|Inauguration of the seminar by lighting a Samai (an oil lamp) From Left: Adv. Pravin Phaldesai; Senior Adv. Saresh Lotlikar; Mr. Jayesh Thali, GMDSM; Adv. Ramdas Kesarkar, Legal advisor of Sanatan Sanstha|
|Addressing Sri Arif Mohammad Khan, Former Union Minister|
A Seminor on “Communal Violence Bill – Threat to National Integration and Social Harmony” held on 14th November, 2011 at 6.00 PM, at Kesava Memorial College, Narayanaguda, Hyderabad, organised by Social Cause and Pragna Bharati combined, in the Presidentship of Sri T.Hanuman Chowdary, President, Pragna Bharati.
- accept the amendments in Central Waqf Act proposed by Muslims
- declare reservation for Muslims, implementing recommendations of Ranganath
- pass the Communal Violence (Prevention) Bill as proposed by National Advisory Council
- pass the Food Security Bill as proposed by NAC, and
- table an effective Lokpal Bill in Parliament to root out corruption
Ameer, Jamaat-e-Islami Hind
- accept the amendments in Central Waqf Act proposed by Muslims
- declare reservation for Muslims, implementing recommendations of Ranganath
- pass the Communal Violence (Prevention) Bill as proposed by National Advisory Council
- pass the Food Security Bill as proposed by NAC, and
- table an effective Lokpal Bill in Parliament to root out corruption
Ameer, Jamaat-e-Islami Hind
sarve bhadrani pashyantu, ma kashchit dukkh bhagbhavet}
Rather than seek empowerment through education, UP’s Muslims want to trade votes for community and caste-based reservation.
One man’s (in this case, party’s) need is another man’s opportunity. The principle followed in this unprincipled approach is that of Behati Ganga mein hath dho lo. Led by the Muslim Reservation Movement which includes several community leaders and clerics, Muslims in Uttar Pradesh have asked all political parties, especially the Congress, to take up the issue of reservation for the minority community in the Winter Session of Parliament.
They have served an ultimatum to the Government to introduce a quota especially for Dalit Muslims, and have made clear that their demand should be fulfilled or else the community will not vote for the party in the 2012 State Assembly election. One has always been under the impression that Muslims are not divided on caste lines, as Prophet Mohammed preached brotherhood and equality among all Muslims. Yet, it looks as if casteism has creeped into Islam, which is against the tenets of this religion.
In India, reservation is a monster which has been feeding on the political ambitions of our leaders. It was originally to last for 10 years and was applicable only for Schedules Castes and Scheduled Tribes. However, reservation has now existed in India for 64 years and has been expanded to pander to various other groups and communities. Reservation does not necessarily benefit the marginalised classes but effectively caters to the requirements of vote-bank politics.
One of the primary reasons for the support of reservation politics is that it allows for the creation of vote-banks. These, however, lead to the division of society along the lines of caste, religion and gender. The final objective here is to perpetuate the rule of the ruler forever. Reservation politics is aimed at communities which have substantial votes to offer during elections. In the case of Muslims, for instance, the community forms nearly 20 per cent of the vote-bank in Uttar Pradesh, 28 per cent in Kerala, 31 per cent in Assam and about 22 per cent in West Bengal. Hence, they can substantially impact the outcome of elections.
The quota phenomenon is not unique to India but practised all over the world. In the US, for example, it is called affirmative action, and in the UK it is known as positive discrimination. Affirmative action in the US was introduced in the 1960s to address persisting inequalities between the White population and the African Americans. The specific term was first used to describe US Government policy in 1961. President JF Kennedy mandated affirmative action to ensure that “applicants are employed, and that employees are treated during employment without regard to their race, creed, colour, or national origin.”
In 1965, President Lyndon B Johnson elaborated on it by saying: “Nothing is more freighted with meaning for our own destiny than the revolution of the Negro American… In far too many ways American Negroes have been another nation — deprived of freedom, crippled by hatred, the doors of opportunity closed to hope… But freedom is not enough… You do not take a person who, for years, has been hobbled by chains and liberate him, bring him up to the starting line of a race and then say, ‘You are free to compete with all the others,’ and still justly believe that you have been completely fair… Men and women of all races are born with the same range of abilities. But ability is not just the product of birth. Ability is stretched or stunted by the family that you live with, and the neighbourhood you live in, by the school you go to and the poverty or the richness of your surroundings. It is the product of a hundred unseen forces playing upon the little infant, the child, and finally the man.”
Johnson amended the previous executive order specifically mentioning discrimination on account of sex, as well. The UK also has a similar law that allows for discrimination in favour of minorities and other deprived sections of society. The problem with reservation in India is the way politicians abuse the system to develop vote banks. As a result, reservation is here to stay.
The Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh has written to the Prime Minister seeking reservation for Muslims. The Samajwadi Party also wants a separate quota for Muslims. As for the Congress, it is more than keen to accept the demand for it desperately wants the Muslim votes.
Clearly, there is no end to the reservation policy in India. It is not that we want to deprive our fellow countrymen of the benefits of reservation but it is time that economic status, and not caste identity becomes the criterion for reservation. Our present reservation policy is caste-based. While no precise data is available about the beneficial or harmful effects of reservation, we are all well aware of third-generation beneficiaries of caste-based quotas.
Reservation, introduced at the time of independence, was only meant to be a tool towards the ultimate goal of development of the most downtrodden sections of the society. Our experience of reservation since then shows that it has only led to the fragmentation of society on caste lines.
On November 25, 1949, participating in the Constituent Assembly debate, BR Ambedkar said: “In India there are castes. The castes are anti-national. In the first place, (they are anti-national) because they bring about separation in social life. They are anti-national also because they generate jealousy and antipathy between caste and caste. But we must overcome all these difficulties if we wish to become a nation in reality. For fraternity can be a fact only when there is a nation. Without fraternity, equality and liberty will be no deeper than coats of paint.”
Hindu society may be caste-based but the Indian Constitution is not based on a similar system. It positively forbids discrimination on the basis of caste, religion, place of birth and language. So there is no justification at all to provide or enable reservation on the basis of caste.
Chairman of the First Backward Class Commission Dattatreya Balkrushna Kalelkar had pleaded that reservations recommended on the basis of caste would not be in the interest of the country. He opined that the principle of caste should be eschewed altogether. Then alone, he said, would it be possible to help the extremely poor and deserving members of all the communities.
But the Government seems to have entangled itself in its own web. It is time it pays heed to former Prime Minister of India Jawaharlal Nehru, who in his letter dated June 27, 1961, wrote: “I have referred above to efficiency and to our getting out of our traditional roots. This necessitates our getting out of the old habit of reservations and particular privileges being given to this caste or that group. The recent meeting we held here at which the Chief Ministers were present to consider national integration, laid down that help should be given on economic considerations and not on caste. It is true that we are tied up with certain rules and conventions about helping the Scheduled Castes and Tribes. They deserve help, but even so I dislike any kind of reservation, more particularly in services. I react strongly against anything which leads to inefficiency and second-rate standards. I want my country to be a first class country in everything. The moment we encourage the second rate, we are lost. The only real way to help a backward group is to give opportunities of good education. This includes technical education which is becoming more and more important.”
Will our politicians and political parties resist the cautionary words of Nehru and Ambedkar?
The Supreme Court today frowned on the Centre’s practice of “politicising” the annual Haj pilgrimage by permitting official delegations to accompany the pilgrims, for which the government offers huge subsidy, saying “it’s a bad religious practice”.
“What kind of practice is this? May be it has political use. It is a bad religious practice. It is not really Haj,” a bench of Justices Aftab Alam and Ranjana Prakash Desai said.
The apex court made the remarks while dealing with the Centre’s appeal challenging a Bombay High Court judgement which had directed the Ministry of External Affairs to allow certain private operators to operate the services of 800 pilgrims out of the 11,000 pilgrims earmarked under the VIP quota subsidised by the government.
The bench had on October 10 stayed the high court order.
The apex court today, while extending the stay however, minced no words in expressing displeasure at the manner in which VIPs, particularly government officials, go on the pilgrimage at the cost of the state exchequer.
The bench told Attorney General G E Vahanvati and counsel Harris Beeran, appearing for the Centre, that the government must evolve a new policy for Haj next year which would be monitored by the court.
“We will oversee the policy. We will keep the matter pending till then,” the bench said.
Justice Alam pointed out that in the past the “Haj pilgrimage was undertaken by people in their old age at their own costs after discharging all their duties.”
But now, the government is funding the pilgrimages of even officials and other VIPs which it said is a “bad religious practice.
The high court had passed the order on October 5 on petitions filed by over 40 private tour operators challenging the MEA decision to disallow those operators who did not have minimum 250 square feet office area.
The operators had contended the MEA’s decision was irrational and unreasonable to benefit select operators.
The MEA had contended before the Bombay High Court that the final list of tour operators selected for sending Haj pilgrims to Saudi Arabia was already sent and no changes can be made.
However, the high court has ordered the Ministry to maintain the status quo.
Aggrieved by the HC’s direction, the Centre moved the apex court.
Forces halting our n-surge
The agitation against the Koodankulam Nuclear Power Plant has been running as a TV reality show for weeks now. The news-starved visual media has reduced the Koodankulam nuclear plant — a national investment of Rs 13,000 crore and just about to start — to a day-matinee-night show. The Koodankulam theatre is plagiarised on the Anna Fast model for media to hype it. The media too obliged and packaged it as hapless villagers fighting for their right to live. For long, it had winked at the scriptwriters, directors and actors behind the show. But does the media know — or not — that Koodankulam is no isolated event? And that the goals and mission that drive it link it to the stir that is on for almost two decades in the distant and remote West Khasi Hills in Meghalaya against uranium mining? The scriptwriters, directors and actors behind both have a common mission. The Koodankulam stir blocks the building of a nuclear plant for India. The West Khasi Hills agitation prevents the building of nuclear arsenal for India. Who are the directors and actors and what is their mission?
See what nuclear technology means to India. India needs nuclear power and nuclear weapons. There are, in the world, 22,000 nuclear bombs, 8,000 actively targeted at one another’s perceived enemy. China has some 240 bombs targeted mostly at India. Pakistan has some 80 bombs targeted only at India. India has 100, less than a third of both. No one deeply concerned for India can even remotely undermine nuclear technology for power or weapons. On the other side, our energy security, heavily import-dependent, is at risk. We, a sixth of humanity, remain a burden on the world. Shamefully. We import oil, coal and gas. Our energy imports is $100 billion a year. Of which, coal imports, now 100 billion tons, alone cost $5 billion; it will reach $45 billion in 2020, $250 billion by 2050. We today produce 1,50,000MW of electricity. We need to raise it, by over six times, to 9,50,000MW, by 2030. This is not doable through imported fuel. It needs no seer to tell us that, in the long run, we need indigenously fuelled power. For which a prime candidate is nuclear power.
Now, compare the environmental and human risk in thermal and nuclear power. The risk in one is the merit of the other. Experts say that a 1,000MW coal power plant causes annually 400 deaths by air pollution and climatic change. Nuclear energy does risk accidents — but once in decades — just four accidents in 60 years, involving 66 direct and 4,000 related deaths. It is far less risky compared thermal power. Air accidents kill some 1,000 persons in the world annually. Traffic accidents killed 1.14 lakh people in 2007 in India alone. Yet to think of banning coal, nor air or automobile travel will be laughable. The balance sheet of nuclear energy is thus superior, less risky, and more clean. Why do some brand nuclear power as evil? Now see how do we produce nuclear power and also weaponise India.
Now uranium drives our nuclear programme. Our minimal uranium reserves are mainly located in Khasi Hills in Meghalaya, Jaduguda in Jharkhand and Tummalappalle in Andhra Pradesh. Global uranium trade is political, controlled by the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG). The NSG sells uranium only to an approved country and its nuclear reactors are subject to NSG supervision. India signed a loaded nuclear treaty with the US only to win the NSG approval to access imported uranium. Now 14 of our 22 nuclear reactors are subject to global supervision. Only the unsupervised eight are usable for producing nuclear weapons. India can import uranium from the NSG for its nuclear power reactors, but import is only a short term answer, and costly for a country of our size. To fuel large nuclear power plants and for energy security, we cannot rely on imported uranium for long. Ultimately it has to be indigenous fuel. Fortunately, we have the world’s largest deposit of thorium, an alternative to uranium and the nuclear fuel of future. We are perfecting the technology to use thorium for producing power. But, till that happens, we need to mine indigenous uranium, first, to reduce the dependence on imports for our nuclear power programme and, next, for operating the eight reactors to produce nuclear weaponry. The two facts are self evident. And now lift the veil and see the common faces behind the two decade-old Khasi Hills agitation against uranium mining and the agitation against the Koodankulam nuclear power plant — that is against nuclear India itself.
That the Koodankulam stir is the show of the Catholic Church has become out, but a bit late. Neutral media reports now confirm that S P Udaykumar, who leads the agitation, stays with the parish priest Father Jaikumar at Idinthakarai village; Fr Jaikumar openly supports the stir; Fr Thadyuse, the priest of the church in Koodankulam, too is forthright in his support; Fr S Peter, priest at the popular St Antony’s Church in the coastal village Ovary, sends his flock to partake in the relay fast at Idinthakarai; local Christians priests confirm that the Bishop at Tirunelveli supports the stir. The church hierarchy is therefore fully at it. According to reports, transport, cash and biriyani are provided to mobilise protesters and they are motivated to throw stones at the maintenance officials of the plant to force its closure. Remove the church, the agitation will stop.
