Saturday, February 23, 2008

Sonia: The Villen

Chanakya, for strategic reasons arranged the marriage of Chandragupta Maurya with the daughter of Seleucus Nikator. But, it was laid down that no progeny from the marriage could inherit the throne of Magadh.
This book is result of research being carried out by me on the life of Shrimati Sonia Gandhi. Only those aspects of her life her being discussed in this book, which are unknown to an average citizen of our country.
The mystery around Sonia is unearthing slowly. When I was writing my previous book on Sonia Gandhi I was always reminding myself of the fact that I am writing book on one of the most powerful lady on earth. Therefore I was also of view that whatever I write should be unbiased.
It is necessary to remind our citizens as to what is the meaning of independence? Does independence means changing of national flag on 15th August 1947? It is my perception that citizen of free India are more slave comparison to Indians of British India? I have a question to ask from every citizen of our country. What one thing satisfies them most? We find every aspect of our public life is too corrupt. The honest can be defined as someone who is not in a position to get bribe. Literary personality means those who are doing flattery.
Beginning from last man of our society to Prime minister, none want to touch the real problems our country is facing today. For some one it is building of Ram Temple, which is most important problems, and for some others it is building Ambedkar square and Parks.
What we have actually achieved by independence? More than three hundred million people of our country do not have sufficient means to feed themselves. Providing basic needs like water, electricity and road to every citizen is not yet our priority. All most all government servants, criminals and politicians are looting our country. The Human Right Commission of our country is more worried about right of terrorist and criminals and committed to protect their Rights? Question they are deciding in priority are: - Why Veerappan is having close gun shot on his temporal region? The terrorist killed in encounter by Delhi Police near Ansal Plaza was a fake encounter or original?
The justice system of our country has become mockery. It has become highly impossible for a poor person to get justice. More than two hundred and Forty million cases are pending in these courts. There are serious cases like Ram Janma Bhumi Versus Babri Mosque pending before these courts date back to independence of our country. But none in the country can dare and ask these courts as to how much time they need to decide these cases. A lady like Zahira Shekh may lie hundred times before these courts but then also we find courts running behind her, court seems more keen on cases which can provide them cheap popularity and provide an excuse against deciding any substantial issues pending before them. Latest example is attack on Professor Gilani of Delhi University, who was charged for taking part in attack on Parliament. Now after his acquittal from court attack on him is getting highest priority in Indian Judicial System.
No system established by law is functioning in this country. Every person is bent upon to develop and establish a system, which suits to him most.
There we find the national anthem, one, which was first sung to welcome George Fifth when he visited to Calcutta Session of Indian National Congress. It is worth mentioning that George fifth was British King under whose occupation India was at that time. If we go to the word meaning of this song it comes out clearly that this was written by Ravindra Nath Tagore to welcome George Fifth. Father of nation is a person who preferred to have young girls to his sides while walking till his last breath. Father of Constitution is one who argued extensively to British to keep India under their control and not to give her independence. Where first prime minister was a person who being prime minister of biggest democracy of world walked down to see her love in England midnight when her husband was not at his home. Under these circumstances and background what else we can expect.
After my previous book was authored it was in dark for long time. Neither there was publisher, distributor nor there was purchaser. All were sleeping. All were sleeping in the non-ending sleep of independent India and they will carry on sleeping in future also.
I am sure that my previous book was not complete. Even this edition cannot be a complete book. There are various questions I don't have the answer. There is only one who can reply all the questions. But I don't think she will ever dare to reply, because the day she replies these questions, her political life will be over. But there are others who claim to be champion of virtue. Those who talk of clean politics. I want to know from them also why they have never raised serious questions about Sonia.
I can say 5th October of 2004 was a turning point for my book. It was reported that my previous book was on sale at Book Fair. The rowdies of Congress party burned the copy of books without reading it. They say that title of the book is highly objectionable. I challenge these rowdies to criticise the book on merits. Specifically point out what is wrong in the book? They should not forget under the command of an Italian lady that for we the people of India Bharat comes first then there is any other nation or political party.
I find one argument of the people of congress party reasonable that title of the book is offending. So I decided not to use the same title of the book in future. Any objection raised by any person, due consideration shall be given to there thought when ever next edition of my book is published. I also assure to reply personally to each persons query.
I especially request to all those who are concerned with politics of the nation, must read the book. In this book I am discussing the circumstantial evidence, which suggest that relatives of Sonia Gandhi may be involved in the assassination of Rajive Gandhi. I am also discussing the death of Indira Gandhi. I hope workers of congress party shall read the book calmly.
I must express my thanks to my colleague and friend Shri Bhojraj Madne, who inspired me to write this book and to my friend Shri Sunil Baghel, Shri Srinivas Murthy, Shri Gopal Krishna Gupta and Shri Rajje Khan from whom I have received valuable suggestions on numerous occasions. My grateful thanks are also due to my reverend guide Shri Praveen Pandey, Advocate High Court Jabalpur, for his kind guidance and blessings.
Balaghat Road, Dundaseoni,
Dist: Seoni M.P. 480661
Tele: 07692-223554
Mobile: 9425445772
Chapter Preface to the First Edition

1 Profile of Sonia given by Indian National Congress
2 What Congress Says About Sonia
3 Fact File of Sonia Gandhi
4 Introducing Sonia and her love affair
5 Death and Killing around Sonia
6 Sonia's Entry into Politics
7 Sonia's Political Blunder
8 Scandal Queen Sonia
9 Legal Questions of Citizenship
10 Sonia's Emotional Appeal
11 Role of Congress Party
12 Evangelization efforts in India
13 Sacrifice by Sonia Gandhi
14 Why I am against Congress and Sonia
15 Why NDA lost in 2004
16 Media and Sonia's affair

