From Deccan.com, 1 Feb., 2005
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Congress may call for a snap poll
 

New Delhi, Jan. 31: <b>The Congress is seriously contemplating a mid-term Lok Sabha election in 2006, if it succeeds in reviving the party in Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, Madhya Pradesh and Gujarat. The four States are the targets of the current Congress strategy directed at capturing a majority in the Lok Sabha, with party president Sonia Gandhi as Prime Minister.</b>

HRD Minister Arjun Singh is being credited with the ga-meplan to revive the party in these States as a precursor to early Lok Sabha elections. <b>The decision to disturb the coalition with the RJD in Bihar by contesting the Asse-mbly elections separately was taken by the top leadership of the Congress in a bid to “test the waters” in the State. </b>The results will determine the Congress strategy for UP, where sufficient indications are being given by the party, including Sonia Gan-dhi and son Rahul Gandhi, that they would like to withdraw support to the Mulayam Singh Yadav government.

<b>The Congress now appears to be a party in a hurry with the strategy of revival, as the sources put it, centering on the “strike while the iron is hot” assessment. The party is keen to move out of the coalition which it views as an “irksome necessity” and cash in on the goodwill for Sonia  before the vote turns away from the party.</b> The Congress is reportedly of the view that “the national mood is in our favour”, and wants to present itself as the alternative, minus the burden of coalition, before time changes public opinion.

<b>Interestingly, not a single Congress leader spoken to from the Centre or the States was of the view that a mid-term poll was not on the cards. All said that this was inevitable, with 2006 cited as the year for “action”. </b>The only difference was that wh-ile some leaders were of the view that the poll could be held along with that of West Bengal in March next year, most favoured a later date in the year. But again, all party leaders were agreed that fissures would dent the Congr-ess-Left relations before the Bengal elections. Economic policies is the other area of contention, with financial ex-perts in the Congress keen to part ways with the Left as a prerequisite for “independent” functioning.

In Madhya Pradesh, the Congress is optimistic about benefiting directly from the anti-incumbency factor, whi-ch it expects will help it improve its position in the Lok Sabha elections as well.  <b>In Gujarat, the Congress has  decided to organise the “Dandi march” in order to project itself as an alternative to the BJP government.</b>

<b>The Congress has also taken a decision to keep away from a minority agenda. </b>Even in Gujarat, the message of the Dandi march will be national integration and not the rehabilitation of the Muslims or the cases under trial.<b> Leaders from the regional parties in coalition said that they were aware of the Cong-ress’ new strategy, maintaining, however, that this stems from Sonia Gandhi’s desire to become Prime Minister. </b>
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Only discussion related to RC Mujumdar finding and other writers based on Historical facts.

Hi Guys,
Posting after a long time. And this might be the right forum and the right audience to answer this question.

First is Vedic Astrology (a science or art or whatever) capable of predicting your future.
The answer can be of two types - The first one will use scientific logic to prove or disprove the above notion. The second approach can be of people giving personal account of prediction coming true.
Can we have some discussion on this?

Second are there online resources (or offline resources) to understand and interpret Vedic astrology.

rgds,
fanne

Post away!

Post away!

Sorting book folder based on Main Section of the forum

Post away!!

<span style='color:red'>Act to Prevent Authoritarian Terrorism!</span>

By SS Mani

In an article in 'The Hindu' of July 2, 200l, a former Chief Justice of the Kerala High Court, VR Krishna Iyer, charged Jayalalitha with "authoritarian terrorism" when she arrogantly arrested M. Karunanidhi in the middle of the night. The Judge wrote "If allowed to run berserk, this authoritarian terrorism will make Bharat a bedlam." He further warned "One day any Chief Minister with political impets and police bullies may perpetrate a similar crime on our Prime Minister himself."

Apparently, the Prime Minister will have to wait his turn. The Chief Minister is busy using the town of Kanchipuram for target practice. Having already detonated her vindictive outburst against the Sankaracharyas, Chief Minister Jayalalitha has decided that ordinary bhakthas of the Kanchi Srimatam are first in line for her blitzkrieg.

How else can one describe the barrage of charges being rained down upon defenseless people like Sundaresa Iyer and Raghu when there is not even a whiff of any prior offenses in their past?