Now see the face behind the agitation in the Christian-majority Meghalaya, which has a sixth of India’s uranium reserves. Not a kilogramme of uranium has been mined out of Meghalaya since 1990, thanks to 20-year long agitation by Khasi Hills students against mining it. The church in Meghalaya is backing, actually organising, the students. Violent incidents, blockade, picketing, huge rallies, setting fire to government offices and paralysing government marked the agitation (http://wise-uranium.org/upinml.html). And who talks for the agitators? The archbishop of Shillong, Dominic Jala. (http://www.cathnewsindia.com/2009/10/29/uranium-mining-archbishop- wants-dialogue-2/). Take the church out, there will be no stir. Even the uranium reserve in Jharkhand is at risk. A huge tribal campaign, with NGOs patronised by the church backing it, is thwarting uranium mining in Jharkhand.
QED: The campaign against mining uranium in Meghalaya and against the Koodankulam nuclear plant is by the same directors and actors with global links and money. Their target is nuclear India. They are driven by a geopolitical agenda to de-nuke India. But they actually nuke India.
(Views expressed are those of the author only).
Just another WordPress.com weblog
Home BANGLADESHI MUSLIM INFILTRATORS WILL WRITE THE DESTINY OF W.BENGAL-BY SATYAMITRA
THE” TRUE”STORY OF” FAKE LEADER” SONIA GANDHI Alias ANTONIA MAINO-By SATYAMITRA
Who is Sonia?
(By Dr. Subramaniam Swamy)
Antonia is Sonia’s real name in her birth certificate. Sonia is the name given to her subsequently by her father, Stefano Maino [now deceased] following his return from Russia where he had been a prisoner of war. Stefano had joined the Nazi army as a volunteer. Sonia is a Russian not Italian name. While spending two years in a Russian jail, Sonia’s father had become quite pro-Soviet; especially after the liberating US army in Italy had confiscated all fascists’ properties including his.
Second, she was not born in Orbassano as she claims in her bio data submitted to Parliament on becoming MP, but in Luciana as stated in her birth certificate. She perhaps would like to hide the place of her birth because of her father’s connection with the Nazis and Mussolini’s Fascists, and her family’s continuing connections with the Nazi-Fascists underground that is still surviving since 1945 in Italy. Luciana is where Nazi-Fascist network is headquartered, and is on the Italian-Swiss border. There can be no other explanation for this otherwisemeaningless lie.
Third, Sonia Gandhi has not studied beyond High School. She has falsely claimed in her affidavit filed as a contesting candidate before the Rae Bareli Returning Officer in the 2004 Lok Sabha elections that she is qualified and got a diploma in English from the prestigious University of Cambridge, UK.
The truth is that Ms. Gandhi has never studied in any college anywhere. She did go to a Catholic run seminary-school called Maria Ausiliatrice in Giaveno [15 kms from adopted home town of Orbassabo]. Poverty those days forced young Italian girls to go to such missionaries and then in their teens go to UK to get jobs as cleaning maids, waitresses and au pair. The Mainos were poor those days. Her father was a mason and mother a share cropper
She isn’t particularly educated, and never attended college. Her certificate in English, perhaps in a 10-week course, is from an institute that no longer exists.The educational qualifications on her Lok Sabha resume read:“
(i) Three years course in foreign languages (English & French) completed in 1964 at Istituto Santa Teresa, Turin (Italy).
(ii) Certificate in English from Lennox Cook School, Cambridge (UK) completed in 1965.”
Istituto Santa Teresa is a primary school and shouldn’t have been mentioned. Lennox Cook School, now gone, was a tuition class unrelated to Cambridge University.
Born in December 1946, Sonia got her certificate at 18. She’s had no education since. Her important qualification is for English, but those who watch her on television are struck by how poor her English is. She cannot express complex ideas in it.
Incidentally, the Nehru-Gandhis were all dull students. Indira failed in Oxford’s Somerville College, Rajiv failed in Trinity College, Cambridge, and his brother Sanjay could not even clear high school.
Paola Maino Antonia Sonia Gandhi Mother
Sonia thus went to the town of Cambridge and first learnt some English in a teaching shop called Lennox School [which has since 1970 been wound up]. That is all her “education” which is enough English language to get domestic help jobs. But in Indian society education is highly valued. Thus, to fool the Indian public, Sonia Gandhi willfully fibbed about her qualifications in Parliamentary records [which is a Breach of Ethics Rules] and in a sworn affidavit [which is criminal offence under IPC, severe enough to disqualify her from being MP
This is just a beginning. As this booklet unfolds Sonia’s story, it reveals shocking details on the corruption and fraud, disrespect for Indian laws, alarming threat to democracy of India, religious intolerance towards Hinduism, pro-terrorist policies, dividing country to perpetuate dynasty rule.
Sonia: lied from President of India to a common man. She lied to the President about the number of MPs supporting her and to a common man on a trivial issue such as her educational qualification. She says that she is outside Government but controls every move Government makes and there is no record of her ever admitting or apologizing for any lies and mistakes.
Sonia: is violent and her violence spans Political, Spiritual and Physical spheres. The way she installed herself to become congress president, the way she treats congressmen and opponents speaks volumes in Political Sphere. Her crusade against Hinduism such as Rama Sethu (historic bridge built by Lord Ram, as per Hindu Holy Book, “Ramayana”) speaks of spiritual violence. In the Physical sphere, Sonia was sympathetic in Congress party and in Government to the killers of 3000 Sikhs, where innocent Sikhs on streets of New Delhi were lynched to death. Jagdish Tytler who was one of the instigators of the lynching was rewarded with a Government ministry. Central Government provided a weak defense in courts and no congressmen was ever punished for the anti-Sikh pogrom. Rajiv Gandhi whose wife is Sonia even justified the killings by saying “When a big tree falls, the earth is bound to shake”. She is pursuing pro-terrorist policies for vote banks that resulted in number of killings in last three years she was in power just next to Iraq.
Opinion on Hinduism
.Sonia,in her opinion and according to the affidavit submitted in Supreme Court, Ram is a fictional character and Ramayana never happened. Under her rule ‘Rama Sethu’ is being blown up just like Taliban blew up Buddha Statues. Her protégé Andhra Pradesh Chief Minister have attempted to take over 5 out of 7 Tirumala Hills for building Churches and Tourism. This is akin to non-Christians taking over Vatican for building their worship places. Her reasons for not taking firm action against terrorism are two fold. One is the sense that investigation would hurt vote bank and another is that the overwhelming number of those who were killed in the terrorism are Hindus who are not from the vote bank. As recently as few weeks she visited Andhra Pradesh that witnessed the brutal terrorist attack that killed more than 50 people and she did not go visit the city where attack occurred (Hyderabad) because those affected are not her vote banks.
Truth Alone Triumphs (Satyameva Jayathe)
Sonia,under her rule ‘Satyameva jayathe’ has been replaced by a Christian cross used by Louis the Pious (778-840) on currency coins.
christian cross on coins of french denier_louis_le_pieux
Foreign Missionaries & conversion
Mahatma Gandhi: Gandhi, had a clear foresight about missionaries. On numerous occasions he condemned missionary activity. He said “If I had the power and could legislate, I should certainly stop all proselytizing.” He further said “The effect of Christianity upon India in general…has been disastrous.” Regarding conversion Gandhi said “The idea of conversion, I assure you is the deadliest poison that ever sapped the fountain of truth.” He also said “Conversion is like a drop of poison which fouls the whole food” and that “poverty does not justify conversion”.
Sonia is known for her sympathy and support to deceitful proselytization. Her party granted the high-security Air Force field to Benny Hinn to hold his healing charade that even Christian Trinity Foundation declared as a fraud. A leader of seventh day Adventist church, Ron Watts was ordered deportation by courts for his illegal activities. He seems to have been blessed by Sonia and continues to live in India. The state Governors she appointed have been consistently rejecting State laws to enact anti-conversion laws to prevent conversion of poor people by allurement.
HYPOCRISY OF MOTHER & SON
SONIA is a staunch roman catholic and she is be fooling the HINDU masses by putting tilak on forehead and by performing pooja in HINDU temples and bowing the head before pujari etc.She pretend to be Hindu,which she is not.We are quoting a report published on 24th march 2011,which is self explanatory.
Indian envoy refers to Sonia as ‘Christian,’ reference is deleted
For the Congress, the subject of Sonia Gandhi’s religion is a touchy one and generally off-limits when it comes to official communications.
Just how sensitive an issue it is was revealed last month when the official representative of the UPA Government in Washington, Ambassador Meera Shankar, delivered a speech at a US university referring to Sonia Gandhi being a Christian as a testament to India’s pluralism and diversity. However, that reference was later quickly deleted.
In her keynote speech on the subject “Why India Matters” at Emory University on February 24, Shankar said: “India is a land of incredible diversity. Like the United States it celebrates pluralism. It not only tolerates diversity but has embraced it and has allowed people from all walks of life to flourish and realize their full potential. This is a tradition that is rooted in our civilization. Throughout our history peoples from other parts of the world have come to India and made it a home, resulting in a multi-cultural and multi-religious society, one where individual faith and belief is not only respected but adds to the overall sense of nationhood. Today the fact that we have a woman Head of State, a Sikh Head of Government and a Muslim Vice President and a Christian as the leader of the largest national political party is perhaps the best statement of the multi-ethnic and multi-religious nature of our state.”
Sonia,according to the respected Swiss magazine (published in 1991), Schweitzer Illustrate, Rajiv Gandhi, her late husband had secret Swiss accounts worth $ 2 billion. Sonia is known for her close association with Italian fugitive Quattrocchi. Sonia and her family are believed to have looted country wealth worth billions of dollars.
Secret unaccounted wealth in Swiss accounts
Swiss magazine Schweizer Illustrierte published an explosive story in its issue dated Nov. 11, 1991 which disclosed that fourteen rules or ex-rulers of the third world countries have a deposit of foreign currencies equivalent to Rs. 5 lakh 50 thousand crores in Swiss banks. The magazine printed the names, photographs and the amount deposited by each of them. They included Idi Amin of Uganda, Anastasio Somoza of Nicaragua, Jean Claude Duvalier of Haiti, Manuel Noriega of Panama, Seke Moboto of Zaire, Nicolai Chausescue of Rumania, Haile Selassie of Thiopia, Abu Nida of Palestine, Jaafar Numeiri of Sudan, Suharto of Indonesia, Saddam Hussain of Iraq, Jaa B. Bokassa of Zontralafrika, Rajiv Gandhi of India and Reza Pahlevi of Iran, in that order. The amount said to be deposited by Rajiv Gandhi in various Swiss Banks was 2 billion US dollars. Most of them, who figure in the list, are infamous for being corrupt, nationally and internationally. The magazine which published this story is supposed to be a very serious publication
CPI(M) MP Amal dutta raised the matter in parliament, and he did mention the name of Rajiv Gandhi and the amount, but nothing could go on record for there was pandemonium from treasury benches which happened to be occupied by the Congress at that time. There upon, Sunday Mail carried this story and reproduced the photographs and money mentioned under their names which in turn was published in the Hindi daily Amar Ujala, too. The point to note was that Congress Government neither confirmed the story nor denied it. No defamation suit was filed by any of the fourteen leaders or by their relatives. This speaks volume about the Rajiv-Sonia couple. India can get her money back, according to the Swiss laws, if prosecution proceedings are finally launched against the heirs of Rajiv Gandhi
THE ROYAL SON IN LAW ROBERT VADRA DUKE OF MORADABAD IS EXEMPTED FROM PRE-EMBARKATION SECURITY CHECKS.
THE ROYAL FAMILY OF ITALIAN QUEEN VICTORIA
Feelings towards enemies/detractors
Sonia is known for her vindictive nature. She is known not to spare even her party men and routinely humiliates them. She even humiliated the dead body by denying a respectful funeral, of former Prime Minister PV Narasimha Rao who did not encourage Sonia’s political growth.
Nationalism and confidence in India
Sonia abandoned India during 1971 war and in 1977 when Indira Gandhi lost elections she hid herself in Italian embassy. She did not even apply for Indian citizenship for 16 years though living in Prime Minister’s house.
Moral principles vs. political Gains
Sonia,in 1997, Sonia pulled down United Front Government at centre because a political party DMK, a constituent of United Front Government was found to be close to her husband’s killers i.e., LTTE. Every election costs Indian tax payer billions of rupees. But in 2004, she joined hands with same DMK to gain power.
Scams & Scandals
.Sonia was almost and always in news due to some scandal or scam. Maruti Scam, Foreign Exchange Regulations Act, Indian Artifacts smuggling, Bofors kickbacks, Indira/Rajiv Trusts and Indira Arts Center usurpation, political manipulations are some of the widely published notorious scandals she was involved in.
Contribution towards India
Sonia: Except for scandals, scams and intolerance primarily towards Hindu institutions, she has no positive contribution to lay claim to.
QUEEN WITH KING,PRINCESS AND CROWN PRINCE
Sonia –Rajiv’s relationship
(Dr. Subramaniam Swamy)
Ms. Sonia Gandhi upon learning enough English became a waitress in Varsity Restaurant in Cambridge town. She first met Rajiv when he came to the restaurant in 1965. Rajiv was a student in the University, but could not cope with the academic rigor for long. So he had to depart in 1966 for London where he was briefly in Imperial College of Engineering as a student. Sonia too moved to London, and according my information, got a job with an outfit run by Salman Thassir, a debonair Pakistani based in Lahore, and who has an export-import company headquartered in Dubai but who spends most of his time in London. This fits the profile of an ISI functionary.
