuing civilisation.

Thus, if India has to decide to have or not have good relations with Israel, Pakistan, Iran or US, it cannot be on the basis how it will impact on India's Muslims and Christians, but on what India's national interests require. If India has to dispatch troops to Afghanistan, Iraq, Sri Lanka or Nepal to combat terrorism, that policy too has to be decided on what is good for India, and not what any religious or linguistic group identifies as it's interest.

Thus such an Hindutva is positive in outlook, while raw Hindu xenophobia is negative and based on Hindu hegemony which will frighten all. Such a Hindutva will resolve our current energy-sapping identity crisis, which otherwise will completely emasculate India in the long run.
The choice for the patriotic Indian is thus clear: We need a clear and positive view of our national identity based on our Hindu past and a Hindu renaissance to unite the Hindus with constructive mind-set as well as persuade the minorities to be co-opted culturally with Hindu society.

Once being Indian means Virat Brihad Hindutva, we can tackle terrorism by an effective strategy of defence. What are the components of that strategy is the subject matter of my next column here.

Money Programme: Bill Gates: How a Geek Changed the World

2011-10-06T23:14:00.004-08:00

BBC Money Programme: Bill Gates: How a Geek Changed the World

The Money Programme's Fiona Bruce gains exclusive access to Bill Gates as he prepares to step down from full-time involvement with Microsoft, the company he helped found. Gates's company has changed the world, but he's a controversial figure, with his ruthless business leadership contributing to Microsoft being sued by the US government. In a special one-hour edition of the Money Programme, Fiona Bruce presents the definitive profile of Bill Gates as he embarks on his latest challenge: giving away the billions he's amassed. She examines the fortunes of Microsoft as it faces up to competition from internet-based companies, and the programme asks an array of well-known friends, colleagues and rivals what the future holds for the company in a post-Gates world.

Here are the links to each video:

Part One: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XMCSR5GiJpk
Part Two: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HyyYvdswn9Y
Part Three: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MEw_0kI06VQ
Part Four: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jOLAkeuYaec
Part Five: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kNBeEAiuPnw
Part Six: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WFj0OAFvZ1A
Part Seven: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DX1T917rlKw

List of known Scams under CONgress, Sonia Gandhi, Rahul Gandhi, Manmohan Singh's corrupt govt

2011-10-02T21:46:00.005-08:00

List of known Scams under CONgress led United Progressive Alliance (UPA), Sonia Gandhi, Rahul Gandhi, Manmohan Singh's corrupt government, and others:

Nursery Rhyme our children will learn

A - Adarsh Scam

B - Bofors Scam

C - CWG Scam

D - Devas-Antrix Scam

E - Employment Guarantee Scheme (EGS) Scam

F - Fodder Scam

G - Ghaziabad Provident Fund scam

H - Harshad Mehta Stock Market Scam

I - IPL Scam

J - Junior Basic Trained teachers’ recruitment scam

K - Ketan Parekh Stock Market Scam

L - LIC Housing Scam

M - Madhu Koda mining scam

N - Non-Banking Financial Companies (NBFC) Scam

O - Oriental Bank Scam

P - Punjab State Council of Education Research and Training (SCERT) Scam

Q - Quest for Gold Scam

R - Ration Card Scam

S - Satyam Scam

T - Telecom 2G Scam

U - UTI Scam

V - Volkswagon Equity Scam

W - West Bengal Telecom Scam

X, Y, Z

Protest or be dead, because this corrupt govt will cheat money out of even pig's bread.

If you do not want your children to learn this rhyme, take this as a challenge and join the world's largest anti-corruption movement - Bharat Swabhiman Andolan.

http://www.facebook.com/swami.ramdev

http://www.facebook.com/bharatswabhimantrust

This is OUR money. Approximately रु ९१० lakh crores.

