Quote:New Delhi, Dec 17 (PTI) RSS today slammed Rahul Gandhi for his "shocking" remarks against Hindu groups, saying [size="5"]there was a "race" in the senior Congress leadership to project Hindus as terrorists[/size].



[size="5"]"It is shocking that there is a race in the senior Congress leadership to indirectly or directly support jehadi terror and to project Hindus as terrorists in this country, that too in gross violation of established diplomatic norms and procedures,"[/size] senior RSS leader Ram Madhav said.

....



[size="5"]"Going to a foreign ambassador and talking with him about India's international issues is most shocking[/size].

Quote:American embassy officials in New Delhi had tapped an official in the Special Cell, Delhi Police's elite anti-terror unit, for gathering information regarding investigations into terrorism related cases as they received "very little information" from the force. The Special Cell is "only as good as its local contacts", according to a "secret/noforn (not for foreign)" diplomatic cable sent from American embassy in New Delhi on April 18, 2006 made public by WikiLeaks.

Quote: Further most of the info they give India in return is useless or vague. Recall they gave a general coordinate in Arabian sea and the Indian Navy was chasing phantom boats there whiel teh real terrorists came by a small craft.

Quote:What has been the dirt on Unkil and Aunty?

Quote:Despite these obvious differences, it is worth noting that throughout last Friday the Congress spokespersons fell back on a variant of the ‘fiction’ argument that killed the debate on Mitrokhin in 2005. Although the authenticity of the cables wasn’t questioned (except by the gentleman who whiffed a “conspiracy”), it was argued that there was nothing “official” about WikiLeaks. Therefore, the disclosures weren’t worthy of being dignified. They were, Congress spokespersons claimed insouciantly, at best, individual assessments peppered with reports of conversations torn out of context. There was, predictably, no mention of the fact that just prior to the first instalment of WikiLeaks, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had alerted world capitals of the possible embarrassment from their disclosures.



It is possible the Congress wouldn’t have bothered with WikiLeaks had Rahul Gandhi’s conversation with the US Ambassador at a lunch hosted by the Prime Minister on July 20, 2009, not featured in the disclosures. The earlier release of a report on the Congress trying to play identity politics with the 26/11 Mumbai attacks hadn’t resulted in a flurry of clarifications and explanations. And rightly so since the US Embassy cable was an assessment based on public statements.



Nor was there excitement over the unflattering assessment of Sonia Gandhi’s leadership during the stalemate on the nuclear debate. The colourful charge that the Congress president doesn’t miss any opportunity to miss an opportunity was the Ambassador’s assessment. Envoys are expected to provide such blunt reports to headquarters in confidence. Just because WikiLeaks breached that confidentiality doesn’t undermine the validity of the exercise. Nor does it suggest that any US desire to be implacably hostile to the lady. Diplomacy is rarely conducted on such black and white terms, not even by the US.



The importance of Rahul Gandhi’s conversation with the US Ambassador won’t be found within the framework of India-US bilateral ties. Rahul’s suggestion that “radicalised Hindu groups” posed a “bigger threat” to India than the Lashkar-e-Tayyeba didn’t lead to the US immediately discounting all that India had said about the 26/11 attack. The US has its own counter-terrorism establishment that does its own assessments, and it is highly unlikely that any of its functionaries had reason to conclude that Abhinav Bharat was the new Hindu Al Qaeda. The conversation was important not for what it reveals about the Government’s approach to internal security, but for its insights into the mind of India’s “elusive” heir designate.



Rahul is not merely “elusive” for American diplomats; he has also eluded all meaningful interrogation of his views by Indians. Apart from his template speech on the two India’s, Indians know precious little or nothing about the heir designate’s views on subjects of crucial importance to the country. What does he think of Jammu & Kashmir, apart from his friendship with Omar Abdullah? What has he to say on foreign policy, economic strategies and education? Indians are as clueless about the man tipped to succeed Manmohan Singh. Rahul has kept his views severely rationed.



