• 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Congress Undemocratic Ideology - 4
<b>^ rraajjeevv's post above</b>

I already know about some of the major systems for delineating races. It's a form of categorising people, but it does not say anything much about the actual ground situation like say history. For example, just considering the racial categories (super)imposed onto Indians: one would think India is a meeting place of ~three race groups, rather than a - as I understand it - diversifying, generative base from which other human population groups arose. (It's largely an indigenous or localised and locally-affiliated genetic base, e.g. with connections to W Asia and SE Asia, one which has naturally also undergone genetic diversification internally over time.)
The example of Thanhawla's remarks shows that the race construct is not 'merely' a classification system.

'Race' is not recognised in the country I live in, since they don't find it scientific. Only ethnic groups are recognised, and ethnicity is not the same as race. My bio is seriously rusty, but - from memory - an ethnicity is a human population grouped by shared geography, history, 'culture' (religion, languages), possibly nationality or affiliations, that sort of thing. "Indian" is regarded as an ethnicity in its own right. Here they cover 'race' only in the sense of a historical construct, and also 'racism' is recognised: a phenomenon that has frequently resulted from viewing the world as consisting of races.

Even among Americans, I've noticed that some researchers consistently correct 'race' to ethnicity, like IIRC Longman in his article on the christian genocide in Rwanda (or maybe he's Canadian?).

Yes, see here:

Where the original christians from Europe - who invented the distinction between Tutsi, Hutu, etc - had spoken of 'race' in Rwanda's context, Longman corrects the discussion <i>where it pertains to issues still recognised in present times</i> to 'ethnicity' (or, rather, to <i>ethnic self-identity/perception</i>, since in Rwanda's case there were no clearly-delineated ethnicities either, as Longman rightly explains).

It is hard to explain, so search through the article and what I mean will become clearer:
- look at when and how he uses 'race'. ~1 occurrence, referring to the views in effect during the colonial time history of Rwanda:
"Influenced by contemporary European notions of <i>race</i> which held that the world could be divided into clearly defined and hierarchically ranked <i>racial</i> and national groups, ..."
- and compare that with when and how he uses the terms 'ethnicity' and 'ethnic' in the article.

The usage above matches with how many a scientist - including in the country where I live - uses the word ethnicity. And also with *when* they use the word race: when they are referring to <i>historical</i> ideas on human population groups.

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->The exact meaning of <b>the categories of Hutu, Tutsi, and Twa</b> in pre-colonial Rwanda, Burundi, and Zaire is a subject of considerable debate among scholars. <b>Nearly all scholars, however, agree that the three were not clearly distinct and rigidly separated ethnic groups.</b> The three groups shared a common language and common religious practices, and they lived in the same communities throughout the region. The groups were distinguished primarily by their position within the political and economic system, which assigned members of each group specific economic activities and social roles. The Tutsi, who are generally thought to have constituted about 14% of the population, dominated most political offices and made their living predominantly from raising cattle, while the Hutu, who made up around 85% of the population, worked primarily as farmers. The Twa lived as hunters and gatherers and fulfilled certain social functions such as making pottery. Intermarriage between Hutu and Tutsi was relatively common, and those Hutu who acquired cattle, the traditional sign of wealth and source of power in the ubuhake  patron-client system, could eventually be considered Tutsi, a process known as icyihuture . While the Tutsi clearly gained the greatest benefits from this system, each group had certain economic opportunities reserved for it, and a complex political system of overlapping chieftaincies helped to prevent the concentration of power.(17)<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
For me race is a local adaptation to local climate (an some isolation from other groups)
-white skin to cold climate,
-mongol eye to sun-reflective surfaces like snow or sand
-good visual memory of the australian natives

Admiting the existence of regional diferences doesnt mean racism.
Racism is...they have 6 fingers at their hand?..they have same skin as Satan(or it was Ham)?.....on them and their cult......

Agree that there are no rigid borders among races that why some use the word cline instead.
Mongol eye you find it also at some non-mongoloids like in some populations from Africa(bush-man) or India as local adaptation to reflexive surfaces of sand or grass.

I dont see someting wrong whit diversity of people.So i cant be considered racist.

India is not a meeting place of races except marginaly in Himalaya-tibetan area betwin mongoloids(like tibetans) and caucasoids.

From India expand many haplogroups but races as today didnt exist at that time of expansion.Two different things.
1. http://rajeev2004.blogspot.com/2009/07/haj...nt-require.html
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>Haj pilgrims' passports won't require police verification</b>
jul 3rd, 2009

the mind boggles at the security implications.

but then, maybe not. any terrorist can get a passport anyway by paying rs. 1500.

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Naresh K


HAJ Passports without police verification now

by Nisha on Jul 02, 2009 08:50 PM

<b>HAJ Passports without police verification now</b>

... deleted
Posted by nizhal yoddha at 7/03/2009 10:06:00 AM 1 comments <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd--><b>Comment:</b>
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>karyakarta92 said...</b>

    This is beyond absurd. On my recent trip to India, I applied for renewal of my parents' passports. I had to make 4 trips to the passport office with my parents and wait for hours for the babus to do the needful. This, simply to renew passports for someone who had been first issued theirs almost 5 decades ago. Then followed the police verification. Who says India is a secular country? It is a Mihammedan theocracy with law abiding Hindus paying Jaziya tax.