Name Sonia Gandhi
Husband's Name Late Shri Rajiv Gandhi
Date of Birth 9 December 1946
Date of Marriage 1968
No. of Sons One
No. of Daughter One
Profession Political and Social Worker
Educational Qualifications Diploma in English Language EU.K.)
Positions Held
March 1998 onwards President, Indian National Congress Chairperson, Congress (I) Parliamentary Party (CPP) 1999 Elected to 13th Lok Sabha Leader of Opposition, Lok Sabha 1999-2000 Member, General Purposes Committee. Presently Chairperson of United Progressive Allaince Coordination Committee.
Books Published
Authored (i) “Rajiv”; and (ii) “Rajiv’s World”; Edited, (i) “Freedom’s Daughter” and (ii) “Two Alone, Two Together” (two volumes of letters exchanged between Pt. Jawaharlal Nehru and Indira Gandhi from 1922 to 1964)
Special Interests
Indian handlooms and handicrafts; Indian contemporary classical and tribal art; special interest in oil paintings and their conservation.
Countries Visited
Widely travelled (11 countries); visited some of the countries as Prime Minister’s spouse, 1985-89
Other Information
Chairperson, (i) Rajiv Gandhi Foundation; (ii) Indira Gandhi Memorial Trust; (iii) Jawaharlal Nehru Memorial Fund; (iv) Nehru Trust for Cambridge University; (v) Kamala Nehru Memorial Society and Hospital; (vi) Nehru Memorial Museum and Library; (vii) Indian Council for Child Welfare Trust; (viii) Swaraj Bhawan Trust; Patron, Round Square (International Group of Schools), United Kingdom
Srimati Sonia Gandhi - mother of two children, a devoted housewife, patron of many national trusts, museums and child welfare associations and a keen student of Indian history and culture - entered public life after seven long years of public demand and persuasion by Congress workers after her husband's demise, She lost Rajiv Gandhi on the night of May 21, 1991 in a terrorist camouflage. She campaigned vigorously for Congress on the eve of 1998 Parliamentary elections and was elected Party President in April 1998.
Before entering politics Smt. Sonia had spend considerable part of her time in the work of the Rajiv Gandhi Foundation and Indira Gandhi Memorial Trust. It was during her association with the Foundation she devoted special attention to the welfare of women, children and disabled and application of Science and Technology for the cause of common man.
She is also a patron of the prestigious Round Square (International Group of Schools based on the principles of education of Dr. Kust Hahn) and Indian Member, International Advisory Group of the United Nations (set up to mark 50th Anniversary of UNO).
Yet another area of service of Smt. Sonia is working for the cause of the weaker sections, SCs and STs, minorities, poor and orphan children. She is the Chairperson of the Indian Council for Child Welfare; She also presides over the activities of Nehru Trust for Cambridge University.
As Congress President Smt. Sonia supervised the sincere efforts of the Congress Party to provide relief to the victims during the recent Gujarat Earthquake.
Smt. Sonia was elected to Loksabha in October 1999 from Amethi Parliamentary Constituency in Uttar Pradesh with a record majority of more than three hundred thousand votes. She is the leader of opposition in Loksabha since then.
· Sonia Gandhi is ethnically non-Indian as she is not a natural citizen of India but a naturalised citizen of this country.
· Sonia Gandhi has not studied beyond High School. She has falsely claimed in her affidavit filed as a contesting candidate before the Rae Bareli Returning Officer in the 2004 Lok Sabha elections, that she qualified and got a diploma in English from the prestigious University of Cambridge, UK.
· Ms Sonia Maino married Rajeev Gandhi on February 25, 1968.
· It is also a fact that at the time of 1971 war she went to Italy along with her brave husband Rajeev Gandhi was Pilot of Indian Airlines at that time.
· Sonia violated the provision of FERA for over a year (from January 1,1974 to January 21, 1975) when she was allotted shares in Maruti Technical Services PVT. LTD and was made its Managing Director.
· It is also a fact that after loss of congress in 1977 - Sonia along with her brave husband took asylum in the Italian Embassy.
· Sonia Gandhi has so far not come out with any detailed defence except for her emotion packed speech during a Youth Congress rally when she said, “ I married here, I became a mother here, became a widow here before your eyes and my mother-in–law breathed her last in my arms.”
· Under Section 5(C) of India's Citizenship Act, she became eligible to register herself as a citizen of India on February 25, 1973. But, she chose to continue as an Italian citizen. Mrs Sonia Gandhi applied for Indian citizenship on April 7, 1983. The application was found to be grossly incomplete - in that it did not have any statement by her affirming that she had renounced her Italian citizenship. Nor was there any official document to this effect. On April 27, 1983, the Ambassador for Italy obliged and sent a letter, saying, on her behalf, that she had renounced her Italian citizenship. Such a letter is not enough under India's laws. But since Mrs Indira Gandhi, Mrs Sonia Gandhi's mother in law, was the Prime Minister, no further inquiries were made and Mrs Sonia Gandhi was granted citizenship on April 30, 1983.
· Even though she was not a citizen of India, Mrs Sonia Gandhi's name was smuggled on to the electoral rolls effective January 1, 1980. In 1982, an objection was raised about her being smuggled on to the electoral rolls without being a citizen of India. The objection was found valid and her name was struck off the electoral rolls in the later part of 1982. But, once again, affairs were so managed that, even though Mrs Sonia Gandhi had not become a citizen of India till then, her name was once again smuggled back on to the electoral rolls effective January 1, 1983. As stated earlier, Mrs Sonia Gandhi had not even applied for citizenship till April 7, 1983, and she was granted citizenship only on April 30, 1983.
· It is also a fact that after few days of Rajeev's death Sonia captured the office of AICC unlawfully for Rajeev Gandhi Foundation.
· It is also a fact that without holding any eligibility she became Chairman of Jawaharlal Nehru Museum and Library an institute of research in Contemporary Indian History.
· It is also a fact that Sonia Gandhi criminally misappropriated the property of Indira Gandhi National Centre for Arts, which was property of Government of India with the help of Mr. Madhav Rao Scindia.
· Sonia Gandhi is alleged for using the Christian world to help implement evangelisation-2000 programmes in India. Ashok Singhal, President, Vishwa Hindu Parishad gave a new twist to the issue. He said, “Pope wants to rule India by proxy in the form of Sonia Gandhi. It was after Mrs. Gandhi’s entry into active politics that the country witnessed Hindu-Christian clashes. (Nagpur, June 12, 99)
· It is also a fact that during her tenure as President of Congress party, two states in India were provided with Christian Chief Minister.
· It is also a fact that mother-in-law of Priyanka is a Christian of Italy.
· It is also a fact that her father Stephano Maino was serving to the dictator of Italy Mussolini.
It has been a great tragedy that for last several centuries our people have been kept in dark about the true identity of our rulers. I am not speaking here of our common people who, in great measure, have been denied education and literacy, induced to lay down their lives in battles, almost like mercenaries, I am speaking here of our so called educated men who are more eager to advocate the right of lesbians, than about the antecedents of their own foreign-born rulers. The thing has deteriorated so much that the entire country happily romps around today, with a foreign born woman of unknown pedigree. 3
Did you notice that we are never told about the roots of Sonia, her background, her family, how many brothers and sisters she has, the name of her father, his profession, which town or village she comes from, in small little things that familiarize the people with the self-appointed ruler by virtue of an accidental wedding abroad? In India, we are not told the name of Rajiv's paternal grandfather or how did the universal uncle Jawahar Lal died or wherefrom did the adjunct 'Nehru' come from. Moti Lal's father's name was Ganga Dhar; why then Motilal was not named Motilal Dhar? And so on and so forth; we have a great deal of unknowns to discover and be familiar with. My work is not an original work it is compilation of facts spread across the world but not being discussed due to one reason or other. 3
It is story of most mysterious lady of 21st century; one who was on the edge to become prime minister, when research is conducted on her life she becomes more mysterious. What is the last truth about the lady? Neither this lady want to say herself nor it is possible for any normal person to unveil it. This whole book is only a sincere effort by me to produce information collected about her by immense efforts.
BIRTH OF SONIA: Ms. Sonia Gandhi's background as is publicized by her and her Congress Party today, is based on three lies to hide the ugly reality of her life. 1
REAL NAME OF SONIA GANDHI: Her real name is Antonia not Sonia. The Italian Ambassador in New Delhi revealed this in a letter dated April 27, 1983 to the Union Home Ministry which letter has not been made public. Antonia is Sonia's real name in her birth certificate. Sonia is the name given to her subsequently by her father, Stefano Maino [now deceased] following his return from Russia where he had been a prisoner of war. Stefano had joined the fascist army as a volunteer. Sonia is a Russian not Italian name. While spending two years in a Russian jail, Sonia's father had become quite pro-Soviet; especially after the liberating US army in Italy had confiscated all fascists' properties including his. 1
REAL PLACE OF BIRTH & FATHERS CONNECTION WITH FASCISTS: She was not born in Orbassano as she claims in her bio data submitted to Parliament on becoming MP, but in Luciana as stated in her birth certificate. She perhaps would like to hide the place of her birth because of her father's connection with the Nazis and Mussolini's Fascists, and her family's continuing connections with the Nazi-Fascists underground that is still surviving since 1945 in Italy. Luciana is where Nazi-Fascist network is headquartered, and is on the Italian-Swiss border. There can be no other explanation for this otherwise meaningless lie. 1
EDUCATIONAL QUALIFICATION OF SONIA GANDHI: Sonia Gandhi has not studied beyond High School. She has falsely claimed in her affidavit filed as a contesting candidate before the Rae Bareli Returning Officer in the 2004 Lok Sabha elections, that she qualified and got a diploma in English from the prestigious University of Cambridge, UK. 1
The truth is that Ms. Gandhi has never studied in any college anywhere. She did go to a Catholic nun run seminary-school called Maria Ausiliatrice in Giaveno [15 kms from adopted home town of Orbassabo]. Poverty those days forced young Italian girls to go to such missionaries and then in their teens go to UK to get jobs as cleaning maids, waitresses and au pair. The Mainos were poor those days. 1
Her father was a mason and mother a sharecropper. 1
Sonia thus went to the town of Cambridge and first learnt some English in a teaching shop called Lennox School [which has since 1970 been wound up]. That is all her "education" i.e. ---learnt enough English language to get domestic help jobs. 1 It is worth mentioning that Lennox School which has since 1970 been wound up has never been affiliated to Cambridge University as it has been claimed by Sonia Gandhi in her affidavit filed before returning officer of Raibarelli. But Sonia gave false information about her education because in Indian society education is highly valued. Thus, to fool the Indian public, Sonia Gandhi wilfully fibbed about her qualifications in Parliamentary records [which is a Breach of Ethics Rules] and in a sworn affidavit [which is criminal offence under IPC, severe enough to disqualify her from being MP]. In popular parlance, this is called 420 or 10 "numberi" [not to be confused with 10 Janpath]. 1
On June 1 2004, Mr Manoj Kaushik wrote to the Press Centre, University of Cambridge as mentioned below: -
To, The Press Centre,
University of Cambridge,
Dear Sir,
With due respect I wish to submit few lines for your kind perusal. I request you some Clarification regarding affiliation of a school with University of Cambridge. Recently a person declared in her affidavit that she did a Certificate course at; Lennox Cook School, University of Cambridge in 1967. Link to the affidavit .
Implying that Lennox Cook School is an affiliate of University of Cambridge.
Later on we learnt that the school is closed and there is some scepticism that the school is not affiliated to Cambridge University .In this regard we that you are the correct body to contact for clarification.
I earnestly request you to clarify us how 'Lennox Cook School' is associated with Cambridge University .
Regards Manoj Kaushik
On 28 September 2004 Mr. R. Vaidyanathan, Professor of Finance & Control of UTI Chair Professor and ICSSR National Fellow, wrote following letter: -
Laura Morgan,
Press and Publications Office,
University of Cambridge,
Dear Laura Morgan,
I am sure you are aware of the excitement and curiosity generated in India regarding the claim of Mrs. Sonia [Rajeev] Gandhi regarding her studies, at a language school-Lennox School-affiliated to your University. She swears in the affidavit [for getting elected as an MP] that she completed Certificate of English from Lennox Cook School-University of Cambridge in the year 1965. Other leaders have contested the fact that the language school was part of Cambridge University.
Either the said school was part of your University system [in terms of recognition] or it was not. I am sure you will agree with me that there cannot be a third option.
Under the circumstances it would be most appropriate for a prestigious university like yours, to issue a press statement / clarification in this matter. Normally, you may not want to issue press statements on many such claims and counter claims. But in this case, the matter pertains to an important and highly respected leader of India [a Commonwealth Country] and the affidavit and dispute are in the public domain.
I am a professor, for more than two decades at a prestigious business school n India. If your University does not take cognisance of this important and serious issue, and fail to bestow the attention it requires, then as an academician of more than twenty five year standing [including, as a visiting Professor at Manchester Business School and at other major US schools], I will be forced to conclude that your University is not particularly interested in truthful representation of credentials and perhaps encourages commonwealth leaders to follow-- suggestio veri suppresio falsi-principle.
I hope for the sake of academic integrity and truthfulness, your university will issue a press statement at the earliest. I am not a member of any political party in India and this letter of mine is essentially from an academician for the purpose of clarification in the light of the debate it has generated in our country. I am eager that tall leaders of my country are not tarred by insinuation by irresponsible politicians.
It is also part of a small effort on my part to clean our electoral system, which needs many changes.
I am giving below the copy of the affidavit filed by Mrs. Sonia { Rajeev] Gandhi before the returning officer for her Parliamentary election held in May 2004.
Thank you for your time and hope to get a response from your side.
Professor of Finance and control &
UTI Chair Professor and ICSSR National Fellow
On September 28, 2004 spokesperson of Cambridge University categorically sated that "The Lennox School was never affiliated to the Cambridge University".
Earlier talking to reporters separately, Dr. Swamy said he had filed a criminal complaint with the Rae Bareli District Magistrate, who is also the Returning Officer of the Lok Sabha constituency, against Ms. Sonia Gandhi for filing a "false affidavit" regarding her educational qualifications. He said an "action" committee comprising members of various political parties would organise meetings at major cities to "expose the true colours" of Ms. Gandhi. 5
Dr Swamy, who met the RO Rae Bareli, produced what he said was "documentary evidence" to prove that Sonia was never a student of the Cambridge University. He submitted two letters dated November 21 and 28 2001) from the Cambridge University student records and statistics authorities stating that no student with the name of either Sonia Maino or Gandhi was ever registered with the university.
Dr Swamy demanded that the RO should quash Sonia's election from Rae Bareli parliamentary constituency and initiate criminal proceedings against her under sections 177, 181 and 191 of the IPC for wilful false declaration on the affidavit she had filed before the RO in May 2004 that she had a degree from the University of Cambridge.
"The fact of the matter is that she has not even passed high school and is barely literate. Yet, she has lied to the electorate, committed a criminal offence and hence unfit to be an MP," he said at a press conference in Lucknow after his return from Rae Bareli. Earlier, Dr Swamy had filed two more cases against Sonia. Two PILs, accusing Sonia of receiving huge sums from KGB and her involvement into antique smuggling, are pending before the Delhi High Court. The Delhi HC has issued notices to CBI fixing November 17 as the next date for hearing.
The Janata Party president declared that he would file three more cases against Sonia in near future. "One would deal with corruption and amassing disproportionate assets. The other would be based on her suspected involvement in the conspiracy behind her husband late Rajiv Gandhi's assassination and the third for keeping the Italian citizenship even today," he announced, demanding cancellation of her Indian citizenship. 6
FATHER OF SONIA GANDHI: It was the most difficult thing for me to know who the father of Sonia Gandhi was. I came to know that his father Stephano Maino was a member of Benito Mussolini's Fascist party that joined hands with Adolph Hitler. According to an article published in the magazine Voice of Jammu Kashmir, Stephano Maino was among those who used to round up leftists and force feed them with bottles of castor oil; later, Maino rose in the ranks and was sent to the eastern front to fight the Russians. 3
WORKING AS WAITRESS IN RESTAURANT AND MEETING RAJIV GANDHI: After acquiring working knowledge of English, which was essential to acquire job of waitress, Ms. Sonia Gandhi got job of waitress in the Varsity restaurant. The young Miss Maino took work babysitting as a waitress at the Greek restaurant. 1
BRIEF INTRODUCTION OF RAJIV GANDHI HUSBAND OF SONIA GANDHI: Most of us feel that they know everything about husband of Sonia Gandhi. Even when most of us know most of the things I would like to bring to your notice some information I came across. Rajeev Gandhi’s father was Firoz Khan a Muslim by birth. His grand father was Nawab Khan of Junagarh. It is also said that Rajeev’s mother Indira was Hindu, who became Muslim before her Nikah was held with Firoz. But Mahatma Gandhi ordered Nehru to ask Firoz to change his surname from Khan to Nehru and to fool the Indian masses Vedic marriage was held between Firoz and Indira. Firoz never converted to any other religion but was cremated at last. All Muslim brothers must note this fact. Mind it, Congress party or I should say Nehru Gandhi dynasty could do any thing to fool the people of this country as they cremated Muslim Firoz Gandhi to appease Hindu population of this country. The Gandhi dynasty is afraid that people should not come to know about their origination. Rajeev Gandhi after becoming Prime Minister of India addressed a press conference at London and said he is a Parsi. A person whose father is a Muslim, whose mother is a Hindu, whose father in law is a Muslim how he became Parsi if Rajeev has not answered this question I think Sonia is to answer. It seems to me that Rajeev Gandhi and company feel shame in saying that they are Muslims. 3
Rajeev Gandhi went to Cambridge for Higher Education. He failed in a single class consecutively for three years and was thrown out of university without any certificate. It is also possible that Rajeev could not pass even a single exam in those three years because he was busy in searching a white suitable girl for him. It is also possible that he could not study because he was engaged in love affairs with a girl who was neither knowing Hindi not English. But a person who failed thrice in a class was placed in Indian politics with honour of Mr. Clean and was propagated as being the biggest scholar who has come to politics to take the country to 21st Century. If we start research as to how Rajeev get a pilot licence, I hope it would also reveal some secrets. 3
BEGINNING OF LOVE BETWEEN RAJIV & SONIA: Mrs Gandhi was an 18-year-old girl working as a waitress in the Varsity restaurant, when she met Indian Prince of Wales.
"As our eyes met for the first time. I could feel my heart pounding...... as for as I was concerned. It was love at first sight." This is what Sonia Gandhi says about her beginning of love. She later told her family "He is the blue prince I always dreamt of."
It is her own revelation, which says that she was dreaming for blue prince. How the blue prince reached to restaurant. How this meeting of eye culminated in love is a story, is inexplicable. Whether Rajiv reached to restaurant by his own or he was taken there by somebody to fall in love will ever remain a mystery.
It can be presumed that she conveniently fall in love with Rajeev. Here I should also mention that Mr Rajiv Gandhi got place at Trinity College through family connections with the Master, Lord Butler of Saffron Walden. This Indian Prince of Wales was not studding there but was busy in search of a girl for love. He failed thrice and made a Hat trick and could not pass even a single exam in three years and lastly her name was removed form Cambridge University. It might have proved that he is zero in study but when it came to love he made a new record by falling in love with a girl who was neither knowing Hindi nor English. 3
CONNECTION OF SONIA GANDHI WITH SUSPECTED PAKISTANI AGENT: As mentioned above, Ms. Sonia Gandhi upon learning enough English became a waitress in Varsity Restaurant in Cambridge town. She first met Rajiv when he came to the restaurant in 1965. Rajiv was a student in the University, but could not cope with the academic rigour for long. So he had to depart in 1966 for London where he was briefly in Imperial College of Engineering as a student. Sonia too moved to London, and according to information held by Dr. Subramaniam, she got a job with an outfit run by Salman Thassir, a debonair Pakistani based in Lahore, and who has an export-import company headquartered in Dubai but who spends most of his time in London. This fits the profile of an ISI functionary. 1
SONIA LENDING MONEY TO RAJIV GANDHI BEING WAITRESS: Obviously, Sonia made enough money in this job to loan Rajiv funds in London, who was obviously living beyond his allowances. Indira herself expressed anguish to Dr Subramaniam Swamy on this score in late 1965 when she invited him to a private tea at the Guest House in Brandeis University. Rajiv's letters to Sanjay, who was also in London then, clearly indicate that he was in financial debt to Sonia because he requested Sanjay who obviously had more access to money, to pay off the debt. 1
OTHER BOYFRIENDS OF SONIA GANDHI IN LONDON: Rajiv was not the only friend Sonia was seeing those days. Madhavrao Scindia and a German by name Stiegler are worth mentioning as other good friends of Sonia. Madhavrao's friendship continued even after Sonia's marriage to Rajiv. 1
CAR ACCIDENT OF SCINDIA IN MIDNIGHT WHEN SONIA WAS ANOTHER PASSENGER IN IT: Scindia in 1982 was involved in a traffic accident near IIT, Delhi main gate while driving a car at 2 AM. Sonia was the only other passenger. Both were badly injured. A student of IIT who was burning midnight oil was out for a cup of coffee. He picked them up from the car, hailed an auto rickshaw and sent an injured Sonia to Mrs Indira Gandhi's house since she insisted in not going to a hospital. Madhavrao had broken a leg and in too much pain to make any demand. The Delhi Police who had arrived a little after Sonia had left the scene took him to hospital. In later years, Madhavrao had become privately critical of Sonia, and told some close friends about his apprehensions about Sonia. It is a pity that he died in mysterious circumstances in an air crash. 1 Now even it has been confirmed by Union Home minister Shivraj Patil of Congress that death of Mr Madhavroa Scindia was not a case of accident. 4
Now Sonia should reply to we the people as to what she was doing at 2 a.m. in the night with real prince of Gwalior. She should also disclose the circumstances under which Mr Scindia lost his control on the car. She should also reveal if she herself was in any way responsible for accident of that car.
INDIRA WAS AGAINST MARRIAGE OF RAJIV WITH SONIA: The circumstance under which Rajiv hastily married Sonia in a Church in Orbassano is controversial but that was his personal matter that has no public significance. But what is of public significance is that Indira Gandhi who was initially dead set against the marriage for reasons known to her, relented to hold a registry marriage with Hindu ceremonial trappings in New Delhi only after the pro-Soviet T.N. Kaul prevailed upon her to accept the marriage in "the larger interest of cementing Indo-Soviet Friendship". Kaul would not have intervened unless the Soviet Union had asked him to. 1
RELATIONSHIP OF SONIA GANDHI WITH RUSSIAN SECRET AGENCY KGB: Such has been the extensive patronage from the beginning extended to Sonia Gandhi from the Soviets. When a Prime Minister of India's son dates a girl in London, the KGB which valued Indo-Soviet relations, obviously would investigate her and find out that she was the daughter of Stefano, their old reliable Italian contact. Thus, Sonia with Rajiv meant deeper access to the household of the Indian Prime Minister. Hence cementing the Rajiv-Sonia relations was in the Soviet national interest and they went to work on it. And they did through their then existing moles in the Indira Gandhi camp. 1
After her marriage to Rajiv, the Soviet connection with the Mainos was fortified and nurtured by generous financial help through commissions and kickbacks on every Indo, Soviet trade deal and defence purchases. 1
Her recent visit to Russia on invitation of Russian President Bladimir Putin again raises doubt.
SECRET AGENT WORKING IN NEIGHBOURING BHUTAN: Sonia Gandhi could be a KGB and the Vatican secret agency Opus Dei's answer to what chilling thing CIA did in our neighbouring Bhutan. When the present King of Bhutan was the crown prince, the then king appointed an American lady by name Ms. Cook as the English language tutor to the crown prince. Ms. Cook conveniently fell in love with her student and this culminated in the Royal wedding. Mrs. Cook bore the prince children. After about two decades, it came to light that CIA, the American spy agency had planted her in the royal palace and Cook was all along working as an American spy. Mrs. Cook was divorced and deported from Bhutan. 3
DR. YEVGENIA ALBATS REVELATION IN SCHWEITZER ILLUSTRATE NEWS MAGAZINE ABOUT GANDHI'S RELATIONSHIP WITH KGB: According to the respected Swiss magazine, Schweitzer Illustrate [November 1991 issue], Rajiv Gandhi had about $ 2 billion in numbered Swiss bank accounts, which Sonia inherited upon his assassination. Dr. Yevgenia Albats, Ph.D [Harvard], is a noted Russian scholar and journalist, and was a member of the KGB Commission set up by President Yeltsin in August 1991. She was privy to the Soviet intelligence files that documented these deals and KGB facilitation of the same. In her book, "The State Within a State, The KGB in Soviet Union", she even gives the file numbers of such intelligence files, which can now be accessed by any Indian government through a formal request to the Kremlin. 1
The Russian Government in 1992 was confronted by the Albats' disclosure; they confirmed it through their official spokesperson to the press [which was published in Hindu in 1992], defending such financial payments as necessary in "Soviet ideological interest".1
When the Soviet Union disintegrated in 1991, things changed for Ms. Sonia Gandhi. Her patrons evaporated. The rump that became Russia was in a financial mess and disorder. So Ms. Sonia Gandhi became a supporter of another communist country to the annoyance of the Russians. 1
The national security ramification of this 'annoyance' is now significant: The President of Russia today is Putin, a former dyed-in-the-wool KGB officer. Upon Dr. Manmohan Singh's government taking office, Russia called back it's career diplomat Ambassador in New Delhi and immediately posted as the new Ambassador a person who was the KGB station chief in New Delhi during the 1970s. In view of Dr. Albats confirmed revelation, it stands to reason that the new Ambassador would have known first hand about Sonia's connections with the KGB. He may have in fact been her "controller". The new Indian government, in which Sonia is defacto Prime Minister, cannot afford to annoy him or even disregard Russian demands coming from him? They will obviously placate him so as not to risk exposure. Is this not a major national security risk and a delicate matter for the nation? 1
Of course, all Indians would like good normal and healthy relations with Russia. Who can forget their assistance to us in times of need? Today's Russia is the residual legatee of that Soviet Union which helped India. But just because of that, should we tolerate those in our government set up having clandestine links with a foreign spy agency? In the United States, the government did not tolerate an American spying for Israel even though the two countries are as close as any two countries can be. National security and friendship are as different as chalk and cheese. 1
In December 2001, Dr Subramaniam Swamy had filed a Writ Petition in the Delhi High Court with the photocopies of the KGB documents, and sought a CBI investigation, which the Vajpayee Government was refusing. Earlier, Minister of State for CBI, Vasundara Raje [now Rajasthan CM], on my letter dated March 3, 2001, had ordered the CBI to investigate. But after Sonia Gandhi and her party stalled the proceedings of Parliament on this issue, the then Prime Minister Vajpayee cancelled Vasundara's direction to the CBI. 1 (Read last CHAPTER of the book).
It is known to every aware citizen of the country that items supplied during theses period by Russia are of extreme sub-standard. MIG aeroplane supplied during these periods are called flying Coffins. Most of us have came across the name of MIG only because they every now and then met with accident and take the life of our pilots and some times of civilians too.
The Delhi High Court issued a direction to the CBI to ascertain from Russia the truth of charges made by Dr. Subramaniam Swamy on Sonia Gandhi about her KGB link. The CBI procrastinated for three years, and finally told the Court without an FIR registered the Russians will not entertain any such query. But who stopped the CBI from registering an FIR? 1
Now we find Sonia Gandhi visiting to Russia on the invitation of Russian President, even when she is not holding any constitutional post in the government of India. It is Sonia and Manmohan Singh, who are to reply for this blunder.
MAINO'S BECOMING MILLIONAIRE OVERNIGHT OR ANTIQUE SMUGGLING CASE: After Sonia married Rajiv, she went about minting money with scant regard for Indian laws and treasures. Within a few years the Mainos went from utter poverty to billionaires. There was no area that was left out for the rip-off. 1
The bottom line observed in Sonia's mindset is that she can always run back to Italy if she becomes vulnerable at anytime. In Peru, President Fujimori who all along claimed to be "born Peruvian", faced with a corruption charge fled to Japan with his loot and reclaimed his Japanese citizenship. 1
Those who have no love for India will not hesitate to plunder her treasures. Mohammed Ghori, Nadir Shah, and the British scum in the East India Company made no secret of it. But Sonia Gandhi has been more discreet, but as greedy, in her looting of Indian treasures. When Indira Gandhi and Rajiv Gandhi were Prime Ministers, not a day passed when the PM's security did not go to the New Delhi, or Chennai international airport to send crates and crates unchecked by customs to Rome. Air India and Alitalia were the carriers. Mr. Arjun Singh first as CM, later as Union Minister in charge of Culture was her hatchet man. Indian temple sculpture of gods and goddesses, antiques, pichwai paintings, shatoosh shawls, coins, and you name it, were transported to Italy to be first displayed in two shops owned by her sister [i.e., Anuskha alias Alessandra]. These shops located in blue-collar areas of Rivolta [shop name: Etnica] and Orbassano [shop name: Ganpati] did little business because which blue collar Italian wants Indian antiques? The shops were to make false bills, and thereafter these treasures were taken to London for auction by Sotheby's and Christies. Some of this ill-gotten money from auction went into Rahul Gandhi's National Westminster Bank and Hong Kong & Shanghai Bank, London accounts, but most of it found it's way into the Gandhi family account in the Bank of America in Cayman Islands. 1
Rahul's expenses and tuition fees for the one-year he was at Harvard, was paid from the Cayman Island account. What kind of people are these Gandhi-Mainos that bite the very hand of Bharat Mata that fed them and gave them a good life? How can the nation trust such greedy thieves? 1
Since Dr. Subramaniam Swamy failed to persuade the Vajpayee government to defend India's treasures from plunder by the Mainos, He approached the Delhi High Court in a PIL. The first Bench of the court issued notice to the Government, but since the Indian government dragged it's feet, the Court directed the CBI to seek Interpol's and Italian government's help. The Italian government justifiably asked for a Letter Rogatory for which a FIR is a pre-requisite. But the Interpol did oblige and submitted two voluminous reports, which the Court directed the CBI to hand over to Dr Swamy. But CBI has refused, and has claimed privilege! The CBI has also been caught lying in court by telling the judges that Alessandra Maino is a name of a man, and Via Bellini 14, Orbassano is a name of a village [not the street address of the Maino's residence]. Although the CBI counsel had to apologise to the court stating he made a mistake, he has been promoted to Additional Solicitor General by the new government. 1
1. Article "Do you know your Sonia: By Dr Subramaniam Swamy dated 15 August 2004.
2. Article 'From Waitress to World leader' Election 2004 dated May 17 2004 17.54 IST)
3. "A visit to Orbassano, Sonia's Birth Place" by Sword of truth web magazine Issue # 2001-04 June, 3rd 2001.
4. Dainik Bhaskar, Jabalpur dated 19 February 2005.
5. htm
Note: If you have not read previous CHAPTER, I would advice you to read it before you come to this CHAPTER.
As I discussed in previous CHAPTER, family background of Mrs Sonia Gandhi, her love affair with Rajiv Gandhi, her boy friends, her false claims about her qualification, her working as waitress in a restaurant in London, brief introduction of Rajiv Gandhi, Sonia's relation with Salman Thassir of Pakistan, her relationship with Russian Secret Agency KGB and her involvement in Antique Smuggling case.
Now let us discuss in this CHAPTER most sinister aspect of her life. Dr Subramaniam Swamy is still working on it, We are aware that in 1977, when the Janata Party defeated the Congress at the polls, and formed the government, Sonia with her two children, abandoned Indira Gandhi and ran to the Italian Embassy in New Delhi and hid there. Rajiv Gandhi was a government servant then [as an Indian Airlines pilot], but he too tagged along and hid in that foreign embassy! Such was her baneful influence on him. Rajiv did snap out Sonia's influence after 1989, but alas he was assassinated before he could rectify it. Those close to Rajiv knew that he was planning set things right about Sonia after the 1991 elections. She did too know of it because he had told her. Ever wonder why Sonia's closest advisers are those whom Rajiv literally hated? Ambika Soni is one such name. Ever wonder why she asked the President of India to set aside, on a mercy petition, the Supreme Court judgment directing that Rajiv Gandhi's LTTE killers be hanged to death, when she was not similarly moved for Satwant Singh who killed Indira Gandhi or recently for Dhanajoy Chattopadhyaya? The explanation for this special consideration for the LTTE lies in what Rajiv had told her in 1990. 1
Sonia Gandhi had long connection with the Habash group of Palestinian, and has funded Palestinian families that lost their kith and kin in a suicide bombing or hijacking episode. This, Rajiv Gandhi himself told Dr Swamy and was also confirmed to him [the funding] by Yassir Arafat when he met him in Tunis on October 17, 1990. 1
Besides the Palestinian extremists, the Maino family have had extensive business dealings with Saddam Hussein, and surprisingly with the LTTE ["the Tamil Tigers"] since 1984. Sonia's mother Paola Predebon Maino, and businessman Ottavio Quattrocchi were the main contacts with the Tigers. The mother used the LTTE for money laundering and Quattrocchi for selling weapons to earn commissions. Sonia's conduit to the LTTE has been and is through Arjun Singh who uses Bangalore as the nodal point for contact. 1
There is a string of circumstantial evidence pointing to the prima facie possibility that the Maino family may have contracted the LTTE to kill Rajiv Gandhi. The family may have assured the LTTE that nothing would happen to them because they would ensure it is blamed on the Sikhs or the evidence so much fudged that no court would convict them. But D.R. Karthikeyan of the CBI who led the SIT investigation got the support of Narasimha Rao and cracked the case, and got the LTTE convicted in the trial court, and which conviction was upheld in the Supreme Court. 1
Although on the involvement of Congress Party in the assassination, DRK soft peddled on a number of leads perhaps because he did not want political controversy to put roadblocks on his investigation as a whole. 1
The Justice J. S. Verma Commission, which was set up as the last official act of the Chandrashekhar government before demitting office on June 21, 1991, did find that the Congress leaders had disrupted the security arrangements for the Sriperumbudur meeting. The Commission wanted further probe into it but the Rao government rejected that demand. In the meantime under Sonia's pressure, the Jain Commission was set up by the Rao government, which tried to muddy the waters and thus exonerate the LTTE. But the trial court judgment convicting the LTTE came earlier, and that sinister effort too failed. 1
Nowadays, Sonia is quite unabashed in having political alliance with those who praise Rajiv Gandhi's killers. No Indian widow would ever do that. Investigations into Sonia's involvement in Rajiv's assassination is therefore still on. 1
Is it not significant that the political career of Sonia Gandhi advances concomitantly with a series of assassinations and apparently accidental deaths? How did Sanjay's plane nosedive to a crash and yet the fuselage not explode? There was no fuel! Why was there no inquiry conducted? Is it not a fact that Indira Gandhi died because of loss of blood from the wounds and not directly due to a bullet impacting her head or heart? Then is it not strange that Sonia had insisted that the bleeding Indira be driven to Lohia Hospital -- in the opposite direction to AIIMS, which had a contingency protocol set up for precisely such an event? And after reaching Lohia Hospital, did not Sonia change her mind and demand that they all drive to AIIMS thus losing 24 valuable minutes. 1
The same kind of mystery surrounds the sudden deaths of Sonia's other political roadblocks such as Rajesh Pilot, Jitendra Prasad, and Madhavrao Scindia. Such things happened in the dark ages in Italy. Should we allow it India like dumb cattle? 1
Janata Party president Dr Subramanian Swamy has written in 2004 to the President stating that any further delay in the execution of the sentence awarded to four LTTE conspirators in the Rajiv Gandhi assassination would be tantamount to contempt of the Supreme Court. 3
Addressing a press conference at Kochi, Subramanian Swamy, said the Congress president betrayed the memory of her husband by writing to the President seeking commutation of the death sentence awarded to Rajiv Gandhi's assassins. 3
"In the execution of Satwant Singh in the Indira Gandhi assassination and of Dhananjoy Chatterjee recently, there has been no hesitation in carrying out death sentences despite mercy petitions,'' Swamy said adding that the Supreme Court had dismissed the mercy petitions in the Rajiv Gandhi assassination case in October 1999. 3
It is now more than five years since the review petition was dismissed and the sentence has neither been commuted by the President nor executed. Stepping up the anti-Sonia Gandhi tirade, Swamy also alleged that the Congress President has amassed assets disproportionate to her known sources of income and was an anti-national who received funds from the KGB. 3
We are well aware of Boforce Scandal in which close relatives of Sonia Gandhi were involved.
We need to know who benefited most by the killing of Rajeev Gandhi. A normal person has the perception that LTTE was behind the killing, but we give our own thought to position of Prabhakaran, LTTE Supremo, it becomes clear that if he was not fool than he must be aware that they shall be biggest loser. There are circumstantial evidence, which suggest that LTTE leadership was not involved in assassination of Rajeev Gandhi.
"Conspiracy, awareness and help to execute are the three basic charges against the accused in this case. The argument of the police was merely based on speculation. When Prabakaran was in Delhi, he told V Gopalaswamy that, through the Indo-Lanka accord, Rajiv Gandhi has stabbed the Tamils in their back. Based on this statement, the case was built around and successfully proceeded speculatively. There was no witness to link anyone directly to the murder. 2
"It was only a guess that, Sivarasan and Prabakaran were together. After the murder, Sivarasan never even attempted to go back to Sri Lanka. But, Ravichandran [Accused No 16 - Sri Lankan national] one month after the murder went to Sri Lanka and returned to India after staying in Sri Lanka for two months. "The police, who investigated the case, should have come up with the real killers. I am of the opinion that someone else should have arranged Sivarasan for this murder. I think those who arranged the murder through him must have summoned him to Bangalore. This is how I foresee his fateful visit to Bangalore. 2
The confession made by Athirai, the 8th accused, points to the connection of Mahataya alias Mahendrarajah Gopalaswamy, the deputy leader of the LTTE in the assassination of Rajiv Gandhi. Justice Wadhwa's observation in page 171 of his verdict about Athirai is of special interest. Justice Wadhwa stated: 2
"Athirai (A-8), a hard core LTTE militant girl, came to India in the last week of April 1991 in an LTTE boat from Sri Lanka. Athirai (A-8) in her confession said that she got specialized training in the LTTE camps. She was assigned the work of gathering intelligence on the operations and movements of Sri Lankan army and other rival organizations like EPRLF, PLOT, etc. Reports she prepared would be handed over by her to Mahathaya, another LTTE leader." 2
Athirai had made her confession on August 29, 1991 (page 46 of the verdict). Here is another "smoking gun" that the then LTTE deputy leader, Mahathaya, was intentionally overlooked by the SIT officials when the charge sheet on Rajiv's assassination was finalized in May 1992. The reason for overlooking Mahataya is mysterious, D R Karthiyean, the SIT chief, should have given an explanation. 2
Mahattaya's possible and sole connection in the assassination of Rajiv Gandhi was propounded in an article that appeared at first in 'The Independent,' an English daily from Bangaladesh, dated September 19, 1998, under the headline "Who Killed Rajiv Gandhi?" 2
The same article was revised and published in the "Weekend Express," published from Colombo, dated October 17, 1998, with photographs of Chandraswami, the god-man, under the caption: Rajiv murder: A wider conspiracy?" 2
Regarding the confession of Murugan, Justice Wadhwa's in his verdict announced, "Murugan (A-3) when asked by Sivarasan the reasons for the killing of Rajiv Gandhi, he replied that Kasi Anandhan [prosecution witness 242] had met Rajiv Gandhi at Delhi and was told that the meeting was very cordial and if Rajiv Gandhi came to power he would help the LTTE movement. 2
Seven years after the killing of EPRLF leader K Padmanabha and 14 others, the court that tried the case delivered the verdict in which, 15 of the 17 accused, including a former DMK minister and a former home secretary of Tamil Nadu were acquitted. 2
In a judgment delivered on November 8, 1997, the two judges acquitted 15 of the 17 accused on the ground that the prosecution had "not proved beyond any reasonable doubt" the allegations against them. The designated court two judge, Arumuga Perumal Adithan, convicted the other two accused, Chinna Santhan and Anandaraj, for offences under the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, or TADA. 2