Obviously, Sonia made enough money in this job to loan Rajiv funds in London, who was obviously living beyond his allowances [Indira herself expressed anguish to me on this score in late 1965 when she invited me to a private tea at the Guest House in Brandeis University]. Rajiv’s letters to Sanjay, who was also in London then, clearly indicate that he was in financial debt to Sonia because he requested Sanjay who obviously had more access to money, to pay off the debt.
However, Rajiv was not the only friend Sonia was seeing those days. Madhavrao Scindia and a German by name Stiegler are worth mentioning as other good friends of Sonia. Madhavrao’s friendship continued even after Sonia’s marriage to Rajiv. Scindia in 1982 was involved in a traffic accident near IIT, Delhi main gate while driving a car at 2 AM. Sonia was the only other passenger. Both were badly injured. A student of IIT who was burning midnight oil was out for a cup of coffee. He picked them up from the car, hailed an auto rickshaw and sent an injured Sonia to Mrs. Indira Gandhi’s house since she insisted in not going to a hospital. Madhavrao had broken a leg and in too much pain to make any demand. He was taken to hospital by the Delhi Police who had arrived a little after Sonia had left the scene. In later years, Madhavrao had become privately critical of Sonia, and told some close friends about his apprehensions about Sonia. It is a pity that he died in mysterious circumstances in an air crash.
Sonia’s India connection
Sonia’s connection with India is always found with all wrong reasons. A rational analysis of what India gained vs. what India lost reveals a shocking picture.
Foreign Agency initiated marriage to Rajiv
The circumstance under which Rajiv hastily married Sonia in a Church in Orbassano is controversial but that was his personal matter that has no public significance. But what is of public significance is that Indira Gandhi who was initially dead set against the marriage for reasons known to her, relented to hold a registry marriage with Hindu ceremonial trappings in New Delhi only after the pro-Soviet T.N. Kaul prevailed upon her to accept the marriage in “the larger interest of cementing Indo-Soviet Friendship”. Kaul would not have intervened unless the Soviet Union had asked him to.
Such has been the extensive patronage from the beginning extended to Sonia Gandhi from the Soviets. When a Prime Minister of India’s son dates a girl in London, the KGB which valued Indo-Soviet relations, obviously would investigate her and find out that she was the daughter of Stefano, their old reliable Italian contact. Thus, Sonia with Rajiv meant deeper access to the household of the Indian Prime Minister. Hence cementing the Rajiv-Sonia relations was in the Soviet national interest and they went to work on it. And they did through their then existing moles in the Indira Gandhi camp.
After her marriage to Rajiv, the Soviet connection with the Mainos was fortified and nurtured by generous financial help through commissions and kickbacks on every Indo, Soviet trade deal and defense purchases. According to the respected Swiss magazine, Schweitzer Illustrate [November 1991 issue], Rajiv Gandhi had about $ 2 billion in numbered Swiss bank accounts, which Sonia inherited upon his assassination. Dr. Yevgenia Albats, PhD [Harvard], is a noted Russian scholar and journalist, and was a member of the KGB Commission set up by President Yeltsin in August 1991. She was privy to the Soviet intelligence files that documented these deals and KGB facilitation of the same. In her book, The State within a State, The KGB in Soviet Union, she even gives the file numbers of such intelligence files, which can now be accessed by any Indian government through a formal request to the Kremlin.
The Russian Government in 1992 was confronted by the Albats’ disclosure; they confirmed it through their official spokesperson to the press [which was published in Hindu in 1992], defending such financial payments as necessary in “Soviet ideological interest”.
When the Soviet Union disintegrated in 1991, things changed for Ms. Sonia Gandhi. Her patrons evaporated. The rump that became Russia was in a financial mess and disorder. So Ms. Sonia Gandhi became a supporter of another communist country to the annoyance of the Russians.
The national security ramification of this ‘annoyance’ is now significant: The President of Russia today is Putin, a former dyed-in-the-wool KGB officer. Upon Dr. Manmohan Singh’s government taking office, Russia called back it’s career diplomat Ambassador in New Delhi and immediately posted as the new Ambassador a person who was the KGB station chief in New Delhi during the 1970s. In view of Dr. Albats confirmed revelation, it stands to reason that the new Ambassador would have known first hand about Sonia’s connections with the KGB. He may have in fact been her “controller”. The new Indian government which is defacto Sonia’s, cannot afford to annoy him or even disregard Russian demands coming from him? They will obviously placate him so as not to risk exposure. Is this not a major national security risk and a delicate matter for the nation?
Of course, all Indians would like good normal and healthy relations with Russia. Who can forget their assistance to us in times of need? Today’s Russia is the residual legatee of that Soviet Union which helped India. But just because of that, should we tolerate those in our government set up having clandestine links with a foreign spy agency? In the United States, the government did not tolerate an American spying for Israel even though the two countries are as close as any two countries can be. National security and friendship are as different as chalk and cheese.
Illegal registration as a voter
In January 1980, Indira Gandhi returned as Prime Minister. The first thing Sonia did was to enroll herself as a voter. This was a gross violation of the law, enough to cause cancellation of her visa [since she was admittedly an Italian citizen then]. There was some hullabaloo in the press about it, so the Delhi Chief Electoral Officer got her name deleted in 1982. But in January 1983, she again enrolled herself as a voter! Such is her revealed disdain for Indian laws and that is her mindset even today.
How and when she became an Indian citizen
She did not apply for Indian citizenship in 1968 when she married Rajiv and came to India, which is what good Indian wives would have done. She filled in an application in 1968 for permission to stay as a foreigner in India for five years. She said I am married, I am married into the family of the Indian Prime Minister but I would still like to remain a foreigner. So she was given a certificate in 1968 to reside in India as a foreigner for five years. Okay, this may have been due to some adjustment problems.
In 1973, after the first five year period expired, she again applied for the permit to stay on India for another five years as a foreigner and this is the person who is going to live and die for us. I will now come to what Cho, my friend told me, never believe what she says. There is not only complete divorce between what she says and what she does there is also a clue that she will do precisely the opposite of what she says. I will come to it later, there are instances and instances. So, she again applied for a foreigner’s permit. You know why? Between 1968 and 1973, the indications were all there of the imminent war with Pakistan over East Pakistan. And sure enough, there was the Bangladesh war. During the Bangladesh war, when all commercial pilots were asked to forego their leave and come into service, she asked Rajeev to go on a long leave and he was given special permission and they left India. And throughout the period of the war, they were in Rome. Why, because the American seventh fleet was moving towards India and Sonia Gandhi probably had serious doubts about India’s survival! So she ran away from the country with her husband; to that extent faithful. And she returned only after peace was restored, after India had won the war, when because of Indira Gandhi, that family acquired stature and became invincible.
So, we have to read between the lines, you have to look at the persons behind the skin. So, in 1973, she again applied for a permit to remain a foreigner in India. Now let us come to the period between 1973 and 1978. In the year 1977 when Mrs. Gandhi was defeated after she lifted the Emergency and called for elections, Sonia Gandhi learnt the mood of the nation and she went into the Italian embassy and refused to come out of it. She said she was going back to Italy. Sanjay Gandhi had to go and plead with her to return. This is the person who is going to live and die for India, please understand.To live in India is very different from living for India. And to live in India in such glory, with such protection, with such resources, is very different from dying for India. No one will die for something which one does not own up to. Owning up to India is different from thinking you own India.
Abandoning India at the time of crisis
The bottom line observed in Sonia’s mindset is that she can always run back to Italy if she becomes vulnerable at anytime. In Peru, President Fujimori who all along claimed to be “born Peruvian”, faced with a corruption charge fled to Japan with his loot and reclaimed his Japanese citizenship.
In 1977, when the Janata Party defeated the Congress at the polls, and formed the government, Sonia with her two children, abandoned Indira Gandhi and ran to the Italian Embassy in New Delhi and hid there. Rajiv Gandhi was a government servant then [as an Indian Airlines pilot], but he too tagged along and hid in that foreign embassy! Such was her baneful influence on him. Rajiv did snap out Sonia’s influence after 1989, but alas he was assassinated before he could rectify it. Those close to Rajiv knew that he was planning set things right about Sonia after the 1991 elections. She did too know of it because he had told her. Ever wonder why Sonia’s closest advisers are those whom Rajiv literally hated? Ambika Soni is one such name. Ever wonder why she asked the President of India to set aside, on a mercy petition, the Supreme Court judgment directing that Rajiv Gandhi’s LTTE killers be hanged to death, when she was not similarly moved for Satwant Singh who killed Indira Gandhi or recently for Dhanajoy Chattopadhyaya? The explanation for this special consideration for the LTTE lies in what Rajiv had told her in 1990.
Sonia’s greed for power: How did she become party president
Sonia said that she was not interested in politics, she would not enter politics. She said she would not become a Congress member. She will only help the party as a person belonging to the Congress family. She said I am just a four penny member; I will not occupy any position
.And then she goes and physically throws out poor Sitaram Kesari (then president of Congress party) from the office. Physically, poor fellow. He has gone to the toilet. His chair was empty, and you know what happened? These congress goons, they went and locked up the toilet and made Sonia occupy that place. And the elderly man cried. This is how she became the Congress President. In the same way as the western armies in the past, would invade other civilizations. Seize power, she seized power in a ‘coup d’toilet’
This is how every word that she has spoken so far had nothing to do with what she did. Her conduct was the very reverse of her professions.
First confrontation with Indian law
(Dr. Subramaniam Swamy)
After Sonia married Rajiv, she went about minting money with scant regard for Indian laws and treasures. Within a few years the Mainos went from utter poverty to billionaires. There was no area that was left out for the rip-off. On November 19, 1974, as fresh entrant to Parliament, I asked the then Prime Minister Ms. Indira Gandhi on the floor of the House if her daughter-in-law, Sonia Gandhi was acting as an insurance agent of a public sector insurance company [Oriental Fire & Insurance], giving the Prime Minister’s official residence as her business address, and using undue influence to insure all the officers of the PMO while remaining an Italian citizen [thus violating FERA]? There was uproar in Parliament, but Mrs. Indira Gandhi had no alternative but to cut her losses. She made a rare admission that it was so, and that it was by mistake, but that Sonia had resigned from her insurance agent status [after my question]. But Sonia was incorrigible. Her contempt for Indian law continued to manifest.
The truth about Quottrochi
(By Arun Shourie)
Responding to a question regarding her family friend Ottavio Quattrocchi, at her singular press conference Mrs. Sonia Gandhi said, ”The CBI has said he is a suspect. But we have never seen the papers naming him in the deal. They should show the papers establishing that he is guilty.”
The fact that he received money from Bofors, as well as particulars of his accounts into which the money was paid, transferred and re-transferred are available in the public domain, in judgments which the Courts have already delivered on appeals by her family friend..
The relevant judgments are as follows:
1. Judgment of the Chamber of Accusation, Switzerland, dated 6 September, 1996, in regard to Colbar Investments Ltd, Inc, and Ottavio Quattrocchi v. The decision taken by the Examining Magistrate on 12 July, 1995. THIS JUDGMENT WAS FURNISHED TO THE DELHI HIGH COURT INADVERTANTLY, PERHAPS! BY THE COUNSEL OF OTTAVIO QUATTROCCHI HIMSELF.
2. Judgment of the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court dated 5 August, 1998, in Ottavio Quattrocchi v. Central Bureau of Investigation.
3. Judgment of the Division Bench of the Supreme Court of India dated 23, February, 1999, in Ottavio Quattrocchi v. CBI.
4. Judgment of the Division Bench of the Supreme Court of India dated 26, March, 1999, in Ottavio Quattrocchi v. CBI.
These judgments together establish the following facts about the money received by Ottavio Quattrocchi from Bofors.
In his sworn affidavit, Myles Tweedale Stott revealed that he was contacted by Ottavio Quattrocchi. In accordance with their discussions, M/s AB Bofors entered into an agreement with AE Services on 15 November, 1985, and agreed to pay the latter THREE PER CENT OF THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF THE CONTRACT if the contract was awarded to Bofors on or before 31 March, 1986.
2. From 7 June, 1984 to early February, 1986, the Negotiating Committee met seventeen times. The Army consistently ranked the SOFMA gun as its number one preference. On 17 February, 1986, it switched its preference to Bofors. After a note from a Joint Secretary, mini signatures of ELEVEN OFFICERS AND MINISTERS headed by those of Rajiv Gandhi, the then Defense Minister and Prime Minister-were obtained IN LESS THAN 48 HOURS.
3. Rajiv Gandhi visited Sweden on 14/15 March, 1986, and told the Swedish Prime Minister that the contract would indeed be given to Bofors. The deadline agreed to by Quattrocchi was thus met.
4. On 2 May, 1986, the Government of India released 20 per cent of the contract money-that is, SEK 1,682,132,196.80- as the first advance payment to Bofors.
5. On 20 August, 1986, Myles Tweedale Stott opened an account in the name of AE Services c/o Mayo Associates SA, Geneva. The account was NUMBER 18051-53 in the NORDFINANZ BANK, ZURICH.
6. On 3 September, 1986, Bofors remitted SEK 50,463,966 into this account- then US $ equivalent being $ SEVEN MILLION THREE HUNDRED FORTY THREE THOUSAND NINE HUNDRED AND FORTY ONE, AND 98 CENTS- $ 7,343, 941.98. This amount was credited into the account on 5 September, 1986.
7. THIS AMOUNT PAID BY BOFORS- SEK 50,463,966- WAS EXACTLY THREE PER CENT OF THE ADVANCE PAID BY THE INDIAN GOVERNMENT AS HAD BEEN STIPULATED IN THE AGREEMENT OF 15 NOVEMBER, 1985 BETWEEN BOFORS AND AE SERVICES.
