<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>Cyber-unintelligent,</b> Deccan Chronicle, 22 July 2006
It is true that in the time of terror, any government worth its salt has the right to take stringent measures for the sake of internal security of the country which may cause temporary inconvenience to some citizens. But the true test of a democracy is that even in the face of adversities it should not succumb to pressure and compromise with its democratic values. And who can deny that one of the important pillars of a true democracy is free speech? The UPA government's recent decision to gag some websites and blogs, therefore, justifiably caused dismay and disgust.
Apparently two days after the Mumbai serial trains blasts, following an advice by the security agencies, the Department of Telecommunication decided to block access to certain websites which were allegedly peddling communal hatred and anti-national vitriol. But in their over-enthusiasm to enforce the government order, the Internet service providers ended up blocking thousands of legitimate and highly useful domains including Google's Blogspot and Yahoo's Geocities. This action was tantamount to throwing the baby out with the bath water.
The ban on websites though mercifully short-lived, brought back horrifying memories of the draconian press censorship during Emergency.
What is intriguing is that no government agency has clearly accepted responsibility for what was an arbitrary, over-zealous and high-handed attempt at muzzling cyber-freedom. The government's move not only trampled upon the fundamental rights of its own citizens, but also lowered India's image internationally, particularly since our country is viewed as an unwavering upholder of freedom of expression. Interestingly, the Centre did not even realise that its move to block access to these sites could be foiled by technology-savvy netizens.
Cyberworld is highly sophisticated and netizens are imaginative and innovative people. In order to evade the ban some of the bloggers simply shifted their domains to those sites which had escaped the wrath of the Internet service providers. No one can question a government's right to take steps to stop a website or blog from disseminating blatantly seditious and communally hateful propaganda. But it should not forget the basic theory of law which says that a guilty may escape justice but it must be ensured that an innocent is not punished.
http://deccan.com/SatEditorial/Editorial.a...r-unintelligent
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>Unblocked but still in spot.com </b>
Pioneer.com
Apurv Pandit | Mumbai
By Saturday evening, India's Internet Service Providers (ISPs) had unblocked the millions of blogs on the popular blogspot.com and typepad.com domains, making them accessible again to users across the country.
The 17 websites deemed objectionable by DoT, however, remained blocked. Some of the names that fall in this list <b>are 'www.hinduunity.org', 'www.hinduhumanrights.org/hindufocus.html', 'exposingtheleft.blogspot.com', 'pajamaeditors.blogspot.com' and 'princesskimberley.blogspot.com'. </b> DoT has not specified the reasons for censoring these websites, but the website names suggest what the Government's thought process could have been. Lifting the ban, however, has not laid the issue to rest yet. In fact, in the can of worms that has been opened, bloggers worldwide have criticised the Indian Government's censorship act heavily.
According to a senior executive with a public sector ISP, the Government directs censorship of websites on a regular basis, a fact that would have never been unearthed had it not been for the fiasco.
The event also exposed rampant levels of mediocrity in technical acumen across ISPs and DoT. While DoT passed orders that were impractical to implement, the ISPs did not undertake due diligence in ensuring that only the 'objectionable' sites were blocked and not the rest.
Bloggers across India in the meanwhile, have raised the question whether such censorship violates the right to freedom of expression. As of writing this report, two bloggers each from New Delhi and Mumbai had already sent letters to DoT under the Right to Information (RTI) Act seeking to know the reasons behind the block. Others were mulling filing a Public Interest Litigation against the Government.
Hate speech on the Internet does not change the minds of people, it only reinforces an existing belief," points out prominent Mumbai-based blogger Peter Griffin to The Pioneer. "By web censorship, the Government is basically implying that you as a citizen are not mature enough to decide for yourself what you should read.
We (bloggers) understand that there are implications on national security, but frankly, the only people who are affected by hate speech on the Internet are the ones who were already following the school of thought promoted by that hate speech," he adds.
Atlantean, another blogger questions on his blog, "Terrorists may as well use email, chat, forums, groups and telephones (for their communication)."
" Will they put a ban on telephones too then?" Nearly 300 Indian and international bloggers have posted strong messages of protest against the government's act on their blogs. Coming down heavily on the blog censorship, Supreme Court lawyer and IT law expert Pawan Duggal told The Pioneer that the skewed implementation of censorship exercise made both DoT and ISP liable for criminal action.
"There is complete lack of vision on part of the government compounded with total absence of due diligence from ISPs.
............
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
now new page is here which Indian government is trying to hide. Link
http://hinduhumanrights.org/hindufocus/hindufocus.htm
When they are going to arrest MF Hussain???
