Saturday, October 6, 2012

Myth of Godhra


Since no 'secularist' or 'liberal' or 'objective' person ever challenged the above sets of figures, some questions arise: Who killed 200-odd Hindus so early in those riots? Was it the police or the Hindus themselves? And what made those 40,000 Hindus rush to relief camps? Was it fear of Hindu mob violence, rape, arson and murder?
Two recent 'news briefs' in print are critical evidence of a reality that's been totally ignored by our 'liberals' who have, for four years running, gone on and on and on about the 'genocide' of Muslims in Gujarat after the sudden inferno in the S-6 compartment of Sabarmati Express had consumed 58 Hindus, including 26 women and 12 children, returning home after performing kar seva at Ayodhya.

In its edition of March 19, 2006, The Sunday Express carried the following report from Ahmedabad:

"Post-Godhra riot case: 7 get lifer
The city sessions court on Friday convicted seven people in a post-Godhra riot case and sentenced them to life term for the murder of 35-year-old Mukesh Panchal, a resident of Lambha. He was attacked by the accused and went missing on November 7, 2003 from Shah-e-Alam Darwaza. His mutilated body was found near Chandoka Lake on November 11. One of the seven accused—Javed Shaukat Ali—meanwhile managed to give the cops a slip and fled from the court."

In its edition of Wednesday, March 29, 2006 The Indian Express carried the following report, also datelined Ahmedabad:

"Nine get jail in post-Godhra riot case
The city sessions court on Tuesday convicted nine accused in a post-Godhra riot case. Additional Sessions Judge Sonia Gokani sentenced Mushtaq alias Kanio Ahmed Sheikh to 10 years in jail for murder and attempt to murder. Eight others were sentenced to 18 months in prison for unlawful assembly, possessing weapons and rioting."

Out of the five convictions so far in l'affaire Godhra, the above two rip the blindfold on Godhra that the country was subjected to since March 2002. Those two convictions conclusively prove that even as some Hindus in Vadodra, Ahmedabad and a few other parts of Gujarat were provoked into insane killing, arson and loot by the S-6 carnage, the Muslims in that state were hardly the cattle hiding from the slaughter house that they have been made out by the "secularists" in and outside our national English media. Do you, for instance, recall reading about the mutilation of Mukesh Panchal's cadaver in any of the English print media? Did you hear a sound byte about it on our TV?

Yes, despite all the media and the consequent political, propaganda about the 'genocide' of Gujarat's Muslims, the reality is that some of that community were also engaged in murder, rioting and unlawful assembly with arms in hand.

This trend was discernible to the objective person four years ago itself. Thus, in its issue of April 28, 2002, The Times of India reporter, Sanjay Pandey, told us that of the 726 people who had been killed by then in the post-Godhra riots, 168 were Hindus. In its issue of June 24, 2002, India Today carried an article saying that the official figure of all people killed in Gujarat in the three months following the S-6 massacre was 800, of which a quarter were Hindus. The Union Home Ministry's Annual Report 2002-03 said that about a third of the total dead in the Godhra riots were Hindus. It also said that, at one stage, 40,000 Hindus were in riot relief camps.

Since no 'secularist' or 'liberal' or 'objective' person ever challenged the above sets of figures, some questions arise: Who killed 200-odd Hindus so early in those riots? Was it the police or the Hindus themselves? And what made those 40,000 Hindus rush to relief camps? Was it fear of Hindu mob violence, rape, arson and murder?

More proof of the blindfold on Godhra came in 2005, when the UPA coalition (comprising the 'secular' friends of Muslims) made a statement in Parliament that 254 Hindus and 790 Muslims were killed in those riots.

But our national media simply refused to remove the blindfold on Godhra. Hence it was that the elites of our society continued to rant about the Gujarat 'pogrom of genocide'; some cussed Indians even conspired to deny a US visa to the Chief Minister of one of the country's fastest developing states.