8. On 16 September, 1986- that is, within 11 days of the money being received into the account which had just been opened by AE Services- it was transferred to ACCOUNT NUMBER 254.561.60 W held by COLBAR INVESTMENTS Ltd in the Union Bank of Switzerland, Geneva. The amount was transferred in two installments. $ SEVEN MILLION WERE PUT INTO THIS ACCOUNT ON 16 SEPTEMBER, 1986, AND ANOTHER $ 123,900 WAS PUT INTO IT ON 29 SEPTEMBER, 1986.
9. IN ITS RULING, AT PAGE 6, THE SWISS COURT SPECIFICALLY STATES THAT OTTAVIO QUATTROCCHI IS THE OWNER OF THE COMPANY. COLBAR INVESTMENTS. DOCUMENTS REVEAL THAT ONLY TWO PERSONS COULD OPERATE THE ACCOUNT OF THIS COMPANY OTTAVIO QUATTROCCHI AND HIS WIFE, MARIA. TO CONCEAL MATTERS, QUATTROCCHI GAVE A NON-EXISTENT ADDRESS IN DELHI FOR THIS ACCOUNT.
10. On 6 August, 1987 a new company was floated in Panama, M/s WETELSEN OVERSEAS SA IN ITS RULING, AT PAGE 6, THE SWISS COURT SPECIFICALLY STATES THAT OTTAVIO QUATTROCCHI IS THE OWNER OF THIS COMPANY.
11. An account-NUMBER 488.320.60 X- was opened within the same bank, the Union Bank of Switzerland, Geneva, on the name of M/s WETELSEN OVERSEAS SA, THE NEW COMPANY QUATTROCCHI HAD OPENED. THIS ACCOUNT ALSO COULD BE OPERATED ONLY BY OTTAVIO QUATTROCCHI OR HIS WIFE, MARIA.
12. On 25 July, 1988, ON THE INSTRUCTION OF OTTAVIO QUATTROCCHI $ SEVEN MILLION NINE HUNDRED AND FORTHY THREE THOUSAND [that is, the amount received plus the interest which had accumulated] WAS TRANSFERRED FROM THE ACCOUNT OF HIS COMPANY, COLBAR INVESTMENTS TO THAT OF HIS OTHER COMPANY WETELSEN OVERSEAS SA.
13. IN ITS RULING, AT PAGE 6, THE SWISS COURT STATES SPECIFICALLY THAT, LIKE COLBAR INVESTMENTS, WETELSEN OVERSEAS WAS OWNED BY OTTAVIO QUATTROCCHI.
14. In yet another round of laundering, on 21 May, 1990, another $200,000 were transferred from the account of M/s Wetelsen Overseas SA in the Union Bank of Switzerland into the account of INTER INVESTMENT DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION with ANNSBACHER Ltd, St PETER PORT, GUERNSEY.
15. The Swiss Court noted that Quattrocchi had denied receiving any commission directly or indirectly from Bofors. It noted on the other hand (a) the statement of Myles T Stott that the amount Bofors had paid AE Services was related to the agreement of sale of guns to India; (b) and the trail of subsequent transfers of the money to companies owned by Quattrocchi-from AE Services to Colbar Investments to Wetelsen Overseas. At page 7 of its judgment, the Swiss Court then noted,
”This decision [ of the Examining Magistrate] was in particular imparted to Ottavio Quattrocchi, economical owner of Colbar Investments Ltd and Wetelsen Overseas SA, who in view of the documents transferred appeared to have received commissions through the channel of these companies, who had given no explanations and who had not obeyed the judge’s injunction of June 20th, 1994”.
16. After setting out further facts, after rejecting roundly the assertions of Quattrocchi that he would not get justice in India and therefore the bank documents should not be allowed to be transferred at page 14 of its judgment, the Swiss Court pronounced,
”The Requesting Authority can therefore neglect no track and insofar as the appellants seem to have been used as transfer channels for commissions paid out by Bofors, it is of the first importance that it have at its disposal elements as complete as possible enabling it to reconstruct the network susceptible of having been used and ending, in this case, at a firm in Guernsey..”
Rejecting the contentions of Quattrocchi decisively, at page 15 of its judgment, the Swiss Court further concluded,
”Now, Colbar Investments Ltd Inc and Ottavio Quattrocchi seem to have received an amount issuing from commissions paid by Bofors and one cannot therefore say that their appearance in the case, was the proceed of pure chance, especially that on the own confession of the appellants it appears that Ottavio Quattrocchi had relationships in India at the highest level and that he had very close relationships with this country.”
”In conclusion”, the Swiss Court said after rejecting further contentions, ”the recourse [in our terms, the appeal of Quattrocchi against the decision of the lower court that the relevant bank documents be transferred to India] IS ABSOLUTELY UNFOUNDED.”
17. On 3 July, 1993, Interpol, Switzerland, informed India that appeals filed by Quattrocchi and others had been dismissed by the Swiss Supreme Court.
18. For the next week, though he was in India, no action was taken to restrain Quattrocchi. On the contrary, as had happened in the case of Win Chaddha, Quattrocchi was allowed to escape from India on 29 July, 1993.
19. The investigating agency raided the house and offices of Ottavio Quattrocchi. Diaries, family photographs, telephone records nailed his extreme proximity and of his wife to Rajiv and Sonia Gandhi.
20. The Special Judge examining the case concluded that there was prima facie evidence to the effect that Ottavio Quattrocchi had received SEVEN MILLION ONE HUNDRED AND TWENTY THREE THOUSAND DOLLARS in the Bofors deal. Accordingly, he issued a non-bailable warrant for his arrest.
21. Interpol issued a Red Corner Alert for his arrest on 17 February, 1997.
22. Quattrocchi appealed against this Red Corner Alert on 7 April, 1997.
23. The Interpol Supervisory Board rejected his appeal on 20 September, 1997.
24. Quattrocchi then filed an appeal against the Special Judge’s order in the Delhi High Court. A Division Bench of the High Court roundly rejected the appeal. It held that it found no merit in the appeal. It held that the non-bailable warrant for his arrest was fully justified. The Court said,
”We have in extensor quoted the averments which the respondent [the CBI] made in the application seeking the issuance of the warrants. The same on the face of it do constitute making of sufficient allegation pointing out that the evidence so far collected prima facie reveals that the petitioner was recipient of fraud committed in the Bofors gun deal, which he received for himself and on behalf of certain public servants and, therefore, he was required to be arrested and interrogated for expeditions investigation of the case and to reveal the truth.”
25. Quattrocchi then filed an appeal in the Supreme Court. On his behalf his counsel told that Supreme Court that Quattrocchi would indeed appear before the Special Court, that he would cooperate with the investigating authorities who want to interrogate him, and that for this purpose the would remain in India for two weeks. The Supreme Court recorded these assurances in its order on 22 February, 1999, and directed him to appear before the Special Judge on 15 March, 1999, and remain present in India for two weeks thereafter so as to enable the investigating authorities to interrogate him. The date came and went, Quattrocchi did not appear.
26. The matter was taken again to the Supreme Court. It recorded, ‘we strongly disapprove the manner in which the petitioner [Quattrocchi] has conducted himself in the proceedings before this Court”. That was on 26 March, 1999.
Each of these facts is a matter of public record. Each is available in judgments of the highest courts of India and Switzerland.
And yet Mrs. Sonia Gandhi says,
”We have never seen the papers naming him in the deal. They should show the papers establishing that he is guilty”!
There is a second striking feature. A comparison of dates will show that with each failure of Quattrocchi’s efforts to escape the law, Mrs. Sonia Gandhi’s efforts to bring down governments in India accelerated.
Who is Quottrochi?
(Dina Nath Mishra)
Five years ago, India was at the crossroads. An ordinary, Italy-born woman had all but grabbed the prime ministerial chair, claiming the support of the majority of Lok Sabha members. The 120-year-old Congress willingly surrendered to the Italian bahu (daughter-in-law) of the dynasty. The oldest party in the country could not find a single individual other than her to lead it and the nation of over a billion people.
On her part, the widow of former Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi made bold to strangle inner-party democracy. Five years ago, the nation was saved by the bell. For, finally, the nationalist in Mulayam Singh Yadav surfaced, and he quietly put paid to Sonia’s dreams. There may be a whole lot of reasons why she should not be the Prime Minister of India. But just one is enough: She is not of Indian origin.Today, when the nation is once again witnessing the battle of the ballot, every nationalist of every party should ponder whom is he voting? He may be voting for the CPI (M), which ultimately translates into support for Sonia Gandhi, whether directly or indirectly. They may be voting for Laloo Prasad Yadav’s party, which would ultimately strengthen the hands of Sonia Gandhi. They may be voting for the DMK-Ied front whose prime ministerial candidate is Sonia and Sonia alone. They may be electing PDF candidates in J&K but with the same result. The duty of all true nationalists then is to ensure that power does not slip into the hands of someone of foreign origin.
The ramifications of her entry into Prime Minister’s Office are numerous. One of them is the Quattrocchi angle. Ottavio Quattrocchi, the representative of the powerful Milan-based Italian company Snamprogetti, originally came to India as a chartered accountant based in a Chennai- based Italian MNC. Gradually, he made his way into the corridors of power especially after Rajiv Gandhi burst on the political scene in the wake of Sanjay Gandhi’s death in a mysterious air crash. It is essential to understand the Quattrocchi phenomenon, particularly in relation to Sonia Gandhi.
He worked for a firm which provided services like designing, engineering, management of construction and training of personnel in the sectors such as oil refineries, gas processing, petrochemicals, fertilizers and pipelines. He had no experience of any guns, gun-systems or related equipment. However, he was a close friend of Rajiv Gandhi’s family.
Investigation has shown that the families of Rajiv Gandhi and Ottavio Quattrocchi were on very intimate terms and they used to meet frequently. Quattrocchi and his family had free access to the Prime Minister’s house. As a result, Quattrocchi was able to project himself as a person of great influence.
Even during the 1980s, when Indira Gandhi was Prime Minister, Quattrocchi had direct frisk-free entry to Prime Minister’s residence, courtesy the Italian ‘bahu’ of Indira Gandhi. Senior journalist Mahendra Ved had this to say in The Times of India (Delhi Edition; February 3, 1998): “Throughout the 1980s, Ottavio Quattrocchi, the affable Italian, was the man about town who moved in high circles and wielded influence in the corridors of power. His word, spoken in smooth Italian-accented English, was the law.
“Ministers would rise in their chairs whenever he would walk in unscheduled and see him off, apparently due to his proximity to the then ruling Gandhi family. One minister, Ramachandra Rath, who did not oblige, was dropped in the next round of cabinet reshuffle, recalls a former Member of Parliament. Rath was at the moment talking to veteran Gandhian, BN Pande, and took exception to Quattrocchi simply walking in.
“This was also the era of ‘four powerful women’ in New Delhi. They held kitty parties and went on picnics, recalls a Delhi socialite. They were Sonia Gandhi, Maria Quattrocchi, Nina Singh, wife of Arun Singh and Sterre, the Dutch wife of Satish Sharma.
“If Rath paid a ‘price’, so did two Fertilizer secretaries, senior enough to become Cabinet Secretaries. Mr. KV Ramanathan had sought a ‘correct’ approach in the awarding of the Thal- Vaishet fertilizer project to Messrs Kellogg and CF Braun. Snam Progetti, the Italian public sector multinational that Quattrocchi represented in India, did not have the appropriate technology.”
The decision by the late HN Bahuguna was reversed by Indira Gandhi in 1980. Snam was conversant only with the technology for urea-based fertilizer, while Thal-Vaishet was to run on ammonia. Snam hired the technology from a Dane, Haldor Topsoe, who was essentially an individual consultant. That matter came up in Parliament in a big way.
Even while releasing the 1999 election manifesto of the Congress, Sonia Gandhi dodged the question of Quattrochi connections. But her connection with ‘Q’ is too well known to be forgotten. Here I reproduce the news story written by AB Mahapatra in Free Press Journal dated February 20, 1998.
“Ottavio Quattrocchi, whose extradition is demanded by many political parties in connection with the Bofors case, had access to sensitive files in the Prime Minister’s Office when Rajiv Gandhi was Prime Minister and he was able to appoint ministers and top bureaucrats. Authentic sources told the Free Press Journal that he used to get information about cabinet meetings and its agenda much in advance. When he was visiting offices, ministers and bureaucrats used to get up from the chair to receive him. He was a frequent visitor to the official residence of India’s so-called royal family without security check, a privilege very few enjoyed.”
Though officially Quattrocchi was the representative of the powerful Milan-based Italian company Snamprogetti, he worked as a conduit for some in receiving kickbacks and transferring them to safe havens in many deals for over a decade. “In every deal there was a cut. At least there, he was loyal to the royal family,” remarked a retired bureaucrat.
He used to appoint ministers, bureaucrats, PSU executives and finalized deals which came his way, even if those were beyond his areas of expertise. The word ‘no’ perhaps did not figure in his dictionary. Soft-spoken Quattrocchi, also worked as an extra-constitutional power centre since 1980s.
He got ministers and bureaucrats sacked and snubbed the most influential people of his time who challenged his authority. For Quattrocchi, it was a meteoric rise and an ignominious fall as well, as he has been disowned by the Italian company, Snamprogetti, which he represented in India and elsewhere for more than 16 years. He was known to almost all the top ranking people who mattered and his proximity to Gandhi family was the talk of the town.
While the AB Bofors executive, Martin Ardbo, who negotiated the Rs 1,700 crore Bofors gun deal, mentioned him in his diary as the mysterious ‘Q’, his victims in India call him as a ‘pushing man’.