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Sonia would make a better PM than Manmohan: Survey <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
In May '04 Manmohan had clear lead in all surveys with regards to being a better PM amongst UPA figures. In 2 years people have seen through the empty suit that's being used as a doormat. Can't blame them, why not give some resposibility/accountability to those really calling the shots.
http://img59.imageshack.us/img59/3272/ne...ree4hq.jpg
<img src='http://img59.imageshack.us/img59/3272/nehrufamilytree4hq.jpg' border='0' alt='user posted image' />
<b>Jaswant gives information on US mole to PM</b><!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Former External Affairs Minister Jaswant Singh is understood to have forwarded to the Prime Minister the name of a 'mole' in the PMO, who he alleged had leaked India's nuclear test plans to USA, a day after Manmohan Singh dared him to name the person.
Party sources said Jaswant Singh has forwarded the letter purportedly written by a US diplomat to a Senator, which has a reference to the 'mole' in the PMO during PV Narasimha Rao's tenure.
"He (Jaswant Singh) has told us that he will be sending the letter to the Prime Minister without deleting any names. By now, he must have forwarded the letter," BJP Deputy Leader in Rajya Sabha Sushma Swaraj said.
Prime Minister Manmohan Singh had on Sunday rubbished Singh's claims and said, "If he (Jaswant) has the decency and courage, he should name the person whom he is accusing of being a mole. We are not afraid of any debate on any issue".
<b>The BJP leader, on his part, expressed disappointment with the phraseology the Prime Minister chose to use 'in challenging decency'.</b>
<b>"I am actually not given to indecent exposure and he does not have to challenge me. I will seek a time with him. I will go and give him the document that I have, but I will not make public the names, because there is a national purpose behind it,"</b> he told a private TV channel.
<b>Meanwhile, Parliamentary Affairs Minister PR Dasmunsi said, "If Singh has done so (forwarded the document to the Prime Minister), we will make it public."</b>
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
We know PM is spineless and rude but now he is displaying his crude language.
He better show this language to his master or Mushy. In front of them his tail goes between his leg.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>Centre goes out of the way to save Chawla's job </b>
Pioneer.com
Abraham Thomas | New Delhi
Hitting two birds with one stone, the Centre on Monday justified giving a clean chit to Election Commissioner Navin Chawla by claiming that the power of the Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) to give his opinion on any Election Commissioner's removal was subject to the approval by the Council of Ministers. This interpretation by the Centre is bound to generate a controversy since the Constitution empowers the CEC to act on removal of an EC on a presidential reference.Â
Experts feel that while the Constitution is silent on the role of the Union Council of Ministers, and that there are grey areas on whether the President can refer the matter to CEC on his own, there is nothing to empower the Centre to withhold any such reference if a complaint is received against the EC.
Interpreting Article 324 (5) of the Constitution pertaining to removal of Election Commissioners (EC), the Centre in an affidavit filed in Supreme Court said, "In the matters of appointment (of EC), the President is aided and advised by the Council of Ministers." Likewise, it added, "in the matters relating to removal of an EC or CEC, the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers becomes relevant in the matter."
The affidavit was filed in response to a petition filed by senior BJP member and Leader of Opposition in Rajya Sabha, Jaswant Singh seeking Chawla's removal.
But the Centre's response was in stark contrast to the response filed by outgoing CEC BB Tandon. In his affidavit filed before the court, Tandon interpreted the provision of Article 324 (5) to suggest "if a complaint or petition by any person or group of persons is addressed to the President seeking removal of EC, the CEC comes into the picture only when such complaint or petition is referred by the President to CEC for his recommendation in the matter."
The CEC did not talk about such reference made to him by the Council of Ministers as his conclusion was drawn from a bare reading of the Constitution.
Article 324(5) states, "...any Election Commissioner or a Regional Commissioner shall not be removed from the office except on the recommendation of the Chief Election Commissioner." According to a legal expert, who did not wish to be named, "It is the CEC who is to decide upon the culpability of EC, and by not referring the petition to him, the Centre is trying to block the constitutional process."
This point also found mention in the petition filed by Singh who alleged that the Centre had bypassed the constitutional process to shield Chawla. Instead of obtaining CEC's opinion, Chawla was given a clean chit after consultation with the Attorney General.
Scripting its tailor-made response to suit the convenience of Chawla, the Centre clarified that the decision against removing Chawla was an internal decision on which the Attorney General was not consulted. By stating so, the Centre escaped from filing the A-G's opinion, which the court had directed to produce in a sealed cover on the previous hearing.