Aiding and abetting that conspiracy were reports from Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International et al. The National Human Rights Commission joined in; written lies by the likes of Arundhati Roy and fake e-mails added fuel to the fire. All of them went to town about the Gujarat 'genocide' with blinkers on, a blindfold underneath. None wanted to touch upon the minority community's role in that tragedy.

But the latest criminal conviction of 16 Muslims evokes the recall of the Justice Tewatia Report on the Godhra issue published on April 26, 2002 under the aegis of the Council For International Affairs And Human Rights, based in New Delhi.

It was a report based on a six-day field study of a team headed by Justice D.S. Tewatia, former Chief Justice, Calcutta High Court and Punjab and Haryana High Court. Its other members were Dr J.C. Batra, senior advocate, Supreme Court, Dr Krishan Singh, academician, Jawahar Lal Kaul, veteran journalist, and Prof. B. K. Kuthiala, Dean, Faculty of Media Studies, G.J. University, Hisar.

The five-man team visited three affected areas and relief camps in Ahmedabad, interacting freely with the public and members of both communities, and without government interference. In Godhra, five delegations from both communities and also of mixed composition presented their views and facts to the team. Similarly, free discussions with the public and affected communities were held in Vadodra at seven affected areas and five relief camps. It collected information from the staff at the Godhra Railway Station, district administration, including the Collector and Police Commissioner, passengers traveling in Sabarmati Express on 27.02.02 in S-6 compartment as well as in other compartments, staff of the Fire Brigade, Godhra, reports in 22 newspapers and nine magazines (local, regional and Delhi) and views on media coverage articulated by some 500 persons including intellectuals like lawyers, doctors and businessmen. The site where the train was initially stopped and stoned was also visited. A high point was that 13 delegations consisting of 121 citizens met Justice Tewatia's team and presented their viewpoints and information. The delegations ranged from the Association of Hoteliers to a group of Vanvasis and affected Muslim as well as Hindu women.

Based on the considerable oral, audio and visual evidence obtained from the above interactions, the Justice Tewatia team's conclusions most relevant to the blindfold on Godhra were as follows:
  1. Burning of 58 Hindu pilgrims on February 27, 2002 was an act carried out at the behest of then government of Pakistan which had planned to burn the entire Sabarmati Express carrying some 2000 passengers. The primary objective was to create Hindu-Muslim communal conflagration in India. The actual perpetrators were jehadi elements in the predominantly Muslim town of Godhra where
    1. a very high traffic of telephone calls was recorded between Godhra and Pakistan, especially Karachi, before the date of the carnage
    2. an abnormally large number of passports were issued,
    3. there was a large number of persons without ration cards
    4. a large number of unemployed Muslims had mobile phones,
    5. though there is no tradition of being a Muslim pilgrim center and the local Muslims are not affluent, three istema (religious gatherings) have been held and attended by large numbers of foreigners, and
    6. an Assistant Collector (a young Muslim from eastern UP) went on leave two days before the gory incident and did not return till the middle of March though the district of his posting was aflame with communal riots much earlier.
  2. The vacuum pipe between the Coaches No. S-6 and S-7 was cut thereby preventing any further movement of the train. Miscreants threw bricks and stones at the train as soon as it left Godhra railway station. The stoning intensified after it finally stopped about 700 metres from the station. The passengers of the train, particularly Coaches S-5, S-6 and S-7, were the main targets. Burning missiles and acid bulbs were thrown on and in the coaches. One such acid missile landed in Coach S-7 and a fire started which the passengers were able to extinguish. But the attack continued and more burning missiles were thrown into the Coach S-6.
  3. In an effort to control the subsequent riots, the Gujarat government
  4. Publicly announced its decision to employ the Army on the evening of the day riots began on February 28 (Within less than 24 hours at least one brigade of Indian Army had air-landed at Ahmedabad),
  5. Made preventive arrests of over 33,000 people,
  6. Fired over 12,000 rounds of bullets,
  7. Fired over 15,000 rounds of tear gas shells,
  8. The involvement of Vanvasis in the post-Godhra riots added a new dimension to the communal violence. In rural areas the Vanvasis attacked the Muslim moneylenders, shopkeepers and the forest contractors. They used their traditional bow and arrows as also their implements used to cut trees and grass while attacking Muslims. They moved in groups and used coded signals for communication. Apparently, the accumulated anger of years of exploitation by Muslim moneylenders (interest of 50 per cent per annum), shopkeepers and forest contractors had become explosive after moneylenders sexually exploited their womenfolk.
  9. The media selected, distorted and added fiction to prove their respective points of view. The code of ethics prescribed by the Press Council of India was violated by the media with impunity. It so enraged the citizens that several concerned citizens in the disturbed areas suggested that peace could return to the state only if some of the TV channels were closed for some weeks. Even the Vanvasis complained that the media had no time to hear their agony and was spreading canards against the Hindus. Newspapers published in English from Delhi invariably editorialised the news. Direct and indirect comments in the news writing were so telling that the personal likes and dislikes of the news reporters were too obvious to be missed. They appeared to have assumed the role of crusaders against the State Government from day one. It coloured the entire operation of newsgathering, feature writing and editorials.
Conclusions 1 to 4 above are indicators as to why our national media, ever afraid to criticise the Muslim and ever ready to indulge in BJP/Hindu bashing, bypassed the Justice Tewatia Report, despite its high credentials and the fact that it was publicly released at a press conference in New Delhi. After all, our 'secular' national media simply could not have tolerated giving even a line to report's conclusion 5 above. Hence, they simply buried the whole report itself, put a blindfold on the country vision of it. After all, they had found their Hindu-bashing agenda in the post-Godhra riots and they were hell-bent in pushing it full steam, right up to the Supreme Court and beyond to the United Nations. 

