<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>EC seeks explanation on OBC reservations</b>
- NDTV Correspondent
Saturday, April 8, 2006 (New Delhi):
The Election Commission has sought an explanation from Union HRD Minister Arjun Singh for his proposal for reservations for OBCs in central universities.
The EC says Arjun Singh's announcement prima facie is a violation of model code of conduct.
EC has written letter to the Cabinet Secretary directing it to get the HRD Ministry's explanation and forward it to the Commission by Monday evening.
The HRD minister has proposed 27.5 per cent increase in reservation for OBCs in all centrally funded educational institutions.
This proposal will come into effect after the assembly elections. The proposal has drawn huge protests from students all over the country.
Questions raised
<b>At a function in the Capital, President Dr APJ Abdul Kalam said there should be so many seats that reservations in educational institutions become meaningless.</b>
Corporate India also is against the proposal. Speaking to the media at the convocation ceremony of the Indian School of Business, Rahul Bajaj and Ratan Tata opposed the reservation.
<b>"I would not want to comment on it, but if we want to bring in reservation, why do we not have reservation in the army,"</b> said Ratan Tata.
<b>"My concern is not scheduled castes, scheduled tribes and OBCs. I am as supportive as the people who talk. People who are talking doing this, I am sorry to say, are doing it for their chairs,"</b> said Rahul Bajaj.
Meanwhile, the government says that no decision has been taken by the government and the Cabinet is yet to clear policy regarding reservation.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<b>Sonia Gandhi quits Rajiv Gandhi Foundation</b>
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->New Delhi, April 8: Taking no chances in view of the coming Rae Bareli Lok sabha bypoll, Congress president Sonia Gandhi on Saturday resigned from three trusts and organisations associated with the Nehru-Gandhi family.
Besides resigning from the <b>chairpersonship of the Rajiv Gandhi Foundation</b>, she put in papers as <b>head of the Indira Gandhi Memorial Trust and the Jawahar Bhavan Trust, party</b> sources said.
Gandhiâs action comes five days before the issue of notification for the bypoll for the Rae Bareli seat which became vacant on march 23 following her resignation from Lok Sabha and the National Advisory Committee chairpersonship in the wake of controversy over the office of profit issue.
..................
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Hahhaha! short lived scarifice <!--emo&  --><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Now we will see Priyanka name in all these organization. This family only follow purse.
<b>Eclipse of the nation's healthy party system! </b>
By P. Raman
http://www.samachar.com/features/070406-features.html
<b>For a whole one week last month, the entire political elite behaved as if a severe disaster had befallen on this great nation.</b> The Manmohan Singh government suddenly decides to suspend the Parliament session sine die; drafts an urgent ordinance literally at midnight; a panicked BJP sees ghosts of a second emergency intended to save another authoritarian Mrs. Gandhi; and the latter retaliates with her second renunciation.
<b>Though Sonia Gandhi's curt retaliation has put an abrupt end to the whole political drama and the issue of office of profit pushed into the background it has in the process exposed a whole lot of Indian political tragedy. </b>
A government that functions in splendid isolation from its own party establishment, an ill-equipped opposition which abruptly retreats when found its own counter-attacks boomeranging on them in Jharkhand, Rajasthan and MP and the Emergency era operators imposing their crude game plans in the murky corridors of power all have contributed to the collapse of the country's party system which is the corner stone of parliamentary system.
It is now ten days, and we have no answers to the countless goofups of the sordid events. <b>Every one, the Cabinetwallas, Congress establishment and the
aides and speech writers try to stonewall crucial questions. </b>
Who had actually initiated the sine die and ordinance move? Were its political repercussions discussed in the Union cabinet and/or political affairs committee? Did the prime minister and his senior cabinet ministers endorse them without so much as a discussion? Did the brinkman claim 10 Janpath's blessings which had silenced all others as being talked about in the Capital's power corridors?
Were Sonia Gandhi and her aides really in the loop or the operators wanted to make it look like a surprise gift to her? These are questions that go beyond the drawing room gossips.