    7/03/2009 1:03 PM<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->No, it's a christian-ruled theocracy. Crypto-christorule is trying to draw attention away from its christianism by showing favouritism to islamaniacs. Same as how AP govt gives more of the Hindu Temple money it has looted to Hajj subsidies than it does to the christoterrorists in AP.
It's a concealing mechanism. Just like how cryptochristists often descend to news and social portals to defend islamania.
It is not that they are pro-muslim. It is that they are anti-Hindu and their priorities are defined in that order.

2. <!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->For me race is a local adaptation to local climate (an some isolation from other groups)
-white skin to cold climate,
-mongol eye to sun-reflective surfaces like snow or sand
-good visual memory of the australian natives<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->My family must be 'multi-racial' then. Have family members who look like they could come from three different parts of the Asian continent - when going by appearance. (Of course, we're all Tamizhs and even from the same Tamizh subcommunity.)
Race classification fails to say something useful when it is applied to my family.

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Admiting the existence of regional diferences doesnt mean racism.
I dont see someting wrong whit diversity of people.So i cant be considered racist.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->I never implied either.
I wrote:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Here (where I am staying) they cover 'race' only in the sense of a historical construct, and also 'racism' is recognised: a phenomenon that has frequently resulted from viewing the world as consisting of races.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Also: Your second statement "diversity of people .... hence not racist" is implicitly tying race categorisation with the verifiable/observable fact of human diversity, by drawing the discussion back onto race-related matters. But the existence of human diversity is neither tied to nor predicated on the recent race construct, but exists independent of it. People have long known of human diversity (e.g. Romans). But racial categories are a recent concept and racism a recent phenomenon. Race had in recent centuries been <i>woven over</i> human diversity as a means to explain (and subsequently organise) it; and many today find it an insufficient, incomplete and even inaccurate description for human diversity.
Oh how I stumble with English. Can't explain what I mean, don't have the words, I give up. Hopeless.
<b>The West is rooting for the Gandhis</b>
By Dr Jay Dubashi

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->The tie between the Western establishment and the Nehru-Gandhis is very strong and goes back almost a century. It is not merely a coincidence that all the Nehru-Gandhis studied in England, though, we should say, spent their time than studied.

Rahul Gandhi, whom very few people outside India had noticed until recently, is now a big name in foreign quarters, particularly foreign media. The Western establishment has decided that he represents India’s future just as sixty-odd years ago it had made up its mind that Jawaharlal Nehru would take over India one day. They proved right and Nehru became India’s first Prime Minister, elbowing out people like Sardar Patel and others. The same people in the west are now rooting for his great-grandson with the same hope and not a little wishful thinking, but the question is, will they prove right?

The American newsmagazine, Newsweek, has a cover story on Rahul Gandhi, with his big picture on the cover, nearly as big as the cover itself. He is described as “The Quiet Revolutionary”, a quaint description, since the man will actually be taking on quite a few confirmed revolutionaries such as Marxists, though they may have outlived the revolution, if they ever were part of it. He is said to be a man who, wants to remake India, as if India was some kind of putty which anybody, revolutionary or not, can fashion as he or she wishes. But that is how the Western establishment—meaning the ruling elites in the United States and Britain –view India and the Gandhi family’s role in it.

The story is written by an Indian reporter, who, was according to his own confession, some kind of a revolutionary himself, actually a Naxalite, if not close to them, which may not be a good qualification to write about India, or, for that matter, any other country in the world. Naxalites are basically destroyers and Rahul Gandhi is supposed to be the next maker of India. But this is how they all start when they want to project a man. There were similar stories about Nehru himself, in the Western press, long before he was anointed as India’s man of destiny. These things are apparently decided much in advance by those who matter in the west, and we in India accept them dutifully, just as we accept their fashions and their films, because, for us, the slaves of the west, whatever the west says, goes.

For some reason, most Westerners believe that the Congress swept the polls, just because it happened to defeat the BJP and formed the government. For newspapers like “The Economist” the BJP’s defeat was “good news from India.” The paper’s editors would have fainted had BJP won. Actually, it was not much of a victory for the Congress. It won only 200-odd seats in a house of over 540, that is, less than 40 per cent, which is not exactly sweeping. But this is what Western newspapers are writing, though the reporters are generally Indian, and they should know.

Rahul Gandhi is now said to be “discovering” India, just as his great-grandfather did in his time. How do you discover India? You go and spend some time in cottages of the poor in villages, have a meal or two with their families, and spend a night under their leaking roofs. This is what Rahul apparently did, we are told by Newsweek’s man in India and this is how he got the votes which, in the end, catapulted him and his party to power in New Delhi.