Among those acquitted were former Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) Minister Subbulakshmi Jagadeesan (Presently minister in Manmohan Singh Government), her husband Jagadeesan, former State Home Secretary R Nagarajan, Marumalarchi Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (MDMK) leader V Gopalsamy's brother V Ravichandran and advocate D Veerasekaran. 2
Meanwhile, the Jain Commission reports drew attention to the similarities in the assassinations of Rajiv Gandhi, on May 21, 1991 and EPRLF leader K Padmanabha a few months earlier, on June 19, 1990, in Chennai. Jain pointed out that, the same set of killers were used by LTTE supremo V Prabhakaran and his intelligence chief Pottu Amman (both convicted in absentia) and that, after killing Padmanabha, they had a free run in Tamil Nadu due to the patronage of the then Tamil Nadu Government under M Karunanidhi. 2
Interestingly, SIT chief D R Karthikeyan consistently refused the demand that the SIT should also investigate the Padmanabha murder, saying the focus of the Rajiv assassination investigation would be diluted. 2
Justice Milap Chand Jain's final findings of the conspiracy to assassinate the former Prime Minister of India, Rajiv Gandhi had adduced evidence of the god-man Nemi Chand Jain, better known as Chandraswami, as having links with CIA and Mossad, and through them with the LTTE. He was among the 21 "suspects," whom the SIT had failed to investigate, the Commissioner complained. Justice Jain, who had reportedly devoted a whole section to Chandraswami, seems convinced that, the latter was involved. He quotes intelligence reports and government communications to add weight to his case. The god-man was constantly conspiring to overthrow Rajiv Gandhi, when he was Prime Minister, and had sworn to "kill" him, the report said. But Justice Jain does point out that, there are gaps to be filled and missing links to be found. Hence the need for a fresh probe. 2
Justice Jain also mentioned of the "close" relations between Rajiv Gandhi's successor, Narasimha Rao, and Chandraswami, and how, Narasimha Rao, as premier, had told a minister that he should not insist that government show the panel all documents on Chandraswami. 2
Justice Jain has linked Chandraswami with the infamous and now defunct Bank of Credit and Commerce International (BCCI) in which arms dealer Adnan Kashoggi, several terrorist groups, and intelligence outfits like the CIA and Mossad had accounts. The money in it was used for terrorist operations and political assassinations. The report is quoted as saying that $4 million of Mr Kashoggi's money was transferred to the LTTE's accounts. Justice Jain had said this on the basis of a 130-page document prepared by US Senator John Kiri. 2
Justice Jain's interim report created a political storm in India, by bringing down the United Front Government led by I K Gujral in November 1997, when it said that the Tamil Nadu Chief Minister at that period of time, M Karunanidhi, and the DMK, the then ruling party in Tamil Nadu, was also part of the conspiracy to kill Rajiv Gandhi. 2
The Congress party clamoured for action against the DMK, which was then part of the Gujral government in New Delhi. Its insistence, led to the fall of the Gujral government and subsequent elections brought a coalition led by the BJP to office. 2
Presently DMK is enjoying the power at Centre with Congress Party. Widow of Rajeev Gandhi has now decided to have good relationship with them.
In the final report, Justice Jain has said only "very few" Tamils in Tamils Nadu had supported the LTTE. But, he said that, the DMK chief, who is also the Tamil Nadu Chief Minister, M Karunanidhi and his Minister, Subbulakshmi Jagadeesan, should have been questioned. The latter is listed among 21 additional suspects, whom the SIT had failed to investigate. 2
Among the 21 are top LTTE arms procurer K Pathmanathan, (KP), and top leaders Kittu alias Sathasivan Krishnakumar and Baby Subramaniam. The SIT source said that, over the seven years it functioned, the Jain commission had entertained many such amazing theories and used the confusion thus created, to get its term extended from time to time. 2
The Bharatya Janata Party government appointed the Multi-Disciplinary Monitoring Agency (MDMA) and asking it to probe the roles of five persons, Karunanidhi, Chandraswami, Janata Party president Subramaniam Swamy, former DMK minister Subbulakshmi Jagadeeshan and the LTTE's arms procurer Kumaran Padmanabhan. 2
The MDMA would be headed by an additional director of the Central Bureau of Investigation and would have representatives of the Intelligence Bureau, Research and Analysis Wing, Military Intelligence, Air Intelligence, Naval Intelligence, Enforcement Directorate, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence and other central agencies. 2
First, the MDMA had sent “27 letters of Rogatories in June 2000 to all over the world capitals to know the funding sources of the banned Sri Lankan militant outfit LTTE found responsible for the assassination as MDMA is supposed to find out who was actually behind this assassination.” But the response for such bureaucratic grandstanding by Indian Poo Bahs was abysmal. By the end of January 2002 [i.e., after 19 months], “Only six of the 27 countries have bothered to acknowledge the legal notices till last month, while others did not even take the cognisance.” 4
Secondly, the RAW representative of the MDMA “died in 1999 and since then no successor has been appointed,” as of February 2002. Could it be that the bigwigs of the notorious spooks office may have thought that the navigating ghost of the dead RAW representative would suffice to represent their agency! 4
Thirdly, by February 2003, the result was: “Though the MDMA is yet to complete the investigation into Rajiv Gandhi’s murder, its staff strength has been reduced because there is hardly any work.” Isn’t this neat? The MDMA, having suffered credibility problems at the international front with officials of the majority of other nations not even responding to the ‘letters of Rogatories’ in its ‘much hyped’ pursuit of the LTTE’s international financial operations, is now being kept like a patient in an intensive care unit, with political tubes hanging from the nose, mouth and throat. I congratulate the unknown officials of those nations who rebuffed the ‘letters of Rogatories’ from Indian Poo Bahs. They would have easily sensed that these ‘bureaucratic’ letters of rogatories were nothing but slick solicitation pleas for foreign jaunts on taxpayers’ money by the Indian officials who were on the verge of their retirement! 4
Fourthly, an irony is that Mr.Vazhapadi Ramamurthi [a loud mouth - bit player in Tamil Nadu politics, who projected himself as the foremost Rajiv Gandhi loyalist] who pleaded with Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee ‘not to recommend clemency for any of the four [accused] sentenced to death for the assassination of Rajiv Gandhi’ himself departed to meet his Maker, ahead of the four accused whom he was keen on seeing dead. Mr.Vazhapadi Koothapadayachi Ramamurthy suffered a cardiac arrest and died on October 27, 2002; he was aged 62. 4
Fifthly, the Congress Party pulled the rug of I.J.Gujral’s minority government by withdrawing its support in the parliament in 1998, on the issue that the DMK, which was a constituent of Gujral’s Cabinet, was strongly implicated with Rajiv Gandhi assassination by the Jain Commission. Now, in 2004, the same Congress Party is in cahoots with DMK for electoral politics. Similarly, the ever-petulant and unpredictable Tamil Nadu Chief Minister Jayalalitha (of AIDMK) was posturing much on Pirabhakaran’s non-extradition to India with L.K.Advani, the Deputy Prime Minister, in 2000. In 2004, the same Jayalalitha is holding hands with Mr.Advani’s party for political merry-go-round. And Jayalalitha has also been seen shedding public tears for Rajiv Gandhi’s memories – outsmarting the late Indian prime minister’s Italian wife. Sonia Gandhi shouldn’t be surprised that Jeyalalitha, afterall, was an ex-actress who could generate tears at the sound of a clap-board. If Sonia Gandhi is to remain in the centre stage of Indian politics, it wouldn’t be a bad idea if she signs a contract with a pro like Sophia Loren, from her native land, as an acting consultant. 4
Ranganathan, an accused in the Rajiv Gandhi assassination case freed by the Supreme Court in May 1999, has claimed after the release to disclose names of all personalities and financiers involved in the conspiracy. 5 What happen to his interrogation is yet to be known.
Atal Bihari Vajpayee's cabinet, which debated for a long time on whether to include Karunanidhi among the persons to be investigated by the MDMA, found enough scope in the interim and final reports of Justice Jain. Subsequently, Vajpayee's government dropped the investigation of the DMK Chief and the Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu, most probably after some sort of secret political understanding. Before concluding the section on the assassination of Rajiv Gandhi, the "beneficiary" factor has to be analysed. 2
Though it is claimed that the LTTE might have been involved, they seem to have been the biggest losers. They have been isolated in Tamil Nadu and all over in India and many other countries in the world. The supporters and sympathizers of the LTTE are branded as pariahs in Tamil Nadu - as political and social outcasts, thus loosing the power-base they used to enjoy all the years, before the assassination. 2
It was also stated in the Jain Commission report that, further proof had come to the commission about the "rear base" and the facilitation being given to the LTTE cadres during the DMK regime. The report states that, this has been further substantiated by reports of the Subsidiary Intelligence Bureau (SIB) Madras, which was given to the commission after the submission of the interim report. The reports dealing with the period 1989-1991 traces the movement and arrival of arms on the coasts of Tamil Nadu, as well as give proof of the logistical and medical assistance that was readily given to the LTTE cadres. 2
The above excerpts drawn from the Jain Commission Reports clearly indicate that, LTTE was using Tamil Nadu, as its "Rear Base," in its protracted armed conflict with the Government of Sri Lanka. As a result of the killing of Rajiv Gandhi, the LTTE has today lost this base, which remains a serious handicap in its battle. 2
The murder of Rajiv Gandhi has failed to be of beneficial effect, even to the 100,000 and more Sri Lankan Tamil refugees who were then living in more than 121 special refugees camps, scattered almost all over the coastal districts of Tamil Nadu. Also, the refugees who lived in Tamil Nadu without accepting any subsidy from the Indian government, too, have not benefited by the murder. 2
Then who did benefit? The first beneficiary was Jayalalitha, who went from a vivacious sex-bomb in the cinema world, to the Chief Minister ship of Tamil Nadu, at the State Assembly elections, that followed. Jayalalitha was born in Tamil Nadu with a Kannadiga family background. Her mother and aunty, were famous cabaret dancers in the Tamil cine world and both danced to fame, baring partially their voluptuous bodies to satiate their craze-filled fans in Tamil and in the other South Indian language films. Jaylalitha followed her mother's footsteps and was a model, dancer, actresses, a chubby sex-bomb; before entering the political arena of Tamil Nadu. 2
Earlier, the All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (AIADMK) was founded by the matinee idol M G Ramachandran, the popular cinema actor in South India, around 1972. After breaking away from the DMK, Ramachandran, popularly called MGR, started a new political outfit to challenge the DMK President, M Karunanidhi. He called his party Anna DMK. The parting of MGR from DMK had a serious impact on the ruling DMK. 2
Ramachandran, a calculating personality, he chose his characters carefully in films, always depicting himself as a hero, the friend of the poor and the down-trodden. 2
MGR gradually dominated Tamil Nadu politics and arranged his party in an organized manner. He and M Kalyanasundaram of the Indian Communist Party, made allegations against the DMK, of commission and omission by the DMK government (then Prime Minister Indira Gandhi was behind them). Subsequently, the DMK Government was dismissed on the grounds of corruption and a Commission of Enquiry (Sarkaria Commission) constituted to look into the charges. 2
MGR's active participation in politics, even prevented Cong (O) leader Kamaraj Nadar from coming back to power. After the lifting of the internal emergency, the MGR with the CPI, as an alliance partner, wrested power in Tamil Nadu. The MGR-Indira combination worked out well and bagged all parliament seats, leaving a lone seat to the DMK. 2
Though MGR was the uncrowned king of the party, he was not able to control it and keep it intact. Groupism in AIADMK was a known story, everywhere with different dimensions. MGR inducted his film heroin, one of his live-in-partners, J Jayalalitha, into his party and made her a Rajya Sabha (Upper House) member and propaganda secretary of the party. He brought her from oblivion to politics by providing her a position in the AIADMK, and he made use of her in the party campaign. MGR was known for his sudden decisions and ideas and also for his penchant for beautiful young cine-actresses. 2
When Jayalalitha bade farewell to films in the late 1970s, (or rather, was compelled to quit), people in Tamil Nadu thought that it was the end of the vivacious actress and that they had seen the last of their chubby heroine. But, she was back with a 'bang' within five years, looking delectable in party-colour saris, cooing to babies in villages, listening responsively to petitioners at the party office of the All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (AIADMK), a shining mascot for the then ageing chief minister M G Ramachandran. 2
After MGR's death she was humiliated by members of the departed leader's family, who saw her as a threat. Even during the official funeral ceremony, Jayalalitha tried to climb up on the gun-carriage, which carried the coffin. She was immediately forcefully pulled down by other party members. After MGR's sudden death, the party was divided, with one group under his wife Janaki and the other under Jayalalitha - the live in lover - sinnaveedu, as it is popularly called in Tamil. But the group's in-fighting resulted in the party's popular two-leaf symbol being frozen by the Election Commission. The defeat of both factions and DMK's re-emergence in the 1989 state elections made them once again unite. The frozen symbol was restored to the united AIADMK under Jayalalitha's leadership and the party re-emerged victorious, just after the assassination of Rajiv Gandhi, giving it a massive majority and leaving the DMK with one seat for its party's president, M Karunanidhi. 2
Jayalalitha, as an opposition leader in 1989, was tenacious and vitriolic in giving a fight to Muthuvel Karunanidhi and the DMK government. She insulted and assaulted on the floor of the State Assembly, when she crossed to the Treasury bench and tried to grab the official version of the budget speech whilst being read by Karunanidhi, who was also the Minister of Finance. In the melee that ensued, her sari was torn and her hair dishevelled. Contumelious Jayalaitha, though disgraced and shaken, pointed to her matted hair and torn clothes and vowed that, she would enter the Tamil Nadu assembly, only if Karunanidhi was ousted from power. 2
This is how she managed to fulfil after the assassination of Rajiv Gandhi. Therefore, it is openly evident that, Jayalalitha, who spared no opportunity in imposing her feminine power by forcing even ministers of her party to genuflect at her feet, was the one who benefited the most from the death of Gandhi. The other visible beneficiary was Narasimha Rao, who was suddenly made the Prime Minister of India after Rajiv Gandhi's demise. 2 The last person who benefited most was Smt. Sonia Gandhi. Her position in Indian Politics has become like Queen mother. She is now enjoying power more than Prime Minister of India.
The Jain Commission further observed that the LTTE's principal arms producer, Kumaran Pathmanathan, alias "KP", a cousin of Prabhakaran, held accounts with the Bank Credit and Commerce International (BCCI), a Pakistani international bank, now defunct, as did Adnan Khashoggi, and even the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA)!. 6
Accordingly, the commission concluded that Saudi arms dealer Khashoggi to be a key player in the supply of arms to the LTTE. This might have led the commission to speculate on the LTTE's connection with Chandraswami, Adnan Khashoggi, the CIA and Mossad. The Jain Commission speculated on the possible CIA-Mossad linkages in the assassination. 6
Yasser Arafat, of the Palestinian Authority, conveyed to Muchckund Dubey, the former Indian Foreign Secretary in June 1991, "If one was looking for a link, it was the CIA-Mossad-LTTE link." 6
The linkage, Arafat pointed out, turned into a serious subject for speculation. It further remarked about the communication monitored by N V Vishan, Joint Director, Subsidiary Intelligence Bureau of Tamil Nadu, who informed his high-ups of a communication from Kumaran Pathmanathan (KP) to Prabhakaran, dated July 12, 1990, about what a CIA official had told one of his contacts, "He knew what was required by us and it should be done in such a way that was helpful to both." Three weeks later, according to the report, Prabhakaran asked KP for surface to air missiles (SAMs) and related firing equipment. Through this report, the commission established a CIA-LTTE linkage, but what is unclear is the (real) connection with the assassination. Also the missing link of the Chandraswami-Premadasa-Mahattaya's connection, about which the commission failed to establish conclusively. 6
In the case of Rajiv Gandhi's assassination, before concentrating on several outside agencies and terrorists' organizations, the Indian government failed to go into several related issues. The important question is "Why did the successive governments that came to power fail to go into the Sri Lankan debacle, a national shame, where 1,555 IPKF personnel were killed, 2,987 injured and expended more than Indian Rs. 1850 crores? 6
Also, a few more supplementary questions arose: Why does the Research and Analysis Wing (RAW) continue to harbour and provide protection at Jaipur, Rajasthan, to Varatharaja Perumal, the former chief minister of North-East Provincial Council and spend millions of Indian rupees on his safety and upkeep? 6
The Action Taken Report, tabled by the Bharatya Janata Party (BJP) government, and the appointment of the MDMA, provided a different perspective to the already accepted theory of blaming the LTTE for the assassination. 6
While the probe might shift further a field, our analysis still canters on the LTTE. Therefore, it is appropriate to go into the organization of the LTTE and its functional capacity, during two different periods - before and after Rajiv Gandhi's murder. To come to terms with the situation that prevailed herewith we undertake a full analysis. 6
Our key player in this probe is Gopalaswamy Mahendrajah, or the one popularly known as Mahattaya, who joined the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) in 1978, along with Kittu alias Sathasivam Krishnakumar. Prabhakaran inducted Mahattaya as the Vanni region commander and Kittu to command the Jaffna region. From the very beginning, Mahattaya clashed with Kittu. On the night of March 31, 1987, unidentified assailants fired and lobbed a powerful grenade on the motorcar carrying Kittu, in Jaffna. Kittu sustained injuries - his right leg was severed while receiving shrapnel wounds. 6
After the incidents, Major Aruna, alias Selvaswamy Selvakumar of the LTTE, went berserk. He fired his M-16 at the innocent captives from the rival Tamil militant groups at Kandan Karunai prison, which housed nearly 65 prisoners. All but three fell to Aruna's madness. The LTTE high command did not approve of the carnage. When Aruna died at the battlefront, they decided not to include his name in the martyrs' list. 6
But, the LTTE learned in 1994 that the maiming of Kittu was an inside job and the attack was carried out on Mahattaya's order, by his right hand confidante Visu. Meanwhile, the LTEE had already included Visu's name in the martyrs' list after he was gunned down, along with two others, on July 13, 1989, after the assassination of A Amirthalingham, the Secretary General of the Tamil United Liberation Front (TULF), and S Yogeswaran, an ex-member of parliament from Jaffna. To this day, Visu's name remains on the list. 6
Prabhakaran appointed Mahattaya as the leader of the Makkal Munnani, (Peoples Front), a political organization of the LTTE. Earlier, in 1988, during the military campaign against the Indian Peace Keeping Forces (IPKF), Prabhakaran also appointed him as the deputy leader. During the campaign against the Indian forces, the LTTE withdrew from Jaffna, hid themselves in the sprawling Vanni region, Mahattaya was at Putur-Vannivilankulam, Prabhakaran at Alampil. The leader and the deputy had been unable to meet in person since late 1990s due to the intensity of the India offensive. 6
Arrest of Mahattaya 6
On May 3, 1989, LTTE representatives were airlifted from a jungle hide-out in Mullaithievu for talks with Ranasinghe Premadasa, the then Sri Lanka President. Later, Mahattaya took charge of the LTTE team on the orders of its leader. Mahattaya's stay in Colombo provided the opportunity for RAW operatives to establish contact with him. 6
S Chandrasekeran, alias Chandran, the additional secretary of the cabinet secretariat and the high-powered officer in charge of the RAW operations in Sri Lanka, met Mahattaya secretly in Colombo. 6
On the orders of Mahattaya, a hit-squad under Visu's command arrived in Colombo for clandestine operations. Simultaneously, on the orders of the Tiger supremo, another commando group left Alampil for Colombo, with orders to weed out anti-LTTE elements in Colombo. While the negotiations with the government were on, Mahattaya ordered Visu to execute the LTTE-imposed death sentence of February 1987 on Amrithalingham. 6
After the murder of Amrithalingham, Pottu Amman, alias Shanmugalingham Sivasankaran, smelt foul play and he began to monitor closely the activities of Mahattaya. The intelligence unit, Aiyyana Group, broke into and monitored the powerful two-way radio communication emerging from Mahattaya's base. On the information provided by the intelligence unit, Prabhakaran relieved Mahattaya of the leadership of the Makkal Munnani, and from the deputy leadership. Prabhakaran sent him on a special assignment to the Eastern province. After General Denzil Kobbekaduwa and others died in a land mine blast on August 8, 1992, the military balance began to tilt in the LTTE's favour. Prabhakaran recalled Mahattaya, gave him an inactive position, looking after the refugees' welfare and injured LTTE cadres. He was also allowed to retain his 75-strong bodyguard unit. 6
Gradually, events began to work against Mahattaya, Baby Subramaniam, one of the founding leaders of the LTTE, became deputy leader. 6
Pottu Amman and his group sustained serious injuries, but narrowly escaped death, when an unidentified assailant lobbed a bomb into the vehicle in which they were travelling, near Kopay. The situation worsened when the LTTE became more suspicious of Mahattaya. They found out that he had betrayed Kittu to the Indian and Sri Lankan intelligence agencies, leading to Kittu's death by suicide, in the Palk Straits, in January 1993. 6
Thereafter, the LTTE high command urgently assembled a high-powered hit-squad, including all their leading commanders, namely Sornam, the leader of the elite Tiger commando group, Balraj Charles Anthony's Regiment, Thamil Selavan alias Dinesh, the Commander of the Jaffna Region. So or Soosai, the commander of the Sea Tigers, and others. 6
Pottu Amman, the intelligence chief, led the quickly assembled hit squad. The special squad launched its operation to arrest Mahattaya on March 31, 1993 before dawn and overpowered without resistance the sentries and entered the bases at Kondavil and Kokuvil. 6
When the squad entered the domestic quarters, Mahattaya was inside the toilet. As he emerged, Sornam told him, "Annan [elder brother] wants you. Come with us," Unsuspecting, Mahattaya told him, "You better go, I will follow you." Sornam reiterated, "No, you have to come now. Annan wants you immediately." Mahattaya, agitated a little, said, "I told you to go, I will come." 6
Sensing the mood inside the living room, Pottu Amman, who stood outside the main entrance, entered the room along with the other commanders and said, "No, you must come at once." When Mahattaya saw Pottu Amman and the others he sensed the seriousness and told his wife without losing his equanimity, "Do not worry, whatever decision Annan takes, it will always be the right one," and followed them. They took him to an intelligence unit base at Chavakachceri for interrogation. 6
Unveiling the covert operations
At the time of Mahattaya's arrest his trusted lieutenant, K D Suresh, was away at Putur-Vannivilankulam to convey Mahattaya's orders to their accomplice, planted as one of Prabhakaran's guards. 6
The regular LTTE cadres arrested Suresh and other fugitives and turned them over to the intelligence unit. A week before the arrest of Mahattaya, the LTTE's intelligence unit spotted in the Jaffna city a handicapped ex-LTTE cadre, called Engineer, alias Manickavasagam Mahendrajah. One of his legs had been severed during the Jaffna Fort military campaign. 6
The LTTE discharged him and he went to Chennai by boat to obtain prosthesis. Pottu Amman ordered his men to watch Engineer's activities. They arrested him on the third day, while he was returning from Mahattaya's base at Koandvil, and took him in for questioning. 6
At the interrogation, it became evident of the ploy to de-stabilize the LTTE. According to Engineer, he was arrested on suspicions in connection with Rajiv Gandhi's assassination while he was living in Chennai. The RAW agents, who had a full dossier on him, spotted him and initiated confidential discussions. Subsequently, they sent Engineer, via Colombo, with a message for Mahattaya. They instructed Mahattaya to dump Prabhakaran and to be ready to assume the leadership of a North-East autonomous region. After the meeting with Engineer, Mahattaya dispatched Suresh with instructions to arrange the assassination of Prabhakaran. 6
At the investigation it became clear that Suresh, who arrived at Puthur-Vannivilakulam, could not establish contact with their hit man to convey Mahattaya's urgent order. 6
After the arrest of Mahattaya, President Ranasinghe Premadasa was killed on May 1, 1993 by an LTTE suicide bomber. The murder sparked off much speculation about Premadasa's link to Rajiv Gandhi's assassination conspiracy. 6
Unfortunately, Premadasa's link with Mahattaya and Chandraswami did not surface. C Rajadurai, a former Minister and High Commissioner for Sri Lanka in Malaysia, was alleged to be the go-between between Premadasa and Chandraswami. But this aspect still remains shrouded in a thick veil of secrecy. 6
In the meantime, the LTTE cadres in prison at Vellore, Tamil Nadu, staged a dramatic escape. The LTTE dispatched two speedboats to bring back 14 escapees safely, and gave them a rousing heroes' welcome. Meanwhile, the LTTE office in Jaffna received a letter regarding the jail break scam staged by the RAW, delivered by someone who returned from India, after visiting his son, who was arrested and detained at the Vellore prison. 6
On receipt of the letter, the intelligence unit alerted the leadership. Within a few days they arrested those 14 masqueraded as heroes. At the inquiry it became clear that RAW operatives regularly visited them and held lengthy discussions and finally they agreed to work for the RAW. 6
According to RAW's instructions, the 14 escapees were to free Mahattaya and also arrange the assassination of Prabhakaran. It came to light that one Susilan, a confidante of Mahattaya, was the one who planned to assassinate Prabhakaran. Susilan, after his arrest, admitted that he was instructed to shoot down Prabhakaran. 6
After a long and protracted investigation, the LTTE court-marshalled Mahattaya, condemned him to die, but the execution was delayed. In the later part of 1996 they took him around a few bases in the Vanni area and showed him to their cadres to prove that he was alive. Recently, a journal in Sri Lanka came out with the news that the LTTE had executed Mahattaya and handed over the body to his wife for cremation. This news item needs further confirmation. (But according to Adele Balasingham, in her The Will to Freedom, "Mahathaya [Mahendrarajah] the ill fated deputy leader of the LTTE, who was executed for treason in 1994 …" - page 60) 6
Inconclusive myth
For all practical purposes, the LTTE high command had decided against publicizing Mahattaya's investigation report, thus keeping many intriguing issues in suspense. The LTTE categorically denied its involvement in the murder of Rajiv Gandhi. One opinion prevailing is that there was no need for the militants to deny the murder if they genuinely plotted and killed Rajiv Gandhi and in case they committed the murder, they would have declared it publicly and provided reasons to justify their killing, or else at least put up posters within Jaffna for local consumption to hail their heroic performance. Normally, the LTTE annually included in its martyrs' list those heroes who had died in acts of bravery and heroism while accomplishing their missions. 6
Those accused in Rajiv Gandhi's murder, but who before being arrested committed suicide, including the human bomb Dhanu, were not included in the martyrs' list. Why? Furthermore, why have they not disclosed the role Mahattaya played in the murder? Are they shielding anyone, at the cost of their complacency by acquiescing the blame? Are they trying to cover up anyone by keeping the investigating report classified? 6
The above details show the power struggle within the LTTE during the pre-and post IPKF period. From 1988 to the end of 1991, Mahattaya operated independently in his capacity as the deputy leader and he made use of the Tiger cadres for his operations. Cadres followed the chain of command and unwittingly carried out those orders. A way open to the Indian government was to appoint an international commission with wide terms of reference. Then there may be opportunity for the commission to visit Sri Lanka, meet the LTTE leaders in their own turf and record their statements and thus convincingly probe into the lingering allegations about the LTTE's connections in the Rajiv Gandhi assassination conspiracy. 6
Congress Party President Sonia Gandhi was quoted one fine Thursday saying that neither she nor her son or daughter would like hanging of any of the four convicted for assassination of her husband and former Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi. 6
This kind of statement of Congress President puts her acts in doubt. In the light of above it can be said that much more required to be done in Rajiv Gandhi assassination case.
1. 'Do you know your Sonia' by Dr Subramaniam Swamy dated 15th August 2004.
2. South Asia 'Jul 13, 2002' 'SRI LANKA: THE UNTOLD STORY' CHAPTER 48: Gandhi's murder: Widespread fallout By K T Rajasingham
3. Kerla News, KOCHI: Rajiv Assassination: Swamy Comes out with a new theory 15-October-2004.
4. "Rajiv Assassination Investigation" by Sachi Sri Kantha; Published May 12, 2004.
5. Jal Khambata dated May 19, 1999 (MDMA to interrogate Ranganathan. Source:
6. Rajiv murder: A wider conspiracy? Articles by K T Rajasingham Who Killed Rajiv Gandhi? - September 19, 1998, The Independent Bangladesh Rajiv Murder: A Wider Conspiracy - October 17, 1998, Weekend Express, Sri Lanka.
7. Jal Khambata dated Nov 18, 1999 (Sonia wants clemency for the lady convict in Rajiv assassination case. Source:
Sonia had to become an Indian citizen under compulsions. We know the subsequent. We also know that Sonia was instrumental in the Pope's arrival in India. When Rajive decided to enter into Indian politics, they started visiting Hindu temple with vermilion-smeared foreheads, in saris and dhoties. She gave up her western dress like miniskirt, which earlier she was fond of wearing.
Many of the political leaders in India who are known to be habitual players of negative politics hardly showed any interest when Sonia Gandhi entered into the Nehru-Gandhi family as a daughter-in-law of foreign origin by marrying Rajeev Gandhi in 1968. They started keeping track record of her activities only when Rajeev Gandhi was groomed by his mother Indira Gandhi as crown prince after the death of Sanjay Gandhi. The Italian connection of Rajeev Gandhi however came to lime light in Bofors scandal, which played a decisive role in the defeat of his Government in 1989. After the assassination of Rajeev Gandhi, the status of Sonia was like a royal mother who had an important say in the internal affairs of the Congress Party.
It was post-Rajiv period, this young woman went to Japan, where she lectured that in the matter of divinity both Gandhi and Nehru were of the same level as the Lord Gautama Buddha. At one stroke, the entire Japanese nation was red in anger. And this is the person who in her big expensive book on the late Rajiv, prepared by a hack-writer under the guidance of Sonia, had stated that her knowledge of India was very limited when she first met Rajiv at that Italian eatery in the back streets of Cambridge. Then she knew India to be only a land of snakes and tigers. She had never heard of Gautama Buddha or of Hinduism or even of Islam. 1
People started taking interest in Sonia Gandhi since 1998 when she took over the president ship of the Congress. The Party subsequently won assembly elections in Madhya Pradesh, Delhi and Rajasthan. Gauging the potential of the lady, the RSS and its constituents coined the slogan–“Ram Rajya vs. Rome Rajya” and initiated a debate on her foreign origin as well as the desirability of a foreign born Indian citizen of holding the executive post in the country.
It was not the first time that the Indian National Congress is headed by a foreign national. The Congress was founded by a British national, Allan Octavian Hume, followed by an Irish theosophist, Ms Annie Besant as its president. The fact is that Congress was formed by Mr. Hume as safety valve to defuse the uprising of Indian Nationalism. When the freedom movement gained momentum, the process of Indianisation of the Congress party began particularly after the entry of Bal Gangadhar Tilak and Mahatma Gandhi. Thus comparison of Sonia Gandhi with Mr. Hume or Annie Besant may not be relevant.
The RSS and its political front, the Bhartiya Jan Sangh and now Bhartiya Janata Party (BJP) do not consider Sonia Gandhi ethnically Indian as she does not fit into the frame of their definition of patriotism and nationalism. The foundation of the ideological philosophy of the BJP is the cultural and traditional heritage of India. According to “Sangh Parivar” Sonia Gandhi cannot inspire this philosophy.
When Sonia Gandhi, as president of the Congress Party played an active role in the fall of Vajpayee Government even though she had no chance of forming an alternative Government, the entire Sangh Parivar smelt a conspiracy against a “nationalist Government”. They initiated a debate questioning the desirability of an Italian born Indian citizen to hold the post of the Prime minister. “Organiser”, the RSS weekly in its June 6, 1999 took up the issue publicly with an article entitled “Evangelisation-2000 & India”. Sohail Siddiqui, Chief editor of the Urdu weekly Hamara Qadam of New Delhi gave a new name to Sonia Gandhi-“Sonia-de-Gama.” The article projected that while Vasco-de-Gama’s landing in Indian soil was a precursor of European dominance in India, the entry of “Sonia-de-Gama” in Indian politics…was a conspiracy to destabilise the 13-month old nationalist Government. “At the instance of her foreign friends who hardly need to be identified, she delivered this blow to India when the 12th Lok Sabha was dissolved.” Highlighting Sonia's love for Italy the article said, “Again when it came to marrying her daughter, she cleverly chose to have an alliance with the son of her Italian friend.” Few in this country know that Robert Vadra’s (Vadera) mother is an Italian national married to an Indian, Eric Vadra. The Italian mother-in-law of Smt. Priyanka Vadra had almost discarded her Pakistan born Indian husband Eric Vadra as Firoz was discarded by Indira Gandhi after birth of Rajeev Gandhi. It is also a fact that very few people know that Firoz was a Muslim and was planning for second marriage. His death is also a mystery. It is also a mystery that once he was Muslim, His father was Muslim, his mother was Hindu (though it is said that she also converted to Muslim before getting married with him), how Rajeev became Parsi. Rajeev’s Grand Father was a liquor Merchant form Junagarh area of Gujarat. (I don’t want to go into there history at least in this book).
S. Gurumurthy, a known BJP ideologue and convenor of “Swadeshi Jagaran Manch “ in his article (BJP TODAY-May 15, 99) hit out against Sonia Gandhi—“ All that the nation has told Sonia in silent mode is: - Madam, it is India now, not East India any more…. The conviction that Sonia as Prime Minister of India will be a national shame cut across all political parties including the Congress.”
Thus, with the help of party organs and supporting journalists, the RSS and its constituents brought the debate to a very high pitch and attracted the participation of a wide range of political leaders, including some of the former Prime ministers, journalists, academicians and retired bureaucrats. Former Prime Ministers VP Singh and Chandrashekhar, political leaders like Mulayam Singh and others who hardly subscribe to the RSS point of view including ex-Foreign Secretary, JN Dixit expressed their opinion disfavouring Sonia Gandhi to hold the post of Prime Minister.
The view of RSS found echoes in Congress I too. Three Central Working Committee members of the Congress party-Sharad Pawar, Purno A. Sangma and Tarique Anwar challenged the leadership of Sonia Gandhi on grounds of her “foreign origin.” In their letter they said -“the issue affects not just the security, economic interest and international image of India but hits at the core pride of every Indian. The Congress manifesto should suggest an amendment to the constitution of India, to the effect that the offices of the President, Vice-President and the Prime minister can only be held by natural born Indian citizens. We would also request that you, as Congress president, propose this amendment. This will be in line with your consistent stand that your sole concern in entering public life was to revive and rejuvenate the party.” The debate took its first toll with a split in the Congress Party. (The calculated step of this trio led their ouster from Congress Party. What was drama behind the scene is discussed in later part of this book)
One thing I am sure that most of the politician who are there in the politics does claim that they are there for betterment of nation and party. Unfortunately trio took claim of Sonia on the point seriously and wrote the emotional letter, which resulted in their near political death.
Some of the CPM leadership while supporting the desirability of Sonia Gandhi to hold the high offices in the country said, “If Ms. Gandhi is a foreigner, then so LK Advani and Jyoti Basu." The Marxists were countered by Narendra Modi, General Secretary of the BJP and Arun Jaitley, member, BJP Election Management Committee through a press statement (May 18, 99) – “The Marxists are either ignorant of or mischievously ignoring Article 6 of the constitution of India. The article states, “A Person who has migrated to the territory of India from the country now included in Pakistan shall be deemed to be a citizen of India at the commencement of this constitution.”
Sonia Gandhi on the other hand never wanted to become an Indian even after her marriage. She remained a foreigner for 15 years after she entered the household of the Nehru’s. This lady got married to Rajeev Gandhi in the year 1968. She did not think of becoming an Indian citizen then, but chose to remain an Italian in India.
Now she has become a past mistress in chicanery, Sicilian style. Christian Bhil boys rape Christian Bhil women and Hindu boys get the blame for having raped Christian nuns. The false news is broadcast all over the Christian world and our intellectuals cannot even protest. In faltering Hindi she reads to Hindu listeners that 'the soil of India is as pure to her as the vermilion of her forehead'; that 'she would like to breathe her last only in this land of virtue' and so on and then abruptly turns round, and like an ill-bred street women starts calling respectable Indian leaders like Vajpayee, 'a liar' and 'gaddar'. 1
1. Issue no 2001.04 June 3rd, 2001, Swords of Truth Web Magazine Article by Mr. A. Ghosh 'A visit to Orbassano, Sonia's Birth Place'.
It is said that Congress without power is like fish without water. One can imagine what was the condition of congress before 2004 general election. In 1999 when people thought that Vajpayee government is doing well, technical mind of Sonia Gandhi was working to topple the NDA government in centre. The key figure in the toppling the government was Ms Jayalalithaa. But what was the feeling of AIADMK towards Sonia can be seen in the event which followed later. Emotion is best summed up in a senior AIADMK functionaries own words: "Sonia Gandhi treated us as if she were a zamindar and we were the peasants working her land. We had to plough the land, sow the seed, reap the crop, and even carry it to the granary. But then she drove us with harsh words when we went to ask for our wages. And because we were untouchables there was no justice for us!"
The reference is to the manner in which the Congress (I) used Jayalalithaa in 1999. We will probably never know all the negotiations that went into that famous tea party hosted by Subramanian Swamy where Sonia Gandhi famously rubbed shoulders with Jayalalithaa. But it was implicitly understood that the AIADMK would not suffer if the Congress (I) came to power. It was with this assurance that the AIADMK backed out of the Vajpayee ministry. But then a jubilant Sonia Gandhi told Jayalalithaa, "We shall form a government on our own, and you shall not have any part in it!"
There was little that Jayalalithaa could do about it at that point. (She did, however, seize the opportunity to stand Sonia Gandhi up when they were supposed to speak at a rally in Villupuram. The Congress president cooled her heels for an hour before being informed that her AIADMK counterpart could not make it as a "sea of humanity" was holding her up.) But it was only a matter of time before open hostilities broke out after Jayalalithaa became chief minister for the second time. The last straw was probably the merger of the Tamil Maanila Congress and the parent Congress (I). The former had been created entirely because a section of Congressmen in Tamil Nadu hated Jayalalithaa. Sonia Gandhi made it clear that their feelings would be respected after they rejoined. In fact, she went so far as to use the Tamil Maanila Congress war cry of 'restoring Kamaraj rule in Tamil Nadu.' This was interpreted, correctly I think, as a declaration of intent to force the AIADMK out of power.
"She came to Chennai and vowed to restore Congress rule, did she?" is the AIADMK attitude, "Well, let us see who rules in Delhi." And then actress turn politician Jaya took 180 degree turn and realised that foreigner lady becoming Prime Minister of India is a threat to the country thus she made the famous bombshell about Sonia Gandhi's citizenship.
It was a brilliant tactic by the Tamil Nadu chief minister. The Congress (I) erupted in fury, giving the issue far greater publicity than anyone could have foreseen. But there was an element of luck in it too. For instance, S M Krishna, the chief minister of Karnataka, was drawn into an unwise comparison of Jayalalithaa's own roots. She was, he suggested, feeling shaky as her family hailed from Bangalore.
By comparing Jayaalaleetha birthplace of Karnataka with Sonia's birth to Italy Mr. Krishna has proved that in course of defending Sonia they have becoming mentally bankrupt.
This was unwise. Bangalore is part of India as Turin (or Milan, or whichever part of Italy the Mainos were born) never has been. Jayalalithaa hit back by accusing Karnataka of paying several crores to Veerappan when he kidnapped Raj kumar two years ago. And whatever little effect S M Krishna might have had were negated by the Supreme Court ordering Karnataka to release water from the Cauvery!
Quite plainly, the AIADMK leader has hit a nerve. How will she follow up the initial attack? Maybe by questioning Sonia Gandhi's other abilities?
"Her only qualification is a marriage license!" was Jayalalithaa's terse dismissal of the Congress (I) president's skills. She may be right. For instance, there is a curious silence about La Gandhi's educational background. We all know the tales of how she met Rajeev Gandhi in Cambridge. But which college had the honour of teaching her, pray tell? Jayalalithaa also dismissed the claim that Sonia Gandhi became an Indian after marrying Rajeev Gandhi. She applied for citizenship as late as 1982 -- and that, as Jayalalithaa pointed out, only after the courts admitted a petition asking that all "foreigners" be removed from the prime minister's home!