<b>The answers in bits and pieces tickling in reveal the changing political management style of the Sonia Congress.</b> It sadly shows up the growing disconnect between the party chief, her prime minister, his cabinet colleagues and a hundred hangers on around this vast power satellite. The casualty has been a healthy system of consultation and coordination between the different arms.
The PM camp detests pre-decision consultation. Prior clearance on sensitive issues with deep political implications is avoided. Heads might have rolled had this kind of bunglings happened under an Indira Gandhi.
This speaks volume of the erosion of the present party system on which our democracy works. What further bares the main ruling party's disjoined organizational structure has been that after all such disastrous brinkmanship there has not been any serious inhouse introspection to fix the accountability.
All that had happened was some idle blame shifting among the ministers to settle score with the rivals. <b>To this day, the prime minister, the centre of decision making, and the see-no evil PM have maintained a stoic silence. </b>
The bane of the Sonia Congress has been its absence of a holistic approach, a unified command system. It functions in compartments. It is not so much due to the compulsive division of the posts of the prime minister and party president.
It has been more due to the isolationist style of the incumbent prime minister and the protective structure constructed around the party chief. This functional segmentation has been the cruel irony of a party that survives on the strength of its lone super boss or a super family.
Unlike the BJP which is driven by competing claimants for control, the Congress has a single power centre. Yet it functions in watertight compartments. The prime minister manages the government, and the party establishment hardly bothers about his actions until the Left raises a controversy. <b>Then, verily, Sonia Gandhi acts. </b>
Bodies like the coordination panel and core group come into play only when the opposition forces a sudden crisis or the Left pushes it into the corner. The PM who enjoys the popular mandate only through his party president, hardly bothers to take the party establishment into confidence even on politically highly sensitive administrative decisions. There are compartments even within the government.
While the prime minister is determined to have his way on reform-related decisions and his `enlightened' foreign policy, he hardly bothers about other ministries unless, of course, it raises some one's hackles and thus leaving the colleagues to do as they chose.
This is the general pattern of this government's functioning. This explains the absence of prime ministerial scrutiny to insure against disastrous deviations, lack of coordination and the much needed political fine-tuning.
<b>Here is a prime minister who takes pride in saying that he won't interfere in the action of the CBI which he did soon after in another case. </b>It was at a time when the opposition was pinning down the government on its decision to help Bofors accused Octavio Quattrocchi.
To this day, no one has explained who was responsible for creating such a muddle and thus tarnishing the government's image. The abdication of prime ministerial responsibility is based on the thesis that economic performance and good governance are key to the popular mood.
Once the government could show it could achieve prosperity through economic reform, people would stand by it in elections. A performing government need not bother too much about politicization and communalization whether in government policies or diplomacy.
<b>Within the Congress establishment, Sonia Gandhi has added an inner compartment comprising herself and her two children.</b> Sonia Gandhi made it clear and Rahul reasserted that the former's crucial decision to quit the Lok Sabha was not taken after consultation with the party or prime minister but by the family. <b>Others were simply informed barely an hour before. </b>
Another crucial fact no one denies is that Sonia was not in the loop when the cabinet under Manmohan Singh decided to suspend Parliament session and issue the controversial ordinance.
At the moment, things may not be better in the opposition BJP. But that is no consolation for the main ruling party. When in power, the BJP had a far superior decision making machinery. Its power centres worked in unison to scan every government move to avert political pitfalls.
The ruling party's political interests and electoral prospects had played a major role in all government decisions right from the Pokhran II. <b>There may have been some miscalculations but nothing was done without political screening by its large number of smart operators.
As against this, clumsy style and refusal to accommodate popular sentiments are integral to the present dispensation's compartmentalized functioning. </b>
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--> Pioneer.com
 <b>Katiyar to give Sonia run for her money? </b>
 Raj Bahadur Singh
LucknowÂ
BHARATIYA JANATA Party general secretary Vinay Katiyar, who has been in the forefront of the Ram Janambhoomi movement, could be the party's candidate against Congress president Sonia Gandhi in the Rae Bareli byelection.
Mr Katiyar was given a hint about the party's decision while he was in Bhubaneshwar, but he is giving it a thought and may take the plunge only after a meeting with national vice-president and incharge of Uttar Pradesh, Mr Kalyan Singh, who had approached him.
