• 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Power centers in the corridors of power, Extra Con
<b>Mr Sharma, are they not also Italians by birth</b>?
Monday January 26 2004 11:56 IST
S Gurumurthy

Mr Anand Sharma, the spokesman of the Congress Party, first declared that Rahul and Priyanka were virtually members of the Congress by "birth". This was on Wednesday, the 21st January. Within 24 hours, realising he had invited charges of dynastic succession, he modified the declaration. He said that "Rahul and Priyanka Gandhi are an integral part of the Congress and they are its primary members."

"But, Mr Sharma, when and where did they become members," asked a mischievous journalist. Sharma could not elaborate. Then he fumbled, "I will give you all information later as to when they joined and where." It is of course not difficult to construct records of primary membership of a party that has a history of large bogus membership. Sharma finally eulogised Rahul and Priyanaka as the fifth generation in Nehru-Gandhi family to serve the organisation and the country.

Note the appropriation of `Gandhi' along with `Nehru'. The suffix `Nehru' itself is a misappropriation. Arun Nehru who is sitting in his farm house in Outer Delhi and writing columns in assorted newspapers is a more legitimate Nehru than Antonia Maino, the mother of Rahul and Priyanka. Will he ever be allowed to serve the party like Sonia or her siblings? He lost out more because he was a Nehru, a competitor for the brand Nehru. Rahul is to be married to a foreigner girl, not an Italian, but Columbian. Priyanka is already married to Robert Vadra. Where does `Nehru' get pasted over all this?

How about that saint, `Gandhi', the Mahatma? If pasting Nehru's name is deception, Gandhi's is fraudulently perverted. Where is the true Gandhi family? Where is Rajmohan Gandhi, the direct grandson and the direct heir of not only the Mahatma but also of another great man Rajaji? It is a double fraud, against both Gandhi and Nehru, to designate Antonia Maino and her siblings as Gandhi-Nehru family. There is of course a law against misuse of names. But the framers of that law never visualised fraudulent misappropriation of names. Hence did not provide for that.

Now let us come to the inheritance of Rahul and Priyanka by birth. What did they really inherit by birth? The primary membership of the Congress party? No. That is an inheritance granted by Mr Sharma. The real inheritance is something different. When Antonia Maino gave birth to them she was an Italian national in the Indian Prime Minister's household. She had not decided on becoming an Indian citizen. She was weighing her options for 15 long years on whether to live in India or to leave for Italy. She made that choice ultimately in 1983, after she enjoyed stately patronage in the Prime Minister's household for 15 years. Till then Sonia was a loyal Italian. Rahul and Priyanka, the newly discovered primary members of the Congress by birth, were born to an Italian mother, Sonia. Being the children of an Italian national they are born citizens of Italy. The Italian Constitution says that the Italian nationality inheres in them. A few months back I read a book on Sonia Gandhi by Rashid Kidwai, a journalist. Referring to my article in these columns (May 17, 1999) Kidwai writes in his book, ``<b>The Congress and 10 Janpath have not contradicted Gurumurthy's contentions.'' That is they have not denied that Rahul and Priyanka were born citizens of Italy. Actually it is worse. Says Rashid Kidwai, ``Senior party leaders said Gurumurthy's formulations were academic, even if true, and had no relevance.'' Almost an admission</b>!

<b>Yes, Rahul and Priyanka are Italian citizens by birth</b>. Then Mr Sharma, if they are Congress members by birth, are they not also Italians by birth?

The author can be contacted at: comment@gurumurthy.net
<b>Mudy :</b>

In view of the Law of Italy in respect of Citizenship and Repudiation of same :

Up to the Early 1990s it was not possible for Italian Citizens to Repudiate / Give Up their Italian Citizenship.

As such when Sonia, Rahul and Priyanka were granted their Indian Citizenship then it remains a fact that they already had Italian Citizenship so tat the granting of Indian Citizenship was Ultra Vires, Malicious and Illegal in Law.

Therefore, IMO, in these circumstances the three of them should be stripped of their Indian Citizenship and they must again apply for the grant of Indian Citizenship.

Your views?

<b>PM must know festivals: Swaraj </b>

Hyderabad, March 4: Union Health and Family Welfare Minister Sushma Swaraj on Thursday gave a call to women to demonstrate the “Mahila Shakti” by defeating the Sonia Gandhi-led Congress.

Addressing a public meeting Mahila Ranabheri at Nizam College grounds here, Sushma Swaraj came down heavily on Sonia Gandhi’s aspirations of becoming the Prime Minister of the country.

“Would you like to vote for a woman who doesn’t even know our festivals. Sonia Gandhi does not know what Ugadi is, or for that matter what is Pongal. She doesn’t even know what Onam is,” Swaraj said.

<b>She asked the a large gathering of women wether they would like to be ruled by a woman who did not know the importance of the river Ganga and pronounces Ganga as the Ganges. “The Ganga is mother for us, for Sonia it is only Ganges.</b>

We will respect Sonia Gandhi as a daughter-in-law of the Gandhi family, as the wife of Rajiv Gandhi and we have no objection to her being the Congress president. But as a Prime Minister, Indians will never accept her,” she said at the Ranabheri.
My Webpage
India's main opposition Congress party, whose leader Sonia Gandhi was born in Italy, <b>has demanded a ban on a television spot that used images of the anti-colonial struggle to urge voters not to elect a 'foreigner'</b>(AFP/Prakash Singh)
<b>IGNCA and Sonia Gandhi: The Ultimate Fraud of the </b>
Keerthi Reddy
IGNCA and Sonia Gandhi: The Ultimate Fraud of the Millennium

On January 11, a Delhi High Court pushed the final nail in the coffin of Sonia Gandhi's self extended dominion over the Indira Gandhi National Center For Arts. The court declined to grant an interim stay on her removal as "President for Life" from the Center.

The saga of the IGNCA has become one of the most sordid examples of usurpation of public finances for personal gain. And the chief culprit who has benefited the most by fraudulently siphoning off Indian taxpayer's money, is none other than the proverbial Cheshire Cat herself, Khoon Bhari Maang waali Desh Ki Asli Bahu -- Madame Sonia Gandhi.

The enormity of the fraud perpetrated by this shameless individual who specializes in portraying herself as the ultimate martyr who has sacrificed everything for India, is mind boggling.

Originally launched on 19th November, 1985 by none other than Sonia's husband and then Prime Minister of India, Rajiv Gandhi, the IGNCA was set up as "the national center for arts & culture which would be engaged in the multidisciplinary study & experience of all the arts, integrated with and essential to the larger matrix of human culture." The Gandhis' plans to annex the enormous government funds for this venture only became clear in 1987 however.