Source: https://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=10150639005035037

Shri Ramcharitmanas Ramayan recitation by Pujya Bhaishri Ramesh Bhai Oza ji during Navratri Anushthan

2011-10-02T11:43:00.007-08:00

Shri Ramcharitmanas Ramayan paath (recitation) by Pujya Bhaishri Ramesh Oza ji during Navratri Anushthan at Sandipani Vidyaniketan, Porbandar, Bharat

1st day of Navratri Anushthan 2011 (28 September, 2011)

2nd day of Navratri Anushthan 2011 (29 September, 2011)

3rd day of Navratri Anushthan 2011 (30 September, 2011)

4th day of Navratri Anushthan 2011 (1 October, 2011)

5th day of Navratri Anushthan 2011 (2 October, 2011)

Dr. Subramanian Swamy's letter to PM Manmohan Singh seeking to prosecute Sonia Gandhi

2011-10-02T10:35:00.006-08:00

Dr. Subramanian Swamy's letter to puppet regent Prime Minister Manmohan Singh seeking his permission to prosecute Antonia Maino aka Sonia Gandhi on corruption charges. Unsurprisingly, Mr. Singh rejected Dr. Swamy's plea.

Featured on page 123 is the letter that Dr. Swamy had sent to former President APJ Abdul Kalam which prevented Italian citizen Sonia Gandhi from becoming Prime Minister of Bharat.

Please SCROLL BELOW to read the whole letter on this page.

Subramanian Swamy letter to Manmohan Singh to prosecute Sonia Gandhi

Open Letter to Kapil Sibal: HRD Ministry diktat to throwout Devnagri numbers

2011-09-25T00:20:00.011-08:00

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

To,
Mr. Kapil Sibal
Hon. Minister for Human Resource Development
India

Dear Mr. Sibal,
Namaste| This is regarding your controversial decision to intentionally dismantle the use of Devnagri numerals and enforce English numerals in Indian schools and colleges, which has come as an utmost shock and caused grave distress to me and my family. I came to know about your ill-advised proposal through an article "Devanagari numbers thrown out by ministry" which has appeared in The Sunday Guardian. I have attached the PDF of the aforementioned article to this email.

Mr. Sibal, we are appalled by the actions of your Ministry which is rather than focusing on researching about our rich past and heritage, is instead busy in disinheriting whatever is left of our oldest civilization and its essence. Even other Ministries in this Government have similar attitude. On ९ August, २००८, then Finance Minister P Chidambaram asked college graduates to give importance to English over Hindi. Such misplaced priorities of our Government is of grave concern for us Indian people. In the blind pursuit of fictitious modernity, how can we as a nation afford to divest our tens of thousands of years old language and its attributes. As if global misappropriation of Roman Numerals as derivation of "Arabic Numeral" rather than "Devnagri Numerals" is not enough, that now MHRD wants to also deny the pride and knowledge of writing in Devnagri to our current and future generations. We, the Bharatvaasis, are proud of our Unity in Diversity including different languages. But we should never forget that if there is one common thread that ties most of the Indian languages, it is Devnagri Lipi and Sanskrit. Irrespective of what region, religion or caste we come from, Sanskrit is considered the mother of almost all languages. Sanskrit and Devnagri have been for over २०००० years the common sutradhaar that has brought Indian people together. Understandably, this does not deny the fact that all languages are still equally important.

Your injudicious action to "throw out" Devnagri numerals stands in complete contradiction to what our great Republic's Founding Fathers stood for when they wrote our constitution. I am attaching to this email as an exhibit the debate by the Constituent Assembly of India (Volume ९) on १४ September, १९४९ about the use of Hindi and, specifically, Devnagri numerals in the government and as medium of instruction in schools. Following are the excerpts from the "Directive Principles" adopted by the Assembly:

It shall be the duty of the Union to promote the spread of Hindi and to develop the language so as to serve as a medium of expression for all the elements of the composite culture of India and to secure its enrichment by assimilating the forms, style and expressions used in the other languages of India and drawing wherever necessary or desirable for its vocabulary primarily on Sanskrit.
It shall be the duty of the Union to promote the use, of the Devanagari script throughout the territory of India.
It shall also be the duty of the Union to promote the study of Sanskrit throughout the territory of 'India as it is the source of most of the other languages in India.'