Under police custody at Kannauj, on way to strifehit Aligarh, Mr Katiyar confirmed the party suggestion at Bhubaneshwar. "But the matter has not been formally discussed yet. I can not comment more than this at the momet," he said.
Well-placed sources in the BJP claimed that Mr Kalyan Singh was coaxing Mr Katiyar to take on Ms Sonia Gandhi, but the recently elected Rajya Sabha member seemed a bit reluctant.
However, the former Chief Minister has his own calculations to make Mr Katiyar a candidate against Ms Gandhi. Although the Rae Bareli byelection may be a lost battle for any nonCongress outfit, the BJP wants to cash in on the fact that its candidate emerged as the main challenger to the Congress chief in her pocket borough. And Mr Singh finds Mr Katiyar tailor made for the task.
................
Mr Kalyan Singh's formula is simple but it will be interesting to see whether Mr Katiyar will be given the same responsibility which was assigned to Ms Sushma Swaraj in Bellary in the 1999 poll against Ms Gandhi.
Though Ms Swaraj did her part brilliantly as she lost only by a margin of 17,000 votes, but the expectations from Mr Katiyar are not that high. "Everyone knows that Ms Gandhi will win but it is our duty to ensure that the difference is as minimal as possible," said a BJP leader.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd--> <!--emo& --><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>BJP likely to field Katiyar against Sonia </b>
Pioneer.com
Agencies | New Delhi
BJP General Secretary and Rajya Sabha member Vinay Katiyar is likely to be fielded against Congress President Sonia Gandhi in the byelection to the Rae Bareli Lok Sabha seat.
The decision to field the former Bajrang Dal chief was taken at a meeting BJP President Rajnath Singh had with senior party leaders from Uttar Pradesh including state unit chief Kesari Nath Tripathi and senior leaders Kalraj Mishra and party national Vice President Mukhtar Abbas Naqvi in Varanasi today, party sources said.
Katiyar, who was initially reluctant to contest, was persuaded as the party wanted a senior backward class leader to minimise the impact of expelled leader Uma Bharati, who is backing a backward candidate belonging to Apna Dal in the prestigious constituency. A formal announcement in this regard is expected to be made later.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What the heck is Uma doing ?
Uma wants to destroy BJP. Another Jaichand in making. <!--emo& --><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--emo&:angry:--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/mad.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='mad.gif' /><!--endemo--> Without Car but named in Maruti Scandal
A commission of inquiry headed by justice A C Gupta, which probed the
Maruti scandal and submitted its report in 1978, concluded: "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. 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".
The Gupta commission report further recorded: âA Banerjee, income-tax officer, disallowed part of the remuneration paid to Shrimati Sonia Gandhi as excessive âbecause she had no qualifications to be able to render any technical service to the companyâ."
Rs 250 crore spent in chasing the Rs 64 crore
Above fact is related to Bofors scandal in which no one comes out unblemished. Result is following:
* Former minister of state Margaret Alva helped Quottrochhi to fly from India 29-30, 2003, by keeping File of CBI till August 16.
* CBI officers who were in Switzerland heard the victory of Congress. They came back keeping legs on their heads. Bofors documents have been thrown in the dust bin because Mr.Q beloved of Gandhi Family said:â 'I believe it would be in interest of justice and India's reputation if this case against me is brought to an end.'
* In Jan. 2006, India's Supreme Court directed the Indian government to take steps to maintain the status quo and ensure the frozen accounts are not unlocked. But before this on the direction of Law minister as requested by B Datta, additional solicitor general of India, the high court in London ordered to defreeze Quattrocchi's two British bank accounts. Why two London bank accounts of the Italian businessman, key accused in the Bofors pay-offs case, were defrozen at CBI's behest.
London, Switzerland & Italy focal point for Gandhis
LONDON:
Sonia Gandhi studied in London. Her one sister is residing in London. Rahul was also at London before coming in politicsc, brother of Congress MLA from Punjab, is a London-based businessman. He is Managing Director of DSSI Group. They are relatives of Natwar Singh and involved in Food for Oil scandal. News report dated April 18, 2006: ED sources said they were seeking legal opinion on the action against Aditya Khanna, who had flied to the UK, despite a Letter of Cancellation issued against his passport.