It was on 24th March, 1987 that Rajiv Gandhi got his cabinet to approve and constitute a Trust fund for the IGNCA. And surprise of surprises who else were the founder trustees but Rajiv Gandhi himself, along with President Venkataraman, future Congress PM P.V. Narasimha Rao, Indira Gandhi's special buddy - Pupul Jayakar, the finance minister and Congress stalwarts H. Y. Sharada Prasad and Kapila Vatsyayan. Rajiv Gandhi was made the president along with his Gandhi family minions.

According to the Cabinet Resolution, the Government of India gave Rs. 50 Crores out of the Consolidated Fund of India as a corpus fund to this Center. It transferred 23 acres of land along with one of the costliest sites in the world -- Central Vista, the stretch that runs between Rashtrapati Bhavan and India Gate -- to this Trust. An additional Rs. 84 Crores were given to the Trust to construct its building.

Considering the enormous amount of government funds which were being provided, the Deed of the Trust was structured to provide controls to the government in the form of several stipulations. These included:

Every ten years two-thirds of the trustees would retire. One half of the vacancies caused would be filled by the Government. One half would be filled by nominations made by the retiring trustees.
The Member Secretary of the Trust would be nominated by the Government on such terms and conditions as the Government may decide.
The President of India would appoint a committee from time to time to review the working of the Trust, and the recommendations of the committee would be binding on the Trust.
No changes would be made in the deed of the Trust except by prior written sanction of the Government, even then the changes may be adopted only by three-quarters of the Trustees agreeing to them at a specially convened for the purpose.
Due to the immense amount involved, the Comptroller & Auditor General of the country was supposed to audit the Center's accounts.
In 1991, Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi was assassinated. Shockingly, despite the fact that she had absolutely no official status or public stature, Ms. Sonia Gandhi was unquestioningly allowed to take Rajiv Gandhi's place as President of the Board of Trustees of one of the nation's richest Trusts!! Narasimha Rao's Congress Government was only too happy to oblige Madam by pouring in millions of Rupees into the Fund, while performing fake audits which looked the other way at the apparent discrepancies in the books.

But in May 1995, SoniaAmma became a little worried as she saw the dismal prospects for Congress in the general elections. It was quite predictable that Congress would not come back to power that year. Therefore an incredibly sinister and outrageous plan to cheat the Indian government of all control over its very own funds, was cleverly manipulated by Sonia.

A meeting just like all the previous meetings of the trustees was convened on 18 May, 1995. The minutes of this meeting listed all the subjects under discussion. From the face of it the meeting on 18 May, 1995 was just like any other meeting of the Trust. Contrary to the express provision of the Trust Deed, it was NOT a meeting specially convened to consider changes in the Deed of the Trust.

On 30 May, 1995 Madhav Rao Scindia, then Minister of Human Resources received a letter from SoniaAmma informing him of what she said were "alterations" in the Trust Deed which been had unanimously approved by the trustees. The Minister wrote back, on 2 June, 1995: "I have great pleasure in communicating to you the Government of India's approval to the alterations." It was the same Mr. Scindia who in his capacity as one of the Trustees of the IGNCA himself, had participated in the meeting which according to the minutes approved by Mrs. Sonia Gandhi had not even discussed leave alone approved these sudden changes in the Trust Deed!! He

The results of the sweeping amendments to the Trust Deed were as follows:

Sonia Gandhi became President for life of the IGNCA Trust
The other trustees -- two-thirds of whom were to retire every ten years -- became trustees for life.
The Right of the Government to fill half the vacancies was completely eliminated
The power of the Government to appoint the Member Secretary of the Trust was removed.
The power of the President of India to appoint a Review Committee to supervise the functioning of the Trust was completely eliminated. Both the President and the Government no longer had any power whatsoever to inquire into the usage of funds or the working of the Trust.
And so with a simple wave of her hand, Sonia Gandhi had usurped complete control of a Government Trust which received over Rs. 134 Crores of the Indian taxpayers' money and over 23 acres of invaluable real estate. In effect the Indira Gandhi Center National Center For Arts had suddenly become Sonia's own little private stash of goodies.

The entire alteration of the Trust Deed was in complete violation of Article 24 of the original trust deed itself, which had clearly stated that no amendments could not even be initiated and adopted -- without prior written permission of the Government. Shockingly the original Article 24 itself was REMOVED from the "amended deed". Far from any permission being taken, neither HRD Minister Scindia, nor any of the trustees gave the government a single indication that changes to the Deed were even being discussed!

Even Mr. Scindia's so called approval was completely invalid. Such sanctions are governed by Rule 4 of the Government of India (Transaction of Business) Rules, 1961. This Rule prescribes that when a subject concerns more than one department, "no order be issued until all such departments have concurred, or failing such concurrence, a decision thereon has been taken by or under the authority of the Cabinet." The Cabinet was not apprised of even a clue to the amendment.

Similarly no approval was taken from the Law or Finance Ministry.

As is usual with most criminal acts of such incredible proportions, the entire amendment and approval were kept top secret until February 1996 when IGNCA approached the Center to enhance the capital cost of the building and was forced to produce the amended deed with its application for financial enhancement.

Even as the outraged government sought legal remedies, the attorney general declared that the IGNCA's convenient new "amendments" were completely invalid in legal terms. When the government informed the IGNCA "lifetime" Club of the legal situation, they did not even bother to reply! Meanwhile during the seventh and eighth Plans, the IGNCA received Rs. 84.30 million from the government of which there are no records to find out how much was actually spent on India's Arts and how much went straight to line the lifetime Club and its President's personal pockets!

For the next three years the successive Congress and United Front Governments ensured that none of the facts of the case became public or even known to any of the Members of Parliament. The file was simply shuttled back and forth between the Ministry of Human Resource Development and the Ministry of Law.

It took the arrival of a Bharatiya Janata Party to demand the reversal of this incomprehensible Fraud. With Delhi High Court allowing the Government of India to take action against the conversion of IGNCAC into a private trust the BJP led government finally had enough initiative to make a move. Their first step was to remove Sonia Gandhi as "lifetime President" of the Trust although she has been allowed to stay on as a trustee.

The government has also restored the original trust deed and replaced 12 retiring trustees and filled the vacancies caused by the death of two members - Pupul Jayakar and P N Haksar - and the resignation of another - former president R. Venkataraman.

Besides Sonia, other members who have been retained in the reconstituted trust include P V Narasimha Rao, Yashpal and Abid Hussain. Among the trustees who have been retired are Congress leaders Ram Niwas Mirdha and K Natwar Singh, Sam Pitroda, H Y Sharda Prasad, M S Subbalakshmi, Kapila Vatsyayan and Ashok Vajpeyi.

