• 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Congress Undemocratic Ideology - 4
Chawla was known gunda during Emergency. He was one of those who used to snatch cars and force people to fill their gas tanks in Delhi. He was one of those mugger characters in Death Wish movies of Charles Brownson.

Indian Consitution is just a joke or Is there any consitution left? Not sure why they even take oath?
<b>I am the boss, not CEC: Bhardwaj</b><!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Nowadays, wo Constitution ulta padh rahe hai.”<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Oh yes, For Congress all laws are junk, consitution is garbage and India is a Banana Republic. Good going.
<!--QuoteBegin-Mudy+Feb 2 2009, 06:43 PM-->QUOTE(Mudy @ Feb 2 2009, 06:43 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>I am the boss, not CEC: Bhardwaj</b>
Correct me here...isn't this Bhardwaj fellow ushered into cabinet position via Rajya Sabha backdoor a la Manmohan and that item-girl-Patil? These buggers couldn't win a local municipal corporation seat if they contested. Time for Bhardwaj to stand up for Sonia. How predictable.
<!--QuoteBegin-Viren+Feb 3 2009, 04:19 AM-->QUOTE(Viren @ Feb 3 2009, 04:19 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin-Mudy+Feb 2 2009, 06:43 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Mudy @ Feb 2 2009, 06:43 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>I am the boss, not CEC: Bhardwaj</b>
Correct me here...isn't this Bhardwaj fellow ushered into cabinet position via Rajya Sabha backdoor a la Manmohan and that item-girl-Patil? These buggers couldn't win a local municipal corporation seat if they contested. Time for Bhardwaj to stand up for Sonia. How predictable.

Yes, he is from Sanjay Gandhi Gunda/Emergency days club. These people even managed to get degrees from back door. <!--emo&Big Grin--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif' /><!--endemo-->
He is Rahul baba mentor.

Sonia is behaving like Sanjay Gandhi.
Emergency without declaration, she is one step more cunning.
<b>Chawla's loo breaks led to Congress phone calls: CEC</b><!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->The CEC has conveyed to top government functionaries the complaints of <b>two deputy election commissioners in this regard. Rajashri Bhattacharya, a 1979 batch IAS officer of the Andhra cadre, had even complained to the Cabinet Secretary that Chawla had abused him and threatened to get him arrested. </b>Bhattacharya has since moved to the Planning Commission. R Balasubramanian, an Orissa cadre IAS officer, is the other deputy election commissioner who complained to the CEC in writing against Chawla.

<b>The CEC also received a complaint that Chawla went out of his way to help a pandal owner during the recent Delhi assembly elections by calling up electoral officers to hire material from him.</b>

Gopalaswami says Nair tried to scuttle the notice against the Congress president, pleading that the prime minister has already examined the matter and found that there was no case against Sonia Gandhi. <b>After five months of deliberations, the Election Commission decided to serve notice on Sonia Gandhi. She replied but the Election Commission is not able to firm up its views since Chawla is dragging his feet in submitting his comments, the CEC's report says</b>.

The CEC's report says irrespective of whether Chawla consents to a decision or finds himself singled out by a majority of Gopalaswami and S Y Quraishi, the other <b>Election Commissioner, he appears to be in the habit of conveying all the minutes of their internal meetings to the Congress leadership</b>.

The report mentions the CEC getting a phone call from a top Congress functionary when the<b> Election Commission was debating the possible dates for the Gujarat assembly elections and holding them in three phases as the home ministry was reluctant to provide sufficient central forces to complete it in two phases.</b>

Sources stated that the Congress functionary whom the CEC does not name is none else but Ahmed Patel, Sonia Gandhi's political secretary, who talked to him in Gujarati, but this could not be confirmed. Gopalaswami, who is a Gujarat cadre IAS officer and speaks Gujarati fluently, countered as to how he learnt about the details when the EC's deliberations were still in progress.

<b>Sources said Ahmed Patel reportedly wriggled out, stating that he got it from a source and assured sufficient central forces to complete the elections in two phases. And in no time the home ministry informed the CEC that central forces can be provided to conduct the polls in two phases and so the elections were held in two phases</b>.

In another instance, Chawla found himself in a minority on holding the Himachal Pradesh [Images] assembly elections ahead of the completion of the five-year term of the present House. <b>Even before the minutes were drawn up, the CEC got a phone call from then chief minister Veerbhadra Singh to defer announcement of the elections. </b>Another senior Congress functionary wanted to meet the EC's full bench to plead against the elections three months ahead of the House term.

Sources identified this functionary as R K Dhawan, a senior Congress Working Committee member, who is very close to the Gandhi family. Again, this could not be confirmed.
They all are working to protect "QUEEN". She is so shameless, still sticking to power. Any person with moral would have quit by now with shame.
<b>Election Commission: Sonia & Left in the dock</b>
Sandhya Jain
03 Feb 2009

Sonia Gandhi and her former Left comrades are in the dock in the current turmoil in the Election Commission, although it is true that the crisis began with BJP’s petition to President APJ Abdul Kalam seeking removal of Election Commissioner Navin Chawla on grounds of his pro-Congress affiliations.