Swiss based Masefield
The company, Masefield, mentioned in the Volcker Report as having managed the transactions for Natwar Singh and the Congress, is a Zug-based (Swiss) oil-trading company controlled by protégés of Marc Rich. Marc Rich is one of Switzerlandâs wealthiest residents, and is one of its largest taxpayers. He is discreetly protected by the Swiss police and security apparatus, as many journalists seeking information have found out. India should not expect any real cooperation or evidence from that Canton or Switzerland.
Marc Rich
He was sentenced to 325 years in prison but he was pardoned by Bill Clinton at the end of 2000. Marc Rich was interwoven with the White House of George Bush the Elder and later, Bill Clinton. The book author described him, "Marc Rich, the man whom the United States Justice Department privately called the most corrupt corporate executive in America". ["Metal Men", page 13.]
Switzerland seems to be the focal point for all Gandhi family corruption BOFORS, the KGB funds.Now we see Masefield AG. Can all this be a coincidence? Through this company, Natwar Singh and the Congress party bought oil from Saddam Hussein and later re-sold in the international market.
Masefield s Chief Financial Officer Hemant Thanawala, confirmed his company's business dealings with Hamdan Exports, run by Jagat Singh's friend Andleeb Singh.
Italian connection of Masefield
You may find 6 entries; all spin offs of same Masefield. We see some Italian names as owners in some companies.
1. Masefield AG in Zug, Ltd, +++, CH-170.3.012.268-7
( http://www.hrazg.ch/pdfhra/110255dh.pdf)
2. Masefield Energy Holdings AG in Zug, Ltd, +++, CH-170.3.027.287-6
( http://www.hrazg.ch/pdfhra/167945dh.pdf)
3. Masefield Energy Resources AG in Zug, Ltd, +++, CH-170.3.027.687-7
( http://www.hrazg.ch/pdfhra/170880dh.pdf)
4. Masefield Trading AG in Zug, Ltd, +++, CH-170.3.015.929-9
( http://www.hrazg.ch/pdfhra/098160dh.pdf)
5. MvelaMasefield AG in Zug, Ltd, +, CH-170.3.025.636-2
( http://www.hrazg.ch/pdfhra/153901dh.pdf)
6. Pragma Energy SA in Lugano, Ltd, +++, CH-170.3.024.040-6
( http://www.hrati.ch/cgi-bin/fnrGet.cgi?f...00000#pers)
Remember Pragma Energy SA is active in India by it is an Italian Company.
We see Italian names as owners in the companies associated with Masefield AG. Welgas Holdings and Pragma Energy, formerly Masefield Coalfields, reportedly had officials or offices in India. Enel is also an Italian company.
Please believe me: I have no car!
See for more details:
http://www.sulekha.com/blogs/blogdisplay.aspx?cid=47401
http://www.sulekha.com/blogs/blogdisplay.aspx?cid=46796
http://o3.indiatimes.com/premendra
By Premendra Agrawal
<!--emo&  kull--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/aaskull.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='aaskull.gif' /><!--endemo--> Singh Parivar
T. S. R. SubramanianPosted online: Friday, October 26, 2007 at 0000 hrs Print EmailUPA allies have desecrated the cabinet system, put PM in a spot. But Congress is partly responsible.
T. S. R. Subramanian (author was Cabinet Secy to Govt of India from 1996-98)
Rad LinksIndian Express Airlines
Indian Express Classifieds
Let's look at some of the statements made by leaders of parties constituting the UPA in the past week or ten days, when it became clear that the nuclear deal is not going through, at least for the present. There was an interesting interview (Walk the Talk, on NDTV) done by the editor-the-chief of this newspaper, Shekhar Gupta, with the Tamil Nadu chief minister. M. Karunanidhi openly said he had âreservationsâ about the deal right from the beginning. At least a couple of other party leaders, representing UPA constituents, and themselves members of the cabinet, have also expressed their reservations, although not in such explicit terms. Indeed, even Congress spokespersons, who were vociferously supporting the deal, have been mute recently, now that the deal appears to be off; or at least placed in the backburner. One notes that it is only the prime minister who has recently been extolling the virtues of the agreement. So, suddenly it appears that none from the ruling coalition is keen on the nuclear deal, except the PM himself.