The new members include vocalists Bhimsen Joshi, K J Yesudas, Bhupen Hazarika, Anjolie Ela Menon, Sonal Mansingh, Aparna Sen, M S Swaminathan and L M Singhvi. Other nominees include M V Kamath, educationist H. Narasimhiah, Indologist Vidya Niwas Mishra and Kuchipudi exponent Vedantham Sathya Narayana Sharma. Former Bangalore University V-C N R Shetty has been named as member-secretary for three years. The new Trustees have been advised to elect a new president immediately.

What is most shocking of all is that the very same trustees who were only too willing to accept Sonia Gandhi, a woman with no credentials whatsoever, as lifetime President are now protesting that the new nominees "do not possess the vision essential for the healthy growth of an institution like the IGNCA which has been set up for the promotion, preservation and development of all arts."!!!!

Apparently according to such people, experience as a Maid in Italy is far more pertinent and suitable to such esteemed positions rather than a lifetime career in service to the Arts of India!

The story of Sonia Gandhi's overnight conversion of one of India's richest Government Trusts, into a personal fiefdom, will surely go down as one of the greatest incidences of criminal Fraud in recent history. One is forced to wonder why the Government of India is not prosecuting Ms. Gandhi for such an obscenely criminal act. Allowing Ms. Gandhi to stay on as one of the trustees is a supreme example of adding insult to the Indian taxpayer's injury!

Last but not least, the Indira Gandhi National Center for Arts and Culture is just one of the three institutions Mrs. Sonia Gandhi has taken into control. The other two are the Nehru Memorial Library and the Jawahar Bhavan, land for which had been Allocated to house the AICC headquarters. Over and above this lies the story of the Rajiv Gandhi Foundation which by itself has received billions of Rupees as government funds.

And still the people of India consider this woman as one of the possible choices for Prime Ministership of their country...!
<b>Truth About Rahul Gandhi</b>
Cross Posted on Lok Sabha Polls 2004 Thread :


One must never confuse elections with electioneering. Many journalists get elections wrong because they report electioneering, rather than elections. This is not their fault. Media is a hungry monster, and its appetite extends from chutney and achar to the daily sacrifice of a suitable victim. A report on the elections would be merely one day's story.

But electioneering is a constant source of fun: statements, replies, offence, counterattack, allegation, exaggeration, mistakes. It's a carnival. In India, it's a Russian circus, packed with trapeze artists swinging dangerously from party to party (a few reversing direction in mid-air); clowns chanting gibberish; and celebrities prancing on horses.

The knives are out: slow movers wield their weapons to stab in the back; the cleverer types puncture egos with concealed stilettos. The stakes could not be higher, and ethics are not a priority requirement in this game. It's nice if you have them, but not at the cost of defeat.

Why would reporting elections be minimalist? Because the essence of an election is not controlled by the din of the campaign, but the response to one or two questions that address dominant concerns. Such questions are often obvious.

<b>This is the first election since 1962 without a dramatic backdrop.</b> 1967 was a bitter and chaotic contest between main and fringe parties within a stark, sullen and despairing electorate.

There was famine across the north (Mother Teresa became a national figure thanks to Raghu Rai's superb photography of her work in the Bihar famine), and the government of India was begging for food from Washington, granted under a scheme called PL 480. Language riots had ripped through the fabric of unity.

Muslims were under assault in riots engineered by Congress governments in the states, after the Congress government in the centre had wounded them malevolently during the 1965 war with Pakistan. Prairie fires lit by the Naxalites had spread across the country. The young had no hope, the elders were eyeless. The Congress lost every state from Punjab to Bengal and would have lost Delhi as well if the South had not saved it.

1971, in complete contrast, was as startlingly optimistic as 1967 was dismal. Indira Gandhi merged hope with vision. The first breakthroughs of the Green Revolution promised an India that was self-sufficient in food. Food would eliminate poverty.

Indira Gandhi challenged the traditional elites, and taunted them with people's power. Her slogan was perfect for its moment: Woh kahte hain Indira hatao, main kahti hoon gharibi hatao. (They want to remove Indira, I want to remove poverty).

It is a message that still resonates in the hearts of those under the poverty line. It was perfect positioning: the popular champion as victim of the manipulators. (Those Congress leaders who have devised the silly slogan "Anyone But Vajpayee" obviously have no idea of history. To demonize a popular leader for no given reason is utterly counterproductive.) The 1971 results were an upheaval.

1977 was as dark as 1971 was light. And in that darkness, the Indian electorate proved its enchanting strength. If the Emergency of 1975 threatened the end of democracy, the 1977 elections confirmed that no dictator would ever rule India again.

A Janata government replaced Indira Gandhi, and after a year of promise began to defy common sense. The pendulum reversed. The 1980 elections were a sharp vote against irresponsibility and bad governance. Indira Gandhi returned to power. What no one realized at the moment of her second triumph was that she had become fundamentally flawed.

Hubris ran havoc; dynasty was established; and misjudgment bred secession in Punjab, arguably India's most patriotic state. The desecration of the Akal Takht led directly to the assassination of Indira Gandhi; anger and sympathy gave Rajiv Gandhi the largest mandate in Indian history, in an election whose consistent image was fire.

The fires of revolt were replaced by the fire of a gun, Bofors: Rajiv was painted in the lurid colours of corruption, and his image could never recover. The results of 1989 said it all. The nineties were consumed by different kinds of fire, of casteism and communalism. And the election of 1999 was held in the shadows of Kargil.

2004 then is the first "normal" election in nearly 40 years. Are you surprised that the voter should be relieved, and indeed feel good about the absence of hysteria? The young, instead of being urged to go to some war or the other, are being promised peace and development. They would be idiotic not to feel the difference. Atal Behari Vajpayee has not become an icon of the MTV generation by accident.

I hope though that he has written out a personal thank you note to the opposition. Sonia Gandhi's text was neatly trapped by context. The BJP created a sophisticated two-phase campaign that first established the central theme of the battleground, and then swivelled the battle into a presidential contest between Vajpayee and Sonia Gandhi. "India Shining" was attacked from the wrong end.

The Congress challenged the shine, but the slogan was about India far more than it was about India's economy. The difference might be subtle, but it is vital. It was less about the truth, and more about the promise.

The BJP used a partial fact (the statistics of its last phase in power) to promote a vision: Indians can turn India into a developed nation. The Congress had nothing in place when the campaign broke. The BJP literally walked into empty space in the popular imagination.

<b>The only message that the Congress had communicated in five years was that it wanted Sonia Gandhi as prime minister, but no one was told why, or how this would make India and Indians better off. It was cult worship of the flimsiest kind, because it was built around vulnerability.</b>

Having established the theme of positive nationalism, the BJP has switched the debate from the general to the specific. Any good marketing man will tell that macro has to be backed by micro; that the product is nothing without a credible delivery mechanism.