Sonia Gandhi's prime ministerial candidature has split the party and stalwart like Sharad Pawar, P.A. Sangama and many more had to Part Company with. She is not a uniting factor but a dividing one. Even at this stage she is a potential divider. Her foreignness accentuates the divide. The so-called unity of the Congress party is the result of total helplessness of its leaders. Those who keep close watch on Congress, know it fully well, how her coterie captured the party structure. During one of the Congress working committee meetings Mafia type operation was conducted to browbeat a number of CWC members. She is president of the party and leader of opposition not because she is popular or uniting factor but because of culture of dynastic subservience. This Italian lady infiltrated into the dynasty by marriage, therefore, she is rather misfit for political inheritance. That is why her coterie had to indulge in Mafia operations, at least at two crucial junctures.
The naked truth is that CWC did not, on its own, decide to expel Sharad Pawar, Sangma and Tariq Anwar. It was coerced to do so. Coerced by what? By the threatening and violent crowd outside? Yes, but, that is only half the truth.
The 'crowds' masquerading as 'workers' were under instructions from "their handlers" - a newspaper had reported. Instructions to do what? To ensure that, first, the trio was expelled by the Working Committee, and next, no interim President was appointed in the place of Madam Sonia who had sent her resignation. Four Secretaries of the party had warned against any such move even before the meeting had started. The newspaper had reported that this was an effort by 10, Janpath' to see that no interim replacement of Sonia was attempted.
Who was the 'handler' and what is 10 Janpath are now open secrets. It is the poor widow of Rajeev Gandhi who had been hurt by three senior leaders of her own party telling to her face the most obvious truth - that "she is a foreigner, an Italian, by birth" - and expressed their view that the party should not make her the Prime Minister. Congressmen hardly spoke the truth after 1947. The three who violated the self-imposed discipline of the Congress are now out of the party.
Her coteries send goons to the AICC office. They broke Sitaram Kesri's car, heckled and even manhandled the Reddys, the Dhawans and Shindes who entered the meeting. Finally they signed the pledge document. But they did go beyond the warning from 10, Janpath - but strictly secretly. They passed a resolution condemning the goondas - but being to terrified to release it, they kept it secret. That they have kept it a secret, shows that it would point at - as condemning the goondas would in essence meant court marshalling her.
Once Sonia Gandhi succeeded in enslaving the Congress leaders the coterie around her captured the whole party apparatus rendering everybody helpless. In 1999 when Congress fought under her leadership in an atmosphere of crescendo of hype. In spite of all these Congress reached lowest mark of its history 111 Lok Sabha seats.
It was evident when Sonia Gandhi and her allies could not muster enough support. She had to go to President and express inability to form the Govtrnment for numbers were not enough. All the secular calls and pleadings could not get them even one vote from BJP camp. On the other hand the Index of Opposition Unity is at it’s lowest. Even the Left unity could not be maintained. RJD and Samajwadi Party are at loggerheads. The Congress too was demoralised for committed Himalayan blunders by claiming that she had support of 272 MPs at the very outset, while meeting President K.R. Narayanan.
But for SP leader Mulayam Singh’s opposition to Italy born Sonia Gandhi to occupy the seat of Prime Minister ship of a country of hundred crores. Mr Mulayam Singh was the real hero of 1999. It was he who did not allow Mrs Sonia Gandhi to occupy the highest post of Prime Minister. Even today he is one who is blocking the Sonia to become Prime Minister. The day Uttar Pradesh goes to the hands of Indian National Congress Sonia will definitely become the Prime Minister. But Shri Mulayam Singh is determine to oppose Sonia. He is making all efforts to make Uttar Pradesh out of bound for Sonia Gandhi.
President K.R. Narayanan would have sworn in Sonia Gandhi as Prime Minister of India but L.K. Advani’s compelling argument about a Lakshman Rekha of 270 MPs could not let it happen. For Sonia Gandhi it looked a certainty and therefore along with other family members Predebon Maino, the mother of Sonia had already arrived in New Delhi from their home in Orbassano on the outskirts of Torino in Italy. Sonia Gandhi was sure that by virtue of being the leader of second largest party, President would invite her to form the government after the defeat of Vajpayee government. The fresh letters of support to Vajpayee from BJP and all the allies accounting for 270 MPs were given to President and the argument was made public.
During tragic 5 days, when Sonia Gandhi was at the brink of taking oath of Office of Prime Minister. Danger of slipping India into the hands of a person of foreign origin did become almost real. There was reaction galore ranging from humiliation to disgust from all parts of the country as well as from NRIs. Had there been some India born Congress leaders in place of Sonia Gandhi, the scenario would have been different. Sonia Gandhi’s Italian origin has become an important issue and it is going to dominate whether one likes it or not.
Senior Congress leader Pranab Kumar Mukharjee was asked by Press in Bhopal, if Congress President Sonia Gandhi continued to be citizen of Italy, he said Sonia Gandhi is an Indian citizen. However he had no inkling if she still remained an Italian citizen as well. He said that dual citizenship was being allowed by several countries.
She told the President of India that she had the support of 272 MPs to head a Government. In fact, she did not have that support. Worse, as Mr P. A. Sangma has stated on record, she had not even been authorised by the CWC itself to put in a claim to prime minister ship.
After meeting the President of India, she came out and told the media that he had asked her to continue her efforts at forming an alternative Government and to get back to him at the earliest possible.
The Rashtrapati Bhavan had to issue a written statement setting the record straight. That it was not the President of India who had asked her to continue her efforts and get back to him at the earliest possible. That it was Mrs Sonia Gandhi who had told the President of India that she would continue her efforts and get back to him at the earliest possible.
Her design and conspiracies having failed, Mrs Sonia Gandhi went back to the President of India and had the temerity to once again lie and claim that she had the support of 239 MPs, when in fact she had nothing of the kind!
A fall-out of that fascist trait has certainly descended into Sonia Gandhi. Her lie to the President in April 1999 that she had the support of 272 members of Parliament, the melodrama she enacted after Pawar & Co questioned her citizenship status, and her effort to con the whole country into believing that she was going to contest the election from Cuddapah these are palpable examples of the kind of lady she is, and how authoritarian she is, and how much she is at ease with falsehood.
A fledgling Indian dot com company called made a big splash by releasing a tape involving a few BJP and Samata party functionaries and some retired defence men. It went on to claim that it had 'exposed' massive corruption within the defence establishment, including India's Defence Minister George Fernandes. The Indian print media and television, especially's sponsor Zee TV, prominently featured the story, sensationalizing it in the bargain. The Congress (and the Communists) immediately demanded that the Vajpayee Government resign on 'moral grounds', citing national security as the reason. The loudest voice was that of Sonia Gandhi, who went on to call Vajpayee a gaddar (traitor). 1
It was absurd in the first place for the Congress and the Communists to don the mantle of national security, let alone morality. Congress gave away a large part Kashmir and all of Tibet; the Communists have openly supported Chinese attacks on India, not to mention the atrocities and the Partition. And Sonia Gandhi, following her now infamous tea party, immobilized the Government long enough to facilitate the Pakistanis to infiltrate in Kargil. (Pakistan rewarded her by prominently featuring her anti-Government speeches on Pak TV during the Kargil War.) 1
But then events took a bizarre turn. Her former ally Subramanian Swamy issued a press statement claiming that Sonia Maino and the Maino family had been paid agents of the notorious Soviet intelligence agency KGB. He referred interested parties to the now open Soviet Archives and also to a book written by a distinguished Russian journalist. This led to panic in the Sonia camp. According to some reports she sent an SOS to her son Rahul to give up his job in London and join her in her time of distress. (My report is that Rahul who has dropped out of several colleges has no job, but that is a different story.) 1
Immediately after the Swamy revelation, the Congress refused to allow the Parliament to meet. This is strange to say the least. With the supposedly 'explosive' Tehelka tapes, any opposition party would be itching for a debate in the Parliament. If anything, it should be the NDA (including the BJP) that would want to avoid debate- as the Congress did after the Bofors scandal. But of course, once Parliament meets, there is nothing to stop the BJP (or anyone else) from raising questions about the Sonia-KGB connection. This behaviour of Congress - running away from any debate in Parliament - lends substance and credibility to Swamy's charge. 1
As far as the contents of the Tehelka tapes are concerned, they are worth nothing. C. Rajagopal widely regarded as one of the world's foremost photographic experts say that the 'evidence' of the tapes would be thrown of any court in five minutes. Even worse, they would not be admissible even in an FIR (first information report), without which there cannot even be an investigation. To begin with, the 'evidence' was obtained illegally. Even the police need a court order to tape secretly. When the tapes were shown on TV, most people could not make head or tail out of it, but depended entirely on the comments gratuitously provided by the broadcaster. (The CEO of Tehelka is a nephew of Arjun Singh and the chief of Zee TV is close to Congress.) 1
So the tactic becomes clear. Attack is often the best form of defence. Accuse the NDA- including Fernandes and Vajpayee of being security threats to forestall any possible exposure of her own record, including possible links to the KGB and the Vatican secret agency Opus Dei. So here is the truth behind the Congress antics: even though it is blocking parliamentary proceedings in the name of Tehelka, its real concern is the exposure of Sonia Maino-Gandhi's questionable past. This remains shrouded in mystery, but it is worth looking at the little that is available. 1
Then there's Sonia's duplicity. She seeks our acceptance by constantly appealing to our vast illiterate and emotional people in the idiom of the female gender, representing herself as bahu, beti, maa and vidhwa. She also made a big show earlier in support of the women's reservation legislation by leading a delegation of her gender to the Lok Sabha portals. However, after the Yadavs snatched the Bill from the Speaker and the people realised how helpless the Vajpayee government was in the face of such political behaviour, Sonia Gandhi, instead of coming to the government's help in introducing a landmark legislation for India's women, started proclaiming that it was the government's job to secure consensus on the issue.
It was as transparent as her father's fascist trait that Sonia Gandhi was not interested in the women's reservation law per se, but only insofar as it brought laurels to her and her alone. If Sonia really want to prove that she is in favour of the bill than today she is more powerful than Prime Minister she should get the bill passed.
1. Tehelka Tapes and Sonia's Past By N.S. Rajaram dated June 3rd 2001 Sword of Truth Web Magazine Source:
BEYOND BOFORS: When history will be written of the last twenty years of Indian politics, Sonia Gandhi's name is likely to be associated with the Bofors scandal. But this is only one episode in a long pattern, which had a single goal - acquisition of money for herself and her Italian family. Several of her relatives - including her cousin and Quttrocchi's wife Maria - are wealthy beyond their wildest dreams thanks to Sonia's Indian connection. 1
After death of Indira, overnight Rajeev was imposed in the country as Prime Minister. Sonia Gandhi got free hand to handle all the issue. Her friend Otavio Quattroachi, whose wife was cousin of Mrs Sonia Gandhi, was interested in purchasing Guns. Mr. Rajeev Gandhi was projected in India like Mr. Clean.
Sonia Gandhi is in habit of lying. She told that there was no proof, which suggests involvement of her friends and relative Otavio Quattroachi in the deal. Later, while releasing the Congress Manifesto, Mrs Sonia Gandhi claimed that there were no papers to prove that her friend and collaborator, Ottavio Quattroacchi, had received any money from Bofors.
The judgements of the Swiss Supreme Court and of the Delhi High Court, which stated in clear terms that Ottavio Quattroacchi had received, at current exchange rates, over Rs 30 crores from Bofors for getting that company the order from the Government of India, were released. Mrs Sonia Gandhi became suddenly silent. Yet, when she was once again asked in the interview over Doordarshan about this silence, she once again had the temerity to say that the documents should be shown to her.
The recent decision of Delhi High Court acquitting Rajeev has given congressmen a chance to jump for a bit. Just days after the Delhi High Court had ruled that there was no evidence of illegal gratification on the part of any public servant in the long-running saga of the Bofors payoffs scandal, a former Cabinet Secretary sought rather cautiously to qualify the judicial finding. Releasing his memoirs from the period, B.G. Deshmukh, who had headed the civil service during part of Rajiv Gandhi's prime ministerial tenure and later served as Principal Secretary in his office, suggested that even if Rajiv Gandhi had not directly received any of the payoffs from Bofors, he was clearly aware of the identity of the recipients. He was not interested in pursuing the truth in the matter because of the possibility of political embarrassment. It was most likely, said Deshmukh, that close political associates or friends may have been the guilty in the Bofors case. 7
This offered a striking retrospect on the High Court ruling, delivered on February 4 by Justice J.D. Kapoor. Deshmukh's remarks indeed virtually echo the finding of Special Judge Prem Kumar in November 2002 that Rajiv Gandhi's conduct after the whistle was blown on the Bofors payoffs suggested that he was engaged in a "massive cover-up operation". The Special Judge hearing cases brought by the Central Bureau of Investigation had then dismissed a plea by the Hinduja brothers - Gopichand, Srichand and Prakash - seeking discharge in the Bofors prosecution. He had held that the evidence offered strong prima facie grounds for proceeding with the prosecution. Most critically, he had found that the evidence of the involvement of senior public servants in the Rajiv Gandhi government, including the Prime Minister himself, was sufficient to warrant prosecution of the accused under the Prevention of Corruption Act (PCA). 7
Since the filing of the first information report (FIR) in the Bofors matter as far back as 1990, the Hindujas have been making frequent visits to the courtroom with a variety of petitions. It was no surprise then that they should have chosen to appeal against Judge Prem Kumar's ruling in the High Court. Justice Kapoor's ruling offers them the partial relief of discharge under the PCA, but leaves them liable to prosecution on a number of other charges like "cheating" and conspiracy to cause "wrongful loss" to the Indian government. Also indicted for forgery is the company at the centre of it all - Bofors AB of Sweden - which has gone through successive mutations and is now known under the appellation of the Kartongen Kemi Och Forvaltning AB. Since the case was only being heard by the Special Judge because it involved the PCA, the modification of the charges involves its transfer to the jurisdiction of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate of Delhi. 7
Justice Kapoor has directed that charges be framed afresh in the case against the Hinduja brothers, as also other known recipients of Bofors payoffs - the Italian businessman Ottavio Quattrocchi and the one-time agent for the company, the late W.N. "Win" Chadha. These individuals are to be held liable for "fraudulently and dishonestly representing that there were no agents involved in the negotiations for the contract" and further, for claiming that "the price quoted was the reduced price proportionate to the amount of commission they would have otherwise paid to the agents". 7
IT does not take great percipience to see that this is a virtual judicial non sequitur. The undertaking that no middlemen would be involved in the Indian Army's purchase of howitzer guns was held out by Bofors AB as the bidder for the contract. There is no recognisable legal doctrine by which the individuals who were performing a variety of liaison functions for the company could be held accountable for it. In dealing with this question, Justice Kapoor utilises a device of informed conjecture that he otherwise deprecates: "To say that the Hindujas were not at all aware about the aforesaid representation or declaration or undertaking given by M/s A.B. Bofors (sic) is beyond comprehension as Hindujas had been working as agents (of Bofors) since 1979. Their defence that prior to April 1985 there was no policy or decision of the Government of India that there should not be any middlemen or agent in negotiation of the contract and, therefore, there was nothing illegal in execution of the arrangement between them and (Bofors) may be available to them till April, 1985; but subsequent thereto, to say that they had no knowledge about the declaration and undertaking... is difficult to accept at this stage and would be as if left hand did not know what the right hand was doing." 7
When dealing with the possibility that the choice of the Bofors gun over competition could have been influenced by extraneous and possibly corrupt considerations, Justice Kapoor shows a curious reluctance to use similar inferences. Thus, in dismissing the rival claims of a French manufacturer of artillery guns, he asserts quite bluntly and in rather colourful language that "the Expert Committee's opinion as to the preference of Bofors could not and ought not have been ignored even if it was little costlier (because) security of a nation cannot be jeopardised for a few bucks here or there". 7
Justice Kapoor has relied on various arguments to dismiss the charge of corruption and absolve the two public servants who feature on the CBI's bill of indictment - Rajiv Gandhi and former Defence Secretary S.K. Bhatnagar, since deceased. Among them is a notion of judicial fairness: since the accused are no longer alive to defend themselves, the evidence that is adduced against them would go "unrebutted, undefended and unchallenged". 7
This, Justice Kapoor holds, would go against the "cardinal principle of trial that any trial in the absence of the accused is no trial". Curiously though, Justice Kapoor fails to apply this principle in the case of Chadha, also since deceased. 7
The main thrust of Justice Kapoor's 115-page judgment though is on the lack of evidence of payoffs made to public servants. Thus, he pronounces that "16 years of investigation by a premier agency of the country (the CBI) could not unearth a scintilla of evidence against (Rajiv Gandhi and S.K. Bhatnagar) for having accepted bribe/illegal gratification in awarding the contract" to Bofors. This sweeping pronouncement ignores the vital fact that the CBI has never assumed or asserted in its charge-sheets that the public servants featuring on its bill of indictment had received any part of the illicit payoffs. 7
What has been affirmed rather is that both Rajiv Gandhi and Bhatnagar were complicit in the abuse of power and position in the grant of pecuniary favours to a number of Bofors middlemen. The inclusion of their names in the CBI charge-sheet was essential to preserving the integrity of the case. The illicit payoffs may or may not have been destined for the public servants concerned, but in a case involving conspiracy to cause wrongful loss to the government, all links in the chain need to be mentioned. 7
This was the judicial reasoning underlying Judge Prem Kumar's ruling permitting the CBI to frame charges against all accused in the Bofors case. "After Bofors had denied payment of commission/bribes," he noted, "Shri Rajiv Gandhi spoke to Swedish Prime Minister and told him that there was no need for any further investigation by Swedish government. No pressure of any kind was put on Bofors to come out with details of middlemen and the extent of amount (sic) paid to them. What to talk of cancellation, even threat to cancel was not extended. The CBI even failed to perform its statutory obligations of registering the FIR and conducting investigations... " 7
In dealing with Judge Prem Kumar's ruling, Justice Kapoor terms the circumstances that he relied upon in inferring that there was a "conspiracy" and "abetment to commit the offences" as "wholly presumptive and imaginative(sic)". The Chief of Staff of the Indian Army then, General K. Sundarji, had recommended the cancellation of the contract as a punitive action. 7
Bhatnagar had returned this recommendation to the General, with the suggestion that it be modified. This "difference of opinion", in the words of Justice Kapoor, "cannot form the basis of conspiracy". 7
A conspiracy between the public servants named and the proven recipients of the Bofors payoffs - Quattrocchi, Chadha and the Hindujas - is not established by the mere fact of "receipt of commission by them subsequent to the award" of the contract. The subsequent telephone conversation between Rajiv Gandhi and his Swedish counterpart and the formal letter that was sent seeking to deflect the official inquiry off course in that country, pertains in Justice Kapoor's view, to "post-contract conduct" which "cannot be used as evidence for a conspiracy prior to the contract". 7
In perhaps the most pithy statement of his grounds for dismissing the accusations against the public servants, Justice Kapoor observes that a "meeting of the mind (sic) is an essential ingredient of conspiracy". And "none of the circumstances relied upon by the CBI during the contract or after the contract, project or demonstrate any meeting of minds of all the participants in the conspiracy".
This effectively rules out of court all the evidence that was marshalled by the independent media investigation - and subsequently used by the CBI - in establishing the various kinds of connections between the main players in the Bofors saga. 7
The Rajiv Gandhi connection in fact is strongly indicated in a number of circumstances: the mysterious emergence of an interest group Svenska AG, since proven to be a front for the Rajiv Gandhi family intimate Quattrocchi, in the last stages of negotiations before the contract was signed; the seeming certainty with which the new entity established its entitlements to a share of the contract value on the understanding that the contract would be signed before a specific date; and the subsequent discovery of precisely defined payments as a proportion of contract value into accounts controlled by Quattrocchi. 7
SINCE the filing of the FIR in the Bofors case in 1990, the investigation and the prosecution have been deflected off course on two previous occasions by highly questionable rulings from the Delhi High Court. Justice Kapoor's judgment, in this sense, constitutes a dubious hat-trick. Having obtained due redress on both previous occasions on appeal to the Supreme Court, the CBI has indicated that it is inclined to move the apex court this time too. 7
Sonia Gandhi's attachment to money is legendary- understandable in a person of her socio-economic background. For a person of her background, the highest aspiration is to escape from her depressing surroundings, which of course she has done with spectacular success. This no doubt accounts for her extraordinary attachment to money, as well as her admiration for get-rich-quick artists like Paul Marcinkus (more later) and Ottavio Quattrocchi. This is a typically lower middle class Italian trait. But she also controls vast financial resources through her trusts and foundations- and now the Congress party. Some of it at least came from the KGB, if Swamy is to be believed. Obviously she had to give something in return. 1
It goes without saying that the trusts and foundations controlled by Gandhi should be properly audited. As far as the finances are concerned, since there was no governmental oversight for many years, we can be reasonably sure that a good part of the money has found its way into illegal channels where profits are very much higher. This is invariably the case all over the world. Keeping this possibility in view, it is worth taking a look at some potential sources of money and possible subversion. 1
Then there is the strange case of Archbishop Marcinkus, former president of the Vatican Bank, and now wanted by the police in Italy and the United States. The Vatican Bank was a hotbed of drug money laundering operations. Its chief Marcinkus is (or was) 'spiritual advisor' to Sonia's family. In 1986, when he could not set foot in Italy or America for fear of arrest, he received red-carpet treatment in India. He conducted Catholic service at 10 Janpath for Sonia. Marcinkus was also involved in several Latin American banks controlled by a Sicilian Mafia lord by name Michel Sindona - known also as 'the Shark'. Sindona, the Shark, an advisor to the Vatican and a personal friend of Pope Paul VI, died in an Italian prison, poisoned by unknown hands. Just before his death, he gave a statement accusing the Vatican of the crime. 1
At least one other high Vatican official was involved in Latin American drug wars. This was Cardinal Posadas-Ocampo of Mexico who was an agent of the notorious Colombian drug baron Pablo Escobar, and possibly also of Noriega. In May 1993, Posadas-Ocampo - known as the 'Drug Cardinal' - was assassinated at the Gudalajara airport in drug-infested Central Mexico. Mexican Church officials stated that he was killed because he was trying to arrange safe asylum in Mexico for his patron Pablo Escobar. Escobar himself was later gunned down in a battle with the Colombian drug enforcement authorities, showing that he was badly in need of a safe haven. This, the good Cardinal was trying to arrange, before he was assassinated. 1
Then there is the stranger case of the late Agha Hassan Abedi, the founder of the Pakistani Bank known as BCCI (Bank of Credit and Commerce International) - another drug money laundering outfit. Where the Vatican Bank was active in Europe and America, the BCCI specialized in the Asian drug market. Abedi's reach extended to the U.S. also. He even had the former Secretary of Defence Clark Clifford as his lobbyist for a fee of nearly $100 million! This was exposed in U.S. Congressional hearings, and Clifford was disgraced. 1
What has this got to do with the Gandhis of India? For a start Abedi happened to be a major donor to the Indira Gandhi Memorial Foundation, later controlled by Sonia. The first Indira Gandhi Peace Prize was awarded to Yasser Arafat, with money donated by Abedi! In addition, several members of the Gandhi trusts have close ties to Pakistan. A high official of the Nehru Museum and Library is a Pakistani who claims to be a Marxist. Sonia Gandhi's close associate and official spokesman Mani Shankar Aiyar has consistently taken pro-Pakistani positions on most issues - from the Jinnah House in Mumbai to Kashmir. 1
When Indira Gandhi was Prime Minister. In those days, Sonia openly displayed her contempt for India and Indians, and went to cultural events at the Embassy consciously dressed in the European style. 1
Her fear of exposure helps account for much of her recent behaviour, including her entry into politics. It tells us why this housewife who had shown no interest in politics, suddenly took over the Congress, and embarked on an arduous election campaign to keep the BJP away form office. This was not to save the Congress but to save herself - especially her past from exposure. The real question: can India afford to place everything including nuclear weapons in the hands of a near illiterate adventuress trying to save herself from disgrace? 1
RUNNING TO ITALY DURING 1971 WAR WITH HER PILOT HUSBAND: Most of us do know about 1971 war. Indian government was helping Bangladesh in her freedom struggle. During the 1971 war, Sonia with her family took refuge in Italy. The Indians, she claims to represent, were either dying in battle, or rationing food and utilities to support our troops. Under emergency provisions, the leave of all Indian Airlines pilots were cancelled so that they could be used for providing logistical support. The only exception was brave Rajeev Gandhi the great husband of Sonia nee Maino and son of Desh ki Mahanatam Putri (son of greatest daughter of India), a full-time pilot with Indian Airlines. Sonia Gandhi, who now claims that she is an Indian till her last breath, flew off to Italy with brave Rajeev Gandhi and their two children. This was done to ensure that this brave pilot could enjoy love of her wife in Italy. Now she did not forget to say at any juncture that he was a patriotic man of India. It is said that none other than Sonia's mind was working to take Rajeev to Italy at the time of war. While indigenous Indians serving as pilots with Indian Airlines stood by to serve their motherland, Sonia Gandhi and family remained in the more congenial surroundings of Italy during the entire duration of the war, returning only after General Niazi had signed the surrender papers. 2
I think Sonia is not aware of the facts that Indian History is full of examples when wife and mother of soldiers sent their respective husband and son to battlefield at the time of war. If any one runs like Rajeev at the time of war he is called traitor. But we can't call Rajeev a traitor because he was not an ordinary Indian he was Indian Prince of Wales, he was from Nehru-Gandhi Dynasty. How can I mistake to compare a Prince with ordinary citizen?
If Sonia wants to become Prime Minister of India she should reply why she went to Italy at the time of 1971 war? Obviously she may say that at that time she was an Italian till her last breath. She became Indian till her last breath only because she wants to become Indian Prime Minister now.
It was only starting to the wrongs we know she has done in her life. From here we find non-ending scandals and misgivings of her life.
After independent of Bangladesh Italian Sonia returned to India along with her brave husband.
MARUTI SCANDAL: Some events of the past, shed light on the kind of ambitions that Indira Gandhi's "Innocent" and "reticent" bahu has nurtured for long and of how she had no qualms about breaking laws which put the fear of God even among natural-born Indians. The first of these relates to the launch of a company called the Maruti technical services private limited (MTSPL) on November 16, 1970. 3
This private limited company was set up by her along with Sanjay Gandhi to provide technical know-how for the design, manufacture and assembly of "a wholly indigenous motor car". The story of this company provides one some valuable insights into the mind of Sonia Gandhi, who is often credited with much innocence and gullibility by those around her. 3
The birth of MTSPL preceded that of another company, the Maruti limited, which was to avail of this company's "know-how" to produce cars. The articles of association of MTSPL named Sanjay and Sonia as the first and permanent directors of the company, who between them held 20 shares of Rs 10 each. In other words, its paid-up capital was Rs 200 at the time of its launch. 3
On November 21, 1970, just days after its incorporation, the MTSPL entered into an agreement with Sanjay Gandhi, who owned 50 per cent of it. Under this agreement, Sanjay agreed to render "technical know-how" to the company for a consideration of Rs 3 lakh. 3
Months later, in June, 1971, the Maruti limited was incorporated under the Companies Act and Sanjay Gandhi became its managing director. 3
On December 15, 1971, the MTSPL, the "know-how" company, allotted 1500 equity shares of Rs 10 each to Sanjay Gandhi. On June 2, 1972, the MTSPL entered into an agreement with Maruti limited according to which the MTSPL was to be paid Rs 5 lakh in lump sum by the latter for providing the technical know-how to Maruti limited. This document described the MTSPL of which Sanjay and Sonia were the only directors, as a technical company "which has the capability of impacting technical know-how for the design, manufacture and assembly in India of a wholly indigenous motor car." It was also entitled to an annual technical fee of 2 per cent of the net sales of the motor cars. Six weeks after this agreement, the Maruti limited paid the promised Rs 5 lakh to the MTSPL. 3
Later, the MTSPL kept its word and paid Sanjay Gandhi, its half owner, Rs 3 lakh in order to purchase "technical know-how" from him! 3
The next move came about a year later. The MTSPL appointed the owner of its other half, Sonia Gandhi, its managing director. This happened at an "extraordinary general meeting of the share holders" held on January 25, 1973. Suffice it to say that Sanjay and Sonia, the two directors, were also the only share-holders of the company at that time. Soon thereafter. the MTSPL signed an agreement with Sonia Gandhi as per which she was to remain the managing director of the company for five years. She was to get a salary of Rs 2000 per month and one per cent commission on the net profits of the company subject to a limit of 50 per cent of her annual salary plus perquisites. 3
Sometime later the company allotted 2000 shares to Sonia Gandhi, but for some reason this was later subdivided into two share certificates of 1900 and 100 shares respectively and 1900 shares were allotted to Sonia on February 4, 1974. On the same day 4000 shares each were allotted to Priyanka and Rahul, the two minor children of Sonia and Rajiv. Even more fascinating was the decision of the Nehru-Gandhi family to launch yet another company, to make among other things, road rollers, and to appoint Sonia Gandhi as managing director of this firm as well. 3
This company, called the Maruti heavy vehicles private limited, had 13 share-holders but the Nehru-Gandhis had the controlling shares. 3
It was incorporated on February 22, 1974 and Sonia Gandhi acquired 5000 shares in it. She entered into an agreement with this company on September 28, 1974 in regard to her appointment as its MD. 3
But this agreement was not implemented and she did not draw any salary as MD of this company. 3
In 1975, this "road roller company" too sought out the Maruti technical services Company, the "know-how" company, in search of know-how to make road rollers. 3
An agreement was signed on April 1, 1975 between the two companies as per which the road roller company was to pay the know-how company two per cent of net sales of road rollers and spare parts. 3
Did Sonia Gandhi, who was then a citizen of Italy, violate any Indian laws by becoming the managing director of an Indian company and by acquiring shares in Indian companies? Was the MTSPL, which was floated by Sanjay and Sonia, ever competent, to provide technical know-how to make "a wholly indigenous motor car" and road rollers? Was Sonia Gandhi competent to be the managing director of such companies? 3
A commission of inquiry headed by justice A C Gupta, which probed the Maruti scandal and submitted its report in 1978, provides the answers to all these questions. The commission's report says S M Rege, who was secretary of the Maruti limited, told the commission that it was known to all concerned that Shrimati Sonia Gandhi was a foreign national and not a citizen of India. S Kumar, registrar of companies, Delhi and Haryana, said the allotment of shares of the MTSPL and MHVPL to Gandhi in 1974 was in contravention of the Foreign Exchange Regulation act, 1973 "and therefore ab initio void". 3
The commission concluded thus: "It was a fact known to all concerned that Shrimati Sonia Gandhi was a foreign national. In view of the provisions of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973, which came into force on January 1, 1974, she could neither hold shares of any Indian company nor hold any office of profit in such company from the date the act came into force without the prior approval of the Reserve Bank of India. Ultimately, she tendered her resignation on January. 21, 1975. 3
Section 28(1) of the FERA said a person who is not a citizen of India "She not, except with the general or special permission of the Reserve Bank act or accept appointment as technical or management adviser in India of any person or company. Section 29(1) of the act prohibited foreigners from acquiring shares of any company. Yet, she continued as managing director and resigned only on January 21, 1975. She had thus violated FERA for over a year. Section 56 of the act, which lists the punishment for contravention FERA, says that violations of this nature can attract imprisonment for periods ranging from six months to seven years. 4
It is surprising that Shrimati Sonia Gandhi who did not have any technical qualification should be appointed managing director of a technical company. Quite a large sum of money was paid to her on account of her salary and perquisites during the period she remained the managing director of the company". 3
The Gupta commission report further records that A Banerjee, income-tax officer, disallowed part of the remuneration paid to Shrimati Sonia Gandhi as excessive "because she had no qualifications to be able to render any technical service to the company." 3
The commission also examined the question as to whether the MTSPL floated by Sanjay and Sonia was competent to provide the know-how to make cars and road rollers. 3
W H F Muller, a German technician on the staff of the MTSPL told the commission that all that the Maruti limited produced were 10 to 12 prototypes which were "hand-made", "fabricated/purchased in parts" and not of the same design. They were different from one another. Yet another witness said the MTSPL had no qualified graduate engineer for design on their rolls. There was no fixed and finalised design for the vehicles and no research and development facility. 3
Yet, dealers were recruited and asked to set up show-rooms "to create an impression that the appearance of the Maruti car in the market was imminent". Two such dealers, who were given cars to exhibit in their show-room, narrated their experience to the commission. "One had to push the car to his show-room, and the other who returned the car to the Maruti garage for repairs following a brake failure while he was driving, did not get back either the car or the money (Rs 22,000) he had paid for it." 3
The commission also spoke about the rough and ready methods used by the Maruti limited against dealers who wanted to back out. "One of the dealers, S C Agarwal, who terminated his agency, was threatened by Sanjay Gandhi that he would be sent to jail and Agarwal had to apologise to him by touching his feet. Om Prakash Gupta of Hapur who had asked for payment of interest due to him on his security deposit, was arrested under the Maintenance of internal Security Act". 3
Witnesses also told the commission that the MTSPL did not have any technically qualified person or specialist on road-rollers. 3
The commission, therefore, concluded that the " Maruti Technical Services was not competent to render technical know-how in respect of motor cars. There is no evidence that it had the know-how in respect of road rollers." 3
The Maruti cars that one sees on the road today came to be produced after the central government took over the Maruti limited and brought in genuine "know-how" from Japan. 3
But as we all know the Nehru-Gandhi dynasty has got birth right to loot this country like their fiefdom. If normal citizen like you or me had done these kind of offence then would have been behind the bar for a sufficient long period.
But now she can say that it was training period for her to get acquainted with the way Gandhi Nehru Dynasty used to loot the country. She can also say to defend her that papers where not prepared in Italian. It was in English or Hindi. That is why she signed those papers and she was innocent. Unfortunately the courts in India also are not able to do any thing on such occasions. They also take such arguments very seriously especially if it is being made on behalf of an Elitist family. "Every person is Innocent until his guilty is proved" this is rule of justice. This rule becomes as powerful as the person on whose behalf, argument is made. The courts are also aware how during the period of Emergency Indira treated Judiciary.
TAKING REFUGE IN ITALIAN EMBASSY ALONG WITH BRAVE HUSBAND WHEN CONGRESS LOST IN 1977: During emergency at mass level atrocities were committed against those who were not respecting the dictation of Indira Gandhi. What happened to Indira Gandhi we all know after the election of 1977. She along with her party lost election. But I am not writing this book on Indira Gandhi. I am writing this book on Sonia, accordingly my interest was in what Sonia was doing at that movement. Sonia was also aware of the atrocities, which was committed by Indira Gandhi at the time of emergency. After news came in that the Congress and Indira Gandhi had been defeated in 1977, her bloods started saying that she was Italian till her last breath. India is not her motherland it is Italy, which is her motherland. She was planning to get out of India and anyhow reach to Italy. She was aware that opposition party might take revenge of atrocities, which were committed over them at the time of emergency - they all will be put in jail in the manner in which Indira put them under MISA. Her brave husband who had already proved his mental capacity by failing thrice at Cambridge was also dependent on her semi-literate wife. Both of them wanted to run to Italy but thought it would not be easy for them. At that movement an idea came in Sonia's mind, she was aware that under International law she couldn't be arrested from Italian Embassy. Immediately Sonia Gandhi packed an overnighter and, with her brave husband and children in tow, took refuge in the Italian embassy in New Delhi's Chanakyapuri. It took the combined efforts of Indira Gandhi, Sanjay Gandhi and the other 'bahu' of the household, Maneka Gandhi nee Anand, to convince her to return to the Gandhi home. At that time her blood was saying that she is an Italian till her last breath.
Indeed, two incidents during these 10 years one of running to Italy at the time of 1971 war and another at taking asylum at Italian Embassy after defeat of Indira Gandhi in 1977 clearly suggest that it was a considered decision of Sonia not to repudiate her Italian citizenship. In fact she wanted to hang on her Italian allegiance. 2
How heart of Sonia changed? Did she got enlightenment under wisdom tree which resulted in her acquiring Indian citizen. We will come to this point but first let us see how she started her political life.
BECOMING INDIAN VOTER BEING ITALIAN CITIZEN - Sonia Gandhi made a false start in Indian business and industry in the 1970s. Her unlawful association with two companies came to light after the A C Gupta commission, appointed by the Morarji Desai government, submitted its findings in 1978. Following the report, the government took over the Maruti limited and seriously began efforts to give India a "wholly indigenous" small car. Gandhi's dalliance with business probably ended after this fiasco but there is evidence to show that her tryst with politics began in 1980 and this too started on a false note. 4
The electoral rolls of the New Delhi parliamentary constituency were revised in 1980 with January of that year as the qualifying date. This revision enable the people to seek additions, deletions and changes in the list and among those who did so were members of the family of Indira Gandhi, who was then the Prime Minister. The family lived in 1, Safdarjung Road and until then had four voters Indira Gandhi, Rajiv Gandhi, Sanjiv Gandhi and Maneka Gandhi in 1980, there was an addition to the list - Sonia Gandhi. She was listed as a voter at serial number 388 in poling station number 145 of that parliamentary constituency. 4
This would have passed off as a routine addition, but for the fact that Sonia Gandhi was not a citizen of India, a fundamental qualification for anyone seeking entry into the voters' list of any country. 4
The fraudulent entry in the list of electors would have gone unnoticed but for 'Surya India,' a popular news magazine in those days, which raked up the issue. 'Surya India' did a cover story on Sonia Gandhi in October 1982 and asked how a citizen of Italy could be a voter in India. An official, of Delhi had told the magazine that this was a blatant violation of rules but had pleaded helplessness. The magazine quoted him as saying: "It is not for us to check whether applicants are bonafide citizens of this country or not. We expect only genuine citizens to enrol themselves. Besides, who can expect an official to question the veracity of statements made by a responsible member of the Prime Minister's family when they go to crosscheck the voters' list. 4
However, soon after the scandal broke out, the chief electoral officer, Delhi was forced to take cognisance of this case and to remove the foreign element from the electoral rolls. This he did in 1982 but by then Sonia Gandhi had illegally remained on the electoral rolls for almost three years. 4