One is a student of Rg Veda at the Mutt. The Government has yet to cite even one prior conviction to his account. For that matter, they do not proffer any tangible evidence of the charges they make against him now.

The other is a retiree from the Reserve Bank of India, a man who has traversed the span of his life in positions of responsibility, without a blemish to his good name. Following which, he has chosen to serve the people of Kanchipuram, indeed the whole of India, by helping to administer an institution that is engaged in the education, healthcare and uplift of millions, while preserving a cherished and hoary Bharatiya tradition.

Against such defenseless civilians, the Chief Minister has invoked the Goonda’s Act! Are these the people envisaged by that law? Here is what a perusal of the Goonda’s Act reveals:

“a Goonda is one who habitually commits dangerous activities, such as bootlegging, drug offences, immoral traffic (etc.).....in any manner prejudicial to maintenance of public order”

This law was written in order to protect the people against organized crime and habitual criminals. In what fevered delusion could Shri Raghu and Shri Sundaresa Iyer fit that description? What, Madam Chief Minister, have they ever done, that constitutes a danger to the maintenance of public order? What crimes, have they habitually committed?

Or is this invocation of the Goonda’s Act rather a relapse of one of Jayalalitha’s own criminal habits? Like the detention of MDMK leader Vaiko under POTA? Or the arrest of Tamil news editors for criticizing her government? Or indeed the instance Justice VR Krishna Iyer cited of Karunanidhi’s midnight arrest. Is this just another case of Jayalalitha’s authoritarian terrorism gone berserk?

By thrusting a succession of charges upon Raghu and Sundaresa Iyer, Jayalalitha, through cunning misuse of the law, brandishes the power endowed to her by the people like an AK-47 -- against the very citizens she is duty-bound to protect. She does not care if the charges she has framed up amount to a house of cards. She has no need to justify her arrests with evidence.

She can dispatch her gang of policemen to confiscate records, plant evidence and even falsify documents. Her mobsters get promoted to positions of power, even though they are known to be of dubious integrity. The man she appointed as Superintendent of Police in Kanchipuram had 13 arrest warrants against him. For that matter, Jayalalitha herself has a number of criminal cases pending against her. But the Goonda’s Act could never apply to these two!

Her Prosecutors will continue to present fictional evidence to the courts, defame her victims and willfully delay the wheels of justice, and no one demands an answer for any of it! Having gotten word from their Capo of what the case should conclude, they will merrily piece together “facts” to fit the conclusion. And if it turns out those “facts” are refuted. No problem! They’ll simply round up a new set of different “facts”. Who is going to question them, when the present axes of political power in the land have already said that this matter does not concern them?

Jayalalitha, by pointing the barrel of authority, can seize private assets at will, hampering her victims’ efforts to conduct their defense. Whether it is the Kanchi Mutt or the Kumbakonam Lingayat Mutt, her despotism goes unquestioned. (The Chief Minister returned the latter Mutt to its rightful heir suspiciously soon after it became clear that her own case will be tried in Karnataka, where the Lingayats are a powerful sect). Meanwhile, the constitutionally protected right to property suddenly escapes the Central Government’s memory.

“Why past midnight? Why a posse of police? The whole melodrama, prima facie, seems rudely insulting, insanely excessive and utterly lawless,” said the venerable judge. “Police power is a public trust and its brazen breach calls for condign punishment.” In 2001, after Karunanidhi’s arrest, his was a clarion call that the intelligentsia rallied around. At the Centre, demands were made to recall the Tamil Nadu governor, for countenancing such a police raj.

Three years later, when the same script is re-run, this time on a sanyasi with no political capital, no one steps forward to stop Jayalalitha’s rampage. (And as for ordinary citizens like Sundaresa Iyer, well they cannot even begin to count!)

These are not the days of benevolent kings, when swift justice was meted out to such offenders: their heads shaved, their faces marked with red and black spots, before a ceremonial ride on donkey-back through the city streets! There is no one to even shame Jayalalitha for her assault on Bharat, so it seems.