Saturday, September 29, 2012

Law and politics

While the Constitution recognises in Article 370 the special status of Jammu and Kashmir, the Central Government's policies since 1953 have totally undermined its autonomy. Senior lawyer and political analyst A.G. NOORANI discusses both aspects and suggests a way out of the mess.
  

"I say with all respect to our Constitution that it just does not matter what your Constitution says; if the people of Kashmir do not want it, it will not go there. Because what is the alternative? The alternative is compulsion and coercion..."
"We have fought the good fight about Kashmir on the field of battle... (and) ...in many a chancellery of the world and in the United Nations, but, above all, we have fought this fight in the hearts and minds of men and women of that State of Jammu and Kashmir. Because, ultimately - I say this with all deference to this Parliament - the decision will be made in the hearts and minds of the men and women of Kashmir; neither in this Parliament, nor in the United Nations nor by anybody else," Jawaharlal N ehru said in the Lok Sabha on June 26 and August 7, 1952.
- Selected works of Jawaharlal Nehru, Vol. 18, p. 418 and
vol. 19 pp. 295-6, respectively. 

"From 1953 to 1975, Chief Ministers of that State had been nominees of Delhi. Their appointment to that post was legitimised by the holding of farcical and totally rigged elections in which the Congress party led by Delhi's nominee was elected by huge majorities." 
 
- This authoritative description of a blot on our record which most overlook was written by B. K. Nehru, who was Governor of Kashmir from 1981 to 1984, in his memoirs published in 1997 (Nice Guys Finish Second; pp. 614-5). 

THOSE who cavil at Article 370 of the Indian Constitution and the "special status" of Kashmir constitutionally ought to remember the "special" treatment meted out to itpolitically. Which other State has been subjected to such debasement an d humiliation? And, whywas this done? It was because New Delhi had second thoughts on Article 370. It could not be abrogated legally. It was reduced to a husk through political fraud and constitutional abuse. The current debate is much more than about restoration of Article 370 by erasing the distortions. It is about redressing a moral wrong.
The United Front government's minimum programme, published on June 5, 1996, said "respecting Article 370 of the Constitution as well as the wishes of the people, the problems of Jammu and Kashmir will be resolved through giving the people of that State t he maximum degree of autonomy."

