04-12-2009, 05:33 PM
<!--QuoteBegin-Husky+Apr 12 2009, 12:59 PM-->QUOTE(Husky @ Apr 12 2009, 12:59 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->I stand corrected.
<!--QuoteBegin--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>Shamu wrote:</b> Just to set facts straight. A K Antony was Kerala CM. CM of Karnataka must have been SM Krishna, a Hindu. Classic example of Hindus subjugating other Hindus for personal gains.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->I did first search IF for AK Anthony (since I'd remembered posting something from elsewhere that mentioned Anthony and Karnataka) and found the post:
http://arkabala.sulekha.com/blog/post/2008...ts/pageno-2.htm
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Karnataka is virtually controlled by AK Anthony, whose secretaries are all from the Southern Christian association. <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Guess I wrongly assumed that since AK Anthony was said to have controlled Karnataka, it meant he was therefore the CM of Karnataka (until then I had thought he had been lording it over Kerala). Apparently the person at Sulekha meant he was doing long-distance meddling?
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The thing many people outside of Kerala is not aware of is that A K Antony has a very clean image, is not corrupt, and has refused to use his official power for personal gains. I have heard many times that church in Kerala prefers Hindu Karunakaran as CM over Antony because they could extract maximum concessions from Karunakaran, rather than from Antony. When Antony was Kerala CM, he had visited Matha Amritanandamayi's ashram and had said something like he gets more peace when he visits Ammachi, and many church members were unhappy about that.
One thing that is negative about him is that he is not capable to making strong position. This indicates there is no guarantee that his assistants or subordinates are clean. I have not analyzed if church uses his clean image to present one image and do somethng behind him.
<!--QuoteBegin--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>Shamu wrote:</b> Just to set facts straight. A K Antony was Kerala CM. CM of Karnataka must have been SM Krishna, a Hindu. Classic example of Hindus subjugating other Hindus for personal gains.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->I did first search IF for AK Anthony (since I'd remembered posting something from elsewhere that mentioned Anthony and Karnataka) and found the post:
http://arkabala.sulekha.com/blog/post/2008...ts/pageno-2.htm
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Karnataka is virtually controlled by AK Anthony, whose secretaries are all from the Southern Christian association. <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Guess I wrongly assumed that since AK Anthony was said to have controlled Karnataka, it meant he was therefore the CM of Karnataka (until then I had thought he had been lording it over Kerala). Apparently the person at Sulekha meant he was doing long-distance meddling?
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The thing many people outside of Kerala is not aware of is that A K Antony has a very clean image, is not corrupt, and has refused to use his official power for personal gains. I have heard many times that church in Kerala prefers Hindu Karunakaran as CM over Antony because they could extract maximum concessions from Karunakaran, rather than from Antony. When Antony was Kerala CM, he had visited Matha Amritanandamayi's ashram and had said something like he gets more peace when he visits Ammachi, and many church members were unhappy about that.
One thing that is negative about him is that he is not capable to making strong position. This indicates there is no guarantee that his assistants or subordinates are clean. I have not analyzed if church uses his clean image to present one image and do somethng behind him.