We shall never know what really happened, and how the Congress got its votes and whether the votes were genuine, but there is little doubt that the Westerners are determined to see yet another Gandhi on the Delhi “throne.” The tie between the Western establishment and the Nehru-Gandhis is very strong and goes back almost a century. It is not merely a coincidence that all the Nehru-Gandhis studied in England, though, we should say, spent their time than studied. An Indian politician close to the Gandhis once told me that it is virtually impossible to be India’s prime minister without the endorsement, if not approval, of US and Britain. He said that the embassies of the two countries in Delhi are always very busy during elections not only busy in the usual diplomatic sense, but busy with cash and other help right through the election. Sixty years after Independence, the colonial relationship between the west and India still continues unabated.

<b>Let us go back to the Gandhis. Nehru, of course, studied in Harrow and Cambridge though he did not leave much of a mark in either place. His daughter Indira Priyadarshini, spent a lot of time in London where she flirted with Communism and acquired friends like Krishna Menon, PN Haksar and Jyoti Basu, all of them Communists or leftists of varied shades. </b>We do not know what she did there because there are no records. But the contacts she established at the time, particularly with the Mountbatten household, came in very hand later.

Rajiv Gandhi also studied in Cambridge but came home without a degree. It was in Cambridge that he met his future wife, now the Congress supremo. He was followed by Rahul Gandhi who, according to the story in “Newsweek”, first went to Harvard, and eventually graduated from Rollins College in Florida. He then received an M Phil in development from Cambridge University—Cambridge again, a favourite spot of the Gandhis. After that, Rahul spent the next three years with the Monitor Group in London, a consulting company. We cannot know what exactly he did in that company, because, according to “Newsweek” he was using an assumed name, though we are not told what the assumed name was.

So Rahul Gandhi did what his father had done before him, though not exactly what his grandmother had done. In other words, he did practically very little. This is the man who is said to be holding India’s destiny in his hands. Anyway, this is what the Westerners, that is, western magazines like “Newsweek” are saying. This is also what they said about Jawaharlal Nehru, who too was India’s man of destiny, according to them, and also about Indira Gandhi. It is surprising how India’s destiny always finds its way into the frail hands of the Gandhi family, and how the family itself always finds its way to Cambridge, England, where four generations of the family have spent time and money, and acquired English manners, including how to use knife and fork, and, along the way, a degree or two.

The “Newsweek” story is only the beginning. More will follow. You will soon see other stories in other magazines, followed by books by Harvard and Yale teachers. This particular “Newsweek” story does not carry a single quote from the young man himself, may be because the reporter was too busy meeting hacks in Delhi, who fed him with those usual tidbits that such stories are generally made of. Anyway, why should Rahul Gandhi meet a mere reporter? He is waiting for an invitation from Barack Obama himself, when the anointing of yet another man of destiny will presumably carry the authentic mark of the West. <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>Congress refuses to take stand</b>
PNS | New Delhi
With Assembly election in a number of States slated to be held in the next 18 months, the Congress is treading cautiously on the Government’s move to de-link terror from composite dialogue with Pakistan.<b> The party refused to comment on the joint statement saying that it was neither endorsing nor clarifying it</b>.

The unease within the Congress over India-Pakistan statement was quite evident on Monday as party spokesman Abhishek Manu Singhvi refused to clarify whether the party was in support of what is being termed by BJP as ‘capitulation’.

Replying to a volley of questions on whether the joint statement negated what India had been standing for and whether the party endorsed it, party spokesman Abhishek Singhvi said, “If you need any further clarification, go to the Government of India…. I have nothing to add or say after Prime Minister’s statement. There is no question of endorsing or clarifying on it.” He said the PM’s statement leaves no scope for any doubt<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

This is referred as pendulum.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Tytler made party in-charge of Bihar

Former Union Minister Jagdish Tytler, who failed to get a Congress ticket for the recent Lok Sabha elections in the wake of the controversy over his alleged involvement in the 1984 anti-Sikh riots, was on Friday made party in-charge of Bihar.
^^ (Surprised MMS is so unaffected by it, how very unSikh of him. Curious.)

More of christogovt's systematic destruction of heathen Dharmic nation.

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Professor Gwatkin himself remarks that many of the Christians, so far from being willing to defend the Empire, were "half inclined to welcome the Goths and Persians as avengers."
-- Legends of Saints and Martyrs, from The Story Of Religious Controversy, by Joseph McCabe<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->In India's case, instead of merely welcoming enemies, christoism has moved on to inviting them over and paving the way for them:

1. http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/Pak-ca...how/4809978.cms
via http://rajeev2004.blogspot.com/2009/07/ind...from-talks.html
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Wednesday, July 22, 2009
<b>India De-links Terror from Talks</b>
So basically, the Indian govt are saying that terror attacks don't matter in our relations with Pakistan. And the Pakistanis are taking it further, now pretentiously asserting that they are victims of our terror, including the attack on Sri Lanka's cricket team, which was obviously originally intended to target the Indian team which bowed out at the last moment.
[...]<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Rest at link + comments

2. http://rajeev2004.blogspot.com/2009/07/kas...to-pay-for.html
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Wednesday, July 22, 2009
<b>Kashmir: the Indian colony to pay for Islamic ‘education’</b>

Given the recent softening of oil prices, looks like the Saudis found a useful way to pay these fanatics their keep – get Kashmir’s Colony of India to fund madrassa education. That’s right – we will soon pay for their secession.

