Congress Undemocratic Ideology - 4

[Guest]

[size="6"]Storm as Tharoor says Saudi Arabia can be interlocutor[/size]







Riyadh, Feb 28 (IANS) India sees Saudi Arabia as a 'valuable interlocutor' in relation to Pakistan, Minister of State for External Affairs Shashi Tharoor Sunday said. After his remark sparked a storm, he clarified he was not making Riyadh a mediator on India-Pakistan issues.





Not convinced, the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) asked Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, who is now in Riyadh along with the minister, to explain. Even sections of the Congress party were upset, saying India would never agree to any third party role in India-Pakistan relations.





Indian government sources reacted quickly to say that New Delhi's opposition to third party meddling in India-Pakistan ties had not changed.





As the day progressed, it was clear that Tharoor's statement had overshadowed the second day of Manmohan Singh's visit to Saudi Arabia, the first by an Indian prime minister in 1982.





'We feel Saudi Arabia has a long and close relationship with Pakistan and that makes Saudi Arabia even a more valuable interlocutor for us,' Tharoor told Indian journalists in Riyadh.





As the remark triggered a furore, Tharoor clarified that New Delhi's desire to seek the support of Riyadh on terror-related issues involving Islamabad did not mean giving it the role of a mediator.





He was asked if India will seek Saudi support to influence Pakistan to address Indian concerns over terrorism emanating from Pakistani territory.





Later, he tweeted to say: 'Good day of mts (meetings), marred in some Indian media by misunderstanding of word interlocutor. An interlocutor is someone u spk to, nothing more.





'If I speak to u, u are my interlocutor! I mentioned the Saudis as OUR interlocutors, i.e. the people we are here to speak to. Some misinterpretation.'





In Riyadh, Tharoor added that Saudi Arabia had its own issues with Al Qaeda.





'We expect to have a constructive conversation on the issue. The tentacles of terror have already spread from Afghanistan to Iraq, Lebanon and Palestine, and latest is Yemen,' he said.





'When we tell them about our experience, Saudi Arabia listens as somebody who is not in anyway an enemy of Pakistan but rather is a friend of Pakistan.





'...therefore, I am sure (it) will listen with sympathy and concern to a matter of this nature,' he said.





He rejected media reports that claimed he had used the word 'mediation' or 'mediator'.





'No chance of my saying Saudi Arabia should be a mediator... Never said that or anything like it,' Tharoor added, as the controversy refused to go away.











BJP spokesman Prakash Javadekar reiterated India's known stand that no third party can intervene in issues between India and Pakistan. 'Tharoor's remarks are objectionable and irresponsible,' Javadekar told IANS.





Although the Congress did not react officially, a source close to party president Sonia Gandhi said: 'India's position on 'no' to third-party mediation in India-Pakistan issues is unchanged. There is no change in the Congress position.'





India has always rejected any role for any other country in its disputes with Pakistan, particularly over Jammu and Kashmir.





India and Saudi Arabia are expected to discuss the situation in Afghanistan, where Riyadh has played a key role since the mujahideen waged war against the Soviets.





It was only of three countries to recognize the Taliban regime. It has taken the lead in supporting plans to reintegrate the Taliban in a post-US Afghanistan.





This is not the first time Tharoor has landed in a controversy over his remarks on foreign policy issues.





Tharoor faced hostile reaction from his own partymen when he allegedly questioned the relevance of non-alignment and Third World-centric foreign policy espoused by Jawaharlal Nehru, India's first prime minister.

[acharya]

Editorials

Exposing Indian democracy



The New Indian ExpressFirst Published : 27 Feb 2010 12:31:00 AM ISTLast Updated : 27 Feb 2010 12:43:14 AM IST

It has now become abundantly clear that Qatar has offered M F Husain citizenship, though it is not entirely clear yet whether one of India’s greatest artists has accepted the offer yet. If he does, he will have to renounce Indian citizenship. And that, as members of the art fraternity and the public at large say, will be a matter of great shame. India’s reputation as a democracy will be blackened throughout the world. More importantly, however, Indians themselves will have to ponder important questions relating to democracy, rule of law and public culture in general. There seems to be an attempt to blame the veteran artist, now 95, for shaming the country by not returning. That is a load of nonsense. The people primarily to blame are of course the thugs of the Sangh Parivar and their leaders. They routinely vandalise his paintings and have been responsible for creating an environment of terror in which organisers of art exhibitions find it impossible to feature Husain’s paintings in their shows. The kind of fascist intolerance they display to any viewpoint or perspective that does not square with theirs makes a mockery of democracy.