[color="#FF0000"]Unfortunately for Rahul, this non-scripted account of his view on internal security doesn’t suggest a grasp of the subject. If Rahul thinks that the terror version of the kachchha-baniyan gang that worked the badlands of Uttar Pradesh is a “greater threat” to India than the LeT — and that too just eight months after 26/11 — it calls into question his understanding of issues. Worse, by revealing his zany views to the Ambassador of a country whose assistance has been sought to tame Pakistan, he has shown an incredible lack of judgement.[/color]



Some people have greatness thrust on them. This Emperor-to-be, it now emerges, has no clothes.

Quote:[url="http://www.dailypioneer.com/304622/Uma-criticises-Rahul-for-remarks-on-Hindu-terror.html"]Uma criticises Rahul for remarks on Hindu terror[/url]

December 19, 2010 1:19:56 AM

PTI | Lucknow

Slamming Rahul Gandhi for making "irresponsible" remarks that Hindu radicals posed a bigger threat than terror outfits like LeT, former BJP leader Uma Bharti today claimed he was taking lessons from Divijay Singh to make statements against RSS for garnering Muslim support.



[color="#FF0000"]She also alleged that the Congress "creates" terrorism and seeks vote in its name.[/color]



"Congress is an irresponsible party...It creates terrorism and seek votes in its name...LTTE was patronised by Indira Gandhi and Rajiv Gandhi and the organisation ultimately took the life of Rajiv in a tragic incident", Bharti told reporters in reply to a question.



On Rahul's comment that radicalised Hindu groups posed a bigger threat than outfits like Lashkar-e-Taiba, Bharti said Rahul should act maturely.



"Rahul is taking notes from Digvijay Singh...Rahul should take class from me, should study a bit..He should not make irresponsible comments", Bharti said, claiming that Dijvijay was teaching Rahul to make statements against RSS to garner support of Muslims to get their vote.



Alleging that Digvijay was fond of issuing irresponsible statements, the former Madhya Pradesh Chief Minister advised Rahul to take notes from her and read historical facts about RSS before comparing it with SIMI.



[color="#FF0000"]"Jawahar Lal Nehru sought support of RSS in Kashmir and even gave place to RSS in the Republic Day parade.It is a historical fact..Rahul should read it"[/color], Bharti said.

Quote:The cable, dated May 26, 2006, is based on the meeting between US diplomats and Additional Secretary in the Ministry of External Affairs K C Singh and Research and Analysis Wing (RAW) Joint Secretary Sharad Kumar. Both the Indian officials voiced concern that India is becoming more prominent on the Al Qaeda radar.



Four years down the line, Indian security officials will have more reasons to be worried as there are more and more links emerging about relations between Al Qaeda and Indian jehadis.

Quote:It also felt till just a couple of years ago that India was reluctant to have an effective anti-terror partnership because of suspicions about American policies towards Pakistan, its independent foreign policy stance and sensitivities over Muslim sentiments.



"India's police and security forces are overworked and hampered by bad police practices, including the widespread use of torture in interrogations, rampant corruption, poor training, and a general inability to conduct solid forensic investigations," the US embassy observed in a cable it sent on February 23, 2007, after a not-so-satisfactory meeting of an Indo-US counter-terrorism joint working group.



The memo further said, [color="#FF0000"]"India's security forces also regularly cut corners to avoid working through India's lagging justice system, which has approximately 13 judges per million people. Thus Indian police officials often do not respond to our requests for information about attacks or our offers of support because they are covering up poor practices, rather than rejecting our help outright."[/color]



The communication disclosed in the cable refers to the US unease over the arrest of a computer expert, Mukesh Saini, who was working with India's National Counter Terrorism Centre (NCTC), and was arrested on charges of spying for Americans. US's acting coordinator for counter-terrorism, Frank Urbancic, took up the matter with his Indian interlocutor, K C Singh, then an additional secretary in the MEA.



Urbancic called Saini a key working-level interlocutor at the NCTC, dismissed the charge of espionage and said his arrest had cast a "negative shadow" on the functioning of the counter-terror working group.



The criticism of the Indian police only echo the widely-held perception that it is ill-equipped to meet the growing terror threat and other internal security challenges. The limitations were exposed fully by the Lashkar-e-Taiba gunmen involved in during 26/11 strike, but the brutally candid opinion, coming from a foreign power, that too one seen with a chip on its shoulder, will lead to considerable heartburn.