This Omar Abdullah is one up on his father. At least that man had the pretence of duplicity.

Where are the thapar, sardesai, dutt and vir sanghvi’s of the world? Remember the paroxysms of delight after that ‘passionate’ speech defending manmohan’s deal? I could hear the cash till ringing.
Posted by Ghost Writer at 7/22/2009 06:14:00 PM

1 comments: <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

3. http://rajeev2004.blogspot.com/2009/07/its-sellout.html
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Wednesday, July 22, 2009
<b>It's A Sellout</b>
Yup, that pretty much sums it up -- it's a sellout. We're screwed.
Posted by san at 7/22/2009 09:55:00 PM
Labels: dhimmitude, india, Macaulay, manmohan singh, pakistan, usa

blogger said...

    Oh my God. http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/NEWS/In...how/4817599.cms

    I am amazed how come TOIlet newspaper is running this story.
    7/25/2009 1:14 AM<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Sharm-El-Sheikh Joint Statement
<b>It’s a sellout</b>
By Satish Chandra

The joint statement will encourage Pakistan to continue its involvement with terrorist activities against us.

The Manmohan Singh government’s post-26/11 Pakistan policy has taken a dramatic U-turn. From the position hitherto taken that there wouldn’t be any talks with Pakistan until it brings to book the perpetrators of the Mumbai attacks and dismantles the infrastructure of terror, the India-Pakistan joint statement of July 16, 2009 signals a sellout.

This should not, however, come as a surprise to a people long inured to the government’s brazenness and ineptitude as demonstrated by its handling of 26/11, its conclusion of a seriously flawed nuclear deal with the United States and its sudden discovery, after over five years in office, that it had ‘underestimated’ the menace of left wing extremism.

Showing an utter lack of professionalism, the joint statement, issued by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and his Pakistani counterpart Yousuf Gilani after their talks in Egypt, is harmful to our interests and was best avoided as evident from the textual analysis given below:

The two prime ministers “considered the entire gamut of bilateral relations with a view to charting the way forward in India-Pakistan relations” and agreed that the foreign secretaries should “meet as often as necessary and report to the two foreign ministers” who would meet on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly.

The above formulation, along with the fact that the two prime ministers met for two hours, indicates that the India-Pakistan dialogue is already under way and contradicts our assertion that the dialogue would begin only after the perpetrators of 26/11 are brought to book and that there is no roadmap for resumption of talks.

Take a look at this second important formulation in the statement: “Both leaders agreed that that terrorism is the main threat to both countries.” This equates India and Pakistan in respect of terrorism, glossing over the fact that the latter is involved with terrorist activities directed against the former. It constitutes a flashback to 2006 when Delhi made out that Pakistan like India is a victim of terror.

Third, according to the statement, the prime minister asked his counterpart to bring the perpetrators of 26/11 to justice. To this Gilani stated that Pakistan would “do everything in its power in this regard,” that it had given an updated status dossier on investigations into 26/11, and that it sought additional information/evidence. PM said that the dossier was under review. Obviously, Singh’s demand was minimalist, restricted only to seeking satisfaction on 26/11 with no call for dismantling the infrastructure of terror or even an assurance, as given by Pakistan in January 2004, that the area under its control would not be used for terrorist attacks against India.

Pakistan’s response was also minimalist and not even in the nature of a guarantee that those responsible for 26/11 would be brought to justice.

Most significantly, through the statement, Gilani mentioned that “Pakistan has some information on threats in Balochistan and other areas.”

What is the relevance of such a formulation? It is, from a Pakistani perspective. This is the first time that an India-Pakistan joint statement hints at Indian involvement in Balochistan and in “other areas.” It is myopic to see this as a harmless formulation as it virtually equates India with Pakistan as perpetrators of terror. The international community, which hitherto was convinced of our bonafides on this count, will now begin to have doubts. Islamabad will no doubt use this to discredit the Balochistan freedom struggle and take harsher measures against it.

And, then the final act. Both the prime ministers recognised that “dialogue is the only way forward. Action on terrorism should not be linked to the composite dialogue process and these should not be bracketed.”  Singh added that India was ready to discuss with Pakistan all issues “including all outstanding issues.”

It is a cardinal error to renounce all one’s options for dealing with any country. In the instant case, it relieves all pressure on Pakistan to eschew the use of terror as an instrument of foreign policy against us.  Secondly, it demonstrates that India is a paper tiger unwilling to stand up for its critical national interests. Thirdly, the sentence read in its entirety, debunks the Indian assertion that Pakistan is required to give us satisfaction on 26/11 before the composite dialogue can begin. It is puerile to contend, as some have, that the “K” word does not figure in the statement as the phrase “outstanding issues” is shorthand for the same.