On the reference to CEC, the affidavit noted, "Only if the representations disclose any kind of 'intelligible and cogent' material that the Executive Government would be justified in proceeding to the second step of referring the matter for the views of the CEC." It further contended that if such an eventuality arises, the CEC's views would not be binding since it will have to meet the "concurrence" of both the Government and CEC.
Hitting out at the CEC's suggestion stating his willingness to conduct an enquiry and make recommendations if the court directs the Centre to forward the memorandum against Chawla, the Centre commented, "He (CEC) cannot be afforded the position of being the unilateral adjudicator to decide on matters of removal of Election Commissioners..."
Snubbing CEC Tandon for his remarks on Chawla, it added, "...in any event he (CEC) cannot be called upon to comment upon the suitability of his peers, namely, his colleagues who have been appointed to the Election Commission unless the Executive Government desires."
Vindicating its stand regarding Chawla, the Centre reiterated, "The Government has examined the contents of the said representations and does not find them worthy of any merit whatsoever." It even debunked the adverse comments made by the Justice Shah Commission enquiring into the excesses during the Emergency as "stale" and "belated".
Responding to the allegation regarding Chawla's alleged proximity to Congress leaders, the Centre dismissed the same as "unfounded" making out no case of illegality.
The petition had alleged several Congress MPs including Ambika Soni, Karan Singh and AA Khan had donated large amounts from their MP Local Area Development Fund into Lepra India Trust, run by Chawla's wife. On this ground it was contended that having such a person in the place of Election Commissioner would jeopardise the fairness and independence of the institution of Election Commission.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Pioneer-25 July 2006
<b>For an office with profit</b>
Sandhya Jain
      It is a well-known maxim that the questions one asks determine the nature of the responses elicited. This is true of the conveniently coincidental ânation-wideâ survey organised by the Centre for the Study of Developing Societies-Indian Express-CNN-IBN on two years of Prime Minister Manmohan Singh. We learn, unsurprisingly, that ordinary citizens view Dr. Singh as honest, wise, trustworthy, and are satisfied with his performance despite discontent over his handling of the price rise, farmerâs suicides and terrorism, and do not regard him as a strong or charismatic leader.
    If you can accept 1,884 respondents across 18 states as representative of the national mood, you would have no problem with the real theme of the survey, which is to boost the âSonia for PMâ campaign launched by co-religionist Ajit Jogi immediately after the Rai Bareilly re-election. The key question in the survey is whether Ms. Gandhi should replace Dr. Singh; the response is 52% affirmative.
The survey timing corresponds with the UPA decision to ask the legislature to pass the Parliament (Prevention of Disqualification) Amendment Bill 2006 unchanged, so that President APJ Kalam is forced to sign it. Two months ago, Dr. Kalam had refused to endorse the governmentâs attempt at wholesale retrospective exemption of certain posts from the purview of âoffice-of-profit,â thereby impeding Congress president Sonia Gandhi from resuming the chairmanship of the National Advisory Council (NAC), with cabinet rank.
Ms. Gandhi was in the news recently for a midnight trip to Mumbai after the serial blasts. She visited the victims in hospital, and mercifully refrained from announcing largesse on behalf of the state or central government. Perhaps gauging the bristling public resentment under the surface, she kept her mouth shut, as did âI-could-have- become-PM-at-25â son Rahul (recall the quickly denied Tehelka interview). Mumbaiâs victims and villains are a mere blip on their political trajectory; the priority is an Office-of-Profit. <b>Readers would recall Ms. Gandhiâs guiding presence in the scandal which gave countryman Ottavio Quattrochi the Bofors kickback millions while poor Dr. Singh took the flak. Similarly, Foreign Minister Natwar Singh got the sack in the oil-for-food bonanza, while the principal accused - the Congress party, headed by Ms. Gandhi - got clean away.</b>
Acolytes of the Italian-born supremo are determined to humiliate Dr. Kalam for failing (or refusing) to swear her in as Prime Minister in May 2004; hence the move to reintroduce the original Bill in defiance of Presidential sensitivities. Dr. Kalamâs suggestion that government prepare âcomprehensive and genericâ criteria that is âfair and reasonableâ and applicable in a âclear and transparentâ manner across all States and Union Territories has been rebuffed in contravention of constitutional and moral proprieties. This will prove counter-productive as the UPA has not been able to convince the nation that the Bill has any intrinsic merit, beyond catering to the whims of the UPA chairperson and the Left parties whose MPs are affected by the controversy, most notably Speaker Somnath Chatterjee.