Constitutional abuse accompanied political fraud. Article 370 was intended to guarantee Kashmir's autonomy. On December 4, 1964, Union Home Minister G. L. Nanda said it would be used to serve as "a tunnel (sic.) in the wall" in order to increase the Cent re's power. 

The State was put in a status inferior to that of other States. One illustration suffices to demonstrate that. Parliament had to amend the Constitution fourtimes, by means of the 59th, 64th, 67th and 68th Constitution Amendments, to extend the President's Rule imposed in Punjab on May 11, 1987. For the State of Jammu and Kashmir the same result was accomplished, from 1990 to 1996, by mere executive orders under Article 370.

Another gross case illustrates the capacity for abuse. On July 30, 1986, the President made an order under Article 370, extending to Kashmir Article 249 of the Constitution in order to empower Parliament to legislate even on a matter in the State List on the strength of a Rajya Sabha resolution. "Concurrence" to this was given by the Centre's own appointee, Governor Jagmohan. G.A. Lone, a former Secretary, Law and Parliamentary Affairs, to the State Government described in Kashmir Times (April 20 , 1995) how the "manipulation" was done "in a single day" against the Law Secretary's advice and "in the absence of a Council of Ministers." 

The Nehru-Abdullah Agreement in July 1952 ("the Delhi Agreement") confirmed that "the residuary powers of legislation" (on matters not mentioned in the State List or the Concurrent List), which Article 248 and Entry 97 (Union List) confer on the Union, w ill not apply to Kashmir. The order of 1986 purported to apply to the State Article 249, which empowers Parliament to legislate even on a matter in the State List if a Rajya Sabha resolution so authorises it by a two-thirds vote. But it so amended Article 249 in its application to Kashmir as in effect to apply Article 248 instead - "any matter specified in the resolution, being a matter which is not enumerated in the Union List or in the Concurrent List." 

The Union thus acquired the power to legislate not only on all matters in the State List, but others not mentioned in the Union List or the Concurrent List - the residuary power. In relation to other States, an amendment to the Constitution would require a two-thirds vote by both Houses of Parliament plus ratification by the States (Article 368). For Kashmir, executive orders have sufficed since 1953 and can continue till Doomsday. "Nowhere else, as far as I can see, is there any provision author ising the executive government to make amendments in the Constitution," President Rajendra Prasad pointed out to Prime Minister Nehru on September 6, 1952. Nowhere else, in the world, indeed. Is this the state of things we wish to perpetuate? Uniquely Ka shmir negotiated the terms of its membership of the Union for five months. Article 370 was adopted by the Constituent Assembly as a result of those parleys. 

YET, all hell broke loose when the State Assembly adopted, on June 26, a resolution recording its acceptance of the report of the State Autonomy Committee (the Report) and asked "the Union Government and the Government of Jammu and Kashmir to take positi ve and effective steps for the implementation of the same." On July 4, the Union Cabinet said that the resolution was "unacceptable... would set the clock back and reverse the natural process of harmonising the aspirations of the people of Jammu & Kashmi r with the integrity of the State" - a patent falsehood, as everyone knows. 

The State's Law Minister, P.L. Handoo, said on June 26 that the people "want nothing more than what they had in 1953." Overworked metaphors (about the clock or the waters of the Jhelum which flowed since) do not answer two crucial questions: Can lapse of time sanctify patent constitutional abuse? Can it supply legislative competence? If Parliament has legislated over the States on a matter on which it had no power to legislate, under the Constitution, it would be a nullity. Especially if the State's people have been protesting meanwhile and their voice was stifled through rigged elections. 

Disapproval of Chief Minister Farooq Abdullah's opportunist politics should not blind one to the constitutional issues. The State's Finance Minister, Abdul Rahim Rather, a moving spirit behind the Report, resents suggestions of political timing. The repo rt was placed before the Assembly on April 13, 1999. The State Cabinet endorsed its recommendations and decided last April to convene a special session of the Assembly to discuss it. The Government of India was "once again requested to set up a ministeri al committee in order to initiate a dialogue on the report." 