The joint statement is not only badly worded but also not in the national interest as it will encourage Pakistan to continue its involvement with terrorist activities against us and will undermine our standing particularly in the region. This is all the more so as it comes at a time when Pakistan has thumbed its nose at us on the Hafiz Saeed issue.

Had Singh wanted a dialogue with Pakistan only on terrorism this could have been held at the official level without the drama of a long prime minister level meeting and an elaborate joint statement. Obviously, the US pressure is at work and the conclusion of the joint statement on the eve of Hillary Clinton’s visit gives the game away.
(The author is a former Indian high commissioner to Pakistan)<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Was this already covered?

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>EUM Agreement with the Yanks: Serious Concerns</b>
McMohan Singh on a roll. Defence Minister A.K. Antony was sidestepped due to his opposition to the agreement, which eventually got signed between S.M Krishna & Hillary, with McMohan's blessings. From the Xindu www.hindu.com/2009/08/06/stories/2009080651690800.htm,

...It is important to also note that all the three defence service chiefs have vehemently and repeatedly, verbally and in writing, individually and collectively conveyed to New Delhi at the highest levels their strong and total opposition to India entering into an EUMA with the U.S. because of its serious national security-compromising character. But the Cabinet Committee on Security chaired by the Prime Minister brushed aside these acute concerns and went ahead and approved the EUMA...
Posted by KapiDhwaja at 8/05/2009 03:35:00 PM 0 comments
Labels: indian armed forces <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Two books, two consequences: Shashi Tharoor on Congress icons

Consider what Mr. Tharoor had to say about one of the Congress’ greatest icons — Indira Gandhi. “Had Indira’s Parsi husband been a toddywalla (liquor trader) rather than so conveniently a Gandhi, I sometime wonder, might India’s political history have been different?”

Further, “Mrs. Gandhi was skilled at the acquisition and maintenance of power, but hopeless at the wielding of it for larger purposes. She had no real vision or program beyond the expedient campaign slogans; “remove poverty” was a mantra without a method …. Declaring a state of Emergency, Indira arrested opponents, censored the press, and postponed elections. As a compliant Supreme Court overturned her conviction, she proclaimed a ‘20-point programme’ for the uplift of the common man (No one found it humorous enough to remark, as Clemenceau had done of Wilson’s Fourteen Points, that “even the good Lord only had ten.”) Its provisions … remained largely unimplemented. Meanwhile her thuggish younger son, Sanjay (1946-1980) emphasizing two of the 20 points, ordered brutally insensitive campaigns of slum demolitions and forced sterilizations.”

Mr. Tharoor did not spare Rajiv Gandhi either, though he acknowledged that the former Prime Minister’s first year was exhilarating for people like him “who were swept up in the unfamiliar excitement of having one of our own as Prime Minister”: Instead of the “visionless expediency that had been his mother’s only credo, Rajiv offered transparent sincerity and conviction.” But then, said Mr. Tharoor, “the rot set in …Compromise followed sellout as New Delhi returned to business as usual. Charges of corruption in a major howitzer contract with the Swedish arms manufacturer Bofors tarnished the mystique of the dynasty; little children sang, Galli-galli mein shor hai/Rajiv Gandhi chor hai: ‘Hear it said in every nook/Rajiv Gandhi is a crook.’…”

The current Minister of State also took gentle digs at Sonia Gandhi, pointing out that she went to Cambridge to study English, not political philosophy. Referring to Ms Gandhi’s “renunciation” and her nomination of Manmohan Singh as Prime Minister, he said, “A builder’s daughter from Turino, without a college degree, with no experience of Indian life beyond the rarefied realms of the Prime Minister’s residence, fiercely protective of her privacy, so reserved and unsmiling in public that she has been unkindly dubbed ‘the Turin Shroud’ leading a billion Indians at the head of the world’s most complex, rambunctious and violent democracy? This situation, improbable if weren’t true, is proof again of the enduring appeal of the Nehru-Gandhi dynasty.”

Mr. Tharoor had a reference to Rahul Gandhi and Priyanka Vadra too. Speculating on the reasons for Ms Sonia Gandhi taking charge of the Congress, he said: “And then there is, after all, in true dynastic tradition, the need to think of the aspirations of the next generation ... Their [Rahul and Priyanka] father’s seat must, observers suggest, be kept warm for one of them — and who better to nurse the Amethi constituency he so successfully nurtured than Sonia herself?” <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
A bitter battle ahead (October 16-31, 1979)

It was, in a sense, the final and supreme irony.As the four top Janata Party leaders began their preliminary election forays around the country last fortnight, they were halted in their tracks.Jayaprakash Narayan, the man who had brought them all together by fostering a new political ideal for them, and who lay crushed by their betrayal,was eventually dead.The timing of JP’s death seemed symbolic: he passed away at the precise moment when the political party he had established single-handed was making a desperate bid to revive its fortunes.<b>On the morning of JP’s death on October 8,Babu Jagjivan Ram , the Janata’s candidate for prime ministership, was beginning his tour of Sasaram,the impoverished and drought-stricken region in western Bihar that has been his parliamentary constituency since 1952.</b>

—by Sunil Sethi and Arul Louis

<img src='http://media2.intoday.in/indiatoday//images/30_YEARS_AGO_IN_IT/082109120649IT-30-YEARS-large.jpg' border='0' alt='user posted image' />
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->But the reason I disagree with this is that in the current scenario, you cannot gain power by having a large dose of the "unethical" in your strategic and tactical mix.