Still, MPs foolishly holding unprotected offices is one thing; the existence of the National Advisory Council another; and it is high time the nation debated the lattersâ validity. The NAC was created to give rank and status to Ms. Gandhi after Dr. Kalam allegedly questioned her nationality on the basis of legal issues raised by Dr. Subramaniam Swamy. Set up by an order of the Cabinet Secretariat and financed from PMO funds, it was given the task of monitoring the Common Minimum Programme (CMP) of the UPA coalition.
Thus it is really an apex body of UPA allies and supporting parties. As it is the Prime Ministerâs job to implement the CMP, the nation should be told why a mini-PMO has been set up with a separate secretariat and all-paid expense account. We should know what the NAC costs the public exchequer and why the PMO funding a body that has no constitutional basis, especially one that would not exist at all if Congress had come to power in its own right. NAC is a party platform; the taxpayer should not foot its bill.
At the risk of sounding unpleasant, it must be said that Ms. Sonia Gandhi is addicted to what the Supreme Court has memorably termed the âreceivablesâ of office.. When the NDA came to power we learnt that typists employed at the Indira Gandhi National Centre for the Arts were stationed at her residence. Senior IAS officers have been deputed to the Rajiv Gandhi Foundation from the time of Prime Minister Narasimha Rao; senior IAS officers were reverted to their parent ministries when she resigned as NAC chairperson.
When Ms. Gandhi resigned to avoid sacking by the Election Commission, the nation was told she had quit all NGOs and government bodies she was heading, but the complete list of organisations was concealed. So was information on the remunerations she received, and patronage she exercised through these bodies. As Parliament discusses the OoP issue, it would be in the fitness of things if the people of India were told which offices the Congress president intends to resume once they are exempted from the punitive provisions of the office-of-profit, and the nature of âreceivablesâ from the same.
It needs be said that the Election Commission has disappointed the people for submitting to Left Front bullying on the issue of MPs holding offices of profit. Given the long parliamentary recess and the Presidentâs return of the Bill, the Commission could have given West Bengal a firm deadline to furnish the details it required, failing which it should have presumed the MPs guilty and disqualified them. As things stand, the Commission has helped Comrades ideologically committed to the withering away of the state to stick to offices of profit like limpets, to borrow Rajiv Gandhiâs immortal _expression.
Ironically, the bells for Ms. Gandhi are tolling in distant Chennai, where PMKâs infamous âtree-cutterâ S Ramadoss is furious at the UPA failure to protect âbabyâ Ambumani, who is now likely to be dismissed from Parliament. The Governmentâs decision not to modify the Office-of-Profit Bill has compromised the Health Minister who is under High Court and Election Commission scrutiny for holding an office-of-profit as President of the governing body of All India Institute of Medical Sciences. Ms. Gandhiâs inability to look beyond her narrow self-interest may prove her undoing.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Regarding Sonia's fraud, some section of Indian society knows what is going on, Majority had no clue. It is not directly affecting them. Ram Janam Bhumi had affected majority Hindu population. Price rise etc will affect majority.
Opposition should start calling her âGaddi chorâ or âDakayatâ, then people will understand and that will work.
She is twisting every law and rules of land according to her tantrums.
J&K Govt bans Bharat Mata Ki Jai slogans during Amarnath
At Amarnath, donât praise nation
<b>Dr Singh's govt marching in the wrong direction</b>
http://ia.rediff.com/news/2006/jul/28fli...&file=.htm
<b>Ministers Mani and Arjun take a swipe at their Govt</b>
Kandula SubramaniamPosted online: Friday, July 28, 2006 at 0000 hrs Print <i>Aiyar slams labour law reforms, Arjun says majority untouched by âmesmerising statisticsâ </i>
New Delhi, July 27:The XIth Plan approach paper seems to have given some discontented Cabinet ministers a new avenue to vent their feelings on which way government policy should be directed. Two such ministers are HRD Minister Arjun Singh and Mani Shankar Aiyar, the minister for Sports and Panchayati Raj, who while giving a feedback on their ministryâs interests, also gave a detailed account on areas that donât concern their ministries.
Aiyar, still nostalgic about his previous portfolio when he was minister for petroleum and natural gas, points out in his comments on the paper that he was<b> "deeply disturbed by the absence of any reference whatsoever on energy security, and the role of oil diplomacy" and after saying that energy security was part of the NCMP he says "... I plead for the inclusion of a strong section on energy security." </b>
Apart from concerns on petroleum, it appears, that some of the labour and industry reforms have not gone down well with Aiyar. Highlighting the section on industrial policy where the paper called for an amendment in the Section V-B of the Industrial Disputes Act and Contract Labour Act to provide more industry flexibility on labour, Aiyar says that the "Congress Party took a strong stand" against the previous governmentâs stand to do the same.