The whole world from China to Italy, from Japan to Mexico takes pride in home grown indigenous languages. And each country gives primary importance to their own language, unfortunately except Bharat. When Israel was founded, the first thing they did was to start a University for promotion of Hebrew. Just look at २००८ Olympics in China. At the opening ceremony, the Chinese Premier spoke in Chinese, their countdown was in Chinese numeral characters, they displayed only Chinese culture during the first २ out of ३ hours ceremony, and even their public service messages including the motto "One world, One dream" were in Chinese. An interesting fact, which allot of us don't even know, is that unlike aboriginal languages and Devnagri Lipi from Indian Sub-Continent, Chinese and most East Asian languages in their traditional form don't even have indigenous linguistic numeral characters. This is precisely why East Asians have to use Roman numerals, for example on Korean language based TV shows, Airports, and Stock markets. Despite the fact that Chinese didn't inherit any autochthonous numerals, still they created their own numeral characters based on their scripts when they reformed traditional Chinese language. China has been aggressively promoting the use of their own numeral system as evident from its use during the Olympic countdown. This is how much they primarily love their language and thereafter use English as secondary tool to take over the world.

But unfortunately, your Ministry and Government of India is doing the opposite by desisting and discouraging the use of Devnagri numerals, instead of censoring the use of misnomers like Arabic numerals. Especially when there has been extensive research and subsequently countless BBC documentaries (http://www.open2.net/whattheancients/indians.html) which prove that Arabs never invented the number system, rather, infact, Persians learnt these from Bharatiya people, morphed them into Arabic script for themselves, and British misattributed them as Arabic numerals because British came in contact with Persians-Arabs first.

Please see for yourself,
Devnagri: ० १ २ ३ ४ ५ ६ ७ ८ ९
Roman: 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Arabic: ۰ ۱ ۲ ۳ ۴ ۵ ۶ ۷ ۸ ۹

I can bet you that even a second grader can tell you just by looking at aforementioned numerals as to what number system stands a higher chance of being evolved out of another. But unfortunately it is still incorrectly taught in NCERT books. Mr. Sibal, our objection today is not based on some triviality of one language versus the other. This is not about anti-English sentiment because we are all mature enough to realize that it is not a zero sum game i.e. pro-Devnagri is NOT equal to anti-English. It is only about giving the most ancient language and script (Devnagri Lipi) in the world its rightful place of honour in its country of origin. The argument that no one uses these numerals these days does not stand because when the Government itself is choosing not to follow what our Founding Fathers stood for and use these numerals in its day to day correspondence, and MHRD does not encourage students to use them, then why will the people use these indigenous numerals. As an Indian, it is so embarrassing to watch the so called Hindi News channels which don't even use Devnagri numerals and still have an audacity to call themselves "the best Hindi channel". The Government of India and MHRD have a constitutional duty to encourage and, if necessary, enforce people to use Devnagri numerals.

Sanskrit is deemed to be the language of future for futuristic computers by no less than NASA. Please read this eye-opening article http://www.vedicsciences.net/articles/sanskrit-nasa.html. Bharat is one of the oldest and richest civilizations in the world. It is home to the world's first planned cities, where every house had its own bathroom and toilet five thousand years ago. The Ancient Indians have not only given us yoga, meditation and complementary medicines, but they have furthered our knowledge of science, maths - and invented Chaturanga, which became the game of chess. According to Albert Einstein, they "taught us how to count", as they invented the numbers 1-9 and 'zero', without which there would be no computers or digital age. Unfairly we call this system of counting Arabic numbers - a misplaced credit. Two thousand years ago the Indians pioneered plastic surgery, reconstructing the noses and ears on the faces of people who had been disfigured through punishment or warfare. They performed eye operations such as cataract removal and invented inoculation to protect their population from Smallpox, saving thousands of lives.

Before I finish this letter, I would like to remind you that one cannot build strong proud future by discounting and dismantling ones rich heritage. Devnagri is the soul of India, please don't scorn on it. Shri Panini ji gave us this great language & its grammar, Maharishi Shri Ved Vyas ji, also known as Father of Ancient India, used it to give us our great scriptures, and our Republic's Founding Fathers reinforced our nation's faith in preservation and promotion of the use of Devnagri numerals. Its our humble request to you that please do not deny our future generations the benefits and knowledge of this ancient heritage, which may be old but is still as advanced as any other modern science known to mankind. Please continue with the use of Devnagri numerals in our Education system and revise that imprudent proposal of your Ministry.