Quote:The contact also outlined the scornful factionalism that divided the scions of the old 'red' families – those with revolutionary lineage whose fathers and grandfathers fought to bring the Communists to power in 1949 – and those who had risen up the Party ranks, so-called "shopkeepers".



China's current leaders, President Hu Jintao and prime minister Wen Jiabao, both fall into the latter category, while the putative next leader, 57-year-old Xi Jinping, is the son of a revolutionary hero Xi Zhongxun and often referred to as a 'princeling'.



The US embassy contact said that China's princelings felt they had a "right" to the fruits of the revolution, recalling one family deriding those without revolutionary pedigrees by saying: "While my father was bleeding and dying for China, your father was selling shoelaces".

Quote:Congress president Sonia Gandhi candidly admitted to the California governor's wife that her parents were against her marriage with Rajiv Gandhi, US embassy cables provided by WikiLeaks reveal.



Gandhi also told Maria Shriver, wife of Arnold Schwarzenegger, in August 2006 that she would "write a book someday with the whole story" as to why she did not take up the job of prime minister in 2004.



The cable on Gandhi-Shriver meeting, dated Aug 4, 2006 and marked "confidential", is titled "A garrulous Sonia Gandhi opens up to Maria Shriver", indicating how freely the Indian leader chatted away.



Shriver met Gandhi as part of her official visit to India. A reading of the cable indicates the conversation might have been taped by accompanying US embassy officials.



The cable says that Gandhi, who is "usually withdrawn and reserved in public ... revealed a rare glimpse of herself" as she spoke about herself, women's issues and compulsions of political life.



"Her comments and demeanour put the lie to cocktail party suggestions that she courts Manmohan Singh's job," the cable said.



The cable says: "Gandhi revealed that her own parents objected to her marriage to Rajiv Gandhi and she 'resented their position' and went ahead and married him anyway."



Rajiv Gandhi became prime minister in 1984 and was assassinated in 1991.



The cable said Gandhi was reluctant to provide details regarding her decision to turn down the prime minister's post after the 2004 victory of the United Progressive Alliance (UPA).



"I am often asked about this, but tell people that I will write a book someday with the whole story," she told Shriver.



"She would only say that she 'felt better' that someone else became PM and 'did not regret' her decision.



"She elaborated, at (former cabinet minister) Karan Singh's insistence, saying she was under lots of pressure as 'party workers' were 'very upset'. They 'could not understand' why she, as party president, was not taking up the post, since they had voted for her and won a majority."



Among other things, the cable revealed:



-- Gandhi said the situation for women in India was more troubling and traumatic as Indian women must deal with myriad problems not found in the West.



-- Gandhi repeatedly urged her husband Rajiv Gandhi to avoid politics.



-- She herself took to politics when "the Right was becoming strong in India and Congress weak". She said her children were not keen about this but told her: "Whatever you decide, we will back you."



-- Gandhi said "some (political) parties believe that women should not be in power".



-- Gandhi said that south India was "more progressive" than the north on women's issues for historical and cultural reasons.



-- Gandhi agreed with Shriver that many Indians still considered female children "a problem".



-- Gandhi jokingly pointed out that the "Indian Left is anti-American" but agreed that its stance was aimed at "American policy" rather than the American people.



-- Gandhi said that many Indian Muslims "resent certain policies of the US".



The cable said of the meeting: "Sonia Gandhi is often stiff and detached when in public. This was a more relaxed Sonia, possibly because she felt a personal rapport with Maria Shriver.



"In this more relaxed setting, Sonia Gandhi revealed a left of centre political orientation which stresses the strong role of the government in ensuring social progress and her inherent opposition to the social conservatism of the Hindu right.



"At the same time, she entertained no illusions that she or the UPA will bring about rapid social change or uplift quickly India's oppressed women."



It added: "Despite her carefully erected Indian persona, her basic Italian personality is clearly evident in her mannerisms, speech and interests.



"She presents an intriguing enigma of a warm private personality that remains concealed and is available only to her closest confidants and family members."