Leaving aside political nuances, where does this leave the concept of collective cabinet responsibility? Before the 123 agreement was accepted it was cleared by the cabinet. It has not been made public if any cabinet minister strongly, or even mildly, opposed the agreement. But suddenly cabinet ministers are expressing doubts about the utility of the arrangement. Did they not know of âpotentially negativeâ aspects when they approved the decision? Have any facts surfaced over the past ten days, to bring new doubts in the minds of the decision-makers regarding the value of the deal? On the face of it, it is appalling to see constituents of the ruling coalition, some of them themselves members of the Union cabinet, distancing themselves from a specific decision to which they have been a party. Whatever their reasons, the result is that the prime minister is in an embarrassing position.
I am not addressing here the issues relating to the merits of the deal or the political aspects thereof. My point is that the concept of collective cabinet responsibility has been thrown to the winds. The cabinet is a sacred institution in a democracy; there is room for debate in the cabinet before a decision is taken. However, every cabinet member is jointly and severally part of the decision, and cannot, even by implication, dissociate himself from the decision of which he was a part. This goes against the grain of past practice and is indirectly a show of no-confidence. It does not show the coalition partners in a good light.
Minutes of cabinet meetings are always terse and incorporate only the action points. In situations where some debate or disagreement surfaces, minutes may mention âafter discussionâ. In case the disagreement was strong, minutes may refer to âafter a detailed discussionâ. But in all cases all decisions are deemed to be unanimous. Once a decision is taken in the cabinet, no hint of lack of solidarity should be expected in a properly functioning system.
Walter Bagehot, if alive, would surely have raised an eyebrow. Right now he would be turning inside his coffin. Or maybe not. Because Bagehot would have had great difficulty defining Indiaâs current governing structure, as it has evolved over the past few decades.
Nominally, we are a parliamentary democracy. However, in practice, many features of a presidential system have surfaced, and got integrated with our governance mechanism. For instance, the rise of the prime ministerâs office in terms of power, prestige, and intervention capability has been palpably in evidence since the 1980s. The office of the special assistant ruling the roost in ministries, cutting into the legitimate domain of the secretary while acting at the behest of the minister, is a case in point. Indeed, it is a bizarre fact that real presidential powers in the country vest not with the chief executive but with a party functionary!
Likewise, the chief ministerâs secretariat is now supreme in most states, and the formally constituted machinery has been by-passed in many cases (for example, that police station officersâ transfers were done through a computer in the CMâs office has been well-known for many years; I recently understood that even the postings and transfers of constables are increasingly being done through this route). To complicate matters further, we also have traces of the Moghul way of functioning creeping into the system â the trusted henchman is allowed to do whatever he wants, so long he shows loyalty and pays a tribute.
All the above may not be true everywhere; there may be a trace of exaggeration here and there; but these are unmistakable trends in our governance pattern. Bagehot is perfectly entitled to get confused about the system of governance that has evolved in India over the years.
In a democracy, the parliament is the supreme authority, and is the repository of the nationâs sovereignty. That the legal dispensation has existed to provide for international treaties to be concluded by the executive without parliamentary approval in India is also a fact. However, this is merely a technicality; every major policy step presupposes parliamentary support or consent. There cannot be room in a democracy to embark on policy matters perceived to be of importance, without the tacit or actual concurrence of Parliament.
In the case of the nuclear agreement, without my commenting on its merits and implications, it was incumbent on the government to tacitly or overtly get Parliamentâs assent. Probably if this had been attempted well on time, a good deal of the present opposition may have been pre-empted. It is perhaps understandable that the prime minister had missed this point, in his political naiveté. But it is inexcusable for the Congress, with its political experience, not to have sought the correct path.
Ironically, the outcome of the experience of the past few months may result in Parliament now insisting that every international agreement be thrashed out, to the last nut and bolt, before India signs the same â this will be the unwarranted by-product, which is sure to curtail the flexibility of the executive and its ease of operation. Such a situation would have been wrought upon itself by the executive.
|