He was a good PR man for Snam which won as many as 60 projects worth Rs 30,000 crore in its favor during his tenure. Today, there is nobody to save ‘Q’ in Milan, the headquarters of Snam’s holding company, “ENI.
Moreover, ENI’s chief executive committed suicide in 1993 and many of its senior officers are facing police cases on charges of corruption. Snam” ‘a state-owned company of Italy, is not involved in the Bofors deal as such. But Quattrocchi’s activities as a middleman in international deals has raised many an eyebrow as far as the company’s credibility is concerned.
While it is widely believed that Quattrocchi is at present a consultant to Snam in Kuala Lumpur, the company has diplomatically denied it. However, it was believed that he was operating from Snam’s India regional office when the Bofors deal was finalized in 1986.
The company has clarified that it was not aware of Quattrocchi’s other alleged activities in India and maintained that he was a full time representative of the company. Even the company has said that it has no idea of Quattrocchi being wanted by the CBI which has already sought his extradition from Kuala Lumpur to prosecute him in the Bofors case.
This was first noticed in 1980 when Indira Gandhi returned to power. The government had decided to award the contract for ammonia technology for RCF’s Thal plant to CFBraun of the US. But he wanted the World Bank-aided project to be awarded to Haldor Topsoe of Denmark, a sister concern of Snam. Quattrocchi played a crucial role in the appointment of PC Sethi as Petroleum Minister and tilted the deal in favor of Holder Topsoe -against the World Bank’s decision. Later, the World Bank withdrew from the project.
That was his first showdown where he proved he could get what he wanted. That virtually gave a clear message to policy-makers and bureaucrats to follow Q’s line of action.
He also had an encounter with Vasant Sathe, then Fertilizer Minister, over a project in Guna which till the last moment was very much in favour of Kellogg. But ‘Q’ got the decision reversed in favour of Snam. Those who toed his line were rewarded; those who did not were punished. Ti1l 1985, ‘Q’ used to resort to pressure tactic to get his work done but the real showdown took place when Snam did not get the 1,700 km long HBJ pipeline contract which went to Spie Capag of France. That perhaps was his first defeat; He wanted to punish those who stood in his way.
The first to go was former Petroleum Secretary AS Gill who was very much in favor of piecemeal tenders instead of turnkey contracts to make the country self-reliant in terms of technology. That did suit ‘Q’ because India’s self-reliance in this field was bound to harm his interests.
There was a standing order for implementation of Snam technology in every petroleum and fertilizer project which had been issued by the Rajiv Gandhi Government. But Gill had contested that order by showing another official order issued by Indira Gandhi where she reportedly said that there should be technology transfer in case of any foreign participation. But that did not happen in practice.
Interestingly, ‘Q’ used to clarify his position a day after Gill had written to Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi on the official file regarding technical difficulty of a particular project for clearance. “That means files were going to him accordingly:’ said a former official.
Gill, who had a bright career and was all set to become the next Cabinet Secretary on the basis of seniority, told the FPJ that “there is nothing left for comment after 14 years of my retirement.”
Naval Kishore Sharma, Minister of State for Petroleum, was shunted out to the All India Congress Committee as general secretary. VP Singh, who did not change evaluation norms in favor of Snam, and Arun Nehru who allegedly backed the French consortium to win a contract from Snam, had to leave both the government and the party.
HS Cheema, former chairman of Gas Authority of India Limited, was removed in similar fashion. It was Quattrocchi who played a major role in removing him as chairman. “Yes, my career was a bright one all along but there was some unseen hand behind all this,” Cheema said in a telephonic interview from Solan, Himachal Pradesh to the newspaper.
Former Indian Oil Corporation Chairman Venkatsubramanian, who refused to call Quattrocchi for talks, had to go even though the government was at a loss to explain the specific reason for his removal. A senior official whom Quattrocchi once offered money indirectly to get a project done, recalled, “He (‘Q’) said he can arrange Rs. two crore for the one who you like the most.” But the official got angry and asked Quattrocchi to get out of his room and never try to contact again. “That was the last time I met him. I have not received any new year greeting since then,” according to the senior official.
I shall now list out all the major projects backed by Quattrocchi’s company, thanks to his proximity to Sonia and Rajiv Gandhi.
Projects won by Snam/Topse
Projects Location Client Year
Two Ammonia Plants ThaI Vaishet RCF 1981
Three Urea Plants ThaI Vaishet RCF 1981
Four Urea Plants Hazira Kribhco 1981
One Gas Pipeline Hazira ONGC 1981
One Ammonia Plant Una NFL 1983
Two Urea Plants Guna NFL 1983
One Ammonia Plant Aonla IFFCO 1984
Two Urea Plants Aonla IFFCO 1984
One Ammonia’plant Jagdishpur Indo Gulf 1985
Two Urea Plants Jagdishpur Indo Gulf 1985
One Offshore Complex ONGC 1986
One Ammonia Plant Kakinada NFCL 1987
One Urea Plant Kakinada NFCL 1987
One Ammonia Plant Gadepan Chambal Fer 1988
Two Urea Plants Gadepan Chambal Fer 1988
One Ammonia Plant Babrala Tata Chem. 1988
Two Urea Plants Babrala Tata Chem 1988
One Gas Pipeline Network ONGC 1988
One Ammonia Plant Shahjahanpur Bindl Agro 1988
Two Urea Plants Shahjahanpur Bindl Agro 1988
One TPA MTBE Plant Mahul BPCL 1990
H-P Isobutene Plant Taloja Lubrizol 1991
One Ammonia Plant Guna NFL 1994
Two Urea Plants Guna NFL 1994
One Ammonia Plant Aonla IFFCO 1994
Two Urea Plants Aonla IFFCO 1994
One Ammonia Plant Kakinada NFCL 1994
Two Urea Plants Kakinada NFCL 1994
One Ammonia Plant Phulpur IFFCO 1994
Two Urea Plants Phulpur IFFCO 1994
Let us now move from fertilizers and chemicals to armaments that became the new grazing ground for Ottavio Quattrocchi,
A First Information Report was registered by Central Bureau of Investigation on January 22, 1990, under various sections of the Indian Penal Code and the Prevention of Corruption Act against Martin Ardbo, President of AB Bofors of Sweden, WN Chadha and GP Hinduja of London and others including beneficiaries of M/s AB Services Ltd of UK, alleging that they had entered into a criminal conspiracy during 1982-87 and in pursuance thereof committed offences of cheating, forgery, bribery, etc., to the extent of Swedish Kroners 319.40 million (approximately Rs 64 crore) in the matter of contract regarding supply of 410 FH- 77 guns, etc., at a total cost of SEK 8410.66 million (approximately Rs 1437.72 crore).
Investigation of the case included several countries including Switzerland. During Narasimha Rao’s prime ministership, these investigations were placed on the bargaining counter. Rao bought peace with Sonia to continue in power. In an atmosphere of lull, one of the chief offenders slipped to Malaysia and has not returned till date.
The governments of HD Deve Gowda and IK Gujral used the same Bofors case for counter-bargaining. First, Deve Gowda was ousted from power by the then president of the Congress, the late Sitaram Kesri to install IK Gujral as Prime Minister.
But CBI investigators moved fast and secured some important documents from the Swiss Government. For a decade the most important missing link has been Ottavio Quattrotchi. Ottavio Quattrocchi remained in India from February 28, 1964, to July 29, 1993, except for a brief interval between March 4, 1966, and June 12, 1968. Ottavio Quattrocchi, thereafter suddenly left India on July 29/30, 1993, in order to escape the process of law and has not returned to India since then.
Ottavio Quattrocchi was the beneficiary of the amount of commission for himself or others received by M/s AB Services from M/s AB Bofors, as practically the entire amount, i.e. PS$ 7,123,900 (approximately 97 per cent of the total) was transferred from the account of M/s AB Services to the account of M/s Colbar Investment Limited Inc. Further, he has been transferring the funds received from M/s AB Bofors frequently from one account to another and from one jurisdiction to another to avoid detection and evade the due process of law.
During the proceedings before the Chamber D: Acquisition, Geneva in relation to the appeal filed by him against the execution of Letters Rogatory issued by the Court of Special Judge, Delhi (India), at the request of Central Bureau of Investigation, Ottavio Quattrocchi reportedly had even admitted to his relationship at the highest level in India.
This is to be seen in the light of the fact that Bofors had paid SEK 50,463,966.00 in the name of commission to M/s AE Services on September 3, 1986, and virtually all this amount was transferred by AE Services to Quattrocchi’s Colbar Investment Ltd; Inc. in Union Bank of Switzerland, Geneva on September 16 and 29, 1986.
The proximity of Ottavio Quattrocchi with the then Prime Minister of India, the contractual promise of AE Services to M/s AB Bofors to swing the deal) in their favour in a short span of time, the transfer of virtually all the commission amount (received by AE Services) to Quattrocchi’s Colbar Investments Ltd.
Soon after the receipt, further transfer of funds from one account to another and from one jurisdiction to another soon after the disclosure of offences, his giving a non-existing address in the relevant bank, his contesting the execution of Letters Rogatory in Switzerland, his sudden disappearance from India after disclosure of his name by an appellant, all are the factors which prima facie show the involvement of Quattrocchi in the offence of criminal conspiracy for cheating and criminal misconduct by public servants.
On receipt of crucial documents from Switzerland in January 1997, a charge sheet was filed in the Court of Special Judge, Delhi on October 22, 1999, against SK Bhatnagar, WN Chadha, Ottavio Quattrocchi, Martin Ardbo and M/s AB Bofors for trial for offences, under sections 120-H Indian Penal Code r/w section 420 Indian Penal Code and section 5(2) read with 5(1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and substantive offences thereof.
Further investigation under Section 173 (8) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 continued. At the time of filing of charge sheet, accused Ottavi of Quattrocchi was based in Malaysia and as such, proceedings for his extradition were initiated there. After the lower court did not accede to the request of his extradition on certain preliminary technical grounds, the matter was taken up in higher courts and at present, it is pending before the Court of Appeals in Kuala Lumpur.
CBI is in touch with the authorities in Italy and efforts for ascertaining the present whereabouts of Quattrocchi through Interpol and diplomatic channels are continuing.
The CBI was informed by Interpol, London, on June 25, 2003, that Quattrocchi, against whom charge sheet was also filed along with others in CBI case No RC 1(A)/90- ACU-IV/SIG (Bofors case) has an amount of three million pounds (approximately ) in a UK bank account and the same was likely to be moved out very shortly. The CBI requested IP, London, to freeze the said account pending a formal Letters Rogatory. A Letters Rogatory dated July 21, 2003, was issued by the Court of Special Judge, New Delhi. The Letters Rogatory was further supplemented on certain points on July 24, 2003, by the Court.
An amount of US$ 1 million and Euro 3 million held in two bank accounts i.e. Account No. 5A51516L & 5A51516M of accused Ottavio Quattrocchi held with BSI AG, 39 King Street, London EC2V 8QD were frozen by the authorities in the UK on the strength of a restraint order issued by the London High Court, Queen’s Bench Division on July 25, 2003 pursuant to Letters Rogatory issued by the Court of the Special Judge, New Delhi.
The aforesaid restraint order was challenged by Ottavio Quattrocchi and the London High Court has dismissed his application for discharge of restraint order with cost of UK £ 30,000.00 vide its judgment delivered on November 24, 2003.
Subsequently, an appeal was filed by Ottavio Quattrocchi in the Supreme Court of Judicature, London, against the judgment of London High Court. The Supreme Court of Judicature, London, has dismissed the said application on January 20, 2004, again with cost of UK £ 38,000.00.
The authorities in the United Kingdom have also been requested by the CBI to conduct investigation into the source of aforesaid restrained funds. While the funds held in the aforesaid accounts have been restrained, the request for execution of Letters Rogatory is still pending.
A request had been conveyed to the concerned authorities in UK through Interpol Division of CBI on Decmber 3, 2003, and reminder dated January 30, 2004, for execution of the aforesaid Letters Rogatory on priority and intimating the present status in the matter. But so far, no response has been received from the UK authorities in the above matter.
Where did all this money come from? Why did Bofors pay such huge sums to Quattrocchi when India purchased field guns for its army? Since Sonia Gandhi has been the dearest friend of the Quattrocchi’s for over three decades and since she provided them unprecedented access to the prime minister’s office and residence for long years, she owes the country an explanation.
Maruti Scandal and FERA violations
The second and equally disturbing event is the impunity with which Sonia Gandhi violated the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act 30 years ago. This happened with the launch of a company called Maruti Technical Services Private Limited (MS’FPL) on November 16, 1970. This company was set up by her along with her brother-in-law Sanjay Gandhi to provide technical know-how for the design, manufacture and assembly of a ‘wholly indigenous motor car’.
It is in the context of this company, of which she was half-owner and managing director while being an Italian national that the question of FERA violation arises.
The company’s story provides valuable insights into the mind of Sonia Gandhi, who is often credited with much innocence and gullibility by those around her. The birth of MTSPL, preceded that of another company, Maruti Limited, which was to avail of the former’s ‘know-how’ to produce the cars.
The Articles of Association of MTSPL named Sanjay and Sonia Gandhi as the first and permanent directors of the company, who between them held 20 shares of Rs 10 each. In other words, its paid-up capital was Rs 200 at the time of its launch. On November 21, 1970, just days after its incorporation, MTSPL entered into an agreement with Sanjay Gandhi, who owned 50 per cent of it.