I have given reasons for my thinking in my other posts more fully, but I will say this here. The lot that is the elite in India today, is even far worse than the one that ruled 20 years ago and that leadership was no saint.

This lot has perfected all the unethical tactics like they have never been perfected before and they are only effective and super effective against internal dissent. Just practically speaking, you cannot do battle with this scum using "unethical" tactics. They will always come out ahead. You have to lift the moral and ethical standard of the masses so that this scum loses its base of power and then you can strike. I am not advocating high morals because they are the righteous thing to do, which it is, I am advocating them because they are the only practical way for good people to acquire power. If you think about this a little bit, it should be obvious.
Good people will elect good people, scum will elect scum or allow the scum to dominate. The more good people, the better your chances of coming to power. Then you can do what you always intended, it becomes a lot simpler, when you are in power.</b><!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->I have a few serious concerns of how congress is ruling our country though they came back to power second time. Because there is no strong opposition at present as BJP is messing up with their infight and so there is no proper constructive criticism of the present Indian government. Also I am really worried the way Sonia and her group makes influence on the political decision regarding foreign policy. <b>I must say this concern is not linked her being a foreigner rather her non-firm directions and their groups unskilled foreign tactics do not work rather isolate India altogether. Krishna is good for IT and management. He is not good for foreign policies. There should be someone who has a good external relationship and experience should become the foreign minister. There are a number of recent failures such as isolating India in G8 and Pakistan's courage to prepare for another attack and Chinese courageous incursions are all part of the failures of Indian government at present. India has been successfully isolated by Chinese policy at present. India has to take a strong step to build up good relationship with US and others too. In terms of buying updated arms we must go for US. </b>Indian government should engage with president Obama particularly arms trading and other relationship. We must move forward in terms of missile defence systems. We should avoid personality clashes with Obama. Ground work needs to be done even in arms trading such as F16 and other defense systems to buy from US and also from an country who is ready to give up well protected systems against China and any other countries who threaten to support terror in India or make incursions in India.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->‘Control of firearms needs to be a matter of top priority’

Staff Reporter


Book on “India and Arms Trade Treaty” released


NEW DELHI: India’s former Ambassador to the United Nations, Arundhati Ghose, on Friday said control of firearms needs to be a matter of top priority for our country.

Speaking after releasing a book titled “India and Arms Trade Treaty: Making Disarmament Meaningful to People’s Lives” edited by Control Arms Foundation of India secretary-general Binalakshmi Nepram, Ms. Ghose said: “When Binalakshmi asked me to release the book, I was reluctant. But she blackmailed me into releasing it. I will like to explain my reservation. Control of firearms needs to be a matter of top priority in our country. We are not only facing the brunt of terrorism but also disputes being resolve through guns.”

Pointing out that the Arms Trade Treaty was not exactly greeted with joy in our country, Ms. Ghose said: “India remains neutral, but I have major objections based on my experiences on how the UN bodies function. Generally, the Arms Trade Treaty diverts attention of trade in small weapons. There is confusion between illicit trade and licit trade. Confusion is also there between conventional arms and small arms. The problem is with small arms and light weapons. The book creates awareness about the need to control small arms.”

Ms. Nepram said: “In 2002 my first book was also released at India Habitat Centre. A day before the release I was close to tears as I knew that ideas that were known only to me would be read by thousands of people…. We need to know why 12 Indians are shot every day. We are facing problems of ethnicity and landless people. There are problems in naxal areas and Jammu and Kashmir.”

The book has contributions from eminent scholars like Anuradha Chenoy, Air Commodore (Retd) Prashant Dikshit, Ashima Kaul, Clare Da Silva and Thokchom Meinya.

Gov't scum trying to make Hindus unarmed so that the followers of the two deadly cults can freely riot and kill Hindus.
KGB files: what does the book say?
Tuesday, September 20, 2005 0:46 IST
Email Email
Print Print
Share Share

We bring you a few lines from the book, The Mitrokhin Archive II: The KGB and the World, that created a controversy over the weekend

The KGB code
"Following Shastri's sudden death....Congress leaders chose Indira Gandhi (code named VANO by the KGB), ... whom they could manipulate at will."

Uniting the Left, campaign funding
"Moscow's strategy during 1966 for the Indian elections in the following year was based on encouraging the CPI and the breakaway Communist Party of India, Marxist (CPM) to join together in a left wing alliance to oppose Mrs. Gandhi and the Congress government. As well as subsidising the CPI and some other left-wing groups during the 1967 election campaign, the KGB also funded the campaigns of several agents and confidential contacts within Cong."