And so it is that Bharat, true to the learned Judge’s prediction, slouches towards bedlam, while those at the helm dither. Such Government Goonda-ism is bound to erode the public confidence, and consequently threaten public order, for the people’s concern has long been forgotten. A crime was committed in Kanchipuram on September the 3rd. Will the truth ever come out? Will the real culprits get punished? These pointed questions about the Sankarraman murder case are in acute danger of becoming rhetorical.

The people of Tamil Nadu have every right to expect their Government to deliver answers. But the way the investigation has been conducted by the Special Investigating team under CM Jayalalitha’s personal direction, the people of Tamil Nadu and the whole of India are increasingly losing hope.

The investigation stands tainted, first by the Government’s prejudicial actions, then because the police and the Chief Minister squandered their already threadbare credibility, by engaging in what amounts to authoritarian terrorism.

What Jayalalitha is doing to the Sankaracharyas & the Kanchi Mutt is similar to what Communist China did to the Dalai Lama and the non-violent Buddhist monasteries in Tibet in the 60s. At that time the first person to condemn China in strongest terms was our then Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru. It saddens me that the present Prime Minister is keeping quiet when the danger is faced by his own fellow-citizens, who have entrusted to him the charge of guarding their liberties.

Perhaps Jayalalitha calculates that in a so-called secular country like
India, with a Sikh as the Prime Minister, a Muslim as the President, and a Christian as the leader of the ruling party at the Centre, her assault on the institutions of docile, peace loving, and law-abiding Hindus, whether they number 700 million or more, will never be questioned by any authorities.

Are the President and the Prime Minister going to prove her right?

Previous version of this thread is available at ..

http://indiaforumarchives.blogspot.com/200...population.html



What is NSSM 200 "Population Control" by Kissinger?

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->In December of 1974, shortly after the first major international population conference was held under UN auspices at Bucharest, Romania, several of the major U.S. government agencies involved in foreign affairs submitted a detailed report on population control in developing countries. Contributions came from the Central Intelligence Agency, The Departments of States, Defense, and Agriculture, and the Agency for International Development. Their contributions were combined into one major report with the title, "Implications of Worldwide Population Growth for U.S. Security and Overseas Interests." The final study, which is more than 200 pages in length, covered many topics from the viewpoint of each of the participating agencies. The following questions and answers cover just the most basic aspects of this crucial historical document.

What does the term "NSSM 200" mean? "NSSM" stands for "National Security Study Memorandum," and the number 200 identifies the order in which it was produced. The original request for a review of overseas population policies is also called NSSM 200, and was written April 27, 1974 by Henry Kissinger. The actual study, which covered 229 pages of text, represents one stage of the NSSM 200 correspondence series, and was submitted on December 10, 1974. It became the official guide to foreign policy November 26, 1975, when a National Security Decision Memorandum (NSDM 314) was signed that endorsed the findings of the study.

Who actually was responsible for the study? NSSM 200 was compiled by the National Security Council, which is the highest level of command in the U.S. government. The NSC is headed by the President of the United States and his designated Security Advisor, and its purpose is to coordinate the overseas operations of all executive branches the U.S. government.

Is NSSM 200 still in force? Technically, the answer is yes. It remains the official strategy paper on population until it is replaced by another of equal importance. However, the implementation of the guidelines may differ from one administration to another. Jimmy Carter, for example, showed considerably less interest in curbing population growth than did his predecessors Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford. And the Reagan administration took a somewhat different approach (i.e., the Mexico City Policy that banned direct U.S. financing for abortions). The facts that funds for population control increased rapidly and dramatically during the Reagan and Bush years does not necessarily indicate a newer NSC directive was issued.

Why was NSSM only discovered in 1990? NSSM 200 was originally classified as a secret document, meaning that neither the public in the United States nor the people of the developing world who were the subject of the study were allowed to know of its existence. A schedule for declassification appearing on the cover authorized its release in mid-1989. However, the document was not actually made public until almost a year later, when it was given to the U.S. National Archives in response to a request from a journalist working for the Information Project For Africa.