Under this agreement, Sanjay agreed to render ‘technical know-how’ to the company for a consideration of Rs 3 lakh. In June 1971, Maruti Limited was incorporated under the Companies Act and Sanjay Gandhi became its Managing Director. On December 15, 1971, MTSPL allotted 1500 equity shares of Rs 10 each to Sanjay Gandhi. On June 2, 1972, MTSPL entered into an agreement with Maruti Ltd, according to which MTSPL was to be paid Rs 5 Lakh in lump sum by the latter for providing the technical know-how.
This document describes MTSPL, of which Sanjay and Sonia Gandhi were the only directors, as a technical company ‘which has the capability of imparting technical know-how for the design, manufacture and assembly in India of a wholly indigenous motor car’. It was also entitled to an annual technical fee of two per cent of the net sales of motor cars.
Six weeks after this agreement, Maruti Ltd paid the promised Rs 5 lakh to MTSPL. Later, MTSPL kept its word and paid Sanjay Gandhi, its half owner, Rs 3 lakh in order to purchase ‘technical know-how’ from him!
The next move came about a year later. MTSPL appointed the owner of its other half, Sonia Gandhi as its managing director. This happened at an ‘extraordinary general meeting of share holders’ held on January 25, 1973.
Suffice it to say that Sanjay and Sonia Gandhi, the two directors, were also the only share-holders of the company at that time. Soon thereafter, MTSPL signed an agreement with Sonia Gandhi as per which she was to remain the managing director of the company for five years. She was to get a salary of Rs 2000 per month and one per cent commission on the net profits of the company, subject to a limit of 50 per cent of her annual salary plus perquisites.
Sometime later, the company allotted 2000 shares to Sonia Gandhi. For some reason, this was later sub-divided into two share certificates of 1900 and 1000 shares respectively and 1900 shares were allotted to her on February 4, 1974. On the same day, 4000 shares each were allotted to Priyanka and Rahul, the two minor children of Sonia and Rajiv Gandhi.
Even more fascinating was the decision of the Nehru-Gandhi family to launch yet another company, to make among other things, road rollers, and to appoint Sonia Gandhi as managing director of this firm as well. This company, called Maruti Heavy Vehicles Private Limited, had 13 shareholders but the Nehru-Gandhis had the controlling shares.
This was incorporated on February 22, 1974, and Sonia Gandhi acquired 5000 shares in it. She entered into an agreement with this company on September 28, 1974, in regard to her appointment as its MD. But this agreement was not implemented and she did not draw any salary.
In 1975, this road roller company too sought out Maruti Technical Services Company, in search of know-how to make road rollers. An agreement was signed on April 1, 1975, between the two companies, according to which the road roller company was to pay the know-how company two per cent of net sales of road rollers and spare parts.
Did Sonia Gandhi, who was then a citizen of Italy, violate any Indian laws by becoming the managing director of an Indian company and by acquiring shares in Indian companies?
Was MTSPL, which was floated by Sanjay and Sonia, competent to provide technical know-how to make ‘a wholly indigenous motor car’ and road rollers? Was Sonia Gandhi technically qualified and competent to be the managing director of such companies?
A Commission of Inquiry headed by Justice AC Gupta, which probed the Maruti Scandal and submitted its report in 1978, provides the answers to all these questions. The commission’s report said SM Rege, who was Secretary of Maruti Ltd, told the commission it was known to all concerned that Sonia Gandhi was a foreign national and not a citizen of India.
S Kumar, Registrar of Companies, Delhi and Haryana, said the allotment of shares of MTSPL and MHVPL to Sonia Gandhi in 1974 was in contravention of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 and therefore `ab initio void’. After listening to the testimony of several such witnesses, the commission concluded:
“It was a fact known to all concerned that Ms Sonia Gandhi was a foreign national. In view of the provisions of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973, which came into force on January 1, 1974, she could neither hold shares of any Indian company nor hold any office of profit in such company from the date the Act came into force without the prior approval of the Reserve Bank of India,”
The commission further noted, “She tendered her resignation on January 21, 1975. It is surprising that Ms Sonia Gandhi who did not have any technical qualification should be appointed managing director of a technical company. Quite a large sum of money was paid to her on account of her salary and perquisites during the period she remained the managing director of the company.”
The Gupta Commission also recorded the fact that A Banerjee, Income- Tax Officer, disallowed part of the remuneration to Sonia Gandhi as excessive “because she had no qualifications to be able to render any technical service to the company”.
Among other issues, the commission went into the question of the competence of MTSPL to provide know-how to make cars and road rollers. WHF Muller, a German technician on the staff of MTSPL, told the commission that all that Maruti Ltd produced were 10 to 12 prototypes which were ‘hand-made’ and ‘fabricated/purchased in parts’ and not of the same design. They were different from one another.
Yet another witness said MTSPL had no qualified graduate engineer for design on its rolls. There was no fixed and finalized design for the vehicles and no research and development facility. Yet, dealers were recruited and asked to set up show rooms “to create an impression that the appearance of the Maruti car in the market was imminent”.
Two such dealers, who were given cars to exhibit in their show rooms, narrated their experience to the commission. “One had to push the car to his show room, and the other who returned the car to the Maruti garage for repairs following a brake failure while he was driving, did not get back either the car or the money (Rs 22,000 // $1 = Rs.40) he had paid for it.”
The commission also spoke about the rough and ready methods used by Maruti Ltd against the dealers who wanted to back out. “One of the dealers, Mr. SC Agarwal, who terminated his agency was threatened by Sanjay Gandhi that he would be sent to jail. Mr. Agarwal had to apologize by touching Sanjay’s feet. Mr. Om Prakash Gupta of Hapur who had asked for payment of interest due to him on his security deposit was arrested under the Maintenance of Internal Security Act.”
Witnesses also told the commission that MTSPL did not have any technically qualified person or specialist on road rollers. The commission, therefore, concluded: “Maruti Technical Services was not competent to render technical know-how in respect of Maruti cars. There is no evidence that it had the know-how in respect of road rollers.”
The Maruti cars that are now on Indian roads came to be produced after the Central Government took over the company and brought genuine “know-how” from Japan and dispensed’ with the bogus “Italian” know-how that the company was saddled with in its formative years.
In any case, the bottom line is that the contents of the Gupta Commission Report and the Voters’ List Episode provide sufficient evidence of Sonia Gandhi’s disdain for Indian laws. Regrettably, it would appear the Nehru-Gandhi family was party to these fraudulent declarations.
Although an Italian citizen, she was appointed Managing Director of Maruti Technical Services Private Limited on January 25, 1973. The Foreign Exchange Regulation Act (FERA), which was debated and passed by Parliament that year, came into force on January 1, 1974.
Among other things, it prohibited foreigners from owning shares or accepting appointment in Indian companies without the permission of the Reserve Bank of India. Yet, Sonia continued as Managing Director and resigned only on January 21, 1975. She had thus violated FERA for over a year. Section 56 of the Act, which listed the punishment for contravention of FERA, says that violations of this nature can attract imprisonment for periods ranging from six months to seven years.
Smuggling of Indian artifacts
(Dr. Subramaniam Swamy)
Those who have no love for India will not hesitate to plunder her treasures. Mohammed Ghori, Nadir Shah, and the British scum in the East India Company made no secret of it. But Sonia Gandhi has been more discreet, but as greedy, in her looting of Indian treasures. When Indira Gandhi and Rajiv Gandhi were Prime Ministers, not a day passed when the PM’s security did not go to the New Delhi, or Chennai international airport to send crates and crates unchecked by customs to Rome. Air India and Alitalia were the carriers. Mr. Arjun Singh first as CM, later as Union Minister in charge of Culture was her hatchet man. Indian temple sculpture of gods and goddesses, antiques, pichwai paintings, shatoosh shawls, coins, and you name it, were transported to Italy to be first displayed in two shops owned by her sister [i.e., Anuskha alias Alessandra]. These shops located in blue-collar areas of Rivolta [shop name: Etnica] and Orbassano [shop name: Ganpati] did little business because which blue collar Italian wants Indian antiques? The shops were to make false bills, and thereafter these treasures were taken to London for auction by Sotheby’s and Christies. Some of this ill-gotten money from auction went into Rahul Gandhi’s National way into the Gandhi family account in the Bank of America in Cayman Islands.
Rahul’s expenses and tuition fees for the one-year he was at Harvard, was paid from the Cayman Island account. What kind of people are these Gandhi-Mainos that bite the very hand of Bharat Mata that fed them and gave them a good life? How can the nation trust such greedy thieves?
(By Dr. Subramaniam Swamy)
Sonia has had long connection with the Habash group of Palestinian, and has funded Palestinian families that lost their kith and kin in a suicide bombing or hijacking episode. This, Rajiv Gandhi himself told me and was confirmed to me [the funding] by Yassir Arafat when I met him in Tunis on October 17, 1990 at the request of Rajiv Gandhi. Rajiv Gandhi and I were good friends from 1978, but became very close buddies after V.P. Singh had betrayed him in 1987. We met practically every day, mostly in the early hours from 1AM to 4AM. It was at my suggestion that he made Chandrashekhar the PM. And contrary to public impression, he was not mainly responsible for the fall of Chandrashekar government in which I was a Minister.
Besides the Palestinian extremists, the Maino family have had extensive business dealings with Saddam Hussein, and surprisingly with the LTTE [”the Tamil Tigers”] since 1984. Sonia’s mother Paola Predebon Maino, and businessman Ottavio Quattrocchi were the main contacts with the Tigers. The mother used the LTTE for money laundering and Quattrocchi for selling weapons to earn commissions.
Sonia’s conduit to the LTTE has been and is through Arjun Singh who uses Bangalore as the nodal point for contact. There is a string of circumstantial evidence pointing to the prima facie possibility that the Maino family may have contracted the LTTE to kill Rajiv Gandhi. The family may have assured the LTTE that nothing would happen to them because they would ensure it is blamed on the Sikhs or the evidence so much fudged that no court would convict them. But D.R. Karthikeyan of the CBI who led the SIT investigation got the support of Narasimha Rao and cracked the case, and got the LTTE convicted in the trial court, and which conviction was upheld in the Supreme Court.
Although on the involvement of Congress Party in the assassination, DRK soft peddled on a number of leads perhaps because he did not want political controversy to put roadblocks on his investigation as a whole. The Justice J. S. Verma Commission, which was set up as the last official act of the Chandrashekhar government before demitting office on June 21, 1991, did find that the Congress leaders had disrupted the security arrangements for the Sriperumbudur meeting. The Commission wanted further probe into it but the Rao government rejected that demand. In the meantime under Sonia’s pressure, the Jain Commission was set up by the Rao government, which tried to muddy the waters and thus exonerate the LTTE. But the trial court judgment convicting the LTTE came earlier, and that sinister effort too failed.
The Maruti scam (by Arun Shourie)
Maruti was one of the most odious scandals connected with Mrs Indira Gandhi and her family. The Commission of Inquiry headed by Justice A C Gupta recorded that, though she was at the time a foreigner, Sonia Gandhi secured shares in two of their family concerns: Maruti Technical Services Pvt. Ltd. (in 1970 and again in 1974), and Maruti Heavy Vehicles (in 1974). The acquisition of these shares was in contravention of the very Act that Mrs Gandhi used to such diabolic effect in persecuting her political opponents, the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973. Just another technicality!
But the Mother of Technicalities, so to say, is to be found in the way Sonia Gandhi, without having any known sources of income, has become the controller of one of the largest empires of property and patronage in Delhi. The Jawaharlal Nehru Memorial Library and Museum is one of the principal institutions for research on contemporary Indian history. It is situated in and controls real estate which, because of its historical importance, cannot even be valued. The institution runs entirely on grants from the Government of India. Sonia Gandhi has absolutely no qualification that could by any stretch of imagination entitle her to head the institution: has she secured even an elementary university degree, to say nothing of having done anything that would even suggest some specialization in subjects which the institution has been set up to study. But by mysterious technicalities she is today the head of this institution. So much so that she even decides which scholar may have access to papers — even official papers — of Pandit Nehru and others of that family, including, if I may stretch the term, Lady Mountbatten.
Donation of public money to Sonia controlled foundations to promote her interests
Real estate, only slightly less valuable, has been acquired on Raisina Road. The land was meant to house offices of the Congress. A large, ultra-modern building was built — the finance being provided by another bunch of technical devices which remain a mystery. The building had but to get completed, and Sonia appropriated it for the other Foundation she completely controls — the Rajiv Gandhi Foundation. The Congress(I) did not just oblige by keeping silent about the takeover of its building, in the very first budget its Government presented upon returning to power, it provided Rs 100 crores to this Foundation. The furore that give-away caused was so great that the largesse had to be canceled. No problem. Business house after business house, even public sector enterprises incurring huge losses, coughed up crores. The Foundation has performed two principal functions. The projection of Sonia Gandhi and enticing an array of leaders, intellectuals, journalists etc. into nets of patronage and pelf.
But the audacity with which the land and building were usurped and funds raised for this Foundation falls into the second order of smalls when they are set alongside what has been done in regard to the Indira Gandhi National Centre for Arts.
This Centre was set up as a trust in 1987 by a resolution of the Cabinet. The Government of India gave Rs. 50 crores out of the Consolidated Fund of India as a corpus fund to this Centre. It transferred 23 acres of land along what is surely one of the costliest sites in the world — Central Vista, the stretch that runs between Rashtrapati Bhavan and India Gate — to this Trust. Furthermore, it granted another Rs. 84 crores for the Trust to construct its building.