Sonia's entry into the electoral rolls and her continuance on it for such a long time is not a simple case of oversight. The name of Sanjay Gandhi, who had died in a tragic plane crash in June 1980, was deleted from the list of voters in 1, Sardarjung Road when the rolls were updated in 1981 but Sonia Gandhi remained on the rolls at number 388. Her name was deleted only after a controversy erupted the following year. The order of deletion was issued by K L Sethi, who was the election officer, Delhi. 4
However, Sonia Gandhi re-entered the voters' list following a fresh revision in 1983. She was listed at serial number 236 in polling station 140 of the New Delhi parliamentary constituency. It is now ascertained that Sonia applied for Indian citizenship on April 7, 1983 and was granted citizenship on April 7, 1983, which means that she finally decided to take the Indian citizenship 15 years after her marriage to Rajiv Gandhi. 4
Sonia Gandhi must, therefore, explain why she was for more anxious to enter the voters' list in India than to give up her Italian citizenship. 4
Again in 1980, her entry into the voters' list while she was still a citizen of Italy constituted a violation of the country's electoral law. 4
In fact, From 4 in the registration, of electors rules, 1960 clearly states that "only the names of those who are citizens of India should be entered." This is the form that is sent to the occupant of the household meaning the head of the family. In 1980, the head of the household was Indira Gandhi. An individual applicant can fill form 6. Here again the applicant must declare that he or she is a citizen of India. 4
Section 31 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950 says: "Any person who makes a statement or declaration which is false and which he either knows or believes to be false or does not believe to be true shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year or with fine or with both. 4
There is, however, no evidence, that the electoral officer proceeded against anyone for such an obvious and wilful violation of the sanctity of India's electoral rolls. 4
INSURANCE SCANDAL: If I say that Mrs Sonia Gandhi ran a life insurance business from the Prime Minister’s House, which is not really as awful as it sounds because you have to do something with yourself even if you are the prime minister's daughter-in-law. But the catch in the LIC contract in operation then was that you had to be an Indian citizen to be an LIC agent. Well the LIC made a huge exception in Sonia Gandhi's case. However our clerks having been trained In the British tradition decided to enter it on file that Mrs Sonia Gandhi's nationality was not Indian. 5
The story caused uproar with Mr Atal Bihari Vajpayee himself placing the question before government in parliament. Within a week of the uproar Sonia Gandhi asked for and got an Indian passport. The allegation levelled then, as it is being levelled now, was that she did not really want to accept Indian citizenship but was forced to do so because of the embarrassment cause to her mother-in-law the then prime minister of India. 5
SCANDAL IN GRANTING CITIZENSHIP: It could also be that having had no intention at all of over being involved in politics or public life Sonia Gandhi hung on to the country of her birth. No one gives up his or her mother country just like that! And as Rajeev Gandhi was to say later "It never occurred to us that even this could become an issue. I always thought Sonia's passport was her own personal affair" 5
That might sound not just naive but even politically stupid. But that's the kind of bloke Rajeev Gandhi was. And that's the kind of person Sonia Gandhi is. An admittedly very pretty and charming housewife who also dabbles in history, cultures art and loads of social work. 5
And today the great Congress party depends entirely on the talents of an admittedly very pretty and charming housewife. But I can only repeat the same thing that being a member of first family of country she is absolutely entitled to break the law, as according to Ms Sonia Gandhi these all are only technicality. 5
Sonia Gandhi’s image as a foreigner is largely her own doing. Even after decades in India, she still sounds hopeless while delivering a speech in Hindi or English. Besides, she has never cared to explain why she had shunned an Indian citizenship as a Nehru-Gandhi bahu till soon after Sanjay Gandhi’s death when she suddenly changed her mind. Quite obviously, the death of the youngest scion had evened out Rajeev Gandhi’s road to becoming the next dynastic ruler of the country.
In light of these events, which came to light, I can say that Sonia Gandhi’s acceptance of Indian citizenship was thus more an opportunistic, than patriotic, choice. Now I come to the point as to how she became Indian citizen.
A foreigner seeking Indian citizenship has to state on oath that he or she has relinquished his or her citizenship of the original country. This requirement was all the more necessary in the case of an Italian citizen. Under Italian law, an Italian taking citizenship of another country continues to retain his or her Italian citizenship. Sonia Gandhi's application did not have the requisite statement, nor did it have any official document from the appropriate authorities in Italy. The omission was made up in a curious way. The Ambassador of Italy stepped in, and wrote to the Government saying that Sonia Gandhi had indeed given up her citizenship of Italy. He did so on 27 April 1983. Sonia got her citizenship forthwith -- on 30 April 1983.
But, then, this raises the critical question; do Indian officials give citizenship to some people even without their applying for it? If that is so, particularly in the case of Sonia Gandhi, it clearly shows that Government in India runs sans rules and regulations - which bodes a grave risk to the security of nation.
To be sure, the phenomenon of corruption did not begin with the crowning of Rajeev Gandhi as Prime Minister upon his mother's death. It's a post Independence "fringe benefit" the Congress rulers have allowed to their yes men and themselves for decades at nation's cost, thereby letting the nation go down the drain. But to give away India's prized citizenship to the foreign wife of a Prime Minister, when she has not applied for it, it's a gross act of dereliction that can result in endangerment of the country when the "citizen" may later covet especially a sensitive government position - as is now the case with Sonia Gandhi.
I believe, the whole issue of granting citizenship to Sonia Gandhi, and not merely that she "answer for her delay in accepting" it, as Mr. Vajpayee is belatedly asked during the 2004 elections, needs to be fully investigated by an independent judicial body and its findings made public and those, if any, found guilty severely punished. The fact that even while living with her husband in India she resisted Indian citizenship for fifteen long years is quite telling. That clearly indicates how she relates with India.
The courts in India have ruled that it is the “state of mind” which is material in granting the citizenship. In Sonia Gandhi's case, the above ''state of mind'' was reached in 1983 some 15 years after her marriage to Rajeev Gandhi. That would mean that when she became a wife (in February 1968), when she became a mother for the first time (in June 1970) and for the second time (in January 1972) her state of mind was not finalised; her mind obviously remained focussed on Orbassano, a small north Italian village inhabited by old-fashioned Catholics including her father Stephano Maino.
And what was so special about 1983 that made Sonia Gandhi firm up her state of mind on securing Indian citizenship? According to 'Indira' --- the authorised biography of Indira Gandhi written by her close associate, Pupul Jayakar --- the Gandhi bahu applied for Indian citizenship only when a case was filed in court by a ''family member'' to the effect that it was improper to have a foreigner living permanently in the prime minister's house.
Another reason why Sonia became Indian citizen has been explained above. These two matter forced Sonia to accept Indian citizenship.
RAJIV GANDHI FOUNDATION SCANDAL: Rajeev Gandhi was assassinated in 1991. Sonia established Rajeev Gandhi foundation. Sonia Gandhi has been involved in converting huge amount of Government money to her own use. Here a few examples are quoted. The Foundation has performed two principal functions. The projection of Sonia Gandhi. And enticing an array of leaders, intellectuals, journalists etc. into nets of patronage and pelf.
On Risana road land was acquired. The land was meant to house offices of the Congress. A large, ultra-modern building was built the finance was provided by bunch of technical devices, which remain a mystery. The building had but to get completed, and Sonia misappropriated it for the Rajeev Gandhi Foundation she completely controls. The Congress (I) did not just oblige by keeping silent about the takeover of its building, in the very first budget its Government presented upon returning to power, it provided Rs 100 crores to this Foundation. The furore that give-away caused was so great that the largesse had to be cancelled. No problem. Business house after business house, even public sector enterprises incurring huge losses, coughed up crores. Incidentally, it was the Rajeev Gandhi Foundation to which the ''clean'' and ''gentlemanly'' Manmohan Singh allocated one billion rupees in his very first Budget that was presented, remember, even as part of the nation's gold lay mortgaged abroad.
Imagine too the cunning she showed after her husband's demise in starting the Rajeev Gandhi Foundation and grabbing for it the land allotted to the Congress party for its national headquarters. Today, madam reigns over the massive and magnificent building of the Foundation while no one in the Congress has the spine to stake claim to it.
BECOMING CHAIRPERSON OF JAWAHAR LAL NEHRU MUSEUM: One day suddenly it was found that Sonia Gandhi, without having any known sources of income, has become the controller of one of the largest empires of property and patronage in Delhi. The Jawaharlal Nehru Memorial Library and Museum is one of the principal institutions for research on contemporary Indian history. It is situated in and controls real estate, which, because of its historical importance, cannot even, be valued. The institution runs entirely on grants from the Government of India. 6
Sonia Gandhi has absolutely no qualification that could by any stretch of imagination entitle her to head the institution. Has she secured even an elementary university degree, to say nothing of having done anything that would even suggest some specialization in subjects which the institution has been set up to study. But by mysterious technicalities she is today the head of this institution. So much so that she even decides which scholar may have access to papers even official papers of Pundit Nehru and others of that family, including, if I may stretch the term, Lady Mountbatten. 6
Indira Gandhi National Centre for Arts SCANDAL: This Centre was set up as a trust in 1987 by a resolution of the Cabinet. The Government of India gave Rs. 50 crores out of the Consolidated Fund of India as a corpus fund to this Centre. It transferred 23 acres of land along what is surely one of the costliest sites in the world, Central Vista, the stretch that runs between Rashtrapati Bhavan and India Gate to this Trust. Furthermore, it granted another Rs. 84 crores for the Trust to construct its building. 6
The land was government land. The funds were government funds. Accordingly, care was taken to ensure that the Trust would remain under the overall control of the Government of India. Therefore, the Deed of the Trust provided, inter alia, 6
· “Every ten years two-thirds of the trustees would retire. The Government would fill one half of the vacancies caused. One half would be filled by nominations made by the retiring trustees.
· The Member Secretary of the Trust would be nominated by the Government on such terms and conditions as the Government may decide.
· The President of India would appoint a committee from time to time to review the working of the Trust, and the recommendations of the committee would be binding on the Trust.
· No changes would be made in the deed of the Trust except by prior written sanction of the Government, and even then the changes may be adopted only by three-quarters of the Trustees agreeing to them at a meeting specially convened for the purpose.”
Now, just see how Property of IGNCA was criminally misappropriated.
A meeting like any other meeting of the trustees was convened on 18 May 1995. The minutes of this meeting which were discussed the minutes were circulated officially by Dr Kapila Vatsyayan in her capacity as the Director of the Centre with the observation, "The Minutes of this meeting have been approved by Smt Sonia Gandhi, President of the IGNCA Trust." 6
What did the assembled personages discuss and approve? Even if the topics seem mundane, do read them carefully for they contain a vital clue, the Sherlock Holmes clue so to say, about what did not happen. 6
The minutes report that the following subjects were discussed: 6
1. Indira Gandhi Memorial Fellowship Scheme and the Research Grant Scheme.
2. Commemoration volume in the memory of Stella Kramrisch.
3. Sale of publications of the IGNCA.
4. Manuscripts on music and dance belonging to the former ruling house of Raigarh in M P
5. Report on the 10th and 11th meetings of the Executive Committee.
6. Approval and adoption of the Annual Report and Annual Accounts, 1993-94.
7. Bilateral and multilateral programmes of IGNCA, and aid from U N agencies, Ford Foundation, Japan Foundation, etc.
8. Brief report on implementation of programmes from April 1994 to March 1995.
9. Brief of initiatives taken by IGNCA to strengthen dialogue between Indian and Vietnam, Thailand, Indonesia, China.
10. Documentation of cultural heritage of Indo-Christian, Indo-Islamic and Indo-Zoroastrian communities.
11. Gita Govinda project.
12. IGNCA newsletter.
13. Annual Action Plan, 1995-96.
14. Calendar of events.
15. Publications of IGNCA.
16. Matters relating to building project.
17. Allocations/release of funds for the IGNCA building project.”
There is not one word in the minutes that the deed of the Trust was even mentioned. 6
This meeting took place on 18 May 1995. On 30 May 1995 Sonia Gandhi performed one of technical miracles. She wrote a letter to the Minister of Human Resources informing him of what she said were alterations in the Trust Deed, which the trustees had unanimously approved. Pronto, the Minister wrote back, on 2 June, 1995: "I have great pleasure in communicating to you the Government of India's approval to the alterations." 6
The Minister? The ever helpful, Madhav Rao Scindia. And wonder of wonders, in his other capacity he had attended the meeting on 18 May as a trustee of the IGNCA, the meeting which had not, according to the minutes approved by Sonia Gandhi, even discussed, far less "unanimously approved" changes in the Trust Deed. 6
And what were the changes that Sonia Gandhi managed to get through by this collusive exchange of two letters? 6
· “She became President for life.
· The other trustees two-thirds of who were to retire every ten years became trustees for life.
· The power of the Government to fill half the vacancies was snuffed out.
· The power of the Government to appoint the Member Secretary of the Trust was snuffed out; henceforth the Trust would appoint its own Member Secretary.
· The power of the President of India to appoint a committee to periodically review the functioning of the Trust was snuffed out; neither he nor Government would have any power to inquire into the working of the Trust.”
A Government Trust, a Trust which had received over Rs. 134 crores of the tax-payers' money, a Trust which had received twenty three acres of invaluable land was, by a simple collusive exchange of a letter each between Sonia Gandhi and one of her gilded attendants became property within her total control. 6
The usurpation was an absolute fraud. The Trust Deed itself provided that no amendment to it could come into force on any reasonable reading could not even be initiated and adopted without prior written permission of the Government. Far from any permission being taken, even information to the effect that changes were being contemplated was not sent to Government. An ex post "approval" was obtained from an obliging trustee. 6
One of the ''co-opted'' members inducted into the IGNCA by the coup of 1995 was that ''clean'' and gentlemanly ''man of integrity'' who, while being a pucca Delhiite, had become a member of the Rajya Sabha on the ground of being ''ordinarily a resident of Assam.'' His name is Manmohan Singh. 6
That "approval" was in itself wholly without warrant. Such sanctions are governed by Rule 4 of the Government of India (Transaction of Business) Rules, 1961. This Rule prescribes that when a subject concerns more than one department, "no order be issued until all such departments have concurred, or failing such concurrence, a decision thereon has been taken by or under the authority of the Cabinet." Other departments were manifestly concerned; concurrence from them was not even sought. The Cabinet was never apprised. The rule proceeds to provide, "Unless the case is fully covered by powers to sanction expenditure or to appropriate or re-appropriate funds, conferred by any general or special orders made by the Ministry of Finance, no department shall, without the previous concurrence of the Ministry of Finance, issue any orders which may... (b) Involve any grant of land or assignment of revenue or concession, grant... (d) Otherwise have a financial bearing whether involving expenditure or not..." 6
And yet, just as concurrence of other departments had been dispensed with, no approval was taken from the Finance Ministry. 6
The Indian Express and other papers published details about the fraud by which what was a Government Trust had been converted into a private fief. Two members of Parliament Justice Ghuman Mal Lodha and Mr. E. Balanandan began seeking details, and raising objections. 6
For a full two and a half years, governments of the Congress (I), and the two that were kept alive by the Congress (I), those of Mr. Deve Gowda and of Mr. I. K. Gujral made sure that full facts would not be disclosed to the MPs, and that the concerned file would keep shuttling between the Ministry of Human Resource Development and the Ministry of Law. 6
As a result, Sonia Gandhi continues to have complete control over governmental assets of incalculable value through technicalities collusively arranged. By these 'technical' devices, Mrs Sonia Gandhi, who has never had any known source of income by her own known professional skills, has managed to become the controller of one of the most extensive empires of property and patronage. 6
The latest statement of Mrs Sonia Gandhi, that her not having become a citizen of India was a mere 'technicality' is to be seen in this context. For her, India's laws and institutions, as also truth, are indeed mere 'technicalities' to be used for her convenience. 6
Now you can imagine capacity of this lady who wants to become Prime Minister of this country. A lady who can misappropriate hundreds of crores rupees even when she was not in power what she can do when she become the Prime Minister of this country. I have a suggestion for Madam in case she becomes PM of India - She should convert India into a trust and become its chairman for life. Mr Madhav Rao Scindia is no more there with us, but new Maharaja of Gwalior Mr Jyotiraditya is there to help her. I can hope that Madam would like this suggestion. If Madam reject my suggestion then there must be some more dangerous idea working in her mind, After all her father Stephano Maino was working in the Army of Mussolini. We all know how Mussolini came to power. Some time my inner conscious says that emergency idea of 1976-77 must have originated by Sonia. After all she was aware of such tactics.
1. Tehelka Tapes and Sonia's Past By N.S. Rajaram dated June 3rd 2001 Sword of Truth Web Magazine Source:
2. Where was Sonia when India was at war? And After Mrs Gandhi lost in 1977? By Kanchan Gupta dated April 23, 1999.
3. When Sonia violated FeraWhen Sonia violated Fera 'designing' road rollers - Part I Surya Prakash, New Delhi Newstime May 10, 1999.
4. Sneaking into voter's list shows contempt of law - Part II Author: Surya Prakashan, New Delhi Publication: Newstime Date: May 11, 1999.
5. Sonia's Italian Passport by R.K. Bajaj The Daily, January 15, 1998.
6. Annexation through Technicalities By Arun Shourie.
7. Article 'A verdict under scrutiny' Frontline 27 February 2004.
The main question before us is whether Sonia is a legal citizen of this country or not? If she is a legal citizen of this country than why there was so much cry. What is provision of Constitution on the point of Citizenship? What is provision in Citizen ship Act 1955? What is decision of Supreme Court on the point? We should also see what is position of foreign-born citizens in other countries? Supposedly Sonia would have got married to an American Citizen what would have been her position in America? What is position of an Indian born women, who marry to an Italian citizen and become citizen of Italy? Can she contest election in Italy? Is Sonia duel citizen of India & Italy? This kind of so many questions comes into the mind of a normal citizen of this country. In this CHAPTER I am trying my best to reply all these questions.
Dr. Subramaniam Swamy decided to challenge the citizenship of Sonia Gandhi by filing an affidavit in the Supreme Court.
Swamy contended that Sonia Gandhi's citizenship of India was irregular and liable to be terminated because she did not submit with her application a certificate from the government of Italy that she had renounced her Italian citizenship. Instead, she merely submitted a letter from the Italian Ambassador certifying the receipt of a letter from her about renunciation of her Italian citizenship. "A mere declaration by her is not enough, or a letter from the Ambassador of Italy, informing receipt of a letter of renunciation from her. Under Article 51 of the Italian Constitution, Italians are of two types: those residing in the republic and those not. Citizenship is not alienable," Dr. Swamy said at a press conference, releasing the contents of his affidavit. Besides, he alleged that Sonia Gandhi had misled the nation and Parliament about her real name, identity, family background and educational qualification. He furnished documents, issued by the Italian Ambassador on April 29, 1983, to prove that Sonia was not born in Orbassano, as stated by her and published in the Lok Sabha's "Who's Who", but at Lusiana, Italy. Moreover, he said, she had never disclosed that her real name was not Sonia but Antonia, according to her birth records. Sonia was the name given to her by her employers in London, he said. Not only this, he described her claim of having acquired a diploma in the English language from the prestigious Cambridge University, as stated in the "Who's Who", as false. She had never enrolled as a student at that university. Dr. Swamy said Sonia Gandhi had violated the Supreme Court directive to the Election Commission that candidates in an election must accurately state their educational qualification. Dr. Swamy alleged. The petitions have also alleged that Sonia Gandhi's name was wrongly entered in the voters' list.
"It was embarrassing for the Congress Party that the Lok Sabha leader of Opposition Mrs Sonia Gandhi was caught having misled the nation about her true name, identity and family background," Sonia Gandhi and Congress did not even dare to say that allegation by Subramaniam Swamy were wrong. A senior Congress (I) functionary said, "We normally do not react to what Subramaniam Swamy says."
As has been stated earlier, Sonia Gandhi had held shares in two Indians companies in violation of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1974 and had even entered the voters' list, while still being a citizen of Italy during the years 1980-83. Yet, when she applied for Indian citizenship in April 1983, it was granted to her in just three weeks. This is probably because her mother-in-law Indira Gandhi was the Prime Minister at that time. The fact that she had infringed Indian laws prior to her application was not held against her. 1
However, ironically, she was required to state under oath that she would bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution "and faithfully observe the laws of India". There is also no reliable mechanism within the government to check whether naturalised citizens like Sonia Gandhi comply with the conditions that are imposed on them under Section 10 of the Citizenship Act. 1
While this is how government treats foreign nationals, who secure Indian citizenship, it appears to be exceptionally fussy and even suspicious about natural-born Indian who work in certain sectors of government. 1
First of all, no one ever gets a government job without establishing his or her citizenship credentials. Indians do not carry citizenship certificates, but this qualification is usually met when the applicant's place of birth is within the territory of India. The law recognises every person born on Indian soil as a citizen of India. 1
But there are some sectors in which the government goes beyond this fundamental check and virtually insists that the employee's spouse also be a citizen of India by birth. Examples, which easily come to mind, are the armed forces and the Indian foreign service (IFS). 1
Section 33 of the Army Order says that army personnel desirous of marrying foreign nationals, except the nationals of Bhutan, are required to obtain prior government sanction for such marriages. This order, however, exempts Gorkhas, whether of Nepalese origin or of Indian domicile, who desire to marry Nepalese or Indian subjects. 1
An officer intending to marry a foreign national has to fill out an elaborate application and send it to army headquarters four months prior to the date of marriage. Alongside this application, the office has to also send an application for release from the army "for personal reasons", a written application from the officer's spouse-to-be that he or she will renounce his or her original nationality and accept Indian citizenship as soon as the Indian Citizenship Act permits him or her to do so. 1
The army also insists on an undertaking from the officer that his/her application for release from the service may be automatically processed if the foreign spouse "refuses to acquire Indian citizenship or wilfully delays acquisition of Indian citizenship". 1
Further, the officer's application must be accompanied with an application by the spouse-to-be for Indian citizenship and complete details of the latter's background, including occupation in the last five years, degrees and diplomas obtained and proficiency in languages. 1
So, what happens after all this rigmarole? Senior officers in the armed forces do not recall any instance of a colleague being permitted by the government to marry a foreign national. In fact, the army is so fastidious that recently a lady officer in the Army Medical Corps, who was betrothed to an Indian green cardholder in the United States, had to quit the service before marriage because her fiance declined to give an undertaking that he would retain his Indian citizenship. 1
To order also says that the services of army personnel, who marry foreign nationals without permission, will be terminated. Air force and navy personnel have to go through a similar exercise, but the end result is usually the same - no permission. 1
The situation in the Indian foreign service is slightly better, but IFS officials too have to go through these hassles, if they wish to marry a foreign national. Till a decade ago, no member of the IFS was permitted to marry a foreign national. The government usually asked such officials to put in their papers. IFS officers says that in recent years the government has been much more liberal in dealing with such issues, but the rules continue to be rigid. Clause 8(1) of the Indian Foreign Service (conduct and discipline) Rules, 1986 says no member of the service shall marry any person other than an Indian citizen "without the prior permission in writing of the government". 1
Officers who intend to marry foreign nationals have made a written application to the foreign secretary and give the government one year to reply. Clause 8(3) says, "If a member of the service contracts marriage with a person other than an Indian citizen without obtaining prior written permission, he shall be liable to be removed from the service." 1
The rules further state that the government reserves the right to refuse permission if it feels to marriage will hinder proper performance of the duties of the member of the service. In case permission is accorded, "the government may stipulate such conditions as it may deem appropriate". 1
Therefore, what emerges from all this is that you cannot enter the Indian armed forces unless you establish your Indian citizenship and you will be asked to put in your papers if you acquire a foreign spouse. Italian-born Sonia Gandhi can be Prime Minister, order around the armed forces, let herself in on all state secrets and even determine India's strategic defence doctrine. And while she zealously pursues this ambition, Congress spokespersons say that it is graceless and uncivil to ask her the most rudiment questions about her Indian citizenship. 1
It is this inequity between Indian-Indians and Italian-Indians that the former find abhorrent. 1
Article 84 of the Constitution says that a person shall not be qualified to be chosen to fill a seat in Parliament unless he or she is a citizen of India.
Article 102 provides that a person shall be disqualified from being chosen as, and for being, a member of either House if he or she is not a citizen of India or has voluntarily acquired the citizenship of a foreign state, or is under any acknowledgement of allegiance or adherence to a foreign state. That a returned candidate was 'not qualified' or 'was disqualified' to be chosen on the date of his election, is specifically a ground for declaring his/her election void under Section 100(1)(a) of RPA, 1951.
Section 16 of RPA, 1950 provides that a person shall be disqualified for registration in an electoral roll if he or she is not a citizen of India.
Sonia Gandhi applied for Indian citizenship by registration, under Section 5(1)(c) of the Citizenship Act, on April 7, 1983 by virtue of her marriage to Rajeev Gandhi in 1968. She voluntarily renounced her Italian citizenship by surrendering her Italian passport to the Italian Embassy in New Delhi on April 27, 1983. This, says Janata Party president, Dr. Subramanian Swamy (who has also been raising questions with regard to Sonia Gandhi's citizenship), had been confirmed by the then Italian Ambassador to India on April 29.
The Ambassador had apparently stated that Sonia Gandhi had returned her Italian passport by claiming that she had renounced her Italian citizenship. But if we accept the argument that holding of passport is an essential requirement of being citizens than person like me would not remain Indian, as I do not hold Passport.
The Bench appreciated the forensic ability of the petitioners in making such a plea, but refused to entertain or adjudicate it for two reasons. First, the petitioners had not stated all material facts to enable the court to examine such a plea with far-reaching implications. Secondly, the challenge so sought to be laid to the constitutional validity of the provisions of the Citizenship Act is very wide and cannot be adjudicated upon without impeding the Central government as a party to the proceedings.
Those who support Mr Sonia Gandhi’s candidature for the Prime Minister's office point out that there is no specific provision in the Constitution, which bars a foreigner who has acquired Indian citizenship from holding the post. But Article 102(1)(d) of the Constitution, dealing with the disqualification of persons from becoming members of Parliament, is germane to this question. This Article reads as follows:
"102. Disqualification for membership: (1) A person shall be disqualified from being chosen as, and for being, a member of either House of Parliament (d) if he is not a citizen of India, or has voluntarily acquired the citizenship of another country, or is under any acknowledgement of allegiance to a foreign state." Article 9 of the Constitution states: "No person shall be a citizen of India... or be deemed to be a citizen of India... if he has voluntarily acquired the citizenship of any foreign state.
This is what is popularly interpreted to mean that India doesn’t allow dual citizenship. For losing his citizenship, an Indian has to commit the overt act of acquiring the citizenship of a foreign country. Our Constitution doesn’t provide for a voluntary renunciation of citizenship by an Indian for the reason say, he is disgusted with its politicians or with the performance of its cricket team in the World Cup.
On the contrary, Article 10 stipulates, "Every person who is or deemed to be a citizen of India under any of the foregoing the provisions of this part shall, subject to the provisions of any law that may be made by Parliament, continue to be such a citizen."
The Constitution of Italy, on the contrary, allows dual citizenship, implying that an Italian citizen can simultaneously be a citizen of another foreign state also. Conversely, the fact that an Italian has voluntarily acquired the citizenship of another foreign state does not mean he/she has ceased to be a citizen of Italy.
Therefore, the fact that Mrs. Sonia Gandhi has voluntarily acquired Indian citizenship doesn’t, ipso facto imply that she has ceased to be an Italian citizen, unless there is a specific provision in the Italian law for voluntary renunciation of Italian citizenship and she has legally exercised that option.
To prove that Mrs. Sonia Gandhi is a full-fledged Indian citizen now, Mr Pranab Mukherjee declared in an interview that she doesn’t possess an Italian passport now but has been travelling on an Indian passport since 1984. However, possession of passport is not a necessary condition for citizenship. A majority of Indians do not possess a passport, and this fact does not detract from their Indian citizenship.
The moot question, therefore, is not whether Mrs. Sonia Gandhi has acquired the citizenship of India, but whether she has ceased to be a citizen of Italy under the Constitution of that country. If the answer to the second question is in the negative, she will come under the prohibition in Article 102 (1)(d) of our Constitution from being a member of Parliament and consequentially, from becoming the Prime Minister.
The statement that the Supreme Court of India found the issue in favour of Sonia Gandhi is factually incorrect. The petition stating that Sonia Gandhi cannot contest for Lok Sabha was filed by a private individual. The Supreme Court dismissed it with the limited finding that the petitioner had not established that Sonia Gandhi suffered from any disqualification. It was not a definitive finding after examining the relevant aspects of the law and the facts. The point I had raised in above paragraph, which is still valid, was neither advanced before the court nor examined by the judges.
Unfortunately, the debate in Indian political circles has been confined to a narrow topic. The issue of holding of posts in Government by foreign-born persons is indeed a small part of the overall subject of grant of citizenship to foreigners. Politicians like Sharad Pawar, PA Sangma, Jayalalitaa, have raised the narrow issue with an eye on Sonia Gandhi. But in the process they have missed the larger problem. 2
Provisions regarding citizenship are contained in Part II (articles 5 to 11) of the Constitution of India. Article 5 lays down the conditions for citizenship at the commencement of the Constitution. Articles 6 and 7 deal with migrants from and to Pakistan. Article 8 is regarding certain persons of Indian origin residing outside India. Article 9 is about persons voluntarily acquiring citizenship of any foreign state. Article 10 says, "Every person who is or is deemed to be a citizen of India under any of the foregoing provisions of this part shall, subject to the provisions of any law that may be made by Parliament, continue to be such citizen". Article 10 gives the power to the Parliament to make any law for grant or termination or regulation of citizenship whether acquired through provisions of the Constitution or otherwise. 2
Article 11 clarifies it further by saying, "Nothing in the foregoing provisions of this Part shall derogate from the power of Parliament to make any provision with respect to the acquisition and termination of citizenship and all matters relating to citizenship." Parliament has exercised the power under article 11 by enacting Citizenship Act, 1955. 2
In 1955, when the Act was passed, it would have been difficult to imagine that the country would face a problem of immigrants. British had just left the country and India was enjoying its newfound freedom. Surprisingly, no one even considered the possibility that immigrants could repeat history and become rulers just as British had become two centuries ago. Taking precautions against such a danger was never even contemplated. Not surprisingly, Citizenship Act, 1955 demonstrates a casual attitude with emphasis on procedure and formalities. 2
Five decades later, India faces severe problems from immigrants. Terrorism in Jammu-Kashmir and other parts of the country is caused by immigrants, or if you prefer infiltrators. Demographic profile has undergone a significant change in many districts of West Bengal and North Eastern states. Agitations against immigrants in North Eastern states are now almost three decades old. The number of Bangladeshis staying in large cities, like Delhi, Mumbai and Kolkata, runs into millions. Pakistan has been able to use a large number of its citizens illegally staying in India for intelligence operations and for subversive activities. 2
It will not be an exaggeration to say that foreigners are posing a serious threat to internal security as well as to the basic constitutional structure of the country. An Italian born woman becoming Prime Minister is just a tip of the proverbial iceberg or pyramid. One cannot say that the tip is insignificant. But, it is necessary to go to the root of the problem instead of merely aiming for some cosmetic changes. 2
Discussion of the problem in media has concentrated on whether foreign-born citizens should enjoy the same rights as natural-born ones. Birth is a biological act. Place of performance of this act has hardly any influence on a person's psyche. For the sake of legal convenience, some importance has been ascribed to place of birth in laws relating to citizenship. But that can be no justification for treating it as the only important factor. 2
International law has a concept of domicile, which is not solely based on the place of birth. Domicile is based on the intentions and mind of the person concerned. Sankaran Horindan v. Lakshmi Bharti (1964, Ker. 244) illustrates the concept of domicile. One Krishnan, domiciled in India (Kerala) went to England for higher education in 1925. After some time his parents declined to give him any further financial support. With the help of an English friend, Miss Hopeworth, he completed his studies in 1939 and set up his private practice in medicine in Sheffield. He earned a fortune. He purchased a mansion in Sheffield. He also served in British Health Service. Krishnan lived in England for 30 years till his death. During this period, he did not come to India even once. But in letters that Krishnan wrote to his friends and relatives in India, he always expressed his intention of returning to India. Based on this fact, Kerala High Court came to the conclusion that Krishnan was domiciled in India. 2
It is an accepted principle of law that one must prove one's domicile in the host country before one becomes eligible for acquiring citizenship of that country. Simultaneously, one must also prove one's renunciation of domicile of the country of origin. Most countries prescribe tests and qualifications to ensure that the person is truly domiciled in the host country. Often, countries exercise such high levels of caution in this respect that there are charges of racism or of having a fortress-mentality. 2
India, on the other hand, goes to the other extreme. There is no attempt to determine the level of naturalization of a foreigner in the country. India has one of the simplest systems for grant of citizenship. There are no qualifications (relating to psyche or intentions) prescribed and almost everyone who applies is eligible. The applicant need not have even a rudimentary knowledge of Indian Constitution and laws. 2
There are two main routes available for acquisition of Indian citizenship: (a) under section 5, by registration and (b) under section 8, by naturalization. Naturalization route requires a stay of nine years and is available to citizens of some countries only. For all others the route is by way of an application in a prescribed form to the Collector of the district. The form does not make an attempt to judge the intentions of the applicant in acquiring the status of citizen. 2
The conditions for naturalization under Schedule 3 prescribe, "that he has an adequate knowledge of a language specified in the Eighth Schedule to the Constitution." No such condition is specified for citizenship by registration. There is no requirement of having some knowledge of the traditions and culture of India. The Act (as well as the rules made there under) does not even make it mandatory for the authorities to verify the antecedents of the applicant in the country of origin. Surprisingly, the applicant is not even required to declare his or her intention to settle and reside in the country permanently. 2
Sonia Gandhi, when she applied for Indian citizenship, did not have a rudimentary knowledge of any Indian language. No comments can be made about her knowledge of Indian culture, traditions or even constitution. The country till today does not know if Sonia has made up her mind to be a part of India permanently. In other words, her domicile may still be in Italy. She may well be holding property in Italy and may also be having her loyalty towards Italy. The irony is that such a person can be granted citizenship under Indian law. 2
There is nothing under Citizenship Act that prevents a person with wrong intentions to enter into a marriage of convenience in India and apply for citizenship. The danger that this poses is a bit too obvious and is surely not far-fetched in a country that has seen more than ten million immigrants enter in the last two decades. 2
It is high time that a comprehensive review of The Citizenship Act is carried out. The Act was passed in 1955 and was amended in 1986 and 1992. The Parliament can modify it again and make it necessary for an applicant to prove his / her domicile in India. The modified law can also provide for review of all cases of persons to whom citizenship might have been granted in the past. Citizenship of anyone found ineligible may well be terminated. There need be no doubt about the power of Parliament to make law for termination of citizenship. Article 11 of Constitution gives this right to Parliament in unequivocal terms. 2
Article 84 of the Constitution mandates that a person shall not be qualified to be chosen to fill a seat in Parliament unless he fulfils the conditions prescribed therein, one of them being that he must be a citizen of India.
Part II of the Constitution containing Articles 5 to 11 pertain to citizenship of India.
Article 5 declares that at the commencement of the Constitution, every person who has his domicile in the territory of India and who was born in India, or either of whose parents was born in India or who has ordinarily been resident in India for not less than five years immediately preceding such commencement shall be a citizen of India.
Article 6 conferred the right of citizenship to certain persons who had migrated to India from Pakistan.
Whereas Article 7 takes away the right of citizenship of certain migrants to Pakistan.
Article 8 confers the right of citizenship to certain persons of Indian origin residing out of India.
Article 9 declares that persons voluntarily acquiring citizenship of a foreign state cannot be Indian citizens.
Article 10 provides for continuance of the rights of citizenship.
Whereas Article 11 confers power on Parliament to regulate the right of citizenship by law.
It will be noticed that the Constitution does not expressly recognise acquisition of citizenship by naturalisation. Rather, Entry 17 List I of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution, on which Parliament has exclusive powers to make laws, relates to "Citizenship, Naturalisation and Aliens" thereby distinguishing between "citizenship" and "naturalisation". The Constitution (Sixteenth Amendment) Act, 1963 did not alter this concept of citizenship but merely added the prescribed oath to be taken by a Member of Parliament.
The constitutional omission of "naturalisation" as a means to acquiring citizenship of India assumes further significance in the light of the constitutional history on the issue. It will be recalled that prior to the enactment of the British Nationality Act, 1948 statutes maintained the distinction between natural-born British subjects and British subjects by naturalisation.
The British Nationality Act, 1948 which was enacted after a general consensus was reached within the Commonwealth countries, including India, and which repealed all previous United Kingdom legislation on the subject, prescribed therein the method of giving effect to the principle that each of the self-governing countries of the Commonwealth should, by its own legislation, determine who are its citizens and such citizens should be declared British subjects.