But that is just a part of the problem. After all, we all know what the Sangh Parivar is all about. Their intolerance and their use of muscle to impose their point of view should come as a surprise to none. The other important problem is the unwillingness of the agencies of the state and other parties to take robust steps to counter the illegal activities of the many lumpen arms of the parivar. People get away with whatever they want to do — the Bajrang Dal and Vishwa Hindu Parishad, for example in the Husain case, the Shiv Sena and its new offshoot in many contexts or the Shri Ram Sene with its attacks on women in Karnataka. The government just refuses to act against flagrant violations of the law, when what it should do in short order is put behind bars the Thackerays, Singhals and Togadias. It is supremely ironical that those who routinely instigate violence in which lives are lost and property vandalised should enjoy the protection of the state at the highest level. It is also most unfortunate that all too often the Congress chooses to run with the hare while hunting with the hounds, calculating that defending the rule of law is not worth it if it means offending the lunatic fringe of the Hindu community.



http://www.expressbuzz.com/edition/story...ghals,%20T

[sudhanshu005]

Monday, January 21, 2008<b>

Manmohan promoting many nation idea</b>

http://www.organiser.org/

By J.G. Arora



Immediately after Muslim League demanded Pakistan and exchange of population, Dr. B.R. Ambedkar wrote his book �Thoughts on Pakistan� in 1940 in which he held that creation of Pakistan would act as a �settlement� of Hindu-Muslim conflict, and also held that exchange of Hindu-Muslim population must accompany the creation of Pakistan.



Countless Pak-Bangla terrorists and infiltrators bent upon creating one more Muslim country on Bharat�s soil, genocide and eviction of Hindus from Kashmir, global missionary organisations Christianising India, government control over Hindu temples whereas no mosque or church is covered by such control, special privileges to non-Hindus under Article 30, special rights to Muslim majority Jammu & Kashmir under Article 370, de-Hinduisation of education and history and banishment of Sanskrit from education, denigration of Hindus and Hinduism by most of media, and provision of Haj subsidy though none of 57 Islamic countries gives any such subsidy are just a few perversities of secular India.



Justice and equity demand that Bharat should be declared a Hindu Republic. It is a logical, laudable and achievable goal which will boost Hindu morale. Apart from protecting Bharat�s Hindu identity, Hindu Bharat will transform the present imbecile India into an assertive nation. No one can object to a Hindu Bharat when the world has over a hundred Christian and 57 Islamic countries. All pro-Hindu individuals and organisations should join hands to transform India into a Hindu Republic of Bharat by all peaceful, constitutional and lawful means.



Despite the Supreme Court�s judgements delivered on July 12, 2005 and December 5, 2006 to deport infiltrators, the government has done nothing in this regard. Rather, more infiltrators are entering India through soft borders every day.



Though Bharat�s Hindu identity is being hammered and erased bit by bit every day, the Union Government�s affidavit filed before the Supreme Court in September 2007 rejecting the existence of Ram and Ram Sethu de-legitimised Hindu faith itself.



This affidavit is the latest ploy to demolish Hinduism the way other native religions and cultures have been wiped off in the world.



Though the affidavit was withdrawn after protests, it would never have been filed if truncated India i.e. Bharat had been proclaimed a Hindu Republic in 1947 as a logical consequence of India�s partition on religious basis, and creation of Pakistan as demanded by Muslims.



And why should Hindu majority Bharat and Nepal disown their Hindu identity when over a hundred Christian-majority countries are declared as Christian countries and 57 Muslim-majority countries are declared as Islamic countries?



Besides, why cannot Bharat, the birth place of Sanatan Dharma, commonly known as Hinduism, and having Hindu traditions since time immemorial be a Hindu Republic?



No more Pakistans

Pre-1947 situation which created Pakistan is being re-enacted in India through divisive �communal budgeting� and through Sachar Commission and reservation for Muslims in government jobs though such measures are unconstitutional, and also unwarranted after the creation of Pakistan as demanded by Muslims.



To prevent the creation of more Pakistans on Bharat�s soil, one must remember how Muslim League grabbed one-third of Bharat as Pakistan.



Bharat Varsh comprising of entire Indian sub-continent was Hindu land with zero Muslim population till 711 when Muhammad bin Qasim�s Arab army attacked Sindh. Hindus lost Afghanistan in 987, and present day Pakistan and Bangladesh to Muslims in 1947. During the repeated Muslim attacks for a thousand years, Hindus kept on fighting valiantly to defend their Dharma and motherland.



After overthrow of Muslim rule, the British took over India from 1857 to 1947. Muslim League was formed in 1906, and demanded Pakistan for Muslims in 1940.



This is what Muhammad Ali Jinnah said in Lahore on 23rd March, 1940 while demanding Pakistan, a separate country for Muslims, comprising of Muslim majority areas in India:



�Hindus and Muslims belong to two different religions, philosophies, social customs, and literatures. �.. and to two different civilisations. Hindus and Muslims derive their inspiration from different sources of history. They have different epics, different heroes and different episodes. Very often the hero of one is a foe of the other, and likewise their victories and defeats overlap. To yoke together two such nations under a single state, one as a numerical minority and the other as a majority, must lead to growing discontent, and the final destruction of any fabric that may be so built up for the government of such a state.�



Immediately after Muslim League demanded Pakistan and exchange of population, Dr. B.R. Ambedkar wrote his book �Thoughts on Pakistan� in 1940 in which he held that creation of Pakistan would act as a �settlement� of Hindu-Muslim conflict, and also held that exchange of Hindu-Muslim population must accompany the creation of Pakistan.



In 1945-46 elections, Muslims voted for creation of Pakistan.