Regards,
Seema

==

Exhibit A

HRD Minister Kapil Sibal dismantle Devngari Numerals Part 1

Exhibit B

Constituent Assembly Debate on 14 September, 1949

Exhibit C

HRD Minister Kapil Sibal dismantle Devngari Numerals Part 2

CONgress: A story of Suppression & Subjugation

2011-09-08T07:12:00.005-08:00

Indian National CONgress: A story of Suppression & Subjugation

हिंदी:

English:

Talibanic anti-Hindu circular from Muthoot Financial Group to its staff

2011-09-08T06:55:00.006-08:00

Talibanic anti-Hindu diktat from Muthoot Financial Group to its staff

Muthoot Financial Group is a notorious Blade Mafia from Kerala owned by Muthoot Papachan group. They are also one of the prime sponsors of Delhi Daredevils, the IPL team. They have their offices across main cities across the world and in India along with small towns in Kerala. High profile murder of Paul Muthoot had hit headlines couple of years.

A recent circular issued by Muthoot group have now courted controversy because of it's Talibanic nature of strict warnings in the name of dresscode, which has been posted in one of the Malayalam website. (http://www.scoopindia.com/showNews.php?news_id=18855)

Attached the circular which is of self explanatory. The circular bans Hindu lady staff from wearing bindhi and sindoor which is of religious significance and also prevents staff from having sandalwood paste or Rakshabandhan.

It is up to Hindus to decide whether they still want to run to their nearby Muthoot branch to submit their Gold valuables or to have any business with them who thinks such Hindu symbols are anathema to their business.