The switch occurred when both Prime Minister Vajpayee and Deputy Prime Minister L.K. Advani asked the country to examine the issue of foreign origin as a political question rather than a personal one, and in calm rather than accusatory tones.

<b>Nationalism is a very powerful impetus, and Sonia Gandhi does not understand that it takes more than a passport to make you a claimant for the job of prime minister of India. Moreover, that passport was taken only when Rajiv Gandhi became a candidate for prime minister.

Sonia Maino could have become a naturalized Indian when she married Rajiv and became a Gandhi in 1968. But she filed an application to remain a foreigner for five years, as she was permitted by Indian law to do. Even in 1973 she was not convinced that she wanted to be an Indian rather than an Italian. She applied for another five years as a foreign resident, as she did again in 1978.

It was only in the last week of her permit in 1983, when Rajiv Gandhi was heir apparent, that she asked for an Indian passport. These facts may mean very little to some of us, but they mean a great deal to a lot of us. In any case, they are fodder for the BJP propaganda machine, which is currently in very high gear. Other questions will be raised as well.

Most of this vulnerability would have been erased if Sonia Gandhi had shown the leadership needed to resurrect the Congress. Uniquely, the party has shrunk under her despite being out of power. Normally, a party grows when out of office.

The fact is that Sonia Gandhi lost the election two years ago when she could not take advantage of Gujarat. India was not shining then, as Vajpayee himself admitted in parliament. That was the weak moment of the government, and it was given a chance to reinvent itself.</b>

Every government promises prosperity. Vajpayee is the first prime minister since Jawaharlal Nehru to promise peace with Pakistan. Through SAARC he has linked this peace to economic growth as well, but the deeper focus is on the return of human relationships in our subcontinent.

This is slowly becoming a primal motivator for key sections of the electorate. Pakistani commentators have written on the surprise of visiting Indians at the warmth they received during the cricket games. They have pointed out Pakistanis stopped the game of demonizing Indians some time ago.

Something even more startling is happening in India. Since 1965, confrontation with Pakistan has been the bread and butter of political rhetoric. The BJP has been in the forefront of such politics. Even the most quiescent of doves would not have dared to dream in 1999 that peace could actually become a vote-winner. <b>The implicit question is: can Sonia Gandhi deliver peace with Pakistan, which, if it ever comes, can only emerge through a difficult and delicate process?

With so many shysters around, the credibility of opinion polls was bound to suffer. But there is one opinion that remains unwavering, no matter who measures it. In any comparison between Vajpayee and Sonia Gandhi the difference in favour of Vajpayee is either 70:30 or even greater. That indicates two things: the voter's comfort levels with a very Indian Vajpayee, and his unease with Sonia Gandhi.

For five years the government lulled the Congress by saying little and doing nothing about the foreign origins of Sonia Gandhi. They were waiting for April 2004</b>

Sonia's assets
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->RAE BARELI: Congress president Sonia Gandhi has an ancestral house in Italy worth Rs 12.45 lakh and gold and silver jewellery to the tune of Rs 14.71 lakh, according to the affidavit submitted by her at the time of filing nominations for the Lok Sabha polls here on Tuesday.

She, however, does not own a house in the country and has no personal vehicle nor does she have any dues pending against her, says the affidavit.

Gandhi declared she has cash amounting to Rs. 26.20 lakh at UCO bank in New Delhi, jewellery (2518.450 gms gold and 88 kilogram silver) worth Rs 14.71 lakh, RBI bonds worth Rs. 1.53 lakh, ten shares of Maruti Technical Services Pvt. Ltd., 500 shares of Western India Tanneries Ltd, NSS worth Rs. 1.29 lakh and Rs. 13.02 lakh in PPF account.

She has agricultural land measuring three bighas in Dera Mandi in Delhi and about 13 bighas in Sultanpur both valued at Rs. 2.19 lakh.

The Congress chief has given a loan of about Rs. five lakh to her daughter Priyanka Gandhi Vadra, according to the affidavit.

Gandhi has done a three-year course in foreign language (English and French) from Istituto Santo Teresa in Turin, Italy, besides a certificate course in English from Lennox Cook, University of Cambridge in 1965, says the affidavit.RAE BARELI: Congress president Sonia Gandhi has an ancestral house in Italy worth Rs 12.45 lakh and gold and silver jewellery to the tune of Rs 14.71 lakh, according to the affidavit submitted by her at the time of filing nominations for the Lok Sabha polls here on Tuesday.

She, however,<b> does not own a house in the country<span style='color:blue'>(strong ties to the community eh??  <!--emo&Wink--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif' /><!--endemo--> )</span> and has no personal vehicle </b>nor does she have any dues pending against her, says the affidavit.

Gandhi declared she has cash amounting to Rs. 26.20 lakh at UCO bank in New Delhi, jewellery (2518.450 gms gold and 88 kilogram silver) worth Rs 14.71 lakh, RBI bonds worth Rs. 1.53 lakh, ten shares of Maruti Technical Services Pvt. Ltd., 500 shares of Western India Tanneries Ltd, NSS worth Rs. 1.29 lakh and Rs. 13.02 lakh in PPF account.

She has agricultural land measuring three bighas in Dera Mandi in Delhi and about 13 bighas in Sultanpur both valued at Rs. 2.19 lakh.

The Congress chief has given a loan of about Rs. five lakh to her daughter Priyanka Gandhi Vadra, according to the affidavit.

Gandhi has done a three-year course in foreign language (English and French) from Istituto Santo Teresa in Turin, Italy, besides <b>a certificate course   <!--emo&:lol:--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/laugh.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='laugh.gif' /><!--endemo--> in English from Lennox Cook, University of Cambridge </b>in 1965, says the affidavit.

Affidavit tells everything her Phd in whatever, her links with India.
God, why she is collection so much silver. Woman is rich.

Posting in full as it will be lost tomorrow

Bofors truth points to Quattrocchi, Sonia

By Sten Lindstrom

Principal Swedish investigator says interrogating Sonia Gandhi, Ottavio Quattrocchi and Martin Ardbo will lead to answers in the Bofors case

My name is Sten Lindstrom. I am a Swedish police officer. I was the principal investigator in the Bofors-India Howitzer case. I don’t know why I use the past tense — the investigation is not over. It probably will never be. And that is because people in Sweden and India want it that way. This is not the Sweden of my dreams. And I suspect there are many in India who will be able to hear what I am trying to say.

Police officers are human beings. When we take an oath of office, we pledge to serve our office to the best of our ability, to defend the principles upon which our nations are built. However difficult that task and however dangerous be our work, we are expected to soldier on.

Almost 18 years after the Bofors case was handed over to me for investigation, I remain convinced that the truth about what happened in India and Sweden will surface one day. It always does. Whether I can help or not, whether those in India and Sweden who covered up in the Bofors case want it or not, one day we will know the truth. Whether we have the courage to face it and put in corrective measures is another matter. But truth has a nasty habit of surfacing when we least expect it to.