Muslim League kept up the pressure, and in 1947 got a third of Bharat�s land as Pakistan comprising of West Pakistan and East Pakistan. In 1971, East Pakistan became Bangladesh while West Pakistan remained Pakistan. Both Pakistan and Bangladesh are Islamic Republics, and have driven out most of Hindus and Sikhs from their land.



However, most of Indian Muslims who had demanded Pakistan and exchange of population did not go to Pakistan. Rather, the present percentage of Muslim population in India is much higher than that in 1947.



Further, to plant one more Islamic country on Indian soil, Pak-Bangla combine has sent countless terrorists and crores of infiltrators into India.



Despite the Supreme Court�s judgements delivered on July 12, 2005 and December 5, 2006 to deport infiltrators, the government has done nothing in this regard. Rather, more infiltrators are entering India through soft borders every day.



Secular Bharat is being battered and grabbed bit by bit by Pak-Bangla terrorists and infiltrators every day.



Fraudulent �secularism�

Logically, on India�s Partition on religious basis and creation of Pakistan for Muslims, Bharat should have been declared a Hindu republic. But surprisingly, Bharat was made a �secular� country. However, in India, �secularism� stands for anti-Hinduism. In secular India, Hinduism is being persistently attacked and demolished.



With each passing day, India is being made more Islamic and more Christian and less Hindu.



Countless Pak-Bangla terrorists and infiltrators bent upon creating one more Muslim country on Bharat�s soil, genocide and eviction of Hindus from Kashmir, global missionary organisations Christianising India, government control over Hindu temples whereas no mosque or church is covered by such control, special privileges to non-Hindus under Article 30, special rights to Muslim majority Jammu & Kashmir under Article 370, de-Hinduisation of education and history and banishment of Sanskrit from education, denigration of Hindus and Hinduism by most of media, and provision of Haj subsidy though none of 57 Islamic countries gives any such subsidy are just a few perversities of secular India.



Similarly, late Pope John Paul II�s outrageous call to convert Asia to Christianity was given in secular India�s capital in 1999.



Moreover, since secular India did not help Hindu Nepal, combined might of Maoists, Christian missionaries and Pakistan�s ISI divested Nepal of its Hindu identity in 2006.



Logical solution

Since sham �secularism� and secular India have been a disaster for Hindus, only the Hindu Bharat can protect Hindus, Hindu Dharma, Hindu heritage, and Hindu identity of Bharat. Besides, since secular India never helps Hindus in distress either in India or abroad, Hindu Bharat would be a source of strength for the Hindus worldwide.



Moreover, only an assertive Hindu Bharat can liberate Hindus from tyranny of fake secularism; and restore Hindus� fighting spirit and self-esteem. Hindu Bharat will also remove enactments and laws which discriminate against Hindus.



And there should be no apprehension, whatsoever, about Hindu Bharat. Since Hinduism is all embracing, Hindu republic of Bharat will give justice to all and appease none. In Hindu Bharat, there will be one law and one nation; and no distinction of majority and minority, and no discrimination, whatsoever, against any community. And all citizens in this Bharat will have equal rights. Such a Bharat will also dismantle fake-secularism, and liberate the nation from countless terrorists and crores of Pak-Bangla infiltrators.







in comparision 2 ur experience and knowledge I stand on very low steps, but as an Individual person I think that the secularism in the main power and quality of the Indian Nation. If we campared with the development & Powerty of our nation with these two Muslim contries named as Pak and Bangladesh, we are in very better position then of those two.



First of all the veiws posted by u can possialbe only in the condition of secularism of India. As per mine opinion when we came out of the communalism we can put our more attention on the development of the nation.I am not going to blame Mr. L.K.Advani or any other equvalent respected leaders of India on their thoughts, but this is the fact that as against the English muslims had rulled over here as the Indian Citizen. During the fight against English to became india Free all the nationalist had paid there full eighter they was Hindu / Muslims.Of cource there was some facts for the partision of the nation between India and Pakistan. as per mine opinion the most important factor of that was the egos/selfficeness of Nehru and Zinnah.



The muslims who opts for India are really the Indian Nationalist, and we have no right to questioned over their emotions related to India. It is verry much true that their are several groups most of them are of muslims who are engazed in anty social activities, but what about Sikkh terrorism, Bodo, Mayo, tamil, telangana,marathies, etc.. The basic reason of Muslim Terrorism, that was related with Kashmir was originated with the Terms & Conditions of the merger of Kashmir into India.



Further more we cannot deny with the fact that several hindus are engaged in anty social activities those are not only against the Citizen of india but also against to the unity of nation and the culture of our nation.



I am in the position to describe the name of several Hindus to can listed in the list of terrorist.



At last we are, our socity, our financial disappropriation, increasing population, unemployment and some other reasons are responsiable for the distruction of Nation and its Culture.



its not the time to quarell in the topic of Commnalism/Sociolism, its the time to prevent Water, Soil, Environment, Ozone Layer, Corruption, Druggs and some other those must push our contry and our future generation into dark. If this will not be protected and stop, our next generation will suffer a lot of disies and long battels for their survival in the absecnce of most important needs of life.



Thank you,



and sorry if that harms u!!!!!!