Accordingly, the 1948 Act abolished, by its Sections 31 and 34(3), the distinction between "citizenship" and "nationality" and thus, at the time of commencement of the Constitution, all subjects of the British Commonwealth possessed a common British nationality irrespective of whether they were naturalised citizens or natural-born citizens.
The framers of our Constitution were alive to the provisions of the British Nationality Act, 1948 providing for different categories of citizenship - namely, by birth, descent, registration and naturalisation. Yet our Constitution, while expressly recognising acquisition of citizenship by birth, descent and domicile does not provide for citizenship by "naturalisation".
There is yet another aspect to the matter. Under Article 102(d) of the Constitution, a person shall be disqualified from being chosen or being a member of either House, if he is not a citizen of India, or has voluntarily acquire-ed citizenship of a foreign state or is under any acknowledgment of allegiance or alliance to a foreign state.
Under the Italian Criminal Code, the status of a natural-born citizen in Italy is indelible and the birth of Sonia Gandhi in Italy by itself is acknowledgment of her continued allegiance to that country notwithstanding her stated renunciation of Italian citizenship. Such acknowledgment would be a disqualification under our Constitution for the membership of Sonia Gandhi to Parliament.
It therefore becomes evident that the concept of citizenship embodied in our Constitution does not include acquisition of citizenship by naturalisation, particularly when it comes to membership of Parliament. While it is true that Section 6 of the Indian Citizenship Act, 1955 recognises "naturalisation" as a mode of acquiring citizenship, there is nothing in the said Act to indicate that such naturalised citizen can hold public office under the Constitution.
In fact, Section 10 of the said Act empowers the central government to take away the citizenship of certain citizens specified therein, which include naturalised citizens but excludes citizens by birth, descent and so on. Hence, the said Act maintains a distinction between a naturalised citizen and other citizens.
Even otherwise, a statute cannot obviously enlarge the scope of the aforesaid constitutional concept of citizenship or be used to circumvent the provisions of Articles 84 and 102 of the Constitution.
After all there was no provision in the Constitution, which would have allowed a person like Sonia Gandhi to become Citizen of this country. Provisions mentioned in Article 102 and 84 were made in view of keeping the provision of constitution of that time. Thus the claim that Sonia Gandhi is a naturalised citizen, and therefore disqualified from holding a constitutional post in India is absolutely correct.
It is Sonia Gandhi's latest gender gem: ‘‘the day I became the daughter-in-law of Indira Gandhi's house, I became an Indian. The rest is all technical.'' By that logic, one Louis de Raedt can be considered to have had even better credentials to be regarded as an Indian. 3
Monsieur Raedt, held a Belgian passport but, till his day of reckoning in 1987, he had been continuously in India since 1937! By an order of the Government of India dated 8th July 1987, his request for further stay in India was rejected and he was ordered to leave the country. On an appeal against this order, our Supreme Court ruled that Raedt had not become a citizen of India and therefore had no right "to reside and settle in India". 3
''He must prove,'' said the court, ''that he had formed the intention of making his permanent home in the country of residence and of continuing to reside there permanently. Residence, alone, unaccompanied by the state of mind, is insufficient.'' Incidentally, the ''secularists,'' the Vatican and the Vishwa Hindu Parishad alike would be interested to learn that Louis de Raedt was engaged in Christian missionary work. 3
Sonia Gandhi was given ''acquired'' citizenship under the Indian Citizenship Act 1955. She was not given citizenship under Article 5 of the Constitution that relates to those who were born in India or who have parents either of whom was born in India or who were ordinarily resident in India for at least five years immediately preceding the commencement of the Indian Constitution.
Under the Indian Citizenship Act, there are three categories of Indian citizens -- citizens by birth, citizens by registration and citizens by naturalisation. I am an Indian citizen, so is Sonia Gandhi. But I am an Indian citizen by birth, which means nobody can deprive me of my citizenship. On the other hand, Sonia Gandhi is a citizen by registration, which means that under Indian laws, her citizenship, like that of those who are citizens by naturalisation, can be taken away and she can be deported.
Sonia Gandhi might well claim that she is an Indian till her last breath, but that does not mitigate the conditions and restrictions governing her Indian citizenship. Her citizenship by registration can be taken away under Section 10 of the Citizenship Act if the Government of India is satisfied that (a) the registration was obtained by means of fraud or concealment of material facts; (b) the registered citizen is disloyal or disaffected towards the Constitution of India; and, (c) the registered citizen raided or communicated with an enemy during war.
Now, the point about her citizenship and whether or not that entitles her to the prime minister of India's office, if, seen from a narrow, legal perspective, there is nothing that prevents Sonia Gandhi from assuming charge as prime minister of India. The Constitution of India, unlike the constitutions of many Western and Asian countries, puts no such bar on her. Unlike the USA, Finland, Germany, Thailand or Singapore, India does not insist that the aspirant for the job should be a natural born citizen.
The fact of the situation is that in no democratic country foreign-born registered citizen can be President or Prime Minister.
The American Constitution stipulates that only natural born citizens and those who have been resident in America for 14 years prior to his or her nomination are eligible to the office of President. Henry A. Kissinger, a naturalised US citizen born in Germany, was not eligible to succeed to the office of the President.
The Singapore Constitution says that a person who is not a citizen of Singapore born in Malaya shall not be elected President.
The law in Finland is that the President of the Republic must be from among the natural born citizens of Finland.
These are just three of the innumerable examples available the world over to show how constitutions bar naturalised citizens from high public offices.
In Australia, the only Senator from the far-right One Nation party was thrown out of parliament for having dual citizenship. Heather Hill acquired Australian citizenship but did not complete the procedure of relinquishing her British citizenship. (Here how Sonia relinquished her Italian citizenship is not known) Under Australia's constitution, dual nationals cannot sit in the legislature. The High Court ruled that the UK was a 'foreign power' as understood by the constitution. 4
Hill only took up Australian citizenship a few months before the election, but appears to have been confused about what was involved in renouncing her former citizenship. She had lived in Australia since childhood. One Nation, which opposes Asian immigration to Australia, retained the seat in the Senate and appointed a replacement. 4
Merve Safa Kavakci was stripped of her Turkish citizenship less than a month after her election to parliament and faces expulsion from the legislature. The Cabinet ruled that she had taken out US citizenship without permission. Under the law, Turkish citizens who take out a second citizenship are required to inform the authorities. She acquired US citizenship through her Jordanian-born American ex-husband, a month before the parliamentary elections in April. Whether the loss of citizenship will result in Kavacki losing her seat in parliament is to be decided by the Supreme Election Board. US immigration officials said that they would investigate Kavakci if she takes an oath of allegiance to Turkey. Such an oath would violate the terms of her US citizenship. 4
Zambia's High Court finally ruled that former President Kenneth Kaunda was stateless. It ruled that he was not a Zambian citizen. 4
Political parties who are talking of constitutional amendment to bar foreign-born citizens from acquiring posts will do well to use the existing Constitutional provisions in the best interests of the country. We can learn in this regard from German basic law.
Nilfur Shayegan, born and brought up in Germany has failed to get a German citizenship.
According to the German Basic Law - the nation's constitution - foreigners must spend at least eight years in the country to be eligible to vote, prove their command of the German language and "acceptance and knowledge" of the constitution to qualify as a citizen. 2
But even after meeting these standards, a large proportion of foreigners are still denied from becoming Germans. 2
Nilfur Shayegan, 34 was born and brought up in Frankfurt after her parents left Iran in the fifties. She is one of the many 'Germans' who cannot vote on Sunday. She first applied for citizenship when she was 18. She was denied a German passport two more times and gave up trying." (Indrajit Hazra, Berlin, September 20, published in Hindustan Times, Bhopal, 21 September 2002) 2
As far as having outsiders as Prime Ministers - what happened in Fiji - neither BBC nor CNN objected when the Indian born Hindu - Mahendra Chaudhary was thrown off the post by George Spait. Now some law has been passed there that only native tribes will be allowed to the post. Perhaps because they are all Christian and Indians are mostly non-Christians.
For a moment, let us assume that instead of Rajeev Gandhi, Sonia Maino had married an American. She could not have aspired for, forget her staking claim to, the American presidency. Article II, Section 1(5) of the American constitution would have debarred her from that office. It says, 'No person, except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the USA at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President…' 5
No such provision exists in the Constitution of India -- not because it was framed by "secular nationalists" but because no member of the Constituent Assembly could have ever imagined that 50 years after Independence, a foreigner would be in the race for the prime minister's job. If they had, they would have surely incorporated necessary safeguards. 5
The constitution of the USA demands that an applicant for American citizenship must be proficient in English, loyal to the USA and have basic knowledge of the constitution, the country's history and system of government. 5
If the Constitution of India had similar guidelines, the indigenous people of India would have been spared the ignominy of being ruled by a person of foreign origin. For, Sonia Gandhi is proficient in no Indian language, including English; her loyalty to India is all of 15 years old; her knowledge of the Constitution of India is non-existent; she would fail the most elementary history test; and, beyond the fact that she wants to be the prime minister of India, it is doubtful whether she has an inkling about the Government of India. 5
Italy’s law on citizenship / What if an Indian girl GETS married to an Italian male: - Rai Singh had served as Indian Diplomat in Rome. He has recalled and written an article; in the mid 1950s famous Italian film director Roberto Rossellini, during his visit to India, fell in love with Bengali film actress Sonali, who eventually eloped with him to Rome. In Italy, Sonali married Rossellini and as his legal wife, she acquired the Italian citizenship after duly renouncing her Indian citizenship. However, years later, in the late 1960s, when she wanted to stand for an elective office at the municipal level, she was told she was not entitled to do so under the Italian law. Sonali approached the Indian Embassy in Rome. After informal and discreet inquiries, he learnt that there was no reciprocal protocol, treaty or law as such between India and Italy. Hence no help could be rendered to Sonali despite her being an Italian citizen of Indian origin.
And now when an Italian lady has came to India - we find, Congress party cannot breath without her. When a lady of our country who acquired Italian citizenship was not allowed to contest the municipal election in Italy how can we the people of India can allow an Italian lady to become Prime Minister of India?
As per Italian laws, Sonia Gandhi, (formerly) an Italian citizen, upon obtaining the naturalized citizenship of a foreign country such as India continues to retain their previous Italian citizenship. Italy does not require her to surrender the Italian passports. Thus, although Sonia may have acquired Indian citizenship, she automatically retains her original Italian citizenship. Even if Sonia has surrendered her passport to the Indian authorities, Italy can reissue her a new Italian passport if she produces a notarised photocopy of her old passport or by considering the surrendered passport as a lost one. Sonia is a dual-citizen of Italy and India and it is illegal for her to become India's PM.
As per Italian laws, Sonia can re-instate her Italian citizenship by following simple procedures stated above and in the Italian embassy website
There is no public evidence to demonstrate that she has renounced her Italian citizenship; therefore, it must be assumed that she enjoys dual citizenship under Italian law (Indian law does not permit it) and that she continues to have access to an Italian passport. It may sound frivolous, but she is as much eligible to become the prime minister of Italy, as she is to become the prime minister of India.
The most potent weapon therefore to dislodge the Maino clan including Rahul and Priyanka by exposing their Italian citizenship. Rahul and Priyanka were born Italian citizens because Sonia was Italian when she gave birth to them [Italian law based on jure sanguinis]. Hence, they continue be Italians since they never renounced it. Rahul may acquire Venezuela citizenship since Rahul's girl friend Veronica is a Venezuelan. That means one more foreign bahu for us tolerant Indians. The Maino-Gandhis are certainly getting globalise. 8
1. Title: One rule for army, another for Sonia? - Part III Author: Surya Prakash, New Delhi Publication: Newstime Date: May 12, 1999
2. Indian Citizenship - Lessons From Germany Author - Anil Chawla dated 24 September 2002 Source:
3. Of the stuff Sonia is made by Arvind Lavakare Source: Rediff on the NeT.
4. The Perils of Dual Nationality for Politicians by Economy & Social Research Council.
5. Where was Sonia When India was at war? And after Mrs Gandhi lost in 1977 by Kanchan Gupta dated April 23 1999.
6 Do You Know your Sonia? By Dr. Subramaniam Swamy dated August 15, 2004.
"The day I entered Indiraji's household I became an Indian, the rest is just technical" that is Sonia Gandhi's latest explanation for not having acquired Indian citizenship till fourteen years after her marriage to Rajeev Gandhi.
Her maudlin speech at the AICC session demonstrated, her vision of India does not even extend to Nehru; it begins with Indira Gandhi and is lifted in full Technicolor from B-grade Hindi movies: Main suhagin yahin bani. Maa yahin bani. Main vidhwa aapki aankhon ke saamne hui. Is desh ki sabse mahaan putri Indiraji ne apni saansa meri bahon mein tori. Mere khoon ki ek ek boond kahti hain ki yeh mera vatan hair, yeh mera vatan hai. (I became a bride here; I became a mother here; I became a widow before your very eyes. This country’s greatest daughter Indiraji took her last breath in my arms. Every single drop of my blood cries, this is my country. This is my country).
Addressing a rally during the general election of 1998, Sonia Gandhi had said, "I am an Indian till my last breath."
"After my husband's death, I suffered in silence as canards were spread. Now I won't keep quiet." 1
"When I first came to Delhi in 1968, my father had given me a return ticket. But Delhi was the place of my second birth and the ticket, like my past, was lost in the mists of time." 2
"A month before he was assassinated, my husband said to me if an attempt was made to touch Babri Masjid, he would stand in front of it and they would have to kill him first." 3
"UP has been the karmabhoomi of my husband. He has been snatched away from me but nobody can snatch away his dream of a resurgent Bharat." 4
"While five Congress PMs ruled the country for 45 years, other parties had to find seven in just five years and 10 months." 5
"Those associated with the Mahatma's assassins are misleading voters. Those responsible for pulling down the disputed structure at Ayodhya will not be tolerated." 4
A noble thought, indeed. But the mere expression of that thought does not erase uncomfortable facts, which must now necessarily be resurrected because she is no longer a private person beyond public scrutiny. The uncomfortable questions that arise from these facts need to be dealt with.
Sonia Gandhi felt the need to proclaim that she is an Indian till her last breath only after she entered the political arena and needed to establish her credentials with the unwashed, but fiercely patriotic, masses of India. What she did not tell them was that she had retained her Italian citizenship, not feeling the need to accept Indian citizenship, till 1983. Why she does not inform that she only became Indian citizen when a case was filed in court asking foreigner lady to vacate the house of Prime Minister? Now she feel that acquiring the post of Prime Minister is birth right of Gandhi-Nehru Dynasty. Unfortunately there are lot many people in this country who also subscribe to the view that post of PM should go to a person from Nehru-Gandhi dynasty. When a person come to know that she is a foreigner lady, she is blamed for lot many serious allegations, then they say let us try Priyanka. This is the most unfortunate part of our democracy. The leaders should be based not on his paternal or maternal family background but according to work he has done on the ground for the people.
A lady who was feeling ashamed to acquire Indian citizenship now proclaims that she is an Indian till her last breath. If a foreigner lady today making such claims and has been deceiving us, than only we are responsible for it. The system of this country is responsible which has not allowed every citizen to get education. If the people of India would have nationalistic view there would not have been these kind of problems. We find most of the person assemble to listen Sonia Gandhi has nothing to do with what she is saying. There main duty is to chant at a regular interval of one to two minutes with loud voice, "Sonia Gandhi Zindabad". Most of us try to show so much respect, which we have not even shown to our parents. There are the youth who never touch feet of their parents but if get a chance to touch the feet of Catholic Sonia Maino than find it the most fortunate thing of their life. Only this kind of mentality carrying us to the slavery. After 55 years of independent, we are still mentally slave. To an extent only we are responsible for it. We have not been able to recognise the power we have in a democracy. After 55 year of independence we are still looking for someone from Nehru-Gandhi Dynasty to come forward for our emancipation. Our this kind of mentality is allowing the politician to take benefit and rule over us like Maharaja and it will continue till we do not recognise our power.
Rajeev Gandhi married Sonia Maino in 1968. Under India's citizenship law (not framed by Hindu fundamentalist or communists but Congress secularists in the 1950s), she was entitled to seek Indian citizenship five years after her marriage, which is in 1973. But she chose not to register as an Indian citizen for the next 10 years.
That could not have been a casual oversight. Indeed, two incidents during these 10 years one of flying to Italy at the time of 1971 war and another of taking asylum at Italian Embassy at Chanakyapuri at New Delhi after 1977 loss by Congress clearly suggest that it was a considered decision not to repudiate her Italian citizenship.
Death of her husband has paved the way for her to become Prime Minister of this country. She wants to take benefit of his death. She wants to prove that people of India can choose a semiliterate lady like her Prime Minister. Just to emotionally blackmail the people she is saying that she is Indian till her last breath. Obviously the people of India are fond of B-grade Hindi movie. They like these kind of dialogue. That is why they are eager to vote for Sonia against her filmy dialogue.
It is also a fact that now she has been given licence first by Indian Constitution and secondly by Indian National Congress to read all kind of papers which Congress party is giving her to read as reader (not leader). Though some time she may read Hindutwa as Indutwa. But I don't find any mistake by her. It is mistake of English. In English 'H' use to be silence if it is coming before 'I'. But by Silencing 'H' of Hindutwa she is not only silencing the Hindutwa culture of India but also trying to silence Hindustan.
Now she is trying to explain that she lost her ticket for going back to Italy in the course of time. But what she did not forget was getting his extension for stay in India as an Italian citizen after every five year until she was thrust to acquire Indian citizenship in 1983. But she can say any thing to our illiterate masses to fool them and to convince them that she is real patriotic lady, even more than any one else.
And why there has been 7 Prime Ministers in 5 years and 10 months. It was only because Congress supported most of the government, which could not complete its full term.
Madam should be aware of the fact that people of UP have rejected Congress party entirely. A few seats, which they had been winning, have only become possible because people are not aware of History of Nehru Gandhi properly. The day all the facts are brought before them. It would be difficult for Congress party to win even a single seat at least from Uttar Pradesh.
Now to emotionally blackmail the Muslims of India she is saying that a month before Rajeev was assassinated, he said to Sonia that if an attempt was made to touch Babri Masjid, he would stand in front of it and they would have to kill him first. I thing enough has been said above about how Sonia is easy with falsehood. Even if we presume that he said this than also it is debatable. First of all she should know that it was her brave husband who started ‘Ramlala Poojan’. In fact this dialogue also sounds like any other dialogue of B-grade Hindi movies. Unfortunately most of Indian Population get charged by such dialogue in Hindi Movie. Mahatma Gandhi used similar dialogue with regard to partition of India. But what happen when India was partitioned. But one thing was possible for her to do; it was she would have jumped before Babri Masjid to save it. After all if she wants to prove herself real Indian then it is a very small thing. Indian women have sacrificed their life for their husband. Why does Rajeev choose to announce this important decision in his bedroom? Napoleon once said, "Woman is the occupation of the idle mind, and the relaxation of the warrior." The fact of the matter is that such announcements are not made in bedroom. Are we not aware about braveness shown by Rajeev Gandhi? Does we not know that at the time of 1971 war he ran to Italy to avoid any eventuality at the time of war? Are we not aware that he along with his Italian wife took refuge in Italian Embassy in 1977 and hided himself like rat? We only know one example Sonia can give in support of braveness of Rajeev Gandhi, where he has at least tried to prove that he was brave. After death of his younger brother he asked Security Officer NK Singh to through widow of his younger brother (Mrs Maneka Gandhi) out of PM house. Though Security Officer refused to obey it and demanded the order in writing, which this brave Rajeev refused to give. Did Sonia wants to claim that this was the brave work? Rajeev has done. If she? then I am sorry. We the people of India do not subscribe to such opinions. Then how does Rajeev said that he would come before Babri Mosque. There may be either of two possibility, first he not at all used any such dialogue, it is being made by Sonia in normal course of her habit of lying, and Secondly Rajeev might have said so to create an impression over his wife. Because most of the brave people like Rajeev use to show their bravery only inside the bedroom. In fact Sonia should clarify to the people, either of these two which one is correct.
There are some more Hindi movies have got released in the recent past. Better Author of her speech should write few new dialogues and give it to her to read it. Unfortunately we the people of India if see a tourist English lady in our village we all surround her to see what she is. Mrs Gandhi I think is unaware of this fact. When we get the news that foreigner wife of Mr Rajeev is coming to our city or village, we do reach there to see how she looks? And what she is saying? After all when she makes a speech in Hindi it sounds like some new machine has been discovered, which can read Hindi and it is being tested before the people. People of India do appreciate such efforts of scientists. And some time they do vote for such inventions, specifically if someone from Nehru Gandhi dynasty discovers that machine.
1. Mathura February 12.
2. Delhi February 13.
3. Hyderabad February 16.
4. Mohanlalganj February 8.
5. Salem February 9.
With awe and shame we watch Indian leaders attempt to lodge Sonia as the Prime Minister. It is even more astonishing to see the 119 year-old Congress party's inability to find a leader from among its Indian-born members, and its overwhelming dependence on the "dynasty". Every responsible Indian of all political affiliations should challenge Sonia's Indian citizenship and challenge her allegiance to India.
Sonia's Italian origins in the 1999 Parliamentary elections, the Congress Party said that it too would make Lal Krishna Advani's birth origins a major poll issue and campaign against him by projecting him as a "Pakistani". Said Senior Congress leader Janardhan Poojari: "We have also taken it as a big challenge. We will campaign against Advani in every nook and corner of the state. If they say Sonia Gandhi is an Italian, we will say Advani is a Pakistani and demand that he should resign from Deputy Prime Minister's post."
It is pertinent to note that Advani was born much before the partition, in an undivided India, ruled at that time by the British. He along with lakhs of Hindus consciously chose to be a part of Independent India. Among others who also chose to be a part of Independent India was present Prime Minister of India Mr Manmohan Singh of Congress party and also Mr I.K. Gujral, the former Indian Prime Minister, who incidentally had occupied the PM's chair then with the backing of the Congress. By comparing Advani's birth origins with Sonia's, the Congress Party is displaying its own moral and intellectual bankruptcy. While the Congress had undoubtedly played a major role during the freedom struggle to throw out the foreign British Powers, it is sad that their present crop of leaders want another foreigner, an Italian, to be the leader of our Nation.
Sonia Gandhi, leader of the opposition Congress party in India, resigned in reaction to complaints from within her own party that she was a foreigner. Three prominent politicians sent her an open letter stating that she was unsuitable to become Prime Minister because as she is not Indian-born. Similar charges had been made by politicians from rival parties. The rebels called for the constitution to be changed to restrict the country's executive posts to Indian-born citizens. Sonia Gandhi eventually withdrew her resignation, leading commentators to suspect that she had used the affair to increase her control over the party. The three rebels were expelled and the party’s leadership were forced to publicly back her. The glass of Ex-president of Party's car was broken. These leaders were punished because they dared to say the truth. It was good that Mahatma Gandhi is not alive to see this drama otherwise what he would have done only god knows.
Mrs Sonia Gandhi has become more powerful than Prime Minister. She is a Catholic Christian. I am compelled to discuss evangelisation efforts in India including its background.
MAHATMA GANDHI'S VIEW ON CONVERSION: -Gandhi was one of those Hindus who had studied the scriptures of all the important religions with open mind and without prejudice. During his prayer meetings, parts of the Bible were read out and at times Psalms were sung along with ‘bhajans’. The Sermon on the Mount “went straight to his heart” he used to say. During his lifetime Gandhi had developed friendship with several Christians. Some of them had become his followers like C.F. Andrews, Raj Kumari Amrit Kaur, Madeleine Slade (Mirabehn), and J.C. Kumarappa, to name just a few. The great French writer and philosopher Romain Rolland (who also wrote Gandhi’s biography) used to call Gandhi a ‘second Christ’. In fact Gandhi had shocked the Christian world by living like Jesus without being a Christian. Like Jesus he disowned all property as well as his relatives; became a celibate at the age of thirty seven, lived a simple life adorned by Truth and like Jesus he had gathered around him followers (apostles) who were prepared to do his bidding without demur. His life-style and his preaching added to his charisma. He had become a phenomenon, an enigma, a saint worshipped by millions of people in India. 1
Christian missionaries were greatly tempted to convert a man like Gandhi. They thought that if Gandhi was converted millions of his followers would automatically follow suit. Christian missionaries came from all parts of the world, to discuss with him matters religious but often with the sole aim of converting him to Christianity. They argued with him. He listened to them patiently, argued with them and sometimes even rebuked them for mixing up social work with proselytising. What they had brought to sell did not appeal to the Mahatma. He used to tell the missionaries that he refused to believe that Jesus was the only son of God and that the salvation of a person lay in accepting Jesus Christ as the Saviour (in other words by becoming a Christians). 1
Gandhi’s first exposure to a Christian missionary, while studying in school, was not a very happy event. It left, it seems, a lasting impression on his mind as childhood impressions often do. Gandhi has described this incident in his Autobiography (1929) in the following words: 1
"In those days Christian missionaries used to stand in a corner near the high school and hold forth, pouring abuse on Hindus and their gods. I could not endure this. I must have stood there to hear them once only, but that was enough to dissuade me from repeating the experiment. About the same time, I heard of a well-known Hindu having been converted to Christianity. It was the talk of the town that, when he was baptized, he had to eat beef and drink liquor, that he also had to change his clothes, and that thenceforth he began to go about in European costume including a hat. These things got on my nerves. Surely, thought I, a religion that compelled one to eat beef, drink liquor, and change one’s own clothes did not deserve the name. I also heard that the new convert had already begun abusing the religion of his ancestors, their customs and their country. All these things created in me a dislike for Christianity." 1
While in England as a student (1888-91) Gandhi met several Christians, made a few friends but most of them were more interested in vegetarian diet than religious matters. Gandhi had become a member of the Vegetarian Society and discussed with other members matters dietary. The real confrontation with Christian missionaries started in 1893 while Gandhi was in South Africa. (This confrontation continued till almost the last days of his life). Gandhi has described these first attempts in detail in his Autobiography thus: 1
The first to come in contact was one Mr. A. W. Baker. He, besides being an attorney, was a staunch lay preacher. 1
He (Mr. Baker) upholds the excellence of Christianity from various points of view, and contends that it is impossible to find eternal peace, unless one accepts Jesus as the only Son of God and the Saviour of mankind. 1
During the very first interview Mr. Baker ascertained his religious views. Mahatma said to him: “I am a Hindu by birth. And yet I do not know much of Hinduism, and I know less of other religions. In fact I do not know where I am, and what is and what should be my belief. I intend to make a careful study of my own religion and, as far as I can, of other religions as well.” 1
Mr. Baker was happy to hear that and offered to introduce me to his co-workers in the church, which he had built at his own expense. He also gave some religious books to Gandhi to read, including the Holy Bible, of course. Mr. Baker had invited Gandhi to a prayer meeting next day, which Gandhi attended. Apart from the general prayer, Gandhi records: 1
“A prayer was now added for my welfare: Lord, show the path to the new brother who has come amongst us. Give him, Lord, the peace that thou have given us. May the Lord Jesus who has saved us save him too. We ask all this in the name of Jesus.” 1
One of the groups was a young man Mr. Coates, a Quaker. He had given Gandhi quite a few books on Christianity and had hoped that he would come round and embrace Christianity. Gandhi continues in the Autobiography: 1
“He (Mr. Coates) was looking forward to delivering me from the abyss of ignorance. He wanted to convince me that, no matter whether there was some truth in other religions, salvation was impossible for me unless I accepted Christianity which represented the truth, and that my sins would not be washed away except by the intercession of Jesus, and that all good works were useless.” 1
Gandhi was introduced to several other practicing Christians, including a family belonging to Plymouth Brethren, a Christian sect. one of the Plymouth Brethren confronted Gandhi with an argument for which he was not prepared. He said: 1
“How can this ceaseless cycle of action bring you redemption? You can never have peace. You admit that we are all sinners. Now look at the perfection of our belief. Our attempts at improvement and atonement are futile. And yet redemption we must have. How can we bear the burden of sin? We can but throw it on Jesus. He is the only sinless Son of God. It is His word that those who believe in Him shall have everlasting life. Therein lies God’s infinite mercy. And as we believe in the atonement of Jesus, our own sins do not bind us. Sin we must. It is impossible to live in this world sinless. And therefore Jesus suffered and atoned for all the sins of mankind. Only he who accepts His great redemption can have eternal peace. Think what a life of restless is yours, and what a promise of peace we have.”
Gandhi’s reaction to this offer is typical of him and is oft quoted by his western biographers like Erik Erikson and Geoffrey Ash: 1
“The argument utterly failed to convince me. I humbly replied: If this be the Christianity acknowledged by all Christians, I cannot accept it. I do not seek redemption from the consequences of my sin. I seek to be redeemed from sin itself or rather from the very thought of sin. Until I have attained that end, I shall be content to be restless.” 1
Gandhi was troubled with what was written in the Bible itself after he started reading it. Gandhi narrates another experience: 1
“Mr. Baker was getting anxious about my future. He took me to the Wellington Convention. The Protestant Christian organizes such gatherings every few years for religious enlightenment or, in other words, self-purification. --- Mr. Baker had hoped that the atmosphere of religious exaltation at the Convention, and the enthusiasm and earnestness of the people attending it, would inevitably lead me to embrace Christianity. --- The Convention lasted for three days. I could understand and appreciate the devoutness of those who attended it. But I saw no reason for changing my belief - my religion. It was impossible for me to believe that I could go to heaven or attain salvation only by becoming a Christian. When I frankly said so to some of the good Christian friends, they were shocked. But there was no help for it.” 1
Gandhi continues: “My difficulties lay deeper. It was more than I could believe that Jesus was the only incarnate Son of God, and that only he who believed in him would have everlasting life. If God could have sons, all of us were His sons. If Jesus was like God or God himself, then all men were like God and could be God himself. My reason was not ready to believe literally that Jesus by his death and by his blood redeemed the sins of the world. Metaphorically there might be some truth in it. Again according to Christianity only human beings had souls, and not other living beings, for which death meant complete extinction; while I held a contrary belief. I could accept Jesus as a martyr, an embodiment of sacrifice, and a divine teacher, but not as the most perfect man ever born. His death on the cross was a great example to the world, but that there was anything like a mysterious or miraculous virtue in it my heart could not accept. The pious lives of Christians did not give me anything that the lives of men of other faiths had failed to give. I had seen in other lives just the same reformation that I had heard of among Christians. Philosophically there was nothing extraordinary in Christian principles. From the point of view of sacrifice, it seemed to me that the Hindus greatly surpassed the Christians. It was impossible for me to regard Christianity as a perfect religion or the greatest of all religions. 1
I shared this mental churning with my Christian friends whenever there was an opportunity, but their answers could not satisfy me.” 1
Gandhi was only twenty-four when these skirmishes with Christian missionaries occurred. This shows an amazing maturity of thought at this young age. 1
Let us take note of what Gandhi had thought about Christianity and Conversion: -
"I speak from experience, that many of the conversions are only so called. In some cases, the appeal has gone not to the heart but to the stomach. And in every case, a conversion leaves a sore behind it, which, I venture to think, is avoidable." 1
In answering a question from an American student of frank evaluation of the work of Christian missionaries in India. Gandhi said, "In my opinion Christian missionaries have done good to us indirectly. Their direct contribution is probably more harmful than otherwise. I am against the modern method of proselytising. Years’ experience of proselytising both in South Africa and India has convinced me that it has not raised the general tone of the converts who have imbibed the superficialities of European civilization, and have missed the teaching of Jesus. I must be understood to refer to the general tendency and to brilliant exceptions. The indirect contribution, on the other hand, of Christian missionary effort is great. It has forced us to put our own house in order. The great educational and curative institutions of Christian missions I also count, amongst indirect results, because they have been established, not for their own sakes, but as an aid to proselytising." (Vol. 29 p.326.Young India 17-12-1925) 1
Replying to question " if non-Christians in the Indian Dominion would have freedom to embrace Christianity" by the President of the Punjab Student Christian League, Gandhiji said: 1
"They would be guided in this connection by the rules and laws framed.
Christ came into this world to preach and spread the gospel of love and peace, but what his followers have brought about is tyranny and misery. Christians who were taught the maxim ‘Love thy neighbour as thy self,’(1) are divided among themselves." (Hindustan Times, 3-8-1947, Vol. 88 p.471-72) 1
IMPERIALIST ROLE IN CONVERSION: "The end justifies the means", so goes the Jesuit maxim. The Great Commission (Matt. 28:10) commands that all the people of the world be disciple - that is enrolled in Christ's army, or incorporated in his body, the Church. 2
But the world has changed. The colonialist connection of Christianity, which was so helpful in the good old days, has become a stigma that refuses to go. In keeping with the times, Christianity has to be sold as the religion of the downtrodden. Hence, the needs to negate, sanitize, distort and invent! 2
A recurring theme: The aboriginal tribes were marginalized and exploited by Hindus (with the wicked Brahmins in the forefront, of course). These aborigines (adivasis) lacked a systematic religious system. The Christian missionaries appeared on the scene as saviour. Far from the missionaries using force or fraud to convert, it was the tribes who plumped for Christianity. Any nexus between the rulers and the missionaries was indirect. 2
How close was the nexus between the 'neutral' British rulers and Christian missionaries? "It is not only our duty," declared Lord Palmerton, the Prime Minister, "but in our own interest to promote the diffusion of Christianity as far as possible throughout the length and breadth of India." "Every additional Christian," declared Lord Halifax, the Secretary of the State, "is an additional bond of union with this country and an additional source of strength to the Empire." "They are doing for India," as Lord Reay introducing a deputation of Indian Christians to the Prince of Wales, said "more than all those civilians, soldiers, judges and governors whom your Highness has met;" "They are the most potent force in India," declared Sir Mac Worth Young...('Missionaries in India: Continuities, Changes, Dilemmas', Arun Shourie - ASA Publications, 1994, p. 109). In fact, the fa├žade of neutrality was a convenient strategy. As Reverend Tucker told the Select Committee on Indian Territories, in 1853, "I should be sorry to see the Government departing from its present position of strict neutrality. If the Government openly announces Christianity to be a part of the education it imparts, Christianity will immediately lose the high vantage point it now occupies." (ibid, p. 120). 2
Was the missionary concern for the 'tribes' born out of altruism? In his address to the Baptist Missionary Society in London in April 1883, Sir Richard Temple who had been the Finance Minister and Governor of the Bengal and Bombay Presidencies said, "...But what is most important to you friends of missions, is this - that there is a large population of aborigines, a people who are outside caste, who do not belong to any old established religions, who are not under the influence of bigoted and hereditary superstitions. These aborigines by their mind and conscience offer a surface like clean paper, upon which the missionaries may make a mark...If they are attached, as they rapidly may be, to Christianity, they will form a nucleus around which the British power and influence may gather. Remember, too, that Hinduism, although is dying, yet has force, and endeavours to proselytise amongst these people, and such tribes, if not converted to Christianity, may be perverted to Hinduism." (ibid, p.99). 2
In and around 1822, David Scott, Esq., the Commissioner of Koch Bihar first conceived the idea of Christianising the Garo tribe of Assam. He wrote to Bayley, Secretary to Government, "I am satisfied that nothing permanently good can be obtained by other means (than sending a missionary) and that, if we do not interfere on behalf of the poor Garo, they will soon become Hindu or half-Hindu. Secretary Bayley sent a most encouraging letter in reply closing with the words, "I do not think the favourable opportunity for making this interesting experiment should be lost." (Milton Sangma, 'Garo Beliefs and Christianity' in 'The Tribes of North-East India', ed. Sebastian Karotemprei, Firma KLM Pvt. Ltd., 1984, Shillong, p. 99). 2
Was the 'tribal religion' really separate from Hinduism? Who coined mischievous terms like 'animism' and 'adivasi' (original inhabitant)? V.J. Middleton in his thesis for the Fuller Theological Seminary makes a statement that Hinduism pervades practically every tribal religion. Rev. Chhangte Lal Hminga himself admits that the Mizos knew the story of Rama and Sita. At the foot of the Lushai (Mizo) hills, rudely carved idols of a God sitting cross-legged and a goddess standing as well as pagoda-like buildings have been found toward the close of the 19th century. The Mizos believed in life after death (The Life and Witness of the Churches in Mizoram, Rev. Dr. C.L. Hminga, Literature Committee, Baptist Church of Mizoram, 1987, pp. 12, 35). Evidence of the prevalence of Hinduism and its cults of the sun and mother goddess in the Munda & Oraon region dates back to the early medieval age. The impact of Hinduism resulted in acceptance by the tribes of Siva as Mahadeva Bonga and Parvati as Chandi Bonga (K.K. Verma and Ramesh Sinha, 'Socio-Political Movements among the Munda and the Oraon', in 'The Tribal World and its Transformation, ed. Bhupinder Singh, J.S. Bhandari, Concept Publishing Company, p.4). The Gond of Ranchi observes Ear-boring and sacred-thread ceremonies. The Ranchi Gonds are ideally supposed to put Ganga water along with some Tulsi leaves into the mouth of a Gond on his deathbed. The Gonds offer worship to Mahadev, Ram and Krishna. They honour the cow. They are emphatic to their claim that they are Hindus (Satish Kumar, 'The Gond of Ranchi', ibid. p. 144). 2