As a police officer, I know that patience and perseverance are good bets. Police officers will tell you that in any investigation, very soon we get a good idea of the nature of the crime, its scope and depth. Indeed, all the pieces do not fall into place in any given sequence or pattern. Often, the wait is long.

Over the years we get trained to learn a lot not so much by what is told, shown, and led to believe. We get a good idea of what is going on by what is denied, what is covered up and what we are not told. This can be information that is denied in the form of witnesses who do not speak, this can be access that is blocked because famous and powerful interests are threatened and this can come in the form of delays and hindrance to our mandate to continue the investigations without fear or favour.

And this can even come in the form of investigations and inquiries that are designed to go nowhere. The Bofors-India investigation scored on all these counts.

The Bofors case told itself. And it will continue to do so. By making my work difficult at every twist and turn, by hiding what I was looking for, by offering me irrelevant information and by continuing, even today, to pretend to look for the culprits, the Bofors story continues to tell itself. For example, pressure from India resulted in the closing down of an investigation by the Swedish prosecutor.

Pressure from India also led to the Swedish National Audit Bureau sending a blanked out version of its inquiry to India. All the relevant parts containing the critical payment details were blacked out. I had the full report and it was unreal to see politicians claim that no payments had been made on the basis of an incomplete report.

There were other problems. When a team of senior executives from Bofors travelled to India to testify before the Joint Parliamentary Committee, they were prevented from doing so. Instead they met a small group of officials to whom they did not hand over any names. We were told this was because even if the Swedes had given the names, no one would have believed them. I know this did not make sense to a lot of people, but for a police officer this meant that my worst fears were probably true.

I said earlier that the truth will come out one day. I do not believe that day is far. The unravelling continues. Ottavio Quattrocchi, the Italian middleman who negotiated the political payoff through A E Services, must be interrogated. Sonia Gandhi must be questioned. All else is detail.

Key questions need answers. Among them:

* Who introduced Ottavio Quattrocchi to Bofors officials?

* What was Ottavio Quattrocchi’s value proposition that led him to assure Bofors contractually that he need not be paid if the deal was not closed in their favour?

* Why did Bofors pay Ottavio Quattrocchi?

* What services did his company A E Services offer?

* What are the links between Ottavio Quattrocchi and Sonia Gandhi?

* Who is the Gandhi trustee lawyer that Martin Ardbo met in Geneva?

I raised these questions with Martin Ardbo, the key Bofors negotiator who told me, as he did to a few others, that the truth about the India payoffs would follow him to his grave. He was especially quiet about the last-minute contract with AE Services, a deal that he personally oversaw.

It was clear to me that this was the political pay-off. Police officers know that the person who comes in last and walks off with a sum of money for no apparent work is a political payment made to people who have the power to close the deal.

This amount is typically calculated only after all the major stages of negotiations and the price structure are complete. This was A E Service’s profile and it received a single payment of 50 million Swedish kronor routed through Swiss banks. This money moved very fast to avoid detection.

Quattrocchi was directly linked to this account. It was in connection with this very secret negotiation that Ardbo wrote of a meeting in Geneva between the front-end mover of the account (Bob Wilson) and a Gandhi trustee lawyer in Geneva. This meeting took place on July 2, 1987. Ardbo was very worried about what I knew about this deal.

He was surely worried about people discovering who ‘Q’ was and what his links to ‘R’ were as he noted: ‘Q’ for Quattrocchi and ‘R’ for Rajiv Gandhi. I am being made a scapegoat to protect big people, he told us.

There were other tell-tale marks. In crimes that involve political payoffs, no one has the full story. Players come in, perform their job and leave. This is done to ensure that should there be a problem, there is a built-in firewall against information landing in wrong hands, i.e. they proceed on a need-to-know basis.

In the Bofors-India case too, this was true. The only person who probably has all the pieces of this jigsaw is Martin Ardbo. And he wrote his fears down on paper. I had contact with him recently and he still keeps his secrets to himself.

In sharp contrast Indian politicians involved in the corruption issued denials, sent notes, dispatched officials and created confusion where none was necessary. Police officers will tell you that this is an old tactic to muddy the waters.

When the protest is louder and longer than the accusation, you can be sure the guilty are speaking. The then Prime Minister (Rajiv Gandhi) told the Indian Parliament that neither he nor any member of his family was involved in the payoffs.

That, I believe, was his first big mistake; one that gave us many clues. What he did not know then was that the Swedish government was examining a lot of documents even as he was speaking. The evidence in the documents documenting the bribes, including a last-minute payoff to Ottavio Quattrocchi’s AE Services, Martin Ardbo’s silence and Rajiv Gandhi’s denials in the Indian Parliament, were all happening at the same time as far as my work was concerned.

The Gandhi name and the link to Quattrocchi were now part of the investigation. This did not mean that the case was politicised. It only meant that there was a critical political dimension to this, not dissimilar to cases of this magnitude. I am probably the only person who has met every Swedish official connected with the Bofors-India case.

From its former head Martin Ardbo to former Swedish foreign minister Sten Anderson, from people in Bofors’ accounts department to its board members. It would not be wrong to say that I am probably one of no more than a handful of people, if not the only person, to have seen all the documents pertaining to the Bofors-India case. Sonia Gandhi must be questioned.I know what I am saying.

Quattrocchi took $7,123,000

Stockholm, April 7: Sweden’s Economic Crimes Bureau received definite information in 1997, six years after the Bofors case was officially closed, that Ottavio Quattrocchi was one of the recipients of the kickbacks that are still haunting the Gandhi family. An Interpol message confirmed what the Swedish investigating team had known for several years, that a percentage of the money paid for the Howitzer deal went “as a gift” to Quattrocchi now in Italy.

Principal investigating officer Sten Lindstrom, who has spent 17 years on the case and like the archetypal policeman is not prepared to let it go until justice is done, said that Interpol had confirmed “what we had known but were not able to prove with conclusive evidence.”

In his first-ever interview to an Indian newspaper the detective superintendent of the Swedish Economic Crimes Bureau said that the new information clearly establishes that $7,123,000 was paid by A.E. Services between 16-29 September 1986 to Colbar Investment Ltd. Quattrocchi, he said, held the power of attorney for this company.

Lindstrom was almost certain that this money, a fraction of the total amount paid by Bofors for the deal to Indian middlemen and various companies, was intended as a “gift” for Quattrocchi from his influential “friends” in India for other services rendered. He said that two facts prompted him to make this assessment.