As if to underline the extent to which constitutional bodies have been politicized by the Congress Party, the Assam State Election Commissioner <b>Chandra Kanta Sarma resigned on 31 January 2009, and is now seeking a Congress ticket</b> from Mangaldoi parliamentary constituency! Mr. Sarma was admitted to the Congress on 1 February, and submitted his request for the party ticket the same day.

Former Chief Election Commissioner <b>Manohar Singh Gill is currently serving as a Minister</b> of State in the UPA Government. Now, with a serving state Election Commissioner resigning to contest the forthcoming Lok Sabha polls, the Communist Party of India (Marxist), which has called for a bar on former EC Members taking political posts or contesting elections, will have to take a call.

The CPM withdrew support from the UPA on the issue of the Indo-US nuclear deal last year, but has extended support to Mr. Navin Chawla and joined hands with the Congress in casting aspersions against Chief Election Commissioner N. Gopalaswami for recommending the removal of Mr. Chawla. This support is untenable and can be understood only when one perceives that like the Maoist regime in Nepal, the CPM is dominated by minorities, and this often gives the party a pronounced anti-Hindu edge.

The minority – or at least the non-Hindu – angle has played up at critical moments in national politics, and this may well be the time to ponder if there ought to be a statutory limit on the number of key constitutional posts that members of minority groups can hold at a given moment. This idea needs nation-wide debate, as the Hindu majority seems to be getting the short end of the stick in every crisis.

The current crisis broke into the public domain immediately after Election Commissioner S.Y. Qureshi (whose religious affiliations are self-evident) declared on an official trip to London that the Lok Sabha elections would be held between 8 April and 15 May 2009. The UPA took instant advantage of the information to sharply reduce the prices of petrol, diesel and cooking gas; more populist announcements are reportedly on the anvil, which Congress is keen to announce before the model code of conduct becomes operative.

As for Mr. Navin Chawla, he owes his position as next CEC-designate to his proximity to the Gandhi family, which began during the notorious Emergency of 1975-77, when Congress president Sonia Gandhi was close to her brother-in-law Sanjay Gandhi, and joined some of his business ventures, as subsequently brought out by a commission of enquiry. While Mr. Chawla’s religious affiliations are not known, he owes much of his fame to authorship of two books on the Albanian nun, Teresa, whose so-called sainthood is subject of much controversy in the West as well as in India!

It is pertinent that in March 2005, <b>just two months before his appointment as Election Commissioner, Mr. Chawla was bestowed the Mazzini Award by the Italian government.</b> Ms. Sonia Gandhi, as is well-known, is an Italian-born Roman Catholic. Her son and Amethi MP, Rahul Gandhi, has studiously refused to answer questions regarding the nature of his citizenship (given the Roman law) and whether he also holds an Italian passport, a situation untenable in Indian law.

While Mr. Chawla’s appointment naturally created misgivings that he had a pro-Congress leaning, it became unacceptable once the media exposed that he had received undue favours from the Ashok Gehlot regime in Rajasthan, and that Congress MPs had made huge donations from MPLAD funds to a private trust owned by him and his wife.

It was in this backdrop that over 200 MPs of the NDA signed a memorandum requesting President Kalam to remove Mr. Chawla from office. Later, BJP leader Jaswant Singh filed a petition in the Supreme Court in May 2006, which it withdrew when CEC Gopalaswami filed an affidavit saying he had the power to remove any Member for substantial reasons. BJP then forwarded its petition to the CEC. The CEC’s power under Article 324(5) was affirmed by the Supreme Court in T.N. Seshan vs. Union of India (1995).

In his letter to President Pratibha Patil citing 12 instances of partisan behaviour by Mr. Chawla, one of the key issues pertains to the Order of the Leopold Award conferred by the Belgium Monarchy upon Ms. Sonia Gandhi. A controversy over the citation led to an opposition demand for disqualification of the Congress president, and Mr. Chawla roped in the Ministry of External Affairs to bail her out.

Sources say that the Commission deliberated for over five months, during which period the PM’s principal secretary T.K.A. Nair visited the Commission to plead that there was no case against Ms. Gandhi and that the PM had already examined the matter. Though the Commission finally decided to issue notice to Ms. Gandhi, Mr. S.Y. Qureshi reportedly changed his mind and felt the notice should not be served. Ms. Gandhi has since replied to the notice, but Mr. Chawla has failed to furnish his comments and hence the Commission has not finalized its views on the matter.

Precisely these stonewalling tricks were deployed by Mr. Chawla in the matter of the CEC’s show-cause notice on the BJP petition. He sought the opinion of the Union Law Ministry, which has now publicly taken the stand that the CEC does not have the authority to take suo motu action on such petitions. Yesterday (2 February), Law Minister Hansraj Bharadwaj went a step ahead and declared Mr. Chawla as CEC-designate (Mr. Gopalaswami retires on 20 April 2009).