The land was government land. The funds were government funds. Accordingly, care was taken to ensure that the Trust would remain under the overall control of the Government of India. Therefore, the Deed of the Trust provided, inter alia, 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, and even then the changes may be adopted only by three-quarters of the Trustees agreeing to them at a meeting specially convened for the purpose. Now, just see what technical wonders were performed one fine afternoon.
A meeting like any other meeting of the trustees was convened on18 May, 1995. The minutes of this meeting which I have before me list all the subjects which were discussed — the minutes were circulated officially by Dr Kapila Vatsyayan in her capacity as the Director of the Centre with the observation, “The Minutes of this meeting have been approved by Smt Sonia Gandhi, President of the IGNCA Trust.”
What did the assembled personages discuss and approve? Even if the topics seem mundane, do read them carefully — for they contain a vital clue, the Sherlock Holmes clue so to say, about what did not happen.
The minutes report that the following subjects were discussed:
1: Indira Gandhi Memorial Fellowship Scheme and the Research Grant Scheme.
2: Commemoration volume in the memory of Stella Kramrisch.
3: Sale of publications of the IGNCA.
4: Manuscripts on music and dance belonging to the former ruling house of Raigarh in M P
5: Report on the 10th and 11th meetings of the Executive Committee.
6: Approval and adoption of the Annual Report and Annual Accounts, 1993-94.
7: Bilateral and multilateral programs of IGNCA, and aid from U N agencies, Ford Foundation, Japan Foundation, etc.
8: Brief report on implementation of programs from April 1994 to March 1995.
9: Brief of initiatives taken by IGNCA to strengthen dialogue between Indian and Vietnam, Thailand, Indonesia, China.
10: Documentation of cultural heritage of Indo-Christian, Indo-Islamic and Indo-Zoroastrian communities.
11: Gita Govinda project.
12: IGNCA newsletter.
13: Annual Action Plan, 1995-96.
14: Calendar of events. 15: Publications of IGNCA.
15: Matters relating to building project.
16: Allocations/release of funds for the IGNCA building project.
There is not one word in the minutes that the deed of the Trust was even mentioned.
This meeting took place on 18 May, 1995. On 30 May, 1995 Sonia Gandhi performed one of technical miracles. She wrote a letter to the Minister of Human Resources informing him of what she said were alterations in the Trust Deed which the trustees had unanimously approved. Pronto, 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.”
The Minister? The ever-helpful, Madhav Rao Scindia. And wonder of wonders, in his other capacity he had attended the meeting on 18 May as a trustee of the IGNCA, the meeting which had not, according to the minutes approved by Sonia Gandhi, even discussed, far less “unanimously approved” changes in the Trust Deed. And what were the changes that Sonia Gandhi managed to get through by this collusive exchange of two letters?
She became President for life. The other trustees — two-thirds of whom were to retire every ten years — became trustees for life. The power of the Government to fill half the vacancies was snuffed out. The power of the Government to appoint the Member Secretary of the Trust was snuffed out; henceforth the Trust would appoint its own Member Secretary.
The power of the President of India to appoint a committee to periodically review the functioning of the Trust was snuffed out; neither he nor Government would have any power to inquire into the working of the Trust.
A Government Trust, a Trust which had received over Rs. 134 crores of the tax-payers’ money, a Trust which had received twenty three acres of invaluable land was, by a simple collusive exchange of a letter each between Sonia Gandhi and one of her gilded attendants became property within her total control.
The usurpation was an absolute fraud. The Trust Deed itself provided that no amendment to it could come into force — on any reasonable reading could not even be initiated and adopted — without prior written permission of the Government. Far from any permission being taken, even information to the effect that changes were being contemplated was not sent to Government. An ex post “approval” was obtained from an obliging trustee. That “approval” was in itself wholly without warrant. 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.” Other departments were manifestly concerned; concurrence from them was not even sought. The Cabinet was never apprised.
The rule proceeds to provide, “Unless the case is fully covered by powers to sanction expenditure or to appropriate or re-appropriate funds, conferred by any general or special orders made by the Ministry of Finance, no department shall, without the previous concurrence of the Ministry of Finance, issue any orders which may… (b) Involve any grant of land or assignment of revenue or concession, grant… (d) Otherwise have a financial bearing whether involving expenditure or not…”
And yet, just as concurrence of other departments had been dispensed with, no approval was taken from the Finance Ministry.
The Indian Express and other papers published details about the fraud by which what was a Government Trust had been converted into a private fief. Two members of Parliament — Justice Ghuman Mal Lodha and Mr. E. Balanandan — began seeking details, and raising objections.
For a full two and a half years, governments — of the Congress (I), and the two that were kept alive by the Congress (I), those of Mr. Deve Gowda and of Mr. I. K. Gujral — made sure that full facts would not be disclosed to the MPs, and that the concerned file would keep shuttling between the Ministry of Human Resource Development and the Ministry of Law.
As a result, Sonia Gandhi continues to have complete control over Governmental assets of incalculable value — through technicalities collusively arranged.
Here is an overview of Sonia’s Empire
Name of the trust Year founded Budget Function
1 Rajiv Gandhi Trust 1991 Rs. 24 Crore The Trust Helps the women and the children. Also active in the field of literacy, health, aviation and science.
2 Rajiv Gandhi Institute of Contemporary Studies 1992 Rs. 3 crore Study of the public policy from Rajiv Gandhi’s viewpoint
3 Jawahar Bhawan Trust 1989 Unknown Registered for maintaining Jawahar Bhawan
4 Indira Gandhi Memorial Trust 1985 Rs. 3 crore Organizes lecture on the occasion of the distribution of Indira Gandhi Peace Prize given once in every two years
5 Jawaharlal Nehru Memorial Museum and Library 1985 Unknown This a Government committee which besides maintaining Nehru memorials organizes seminars and exhibitions
6 Jawaharlal Nehru Memorial Fund 1965 Rs. 7 crore It maintains Anand Bhawan and Swaraj Bhavan in additions to providing Nehru fellowship
7 Veer Bhoomi and Sriperumbdur Memorial committee 1991 by the Ministry of the Rural Development This committee which is solely handled by Sonia, manages the two memorial places associated with Rajiv Gandhi
RGF list of donors
One another dimension of Sonia Gandhi’s greed for real estate and money [power has been amply exhibited in the way she acquired six trusts bearing the name of Jawahar Lal Nehru, Indira Gandhi and Rajiv Gandhi. It is a well-known fact that Jawahar Bhawan was built to house the Congress party headquarters, but the building worth hundred crores was manipulated to be the property of Rajiv Gandhi Trust of which she is a chairperson trustee for the life. It may be recalled that scores of public and private sector, undertakings were advised to pay handsome donations to RG foundation. The sample of the donors’ list along with the money is given below: (As per the list of donors published in daily Jansatta on December 14, 1992)
J.N.M fund 1,00000.00
Hindustan Times Ltd. 20,00000.00
Satlaj Cotton Mills Ltd. 6,00000.00
M/s J&K Industries Ltd 5,00000.00
M/s Straw Products Ltd. 5,00000.00
Smt. Sonia Gandhi 1,00000.00
Shri G D Parthasarathi 5,00000.00
Shri Bharat H. Barai 1,00000.00
Dunlop India 20,00000.00
Mathair & Plant India Ltd. 5,00000.00
Orissa Cement Ltd. 2,00000.00
Hindustan Door Oliver Ltd. 5,00000.00
Shri M. R. Chabariya Charity Trust 1,00000.00
ITC Ltd. 50,00000.00
ANZ Grindlays Bank 6,00000.00
M/s Indian Petro Chemicals Cor. Ltd. 5,00000.00
Ravi’s Sant Pvt. Ltd. 1,51,000.00
Click Nicson Ltd. 7,50000.00
Niryat Pvt. Ltd. 10,00000.00
Tamil Nadu Congress Committee (I) 2,00000.00
Snow Chem India Ltd. 7,50000.00
Bajaj Auto Ltd. 25,00000.00
M. N. Dastoor & Company 5,00000.00
M/s JCT Ltd. 12,50000.00
M/S Fera Alloys Corpo Ltd 2,50000.00
M/S APJ Ltd 2,50000.00
M/s Simplo (E) Tea Company Ltd 2,50000.00
M/s Surendra Overseas Ltd. 2,50000.00
M/s Assam Frontier Tea Ltd. 2,50000.00
M/s Empire Plantation (E) Ltd. 2,50000.00
M/s Usha Rectifire Corp (E) Ltd. 10,00000.00
M/s Prajakta Finance and Trading Pvt. Ltd. 7,50000.00
M/s Kausar Engineers Pvt. Ltd. 7,50000.00
M/s S G Chemical and Dyes Trading Ltd 10,00000.00
Mahalakshmi Charitable Society 12,50000.00
M/s Godfray Philips (E) Ltd 12,50000.00
Shri SS Surjewala 1,11000.00
M/s Batliboi & Company Ltd. 1,00000.00
M/s Carner Sone Brands Ltd. 1,50000.00
Shri Natthu Bhai Patel 1,00000.00
M/s Associated Beverage & Distilleries 1,00000.00
U N Mehta Charitable Trust 1,50000.00
All India Congress Committee 50,00000.00
M/s Indian Polaseze Comp Ltd. 5,00000.00
M/s Deepak Fertilizers and Petro 3,00000.00
M/s Indian Acritize Ltd. 1,00000.00
Central Bank of India 2,00000.00
M M Joshi Trust 5,00000.00
C D Vajpayee Trust 5,00000.00
K N Singh Trust 5,00000.00
R Gupta Trust 5,00000.00
Shri B. N. srivastava 5,00000.00
Treasurer, AICC 50,00000.00
Sethi Trust 15,00000.00
Indo-soviet Pharmacy 1,00000.00
M/s Jury Agro Chemicals Ltd. 25,00000.00
M/s Vinayaka Enterprises 2,000000.00
M/s Vinayaka Enterprises (Rawgandha Mint) 1,00000.00
M/s Adarsh Enterprises 2,00000.00
M/s Mejestic Acriviter 2,00000.00
Ravi Kumar Traders 2,00000.00
Shri Ram Krishna Lodge 2,00000.00
Rangnath Enterprises 2,00000.00
M/s Shri Ram liquor 2,00000.00
Mahamahim Srhi Li pand 5,15771.00
Mahanager Telephone Nigam Ltd. 10,00000.00
Treasurer, AICC(I) 50,00000.00
M/s Premium Exports Ltd. 2,50000.00
Responsible Builders Pvt. Ltd. 10,00000.00
Jyotsna Holding Pvt. Ltd., 15,00000.00
Warden Armenion Church 10,00000.00
Rohan Motors Pvt. Ltd., 7,50000.00
Meravnazi Security 1,00000.00
UniPatch Ruber Ltd., 1,00000.00
Shri Harshad S Mehta – Ascro Khata 6,25000.00
Promor Race Asset Manage Ltd- Ascro Khata 6,25000.00
Shri J H Mehta – Ascro Khata 6,25000.00
Shri Ashwin Mehta – Ascro Khata 6,25000.00
RPG enterprises (According to 4,18900.00
(According to RGF foundation 1,83100.00
M/s Borosil Glass Works Ltd 1,00000.00
M/s M P Dist Ltd. 1,00000.00
M/s Asian Capital Consolidated Fund 1,00000.00
Shri P V Huglar 5,16000.00
Shri Sitaram Kesri 25,00000.00
Shri Sitaram Kesri 25,00000.00
Shri Lalit Suri 50,00000.00
M/s Wahwan Automotive Centre 1,23396.59
Peerless General Finance & Investment 50,00000.00
Setia Trust 5,00000.00
Shri Sitaram Kesri 25,00000.00
Shri Ravi Chawla 1,11000.00
Smt Meena Ravi Chawla 1,11000.00
Shri Vishal Ravi Chawla 1,11000.00
Bindal Agro Chemical Ltd., 25,00000.00
Fund Raising sub committee for RGF 12,33370.00
All India Congress Committee (I) 25,00000.00
M/s Oswal Agro Mills Ltd., 25,00000.00
M/s Bindal Agro Chemical Ltd. 25,00000.00
M/s Mysore Cements Ltd., 20,00000.00
M/s Simco Ltd., 5,00000.00
M/s coloride Ind Ltd., 15,00000.00
M/s VXL Indian Ltd., 10,00000.00
CESC Ltd., 37,50000.00
Soka Glai International 5,74268.00
Firozeshah Godrej Foundation 4,00000.00
Treasurer, AICC (I) 25,00000.00
Larsen and Toubro Ltd., 10,00000.00
Dena Bank 1,00000.00
Finish Development Agency (Phinida) 3,44827.59
Vijayshri Liquor Company Pvt. Ltd., 5,00000.00
H. Themmegowda 7,50000.00
J P Narayan Swamy 5,00000.00
Ravi Kumar Traders 7,50000.00
The Peerless General Finance & Investment Company 25,00000.00
Nobody pays any money for nothing. Most of the money has been paid by repeated reminders (read coercion)
India Today published a report about Indira Gandhi National Centre for Arts in its issue dated July 5, 1999. The write up exposed her manipulation, some portions are given below.
“… with Congress having ruled the country the longest, it is not surprising that its president Sonia Gandhi has not only gained her family’s political inheritance but also control over its vast assets in the form of public trusts, institutions and funds. The IGNCA was set up in 1987 with a corpus fund of Rs. 50 crore, a grant of Rs. 100 crore for its grandiose yet-to-come-up edifice, 21 acres of prime land in Delhi (worth of Rs. 5,000 crore), a battery of Government officers on deputation and 15 duplex flats in the capitals Asian Games complex (worth over Rs. 1 crore each).