And Hindu Bharat will remember M.A. Jinnah�s above-mentioned �Two Nations� theory expounded in Lahore in 1940, and take pre-emptive action to prevent creation of more Pakistans on Bharat�s soil.



Justice and equity demand that Bharat should be declared a Hindu Republic. It is a logical, laudable and achievable goal which will boost Hindu morale. Apart from protecting Bharat�s Hindu identity, Hindu Bharat will transform the present imbecile India into an assertive nation. No one can object to a Hindu Bharat when the world has over a hundred Christian and 57 Islamic countries. All pro-Hindu individuals and organisations should join hands to transform India into a Hindu Republic of Bharat by all peaceful, constitutional and lawful means.



And this endeavour will certainly succeed as Atharva Veda proclaims, �Kritam may dakhshine haste, jayo may savya aahitah� (effort is in my right hand, and victory in my left).



(The author is a former Chief Commissioner of Income Tax. His e-mail address is: jgarora@vsnl.net)

[Husky]

http://rajeev2004.blogspot.com/2010/03/c...y-for.html

Thursday, March 04, 2010

California to seek death penalty for Love Jihadi



http://news.rediff.com/report/2010/mar/0...murder.htm



God bless the USA. Capital punishment is very appropriate for this truly vile criminal.



This was the malicious Bangladeshi Mohammedan demographic warrior who brutally destroyed an entire Hindu family in 2007 - killing the father and older daughter, almost beating the mother to death, setting fire to the family's home and attempted to dispose of the bodies with a staged wildfire.



Point to note: Why does the article on [color="#0000FF"]Rediff[/color] state that an

"[color="#0000FF"]Indian[/color] faces the death penalty"? Is it merely a case of the "South Asia" syndrome?

Or, have the Psecs decided that

with 50 million (and fast growing) Bangladeshi Mohammedan illegals over running India - these minor distinctions of nationality do not matter?



[color="#FF0000"]Ram Vilas Paswan demanded just yesterday, among other things that all Bangladeshi Mohammedan illegals be granted Indian citizenship unconditionally![/color]



Posted by karyakarta92 at 3/04/2010 11:17:00 PM 0 comments Links to this post

Compare with how the christoterrorist govt doesn't want the islamoterrorised Hindu refugees from Pukestan to get refuge in Hindu Bharatam.

[dhu]

Govt against Hindutva icon’s statue coming up in France

The government won’t back the idea of a statue of V D Savarkar in Marseilles, France, even as the BJP pitches for a memorial to mark 100 years of the Hindutva icon’s escape from a British ship near the French port.



“We’re not keen on pursuing this project. It’s a sensitive issue. Even Marseilles authorities are doing a rethink after reading his complete history,” said an External Affairs Ministry source.



The plan was floated by Hindutva organisations in 2000 and the mayor of Marseilles had agreed to a half-bust. Some BJP MPs had raised the issue with External Affairs Minister S M Krisha and in Parliament.



“We haven’t heard anything from the MEA of late,” BJP’s Prakash Javadekar said.



In 2004, a Savarkar plaque was removed from Port Blair’s Cellular Jail. It had been set up by the Indian Oil Foundation, headed by the then oil minister Mani Shankar Aiyar, who’d said Savarkar’s “credentials” were suspect due to his alleged involvement in the Mahatma’s death.

[Capt M Kumar]

आरटीआई के तहत प्राप्त जानकारी के अनुसार वित्त वर्ष 2007-08 में 27 मई 2007 को एक ही दिन में सोनिया गांधी से जुड़े तीन अलग-अलग विज्ञापनों पर 23 लाख 53 हजार 909 रुपये खर्च किए गए। जबकि वित्त वर्ष 2007-08 की अवधि में 32 लाख 83 हजार 552 रुपये खर्च हुए। वर्ष 2007 में ही 17 जून को पांच लाख दो हजार 21 रुपये, एक जुलाई को 90 हजार 843 रुपये तथा 29 जुलाई 2007 को 33 हजार 679 रुपये खर्च किए गए।



सूचना के अधिकार अधिनियम के तहत प्राप्त जानकारी के अनुसार वित्त वर्ष 2008-09 में कांग्रेस प्रमुख से संबंधित विज्ञापन पर एक करोड़ 31 लाख 50 हजार 575 रुपये खर्च हुए, जबकि वित्त वर्ष 2009-10 में 28 अगस्त 2009 को सोनिया गांधी के विज्ञापन पर 29 लाख 24 हजार 810 रुपये खर्च किए गए।

http://navbharattimes.indiatimes.com/art...653518.cms <img src='http://www.india-forum.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/angry.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':angry:' />

min translation:

crores being spent on ads of Sonia by Govt has been questioned by RTI.

[dhu]

[url="http://www.dailypioneer.com/240808/More-privileged-than-others.html"]More privileged than others[/url]



A Surya Prakash

On March 13, 2009, I had drawn the attention of the Election Commission of India to the unfair advantage accruing to the Congress because of the naming of Central and State Government schemes and programmes after icons of that party. Since a majority of the schemes of the Union Government are named after just three members of the Nehru-Gandhi dynasty, I had said that there could never be a level playing field for all political parties unless this process was reversed. I had urged the commission to issue a direction to the Government to ensure that the nomenclature of public schemes and programmes remained politically neutral.