It provides a comprehensive survey of constitutional developments, which is useful in itself for its documentation. It lists 42 orders under Article 370 and gives the following opinion: "Not all these orders can be objected to. For instance, none can obj ect to provisions for direct elections to Parliament in 1966... It is the principle that matters. Constitutional limits are there to be respected, not violated." 

The ruler of Jammu and Kashmir acceded to India by an Instrument of Accession on October 26, 1947 in respect of only three subjects - defence, foreign affairs and communications. A schedule listed precisely 16 topics under these heads plus four others (e lections to Union legislature and the like). 

Clause 5 said that the Instrument could not be altered without the State's consent. Clause 7 read: "Nothing in this Instrument shall be deemed to commit me in any way to acceptance of any future Constitution of India or fetter my discretion to enter into arrangements with the Government of India under any such future Constitution." Kashmir was then governed internally by its own Constitution of 1939. 

The Maharaja made an Order on October 30, 1947 appointing Sheikh Abdullah the Head of the Emergency Administration, replacing it, on March 5, 1948, with an Interim Government with the Sheikh as Prime Minister. It was enjoined to convene a National Assembly "to frame a Constitution" for the State. 

Negotiations were held on May 15 and 16, 1949 at Vallabhbhai Patel's residence in New Delhi on Kashmir's future set-up. Nehru and Abdullah were present. Foremost among the topics were "the framing of a Constitution for the State" and "the subjects in res pect of which the State should accede to the Union of India." On the first, Nehru recorded in a letter to the Sheikh (on May 18) that both Patel and he agreed that it was a matter for the State's Constituent Assembly. "In regard to (ii) the Jammu and Kas hmir State now stands acceded to the Indian Union in respect of three subjects; namely, foreign affairs, defence and communications. It will be for the Constituent Assembly of the State when convened, to determine in respect of which other subjects the State may accede" (emphasis added, throughout). 

Article 370 embodies this basic principle which was reiterated throughout (S.W.J.N. Vol. 11; p. 12). 

On June 16, 1949, Sheikh Abdullah, Mirza Mammad Afzal Beg, Maulana Mohammed Saeed Masoodi and Moti Ram Bagda joined the Constituent Assembly of India. Negotiations began in earnest on Article 370 (Article 306. A in the draft). N. Gopalaswamy Ayyangar tri ed to reconcile the differences between Patel and Abdullah. A text, agreed on October 16, was moved in the Constituent Assembly the next day, unilaterally altered by Ayyangar. "A trivial change," as he admitted in a letter to the Sheikh on October 18. Pa tel confirmed it to Nehru on November 3 on his return from the United States. Beg had withdrawn his amendment after the accord. Abdullah and he were in the lobby, and rushed to the House when they learnt of the change. In its original form the draft woul d have made the Sheikh's ouster in 1953 impossible. 