മുത്തൂറ്റ്‌ ഫിന്‍കോര്‍പ്പില്‍ താലിബാന്‍ മോഡല്‍ സര്‍ക്കുലര്‍

സംസ്ഥാനത്തെ പ്രമുഖ സ്വകാര്യ പണമിടപാടു സ്ഥാപനമായ മുത്തൂറ്റ്‌ ഫിന്‍കോര്‍പ്പ്‌ ലിമിറ്റഡില്‍ ജീവനക്കാര്‍ക്ക്‌ മാനേജ്‌മെന്റില്‍ നിന്നു താലിബാന്‍ മോഡല്‍ നിര്‍ദ്ദേശങ്ങള്‍. നെറ്റിയില്‍ കുറിയിടുന്നതുള്‍പ്പെടെയാണ്‌ വിലക്കിയിരിക്കുന്നത്‌. ഇതിനെതിരേ ജീവനക്കാര്‍ക്കിടയില്‍ അമര്‍ഷം പുകയുകയാണ്‌. എന്നാല്‍ നിര്‍ദേശങ്ങളില്‍ നിന്നു പിന്നോട്ടു പോകാന്‍ മാനേജ്‌മെന്റ്‌ തയ്യാറായിട്ടില്ല. ഇതാദ്യമായാണ്‌ കേരളത്തില്‍ ഏതെങ്കിലും സ്ഥാപനം ജീവനക്കാരുടെ വിശ്വാസവുമായി ബന്ധപ്പെട്ട ചിഹ്നങ്ങള്‍ക്കുമേല്‍ സ്വന്തം നിയന്ത്രണങ്ങള്‍ ഏര്‍പ്പെടുത്തുന്നത്‌. കഴിഞ്ഞ മാര്‍ച്ചിലാണ്‌ ഇതു സംബന്ധിച്ച ആദ്യ സര്‍ക്കുലര്‍ പുറപ്പെടുവിച്ചത്‌. പിന്നീട്‌ ഓര്‍മപ്പെടുത്തലുകളുമുണ്ടായി. മുത്തൂറ്റ്‌ പാപ്പച്ചന്‍ ഗ്രൂപ്പിന്റെ ഉടമസ്ഥതയിലുള്ള സ്ഥാപനമാണ്‌ ഫിന്‍കോര്‍പ്‌ ലിമിറ്റഡ്‌.
ജീവനക്കാരുടെ നെറ്റിയില്‍ കുറിയും പൊട്ടും പോലുള്ള യാതൊരു അടയാളങ്ങളും കാണാന്‍ പാടില്ലെന്ന്‌ എക്‌സിക്യുട്ടീവ്‌ സെക്രട്ടറി ഷൈനി തോമസ്‌ പേരുവച്ച്‌ പുറത്തിറക്കിയ സര്‍ക്കുലര്‍ നിര്‍ദ്ദേശിക്കുന്നു. പ്രധാനപ്പെട്ടത്‌ (ഇംപോര്‍ട്ടന്റ്‌) എന്നു പ്രത്യേകം രേഖപ്പെടുത്തിയ സര്‍ക്കുലര്‍ സ്ഥാപനത്തിലെ എല്ലാ വകുപ്പു മേധാവികളുടെയും കോര്‍പറേറ്റ്‌ ഓഫീസിലെ മറ്റുദ്യോഗസ്ഥരുടെയും ജീവനക്കാരുടെയും ശ്രദ്ധയിലേക്കാണ്‌ തയ്യാറാക്കിയിരിക്കുന്നത്‌. ഓഫിസിലെ വസ്‌ത്രധാരണ രീതി സംബന്ധിച്ച്‌ എന്നാണു സൂചനയെങ്കിലും അതിനപ്പുറമാണ്‌ ഉള്ളടക്കത്തിലെ നിര്‍ദേശങ്ങള്‍. വസ്‌ത്രങ്ങളുടെ നിറം, ധരിക്കുന്ന രീതി തുടങ്ങിയ കാര്യങ്ങളെക്കുറിച്ച്‌ സാധാരണഗതിയില്‍ എല്ലാ സ്വകാര്യ സ്ഥാപനങ്ങളും നല്‍കുന്ന നിര്‍ദേശങ്ങളിലെപ്പോലെയാണ്‌ സര്‍ക്കുലറിന്റെ പൊതു സ്വഭാവം. എന്നാല്‍ അതിനുള്ളിലാണ്‌ വ്യക്തമായും വിശ്വാസകാര്യങ്ങളില്‍ ഇടപെടുന്ന നിര്‍ദേശങ്ങള്‍ അടങ്ങിയിട്ടുള്ളത്‌.
വിവാഹമോതിരം, ഒരു മാല, വാച്ച്‌ എന്നിവയല്ലാതെ ഒന്നും ആഭരണങ്ങളായി ധരിക്കാന്‍ പാടില്ലെന്നാണു പുരുഷ-സ്‌ത്രീ ജീവനക്കാര്‍ക്കുള്ള നിര്‍ദ്ദേശം. രാഖി പോലുള്ള ചരടുകളും മറ്റും വിലക്കി എന്നാണ്‌ ജീവനക്കാര്‍ ചൂണ്ടിക്കാട്ടുന്നത്‌. അതിനുതൊട്ടു താഴെയാണ്‌ കുറിയിടുന്നതും വിലക്കിയിട്ടുള്ളത്‌. വനിതാ ജീവനക്കാര്‍ പൊട്ടുപോലുള്ള അടയാളങ്ങള്‍ ധരിക്കരുതെന്ന്‌ പ്രത്യേക വിലക്കുണ്ട്‌. അത്‌ ഓഫിസ്‌ സമയത്ത്‌ കര്‍ശനമായും നിരോധിച്ചിരിക്കുന്നു എന്നുതന്നെയാണ്‌ സര്‍ക്കുലറില്‍ പറയുന്നത്‌. ചില വിഭാഗങ്ങളിലെ വിവാഹിതരായ സ്‌ത്രീകള്‍ നെറ്റിക്കു മുകളിലായി സീമന്ത രേഖയില്‍ ധരിക്കുന്ന സിന്ദൂരം കൂടിയാണ്‌ ഈ നിര്‍ദേശം വഴി വിലക്കിയിരിക്കുന്നത്‌.
നിര്‍ദ്ദേശങ്ങള്‍ അടങ്ങിയ സര്‍ക്കുലറിന്റെ പൂര്‍ണ്ണരൂപം ചുവടെ;