Why was the study kept confidential so long? It is difficult to promote birth control on a giant scope unless the recipients can be persuaded that it is intended for their benefit. NSSM 200, on the other hand, acknowledged that the purpose of population control was to serve the U.S. strategic, economic, and military interest at the expense of the developing countries. Such a revelation, particularly if it were to leak out prematurely, would seriously jeopardize program goals. In fact, the declassification date on the memorandum would not necessarily be mandatory, and NSC could still have kept it from public view. But by 1990, at least two very important changes had taken place. For one thing, many of the study's recommendations for pushing population reduction policies on aid-receiving countries had been accomplished. Second, the U.S. had elected George Bush, a former Director of Central Intelligence, to the White House in 1988, which may have signalled to classification review personnel that the American public had grown more tolerant of covert activities overseas.

<b>Whose population did the security advisers want controlled? The recommendations for reducing fertility applied only to the developing world -- and to all of it. However, NSSM 200 also states that 13 countries of "special U.S. political and strategic interest" would be primary targets. They are: India, Brazil, Egypt, Nigeria, Indonesia, the Philippines, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Mexico, Thailand, Turkey, Ethiopia and Colombia (page 15 of the introduction).</b>

What were the study's main concerns about population? NSSM 200 states that population growth in the developing world threatens U.S. security in four basic ways: First, certain large nations stand to gain significant political power and influence as a result of their growing populations. Second, the United States and its western allies have a vital interest in strategic materials which have to be imported from less-developed countries. Third, societies with high birthrates have large numbers of young people, who are more likely than older people to challenge global power structures. And last, population growth in relatively-disadvantaged countries jeopardizes U.S. investments.

Which countries would benefit politically from population growth? The memorandum cites Brazil as one example. Brazil "clearly dominates the continent demographically," the report says, noting that Brazilians could outnumber U.S. residents by the end of the century. Thus it foresees a "growing power status for Brazil in Latin America and on the world scene over the next 25 years" if population programs were not successful at curbing fertility (page 22). Nigeria was also given as an example of a nation that can benefit from population increase. "Already the most populous country on the continent, with an estimated 55 million people in 1970, Nigeria's population by the end of this century is projected to number 135 million," says the formerly-classified report. "This suggests a growing political and strategic role for Nigeria, at least in Africa south of the Sahara" (page 21).

How does population control help the west acquire minerals? The study explains, first of all, "The location of known reserves of higher-grade ores of most minerals favors increasing dependence of all industrialized regions on imports from less developed countries. The real problems of mineral supplies lie, not in basic physical sufficiency, but in the politico-economic issues of access, terms for exploration and exploitation, and division of the benefits among producers, consumers, and host country governments" (page 37). It then advises, "...the U.S. economy will require large and increasing amounts of minerals from abroad, especially from less developed countries. That fact gives the U.S. enhanced interest in the political, economic, and social stability of the supplying countries. Wherever a lessening of population pressures through reduced birth rates can increase the prospects for such stability, population policy becomes relevant to resource supplies and to the economic interests of the United States" (page 43).

What have youthful populations got to do with it? Young people have historically been advocates for change, and are more prone to confront imperialism. NSSM 200 quotes a June 1974 State Department cable from Bangladesh to make this point: "Bangladesh is now a fairly solid supporter of third world positions, advocating better distribution of the world's wealth and extensive trade concessions to poor nations. As its problems grow and its ability to gain assistance fails to keep pace, Bangladesh's positions on international issues likely will become radicalized, inevitably in opposition to U.S. interests on major issues..." (page 80).

How are U.S. commercial investments affected by birthrates overseas? The document points out that growing nations need to provide for their growing needs. Thus, it warns, they are likely to make increased demands of foreign investors. Under such circumstances, western corporate holdings "are likely to be expropriated or subjected to arbitrary inter- vention." The report adds that this could be a consequence of "government action, labor conflicts, sabotage, or civil disturbance," and concludes: "Although population pressure is obviously not the only factor involved, these types of frus- trations are much less likely under conditions of slow or zero population growth" (pages 37-38).

Did the Americans really think they could get away it? NSSM 200 repeatedly acknowledges suspicions about U.S. motives on the part of "LDC" (less-developed country) leaders, and recommends a strategy to deal with these reactions. "It is vital that the effort to develop and strengthen a commitment on the part of the LDC leaders not be seen by them as an industrialized country policy to keep their strength down or to reserve resources for use by the `rich' countries," says the study. "Development of such a perception could create a serious backlash adverse to the cause of population stability..." (page 114). The next page adds: "The US can help to minimize charges of an imperialist motivation behind its support of population activities by repeatedly asserting that such support derives from a concern with: (a) the right of the individual to determine freely and responsibly their number and spacing of children ... and (b) the fundamental social and economic development of poor countries...." (page 115).