Foreign Direct Investment in India


India is the largest democracy and is fourth largest economy (in terms of purchasing power parity) in the world. India with its consistent growth performance and abundant high-skilled manpower provides enormous opportunity for investment, both domestic and foreign. Investment in India can be made both by non-resident as well as resident Indian entities. Any non-resident investing in an Indian company is Foreign Direct Investment (FDI).
The Government embarked upon major economic reforms since mid-1991 with a view to integrate with the world economy, and to emerge as a significant player in the globalization process. Reforms undertaken include decontrol of industries from the stringent regulatory process; simplification of investment procedures, promotion of foreign direct investment (FDI), liberalisation of exchange control, rationalization of taxes and public sector divestment. The FDI policy was liberalized progressively through review of the policy on an ongoing basis and allowing FDI in more industries under the automatic route.
A number of studies in the recent past have highlighted on growing attractiveness of India as an investment destination. According to UNCTAD’s World Investment Report 2007, India is the second most attractive investment destination for FDI for 2007-09.
India has one of the most liberal and transparent policies on FDI among the emerging economies. FDI up to 100 percent is allowed under automatic route in all activities and sectors except few sectors like manufacturing of cigar and cigarettes of tobacco, electronic aerospace and defense equipments, etc.
FDI policy is reviewed on continuous basis and changes in sectoral polices / sectoral equity cap are notified through press notes by the Secretariat for Industrial Assistance (SIA) , Department of Industrial policy and promotion (DIIP). FDI policy is also notified by Reserve Bank of India (RBI) under Foreign Exchange Management Act (FEMA) 1991.
FDI in sectors /activities to the extent permitted under automatic route does not require any prior approval either by the Government or Reserve Bank of India. The investor is only required to notify the Concerned Regional office of RBI within 30 days of receipt of inward remittances and file the required documents with that office within 30 days of issue of shares to foreign investors.
The Government has decided to allow FDI up to 51 percent; with prior Government approval, in retail ‘single brand products’. This is inter-alia aimed at attracting investment in production and marketing, improving the availability of such goods for the consumers, encouraging increased sourcing of goods from India, and enhancing competitiveness of Indian enterprise through access to global designs, technology and management practices.
The Government has put in place a liberal foreign technology transfer policy as well. At present, foreign technology collaboration involving payment of lump sum amount of up to US$2 million and/or royalty at the rate of 5 percent on domestic sales and 8 percent on exports are allowed under the automatic route. There are no limits on the duration of royalty payments. In addition, the current policy also allows payment of royalty up to 2% on exports and 1% on domestic sales under the automatic route for use of trademark and brand names of the foreign collaborator without technology transfer. Proposals involving royalty payments beyond the limits under the automatic route are considered for Government approval through the Project Approval Board (PAB).
The Government has set guidelines for transfer of ownership or control of Indian companies in sectors with caps from resident Indian citizens to non-resident entities.

Saturday, September 22, 2012

Congress ki Janamkundali


Founded in 1885 by members of the occultistmovement Theosophical Society—Allan Octavian Hume, Dadabhai Naoroji, Dinshaw Wacha, Womesh Chandra Bonnerjee, Surendranath Banerjee, Monomohun Ghose,Mahadev Govind Ranade and William Wedderburn—the Indian National Congress became the leader of the Indian Independence Movement, with over 15 million members and over 70 million participants in its struggle against British rule in India. Afterindependence in 1947, it became the nation's dominant political party, led by the Nehru-Gandhi family for the most part; major challenges for party leadership have only recently formed.
In the 2009 general elections, the Congress emerged as the single largest party in the Lok Sabha, with 205 of its candidates getting elected to the 543-member house. Consequently it, along with a coalition of allies called the United Progressive Alliance (UPA), was able to gain a majority and form the government.

The history of the Indian National Congress falls into two distinct eras:
  • The pre-independence era, when the party was at the forefront of the struggle for independence and was instrumental in the whole of India;
  • The post-independence era, when the party has enjoyed a prominent place in Indian politics, ruling the country for 48 of the 60 years since independence in 1947.
In the pre-independence era, the Congress was divided in two groups, moderate and activist. The moderates were more educated and wanted to win people's faith to lead the nation to independence without bloodshed; the activists however wanted to follow a revolutionary path and make it a militant organization