One, that in 1988, Colbar Investment Ltd Inc transferred a substantial amount of money to its subsidiary Wetelsen Oversea SA, Panama, and further on to Ansbacher Ltd, Guernsey. He said the exact amount could not be ascertained at the time. Two, he said the sum transferred to Quattrocchi’s concern did not appear to be intended for Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi as it was too small an amount. “I think they intended it as a gift for Quattrocchi,” Lindstrom said, pointing out that the Italian businessman was a sudden entry as he was not mentioned by Bofors officials at any time, even in passing, during the investigation.

Lindstrom said that when the investigation closed in 1991 the Economic Crimes Bureau had information that $7,343,942 was transferred by Bofors AB to AE Services on September 8, 1986. Of this, the said amount was paid to Colbar Investment Ltd Inc. Interestingly, the parent company of AE Services, according to Lindstrom, was CIAOU Anstalt, with lawyer Robert Wilson holding the power of attorney.

Wilson had served in India as a General of a Gurkha regiment, and was interviewed by Lindstrom. CIAOU — Wilson himself told the Swedish investigator — reads Ciao (Italian for hello) without the U. It stands for Consortium Information Assimilation Output Unit. CIAOU, Lindstrom said, acted as an agency for channelling funds for defence manufacturers and added that Wilson had told him that it had considerable influence with governments.

Lindstrom said that he was certain that there was some connection between CIAOU and Quattrocchi. He said that he had not been able to work on this as the details about Quattrocchi had come too late and it was impossible under Swedish law to open the case. He said that according to Interpol the Indian government has the documents to prove Quattrocchi’s involvement in the entire deal and that if he had known at the time he would have certainly questioned the Italian businessman who, incidentally, started his career as an agent for Italian companies in India.

It is important here to establish that Lindstrom is perhaps one of the handful of Swedish personnel who, apart from being involved in the Bofors investigation from day one, has seen almost every document to do with the case. This correspondent spoke to him extensively, the interviews spanning seven long hours of intense discussion. In February 1986, as part of the national investigation team, he was assigned to work out the murder of Prime Minister Olaf Palme.

Swedish Radio broke the Bofors story in April 1987 and in August the same year he joined chief prosecutor Ringberg and two other police officers to investigate the case. It was a long and arduous journey, undertaken with great enthusiasm by the team that was confident of cracking the case. Lindstrom said that they carried out detailed interviews, made house searches, collected documents until they reached the “wall” in Switzerland, where the Swiss refused to part with details of the bank accounts.

He said that they were able to establish that money had been paid by Bofors AB, ascertain details about the recipients but for a variety of reasons that will be written about in these columns later, were unable to obtain conclusive evidence to pin down the guilty.

Lindstrom said that 320 million Swedish kronor had been paid to the Hindujas and Win Chadha, as against the substantially smaller amount delivered to AE Services and through it to Quattrocchi. Lindstrom said that there were two ways of cracking a case. One was by obtaining sufficient evidence to take the guilty to court.

The other was to know the truth but not have conclusive evidence to establish it in the eyes of the law. He said the Bofors case fell into the second category: “we know what the truth is, but we were unable to establish it.” He was sure, however, that “it will all come out” one day. “It has taken a long time, it might take more time but one day the truth about this case will be known.”
<b>Quattrochi's wife Maria is Sonia Gandhi's cousin. Sonia Gandhi's sister </b>Marouchka must also be deeply involved in the financial deals of the Nehru Dynasty
Move over Carnegie, it's How to make friends and influence people - Sonia <i>ishtyle</i>
<b>False affidavit, says Swamy </b> Sonia did it again
By Our Special Correspondent
NEW DELHI, APRIL 7. The Janata Party president, Subramanian Swamy, has alleged that the Congress president, Sonia Gandhi, has submitted a ``false affidavit'' about her education while filing her nomination papers in Rae Bareli on Tuesday.

In a statement issued here today, Dr. Swamy alleged that Ms. Gandhi's submission that she had done a certificate course in English from Lennox Cook, Cambridge University, was false. The University of Cambridge did not have an institution called Lennox Cook.

He said the Lennox Cook School in the city of Cambridge was a teaching shop that closed down in 1971. It had a six-week English language course for European girls. Ms. Gandhi, he said, had made a ``false claim in her biography published in [the] Lok Sabha's Who's Who but had to retract [it] after I gave the Speaker a letter from the University of Cambridge denying that she was ever a student there.''

Here is a link clearly say about Lennox Cook
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Amorey Gethin has taught EFL for more than 35 years and was the Director of Studies at the Lennox Cook School of English in Cambridge for 14<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
R Gandhi's shade deals <!--emo&:angry:--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/mad.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='mad.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<img src='http://alberta.indymedia.org/uploads/rahul_kgb.jpg' border='0' alt='user posted image' />
<img src='http://alberta.indymedia.org/uploads/rahul_kgb3.jpg' border='0' alt='user posted image' />
<b>Modi dares Sonia to sing Vande Mataram</b>
<!--emo&Big Grin--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif' /><!--endemo-->

BHUJ: Within days of creating controversy by calling Rahul Gandhi a 'Jersey cow,' Gujarat chief minister Narendra Modi fired another salvo at a meeting in Rapar on Thursday, challenging Congress chief Sonia Gandhi to sing the Vande Mataram without any help at the village chowk.

Lashing out at Sonia, Modi picked on the fact that she still possessed a house in Italy and <b>had not applied for an Indian citizenship till 20 years after her marriage </b>to former Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi. It was Modi's first election rally in Kutch.

"<b>She doesn't even know the difference between Taj Mahal and Panchmahal</b>," he said, adding: "I wonder why the Congress is recalling the white-skinned and, this time, from Italy." The CM claimed that no Congress candidate from Gujarat would make it to Parliament this time, adding that the five MPs in the last LS had been papis.
<!--emo&Big Grin--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif' /><!--endemo--> Today is Sonia bashing day
<b>Book on Sonia Gandhi released </b>
Press Trust of India
New Delhi, April 9

In the midst of her political opponents raking up the issue, a book claiming to "scrutinise" Congress President Sonia Gandhi's foreign origins was released here on Friday.

"Sonia Under Scrutiny' examines the legal, political, social, constitutional and security implications of Gandhi becoming the Prime Minister of India," said senior journalist A Surya Prakash, its editor.

The book, published by India First Foundation, was released by M J Akbar, Editor-in-Chief of 'Asian Age' which carried yesterday a signed article by Bofors investigator Sten Lindstrom in which the Swedish detective had sought among other things that Sonia Gandhi be questioned so that "truth" could come out about the pay-off in the gun deal.

Akbar, however, said his releasing the book had nothing to do with the publication of the article in his paper.

"I had agreed to release the book eight months ago," he said.

About the timing of the article, Akbar said "the timing was chosen by the policeman (Lindstrom) who wanted to give the story."

JD(U) leader Jaya Jaitley, who contributed one of the book's 10 chapters, said "Gandhi still has one leg in Italy as demonstrated by the fact that she still has property there."