Discrediting detractor
In an attempt to discredit SK Patil, one of the leading anti-Communists in the Congress Syndicate, Modin circulated a forged letter from the US consul-general in Bombay to the American ambassador in Delhi referring to Patil's 'political intrigues with the Pakistanis' and to the large American subsidies supposedly givenhim.

CPI more than supports Congress
In July 1969 she nationalised fourteen commercial banks. Desai was sacked as Finance Minister and resigned as Deputy Prime Minister. Encouraged by Moscow, the CPI swung its support behind Mrs Gandhi. By infiltrating its members and sympathizers into the left-wing Congress Forum for Socialist Action (code named SECTOR by the KGB), the CPI set out to gain a position of influence within the ruling party.

Trade of nations
The Syndicate hinted that Mrs. Gandhi intended to 'sell' India to the Soviet Union and was using her principal private secretary, Parmeshwar Narain Haksar, as direct link with Moscow and the Soviet embassy. From 1967 to 1973 Haksar, a former protégé of Krishna Menon, was Mrs. Gandhi's most trusted adviser.

The resident Leftie
His advocacy of the leftward turn in Mrs. Gandhi's policies sprang, however, from his socialist convictions rather than from manipulation by the KGB. But both he and Mrs. Gandhi 'were less fastidious than Nehru had been about interfering with the democratic system and structure of government to attain their ideological ends'.

If you can't defeat them, join them
Mohan Kumaramangalam seemed to be implementing a 'thesis', which he had first argued in 1964: that since the CPI could not win power by itself, as many of its members and sympathizers as possible should join the Congress, make common cause with 'progressive' Congressmen and compel the party leadership to implement socialist policies. Another leading figure in the Congress Forum for Socialist Action was recruited in 1971 as Agent RERO and paid about 100,000 rupees a year.

Home away from home
In the early 1970s, the KGB presence in India became on of the largest in the world outside the Soviet bloc. Indira Gandhi placed no limit on the number of Soviet diplomats and trade officials, thus allowing the KGB and GRU as many cover positions as they wished. Nor, like many other states, did India object to admitting Soviet intelligence officers who had been expelled by less hospitable regimes.

In kind and in cash
The Prime Minister is unlikely to have paid close attention to the dubious origins of some of the funds which went into Congress's coffers. That was a matter which she left largely to her principal fundraiser, Lalit Narayan Mishra, who - though she doubtless did not realise it - also accepted Soviet money. On at least one occasion a secret gift of 2 million rupees from the Politburo to Congress ® was personally delivered after midnight by the head of Line PR in New Delhi, Leonid Shebarshin. Another million rupees were given on the same occasion to a newspaper which supported Mrs. Gandhi.

Mama's boy
Indira Gandhi, despite her own frugal lifestyle, depended on the money he collected from a variety of sources to finance Congress ®. So did her son and anointed heir, Sanjay, whose misguided ambition to build an Indian popular car and become India's Henry Ford depended on government favours.

Trade, subsidies, well-wishers
Covert funding for the CPI seems to have been unaffected. By 1972 the import-export business founded by the CPI a decade earlier to trade with the Soviet Union had contributed more than 10 million rupees to Party funds. Other secret subsidies, totalling at least 1.5 million rupees, had gone to state Communist parties, individuals and media associated with the CPI.

Cash transfer
In the mid-1970s Soviet funds for the CPI were passed by operations officers of the New Delhi main residency to a senior member of the Party's National Council code named BANKIR at a number of different locations.

Well accounted for
Rajeshwar Rao, general secretary of the CPI from 1964 to 1990, subsequently provided receipts for sums received. Further substantial sums went to the Communist-led All-India Congress of Trade Unions.

Manufacturing consent
According to KGB files, by 1973 it had ten Indian newspapers on its payroll (which cannot be identified for legal reasons) as well as a press agency under its 'control'. During 1972 the KGB claimed to have planted 3,789 articles in Indian newspapers - probably more than in any other country in the non-Communist world. Among the KGB's leading confidential contacts in the press was one of India's most influential journalist, code named NOK. Recruited as confidential contact in 1976 by A. A. Arkhipov, NOK was subsequently handled by two Line PR officers operating under journalistic cover. Contact with him ceased in 1980 as a result of his ill health.

Our their man

India was also one of the most favourable environments for Soviet front organisations. From 1966 to 1986 the head of the most important of them, the World Peace Council (WPC), was the Indian Communist Romesh Chandra.

THE MITROKHIN ARCHIVE II: THE KGB AND THE WORLD by Christopher Andrews and Vasili Mitrokhin published by Penguin Books UK

Most people of Andhra knew that the im-exp business set up by a leading family was mechanism to transfer funds for commies. Such businesses always had a progressive name for their name- Navayuga, Visalandhra etc. Also India of those tiems was opposed to the West's support to TSP and didn't need any inducement to oppose them. So good show by all these folks by taking them (russkies) for a ride.
Humans grounded, cars fly

Taking a dig at the Congress’s austerity programme, a DMK minister in a public speech pointed out that for Rahul Gandhi’s three-day visit to Tamil Nadu, the SPG had flown down 12 bulletproof cars from Delhi in the cargo of an Air Force plane. Rahul’s busy programme meant visiting several towns in a chopper and for his road travel in each town he had to have the cars ready in advance. The minister wondered why the SPG could not have commandeered bulletproof vehicles from the state.
Kerala govt - Undemocratic ideology