the congress party was formed under the guidance of mahatma Gandhi before independence and with a motive to give the country its freedom.. Gandhi as we all know followed the policy of non violence but many members in his party weren't like Gandhi...
Bhagad Singh had charged a revolt with violence against the British government and knew that he could get India its freedom this way keeping all our countries assets with us and removing these Britishers but because of the mantries of Gandhi , Gandhi was forced to sign a treaty in which lead to the death warrant of the greatest ever Indian fighter Bhagad Singh.. after the death of Bhagad Singh his followers told Gandhi that even if tomorrow he goes the world will ask him why for his action... his action lead to violence and a great loss to the entire country... Today all of us want to ask this question that why did u let Bhagad Singh die and what mistake did he do...
fighting for the country to retain its pride, power and assets isn't a fault.. because of the non violent policy of Gandhi we had to face a lot many losses like the split of India and Pakistan which till today hasn't been solved, the split of Nepal, Bangladesh , tibet from the Indian land, the assets like our antiques,money, assets, gold etc were all taken by the Britishers... when the Britishers realized that now nothing of their interest was actually left here they left the country fooling the people of the nation once again....
after independence gandhi told nehru to dissolve the congress party as its motive had been fullfilled but because of political ambitions nehru rejected his order  and furthur the politics in their own party lead nathu ram to kill gandhi and get nehru to pwer... when nehru and gandhi party joined came the biggest terror which india saw in the form of Idiira  gandhi who had done the same like the daughter in law sonia is doing... we are all well aware about sonia, rajeev and sanjay gandhi...
soon in my next blog a real discription relating to facts about indira gandhi will be published...

Narendra Modi - The perfect politician

since the time of 2001 elections held in the month of October when Narendra Bhai Modi had come into power in Gujarat, the entire face of Gujarat had started to experience its first positive change...

Narendra Damodardas Modi was born in an other backward class (OBC) middle-class family at Vadnagar, he was the third of six children born to Damodardas Mulchand Modi and his wife Heeraben. He has been a member of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh(RSS) since childhood, having an interest in politics since adolescence. He holds a master's degree in political science. In 1998, he was chosen by L. K. Advani, the leader of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), to direct the election campaign in Gujarat and H.P .
 During the Indo-Pak war in the mid sixties, even as a young boy, he volunteered to serve the soldiers in transit at railway stations.As a young man, he joined the Akhil Bharatiya Vidyarthi Parishad, a student organisation and was involved in the anti-corruption Nav Nirmāṇ ("Reconstruction") Movement. After working as a full-time organiser for the organisation, he was later nominated as its representative in the Bharatiya Janata Party.


Modi was a pracharak (campaigner) in the RSS during his university years. He took up the challenging task of energising the party cadres in right earnest. In partnership with Shankersinh Vaghela, Modi set about creating a strong cadre base in Gujarat. In the initial period, Vaghela was seen as a mass leader, while Modi was recognised as a master strategist.
The party started gaining political mileage and formed a coalition government at the centre in April 1990. This partnership fell apart within a few months, but the BJP came to power with a two-thirds majority on its own in Gujarat in 1995. During this period, Modi was entrusted with the responsibility of organising two crucial national events, the Somnath to Ayodhya Rath Yatra (a political rally through India on a converted Toyota van) of L.K. Advani and a similar march from Kanyakumari (the southernmost part of mainland India, southernmost point of India being Indira point of Andaman and Nicobar islands) to Kashmir in the North. After the exit of Shankarsingh Vaghela from the BJP, Keshubhai Patel was made Chief Minister while Narendra Modi was sent to New Delhi as a General Secretary of the Party.
In 1995, Modi was appointed the National Secretary of the party and given the charge of five major states in India. In 1998, he was promoted as the General Secretary (Organization), a post he held until October 2001. In 2001, Narendra Modi was chosen by the party to be the Chief Minister of Gujarat after the removal of chief minister Keshubhai Patel.

Modi is known for leading a frugal lifestyle. He has a personal staff of just three. He is known to be a workaholic Chief Minister and an introvert. He ordered the demolition of many Hindu temples that were built without proper government sanction which earned him the ire of VHP. He is a crowd puller as a speaker. He has been trying to project himself as a political heir of Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel. He does this by comparing Sardar Patel to Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru. Modi sometimes wears business suits and is improving his command over the English language.

Narendra Modi, announced a comprehensive ban on gutka, which causes cancer. It has come into effect from September 11, 2012.
Modi said in his 66th Independence Day speech,

"I have to save the youths of Gujarat from the dreaded evil of cancer and that's why a decision to impose a complete ban on gutka has been taken."
The mission has been named Gutka Mukti Abhiyan.