And, therefore, he "saw no reason to change our stand" before pointing out that <b>"I would rather plump for employment growth and the protection of the hard-won rights of labour than promote manufacturing interest at the expense of the interests of labour".</b>
When it comes to the paperâs suggestion de-reserving SSI, while acknowledging the importance of modernisation, <b>he says that modernisation reduces employment in the "short-run" and reminds the economists in the Commission of the economic adage "in the long run we are all dead". </b>
While a good part of Arjun Singhâs comments touch upon his ministryâs subjects, he also doesnât hesitate to speak out on agrarian issues, the fisc, inflation and the NCMP commitments.
He reminds the Planning Commission to take a "hard look at the growth strategy", which according to him "has exacerbated the inequities" and the "impressive growth" had "gone hand in hand with mounting agrarian distress, price rise".
He says in his letter to the Commission that <b>"vast number of our people have remained totally untouched by the mesmerizing statistics of the kind that people of India so decisively rejected in the last elections." </b>
After lauding the paperâs suggestion that inclusive growth should not be constrained by the fiscal responsibility Act and terming this thinking as "breath of fresh air", the HRD minister also gives a lesson on how to make the Plan exercise more meaningful.
He first suggests that an analysis needs to be done to find out why efforts in earlier Plans had not "achieved desired results" and then terms the goal to achieve 3.9 per cent growth in agriculture (from 1.8 per cent) as nothing short of a "miracle". According to him, this could be one area for that analysis for the Commission.
kandula.subramaniam@expressindia.com
Now what would the president Abdul Kalam do? BTW why were there only 71 opposition members in the LS?
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->July 31, 2006 21:55 IST
Last Updated: July 31, 2006 23:54 IST
Amid stiff resistance from the Opposition, Parliament on Monday gave its approval without any change for the controversial Office of Profit Bill. The Bill now exempts 56 posts and gives reprieve to over 40 MPs who could have faced disqualification, in a measure which was returned by President A P J Abdul Kalam for reconsideration.
At the end of an acrimonious day-long debate, the Bill was passed in Lok Sabha with 230 voting in favour and 71 against, with the government expressing readiness to set up a Joint Parliamentary Committee to go into the definition of Office of Profit and other suggestions.
"Shame, shame," shouted members from the BJP-led Opposition benches as leader of Opposition L K Advani issued warning that the government could suffer judicial admonishment and made a forceful appeal for reconsideration.
Congress president Sonia Gandhi and Leader of the House Pranab Mukherjee, who had been accused of violating office of profit, were not present in the House when the Bill was passed, and nor was Speaker Somnath Chatterjee, who is facing a disqualification petition on the issue.
Kalam, while returning the Bill on May 30 to Parliament, some 15 days after it was approved, had wanted a generic and comprehensive criteria of office of profit, and had questioned its applicability retrospectively.
Despite Deputy Speaker Charanjit Singh Atwal announcing passage of the measure, the Opposition insisted on a division, which was accepted.
Soon after the Presidential message was read out to the House, several members attacked the government for trying to rescue the 40-odd members whose membership was at stake.
Mamata Banerjee, in particular, led the Opposition attack on the treasury benches by talking about 'the nexus between the Left parties and the Congress for bringing in a Bill with the sole intention of saving more than a dozen members of Parliament from West Bengal'.
Without naming the Speaker, she waved letters, which showed how he had gained from holding office of profit of an organisation in West Bengal.
Sardar Sukhdev Singh Dhindsa, senior Akali leader, agreed with Yerran Naidu from Andhra Pradesh that the matter should be sent to the select committee, questioning the need to pass the bill on Monday evening itself.
Replying to the debate, Law Minister H R Bhardwaj rejected Opposition contentions that the President had been shown any discourtesy or disrespect by the government by not accepting his suggestions during the reconsideration of the measure.
"We are well within our powers to pass the bill retrospectively," Bhardwaj said emphatically, adding that 'motives' should not be attributed in the message sent by President Kalam while seeking reconsideration of the Bill.
Hailing the President as an 'elder statesman', father figure and head of State, he recalled that even the National Democratic Alliance government had not accepted return of various decisions of the Cabinet by the President.
Asking MPs not to put 'fetters' on their own feet, Bhardwaj said the power of Parliament to amend any Act with retrospective effect was without any limitations and this is 'not something unusual'.
The passage of the Bill by Parliament marks an end to a nearly four-month long political storm, which had led to the resignation of Sonia Gandhi as chairperson of National Advisory Council and from her Lok Sabha seat and her subsequent re-election from Rae Bareli.