Mr. Gopalaswami’s recommendation for removing Mr. Chawla for ‘‘partisanship’’ comes close to the forthcoming Lok Sabha elections because the latter submitted his reply to the charges only on December 10. The CEC then submitted his report to the President on 12 January 2009.

The CEC delayed seeking Mr. Chawla’s explanation for six months, sending the notice only on 21 July 2008, owing to differences with the latter over the timing of the Karnataka elections, which ended in May 2008. On 12 September 2008, Mr. Chawla wrote that he was seeking the Law Ministry’s opinion on whether the CEC had the power to make a suo motu inquiry against an Election Commissioner. After the Karnataka election, Mr. Chawla went on a month’s leave, and this further delayed matters.

Although Mr. Gopalaswami wrote back on 17 September that he had the power to take cognizance of BJP’s petition even without a reference from the government, the Law Ministry on 7 November opined that the CEC could not proceed without a reference from the government. But the CEC persisted and Mr. Chawla finally replied on 10 December 2008. Thereafter, Mr. Gopalaswami sent his report to the President on 12 January 2009. He might have refrained from making the matter public, but for the indiscretion of Mr. Qureshi.

Amongst the instances of Mr. Chawla’s “partisan” behaviour, the CEC has cited his role in deciding the poll dates for Uttar Pradesh, Gujarat and Himachal Pradesh in 2007, besides his unilateral and startling decision to consult the Ministry of External Affairs about the notice to Congress president Sonia Gandhi for accepting a Belgian honour.

The CEC has also raised questions about Mr. Chawla’s role in the BJP’s CD case and the Bhagalpur by-election. When the Commission was discussing dates for the Gujarat election, Mr. Gopalaswami supported the state chief electoral officer’s suggestion for a three-phase poll; Mr. Chawla disagreed. The Home Ministry made arrangements of central paramilitary forces for a three-phase poll.

The three-phase poll was still an internal decision of the EC when a senior Congress leader called the Commission and asked why it could not be a two-phase poll. The CEC reportedly mentioned the unavailability of forces, but the person said the Home Ministry would help. Within hours, Mr. Chawla informed the CEC that more forces would be made available for Gujarat! And within the next few hours, Home Ministry officials called the Commission and offered more forces. Gujarat finally had a two-phase election.

Mr. Chawla also differed on the timing of the Himachal Pradesh polls, and tried to delay finalizing his decision on some pretext or other. He repeated these tactics when the Commission was discussing the schedule for the UP election, and Congress learnt of the dates.

Notwithstanding the desirability of his removal, it is evident from the brazen approach of the Congress and UPA government that Mr. Chawla is not only going to stay for the duration of the Lok Sabha elections, but going to be elevated as Chief Election Commissioner thereafter. Commissioner Qureshi has already proved convenient to the UPA government.

In these circumstances, a parliamentary election conducted by these two officers will lack public confidence and credibility. Hence it would be in the fitness of things if all political parties decide to complete the election process by 20 April 2009, when all three Commissioners are in office. As the current Parliament's term ends in April, this would be appropriate.

As for the BJP – if Mr. L.K. Advani is serious about becoming Prime Minister and not just NDA’s candidate for PM – it should train its guns on the foreign origins of Ms. Sonia Gandhi. There can be no doubt that as in the coloured and failed revolutions in the former Soviet Republics, external forces are monitoring and mentoring the rise and rise of Ms. Sonia Gandhi, triggering one crisis after another to expose national and societal weakness, and make inroads in critical areas of the polity, economy, and society.

The nation has never been in such acute danger as at present. The US-led West seems determined to aggravate tensions in our part of the world, from a troop surge in Afghanistan to increased strikes in Pakistan, and it is still unclear whether Washington is ultimately going to opt for peace with Teheran, or war.

Either way, the West needs a compliant India. Moreover, Britain seems determined to carve out an independent Kashmir, and it will suit London to have the Gandhi family at the helm if this is to be executed. After all, Ms. Sonia Gandhi met Mr. Rajiv Gandhi in London, and Mr. Rahul Gandhi agreed to give Foreign Secretary David Miliband a conducted tour of India’s rural poverty despite his execrable remarks about Kashmir being the core issue between India and Pakistan.

<b>Mr. Advani will have to decide if he wants to fight and win, or play second fiddle to the Kuru-Gandhis. The abiding lesson of the Mahabharata is that victory belongs to the one who shoots the eye of the fish – not to those who skirt around the tail.</b>

The author is Editor, www.vijayvaani.com

Congress had corrupted whole country. If you check IAS cadre majority of them are corrupt to core and they prefer Congress because they will keep getting bribe in Congress rule.
How people in India are reacting to this Chawla circus?
Sanjay M wrote:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->I'm increasingly getting the feeling that Congress has now crossed a psychological threshold, whereby they are committed to not allowing power to slip from their greedy grasp, whether by hook or by crook. They seem to have now put themselves onto a slippery slope, whereby they will use any means available to keep themselves in power at the Centre. They're on the MacBeth road.