How were NSSM 200 s population goals to be pursued? In addition to disguising hostile intent by "repeatedly asserting" that birth control is useful to development, the writers demand that the United Nations and other multi-national institutions be used as fronts to conceal the extent of the U.S. involvement. They argue that the U.S. should "[a]rrange for familiarization programs at U.N. Headquarters in New York for ministers of governments, senior policy level offi- cials and comparably influential leaders from private life" (introduction, pages 20-21). In some countries, the memo reported, "U.S. assistance is limited by the nature of political or diplomatic relations ... or by the lack of strong government interest in population reduction programs (e.g. Nigeria, Ethiopia, Mexico, Brazil)." In these cases, it would be wise to channel population assistance should through "other donors and/or from private and international organizations (many of which receive contributions from AID)" (pages 127-128).

Did NSSM 200 mention compulsory population policies? It clearly does. It recommends, for example, that the World Bank take the lead. "Involvement of the Bank in this area would open up new possibilities for collaboration," the document says (page 148). The study also advises that the U.S. government played "an important role in establishing the United Nations Fund for Population Activities (UNFPA) to spearhead a multilateral effort in population as a complement to the bilateral actions of AID and other donor countries" (page 121). And it says that, "with a greater commitment of Bank resources and improved consultation with AID and UNFPA, a much greater dent could be made on the overall problem" (page 149). Moreover, the report asserts that "mandatory programs may be needed and that we should be considering these possibilities now" (page 118). It also finds that there is already "some established precedent for taking account of family planning performance in appraisal of assistance requirements" and concludes that "allocation of scarce PL 480 resources should take account of what steps a country is taking in population control as well as food production. In these sensitive relationships, however, it is important in style as well as substance to avoid the appearance of coercion" (page 106- 107).

What about propaganda? NSSM 200 concentrates mostly on efforts to get heads of government to adopt population policies against their own people. In this context, it says that U.S. diplomatic and embassy officials should "be alert to opportunities for expanding our assistance efforts and for demonstrating to their leaders the consequences of rapid population growth and the benefits of actions to reduce fertility" (page 128). It also notes: "There was general consternation [at the 1974 population conference in Bucharest when] the Plan was subjected to a slashing, five-pronged attack led by Algeria, with the backing of several African countries; Argentina, supported by Uruguay, Brazil, Peru, and, more limitedly, some other Latin American countries; the Eastern European group (less Romania); the PRC [Peoples Republic of China] and the Holy See" (page 86-87). Thus the study emphasizes the need to convince foreign leaders to drop their objections: "The beliefs, ideologies and misconceptions displayed by many nations at Bucharest indicate more forcefully than ever the need for extensive education of the leaders of many governments, especially in Africa and some in Latin America. Approaches [for] leaders of individual countries must be designed in the light of their current beliefs and to meet their special concerns" (page 96).

How about the mass media? At the time NSSM 200 was written, U.S. policy makers gave only passing thought to wholesale propaganda operations, apparently concluding that this course of action would be too difficult and too controversial. "Beyond seeking to reach and influence national leaders, improved world-wide support for population-related efforts should be sought through increased emphasis on mass media and other popula- tion education and motivation programs by the UN, USIA and USAID," says the formerly-secret memorandum. "We should give higher priorities in our information programs world-wide for this area and consider expansion of collaborative arrangements with multilateral institutions in population education programs" (page 117). But it also makes reference to the risks involved: "First, there is widespread LDC sensitivity to satellite broadcast, expressed most vigorously in the Outer Space Committee of the UN. Many countries don't want broadcasts of neighboring countries over their own territory and fear unwanted propaganda and subversion by hostile broadcasters. NASA experience suggests that the US must treat very softly when discussing assistance in program content" (page 191).