S Gurumurthy, a journalist and another contributor, said Congress should answer why it took Gandhi 15 years to surrender her Italian passport.

<b>"There are no records to show whether she has yet applied to give up Italian citizenship,"</b> he said.
<b>Five new facts in the Bofors case</b>

<i>From Seema Mustafa</i>


The Swedish investigator Sten Lindstrom's startling revelations have established several new facts, and provided a unique perspective and wealth of detail to a story that has haunted India for nearly 18 years. Lindstrom has given interviews in the past, but this is the first time ever in 18 years that he has given such a lengthy and exhaustive interview.

There are many new disclosures in his interview that have been printed over the last four days. Five broad points that can be made immediately are:

* It is the first time that Lindstrom has pointed to conclusive evidence establishing that money was paid from Bofors to A.E. Services to Colbar Investment, of which Ottavio Quattrocchi is the direct beneficiary.

* It is the first time that Lindstrom has identified three persons who have the full picture about the Bofors kickbacks — Sonia Gandhi, Ottavio Quattrocchi and Martin Ardbo. He has never said this before.

* It is the first time that Lindstrom has given details about his interrogation of Martin Ardbo and his links with the Indian and Swedish governments; that the deal between Bofors and A.E. Services was signed secretly, at a late date, and by Ardbo instead of by the Bofors sales manager as was the practice.

* It is the first time that Lindstrom has spoken in detail about the parent company of AE Services, CIAOU, its lawyer Bob Wilson, and the links with Quattrocchi and Delhi.

* It is the first time that the Swedish investigator has shared details of the cover-up that has taken place, of pressure from his own government, non-cooperation, and the difficulties encountered in the investigation.

But the most important question is the one he underlines over and over again: why was any money paid to Quattrocchi? It is this mysterious `generosity' that links the money to Quattrocchi's close friend, Sonia Gandhi, who allowed the most extraordinary access to this businessman of dubious repute. Not only did he move freely through the PM's residence but also through the corridors of power. Was he the front man for Sonia Gandhi?
<b>Keeping Rahul thanda in hot Amethi</b>


The rigours of campaigning and the April sun have taken a toll. Rahul Gandhi is unwell and grounded in Munshiganj – home in Amethi. <b>For the Gandhi scion, who has lived abroad and in air-conditioned environs for years, four days in the outdoors brought the fever.</b> <!--emo&Big Grin--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif' /><!--endemo-->

So how does a Harvard Graduate <!--emo&:angry:--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/mad.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='mad.gif' /><!--endemo--> unused to the rustic experience that the UP badlands offer, cope? Rahul does it with Coke. <b>The Congress candidate in Amethi is a walking advertisement for the beverage giant, as he downs half a litre after a meal eaten under a tree.</b> <!--emo&Big Grin--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif' /><!--endemo-->

<b>That is Rahul on the campaign trail. In Delhi, he is usually seen in western casuals</b>.

<b>In Amethi, the white khadi pyjama kurta and red angavastram - worn with no apparent discomfort - mix curiously with the uncomfortable Hindi</b>. But there are no major gaffes or words in English that slip in a la the early Rajiv Gandhi. Rahul, who is new to this sort of thing, in fact, keeps faux pas to the minimum by just not saying much.

So at meeting after meeting, as he mingles with villagers, he mostly nods vigorously and he listens. Occasionally he directs an aide to write down a particular complaint or problem. And when he speaks to them, it is a few words of assurance. Forced to speak from the podium he blurts out a memorised four-liner: "Amethi ke saath parivar ka rishta hai, rajniti ka nahi . Purana rishta hai, mere pita ne yahaan bahut kaam kiya, meri maa ne bhi, Amethi mera doosra ghar hai . Jai Hind."
..... <!--emo&:roll--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/ROTFL.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='ROTFL.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--emo&Big Grin--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif' /><!--endemo--> Rahul's affidavit, Have fun
Rahul Gandhi's Affidavit says MPhil[Development Economics] Trinity College , Cambridge

Source :






`Your Prime Minister's wife does not trust you, gets her security
from Italians'
Saturday April 17 2004 17:07 IST
S. Gurumurthy

This is what this investigation reveals. Sonia arranges a clandestine
meeting between the RAW, Indian spy network, and Italian spies. This
was when she was just a housewife and Rajiv was just the general
secretary of the Congress.

When Sonia was still an Italian and had not applied yet to become an
Indian citizen. Are you surprised? Go further.

Her brother-in-law, that is Sonia's sister's husband, Walter Winci,
arranges bullet-proofing of Indira Gandhi's car in a German factory.
Are you shocked? Wait. Later the same Winci arranges the training of
SPG commandos by Italian security personnel who even slap the SPG
trainees. Are you embarrassed? Go further.

When Sonia travels to France with Rajiv in 1985, without the
knowledge of the Indian security agency, SPG, she gets the security
of Rahul and Priyanka arranged by Italian and Spanish officials. Are
you ashamed? It is not over yet. In 1986 when Rahul and Priyanka go
to Geneva and Italy, Sonia directly gets their security organised
through the Italian foreign office.

The Swiss police official taunts the Indian RAW officer in
Geneva, ``Your Prime Minister's wife does not trust you; she trusts
only the Italians.'' You feel humiliated?

Whether you feel humiliated or not, the RAW official did feel
extremely humiliated. Italian officials are the ones she trusts.
Italian embassy is her official embassy. Italian security is her

This is the Sonia who now shouts from election platforms day in and
day out that she will die for her motherland. The only issue is which
is her motherland. That she does not trust India is known to the
whole western world, but not India. Read this humiliating story.

The expose is based on oral testimony of retired officials, including
the RAW officials.

Election News Article: New Indian Express, April 17, 2004

Unmasking Sonia Gandhi

S. Gurumurthy

There is no time for side shows. Let us go straight to the heart of
the issue. The Indian spy agency, RAW, formed in 1968, had
established a clandestine network with its counterparts in different
countries __ with the USA, UK, Israel, France, West Germany and other
countries which possessed the capability for exchange of information
on terrorism, insurgency, China and similar subjects.

The RAW did not consider Italian spy agencies as worthy of such
association, as they did not have any capability. So India did not
bother about them.

Rajiv Gandhi entered active politics after Sanjay's death in 1980. He
began to participate in the classified briefings of the RAW even
though he held no position in the government. Not just he, he wanted
Arun Nehru and Arun Singh too to participate in such briefings. The
agency protested saying that they had no official position. But
Indira Gandhi stepped in and asked RAW to allow them to be present.
The agency agreed reluctantly, but told Indira that their names would
remain unrecorded in the briefing.