The storm had affected almost all political parties, with MPs, Union ministers, as also MLAs including chief ministers and ministers facing disqualification petitions for allegedly holding offices of profit.
Advani said a message should not go that the Bill was being passed to 'protect' MPs. He said this was for the first time in 58 years that President had invoked Article 111 of the Constitution, which is an 'embarassment' to Parliament.
Justifying the passage of the Bill in its present form, Bhardwaj said the House was fully empowered to exempt posts from offices of profit and said it was common knowledge that all laws are subject to judicial review.
The minister recalled that in the 1950 enactment, certain offices were exempted and again in the following year several offices of profit envisaged not to disqualify officials holding the posts.
He cited that by the 42nd Amendment of Constitution the British pattern was imposed in India but with the 44th Amendment that procedure was done away with.
Making a strong case for passage of the Bill, Bhardwaj said there were enlightened members on both the treasury and opposition benches whose expertise could be availed.
He cited the case of former power minister Suresh Prabhu who headed the panel on inter-linking of rivers.
"There should be no apprehension that we are persuading you to do a wrong thing," Bhardwaj said and cited the Supreme Court judgement in the Kantha Kathuria case to drive home the point.
Advani relied on a book written by Lok Sabha Secretary General P D T Achary in his bid to turn the tables on the government. He said Achary had contended that the power of Parliament to exempt posts was not unlimited.
The BJP leader said the court when approached would also examine whether this law was approved in a 'reasonable situation' or whether it was an 'arbitrary exercise'.
Trinamool Congress leader Mamata Banerjee, whose party had initiated disqualification proceedings against the Speaker and some other CPI(M) MPs, said it would be a 'historic blunder' to reject the President's message in toto and pass the bill.
Maneka Gandhi (BJP) said it was not 'morally right' to approve the Bill in the present form as it gave the impression that certain MPs were being 'protected'.
The Bill was passed by Rajya Sabha last week.
With PTI inputs<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>Disband Congress: It has outlived its role! </b>
By Rajinder Puri
The current crisis over the Ordinance controversy impels one to recall events. On May 16, 1999 The Statesman carried a report which said that former Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi had attempted to set up a joint training programme between Indian and Italian intelligence agencies.
The original proposal came from the Italians. Mrs Sonia Gandhi's Italian brother-in-law had links with Italian intelligence. He put up the proposal. RAW officials shot down the idea. They pointed out that Italy was a conduit for nuclear technology to Pakistan.
Therefore the proposed venture contained security risks. The information in the newspaper report came from B. Raman who had served in the cabinet secretariat as a senior official. Today Mr Raman is recognized as a distinguished authority on security affairs.
When the present UPA government assumed office media outlets trumpeted that Sonia Gandhi had declined the post of Prime Minister. She was compared to Mahatma Gandhi, the Buddha and Mother Teresa. Outlook weekly described her as Saint Sonia. In that same weekly I questioned the fact
that she had declined the post. I suggested that she received no offer. I quoted the B Raman report in The Statesman.
According to sources the President on the basis of intelligence reports sought assurance that no security risks would be involved if she became Prime Minister. He wanted some clarifications from Mrs Gandhi.
According to some media reports at that time some sections in the armed forces enquired whether as PM she could access information about the nation's nuclear programme. Mrs Gandhi decided not to become PM. She echoed Mahatma Gandhi to say that she had heeded her inner voice".
In Outlook weekly, dated June 7, 2004, I wrote: Why should the President have held back? Is it because she could have been a security risk?
And hence she could not be given access to India's nuclear secrets making her thereby untenable as PM? Will Rashtrapati Bhawan tell us?"
Rashtrapati Bhawan said nothing. It did tell off others who had raised questions about Mrs Gandhi being debarred because of her foreign origins.
However, even if too much is not read in Rashtrapati Bhawan's silence, there is the question of Mrs Gandhi's subsequent conduct. Apparently her inner voice remained silent after that first one message.
As Congress President she amended the party constitution, created an extra-constitutional post of Chairperson in a newly created National Advisory Council to oversee the government's work, and remained Chairperson of the UPA alliance. She got cabinet rank.
At first Congress leaders claimed she would have access to all government files. Legal impediments prevented that. In short, through these measures and the supine acquiescence of her senior colleagues Mrs Gandhi concentrated all powers in her own hands. She became the Prime
Minister's remote control. Mahatma Gandhi, it might be recalled, never accepted any post in party or government. Very soon the UPA government ran into
trouble.