The main points made in this letter to the Chief Election Commissioner and the legal issues involved were discussed in articles published by this newspaper at that time. On the first anniversary of this complaint, I am constrained to inform readers that I have not received any communication from the commission until now. Although hundreds of crores of rupees are spent to run this key constitutional body, the Election Commission obviously lacks discipline, the democratic temper and basic manners to write back to citizens who raise substantive issues.



The main points made in that letter to the CEC were as follows:



Over the last 18 years there has been a sustained effort by the Congress to name all major Government programmes, projects and institutions in the country after three members of the Nehru-Gandhi family — Jawaharlal Nehru, Mrs Indira Gandhi and Rajiv Gandhi. Roughly about 450 Central and State Government programmes, projects and national and State-level institutions involving public expenditure of hundreds of thousands of crores of rupees have been named after these three individuals. All the social sector schemes, barring one, are named after these them.



While there are hundreds of Government schemes and programmes, some of the programmes that involve huge outgo of funds are the Rajiv Gandhi Grameen Vidyutikaran Yojana, with an allocation of Rs 28,000 crore during the Eleventh Plan period; the Rajiv Gandhi Drinking Water Mission with a budgetary allocation of Rs 21,000 crore over three years; the Jawaharlal Nehru Urban Renewal Mission with Rs 50,000 crore over seven years; the Indira Awas Yojana with an annual allocation of approximately Rs 8,000 crore; and, the Indira Gandhi National Old Age Pension Scheme with an annual budgetary provision of over Rs 3,400 crore.



However, the greed of the Congress, when it comes to appropriating public schemes for party advantage, knows no bounds. The allocation for the national crèche scheme is just Rs 90 crore a year whereas that for the Udyami Mitra Yojana, a programme to help promote micro and small entrepreneurship is a meagre Rs 1 crore to Rs 2 crore a year. Yet, even these programmes are named after Rajiv Gandhi.



State Governments too have been vying with each other to name programmes after these three members of the Nehru-Gandhi dynasty. For example, [color="#0000FF"]children in Pondicherry are expected to remember Rajiv Gandhi whenever they have breakfast, the poor in Andhra Pradesh must remember him whenever they use their health insurance card and farmers in that State who are into calf-rearing must remember his mother. [/color][color="#008000"]In Haryana, poor women must remember Mrs Indira Gandhi at the time of marriage because the shagun paid out of the public exchequer to them comes in her name.[/color]



There are hundreds of such schemes and simply no space to list them all. The entire list of 450 schemes, programmes, scholarships, institutions and sports trophies named after these three members of the Nehru-Gandhi family is on my website www.asuryaprakash.com.



I requested the Election Commission to issue directions to the Union Government and to all the Governments in the States to remove the names of individuals, who are seen by the people as icons of specific political parties, from all programmes and schemes funded by the public exchequer.



I said such a direction would also ensure enforcement of the model code of conduct in letter and spirit. The code prohibits even minor misdemeanours like misuse of Government vehicles and personnel by the ruling party during an election, yet it allows the Congress to hijack almost every Government scheme and name schemes worth over Rs 1 lakh crore after just three members of a single family who are icons of the party!



I also drew the attention of the commission to many of its own orders, in which it seemed to be keen to ensure fair play in the electoral arena. In one such direction issued in 2006 it restrained Central and State Ministers from making statements which could affect the conduct of free and fair elections and disturb “the level playing field among political parties in the election arena”. If mere statements of Ministers can disturb the “level playing field”, how is it that the commission allows a single political party to go on a naming spree and derive electoral advantage for perpetuity over all other political parties?



Though the commission has been silent on my complaint, there have been some developments over the past year. I had said a year ago that while Union Government programmes involving annual expenditure of lakhs of crores of rupees were named after members of the Nehru-Gandhi family, no major Government programme was named after Mahatma Gandhi. Anxious to hide its bias, the Union Government has now named the National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme after Mahatma Gandhi!



However, after this show of tokenism, it has once again lapsed into its old ways and named the Worli-Bandra sea link after Rajiv Gandhi. Since this bridge is an engineering marvel, it ought to have been named after one of India’s greatest engineers — someone like the engineer-statesman Sir M Visveswaraya — but it seems we are asking for too much when we insist that the Congress and the Nehru-Gandhis honour the true builders of modern India.



What do you make of the Election Commission’s silence on the issues raised a year ago? Is this indeed a public institution that is still competent to fulfill its constitutional mandate and is it capable of taking independent decisions? I would leave it to the readers to determine what implication the commission’s silence has in regard to its impartiality and commitment to the conduct of free and fair elections in the country.

[Guest]

It’s official: Bait Modi, get rewarded

pioneer.com

Abraham Thomas | New Delhi

It may be coincidental, but what a coincidence! A number of public figures who openly criticised Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi in the recent past have been rewarded by the UPA Government, either in the form of a Padma or even a Rajya Sabha nomination.