Is NSSM 200 the only important policy document on population trends? Certainly not. The Central Intelligence Agency had a population and manpower subcommittee at least as far back as the 1950s. Over the past 40 years, hundreds of reports have been prepared by the Defense Department, the Department of State, the CIA and others about population control and U.S. national security. Many of them remain partially or entirely classified. To give just one example, a February 1984 CIA report called "Middle East-South Asia: Population Problems and Political Stability" warns that "one-fourth to one-third of the populations of all Middle Eastern and South Asian countries is in the politically-volatile 15 to 24 age group, a consequence of high population growth rates during the 1950s and 1960s." These young people, the intelligence analysts continued, "will be ready recruits for opposition causes [such as] Islamic fundamentalism, which currently offers the principal ideological haven for Muslim youth." Similarly a study done in 1988 for the Pentagon calls upon high-level security planners to ensure that "population planning" is given the status of weapons development (see "Global Demographic Trends to the Year 2010: Implications for U.S. Security" in The Washington Quarterly, Spring 1989). And a 1991 report to the U.S. Army Conference on Long- Range Planning warns that current population trends -- extremely low fertility in developed countries and rapid growth in the southern hemisphere -- raise serious concerns about "the international political order and the balance of world power." The document -- reprinted in Foreign Affairs, Summer 1991 as "Population Change and National Security" -- says that these changes "could create an international environment even more menacing to the security prospects of the Western alliance than was the Cold War for the past generation." Military and intelligence assessments such as these do not change the importance of NSSM 200, however, but merely update its message to address current concerns.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

<b>Time for Action </b>

Tuesday, 18 January 2005

S.S. Mani

While the arrest of the Kanchi Sankaracharya without basis in evidence was abominable, the actions of the Tamil Nadu government since his release on bail by the Supreme Court require a rapid reaction.

The illegal detention of Sri Vijayendra Saraswati Swamigal, Sankaracharya of Kanchi, on the evening of his predecessor’s release, is incompatible with the Constitution of India. It is the duty of every Indian to rise against such atrocious misuse of power. If they intend to remain true to their oath to protect our Constitution, the President and Prime Minister of India must, perforce, take summary action to halt the despicable and dictatorial course that Chief Minister Jayalalitha is taking.

On the evening of January 10, the Chief Minister sent a few truckloads of police with guns loaded, to a sanctified place of worship, the Sankara Matam. With their shoes on, and uttering harsh words towards unarmed devotees peaceably gathered there, the Chief Minister’s commando force committed a sacrilege of a venerable Indian tradition. Barring the entry of attorneys, and without informing them of the charges against Him, the Chief Minister had her police junta drag the Sankaracharya off the premises to Chennai Central Jail.

When the police finally articulated the charges before the magistrate, we discovered that the Sankaracharya was being arrested, as was his senior, Sri Jayendra Saraswati Swamigal, on murder and conspiracy charges. On the present occasion, neither the Chief Minister nor her police chief deigned to describe the basis of these charges. However, it is worth noting that the Supreme Court of India stipulated in its order granting bail to Sri Jayendra Saraswati Swamigal, (whom the Chief Minister declared the prime conspirator in the same case) that Madam Jayalalitha and her police had not produced any evidence linking the Sankaracharya to the crime. Yet, Vijayendra Saraswati Swamigal has been arrested for the very same crime.

In effect, the Supreme Court ruling indicated that there was no basis in law for effecting the first arrest. Despite this repudiation of her exercise of police powers, Chief Minister Jayalalitha did not hesitate to ponder the legal grounds of ordering a second arrest. Suo moto, without even an articulation of the evidentiary basis for such action, she rushed in where angels would fear to tread. Such dictatorial exhibitionism deserves immediate dismissal of Jayalalitha’s government.

Next, the Chief Minister froze 183 accounts of the Kanchi Mutt, and its various Trusts, paralyzing the delivery of countless medical, educational & social benefits to millions of our citizens throughout the country. Again, she did not even bother to give any rhyme or reason for her actions. Such arbitrary sequestration of property deserves condemnation from any political entity that cares for India’s economic well-being. One would like to ask the Prime Minister & the Finance Minister whether any organization or individual would ever like to invest in a country where politicians can seize personal property without any due process of law. In many countries, such action would be punishable with punitive fines and imprisonment.