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>Now comes Pension for Ustads (Madrassa Teachers )</b>
23/09/2009 15:12:36  HK

Government has allotted an amount of Rs. Four Crores( Rs.40 Million) for the pension plan for Madrassa Teachers this year.  They already started an office for this scheme in Kozhikode Hajj House.  Government will recruit one Manager, two Assistants, one Accountant and one Peon for this office.  A muslim who has completed his Twenty years can join this scheme and  it requires only a  letter as qualification from local Madrassa Committee which confirms that he is a Madrassa Teacher. (Compare this with How Government isdnying any help to this Tribal writer http://haindavakeralam.com/HKPage.aspx?P...219&SKIN=K )

When C.H Muhammed Koya was the Education Minister, he created a post of Arabic Teacher in each schools, and he recruited all jobless people without any qualification it was CPM who was in opposition, oppossed it the most.Even they lamented that  " Here is no person to repair umbrella nor to sell fish, all of them are Arabic Teachers now".  Ironically that very CPM is now running behind these USTADS and offering the pension!.

Apart from this Government is also going to start special coaching classes only for Muslims. In the begining there will be Six coaching centers and they will be in Thiruvananthaapuram, Ernakulam, Malappuram, Kozhikode, Kannur & Kasaragode. These centres will provide coaching classes for UPSC, PSC, Banking services, Entrance coaching etc etc..

This government doesnt have money to spend for the development  of poor underdeveloped Tribals or Scheduled caste people. But they have enough money to spend for a highly influential, rich Muslims in Kerala , And the critics say it's yet another gimmick to lure Muslim votes for coming Panchayat Election...<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Christian pick on Congress poll list

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->New Delhi, Sept. 27: For the first time,<b> a major Christian body has asked a political party to give poll nominations to candidates from the community, and the party has obliged.</b>

The All India Christian Council, a conglomerate of all Christian denominations, wrote to Sonia Gandhi a few weeks ago requesting tickets for Christians in the Maharashtra Assembly elections.

The Congress has accepted two of the council’s nine nominees, both political lightweights. Janet D’Souza has been fielded from Ghatkopar — where she is up against a formidable opponent, the late Pramod Mahajan’s daughter Poonam — and an advocate, Gonsalves, from Vasai. Maharashtra has 18 lakh Christians, of whom 8 lakh live in Mumbai.

“We had written to Sonia Gandhi early this month asking for deserving representation for Christians in the party’s candidate list, and we are extremely happy,” said Abraham Mathai, general secretary of the council, whose initials, AICC, are coincidentally the same as those of the All India Congress Committee.

The Christian community has played crucial political roles in Kerala, Goa and some northeastern states, but it had never before engaged in poll politics so openly.

Mathai said the council wrote the letter because it was “aware of the importance of integrating with the mainstream”.

Asked why the council wrote only to the Congress, he said Christians were traditional supporters of the party. <b>“Christians are considered fixed deposits for the Congress and not vote banks. Vote banks can shift their loyalty, but FDs never do that.”</b>

Council secretary <b>John Dayal</b> said Christians had always been under-represented even in the secular parties, including the Congress.

“Christians have always been sidelined in the Congress because of the Christian background of its president. <b>Scared that the RSS would link any Christian leader’s rise in the power hierarchy to that background, many Christian leaders have been deliberately kept low-key,’’ </b>he said.

The Congress does have powerful leaders from the community, such as defence minister A.K. Antony, though he has desisted from mixing his religion and politics.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The media is slowly building up the image of Rahul Gandhi: http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/p...how/5095907.cms

The public's perception/mind is slowly being readied for the final ascension to the throne. Slow and steady wins the race. They have all the time in the World?

FromPioneer, 10 Oct., 2009

Capital Khabar......

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Capital khabar

Sidharth Mishra

Baba’s Lucifer

<b>The decision by Vidarbha’s drought-hit widow Kalawati to contest against the Congress candidate in the upcoming Maharashtra Assembly poll has put the Congress in an embarrassing position.</b> Made famous by anointed heir Rahul Gandhi during his speech in Parliament, <b>Kalawati’s decision to contest the election was spurred by the idea to protest against inadequate measures initiated by the Congress-led Governments in Maharashtra and at the Centre to alleviate the sufferings of the drought-hit peasants.</b> Given Rahul baba’s dislike for open use of strong-arm tactics, <b>the Congress leaders were too stupefied to act on the matter</b>. It was left to <b>backroom operators like Sulabh International chairman Bindeshwar Pathak, who had promised Rs 30 lakh to Kalawati after Rahul Gandhi’s speech, to intervene. Pathak played an effective Lucifer by buying Kalawati’s soul and making her withdraw from the contest.</b> Does one need to guess the pieces of silver he pawned?


I thought these NGO operators were frauds and in cahoots with the politicans but here is proof of that.

Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)