The Mishing of Assam adopted the 'Bhakatya Panth' and recite religious verses of 'Kirtana' and other 'Punthis' (books) written by Shankar Deva and Madhab Deva (D. Doley, 'The Tribes of North-East India', pp. 92-93). The Lalung (Tiwa) tribe of Assam got their names from the Shiva's Lal (Saliva). The Reang of Tripura perform Lakshmi Pooja, Ker Pooja, Tripurasundari Pooja and Chitragupta Pooja every year and have close interactions with Hindu Bengalis. The Hajong of Meghalay have been following Hindu rites and customs. The origin of the Hindu shrine of Kamakhya, near Guwahati is attributed to the Khasis. Hindu deities like Ranachandi, Viskuram have found place in the Khasi Pantheon. The Khasis believe in re-birth. The Rabha of Assam worship the cow as a goddess. The Monpa (Tsanglas) in the south of Tibet trace their lineage to Guru Padmasambhava (Rimpoche). The above could simply have not been possible if the Hindu Society had marginalized the tribes. In fact, the tribes are Hindus in their beliefs and modes of worship. 2
It was the mischief of the British rulers and missionaries to label these Hindu 'Vanavasis' as animists and detach them from the Hindu Society! The 1901 census noted in its report that 'the dividing line between Hinduism and Animism is uncertain'. The 1921 census noted that it is never possible to say where Animism begins and Hinduism ends. The 1931 census abandoned the term 'Animism' and replaced it by a new category, 'tribal religions'. 2
The missionaries have popularised the term 'adivasis' for the tribes to imply that the non-tribals (read Hindus) are immigrants (like the Mughals and the British) and had chased these original inhabitants to the forests where the missionaries 'saved' them. In fact, the proper term for 'tribals' should be 'vanavasi'. Similarly, the term 'Diku' used by the Kolarian tribe was first coined by the missionaries to mean mainly the Hindus to imbue in the minds of the tribes the idea to look upon Hindus as exploiters (Singh, Bhandari, p.31). 2
Did the 'tribals' uniformly look upon the missionaries as friends? Were the Hindus in the plains always looked upon as exploiters? The legendary Munda hero Birsa, who is revered as 'Birsa Bhagwan' was in fact dissatisfied with the teachings of the missionaries who hurt the feelings of the tribes by speaking ill of their religions and left his earlier association with them. Armed Munda under his leadership, in fact, timed an attack on the missionaries, landlords and Police on Christmas Eve, 1899. Birsa caused apprehension among the missionaries and they prevailed upon the government to arrest him and sentence him 22 years in jail (Singh, Bhandari, pp. 7, 29). The Mizos had strongly resisted the missionaries. A popular heathen song "Puma Zai" had the following words to deride the Christian preachers "Carrying book, imitating foreigners, always proclaiming something, Puma!" (Hminga, p.87). What an apt description! The attempt of missionaries to pressurize the Khasi parents to send their children to schools provoked the 'rebellion' in the Jainitia Hills (1862-64), which was ruthlessly suppressed. Babu Jeebon Roy (b. 1838), the first Khasi to join government service started a literary movement to revive the ancient Khasi heritage. Prominent Khasi personalities like Babu Sibcharan Ray (b. 1862) focussed on the close proximity between Khasi and Hindu religions. He edited a paper 'U Nonphira' which was critical of the British and the missionaries. 2
He was an active member of the Congress and the Brahmo Samaj and had studied and translated Hindu classics like Bhagavad Gita, Chanakyaniti-Darpana, etc. into Khasi (Karotemprei, pp. 331-332). A Hindu religious leader Bhagirath Babaji had sponsored the Kharwar of Sapha Hor, a socio-political uprising amongst the Santals in 1871. The Heraka movement led by Jodunang (1905-1931) and later by the legendary Rani Gaidiniu among Zaliangrong Nagas was a counter to the missionary activities, which according to anthropologists like Elwin, and Haimendorf 'had demoralized and destroyed the solidarity of the Naga by forbidding the joys of feasting, decorations and the romance of communal life!' The missionaries to this day, pose the greatest danger to tribal culture and national security in the sensitive Northeast of our country. Missionaries insist that they are here to 'save our bodies and souls'. God save us from being 'saved'! 2
HOW THESE MISSIONARIES CONVERT LITERATE PEOPLE: Shri B. Shreeprakash carried out Study on missionary work. Whole evidences were collected from missionary reports itself. He wrote nearly 500 letters to these evangelical groups and nearly the same numbers of replies were received. Bibles, New Testaments, books, booklets and pamphlets flowed in and all of them were free of cost. 30 Bibles(with old and new testaments), 20 New Testaments, 40 books, 100 booklets and plenty of pamphlets were received by post. He even received a Free Bible, which was sent to him with Registered Post with postage of Rs72/-. In the bible collection, an English bible signed by Gladdys June Staines. Remains significant. He wondered why these peoples show so much interest for these activities, and how much money spent for him. 3
The lesson plans echoes a high sense of modern educational psychology behind them. They give a comprehensive outlook of Christian Theology. The evaluated answer paper and the score sheet reaches the student very promptly even from abroad. Clarifications for our doubts touch our heart more than our brain. The recurring question use to be, "Have you accepted Jesus Christ as your personal saviour?”- Each and every module of these Bible courses concludes with this question. If our answer is ‘yes’, a chasing will start until the prey is trapped. 3
Mission field news, messages from heads of churches, request for prayers and funds, evaluation of current situation faced by evangelists, detailed reports on missionary activities in each states and centres. Bible quiz, reports on healing and other miracles done by missionaries etc. fill the pages. Reports revealing the conversions serve as solid proofs, even though exaggeration and under-estimation can be seen here and there. They reveal the systematic work and the close monitoring they do in the name of evangelisation. 3
The policies betray the policy-makers. The so-called secularists, politicians, intellectuals and cultural giants accidentally or deliberately ignore these policies. They often project their own secular ideas as the policy of Christian Missionaries. For example, when there policy clearly states that, “we view evangelism with Conversion as a goal and we want to see people leave their former faiths, whether they are secular or religious faiths, and follow Christ as their only lord”, our secularists hail the missionaries as apostles of secularism. 3
The actual figures of foreign contributions can never be traced out precisely. Whatever studies conducted and whatever facts reveal, are turned down by our ‘secular’ media and our pseudo-cultural giants and misinterpreted before the public as ‘Indian Hindu Fundamentalism ’ and atrocities against minority communities. 3
The world renowned BBC had serialized a vivid and clear picture of the global Missionary activities, in the late eighties of the 20th century itself. When the BBC had serialized through the television, was published as a book named “MISSIONARIES” by BBC Books, a division of BBC, books, in 1990. This book researched and documented by Julian Pettifer and Richard Bradley, reveals the insuperable and inhuman methods adopted by missionaries of expanding the boundaries of Christendom, yet inconceivable for Indian intelligentsia. It clearly shows us how much securely and compassionate these missionaries are. This book is the one of the strong evidence of the cancerous and monstrous face of Christian missionaries, who have invaded and conquered nearly the whole of the world and it gives a deathblow to the arguments of the missionaries that they are the sole agents of love, charity, compassion and even modern civilization. This very book is more than enough for revealing the hypocrisy of the secular missionaries. Have our secular media and secular cultural giants seen this book or they pretended not to have seen? 3
To get rid of threat Hinduism is facing from these evangelist a collective intellectual work should be initiated. Creative solutions should be elucidated from such works. Data from missionary reports should be documented yearly. The work must be centralized. Arrangements should be made to reveal the facts to the public. The social backwardness in some of the sectors of Hindu society should not be overloaded. Now our strategy on conversions is antagonistic. The correct antidote should be applied considering each situation. Aggression always (even though they are highlighted) may not prove fruitful. 3
Conclusively it can be said that a socially organized Hindu society with sound cultural awareness is the ultimate solution. First, we must know ‘Swadharma’ ,then only we can sense the merits an demerits of ‘paradharma’. Cherish in our hearts, the lines from Gita, “Death in one’s own Dharma is nobler then accepting Paradharma“. Only by practicing it in our life, we can be true to ourselves and true to our great tradition. 3
ARREST OF SANKARACHARYA TO DISGRACE HINDUISM: If we see the manner in which Sankaracharya Swamy Jayendra Saraswathi was arrested it becomes clear that he is being implicated under a conspiracy.
Why Swamy Jayendra Saraswathi was arrested? If some one wants to know, than, he must try to know, what kind of work he was doing for Hindu society before arrest.
Shri Jayendra Saraswati was not happy with the condition of Hindu society. He was also worried about the Missionary activities in Tamilnadu in Particular and whole Bharat in general.
To reduce the activities and influence of Christian missionary Shri Jayendra Saraswati decided to extend activities of his mutt.
First in 1987 he launched 'Jana Kalyan Jagaran'. It had two different areas of operation - service to the people and awakening the masses. In his speech he also referred to flow of "foreign funds" to certain religious groups and the "division" of these funds for "Conversion".
In 1980 there was communal tension between Hindus and Christians over temple festivals in Kanyakumari district. The conversion of a substantial number of Dalits in Tiruneveli district received countrywide attention.
In Tamil Nadu, the AIADMK government appointed Shri Jayendra Saraswati head of a State level committee on protection of temple property. The State government brought in an act in 2002 to prevent "forcible" conversions.
The Second area in which Shri Jayendra Saraswati extend his activity was renunciation of Dalits. Dalits in Tamil Nadu were prime target of Christian Missionary. Shri Jayendra Saraswati started visiting slums and advised them to lead a better life and started so many welfare schemes for them. This has substantially reduced the influence of Christian Missionaries.
He made all endeavour to mediate in the Ayodhaya dispute and was about to break a solution but failed due to some inexplicable reasons.
In 2004 when NDA lost power from the centre it became clear that all efforts would be made to curtail the activity of Shri Jayendra Saraswati.
The Jayalaleetha government in Tamil Nadu lost Lok Sabha poll in 2004. It was due to her anti-employee activity. But she tried to put blame on NDA. Ms. J. Jayalaleetha was trying hard to improve her relation with congress. Death of A. Sankararaman gave her a chance to curtail the activity of Shri Jayendra Saraswati.
Today India is in a greater crisis than ever before. Sonia Gandhi, the daughter of an Italian Fascist who came in through the backdoor, controls our nation. In Manmohan Singh she got the ultimate pliable and controllable PM. 7
She had put Christians in control of congress and the party has become the den of traitors, helpers to Christian missionaries, and Muslim terrorists. 7
Coming from a nation known for its Mafia, Maino is now testing the waters in India with the most outrageous arrest of a Hindu Seer, to see how Indians are going to react. Arrest was done so meticulously from behind so that no one will see her role in it. During the last election the church had sent volunteers in many cities for house-to-house vote canvassing and many church leaders openly called the Christians to vote for Sonia Gandhi. The present arrest of the Seer is facilitated by the networking Christian bureaucrats. Once the so-called Dravidian party leaders are out, congress can take full control of Tamil Nadu. 7
Jayalalitha the Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu state in India had ordered the arrest of a Hindu Seer, the Kanchi Shankaracharya Jayendra Saraswati in a draconian manner in the night on the Hindu festival day of Dipawali the 11th of November 2004 alleging that the 71 year old Seer had murdered an ex-employee of his mutt by name Sankararaman working in another temple in Kancheepuram. The arrest of the Seer was done in such a haste to insult the Hindu majority community in India and is seen as the result of meticulous planning by the fanatic Christian missionaries in India aided by some foreign spy agencies. 7
The arrest of the Seer is seen as ordered by Sonia Gandhi, the Super PM of India. Seer was arrested in Andhra Pradesh to avenge the arrest of a Muslim terrorist 'Maulana Nseeruddin' on the night of October 31st 2004, by the Gujarat Police in Hyderabad for the murder of an ex-minister of Gujarat, Haren Pandya. Nseeruddin is the president of Tehreek Taifooz Sher-e-islam and have links with Lashkr-e-toiba (LeT). His supporters are activists of the notorious Jehad-o-Shahadat (DJS), based in Hyderabad that had trained thousands of women Jihadis for decades and was beheading Hindus. DJS was abducting people in the city bus stops, for over a year after Gujarat riots, offering free lifts, take the persons to isolated Hyderabad suburbs, lift their dhothi to make sure that they are not circumcised and indeed are Hindus, and then cut their heads off in standard Islamic fashion. Hundreds were killed like this and it came to light when one of the victims with injuries reported the crime to the police. Chandrababu Naidu hushed up the whole incident. 7
The Seer was arrested by sending an armed group of policemen carrying assault rifles, in government planes thus violating government regulations. The police team traveled without the permission from the Director General of Civil aviation and without filing a flight plan which are mandatory. These things and secrecy of the arrest, indicates the operational clearance at the PM level. Seer was held in an operation similar to the arrest of an international terrorist to discredit Hindus. The method of arrest violated all Supreme Court guidelines and was a clear case of human right violation. But unfortunately NHRC is also more worried for the right of terrorist and antinational elements than normal citizen. The Seer could have been comfortably arrested in Chennai, but Sonia Gandhi wanted to show that a Hindu spiritual leader was arrested in Andhra Pradesh ruled by Congress on the Hindu festival day of Dipawali. 7
Full co-operation was provided in Andhra by the Christian Chief Minister Rajashekhar Reddy, who sport his Hindu name in public, by deputing another Christian policeman by name B.R. Dumas who is the SP of Mehaboobnagar. For the Gujarat police team this overt help was not extended and consequently the Gujarat policemen had to fire at the attacking Muslim crowd, in which one Muslim was killed, before they could arrest the Muslim terrorist. 7
Apparently Maino might have offered the closing of the cases against Jayalalitha in return for giving the spiritual head of Hindu society on a platter. Our nation is famous for Jaichands and Jayalalitha has proved to be one now. 7
In normal course Seer's arrest should have been carried out only after capturing the gang leader of the hit team known as 'Appu', alias Krishnaswamy, a well-known history sheeter and a DMK activist. Police have made no effort to track Appu or arrest him. Appu and one of the many wives of DMK chief Karunanidhi, 'Dayalu Ammal' are said to be connected. When Karunanidhi was the chief minister, Appu was allotted one room in the house of Dayalu Ammal when Dayalu stayed at the Oliver roadhouse. Appu was the henchman of the former DMK minister Arcot Veerasamy of the Karunanidhi cabinet. Appu was the uncrowned king of the rowdies of Chennai. 7
Police claims that he was the gang leader of the team that carried out the murder. So the brain behind the murder could only be DMK. Their involvement is also clear from the fact that DMK and the media controlled by it were asking as to why the government is not arresting the culprits. DMK party was organizing street protests and media coverage on Sankararaman's murder from day one. The murder occurred in September and in the normal course, it takes months and years to complete an investigation in India. There are hundreds of murders in Tamil Nadu every month and a party like DMK's insistence on the arrest of murder culprits of an insignificant Hindu temple employee is very surprising. 7
Sankararaman had written letters saying that if ever he is murdered, it will be by Kanchi Shankaracharya Sri Jayendra Saraswati. Apparently DMK or some one had seen an opportunity to fix AIADMK and its supremo Jayalalitha and weaken her political base with a single murder. The main policeman who investigated the crime is very close to Karunanidhi and it is not surprising that the effort of police was concentrated in framing the Seer from the beginning. The police have not even questioned Karunanidhi, his wife Dayalu, or Arcot Veerasamy to find out the whereabouts of Appu. 7
The selection of Christians and crypto Christians for the investigation and prosecution is seen in this case. (Crypto Christians are those who on government record remains as Hindu for the reservation benefit, but they are converted to Christianity for generations. An example is the case of Ajit Jogi. Even students who get reservation seats in all IITs fall in this category of Christian fraud) External agencies must have funded the operation of arrest. It is very much possible that once the utility of DMK is over in this conspiracy, and in the absence of Karunanidhi, Congress will blame Karunanidhi and take over the DMK cadre. Jayalalitha's AIADMK is out of public favor if the last parliamentary election is an indication. 7
The very nature of the murder of Sankararaman was for fixing the Seer. The modus operandi adopted was to kill Sankararaman is revealing. Murder was in broad daylight to create maximum sensation. If the murder was a revenge killing to eliminate the nuisance value it would have been done very discreetly and without leaving any evidence by the Appu alias Krishnaswamy and his assistant by name Chinna alias Rajni whom the police claim as the professional killers who committed the murder. Both Appu and Chinna are at large. But when DMK chief Karunanidhi and Sonia Gandhi put pressure on Jayalalitha for the arrest of Seer, Jayalalitha's trusted policemen had booked another Rajni, a small time offender and tortured him to confess to the crime. The police showed some Rupee bundles issued by the ICICI bank, and claimed that it was the money paid by the Seer for the murder. Later when the Kanchi Mutt made public statement that they had no bank account with ICICI, the police was in a fix and they are looking for all devotees living in and around Kancheepuram, who had ICICI bank account. One basic question anyone will ask is about the type of policemen of Tamil Nadu. 7
It is looking like DMK and AIADMK are vying with each other to please the anti-national catholic Sonia Gandhi by fixing the Hindu Seer on a Dipawali. This is like arresting Shahi Imam on Id-ul-fitr or Pope on a Christmas day. Putting the Seer in Vellore jail, which is a well-known Christian centre, is at the orders of Sonia Gandhi to insult further the Hindu community. Jayalalitha wants to join the Congress coalition in the next election to retain her power. Out of power she could permanently inside the smelly prison of Chennai. 7
K Premkumar, Superintendent of Police of Kancheepuram was transferred to Cuddalore as SP on 2 September, 2004. Sankararaman was murdered on 3rd September, 2004. A Christian by name S. Davidson Devasirvatham was posted at Kancheepuram as the Superintendent of Police. Five men went to Kancheepuram Varadarajaswamy temple and stabbed Sankararaman at around 5.30 pm, but two clerks Ganesh and Duraikannan, sitting in the same room, when murder was going on, claim that they shut their eyes and did not see the faces of any of the murderers. Davidson Devasirvatham investigated and implicated Seer in the crime. K. Doraiswamy who is a Christian was the Public Prosecutor and he calls the Seer a "CRIMINAL" even before the trial. He argued against providing pooja facilities to the Seer. When counsel of acharya pleaded before court for an "interim arrangement", which would allow him to perform puja every day from morning to evening. TN government said that "There is a limit for special treatment. He is the most undeserving criminal, deserving no special treatment." Public Prosecutor Christian K Doraisamy also said that he was embarrassed by the presence of a former Madras High Court judge T S Arunachalam in the court during the initial hearing. A Christian advocate Senthil Kumar, opposing the grant of bail to Seer filed a petition alleging that the Shankaracharya, if released on bail, might harass witnesses. He was also one of the rowdies that attacked the Hindu protesters at the court. Another Christian advocate 'Wilfred Prakash filed a frivolous habeas corpus writ petition in the Madras high court seeking the release of Seer. Many Christian advocates of Chennai High court demonstrated with placards decrying the murder as well as demanding the closure of the 2000-year-old Hindu Mutt. 7
All these indicated a massive Christian planning behind the murder and the arrest of Seer. The Christian lawyers of Madras High court shouted slogans against granting bail to the Seer. It was not long ago that a Judicial officer had issued an arrest warrant against the Indian president A.P.J. Abdul Kalam after accepting bribe. The demonstration by the Chennai Christian lawyers against the granting of bail to the Seer, speaks volumes of the level to which the legal profession has gone down in India. The anti Shankaracharya Christian lawyer protesters along with the Christian NGOs attacked the Hindu activists who were protesting the arrest of the Seer. Many were hurt in that incident. 7
On talking to constables outside Vellore jail it was gathered that policemen had come drunk in celebration of the arrest of Seer. They misbehaved with the Seer and one constable said that the officials in the name of interrogation made fun of Seer and asked him if he would share their chicken curry. According to some constables the Shankaracharya was silent throughout and has not talked anything. The police officials partied by drinking that night. Late in the night one of the senior policemen slapped the Seer repeatedly asking the Seer to confess the crime. On 19th November 2004, the Magistrate in Kancheepuram, G. Uthamaraj remanded the Seer for three days in Police custody. 7
On November 24, Kathiravan and Rajni were brought to the Kancheepuram magistrate's court for extending their judicial remand. At that time Kathiravan wished to make a statement. The prosecution protested, `his confession having been recorded in camera, he should not be allowed to speak'! The court overruled, asked Kathiravan to write his statement. As his hand had been rendered inoperative by the police bashing, the magistrate himself recorded his statement. 7
In the next few minutes, speaking extempore, Kathiravan demolished the police case against the Acharya, exposed them as fabricators of the case against him. He told the court that he, along with his friends, was arrested on November 3. Not, as the police lied, on November 9. [His lawyers had recorded this fact on Nov 3 itself] That between November 4 and November 8, under police torture he said what the police wanted him to say. That he was kept in a Marwari's house in Uthandi, on the outskirts of Chennai for two days and beaten black and blue. That he was shown to different persons as Kathiravan [so that they may say they knew him, even though they did not know him]. That from Nov 4 to 8, he was kept in `Paramount Hotel' in Sriperumpudur in Room nos 108 and 109, and was tortured to confess `as the police wanted'. That he was made to sign on blank sheets. That on Nov 9, he was made to stay in the office of the Additional Superintendent of Police, Kancheepuram, and in the night made to say, `whatever the police wanted him to say' in front of a video camera and in the presence of the Tehsildar. That he was remanded the next day, November 10. That between Nov 15 and 17 he was pressurised to make judicial confession under sec 164 of the Penal Code `as the police wanted'. That he was not allowed to meet his relatives, his brother too was arrested. That.... Kathiravan went on. 7
All this Kathiravan told a stunned court and the public totally spontaneously. He corroborated his statements with events, places, and dates. He demonstrated that the police were fixing the Acharya through him. He admitted that his confessions to the police and to the Tehsildar, used to arrest the Acharya, were obtained under duress. So the star witness against the Acharya in the court is today the star witness against the police in public. 7
But the more dangerous is the testimony of Rajni alias Chinna who also said that he was bashed up for days to tell lies against himself and the Acharya. He lost his teeth in police bashing. He exhibited his injuries to the court. What he said was also identical to what Kathiravan said. Yet both had never met before. He may be the smoking gun against the police who know he is not involved in the crime at all! He is a petty pickpocket, cannot even wield a blade, according to insiders. 7
Rajni also claimed to have a copy of the telegram he had sent to the Chief Justice of the Madras High Court complaining of the torture! Statements of Kathiravan and Rajni are highly corroborated, also spontaneous. They were all along in police custody. Even their relatives were not allowed to meet them. 7
Now after what Kathiravan and Rajni told the Magistrate at Kancheepuram, not the Sankaracharya, but the police stand accused. But still it is Sankaracharya who is in jail and those who are accused of fixing him by fabrication are keeping him in jail. This bizarre situation is a product of a perverted investigation and an equally perverted decision to arrest the Sankaracharya on the basis of a perverted investigation. Yes the prosecution has all but collapsed. The only question is who will do the funeral for it and when. It can happen forthwith if the State realises it has been misled by police. Or years later though courts. Emboldened by the dishonesty of the media the police may still attempt more fabrication to fix the Acharya. But it will get into more trouble and also get the government into more embarrassment. But who will admit that the case is dead? Neither the media, which virtually turned the prosecutor, nor the State whose police, is the fixer. Then who, except the court? 7
With this retraction of the charges made against the Kanchi Seer by two key witnesses, Jayalalitha within two days hurriedly shuffled the police personal to avoid embarrassment. As ordered by Sonia Gandhi, she even upgraded the post of Chief of Tamil Nadu Intelligence wing from Asst DGP to DGP, promoted and posted a Christian A.X. Alexander who was shunted out by her in 2001, so that Antonio Maino can keep an eye on Tamil Nadu. 7
In his truthful and the cutting edge analysis the well known Shri. S. Gurumurthy had laid open the helplessness of the peace loving Hindu community, which is being targeted by inimical forces in the governments and media, and says that only funeral is left for the arrest episode. Janata Party president Dr Subramaniam Swamy has said that the arrest and remand of Kanchi seer Jayendra Saraswathi was "clearly premature". He later stated that Sonia Gandhi had conspired with external agencies and put pressure on Jayalalitha, who is vulnerable because of the court cases against her on corruption charges, to destroy the Kanchi Mutt. This is part of the Christian missionary agenda. The churches are sore that the Kanchi Shankaracharya has been successful in starting schools and building temples in Dalit areas coveted by the missionaries for their conversion activities. 7
There was an earlier murder attempt on two devotees, before the Sankararaman's murder. In that attempt both the devotees, Madhavan and S. Radhakrishnan survived the murder attempt. Conveniently the police never cracked the case even though they claim now that it was carried out by the same Appu gang. Had that murder attempt was successful the Seer would have been framed for their murder earlier. It was well known that the police never bothered to crack this case earlier as that attempt did not result in death. New arrest warrant was issued against the Seer on this murder attempt to trap him in the notorious anti people legal system of India, by Jayalalitha. 7
The arrest of the Seer is unforgivable affront to the Hindu community. Hindus are not violent like Muslims and not networked or funded by external agencies like Christians. These alien religions want to convert the whole of India. The small differences among the Hindus are utilized by these external and foreign religions, Christianity and Islam. This is the reason for centuries of subjugation of Hindus by small groups of violent foreigners. The imprisonment of Seer on murder charges, and his police custody was to manufacture evidence and insult Hindus. The anti Hindu media funded by Muslim and Christian nations had convicted the Seer. Today power brokers are prostitutes, film actors and actresses, pimps, thieves, mass murderers, fake currency and fake stamp paper printers, Muslim terrorists etc. Even Judges like J.P. Singh had to ask the help of notorious terrorist Dawood Ibrahim to collect back the amounts due to him. 7
Jayalalitha the film actress turned politician who came up from the casting couch of yesteryear tamil film world, was elected to power by the film crazy tamilians. She is the symbol of corruption goddess if the court cases against her are any indication. Supreme court had ordered the transfer of cases pending against her out of Tamil Nadu to prevent her influence. When Karunanidhi was in power in 1996, his policemen had arrested Jayalalitha, systematically tortured and lodged her in a stinking cell of Chennai Central Jail. Jayalalitha when in power retaliated in 2001 by arresting 78-year-old Karunanidhi shortly after midnight, and tortured him. 7
Union Commerce Minister Murasoli Maran was injured and was taken to the police station. Murasoli Maran was later admitted to the Apollo Hospital and eventually passed away. The BJP government could neither dismiss Jayalalitha government nor was able to even transfer three policemen who tortured the central ministers as demanded by the DMK. That eventually led to the parting of ways between ruling partner DMK with BJP and cost dearly for BJP when it lost the last parliamentary election. (One of the cops in that was a Muslim Mohamed Ali and the present UPA government had arrested him for his involvement in the Rs 60000 crore fake stamp paper scam run by Telgi.). 7
With more vigour Jayalalitha over reached herself and arrested in her characteristic fashion, the Hindu Seer who is the symbol of Hindu religion. 7
The Justice Jain Commission, which investigated the conspiracy behind the assassination of Rajiv Gandhi, in its interim report, stated that Karunanidhi, who was the Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu during 1989-91, had links with the assassins. DMK was seen forcing this issue of murder of Sankararaman. Only future can tell us, as to where these events can lead the destinies of Jayalalitha, Karunanidhi, and Sonia Gandhi who are the principal actors in the Seer's arrest. 7
Tamil politicians are from film world and their low background, lack of education and inferiority complex reflect on what is going on in Tamil Nadu politics today. The present arrest of Seer is the result of a filmy type plot, with external funding and organized with the help of Christian bureaucrats in Chennai. (One is forced to remember the case of Mathew of Home ministry who was spying for Tehelka, charge sheeted by CBI, but rehabilitated now by Sonia Gandhi). Tamil Nadu policemen are known for custodial rape, abduction and rape and corruption and a bunch of them currently are being investigated by CBI for abduction and rape of a woman 'Sivakasi Jayalakshmi". 7
Where will this arrest episode will lead? The conspirators have achieved their end result. The Seer arrest is similar to the ISRO spy case initiated by CIA with the help of Christian policemen of Kerala state in India. In this two space scientists were accused of spying, arrested and tortured to fabricate evidence. This was to stop India developing the Cryogenic motor for the space rockets. It is time that Hindus should unite to stop the Christian menace in India. The arrest may even have something to do with the Joshua project, which is aimed at total conversion of the world to Christianity. 7
On counter investigation we found the case against the Sankaracharya slippery. Now it turns out that the case is not just slippery, but actually groundless from day one. Not just that, it involves a bit of fabrication too. Yes, fabrication to fix the Acharya. The police are now running for cover. They may not give up yet, may fabricate more to put the case, which is virtually dead, on life support system. But the case is irretrievably lost. This dramatic turn came on Wednesday in Kancheepuram Magistrate's court. The two criminals, on whom the police had exclusively `relied' to name the Sankaracharya as an accused in the case, have actually turned to accuse the police as fabricators of the case itself!
On January 10, 2005 the Supreme Court granted bail to Shri Jayendra Saraswati, setting aside the order of the Madras High Court, which had denied him bail twice, on November 20 and December 8, 2004. A three-member Bench of the Supreme Court, comprising Chief Justice R.C. Lahoti and Justices G.P. Mathur and P.P. Naolekar, said in their 17-page order that the 39 letters written by Sankararaman to Jayendra Saraswati did not constitute a motive for the murder. 4
The Bench said: "In our opinion, the recovery of these letters from the house of the deceased himself is not a proof of the fact that they were actually received by the petitioner (Jayendra Saraswati) or were brought to his notice." 4
It ruled that "there is absolutely no evidence collected in the investigation that the petitioner made any kind of protest or took any kind of action against the deceased" the court further said "there is absolutely no evidence or material collected so far in the investigation which may indicate that the petitioner had ever shown any resentment against the deceased for having made allegations against either his personal character or the discharge of his duties as the Sankaracharya of the mutt. The petitioner having kept absolutely quiet for over three years, it does not appeal to reason that he suddenly decided to have Sankararaman murdered and entered into a conspiracy for the said purpose," 4
The Bench pointed out that the prosecution's stand, when the Madras High Court twice heard Jayendra Saraswathi's bail petitions, was that Rs. 50 lakhs was withdrawn from the mutt's account in the ICICI Bank at Kancheepuram to be paid to the contract killers. Although the Bench directed the prosecution to give particulars of the bank account from which the money was withdrawn, " no document of the account in the ICICI Bank have been produced in support of the plea which was twice taken by the prosecution before the High Court while opposing the prayer for bail by the petitioner". 4
The State government then took a different stand - that Jayendra Saraswathi paid to the contract killers the advance (Rs. 50 lakhs) he received for the sale of the Kanchi Janakalyan Trust. But, the Bench pointed out that the Rs. 50 lakhs, which was received in cash on April 30, 2004, was deposited in Indian Bank, Sankara Mutt branch, on May 7, 2004 (that is, four months before Sankararaman's murder). It said: "This belies the prosecution case which was developed subsequently after the order had been passed by this Court on December 17, 2004 directing the State to produce copy of the ICICI Bank account, that the cash was retained by the petitioner (Jayendra Saraswathi) from which substantial money was paid to the hirelings." 4
When state government found that bail has been granted to Shri Jayendra Saraswati, 70 police personnel led by Premkumar entered the mutt premises at Kanchipuram and arrested Vijayendra Saraswathi. This shows the clear intention of the State government.
WHO IS SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE K PREMKUMAR: K. Premkumar is now posted as the SP of Kancheepuram and is put in charge of the Sankaramanan, murder case. One can remember the appointment of a policeman Sunil in Kerala, for investigating the sex racket run by the Muslim league minister, 'Ice cream Kunjalikutty', in Kerala. Sunil himself was involved in three sex rackets and entrusting such a case with Sunil was like giving the key to the thief. The list of VIPs who raped the Kiliroor sex victim as told in her death declaration did not find in the list of documents Sunil submitted to the court. Like wise appointing Premkumar who has two prosecutions for torture and criminal assaults against him is more looking like that Jayalalitha is trying to manufacture evidence by torture, and the Sankararaman murder could have some connection to Premkumar himself. The prosecution recommended against Premkumar by the Director General of Police is pending with Jayalalitha since last year. .
Within a few years of having joined the service, Prem Kumar was named in a series of criminal cases. In one case he has even been convicted, but he appealed against the court verdict. In Tamil Nadu Prem Kumar is known as K. Premkumar because of his reputation for drugging and threatening the accused. The 'disturbing' past record of this investigating officer includes campaigning for an AIADMK candidates.
Prem Kumar was suspended by the Chief Election Commissioner for campaigning for an AIADMK candidate during the 2004 Lok Sabha polls. But he was reinstated as SP, Cuddalore, after the polls. It is obvious that here is a man who can go to any extent to please a political party. Even now he is embroiled in many cases. This kind of record for K. Premkumar heading the investigation in the cases against the Sankaracharya, shows that investigation into the murder case is a conspiracy and that a false case has been fabricated against Kanchi Sankaracharya Jayendra Saraswathi.
Mr K. Premkumar has no regard for law or truth. The role played by the police officers in this case would prove that this officer has behaved like barbarians without giving any respect to human dignity, that too with the ladies.
“It would be shameful to find that a person like the K Premkumar has been allowed to work in the police department.’’
From the time he was a sub-inspector in Madurai in the eighties, through his days as Deputy Superintendent of Police to the late nineties when he was promoted to the post of Superintendent of Police, Premkumar has had little patience for the rulebook and his high-handedness has shocked his superiors time and again, say insiders.
His beginnings were appropriately ominous. When he was only a sub-inspector in Vadipatti in Madurai district he took upon himself the job of evicting a tenant of a fellow policeman. The ex-serviceman tenant, Nallakaman, only wanted the advance of Rs 5,000 he had made returned.
The money was not coming and so Nallakaman decided to dig in his heels. But he had failed to take into account Premkumar’s interest in the case and had to pay for his costly mistake.
On February 1, 1982 Nallakaman, his wife and son were beaten up at the Vadipatti police station by Premkumar and his colleagues. The head of the family was then handcuffed and paraded in the streets and dragged to the Vadipatti bus stand.
To top it all, a criminal case was registered against the hapless Nallakaman on charges, including attempt to murder. Public outcry followed, an RDO inquiry was ordered and the report confirmed all the allegations.
Finally, the Usilampatti RDO filed a criminal complaint against Premkumar and three others. Premkumar himself was placed under suspension.
Meantime, the case filed against Nallakaman, the one filed by the RDO against Premkumar and a private complaint preferred by Nallakaman himself dragged on in the Madurai District Sessions Court.
Interestingly, Premkumar took the Group-I services examination during the period, emerged successful and was appointed Deputy Superintendent of Police.
At one stage, he was also successful in having the Madurai proceedings quashed by the Madras High Court, but the Supreme Court reversed the ruling and directed that all the three cases be tried together and disposed of by March 31, 1995.
Premkumar moved up the ladder fast, nevertheless. As Superintendent of Police, he was perhaps unhappy that he should be bothered by the likes of Nallakaman and moved the Madras High Court to quash the proceedings against him, but it was his petition that was dismissed with costs.
While Premkumar had alleged that Nallakaman was stalling the trial, Justice Karpagavinayagam held that the cases had indeed been stalled by Premkumar and the other accused policemen and that the officer had shown disrespect to the Supreme Court and the High Court.
The judge noted that the Madurai court had issued as many as 13 non-bailable warrants against Premkumar between September 1995 and March 2000, but none of them was executed.
The judge also expressed dismay that the police officer should have ‘‘disrobed the saree of the woman teacher (Nallakaman’s wife) at the police station and attempted to remove her thali (mangalya sutra).’’
The judge went on to wonder how Premkumar came to be promoted so rapidly when his first appointment as DSP itself was temporary and subject to the issue of the Madurai trial. But Premkumar seems to be having the last laugh now, emerging as a dashing officer who does not flinch before the might of a prestigious mutt.
If in June 2002, Justice Karpagavinayagam was appalled by what Premkumar had done as a sub-inspector at Vadipatti, more revelations were to follow barely four months later.
A prist of Marthandam in Kanyakumari district and a key accused in the Gilbert Raj murder case, moved the High Court against the brutal treatment meted out to him and two other co-accused, Sister Wiselin Femina Rose and Sister Sahayarani Jeyamary. The priest had been brutally beaten up and the sisters stripped and molested by Premkumar and another DSP Panneerselvam.
Directing a CB-CID inquiry into the allegations, the judge recorded in ghastly detail the testimonies of the two sisters: ‘‘Premkumar, DSP, came near Sahayarani and removed her saree and petticoat and threw them at the corner of the room. Then he also tore the blouse and pulled her breasts.
Premkumar, DSP, took his lathi and fisted on her stomach as well as on her private parts. At the same time, Panneerselvam, DSP, similarly removed the saree of Femina Rose.
After tearing the blouse, he pulled her breast and fisted on the chest with lathi. Joseph John and Gnanakan, father of Femina Rose (who were also present) prostrated before Premkumar, DSP, and Panneerselvam, DSP, requesting them not to outrage the modesty of the ladies. They also said that they would give any statement as they dictated...’’
Premkumar was pardoned under the Probationary Offenders Act in the Nallakaman case by the Madurai Sessions Court, in effect holding him guilty. But in the Kanyakumari case, no attempts seem to have been made by the CB-CID to launch prosecution against him despite a division Bench of the High Court and the Supreme Court upholding the single judge’s order.
CATHOLIC CHRISTIAN SONIA GANDHI MAKING HOLY DIP AT GANGES: In 1999, Sonia Gandhi visited the famed Hindu shrine at Tirupati amid a blaze of publicity. There is nothing wrong with any politician choosing to do so. But many people thought it offensive that she, a practicing Catholic, would enter a place that is, strictly speaking, forbidden to non-Hindus. 5
Worse, when one of the priests chose to ask her about this -- as he was legally entitled to do -- he was brushed aside by Rajasekhara Reddy, the prospective Congress chief minister of Andhra Pradesh in the election that was coming up. (As everybody in Andhra Pradesh knows, Reddy too is a Christian despite the name.) 5
This led to a flurry of debate, not least on the Internet. Many people were offended by Reddy's reputed assertion that nobody could question her credentials, as Sonia Gandhi was a member of the Nehru-Gandhi clan. If this was a true report, I am intrigued to note that Reddy was implicitly associating 'Hindu' with 'Indian!' 5
This, I suppose, is an exercise in 'secularism'. And so it is, come to think of it, in the proper sense of the word, 'secular' means worldly, something or someone removed from the purely spiritual. Sonia Gandhi's reasons -- by implication those of the Congress -- are purely worldly. She is doing precisely what she accuses the Bharatiya Janata Party of doing -- mixing religion with politics. May I note in passing that the 'secular' media has been unusually quiet on this aspect? 5
Of course, I can understand why people in general visit Prayag in such numbers. This is a special occasion, a Kumbh Mela that began with a lunar eclipse. Such an event shall not take place again for 144 years. And in the wake of the pilgrim, the researcher and the reporter are bound to follow. (I wish that the latter two weren't quite so keen to sensationalise, but that is another story.) I cannot, however, remember Sonia Gandhi displaying any interest in Hinduism, in scholarship in general, or in journalism. 5