The recent nomination of noted lyricist and screen play writer, Javed Akhtar, to the Rajya Sabha is one such coincidence. He has time and again proved his worth by scripting classics and authoring memorable songs. But equally significant has been his petition filed in the Supreme Court that put the Narendra Modi Government on the mat, by raising a stink on all encounter killings in the State.



Filed in 2007, the petition is pending in the apex court. It was the same year when Akhtar added another feather to his cap — the Padma Bhushan — in the field of literature and education. With notice issued on his petition by the Supreme Court, the petition assumed significance after the Gujarat Government was pulled up by the Supreme Court after the State police admitted its mistake in the Sohrabuddin Sheikh fake encounter killing.



With two other instances of Ishrat Jahan and Javed Sheikh alias Pragnesh Pillai also coming under the spotlight, Akhtar’s petition was separated from the bunch of petitions filed on the Godhra riots and is slated for further hearing on May 14 this year.



Akhtar’s case alone is not a coincidence. The same year when he was awarded the Padma Bhushan, the Government awarded Teesta Setalvad with Padma Shri — in recognition of her ‘fight for justice’ for Godhra riot victims. Her NGO, Citizens for Justice and Peace, was formed in response to the 2002 Gujarat carnage and her petition filed in the Supreme Court laid the foundation for reopening of riot cases, shifting of trial outside Gujarat in several cases and protection to witnesses. The apex court is seized of the petition.



Another public figure that shot to prominence with her classical dance and won recognition and several awards, is no less known for her tirade against the Modi establishment. Danseuse Mallika Sarabhai too is on the list of Padma Bhushan awardees this year. In 2009, she stood in the Lok Sabha elections as an independent candidate from Gandhinagar (Gujarat) challenging the might of BJP leader LK Advani. For Mallika, who has earlier been endowed with the Padma Shri, the recent accomplishment has come as an added privilege. It was after the Gujarat riots that Sarabhai was vocal in her criticism against Chief Minister Narendra Modi.



One other awarded personality who has found fault with Modi, accusing him of conniving with the perpetrators of the post-Godhra riots, is former Chief Justice of India VN Khare.



As Chief Justice, Khare had castigated Modi Government for failing its “raj dharma” of protecting the life and liberty of its citizens. On his retirement in 2004, Khare gave an interview to a leading national daily where he commented particularly on the State’s ‘collusion’ that he claimed forced him to react to the petitions filed by Teesta and her NGO. He was quoted as saying, “I found there was complete collusion between the accused and the prosecution in Gujarat, throwing rule of law to the winds. The Supreme Court had to step in to break the collusion to ensure protection to the victims and the witnesses.”



It was under him that the riot cases began to be monitored on a periodic basis and the Best Bakery case, where 21 accused were acquitted, got reopened. Khare was the recipient of the Padma Vibhushan, the second highest civilian award for his contribution in the field of public affairs in 2006

[manish]

[url="http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/MEA-goes-all-out-to-block-info-on-Sharm-el-Sheikh/articleshow/5717526.cms"] MEA goes all out to block info on Sharm el-Sheikh‎[/url]



NEW DELHI: Faced with the prospect of making public "sensitive" information relating to names of people who had helped draft the controversial Indo-Pak joint statement in Sharm-El Sheikh, the ministry of external affairs on Tuesday invoked a long list of reasons to get relief from the Delhi High Court against an order asking it to furnish information under the RTI Act.



The MEA seemed to have come up with every conceivable on why the information could not be shared. These included national security, the fragile nature of India's relationship with Pakistan and the negative ramifications it could have on the country's foreign policy.



The ministry also claimed in court that files related to bilateral talks between two countries were exempt from disclosure under the RTI Act.



Acting on MEA's plea, Justice S Muralidhar stayed the order of the Central Information Commission, which had asked the ministry to allow an RTI applicant to inspect files that led to what has been dubbed as the "bad drafting" of the joint statement issued by India and Pakistan at the Sharm-El Sheikh summit held in Egypt last year.



"The CIC has failed to consider that there are crucial issues concerning national security and relations with other countries involved in this case," the plea filed by MEA in HC stated, seeking to convince the court that any transparency on this diplomatic decision had "serious implications for India's foreign policy and national security".



Defending its decision not to permit an inspection of files by RTI activist Subhash Chandra Aggarwal, the MEA added, "India's relations with its neighbours, especially Pakistan are of a complex and sensitive nature... there is an ongoing process of negotiation with Pakistan to resolve outstanding issues and regular correspondences are being exchanged between the two countries. There would be large scale adverse ramifications for Indian foreign policy if such sensitive and ongoing negotiations are exposed prematurely to public domain and subjected to publicity and media scrutiny."



In his RTI plea, Aggarwal had merely sought to know the names of officials involved in the drafting of the statement.



While staying the CIC order of January 4, HC also issued notice to Aggarwal, asking him to respond by July 23 on the MEA petition.



The joint statement issued following talks between Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and his Pakistani counterpart Yousuf Raza Gilani in the Egyptian city in July last year had sparked a controversy over a mention of India's possible role in the separatist movement in Balochistan. The then foreign secretary, Shiv Shankar Menon, had conceded this could be a case of "bad drafting".