I've been a firm supporter of the 123 Indo-US Nuclear Deal, and have posted my support for it many times on here. But I'm increasingly getting the impression that the deal has mainly been signed between the US and the Congress Party, so that control over the Centre by the Congress Party has become a basic requirement to keep the deal in place as is. Therefore it seems like Congress has been given license to turn India into a US-backed Banana Republic, like Pakistan under Musharraf, or Egypt under Hosni Mubarak.

The way things are looking today, I feel like Congress intends to give us uninterrupted One-Party Rule for the next few decades. They'll wind up giving themselves a free hand to do anything they please, as they did during the 1977 Emergency. Those bad old days, which they won't even acknowledge, may be coming back again.

Regarding this new Congress assault against CEC, my intuition is once again telling me that Congress is looking to establish a dictatorship. They want to make sure that they win the elections no matter what. This is beyond the realm of democratic politics. The Congress power structure has completely detached it from respect for the democratic process, and they are now moving to grab power in any way they can. We are moving towards another Emergency.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

They won't establish emergency. They don't have to as long as the anti-Indian media and anti-Indian personalities can keep conspiring with them closely to subdue India and keep the power in the hands of the dienasty.

That's why Tehelka, NDTV, Hindu all have been co-opted into a campaign and make this look like a religious inferno. Keep bashing Hindus and RSS/BJP and no matter in which corner some goon shouts, brand him as right-wing and link BJP to them. That's why they keep Modi bashing high at all levels.

Look at The Hindu now a days. N. Ram is running a vilification campaign against CEC. It does not matter to him that the election commission is turned into a personal fiefdom of Italian madam. He prefers the destruction of the institution rather than exposing of Sonia. Look how Pratibha Patil whose family was involved in myriad of scandals was skillfully placed as President to control next government. Now the Italian madam wants Chawla, a known corrupt servant to become CEC. Hindustan Times, NDTV, The Hindu, COMMIES are all in bed bashing the CEC putting the case for impartial CEC which is a corner stone of democracy.

We are all shouting at the top of our voices. BJP is not even aware of the grand plan being hatched by Italian scums, the corrupt and anti-Indian media outlets and how well they are all working together to establish this spider web from which the country can't come out. COMMIES are always in the front to destroy India whenever possible whether they have to work with China or Pakistan or Italian mob or any other enemy of India.

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Rahul Sarin is frontrunner for EC post
Akhilesh Suman | New Delhi
<b>Senior IAS officer Rahul Sarin may be picked up by the Government to fill up the vacancy in the Election Commission when Chief Election Commissioner N Gopalaswami demits office on April 20</b>.

<b>Sarin is a 1974 batch </b>officer of Bihar cadre. He is posted as Secretary in the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions, which is under direct <b>control of the Prime Minister's Office. </b>

Sources in the Government told The Pioneer that Sarin's name is at the top of the list of probables.

Before being shifted to the DoPT in September 2008, Sarin served as Secretary in the Food Processing Ministry. He also held the crucial post of Additional Secretary and Special Secretary in Administrative Reforms Commission for two years beginning 2006.

Sarin is to retire in August 2009 and if selected for the post, he would be given extension on the lines of N Gopalaswami and Navin Chawla, who also joined as ECs when they were on the verge of retirement.

Law Secretary TK Vishwanathan's name is also doing the rounds. A 1968 batch Indian Legal Services officer, he is understood to enjoy the confidence of Law Minister Hansraj Bhardwaj.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Get your own stooges and do fraud by voting machines. Even before election I can say Democracy is dead in India. It is just a Goons Raj.
<b>Removal of Election Commissioner: On whose word?</b>

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Soli J. Sorabjee
Posted: Feb 04, 2009 at 0119 hrs IST

Reference to Constitutional Assembly debates and constitutional provisions is necessary to understand the issues involved in the current Gopalaswami-Navin Chawla controversy. Part XV of the Constitution was expressly enacted to entrust the responsibility of holding free and fair elections to an independent Election Commission. Its paramount objective was to insulate the commission from pressures from the executive of the day and to ensure its independence.

This objective is subserved by two provisos to Article 324(5). The first proviso stipulates that CEC shall not be removed except by the process of impeachment as in the case of a high court or a Supreme Court judge. The second proviso states that the “Election Commissioner or Regional Commissioner shall not be removed from office except on the recommendation of the CEC.” The words are not “except on the advice of the President”, which means advice of the Council of Ministers. Therefore the continuance in office or removal of an election commissioner or a regional election commissioner cannot be decided by the executive government.