First, there was the unconstitutional dissolution of the Bihar Assembly. The cabinet took a panic decision and promulgated an ordinance to pre-empt Mr Nitish Kumar from forming a government. In a wholly inadequate
Supreme Court judgment the Bihar Governor was castigated. The judgment failed to elaborate on its observation that the cabinet had acted with undue haste.
In fact both the PM and the President were as much responsible as the Governor. The Court failed to state this in clear terms. I wrote then suggesting that both the President and the PM should resign. Then came release of the Volcker Report.
The Oil-For-Food scam erupted in which was involved the Congress party's name, and therefore the Congress President's culpability. Mrs Gandhi's close confidant, former Foreign Minister Natwar Singh, had to resign.
Soon the government's decision to unfreeze the frozen London bank accounts of Mrs Gandhi's close family friend, Mr Ottavio Quattrochi, became
public.
The Volcker affair and Mr Quattrochi's case are still under scrutiny. Before they could be disposed of the Scorpene submarine scandal erupted.
In that deal once again a family friend of Mrs Gandhi has allegedly received illegal commission on behalf of the Congress Party. The Defence Minister's denial in Parliament of any wrongdoing by government in this deal notwithstanding, this affair is likely to escalate.
By any standard this is a formidable record for less than two years of power. And now the system has been clobbered by the government's decision to suddenly adjourn Parliament in mid-session to allow an Ordinance intended to protect Sonia Gandhi and other luminaries from disqualification as MPs.
This was done to avoid the fate that befell Mrs Jaya Bachchan who was disqualified as MP because she occupied an office of profit. The contrast between the glee of Congress leaders over Mrs Bachchan's disqualification and their panic over application of the same law to themselves was nothing short of contemptible.
At the moment of writing Mrs Jaya Bachchan's plea before the Supreme Court to clearly define an office of profit awaits consideration. The Constitution has not defined it. Article 102(1) (a) of the Constitution which debars MPs from holding an office of profit states that an office
of profit need not bestow pecuniary advantage. It is sufficient if it bestows administrative and executive powers.
In the absence of further clarification in the Constitution it is Supreme Court rulings on the subject that determine what constitutes an office of profit. Successive SC rulings have created an exacting definition. All perks are considered equivalent to remuneration. Apart from executive or judicial powers even influence and patronage accruing to a
government appointment renders it an office of profit.
Mrs Sonia Gandhi's resignation from Parliament to pre-empt disqualification was meaningless. It was similar to her rejection of the PM's post.
Mrs Gandhi's attempt to seize the high moral ground by making virtue out of necessity became transparent from the sequence of events. She stayed put while Parliament was adjourned and the Ordinance was being planned. Then the President forwarded all petitions against MPs to the
Election Commission.
The CEC said the law was equal for all. Mrs Gandhi knew the game was up. She played the script of renunciation she had learnt earlier. After she resigned the Congress denied it had planned the Ordinance. This lie was transparent. If no Ordinance was intended why was Parliament's recess converted to an adjournment?
The Congress had egg all over its face. Mrs Gandhi challenged the opposition and announced she would seek re-election from Rae Bareilly. Will she contest a by-election or a midterm poll? Time will tell.
Meanwhile all Indians should reflect. How much longer can they tolerate the present political culture? It has polluted all parties. But the Congress is its fountainhead. India's economic and diplomatic breakthroughs have been jeopardized by misgovernance and destruction of democracy.
Mrs Sonia Gandhi and Dr Manmohan Singh alone are not responsible.
A century of Congress culture brought this about. The seeds of the decadent and dynastic Congress culture were planted a century ago. From Allen Octavian Hume to Sonia Gandhi, spanning icons like Mahatma Gandhi and Jawaharlal Nehru, it has been a history of decline and abject subservience to foreigners. The Congress degenerated from a movement to a party, from a party to a dynasty.
Today India stands on the threshold of a new multipolar world. To play its rightful role it will have to undo the spirit of the Partition. Can the Congress, the very instrument of imperialist Britain to partition the subcontinent, summon the mindset to undo its own work? It has outlived its role.