This was when Rajiv was not in the government and was just a general
secretary of the Congress party. Soon, even though he had nothing to
do with the Government or the RAW, Rajiv began insisting that the RAW
should liaise with the Italian spy agencies. Why Rajiv should have
insisted on Italy? Did he study the importance of Italian assistance
to India? Nothing of that sort. The reason is Obvious. Sonia.

Rajiv had married her in 1968. The RAW felt that it would be a waste
of time and money. But Rajiv would not relent. The agency finally
gave in. So after more than a decade, the RAW was forced into
accepting liaison with the Italian spy agencies whom they considered
not worthy of association. Want to know who acted as the go-between
for the RAW with the Italian spy agencies and arranged the first
clandestine meeting between RAW spies and Italian spies? Believe it:

Obviously, she was in touch with Italian spies. An innocent and
devout housewife, unconcerned about politics and state, was deep in
her contact with the Italian spy agencies. This was when she was
still an Italian national, had not yet accepted Indian nationality
which she reluctantly did much later. Being in the Prime Minister's
household, she was in touch with the spies in Italy. So even when she
was just a housewife and Rajiv was not yet in the government, she was
linking the Italian spies to India.

An aside. One of the reasons why the RAW would not touch the Italian
agencies could be the presence of Sonia in the PM's house. If they
officialised the liaison with the Italian agencies, their reach would
not be limited to RAW, but may extend to the PM's house.

Next, when after terrorism broke out in Punjab and the security
agencies advised Indira Gandhi to travel in bullet-proof car, she
wanted the Ambassador car made bullet-proofed. As India developed
this capability only much later in 1985, a German company was chosen
for the job.

Want to know who brokered the contract with the German company?
Walter Winci, the husband of one of Sonia's sisters, Anushka! The RAW
suspected that he got a small commission out of it. But the more
critical was that a sensitive security work was given through Sonia's
brother. Look at the Italian influence Sonia had brought in even when
Indira was alive.

It is the same Walter Winci who, two years later, in 1986, insisted
and received cash payment made by the Indian government. This was for
arranging training by Italian security for SPG which had been
established in 1984 for the protection of Prime Minister Rajiv

The cash payment was first attempted through the RAW official posted
at Geneva. Walter Winci refused to come to Geneva to receive that
cash and wanted the RAW official to send it to Milan in Italy.
Winci 'assured' the RAW official that that he had 'good contacts'
in 'Swiss' and 'Italian' customs and he would not be checked. The RAW
official would not budge.

The recalcitrant official was finally told to tell Winci that the
operation had been cancelled. But the money was delivered to Winci
through the Indian Embassy in Rome.

Want to know what for the cash was to be sent? For funding the
traveling expenses of the Italian security officials to come to India
and train Indian SPG commandos. This is the payment B.G Deshmukh, who
was then the cabinet secretary, has mentioned in his latest book. But
this training ended in a fiasco.

The Italian trainers treated the SPG trainees rudely, and even
slapped one of them. The RAW brought this to the notice of Rajiv and
told him such ill-treatment may develop a grudge in the minds of the
SPG against Rajiv which might be a security risk. Panicked Rajiv
forthwith called off the training by Italians arranged by Walter

After Rajiv was assassinated, Sonia began openly relying on Italian
and western security for Rahul and Priyanka when they travelled to
Europe. When Rajiv went to Paris in the year 1985 along with Sonia, a
RAW official proficient in French was asked to go to France to liaise
with the French security agencies.

At Leon in France, the SPG officials panicked as Rahul and Priyanka
were missing. But Winci told them not to worry. He told them that
they were in the safe care of Jose Valdemaro, the husband of another
sister of Sonia, Nadia. Winci told them that the two had been taken
to Madrid in Spain, where Valdemaro hails from, by train and the
Spanish authorities were taking care of them.

The Indian security officials were stunned that, not they, but the
Spanish and Italian security agencies were aware of the Madrid visit
of Rahul and Priyanka. It is not just that Sonia did not want to
trouble the Indian security system, or take the favour of Narasimha
Rao who was the Prime Minister then. It was simply that she did not
trust them.

You want more clear evidence of her distrust of India? Here it is: In
1986, the RAW official stationed at Geneva was told by Jack Kunzi,
the Commissioner of Police at Geneva, that the VIP children had
returned safely to Italy after their visit to Geneva. Who were the
VIP children? The RAW official had no clue. He knew nothing about
their visit.

The Swiss police official who was the RAW official's good friend told
him their names. You have any doubt who they could be? They were
Rahul and Priyanka. They had come to Geneva by car with Walter Winci,
said the Swiss official. He also informed the RAW official he was in
the picture and the RAW official was not. He said that the Italian
foreign office was the co-ordinator. It had informed the Swiss
foreign office, who in turn informed the Swiss police.

Jack Kunzi taunted the RAW official who was his friend, ''Your Prime
Minister's wife does not seem to trust you or your embassy. She gets
the security for her children co-ordinated by Italians.'' Humiliated,
the RAW official makes the usual complaint to his boss. The boss
files the complaint. There ends the story of humiliation of India in
Switzerland and Italy.

Remember this kind of information spreads like wildfire in geo-
politics through global spy network. That Sonia did not trust the
Indian officials, or the Indian embassies, or the Indian security is
now a matter of global geo-political information. Want to know more
on this? Read on.

After Rajiv's assassination, the RAW official who was in charge of
security arrangements abroad for SPG protectees which included Sonia,
Rahul and Priyanka, knew less about her and her children's travel
plans than western intelligence and security agencies. The Indian
agencies knew nothing or very little.

George, her secretary, used to directly communicate to western
agencies through Italian Embassy in Delhi and the Italian foreign
office in Rome. The upright officer informed the RAW chief before he
retired that the western agencies were better informed of Sonia's and
her children's travel plans than the Indian agencies. He charged that
this had created the unfortunate impression that Sonia did not trust
the Indian agencies. His complaint went to Narasimha Rao who was the
Prime Minister then. He felt unhappy that George, that is Sonia, was
informing the Italian embassy, not the Indian agencies, but he could
do nothing about it. You ask him now. Even now he will not tell the
truth. But the RAW official would.

So she was linked to the Italian spies and was familiar with bringing
about spy connections, a highly skilled and scary business, as early
as the early 1980s. Yet she pretended, even now does, to be an
innocent housewife.

She brought her family into the security matters of India even when
Indira was alive. She forced Italian security on India even when
Rajiv Gandhi was alive. She openly distrusted Indian security and
diplomatic system and privately liaised with the Italian diplomatic
system for her security. If she did this when Indira was alive; if
she went as far when Rajiv was alive; if she did this when she was
just out of the Congress and out of power, what will she do when put
in power?

Or what she will not? Yet she pretends to die for India. This is not
real Sonia. The whole western world, not exactly the friends of
India, knows about her. But not we, in India. We do not know the real

Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)