The IGNCA’s original trust deed provided for the trustees to hold office for a period of 10 years, the Member-Secretary to be appointed by the Government and for the President of India in his capacity as the visitor to periodically review the functioning of the IGNCA. However, in May 1995 the trustees without seeking the permission of the Government made crucial changes to the trust deed. According to a document circulated by the IGNCA Workers Union, “During 1994-95, when the Congress party was facing an uncertain elections, Vatsyayan, the then Member-Secretary, got certain major changes carried out in the basic structure of the IGNCA so as to remove the role of the Government of India in the affairs of the IGNCA altogether”.
The new trust deed made Sonia life president of the IGNCA and bestowed life membership on R. Venkataraman, P.V.Narasimha Rao, Pupul Jayakar, H.Y.Sharada Prasad and Vatsyayan. When Jayakar declined to accept life membership saying “Indira would be shuddering in her grave if she knew what was happening in her name”. Mahmohan Singh was drawn into the charmed coterie in her place. More significantly, the role of the President of India as visitor was done away with as was the power of the Government to appoint the member-Secretary. Kapila Vatsayayan, who till then held the post with the rank of a Secretary n the Union Government and had reached the age of superannuation, was given the rank equivalent to that of a Minister of State and re-designated Academic Director. Madhavrao Scindia, then HRD Minister, gave post facto approval to the changes without consulting either his department or others like finance, urban affairs of parliamentary affairs.
Nor was the matter ever discussed by the Cabinet, then. With the IGNCA clearly violating its own original constitution, the Attorney-General believes that the so-called life president and all the life trustees were not legally exercising their authority over the institution. Moreover, despite receiving huge amounts of public money, the IGNCA does not submit itself to scrutiny of the CAG and instead has hired private Chartered Accountants to do the job. The Government insists that the IGNCA open its book for the CAG and is all set to see this matter to its logical conclusion. “We may even take over its assets if they don’t restore the original trust deed”, says a high official in the DoC. Meanwhile, notices are being issued to the IGNCA officials to vacate the Asiad Village flats where they have been overstaying without even paying the nominal Rs. 685 monthly rent. However, in a country where occupation is two-thirds of the title and political exigencies more powerful than the niceties of law, Joshi’s audacious bid to restore status quo ante in the IGNCA may prove to be difficult, if not more, than throwing out the Pakistani intruders in Kargil”.
Finally the mega corruption issue – the Bofors investigation – which Sonia Gandhi never allowed to be completed. During the Narasimha Rao years, he bought peace with Sonia Gandhi on the bargaining counter in Bofors inquiry itself. The tenure of V P Singh was too short, and Chandra Shepherd was not too enthusiastic, for the probe to be completed. When Deve Gowda pushed the inquiry and then CBI chief Joginder singh was about to start the proceedings further, Sonia Gandhi saw to it that Gowda was toppled. It was again for the furtherance of the proceedings by Prime Minister I K Gujral, that the government led by him was toppled. When Vajpayee gave clearance and the papers went to the President, within a fortnight his Government was too voted out on the specific instructions of Sonia Gandhi.
The CBI has enough documents to prove close linkage of ‘Q’ with Sonia and her family. The joint photographs showing Sonia Gandhi, Rajiv’s family members, and ‘Q, several travel documents which prove beyond doubt that Mr. Q’ and Sonia’s family were more closer than knowledgeable people can think of. Quattrocchi’s name is there in kick-back accounts; the remaining last leg of the inquiry is bound to catch Mr. ‘Q’ red-handed, which would in turn show the real greedy Sonia.
Sonia vs. Gandhi: The controversy
It is an accepted fact that almost every Indian politician is corrupt if measured against Gandhian principles every Indian politician will fail on some points or other but Sonia would fail on every point. Sonia is a symbol of what Gandhi advocated against. She is trying to wear Gandhi’s cloak to cash on Gandhi’s fame and gain legitimacy. Gandhi stood for:
I. Sat — which implies openness, honesty, and fairness: Truth
Sonia repeatedly proved her untruthfulness and dishonesty. Even in a trivial issue such as her educational qualifications she lied. Furthermore there is no public record of her ever apologizing for her mistakes.
II. “Ahimsa” — refusal to inflict injury on others.
Sonia is known for vengeance actions. She is known for intolerance towards party members who rejoined her party.
III. “Tapasya” — willingness for self-sacrifice.
There is no incidence of Sonia’s sacrifice. She sacrificed India, congress party and national icons such as Gandhi to promote herself and her children.
Anybody who respects Gandhi will be against misusing his name and fame. This protest is an attempt to save Gandhi’s name and legacy from misuse.
Tax Structure in India
Q: What are you doing?
Govt: PAY PROFESSIONAL TAX
Q: What are you doing in Business?
A: Selling the Goods.
Tax: PAY SALES TAX
Q: From where are you getting Goods?
A: From other State/Abroad
Tax: PAY CENTRAL SALES TAX, CUSTOM DUTY OCTROI
Q: What are you getting in Selling Goods?
Tax: PAY INCOME TAX
Q: How do you distribute profit?
A: : By way of dividend
Tax: PAY DIVIDEND DISTRIBUTION TAX
Q: Where you Manufacturing the Goods?
Tax: PAY EXCISE DUTY
Q: Do you have Staff?
Tax: PAY STAFF PROFESSIONAL TAX
Q: Doing business in Millions?
A: Yes or No
Tax: If yes, PAY TURNOVER TAX; if no, then pay Minimum Alternate Tax
Q: Are you taking out over 25,000 Cash from Bank?
A: Yes, for Salary.
Tax: PAY CASH HANDLING TAX
Q: Where are you taking your client for Lunch Dinner?
Tax: PAY FOOD ENTERTAINMENT TAX
Q: Are you going Out of Station for Business?
Tax: PAY FRINGE BENEFIT TAX
Q: Have you taken or given any Service/s?
Tax: PAY SERVICE TAX
Q: How come you got such a Big Amount?
A: Gift on birthday.
Tax: PAY GIFT TAX
Q: Do you have any Wealth?
Tax: PAY WEALTH TAX
Q: To reduce Tension, for entertainment, where are you going?
Ans.: Cinema or Resort.
A: PAY ENTERTAINMENT TAX
Q: Have you purchased House?
Tax: PAY STAMP DUTY REGISTRATION FEE
Q: Want to run away to another city?
Tax: PAY TOLL CESS
Q: Any Additional Tax?
Tax: PAY EDUCATIONAL CESS SURCHARGE ON ALL THE CENTRAL GOVT TAXES
Q: Delayed any time Paying Any Tax?
Tax: PAY INTEREST PENALTY
Q: Can I die now?
A: No, wait we are about to launch the FUNERAL TAX !!!
By now it is a known fact that Chinese have got more and more bolder thanks to 2 important factors. Lack of strategy by Indian Government to counter Chinese incursions not just into Tibet but also into PoK with the help of Pakistan government, which has shifted allegiance towards China after US stopped financial aid to Pakistan.
This recent report shows how far their relationship has grown.
Islamabad: The government in Pakistan’s Sindh province has decided to make the Chinese language a compulsory subject in schools from 2013, sparking a debate in the educational and political circles over the reasons behind such a move.
The decision was taken at a high level meeting yesterday presided over by Chief Minister of Sindh province Qaim Ali Shah, an official statement said.
According to the announcement, Chinese will be a compulsory subject from class six in all educational institutions, including the Cadet college of Petaro from the 2013 session.
Sindh Education Minister Pir Mazhar-ul-Haq said the decision was taken keeping in mind the close ties with China and its growing role as a economic giant in the world.
“Our trade, educational and other relations are growing with China everyday and now it is necessary for our younger generation to have command over their language,” Mazhar said.
He pointed out that this move would reap benefits in the longer run for Pakistan.
The move drew a mixed reaction in education circles, although the Vice Chancellor of the Karachi University Dr Peerzada Qasim supported the decision.
“China is not only a very close friend of Pakistan but also a major player in the global economy whose role will further strengthen in the future,” he said.
But many termed it as a political decision and said that educational institutions lacked qualified teachers in the Chinese language and also the resources to implement the course.
Ather Mirza, the President of the Sindh Professors and Lecturers Association, said it was a move by the political leadership to gain points with China and gain financial benefits from them.
He said the introduction of the Chinese language would not only put an additional burden on parents, but also on students, who were already made to learn three languages – English, Urdu and Sindhi – as compulsory subjects.
Another educationist said the government decision came out of the blue as it was not discussed or debated in recent meetings of the education department with the chief minister or education minister.
It is reported that President Zardari’s daughter Aseefa Bhutto has been planning to study Chinese in China after graduating from college.
Sources said that the provincial government also decided to award scholarships to educated people of Sindh for learning Chinese at educational institutions in China.
WITH PRAYERS AND BEST WISHES,
SWAMI PARAMATMANANDA SARASWATI
In whose favour did the Supreme Court’s September 12 order in the Zakia Jafri case go? Was it Gujarat chief minister Narendra Modi or Ms Jafri? Too early to say one way or the other.
The starting point of Ms Jafri’s appeal to the Supreme Court was her private complaint, dated June 8, 2006, seeking prosecution of Mr Modi and 61 others for allegedly orchestrating the post-Godhra communal riots in connivance with police officials and senior bureaucrats in which her husband Ehsan Jafri, former member of Parliament, was killed in the Gulberg Society carnage.
Since the original FIR of 2002, relating to the same incident, made no mention of the big wigs, Ms Jafri wanted her complaint to be registered as a fresh FIR. The police declined to take cognisance of her complaint.
Ms Jafri then petitioned the Gujarat high court to direct the director general of police to appoint an independent agency to examine her complaint. On the rejection of that petition on November 2, 2007, she approached the Supreme Court in early 2008.
The court, in 2010, directed the amicus curiae — a friend of the court, senior advocate Raju Ramachandran — to examine the reports submitted from time to time by the Special Investigation Team (SIT, appointed by the Supreme Court in 2008 under the chairmanship of former CBI director R.K. Raghavan), and “have his own independent assessment of the statements of the witnesses recorded by the SIT and submit his comments thereon”.
As directed by the court, Mr Ramachandran interacted with the witnesses and submitted his report on July 25, 2011.
On September 12, the three-judge bench of Justices D.K. Jain, P. Sathasivam and Aftab Alam directed Mr Raghavan to forward the SIT’s final report, along with the entire material collected by it, including the report of the amicus curiae, to the magistrate before whom the case arising out of the original FIR is pending.
The final report of the SIT will take the place of what is termed a “chargesheet” filed by an investigating officer in a criminal case (under Sec. 173(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure). That report will have a section titled “whether any offence appears to have been committed, and if so, by whom?”
If the name of Mr Modi finds a place in that section, he will be an accused and be dealt with accordingly. If his name is missing, he would have successfully escaped one more shot aimed at him. So the crucial day will be when the SIT’s report is opened by the magistrate.
Any person named as an accused has recourse to the remedies available under the CrPC, like taking steps to plead for a discharge or for quashing of the charges, if and when they are framed. In appropriate cases, the court can quash the FIR itself, as was done by the apex court in 1991 in the case of former chief minister of Haryana, Bhajan Lal.
The SIT as well as the amicus curiae would surely have examined the subject matter of Ms Jafri’s complaint because the Supreme Court had specifically directed the SIT to “look into it”. If the SIT’s final report does not mention Mr Modi, the complainant, Ms Jafri, will be given an opportunity to argue before the magistrate, pointing out the errors in the SIT report, and if the magistrate finds that further investigation is required, he may direct the investigating officer or the SIT itself to carry out further investigation.
It is only after these reports are presented to the magistrate that one will be able to say who stands where.
One thing, however, is clear — that Ms Jafri’s desire to get her complaint examined by an independent agency stands fully satisfied. There can be no better agency than the SIT, hand-picked as it was by the Supreme Court. Added to this, the amicus curiae, an experienced lawyer of impeccable integrity, examined the SIT’s reports and additional material. No complainant could ask for more.
During the course of monitoring Gujarat riot-related cases it was established that several affidavits filed by “victims” before the court had been “procured” for money or other inducements. Zaheera Sheikh, a star witness, showed her ability to make contradictory statements with the dexterity of a professional figure skater.
Many of the affidavits were stereotypes — confirming the suspicion that they were products of the same factory, and the court was persuaded to act on these. We the people await the SIT report to nail these polluters of the judicial process.
The causes for rejoicing at the Supreme Court’s recent order, however, are many: Firstly, the apex court will no longer be breathing down the necks of the magistrate and the sessions court, allowing them to perform their functions in accordance with the law. Not many subordinate courts administering criminal justice in India can boast of such a luxury. Secondly, the stigma attached to the entire judiciary of Gujarat, especially since the Best Bakery case, has been washed clean.
As a matter of fact, in July 2011, another bench of the apex court, headed by Justice Kabir, rejected a request for transfer of a criminal trial (Jahid Sheikh) from Gujarat to another state on the precedent of Best Bakery. The apex court has now deftly retracted itself from the swamp into which it led itself in 2004, naively believing the sob stories of professional liars and the abetting busybodies behind them.
And finally, the court’s order was a puritan’s delight; it was a lesson in how to deal with cases of high political overtones without shrills or frills. The court reiterated the law in these words: “Once the court is satisfied that a proper investigation has been carried out, it would not venture to take over the functions of the magistrate or pass any order which would interfere with his judicial functions. Constitutional scheme of this country envisages dispute resolution mechanism.
No authority, save and except a superior court in the hierarchy of judiciary, can issue any direction which takes away the discretionary jurisdiction of any court of law”. Everyone, including judges at all levels, should read this passage again and again.
K.N. Bhat is a senior advocate of the Supreme Court and former additional solicitor-general of India