Shedding some light on the issue, the MEA's plea said that "the joint statement encapsulates the substance of the discussions between the two PMs. It may be noted that it was prepared and issued at Sharm-El-Sheikh itself and not from MEA offices in India. No file notings are available regarding the drafting of the statement... it is not possible to specifically identify the officials who drafted the joint statement".



Trotting out other reasons why the CIC order needed to be quashed, the MEA complained the information watchdog had "exceeded its jurisdiction" in asking the ministry to make the entire files on the summit available to Aggarwal. It pointed out that the PM made a statement in Parliament on the issue after returning from Egypt and in the process "kept the elected representatives of the people of India fully and comprehensively briefed on his meetings with the Pakistan PM". Therefore, the petition reasoned, there was no need to allow inspection of its files.





Shame on congress politicians , they are hell bent on breaking India , crushing all democratic principles and filling up their own pockets.Even the Italian Mafia is not so unpatriotic as our Rajmata and her lackey MMS is. Shame

[acharya]

Sonia again made NAC chairperson

PTI, Mar 29, 2010, 08.07pm IST



ArticleComments (9)

Tags:Sonia Gandhi|National Advisory Council



Sonia Gandhi returns as NAC chairperson

NEW DELHI: Congress President Sonia Gandhi was on Monday appointed Chairperson of the National Advisory Council (NAC), four years after she quit the post in the wake of the office of profit controversy.



Gandhi, who is also the Chairperson of the ruling UPA, will enjoy the rank of Cabinet Minister and her appointment has been made with immediate effect, an official spokesman said.



Her tenure would be co-terminus with that of the NAC. Gandhi would nominate other members of the Council and their tenure would be for one year from the date of their appointment and it could be extended.



Under the special provisions, an MP being appointed as a member of the NAC, he or she cannot draw any perk, allowance or remuneration from the Council, the spokesperson said.



The Council has been the brainchild of the Congress President and it was first set up after UPA-I came to power in 2004. The NAC was set up as an interface with civil society with regard to the implementation of Government's National Common Minimum Programme (NCMP).



While Gandhi resigned from the first NAC on March 23, 2006 as well as her Lok Sabha seat in the wake of the office of profit controversy, she was re-elected to Lok Sabha from her Rae Bareli constituency in Uttar Pradesh on May 15 the same year.



The term of the first NAC ended on March 31, 2008.

[ramana]

Pioneer Op-Ed on the NAC fits right in this thread!

OPED | Friday, April 2, 2010 | Email | Print |





NAC as a super Cabinet



Kalyani Shankar



The revival of the National Advisory Council with Sonia Gandhi as its head may augur well for the Congress but there are genuine concerns



The National Advisory Council, which functioned as a super Government in many ways since its inception in 2004 till 2006 during UPA 1.0, will have yet another stint with Congress president Sonia Gandhi its chairperson.



The NAC is not one of the 180 odd committees and commissions set up by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh in past six years. This Government-funded council was the top policy advising body overriding the importance of all other institutions, including the Planning Commission, during UPA 1.0. Eyebrows are raised at the timing of its revival.



The term of the first NAC ended on March 2008 after Ms Sonia Gandhi had quit in 2006 as the NAC chairperson following the office of profit controversy. She had also resigned from her Lok Sabha seat. The same year she was re-elected to the Lok Sabha from her Rae Bareli constituency with record majority. Subsequently, in 2006 the Government passed a Bill exempting 56 posts, including that of the chairperson of the NAC, from the office of profit amidst walkout by the BJP in Parliament. Though bungalow no. 2, Motilal Nehru Marg, office for the NAC, was not vacated, it was assumed that the chapter is closed.



However, the revival of the NAC is not only welcome but also necessary. The NAC during UPA 1.0 not only functioned as a super policy-maker but also pushed through some important legislation like the NREGA and the Right to Information. Moreover, there are not too many think-tank panels in the country that could independently propose path-breaking policies. Moreover, the timing of NAC’s revival is quite significant.



Right now the Congress is under the attacks from Opposition on the issue of price rise and inflation. Even congressmen are concerned about it. How could they explain to the aam admi on whose support the Congress came to power about the spiralling price rise?



First of all, the appointment of Ms Gandhi as the NAC chairman will ensure her an institutional platform to promote UPA policies, particularly those of the Congress, on the social and economic reforms. With no coordination committee of the UPA and no Left parties to function as a pressure group, the NAC’s role in boosting Government’s functioning will be crucial.



Second, the NAC, with its track record, may prove to be effective with its NGO members. The NREGA and the Right to Information Act were conceived by the NAC.



Third, some see that the revival of the NAC is a signal that Ms Gandhi wants to ensure her stamp on the Government policies especially when elections are due in Bihar later this year and in Uttar Pradesh next year. The Congress cannot be complacent about this. As the new NAC chief with a Cabinet rank, Ms Gandhi will be in a position to interact with the Government directly and not through remote control.



Fourth, measures like the crucial Food Security Bill, which is one of the party’s poll promises, need to be addressed. Food security is more important than other measures and it will be a feather in the cap if a law is enacted in a country where 70 per cent of the population is poor. In fact, the new census beginning this year should be able to estimate the number of those living below the poverty line.