Dr Ambedkar’s statement in the Constituent Assembly on June 16, 1949 on this subject is decisive. He inter alia stated that “in the matter of removal of the other Commissioners [Election Commissioners], the President can only act on the recommendation of the Chief Election Commissioner” and that was “a very important limitation” on the president’s power. Thus it is clear that it is the CEC alone who is competent to recommend the removal of an EC. Besides the CEC prima facie would be the best judge to appraise the behaviour and conduct of an EC within the four walls of the Commission.

The vexed question is about the effect of the recommendation made by the CEC. Is it binding on the Government or can the government reject it on the ground that the matter of removal of an EC vests entirely with the government of the day? Reference may be made to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of T.N. Seshan where the Court inter alia observed:

“These two limitations on the power of Parliament are intended to protect the independence of the CEC from political and/ or executive interference. In the case of ECs as well as RCs, the second proviso to clause (5) provides that they shall not be removed from office except on the recommendation of CEC... The provision that the ECs and the RCs once appointed cannot be removed from office before the expiry of their tenure except on the recommendation of the CEC ensures their independence... It is necessary to realise that this check on the executive’s power to remove is built into the second proviso to clause (5) to safeguard the independence of not only these functionaries but the Election Commission as a body.”

These observations negative the claim that it is within the domain of the Government to decide about the removal of an EC contrary to the recommendation of the CEC because in that case the manifest purpose of the second proviso, namely that an EC “shall not be removed from office except on the recommendation of the CEC”, is plainly defeated. Therefore having regard to the paramount objective of Part XV, which is to eliminate political influence, the correct position would be that as a general rule the recommendation of the CEC would be binding upon the government unless there are cogent and convincing reasons for rejecting it. For example, if in a given case, the CEC in recommending removal of an EC acts capriciously or if his recommendation is not based on valid reasons which are conducive to the efficient functioning of the Election Commission as an independent body free from bias or partiality. Save such exceptional cases the CEC’s recommendation should be binding on the government.

The argument that this runs counter to the general principle that the president is bound to accept ministerial advice overlooks that there are well-settled exceptions to the general rule. One of the exceptions is that where bias would be inherent from the very nature of things in the advice of the Council of Ministers, in which case the governor is not bound to act according to ministerial advice. This issue was dealt with by the Supreme Court in MP Special Police Establishment vs State of MP. The question in that case was whether the governor was bound to accept ministerial advice or could act in his own discretion in the matter of prosecution of two state ministers. The Supreme Court ruled that there may be situations which are not amenable to ministerial advice and real danger of bias may be one such situation. The Court held that if the governor cannot act in his own discretion there would be a complete breakdown of the rule of law inasmuch as it would then be open for governments to refuse sanction for prosecution in spite of overwhelming material showing that a prima facie case is made out.

Applying this principle by analogy and in order to ensure that the paramount objective of insulating the Election Commission from the influence of the government of the day is not frustrated, it would follow that the president is not bound by ministerial advice in the matter of removal of an EC. Holding otherwise would confer on the executive the power to shield in a hypothetical case a palpably biased EC. It would also in effect vest the power of removing or continuing an EC in the executive which would impair the independence of the Election Commission. A political party benefiting from the bias of an EC cannot realistically be expected to accept the CEC’s recommendation for removal of an EC on the ground of bias.

There is no apparent reason why the CEC’s recommendations for Chawla’s removal be not disclosed.

Consequently one is not aware of the grounds which prompted the CEC to recommend his removal. Hence it would be premature and speculative to adjudge the CEC’s action or its timing in view of his explanation about the date when he received Chawla’s response.

Gopalaswami and Chawla are transient personalities in the context of the extremely important constitutional principles regarding the repository of the power of recommending removal of an election commissioner and furthermore the acceptance or rejection by the Government of the CEC’s recommendation.

The writer is a former Attorney General for India

Source: http://www.indianexpress.com/<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Political heartbeats
<b>As with all decisions in the Congress, the prime minister's decision to go in for a bypass was a late night one. On 22nd January, after consulting with his doctors Manmohan Singh called Sonia Gandhi </b>and informed her that in view of the coming elections it made sense not to waste time but go in for a surgery immediately. Sonia Gandhi agreed, especially since it was pointed out that unlike Independence Day which was a prime ministerial function the Republic Day was presided over by the president.
Then came the decision on allocation of the prime minister's duties. Although Pranab Mukherjee's work allocation increased, he was not elevated to Number Two. This lead a senior Congressman to joke that while Pranab Babu's perks had increased his basic remained the same. <b>A higher basic would have taken him to the higher Manmohan-Sonia-Rahul bracket. And this the leadership clearly did not want.</b>
More confusion followed when Pranab was not named by name but it was decided that the senior most member of the Cabinet Committee on Political Affairs (CCPA) would be presiding. So far so good until Pranab had to make a hasty overnight trip to Sri Lanka on the 27th. Who was in charge in his absence? Cabinet colleagues did their political math and came up with different answers. One minister thought that this was finally Arjun Singh's moment while another wondered if the senior most member was Sharad Pawar. Turned out to be AK Antony. But that was a close leadership call.
<b>On removal of Navin Chawla as EC</b>

It is understandable that the Congress would not want Navin's dismissal because of the fact that he will aid the Congress in rigging the election. But what is not understandable is why the Communists want him retained and not dismissed especially when you know that in the two states where the communists are stronger, its opposition is the Congress.