The Jayalalitha Government has the audacity to question even the Supreme Court’s verdict on the bail application. The Supreme Court is the final authority in all legal matters. But, without regard to this constitutional authority, the Chief Minister voices opprobrium against their judgment. To her no Court of Law can give a decision or opinion not in conformity with hers! What is objectionable is the tone finding fault with the legal analysis of the submitted evidence by the apex court. This amounts to contempt of court. It goes to the very root of our democracy, that the executive, that too at the State level, cannot trump the judiciary. The Centre has got to take action to preserve the constitutional integrity of the Supreme Court. The Jayalalitha Government, which has violated the oath of office, should be sacked.

The untold harassment and sufferings meted out to the officials of the Mutt by Jayalalitha’s Police before their arrests (Raghu, Sundaresa Iyer & Vishwanatha Iyer) are condemnable by one & all. Horrific tales of psychological torture, repeated harassing interrogations, and threats of harm have abounded Kanchipuram without the slightest notice from the Centre. Mr Subramaniam Swamy humorously mentioned in one of his interviews that if anyone was to show up at Kanchipuram Bus stand seeking directions, that person would be hauled off to the Forest Bungalow for questioning. Is this a Police State undertaking ethnic cleansing against Hindu devotees of the Kanchi Mutt? How long will Jayalalitha be allowed to commit such atrocities in the name of upholding law? Only Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and President Kalam can answer that question.

Against all propriety and decency, the video taken during the police custody of Sankaracharya was released to TV Channels. Oddly enough, in this videotape, Swamiji has categorically stated that he never told anyone to kill or even hurt anybody. Unmindful of this rather essential fact, Jayalalitha’s Government, via its counsel, told Justice Balasubramaniam that they have a confession, albeit inadmissible as evidence. The Acharya’s clear denial is a confession? What a blatant lie! The Human Rights Commission has sent Jayalalitha’s government a notice seeking explanation for the release of the tape, but will she care for the Commission when she does not even bother to heed the Supreme Court?

Madam Jayalalitha has a history of misusing her political power for personal vendetta. She used excessive brute force of the police in arresting DMK Leader Karunanidhi just for personal vendetta. She leveled indecent charges against Dr Chenna Reddy, a leader of Congress party and then Governor of Tamilnadu. A senior IAS Officer of the Government of Tamilnadu, who did not see eye to eye with her was brutally attacked with acid and there was no concluding investigation. She harassed a former judge of the High Court of Tamilnadu, who was elevated to the Supreme Court, through frivolous and unfounded charges against his close relatives. Political murders regularly take place during her Chief Ministership, and remain uninvestigated. Will the political parties & the Central Government, particularly Dr.Manmohan Singh (& Sonia Gandhi) take strong action to dismiss her or remain imbecile spectators and derelict in their duties? It must be kept in mind that Jayalalitha did not spare even Sonia Gandhi in her vicious pre-election speeches.

Summary dismissal of Jayalalitha’s government has become necessary because she does not understand the language of reason. She claims, in her recent letter to Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, that there has been no protest against the Sankaracharya’s arrest. Over half a million Citizens from India & abroad have signed petitions to the President of India, the Prime Minister of India & the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court asking their intervention. A variety of political parties, from the Sangh Parivar to the Muslim Ulema Council have condemned the arrest in the harshest terms. But these are of no consequence to her. The only thing she respects is the goonda-ism that she herself has been known to engage in. For example, inciting her followers to burn a few buses filled with innocent travelers, as happened to three college girls after her arrest by then Chief Minister Karunanidhi. To her, only such anti-social, illegal and despicable acts are real protests. I wish her mentor, Dr MG Ramachandran was alive to-day. He would have banished her outright for such atrocities.

Some political leaders have cited vote bank politics for her current actions. However, the reason may be far more insidious. Rumours are floating that behind Sankara Raman’s murder there was the hand of Jayalalitha and that is why she hastened to buy Sankar Raman’s family through a donation of 5 lakhs. Also that is the reason why she opposes any enquiry by outside agency - the CBI. It is here that all political parties must unite and demand an independent enquiry by CBI, so that the real culprit(s) in the murder are punished. Pending the conclusion of the enquiry, Jayalalitha should resign or be removed by the Centre so that she is unable to perpetrate illegal activities professing to be an upholder of law.

Previous thread

`Cut the fat, not the muscle'