The draft Food Security Bill is quite different from the one sent by Ms Gandhi to the Prime Minister in June 2009. Insiders say that there are some differences over its provisions like reduction of food grains to the poor to 25 kg while the recommendation was for 35 kg. With the revival of the NAC, this Bill may undergo some amendments just as it happened in the case of the NREGA and the RTI. For UPA 2.0 Food Security Bill could prove to be what NREGA and the Right to Information were for UPA 1.0.



However, the Prime Minister and the Finance Minister are not too enthusiastic about spending another Rs 30,000 to Rs 40,000 crore on food security when the Government is already battling to cut the subsidy and the rising fiscal deficit. Hence there is a clash between the Government and the party. But if the push comes to the shove by the Congress president, the task will be accomplished. At the same time, the NAC cannot ignore fiscal problems being faced by the Government as it would not be prudent for the Government to spend more than it could. <img src='http://www.india-forum.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/rolleyes.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />



The Government and the NAC must work in tandem to chart welfare path for the nation.

Lot of pious wishes means this is a psy-ops article.

[Guest]

Now Queen and her family is busy grabbing Nehru foundations etc.

[Capt M Kumar]

The most promising and qualified minister's career has been cut in prime:

Earlier in the day, Tharoor met the prime minister for 50 minutes to present his side of the story over the IPL controversy involving him and close friend Sunanda Pushkar.



Besides Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, Congress president Sonia Gandhi, her political advisor Ahmed Patel, home minister P Chidambaram, finance minister Pranab Mukherjee and defence minister AK Antony were among those attending the meet. http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india...829192.cms

[Capt M Kumar]

He was perceived to have exceeded his brief again when, travelling with the Prime Minister on a visit to Saudi Arabia, he suggested that Saudi Arabia could act as an 'interlocutor' between India and Pakistan. India has always been against any third party involvement in its bilateral issues with Pakistan, and Tharoor's statement was a clear deviation from New Delhi's stated foreign policy.



Sacrificing Tharoor would be like hitting two birds in one shot. The Government could abruptly end the IPL row and also please the Tharoor baiters within the Government and the Congress. In short, [size="5"]he was the ideal sacrificial goat[/size].

http://news.in.msn.com/national/article....274&page=5

[Guest]

IPL is more popular than anything, Congress knows very well, people will never accept cheating in cricket. Now, they can keep young vote intact.

[Guest]

[url="http://www.telegraphindia.com//1100420/jsp/nation/story_12358501.jsp"]Shashi gets a chance to speak[/url]

He had also begun shedding the paraphernalia of ministerial office — cars, security detail, staff — soon after his resignation became imminent last evening.



This morning, his official aides were asked not to report anymore. Sandeep Chakravarti, an IFS officer detailed to him as personal secretary, is awaiting a new assignment, as are other lesser members of his official staff.



Significantly, his more voluble personal secretary Jacob Joseph, a Dubai entrepreneur whom Tharoor had brought along, was not to be seen at the ousted minister’s residence. He was not tweeting in his boss’ defence either. Phone calls to Joseph’s mobile phones went unanswered.

Minister can't find someone within India.

[ramana]

Shashi Tharoor resigns and speaks in Lok Sabha. Wraps himself up in INC and Kerala flag. Makes no mention about the financial improprieties. He is lucky not to be investigated under Prevention of Corruption Act. Looks like the new mantra is steal while in the cabinet and then resign and keep the ill-gotten wealth and claim innocence. I think at the deep end there is Dawood Ibrahim's money being invested.

[Capt M Kumar]

Congress leaders, red in the face, spluttered that an inquiry had been ordered into the Bulandshahr incident. As for the booklet, the omissions, though glaring, were ‘unintentional’, said the UP Congress spokesperson Subodh Srivastava.



They had glossed over the absence of any photograph of Dr Ambedkar in Congress posters by claiming that they were not ‘official’. But in the mine-field of UP politics, posters, a booklet and even nautch girls threaten to upset political calculations. http://www.tribuneindia.com/2010/20100421/main7.htm

[ramana]

News reports on April 23, 2010 say that INC/UPA govt tapped the phones of its own Cabinet members under the investigating IPL scam rubric.



Didnt the INC withdraw support from the Chandrasekhar govt because Harayana police were keeping watch on Rajiv Gandhi's house to ensure continued support?



Will Pawar have the gumption to withdraw support on this precedent or swallow his own anger and continue in the Cabinet?

[Guest]

[quote name='ramana' date='21 April 2010 - 02:43 AM' timestamp='1271797518' post='106015']

Shashi Tharoor resigns and speaks in Lok Sabha. Wraps himself up in INC and Kerala flag. Makes no mention about the financial improprieties. He is lucky not to be investigated under Prevention of Corruption Act. Looks like the new mantra is steal while in the cabinet and then resign and keep the ill-gotten wealth and claim innocence. I think at the deep end there is Dawood Ibrahim's money being invested.

[/quote]



He was protecting Queen from Iraq Oil money.

First Natwar, now pawn who kept everything under wrap, Mr. Tharoor.



Tharoor should leak information, no point of boot licker of Queen as Natwar did just to protect his Brother-in-law and son.