Can anyone help me understand this phenomenon?
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->But what is not understandable is why the Communists want him retained <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Perhaps herein lies the answer: UPA trying to woo back Left parties
Backroom mating dance has begun. It's all to hoodwink am aadmi into believing one's different than the other before the polls. After polls close, we'll see several mergers under the chatter of '<i>keeping communal parties out of power</i>'.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>Centre told us to save Mulayam: CBI</b>
Abraham Thomas | New Delhi
Agency has sold its soul, say legal luminaries
The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) acted under the Centre’s directive in seeking to bail out Samajwadi Party chief Mulayam Singh Yadav in the disproportionate assets case. The CBI’s admission in the Supreme Court on Tuesday sent shock waves among legal luminaries, with s<b>enior advocate KTS Tulsi even saying the CBI “has sold its soul”.</b>

Making the startling disclosure, Additional Solicitor General (ASG) Mohan Parasaran said the CBI's plea to withdraw an earlier letter for Mulayam’s prosecution was based on the Union Law Ministry’s instructions.

<span style='color:red'>The shocking revelation is another low in the disgraceful history of an organisation that has invited regular criticism for being a “puppet” of the Central Government. The CBI’s role in Bofors accused Ottavio Quattorocchi’s escape and de-freezing of his London accounts, its refusal to challenge RJD chief Lalu Prasad’s acquittal in the fodder scam and its flip-flop on corruption cases against BSP supremo Mayawati have earned it a great deal of notoriety.</span>

On October 26, 2007, the agency had filed an application seeking permission to table its investigation report before the Supreme Court. The CBI had then held that there was prima facie evidence to nail Mulayam Singh and his kin in corruption cases. Those were the days when the SP and the Congress were on opposite sides of the political divide.

<b>But after the SP came closer to the UPA and bailed out the Manmohan Singh Government by voting in favour of the confidence motion, the CBI took an about-turn. On December 6, 2008, the agency filed an application to withdraw its earlier request to table charges against Mulayam, which could have led to his prosecution. The agency said it had received representation from Mulayam to reconsider the evidences and cited this reason for the flip-flop</b>.

“We proceeded to take the view of the Law Minister whether to take action on Mulayam’s representations. We received opinion from the Law Ministry to withdraw the October 2007 application and file a fresh application dated November 26, 2008, which was filed in the court on December 6. On that opinion, we filed the fresh application,” the ASG added.

The CBI’s submission stunned the court, forcing the Bench of Justices Altamas Kabir and Cyriac Joseph to remark, “So you were acting at the behest of the Law Ministry. You were not acting independently. What you just now said is something unusual.”

Digging deeper, the Bench asked, “Is this the only case where the CBI has followed the practice of referring for opinion to the Law Ministry or has it been resorting to this in the past also?” The ASG replied, “In the past also, we have referred (cases) for their opinion… I have stated the facts as they are.”

The Bench sought to know what stopped the agency from approaching the court on considering the representations. It was on March 1, 2007, that the apex court had directed the CBI to investigate into the disproportionate assets of Mulayam, his two sons Akhilesh and Prateek, and daughter-in-law Dimple on a PIL filed by one Vishwanath Chaturvedi. “Why did you go to the Central Government? Why didn’t you approach us?” the Bench asked.

It also asked, “When the investigation was completed and you received additional material, does anything stand in way of your examining it?” The ASG replied in the negative. This gave the court sufficient proof to hold the CBI at fault.

Finding itself in a rather sticky position, Solicitor General GE Vahanvati chose to remain neutral. Appearing for the Centre, he clarified, “We don’t want to take any decision in this matter. Let the CBI consider the representation and submit report to the court."

<b>The CBI's admission, however, gave sufficient ammunition to petitioner Chaturvedi and Mulayam and his kin to take potshots at the agency's foul play.</b>

That is why I say , Sonia and Moron Singh had converted India into Banana Republic. Indian Embasies , CBI are working for 10 Janpath not for India or Indian citizen who pay these low life crooks salaries. Traitors.
Instead of criticising the UPA govt for its abuse of powers the whole circus- media, judges are castigating the agency which is under the Govt. Where is the question of independence of a gvot agency? Are they asking for a revolt or dis-obediance?
Current Indian government had converted every single agency into garbage. I blame people who are toeing 10 Janpath dikat.
They are not asking for revolt but seems like creating doubts/credibility issue within CBI itself, then it will be very easy to drop other cases. This is politicans recuse plan.
<b>Sonia Congress Party Union Minister Mahavir Prasad booked in murder case</b>
<b>Before Ramalinga Raju, there was Dharma Teja</b>
He was another cheat created/supported by Nehru-Gandhi family
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>How the UPA devalues democracy
M R Venkatesh</b>
February 13, 2009

In a remarkable string of coincidences over the past fortnight or so, the United Progressive Alliance government has successfully and repeatedly denigrated our democratic institutions. Naturally, if the silence of our intellectuals on this issue has left me intrigued, the response by the opposition parties to the same has left me completely flummoxed.