It must be consigned to the dustbin of history. India needs a new party, a new political culture and a new freedom struggle.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<b>Natwar, son found guilty of misusing power</b><!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Highlights of Pathak Commission Report
Pathak panel finds Natwar Singh guilty of misusing position
Pathak panel finds Jagat Singh guilty of misusing position
Pathak panel: No money has been traced to Natwar Singh
Pathak panel: The money trail has not been traced to Jagat Singh
<b>Pathak panel gives the Congress a clean chit </b>
Pathak panel: Andaleeb Sehgal and Aditya Khanna did receive money
Natwar Singh wrote three letters to the Iraqi Oil Minister introducing Andaleeb Sehgal
Natwar Singh was named as a non-contractual beneficiary by the Volcker Report
<span style='font-size:14pt;line-height:100%'>Congress was named as a non-contractual beneficiary by the Volcker Report </span>
Pathak panel had meetings with Paul Volcker and his team
Pathak panel was looking into alleged payoffs to Natwar Singh & the Congress <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well, when it is a question on Rahul Mahajan, then blame BJP. But when its Natwar Singh or Congress General Sec, or Foreign Minister is involved its a personal thing not related to Party.
Why no investigation on Sonia Gandhi, President of Congress party?
At this rate spineless will be apologizing to terrorists for attempting (or pretending) to track them down!
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->PM apologises to Pak rights activist
August 03, 2006 19:10 IST
<b>Displaying a rare courtesy, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh Thursday apologised to prominent Pakistani human rights activist Asma Jehangir whose hotel room in New Delhi was searched by police without any warrant.</b>
Singh, who knows Jehangir, spoke to her and personally apologised for any inconvenience caused to her, prime minister's media adviser Sanjaya Baru said.
It was explained that there was heightened security at the moment and police were on high alert.
Jehangir, who is part of a Pakistani delegation to discuss human rights violations in South Asian countries, said she had checked into a hotel in Sundar Nagar in South Delhi on Monday.
Shortly thereafter, police had "barged" into their rooms and started going through their luggage and other belongings, she said.
When contacted, DCP (South) Anil Shukla said ahead of Independence Day, it was "routine checking" conducted in hotels and restaurants.
He said the hotel owner had informed that some foreigners were staying in his hotel. No inconvenience was caused to them, he said. <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Why PM had to give apology? Police is doing work. It is law enforcement work.
Spineless calls Mumbai blast as crime. PMO mole issue is a political not a National security issue.
He is a worst PM India ever had. Worst then Gowda and Gujaral.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>PM apologises for cops doing their 'duty' </b>
Staff Reporter | New Delhi
<b>An already demoralised Delhi Police force on Thursday got some more stick when the Prime Minister personally apologised to Asma Jehangir</b>, Pakistani human rights activist, over the search conducted in her room by police personnel. Even as the <b>Delhi Police Commissioner ordered a probe into the incident, senior police official said that they were peeved as they were just doing their duties as part of the high security drill in the run up to the Independence Day celebrations </b>
...................
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>Natwar has 'nuclear arms' ready </b>
Pioneer.com
PTI | New Delhi
Isolated in the Congress in the wake of the Pathak report, former External Affairs Minister K Natwar Singh appears to be mobilising political parties opposed to the Indo-US nuclear deal in a move aimed at embarrassing the party and the coalition its leads.
<b>After a dinner on Friday night with Samajwadi Party leader Amar Singh and JD(U) leader Digvijay Singh, Natwar is slated to meet leaders of SP, CPI(M) and BJP at his residence on Sunday to fine tune their opposition to the US legislation to implement the deal.</b>
The meeting is likely to discuss the resolution that these parties want Parliament to adopt to reflect the "sense of the House" against various provisions of the US law they claim would go against India's interests.
The former Foreign Minister has issued several statements in the past, arguing that Indian interests had been compromised in the nuclear agreement with the US.
The Prime Minister, who has firmly confronted any such suggestion, will seek to allay the fears of the Opposition and the Left with a categoric assurance in Rajya Sabha next week that no fresh conditionalities would be accepted by the Government. <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I want him to bring out all dirty laundry of 10 Janpath. All illegal money deal and other contracts.
Natwar know everything.
<!--QuoteBegin-Mudy+Aug 4 2006, 01:25 AM-->QUOTE(Mudy @ Aug 4 2006, 01:25 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>PM apologises for cops doing their 'duty' </b>
Staff Reporter | New Delhi
<b>An already demoralised Delhi Police force on Thursday got some more stick when the Prime Minister personally apologised to Asma Jehangir</b>, Pakistani human rights activist, over the search conducted in her room by police personnel. Even as the <b>Delhi Police Commissioner ordered a probe into the incident, senior police official said that they were peeved as they were just doing their duties as part of the high security drill in the run up to the Independence Day celebrations </b>
...................
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
[right][snapback]55039[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Thus enuch should protect his people. Instead, incompetent ManMoron Singh is insulting his police force for a PAKI for doing their duty. I really hope some terrorist bomb accidentally takes the head off some of these terrorist supporting b@stards in UPA.
|