On 18 July 2006 Modi delivered a speech criticising Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh "for his reluctance to revive anti-terror legislations" like the Prevention of Terrorism Act. He asked the Centre to empower states to invoke tougher laws in the wake of the blasts in Mumbai. Quoting Modi:
"Terrorism is worse than a war. A terrorist has no rules. A terrorist decides when, how, where and whom to kill. India has lost more people in terror attacks than in its wars."

Narendra Modi criticised this muzzling of the freedom of press by saying :

" Journalists on Twitter who spoke against Congress, were blocked. Here they banned a TV channel. Their crime is that they exposed cracks in the ghar nu ghar (own your home) scheme of the Congress. Yet this party talks about democracy  "


Tuesday, September 18, 2012

India of scams

it has been found that since the time of Nehru and his policies have only lead to increase in corruption and after his death Indira and their siblings did the same to the country by fooling the entire country and playing with the sentiments of every person...
the congress leaders till now have mostly been the most corrupt but the Bjp never remained much behind them... all that we have seen since so many days in this world of technologies is a decline in the economy or an increase in the price and a hole in the pocket of each common man... the question is why we.. we pay our tax on time and nearly the full amount then why should we bear the loss occurred by the policies and the rules by the government...
as per sources the state with the most corruption is Hyderabad and the country with the highest level of corruption is India....

Top 10 Corruption Scams in India

  1.  2G Spectrum Scam
  2. Commonwealth Games Scam
  3.  Telgi Scam
  4.  Satyam Scam
  5.  Bofors Scam
  6.  The Fodder Scam.
  7.  The Hawala Scandal
  8.  IPL Scam
  9.  Harshad Mehta & Ketan Parekh Stock Market Scam
  10. Coalgate

12 Most Corrupt Indian Politician


  1. Sonia Gandhi
  2. Rahul Gandhi
  3. Suresh Kalmadi
  4. A. Raja
  5. Mayawati
  6. Lalu Prasad Yadav
  7. Madhu Koda
  8. Mulayam Singh Yadav
  9. Karunanidhi
  10. Sharad Pawar
  11. Jayalalithaa
  12. BS Yeddyurappa

Aseem - A real patriot

Aseem Trivedi (born 17 February 1987) is a controversial Indian political cartoonist and activist, best known for his anti corruption campaign Cartoons Against Corruption. He is a founder member of Save Your Voice, a movement against internet censorship in India. 
In 2011, a nation wide anti corruption movement India Against Corruption gathered pace in the leadership of a veteran Gandhian Anna Hazare demanding Jan Lokpal Bill. Aseem Trivedi joined the crusade and started a cartoon based campaign, Cartoons Against Corruption to support the movement with his art. He launched a website www.cartoonsagainstcorruption.com consisting of his sharp anti corruption cartoons targeting corrupt system and the politicos. He displayed his cartoons in the MMRDA ground, Mumbai during the hunger strike of Anna Hazare.
and i am sure this was the main reason why they caught him.. the explanation of the government saying that he drew the national emblem replacing the lions with wolfs with blood... a question the the fellow congress men that in a democratic country a person cant even draw the truth and the pain that he and the common man is going through each day because of the government and its unnecessary policies and the blind attitude towards the wounds of each and every common man...
as per the news :
Award-winning political cartoonist and anti-corruption and Internet freedom crusader Aseem Trivedi (25) was remanded in police custody till September 16 by a holiday court in Bandra on Sunday. He was arrested on Saturday night on charges of sedition, cyber crime, and insulting the national flag, Parliament and the Constitution through his work. The police lodged an FIR against Mr. Trivedi on the basis of a complaint by social activist and law student Amit Arvind Katarnaware.
i am sure that a law student but a congress follower can only do such kind of a kiddish act by arresting and trying to defame MR.Aseem....