Denigration of democratic institutions has virtually become a way of life in the country ever since the sixties when the then prime minister Indira Gandhi [Images] went on to subvert every single institution for her narrow political gains. Over a period of time, this became the norm for all political parties, whenever they occupied power.

But the UPA government seems to have done one better. It seems, like many of its predecessors not only denigrate democratic institutions for political expediencies, it has gone to develop an unhealthy contempt for democracy itself. This is the crucial difference between the UPA government and its predecessors. Let me elaborate.

<b>A PM who is selected, not elected</b>

The prime minister is still a member of the Rajya Sabha and not the Lok Sabha. That he was handpicked by the Congress leadership to lead the government and continues even after five years enjoy its confidence and trust is a different matter. But that does not mean that he enjoys the confidence of the people of the country. And that can be tested only when he prefers to contest for the Lok Sabha.

Nevertheless, the practice of denigrating institutions and devaluing democracy by the UPA government begins at that point in time. What mattered were personal loyalty and political considerations, not constitutional propriety and healthy democratic traditions. What would explain the idea of the UPA to exploit a constitutional technicality -- of allowing a Rajya Sabha member to lead the government -- to the maximum?

The net consequence -- we had a selected PM; not an elected PM. This reduced the office of the prime minister into that of a vice-chancellor of a university or to that of a government appointed director of a company like Satyam [Get Quote]. In short, the manner in which the Dr Manmohan Singh [Images] became PM and continues to occupy the high office may not be illegal, but surely does not make him a morally legitimate PM either.

Be that as it may, let me turn to the events of the past fortnight. First was the prime minister's surgery. As the septuagenarian alternated between being anesthetised and sedated in the past fortnight, the UPA did not think it even necessary to even announce a number two to the cabinet. World over, democratic conventions has it that at-least in such circumstances the number two in the cabinet is formally announced.

Naturally, the reasons for which the UPA has denied naming number two in the cabinet is the subject matter of intense speculation in New Delhi [Images]. Mostly, it points to intense unease of the UPA leadership in trusting even senior cabinet members of its own party for a limited period of time!

Unfortunately, the functioning of the PMO, cabinet, government and more importantly, the constitution has been reduced to the personal likes and dislikes of the UPA leadership. And that is the crux of the issue which seems to have escaped the attention of most analysts.

<b>A split Election Commission�.</b>

For the UPA, such constitutional impropriety is not an exception. Rather, it would seem to be the rule. The second instance, concerning the spat between the Chief Election Commission and the Election Commissioner, is equally serious, perhaps more serious than the technical issues raised above. After all we are talking of the institution that would conduct polls in a few weeks from now.

Naturally, one should not and cannot handle the situation casually as the UPA government has sought to do. In contrast to the demanding situation, the response of the UPA government has been appalling. The Election Commissioner in question, Navin Chawla [Images], has a chequered past. Commentators have repeatedly brought out this fact even while he was appointed a few years back as they have done now.

Therefore the crucial question remains -- why appoint someone who has even a hint of taint in his character? Or is it a prerequisite for an appointment to the high constitutional office in the UPA regime? And remember, more than 200 MPs had petitioned against his appointment to the President. Yet, this did not agitate the collective conscience of the UPA government.

If the appointment of a person with an allegation of taint was appalling, the response of the UPA government to the allegations of CEC -- was outrageous. What would explain the fact that the government alternated between two stands -- one, to dismiss the allegations of CEC without even a cursory examination and two, to dwell on the technicalities as to whether CEC had the suo moto powers under the constitution or not.

The arguments by the UPA legal luminaries possibly could be constitutionally right -- the CEC may well lack the suo moto powers to suggest the dismissal of his colleague.  After all, it is a matter of interpretation and hair splitting technicalities. But this argument beats common sense too -- does that mean that a police inspector has to wait for a formal written complaint from a victim before proceeding to act?

Crucially, by refusing to act and by imputing motives to the CEC, the UPA has, as it has done to several democratic institutions across the country, undermined its independence. Surely, with elections scheduled shortly, we are in for a torrid summer.

<b>And a partisan CBI</b>

Given this state of the nation, can the comrades be far behind? But for a change this time around they are at the receiving end from the UPA government. The issue is one of referring a corruption case involving a politburo member from Kerala [Images] who was involved in awarding the contract to a company while he was a power minister of Kerala in the mid-nineties.

What is interesting to note here is that the investigating agency of the state government under the Congress party in 2006 had virtually exonerated Pinarayi Vijayan, the minister and politburo member in question. Yet, the matter was subsequently referred to the CBI by the then Congress government in the state.