What the Congress president has done is a complete fraud from beginning to end. It is a cheap attempt to win votes. Yet it is, of course, all in the finest traditions of the Congress. When V P Singh stood from Allahabad as the joint nominee of the Opposition, the Rajiv Gandhi administration brought the troupe of Ramanand Sagar's television serial Ramayana to campaign. 5
The late prime minister Mr Rajiv Gandhi himself inaugurated his election schedule from Ayodhya in 1989, with a promise of 'Ram Rajya'. The media would have lambasted the Bharatiya Janata Party had one of its leaders tried these tactics. Rajiv Gandhi and his Italian wife are luckier. 5
Truth be told, I am more than little sceptical not just about Sonia Gandhi's interest in the Kumbh Mela, but her professed love for India itself. I recall that some television reporter asked Priyanka Vadra why her mother had taken so long to adopt Indian citizenship. The princess of 10, Janpath replied that it was only natural if someone took five or six years to make such an important decision. 5
This was a misleading response. Sonia Gandhi didn't take five years, but closer to fifteen. There is plenty of evidence that in her early years in Delhi, Sonia Gandhi had more European friends than Indian. (This list included Ottavio Quattrocchi and his wife, and Satish Sharma's Dutch bride.) 5
But forget all that, the Congress boss's attempt to curry favour by visiting Prayag isn't just 'secular,' remember it is the single greatest gathering of humanity in one place at one time. The local administration is under immense pressure to ensure that everything goes smoothly. The biggest rush is expected to take place on January 24 -- the day of Mauni Amavaasya. And now here was Sonia Gandhi throwing careful plans into disarray just two days before that! 5
The Congress president is entitled to Special Protection Group guards. As irritated Delhiites shall attest, this level of protection means inconvenience to everybody else, with the roads being cleared for the lady. Going to Prayag was nothing more than a way to irritate the genuine pilgrims. In effect, they were being asked to keep away from the sacred waters so that a silly politician could hog the cameras! 5
BENNY HINN ARRIVING IN INDIA TO PREACH CHRISTIANITY: LARGER-THAN-LIFE images of a coiffure, smiling Benny Hinn, the California-based millionaire televangelist, gaze over traffic snarls and congested city intersections in Bangalore. The hoardings, which made their appearance a month ago, were part of a publicity campaign for a three-day Festival of Blessings addressed by Benny Hinn in Jakkur, Bangalore, between January 21 and 23. The real purpose of the festival was attracting people to Christianity.
Now Catholic Sonia Gandhi is head of Congress party. Every Congress leader is doing his best to fulfil his aspiration. She don't need to express her desire explicitly. Show was attended by an estimated three to four lakh persons, including Karnataka Chief Minister N. Dharam Singh and Several of his Cabinet colleagues, Union Ministers M. V. Rajashekharan and Oscar Fernandes.
The centrepiece of a Benny Hinn biggest draw, were his working of miracles that have supposedly cured thousands of people from life-threatening illnesses. Indeed, for scientists, rationalists and secular groups, the opposition to the Benny Hinn show is based on his false promises of healing.
Benny Hinn certainly have a hidden conversion agenda. The high-cost publicity blitz launched by the Benny Hinn Ministries, and the manner in which it flaunted a guest list that read like a who's who of political India - N. Dharam Singh, Governor T. N. Chaturvedi, several Chief Ministers from other States and Union Ministers, including Human Resource Development Minister Arjun Singh, to mention a few - was picked up by communal organisations to allege government patronage to Christian organisations that are engaged in covert conversion.
Sections of the legal fraternity and leaders of the Kannada movement, such as M. Chidananda Murthy, have called for the cancellation of the event by the government and the arrest of Benny Hinn for attempted conversion.
Even the Communist Party of India demanded that Hinn's programme be cancelled on the grounds that he would dupe people with promises of miracle healing.
Direct attack was made on Hindu practices by pamphlet written by a member of the Benny Hinn Ministries by equating idolatry with harlotry. Later on when people opposed then it was taken back.
And if any one want to know kind of preparation was made for his programme than he should refer to the affidavit filed in the High Court, by S. Mariswamy, City Police Commissioner, who had said that 10,000 policemen would be deployed on those days. This figure included two companies of the Rapid Action Force, 40 platoons of the Karnataka State Reserve Police, 1,200 officers from outside Bangalore city limits, 40 platoons of the City Armed Reserve Police and the entire Police Force of Bangalore City. There will also be 2,000 officers and men of the traffic police to manage traffic exclusively for the event.
The entourage that has flown into the city in Benny Hinn's private multi-million dollar jet was staying at the posh Leela Hotel. The venue was the State government's Jakkur Airfield Training Ground. Seventy-two screens (24 ft by 12 ft) and two mega screens twice that size had been erected. Three lakh chairs had been arranged for the audience, and areas prepared for floor seating.
Let us also discuss after who is this Benny Hinn. Benny Hinn is a controversial figure in the West, and his critics come from within the categories of believers and rationalists. There are many who have differences with him over doctrinal interpretations - his claims of curing the sick, for example. The Trinity Foundation, a Christian watchdog group that monitors the working of televangelist ministries, is one of the many Christian organisations highly sceptical of his work and claims.
Born in Jeruselum and raised in Canada, Hinn became a preacher early in life. He practises what is called the Prosperity Gospel or the Word of Faith, which believes that faith is what propels an individual to health, wealth and other personal success. To become a follower the individual must "sow a seed of faith", or make a cash donation to the organisation. Although the Benny Hinn Ministries is not legally obliged to make public its finances, the revenues are believed to be in the region of $100 million a year.
Two notable media exposes of the Benny Hinn establishment, the first by NBC's Dateline programme in December 2002, and the other by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation in November 2004, have shown Benny Hinn's claims of curing the sick and terminally ill to be false. The programmes also investigated the finances of the organisations and provided revealing information on his personal financial profligacy.
Even when all these details about Benny Hinn was known to our authorities they eagerly arranged for his show in Bangalore.
In Bangalore, an organiser from the Festival of Blessings falsely claimed that a panel of eight reputed city doctors would verify each case of an individual being cured of an illness. But as it was bound to happen this promise was soon retracted. There would be no medical verification, he said. Instead, the individual would be asked to sign an affidavit stating that he or she was free of an illness, after being miraculously healed by God through the intercession of Benny Hinn! 6
"Any religious preacher who makes use of hunger, illiteracy, the lack of medical facilities, or ignorance, as a means to influence people, is violating the fundamental principles inherent in the freedom of religion and conversion," Sanal Edamaruku of Rationalists International told Frontline. "Benny Hinn makes fake claims. People have been known to be taken from hospitals to his healing services. They have later died. Some people may survive after his `cure' for some time, but they too die later. With techniques of mass hypnosis, psychosomatic illnesses can certainly be cured by these people, but more effectively by psychiatrists". 6
The difference between a village quack and Hinn, says Edamaruku, is the latter's use of a "modern communication system and money". According to him, in a country like India, where medical and scientific illiteracy is rampant, costs of medical care for serious illnesses like cancer are high, and medical insurance coverage is inadequate, the "crime" of promising cures is doubly compounded. 6
In the absence, however, of genuine opposition to the Festival of Blessings, that targets unreason and blind faith, the promise of miracle cures had remained the big draw of the event. 6
1. Christianity and Conversion in India By Indian Bibliographic Centre (Research Wing) Rishi Publications CHAPTER 14
2. Conversion Of The Vanavasis By: Dr. Shreerang Godbole
4. Now, for trail Frontline February 11, 2005.
5. Sonia's holy dip By T V R Shenoy.
6. In the name of faith & Against reason Frontline, February 11, 2005.
7. (, (
Did Sonia Gandhi step down from the race to be Prime Minister because her "inner voice" suddenly told her to do so? Why did this "voice" speak, despite her being elected Congress Parliamentary Party leader and after obtaining letters of support from all allied parties? 1
Apparently, it was not the "inner voice" but certain queries that could have been put to her by the President of India, custodian of the Constitution, which caused her to withdraw her name. 1
Contrary to attempts by Congressmen and Communists to portray her eleventh-hour retreat as a "personal decision" spurred by her children, it could be the clarifications apparently sought by President A P J Abdul Kalam that resulted in the rethink. The President, it is reliably learnt, did not out rightly reject her candidature for the post of the Prime Minister. However, he is believed to have sought certain clarifications on a few points regarding the precise status of her Indian citizenship. 1
That probably explains why Ms Gandhi's decision to opt out came only after she emerged from the Rashtrapati Bhawan after meeting the President on Tuesday at 12.30 pm. 1
That could also explain why she did not allow the entourage of allied parties to accompany her for the meeting, contrary to custom. 1
The President may have conveyed to her that in view of the legal and constitutional queries raised, he would need some more time to examine the matter. Accordingly, there could be no swearing-in on Wednesday, May 19 1
If we want to know the legal question involved in appointment of Sonia Gandhi as Prime Minister then we must refer following provision of the citizenship Act 1955.
1. The term "adherence" had to be clarified, 1
2. Section 5: The crux of this provision of "reciprocity" is that a person of foreign origin, who has acquired the citizenship of India through registration by virtue of marrying an Indian national, cannot enjoy more rights (like becoming Prime Minister), if the same opportunity is not available to an Indian-born citizen in that particular country. 1
3. Another petition submitted to the President on Tuesday by Sushma Swaraj pointed out the fact that a Defence or Indian Foreign Service official cannot even marry a foreign national without permission, or must quit his post. How could a person of foreign origin be handed over the nuclear button in such circumstances, Ms Swaraj's petition demanded to know. 1
Fact of the matter is she has played a most treacherous political game and did not sacrifice anything as said and perceived by many. She is most cunning and shrewd and was well aware of her weaknesses and limits to grasp this highest most responsible job of PM. she was fully of the knowledge that if she had gone for this job she would fall-flat in a very short time. She knew that she will not be able to meet the expectations of the people to whom she had made false promises. She knows that she does not qualify for this post. She had fears and she has inferiority complex because she lacks basic qualification, experience and the required standard of integration. She still feels herself half-Indian. She is still not coloured with Indian culture and traditions and deep from her heart she is still a pariah, which makes her uncertain. Assassinations of her mother-in-law and husband are haunting her and is afraid to get involved directly in National affairs. Moreover she did the best bargain to stay behind the scenes and dictate the weakest PM (chosen by her and he feels highly grateful and obligated to listen and do all that what she wants). Here she has long plans to learn political tricks and ability to rule. If the BJP and NDA continue with this querulous attitude Sonia Gandhi will come-up with surprise and will take-over PM job. She is just waiting for that day when NDA will breakaway and BJP will be left alone. Practically no opposition will be her best bet and chance. Through this bargain she has won much more than she could have achieved as PM. Moreover that was the best what she thought for her and her family. It is no sacrifice and those who believe so are the foolest of the fools. Western media and politicians are enjoying with the plight of affairs India is going through and for them it is a sort of mockery, which is a cause of irritation to Indian populace especially the Hindus. Now the western media has given her the status of second most powerful lady on earth. There is comparison of Sonia Gandhi with Condelezzas Rice. Whereas the matter of the fact is that Sonia Gandhi does not qualify to be a Maid in Condelezzas house. Condelezze Rice is of entirely different niveau and is has best qualification and ability to command and control and Sonia a mere nitwit. She is enjoying respect from the poor downtrodden and innocent people of this country and they are plenty in few states in India. These people are most susceptible and easy to manipulate through colourful promises. She has learnt one thing for sure that is art of misusing and exploiting the innocent and their hospitality. She is too fast in establishing her position and she has the right place and right people. These people are interested in money and comfort and are ready to do anything and everything for that even at the cost of Nations honour, dignity and pride. These are insidious parasites of our society and are ready to put the Nation back to colonialism so long they are appointed as governors.
Sonia Gandhi's appointment as prime minister certainly that would have led to a massive agitation, more intense than the Mandal stir.
When Sonia Gandhi along with Dr Singh met the President for the first time, she had been elected leader of the Congress Parliamentary Party and had received the letters of support from her allies. The President was yet to receive letters supporting Dr Singh. Interestingly, the invitation to Dr Singh was framed in Rashtrapati Bhawan on the basis of media reports. Evidently, opinions differed on the candidature of Sonia Gandhi and Manmohan Singh. The President reportedly went through the certified copy of a legal view in relation to Sonia Gandhi, brought by Subramaniam Swamy. Kalam also received Sushma Swaraj, Uma Bharati and Govindacharya.
Events show that Dr Singh was elected leader of the CPP at 7 pm and given the Presidential invitation to form the Government at 8.30 pm.
The other reason may be the intelligence reports that Sonia Gandhi received from national and foreign agencies suggesting polarisation of political forces in the country leading to a dreadful scenario. Maybe, she also came to know about the issue of her foreign origin having been examined by Rashtrapati Bhawan. The opinion tendered by legal luminary Fali Nariman, a Parsi considered close to the Gandhi family, on the very issue could also have influenced Sonia's views.
The Swaraj factor: Did Sonia Gandhi decide to opt out due to Sushma Swaraj's threat to launch agitation to protest a person of foreign origin becoming PM? Probably. She as well as Govindacharya were among the factors. Sushma has known Sonia more closely than others ever since she contested against her in Bellary. Sushma had set up her office in Bellary, a Congress bastion, only 20 days before actual polling and cornered some 3,80,000 votes on the foreign origin plank.
For someone who seemed all set to step into 7, Race Course Road right after the announcement of the election results and admitted as much when she said that “normally the leader of the largest party becomes prime minister,” Sonia’s last minute bowing out is indeed mysterious.
Earlier, Dr. Swamy had filed a case against Sonia, accusing her and her family in Italy of smuggling precious art pieces out of India. The petition was dismissed by the Delhi high court but Swamy still believed he had a case. The moment it became clear to him that Sonia was going to stake her claim to forming the government, Swamy sought an appointment with Kalam and placed his protest on record.
Swamy did not disclose the contents of the documents he took to Kalam but after his meeting with the president earlier this week, he told a television channel that the documents he had submitted to him contained hard evidence which could not be ignored by any objective viewer and that they were highly damaging to Sonia’s prospects as prime minister.
Swamy’s meeting with the president went largely uncovered by the media. The story doing the rounds is that Sonia was shown the documents by Kalam when she met him and that this proved to be the proverbial last straw on the camel’s back.
Sonia was already under attack for perpetuating dynastic rule and even her admirers agree that her only claim to fame, at least until she led her party to victory in this election, was her second name. Besides, the extremist Hindu social and political outfits have carried out an incessant campaign against Sonia for her religion and have openly said that they would not allow a Christian to rule a country where over eighty per cent of the population is Hindu.
The BJP’s threat to boycott her swearing-in as prime minister seems to have had its own psychological impact on Sonia who claims to have joined politics, not for power, but in order to be able to serve the country.
Another reason for Sonia's not getting PM post may be the reaction of Mumbai Stock brokers before whose eyes Rs 2,50,000 Crore melted in four days. As the government formation delayed beyond expectation and the much-awaited common minimum programme of the Congress coalition failed to make an appearance, stock markets heated up. Foreign institutional investors (FIIs) started selling stock in a phased manner.
The Left parties aggravated the situation. Sitaram Yechury and Somnath Chatterjee of the CPI(M), and A.B. Bardhan of the CPI questioned the NDA's disinvestments decisions. Confusion prevailed as the Congress refused to be drawn into the slanging match. "There was a complete lack of clarity on policy, leaders and direction," said Andrew Holland, Executive Vice-president of DSP Merrill Lynch.
The result was disastrous. On Monday, May 17, the BSE his the bottom circuit of 10 percent, twice leading to a halt in trading by three hours. In just under one hour, 15 percent of the index was swept aside. It set a chain reaction; the rupee lost against the dollar and gold and silver were quoted low.
The madness at the bourses had its impact. The Left made amends while 'the original reformer' Manmohan Singh of the Congress pledged to take reforms forward. Even the stoic finance minister Jaswant Singh came out to appeal against "irresponsible" statements. The market slide was arrested, but the sentiment remained depressive. On May 18, heavy purchasing was restored.
Then came the Congress rethinking. A man with commendable reform credentials, Manmohan, was widely touted as the next Prime Minister. The Sensex pulled back 500 points and nearly Rs 76000 Crore in market capitalisation. When Manmohan went to meet President Abdul Kalam, the market was riding high with a gain of 129 points and crossed 5000 points.
Whether it was stock market or normal citizens, it became clear that they would not allow Sonia to be the Prime Minister.
1. WHOSE INNER VOICE? Not Sonia's But Dr.Kalam's Daily Pioneer Source:
After reading this book one would came to conclusion that why I am against Sonia. I want to clarify that I am not against Sonia per se; I am against her because I am not able to understand how she can change his loyalty merely because she has been issued with citizenship certificate of this country.
Suppose I go to some other country and due to slackly codified rule of that country I get a chance to get elected to political post. For that law will demand me to declare that I am loyal to that country. I am sure just for the sake of occupying high political post I may take oath and say that I am loyal to that country. But real question will be, Can it change my heart? I think not because my heart will only sing 'Saare Jahan se Acchha Hindustan Hamara.'
Changing loyalty to some other nation is just like changing mother. And we all know that no one can change his mother though some one may falsely claim so. I want to know from Sonia - Is she trying to deceit us by showing herself patriotic Indian? I think as many as dialogue I came across in Hindi movies to express patriotism, all most all has been read by Sonia Gandhi from different stages.
And what is guarantee as she changed her loyalty from Italy to India, she will not change her loyalty from India to some other country viz. Vatican. After all her allegiance to Vatican is already established her being a catholic Christian.
What is said in Sanskrit, “Janani janma Bhumischa swargadapi gariyase” That means mother and motherland is higher than heaven. And it is part of our culture. Does Sonia did not love her motherland more than heaven. If she say, No, she does not love her motherland more than heaven then at least we the people of India are not going to allow her to become Prime Minister of India, and If the is yes then she should explain what she is doing in India? Is she serving interest of Italy and Vatican? But Sonia claims to have changed her loyalty from Italian to Indian. If today she has changed her loyalty from Italy to India tomorrow she may change her loyalty to America if she is allowed to hold post of American President because it is more lucrative.
Most of the time and most of the things she refers in speech is use to be dialogue from B-grade Hindi Movie. If not then definitely it sounds like dialogue from Hindi Movie. If a person will give second thought to what she says in her speech, he will came to know that what ever she says are normally not spoken in our real life. It is only found in B-grade Hindi movies. But there are so many Hindi movies normally we come across a dialogue, which says if you can change your loyalty from your old master to us then definitely you can change loyalty from us also. Why in Hindi movie a hero enters to the territory of other country? It is either to spy or to make destruction in that country. According to those stories what Sonia is doing in India? Is she spying or she is here in some other mission.
We need to be very conscious and alert. It is not only for me it is for every one. Mainly for the leaders of the congress party. Better have some belief on your self. In more than four and half decade congress has performed in most corrupted manner.
A Prime Minister who is foisted on the Nation by the accident of birth or marriage is likely to surround herself with coterie of self-serving advisors and ruin the country. Even some persons from Vatican may surround her after she becomes Prime Minister. We have the example of Sanjay Gandhi (de facto PM of mid seventies) and Rajeev Gandhi who squandered a massive sympathy mandate because of indecisiveness even in choosing and retaining his coterie. Thousands of patriotic Sikhs were killed as soon as he became Prime Minister. In place of taking concrete step to stop killing of innocent people he tried to justify it by saying when a big tree falls earth is bound to shake or words to that effect. He kneed before threat of fundamentalist Muslims and Hazee Mastan and reverted the historical decision of Supreme Court in Sahabano case. When he met American President first time he requested the President of USA to release Adil Khan who was going under punishment of 35 years for felony. In Bofors Scandal his role is not secret for the people.
Democracy needs leaders who come up from the ranks and not foisted on. Her foreigner tab does hurt my Indian Ego. A foreigner pitch forked to be our ruler not because of her work among the masses but only because she married an erstwhile Prince of Indian Politics, betrays our inability to develop a National leadership. Prime-Minister ship of India should not be accessible to anyone, even to Indians, by climbing a one-step political ladder.
Sonia Gandhi wants us to believe that because her grandfather-in-law, her mother-in-law and her husband were all prime ministers of India, she too has the divine right to that position.
And if someone is interested to know about Sonia's political interest, read columnist Tavleen Singh's recently published book entitled Lollipop Street she has given a very clear picture of her. In the years that she claims to have known Sonia Gandhi rather well, the author writes 'with Sonia all conversations were inclined to be about trivia. Other people, clothes, holidays, children. When it came to politics, she was completely contemptuous of anything to do with the subject... her only contribution to political comment usually was to talk about some leader whom she disliked. She knew nothing about the issues fundamental to politics in India; nor did she make any effort to learn them. Her social awareness did not extend beyond the drawing rooms of Delhi till Rajeev Gandhi was killed.' And here's Tavleen Singh's knockout punch: 'I knew that she had never shown any inclination to do anything that would bind her to India in any way.' And to think that this is the person whom the Congress is thrusting on the nation as their one and only leader.
Congress, the fearless political machine of irrepressible dreamers who spearheaded India’s freedom struggle against the world’s greatest colonial power, stands reduced to a motley cheering squad for the scion of a fledgling political dynasty.
The issue for a citizen like me is Sonia Gandhi’s citizenship, nationality and patriotism. It is the unanswered questions regarding her compliance with Indian citizenship laws in using an Italian passport on overseas trips and fleeing to Italy during the Indo-Pak War of 1971 and allegedly seeking shelter in the Italian Embassy following Indira Gandhi’s arrest and holding the share of Maruti by violating Foreign Exchange Regulation Act and getting her name on voting list without being citizen of this country and acquiring the property of AICC office and converting it to building of Rajeev Gandhi Foundation and criminally converting the property of Indira Gandhi National Centre for Arts to her personal use. This all the questions she is suppose to reply before she wants to head the Indian Government.
Indian citizens must have seen how the people of Congress Party reacting when any member of Parliament starts speaking about Sonia Gandhi. Why? Is it only because some truth will come to the knowledge of Indian masses about their sole leader? I know very little about her. She has been living in some western countries. We know what is western culture. She is taking oath in public that she is real Indian (mere khoon ka katra kahta hai ki yeh mera vatan hai yeh mera vatan hai). She may not be knowing properly what does these words means. And if she knows the meaning then why does she choose son of an Italian Christian lady to marry her daughter. There is only one reply do not make personal attack. Why? Why we should not make personal attack? Some one whose background is not known. Who has been lying on record to the nation whether it is about her name or about her qualification? And if anyone wants to raise these questions all Congress MP’s create rowdies in the parliament. The election commissioner advises the party not to make personal attack. This country is not personal property of Nehru Gandhi Dynasty. If some people say so they are mentally bankrupt. They need help of psychiatrist. She is providing false information about her past. She doesn't want to discuss what she was doing in Cambridge.
Though people in India are not so literate but they do understand what is truth. Unfortunately the Congress party has not allowed to let the people know what is truth. The congress party has developed a system where even normal citizen has become corrupt. Citizens don't find anything wrong in paying bribe and getting his/her job done. The clerks and the government officers feel that taking bribe is their fundamental right. We need to get rid of this system.
It is also a issue that what her contribution has been in the 15 years as an Indian citizen or the 30 years that she has lived in India. The calculation with which Sonia has nurtured her ambitions and the political farce to which she has reduced the idealistic vision of Mahatma Gandhi to be blood curdling, especially when she so hypocritically invokes his name.
When Indira was chosen Congress President, Nehru was not happy. For all her faults, Indira Gandhi had earned her spurs and had on her own merit even been inducted into Shastri’s cabinet as a relatively junior minister. It was Indira who shamelessly transformed this party of doyens into a caucus of midgets, then reduced it to a family business, even thrusting first a semi-illiterate and unemployable son Sanjay and then a reluctant college drop-out Rajeev on to the national stage. The calculated evisceration of Indian democratic institutions was complete under Rajeev; Sonia is but the latest nail in its putrid coffin. It was the futile hope of liberal democrats that the country was at long last rid of the unending menace of the Nehru-Gandhi dynasty following Rajiv’s death that makes Sonia’s resurgence so particularly galling.
And what has Sonia done to deserve the honour of becoming India’s prime minister? By her own accounts she has been a loving wife, a nurturing mother and a respectful daughter-in-law. Nehru deemed his daughter worthy enough to encourage within the party and even Indira Gandhi in her lifetime inflicted her sons on the country. But neither she, nor indeed Sonia’s husband, whose names she vainly invokes, dreamt of bringing her even into the party. Indeed, she did not acquire primary member of the Congress Party until August 1997, years after her husband’s death.
So she dredged out their memories, for she has none of her own, for the collective catharsis that was the AICC session. As her maudlin speech demonstrated, her vision of India does not even extend to Nehru; it begins with Indira Gandhi and is lifted in full Technicolor from B-grade Hindi movies: Main suhagin yahin bani. Maa yahin bani. Main vidhwa aapki aankhon ke saamne hui. Is desh ki sabse mahaan putri Indiraji ne apni saansa meri bahon mein tori. Mere khoon ki ek ek boond kahti hain ki yeh mera vatan hair, yeh mera vatan hai. (I became a bride here; I became a mother here; I became a widow before your very eyes. This country’s greatest daughter Indiraji took her last breath in my arms. Every single drop of my blood cries, this is my country. This is my country). The farcical, scripted and orchestrated orgy of sentimental and emotional political theatre Sonia has unleashed betrays the utter bankruptcy of ideas and ideals in a party, encircled by fawning and ingratiating hyenas panting for morsels of its carcass. This arrogant and worthless Italian Indian dared to warn critics, "Those who want to be with me must do so completely with their minds and hearts; and, those who have even smallest of doubts, must travel separately on their own." Why she should not sound so? After all, his father was working for the Mussolini.
In summary she has no experience or qualifications to aspire for the highest job of a great country of which I am a proud citizen. Only doormats and cronies see any qualities in this mediocre woman who by chance married Rajeev Gandhi.
I have no doubt that the enlightened Indian electorate will give a resounding to Sonia Gandhi and her cronies inspired dynastic politics if they came to know true fact about them.
Much has been said and written about 2004 General Election. What was the actual reason for the lost of BJP no concrete answer has been given either by BJP or by congress party?
If you want to borrow the reason for defeat from congress, communist or other so called secular parties than answer is very simple; people of India were fed up with communal politics of NDA. Another reason given by so-called secularist is that people were enthusiastic and rejuvenated under the dynamic leadership of Sonia Gandhi.
I don't subscribe to either of these two ideas. I have a different view of whole scenario. If we really want to analyse the defeat of BJP let us go back by a few years and understand the internal dynamics of Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP).
A decade ago, as BJP came close to power, Atal and Advani prepareded the party to acquire the power. The party, now, has widely three categories of people.
The first category is of stars. By definition, a star is one, who has mass appeal. Orators, rabble-rousers, film actors and actresses, cricket players, well-known journalists and authors, even politicians from other parties and retired bureaucrats and judicial officers - fall in this category. Stars help the party by drawing people towards the party. This give BJP huge advantage over other political party who are lacking of Stars, especially Congress party which has got stars entirely from one family.
The second category includes fulltime workers of the party. Most of them join the party (or some related maternal organization of Sangh Parivar) early in their youth. They possess great skills required for 'organizational work' of BJP. They never wanted be employed in any job or profession. Most of them come from middle class families and have full faith in party ideology. They do live in party offices round the clock and render all possible help.
Almost as a rule, party takes care that only such people are given responsibility as fulltime workers, who have full faith in ideology of Nationalism.
Then there is third category of party-men, which consists of ordinary party workers.
BJP through its act proved that it would never compromise with the corruption. The height of this discipline was seen when, after Tehelka scandal, Party asked Party President Bangaru Laxman to resign and Bangaru resigned. Needless to say that it is only BJP where even Party President can be asked to resign. If it would have been any other party I never think that Party president would have resigned.
When Uma Bharti showed indiscipline, she was suspended from the party. No tears need be shed for her. She was a BJP star, who helped the party rise to power in Madhya Pradesh. On the other hand, she was a disaster as a Chief Minister. In the present episode, she has acted in a manner for which she was always known. Uma Bharti has proved incapable of governance. She is like a spoilt brat, who deserves no sympathy for her tantrums.
RSS plays its role in the setup by supplying a steady stream of fulltime workers and also a significant portion of ordinary workers.
The challenge before the party is to re-engineer itself as a party of governance and nationalistic ideology. For too long, the party has not acted directly in direction of achieving goal of Nationalism. It is slowly driving away competent, qualified, educated people who earlier chose to knock on its doors.
On the other hand, some incompetent state level bosses of the party are treating talent and competence as threats. They, are encouraging flattery and sycophancy in the party hierarchy. But the party needs talented, competent, capable persons, who can stand up to the incompetent state level bosses of party and guide and tell him that he is wrong, whenever they are wrong. BJP must re-evolve to a party of governance with specific ideology. Bharat needs a party like that for her democracy to survive.
Now let us talk progress made by BJP since 1980. Under the liberal leadership of Shri A.B. Vajpayee BJP got 2 seats in 1984 Loksabha election. Than came change in the BJP. After Advani's arrival as BJP president BJP brought nationalistic agenda to its main ideological front in aggressive and convincing manner. There was Boforce Scandal and people were hungry for change and wanted to make Shri V.P. Singh Prime Minister. In 1989 election BJP increased its tally to approximately 90 seats.
In 1990 BJP started Ram Temple movement and increased its tally in Loksabha and touched the 117 seats mark. In 1996 BJP emerged as single largest party in the Loksabha. It seems that BJP was hungry for power. It was almost 5 decades BJP was sitting in opposition. BJP never wanted to give up this chance of forming the government. The Vajpayee government of 1996 only lasted for 13 days, as they could not muster support of any other political party except Shivsena, which was its pre pole partner.
In 1998 BJP again emerged as single largest party. This time they make nice pre pole alliance, and this paid dividend for the BJP. It succeeded in forming the government with support of all Anti-congress elements. It was well thought decision of BJP to form the government in 1998. National Democratic Alliance (NDA) was formed and under the dynamic leadership of Shri A.B. Vajpayee government started functioning well.
Though BJP thought that it would strengthen its position and ideology by remaining in government but it failed in achieving that goal otherwise the government was functioning well. BJP was bound to compromise its nationalistic ideology to keep the secular partner with him. But by exploding nuclear bomb in May 1998 Vajpayee tried to prove that they are still heading with their nationalist agenda.
When people were happy with the performance of BJP and were satisfied with the NDA, Sonia Gandhi with support of all so-called secular party toppled the Vajpayee government. Sonia thought that people and all secular party will support her in forming the central government but she proved wrong. This wrong decision of Congress party further provided chance to Pakistan to make incursion in Bharat occupied Jammu and Kashmir. Vajpayee government not only defended the land of Bharat Mata but also defeated the congress party in the general election.
During 1999 election a debate started all over country about Sonia Gandhi's foreign origin and her Anti-Bharat approach during Kargil war.
The core issue for which BJP was known to be different than other political parties were Ram Temple issue, uniform civil code and Article 370. It was possible for the leader of BJP to create mass awareness among masses about their ideology and strengthen their mass base but BJP failed substantially in this direction.
From 1999 to 2004 BJP made all endeavour to prove that it is not only congress but BJP can also provide a stable government. In this whole exercise BJP totally lost its nationalistic identity. It was common perception of BJP voters that BJP is trying to prove better than Congress.
If we want to compare the performance of BJP government in these five years with the performance of 50 year of congress party then it cannot be denied that NDA has done a great job. There was huge investment in infrastructure building and poverty alleviation programme.
There has been lot of talk about effect of FEEL GOOD and BHARAT UDAI. When advertisement of Bharat Udai was started it was heart touching. Mass of this country came to know about the achievement of NDA during these five-year. So many political leaders of other political parties crossed to BJP camp. There was definite feel good. But this slogan, which was in the heart of people, did not convert into vote for BJP due to other aspect of real politics.
If we read whatever mentioned above than there is nothing for which BJP could have lost the power. Actually, there were number of mistakes committed by BJP which resulted in its defeat.
The biggest reason for BJP's lost was its reluctant approach on foreign-born issue. Core voter of BJP expected that leaders of BJP would take firm stand against not only on foreign-born issue but related corruption charges against Sonia Gandhi. But at some level BJP got convinced that foreign-born issue will benefit congress party. BJP failed to oppose corruption charges levelled by Sonia Gandhi during course of election rallies and road shows, and BJP leaders knowing well various scandals in which Sonia Gandhi was involved did not even tried to raise those issues. This provided a false perception in the mind of masses that BJP was involved in corruption and Congress leader was an innocent lady, who has done a great sacrifice by marring to and Indian and she was able to emotionally blackmail Indian mass by calling herself Bahu, Beti and Vidhwa.
Satya Mave Jayte (let the truth prevail) is the Mantra. When we are talking to the masses they except leaders to tell the truth. If it is perceived by the people that some thing is being hided from them than people do teach a lesson for it.
Sometimes newspapers and T.V. News Channels decide what we should know and what we should not. Subramaniam Swamy's allegations against Sonia Gandhi were a case in point. We read about them day in and day out, without being told what the allegations were.
At some point in the month of March or April maverick politician Subramaniam Swamy who has been described as "a one-man demolition squad in Indian politics" held a press conference to make a series of serious allegations against Congress Party president, and the leader of the Opposition in India's Parliament. Most Delhi newspapers ignored them. With one or two exceptions, they did not even report his press conference. But Swami is persistent. He followed up on his charges with the government, and then suddenly it was announced that they had been referred to the Central Bureau of Investigation.
Now suddenly the newspapers were full of these charges, without telling you what they were. Some mentioned them briefly, somewhere in the body of the copy in passing. Other papers like the Hindustan Times covered the story of the incensed Congress party creating a daily rumpus in Parliament without telling you what the "baseless allegations" were that were angering the Congress. Very few magazines or newspapers wrote full-fledged pieces on them. They decided collectively, that the public had no right to know more.
On the day the Prime Minister clarified that there was no CBI inquiry as yet into these charges the Express reported the story as a first lead and put the charges (with the word in inverted commas) at the bottom of the story. The politics of the charges now made sure the story was on page one day after day but the substance of the charges was still not news. Congress Party spokesman Jaipal Reddy confirmed this when he said at one of his press briefings "even the media chose to ignore these allegations."
When asked why the press had been so shy of telling us what exactly Sonia Gandhi had been accused of, veteran political correspondents gave the following reasons: Swami is a loose cannon. His credibility is not high. The charges were serious, and difficult to prove. The press corps felt uneasy about them. So they would refer to the charges but not go to tone with them.
One allegation had to do with Rahul Gandhi receiving funds from the KGB. The second was about Sonia Gandhi being an insurance agent when she was not an Indian citizen. And the third and most serious was that her mother and sister had links with the LTTE, the Tamil guerrilla organisation that had assassinated her husband Rajiv. A fourth said she had illegally exported antiques.
The political editor of a newspaper adds, when charges are levelled against the prime minister and the leader of the opposition, the press is circumspect about them unless there is adequate proof.
Point taken, but still, readers have a right to know. Precisely because she holds such a crucial post in a democracy. And also because recent past history has shown that Subramaniam Swamy's persists with his charges. As Neerja Choudhury pointed out in her profile of him in the Indian Express, All India Anna DMK chief Jayalalitha has been convicted in two out of six cases he filed against her. If we have to keep reading about these allegations, we should know what they are.
1. 'So What Were The Charges Against Sonia Gandhi?' by Sevanti Ninan 'Media South Asia' dated 31st August 2002.


navin said...

The mystery around Sonia is unearthing slowly. When I was writing my previous book on Sonia Gandhi I was always reminding myself of the fact that I am writing book on one of the most powerful lady on earth. Therefore I was also of view that whatever I write should be unbiased.


your above lines and the books heading itself saying the story about your biasness....

so keep writing as much as you want because its india and well known for "freedom of speech" but just shake of earning money you are writing then its really hell....

your full article itself showing the truth that you are biased or not.

Divakar said...

good work done plz keep it up...

vinesh said...

Your blog is very nice... i like your blog ....
Madurai Hotels, Pollachi hotels

Anonymous said...

Anyone experience anything about the easy google profit kit? I discovered a lot of advertisements around it. I also found a site that is supposedly a review of the program, but the whole thing seems kind of sketchy to me. However, the cost is low so I’m going to go ahead and try it out, unless any of you have experience with this system first hand?