Strangely, the CBI did not choose to act between 2006 and now. It was only last fortnight that the CBI deemed it fit to approach the governor and seek his permission to proceed and file a charge-sheet against Vijayan.

In a classic case of misuse of the CBI, when the Left supported the UPA government, the case was kept in hibernation. When the Left withdrew support and threatened not to support a future Congress-led government at the Centre, the knives are out.

Similarly, Bahujan Samaj Party leader Mayawati [Images] has been facing active CBI probe ever since her party parted ways with the UPA. In contrast, when Mulayam Singh Yadav [Images] came forward to support the UPA, the pace of the CBI probe against him seemed to have slowed considerably as evidenced by the stand of the CBI in the Supreme Court recently. The use of CBI could never have been more blatantly political as it has been under the UPA regime.

<b>The strange silence of the opposition, intellectuals and media</b>
(It's christomedia and they are not silent. They are the christoKKKongress' own cheerleading squad)

As stated at the outset, it may be recalled that all that is stated above have been issues that are engaging the attention of the nation for the past fortnight. In a nutshell this is the report card of the UPA government for the past fortnight. Yet, the opposition, notably the Bharatiya Janata Party and the Left parties, seem to have been strangely silent on these developments, perhaps not realising the consequences.

It is not only the silence of the political parties that is inexplicable -- equally the silence of our intellectuals (who otherwise seem to be preoccupied with the ugly events in Mangalore) is intriguing. It is often said that such issues attract maximum attention of our intellectuals. The events of the last fortnight only confirm the adage.

One reason why opposition parties are silent is perhaps they feel that they could use these precedents to their advantage should they come to power. In the alternative they are completely oblivious and innocent of these developments. Whatever be it, it does not speak highly of our opposition parties.

What is worrying is that our intellectuals and sections of media have rationalised these developments. The reluctance of nominating number two was rationalised as Indian democracy having sufficient institutions that could take care of any situation, not otherwise!

The politicisation of CBI is so complete that no one expects anything better from it. In case of the spat in the Election Commission between the CEC and his colleague, it is invariably seen as a proxy war between the BJP and Congress, not otherwise!

By repeatedly denigrating our democratic institutions, the UPA government has explicitly demonstrated its complete disdain for healthy democratic traditions. But what should worry the nation most is the fact is the silence of our intellectuals, media and our opposition parties.

Once we rationalise all these negative developments or remain silent, democratic institutions may still remain, only we would have killed democracy.

M R Venkatesh is a Chennai-based Chartered Accountant. He can be contacted at mrv@mrv.net.in<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Can add the selection of president Pratibha Patel (Patil?) in there.

Above is via (<b>CORRECTED LINK:</b>)
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>How the UPA devalues democracy</b>
feb 13th, 2009

why should this be surprising? what democracy? there is no democracy in india. the kkkangress is a royalist party, whose main pre-occupation is the continuance of the nehru dynasty.

<b>india must be the only christist/communist monarchy in the world.</b>

let's see, there are a clutch of christist monarchies, there are a bunch of mohammedan monarchies, the only hindu monarchy in the world, nepal, has been overthrown by the chinese, and there is one buddhist monarchy in thailand.

and, unbeknownst to all, india has become the only christist/communist monarchy in the world. the communists had better watch out, because the christists only think of them as 'useful idiots'.

<b>let us see: practising christist rulers include --</b>

vincent george
ambika soni
arvind sharma
arjun singh (via 'injection' from his wife)
a k antony
y samuel reddy

several others are crypto including --
naveen chawla

and fellow-travelers include --
m karunanidhi

<b>they don't need the communists at the moment (until the elections). but their monarchists include:</b>

fat bengali communist speaker (i can't remember the bugger's name but he will do everything possible to keep the monarchists in power)
sitaram yechuri
prakash karat

---------- Forwarded message ----------


<b>How the UPA devalues democracy</b>

M R Venkatesh | February 13, 2009 | 15:16 IST

In a remarkable string of coincidences over the past fortnight or so, the United Progressive Alliance government has successfully and repeatedly denigrated our democratic institutions. Naturally, if the silence of our intellectuals on this issue has left me intrigued, the response by the opposition parties to the same has left me completely flummoxed.

... deleted<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

<b>EDITED:</b> corrected link to the Rajeev2004 blog
Arjun’s saffron side
HRD Minister Arjun Singh may be the sharpest critic in the Cabinet of anyone espousing a remotely Hindutva line, but that does not mean that he is not a believer. Last week, the HRD’s National Mission on Education, through information and communication technology in higher education (ICT), was inaugurated at Tirupati. The venue seems to have been chosen deliberately so that the minister could pay a visit to the famed temple. Singh, unlike the rest of the HRD delegation, who stayed at a hotel, was put up at the Tirupati Tirumala Devasthanam guest house. In fact, the launch of the ICT was delayed till the afternoon so that the minister could receive the blessings of the deity, Lord Venkateswara, in the morning.

Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 8 Guest(s)