U.S. TO SHARE LASER-GUIDING BOMB KITS WITH PAKISTAN
and/or www.mantra.com/jai
The Associated Press
The Times of India
Wednesday, March 3, 2010
Washington: The US will deliver this month to Pakistan 1,000
sophisticated laser-guided bomb kits that would enable the government
there to strike insurgent targets with more precision.
The arms sale suggests that US officials are trying to deepen their
relationship with Pakistan and increase military cooperation. The US
has been trying to encourage Pakistan to take a tougher stand against
Taliban forces operating within its borders.
Lt Col Jeffry Glenn, an Air Force spokesman, said on Tuesday that the
US had delivered 1,000 MK-82 bombs to Pakistan last month. This
month's shipment of kits would enable Pakistan to use sophisticated
laser technology to guide the bombs to specific targets.
Glenn said the US also plans to provide Pakistan 18 new F-16 fighter
jets by June.
Jai Maharaj, Jyotishi
Om Shanti
o Not for commercial use. Solely to be fairly used for the educational
purposes of research and open discussion. The contents of this post may not
have been authored by, and do not necessarily represent the opinion of the
poster. The contents are protected by copyright law and the exemption for
fair use of copyrighted works.
o If you send private e-mail to me, it will likely not be read,
considered or answered if it does not contain your full legal name, current
e-mail and postal addresses, and live-voice telephone number.
o Posted for information and discussion. Views expressed by others are
not necessarily those of the poster who may or may not have read the article.
FAIR USE NOTICE: This article may contain copyrighted material the use of
which may or may not have been specifically authorized by the copyright
owner. This material is being made available in efforts to advance the
understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic,
democratic, scientific, social, and cultural, etc., issues. It is believed
that this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as
provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title
17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without
profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included
information for research, comment, discussion and educational purposes by
subscribing to USENET newsgroups or visiting web sites. For more information
go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml
If you wish to use copyrighted material from this article for purposes of
your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the
copyright owner.
Since newsgroup posts are being removed
by forgery by one or more net terrorists,
this post may be reposted several times.
bademiyansubhanallah
Jai Maharaj) wrote:
> US to share laser-guiding bomb kits with Pakistan
>
> The Associated Press
> The Times of India
> Wednesday, March 3, 2010
>
> Washington: The US will deliver this month to Pakistan 1,000
> sophisticated laser-guided bomb kits that would enable the government
> there to strike insurgent targets with more precision.
>
> The arms sale suggests that US officials are trying to deepen their
> relationship with Pakistan and increase military cooperation. The US
> has been trying to encourage Pakistan to take a tougher stand against
> Taliban forces operating within its borders.
>
> Lt Col Jeffry Glenn, an Air Force spokesman, said on Tuesday that the
> US had delivered 1,000 MK-82 bombs to Pakistan last month. This
> month's shipment of kits would enable Pakistan to use sophisticated
> laser technology to guide the bombs to specific targets.
>
> Glenn said the US also plans to provide Pakistan 18 new F-16 fighter
> jets by June.
>
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.indian.marathi/browse_thread/thread/8a1efe054a3bf157#
...and I am Sid Harth
bademiyansubhanallah
>
> ...and I am Sid Harth- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.indian.marathi/browse_thread/thread/3f5e2a3be4798e7d#
chhotemianinshallah
Sid Harth
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Subramanian Swamy
Member of Indian Parliament (Lok Sabha & Rajya Sabha), Union Cabinet
Minister for Commerce & Law
In office
1973–1991
Prime Minister Chandrasekhar
Preceded by A. G. S. Ram Babu
Succeeded by P. Mohan
Born September 15, 1939
Nationality Indian
Political party Janata Party
Spouse(s) Roxna
Profession economist, Politician
Religion Hindu
Dr. Subramanian Swamy (b. 15 September 1939 at Chennai, sometimes
spelt as Subramaniam Swamy) is a politician from India. He is also a
trained economist.
Personal life
Subramanian Swamy has two daughters, Gitanjali Swamy and Suhasini
Haider. Suhasini is a journalist with Indian television channel CNN-
IBN. His wife Dr. Roxna Swamy is an Advocate in the Supreme Court of
India.
Association with Harvard
Following his time at the Indian Statistical Institute, he was awarded
a doctorate by Harvard University in 1964. Two of his advisors at the
time were Simon Kuznets and Paul A. Samuelson[1]. For a time, while
completing his dissertation in 1963, he worked in the UN Secretariat
at New York as Assistant Economics Affairs Officer. He subsequently
worked as a resident tutor at Lowell House, and as an assistant
professor for the Harvard Economics department where he later became
an Associate professor in 1969. Subsequently he has been a regularly
teaching at the rank of full Professor at the Harvard Summer School.
He is accounted by some to be an authority on the comparative study of
India and China[2] and is also well-versed in the Mandarin Chinese
(Hanyu) language[3].
Association with IITs
He was Professor of Economics at the Indian Institute of Technology
Delhi from 1969. He was removed from the position by its board of
Governors in the early 1970s but was legally reinstated in the late
1980s by the Supreme Court of India. He continued in the position till
1991 when he resigned to become a cabinet minister. He served on the
Board of Governors of the IIT, Delhi (1977-80), and on the Council of
IITs (1980-82).
Political career
He is regarded as a proponent of Hindutva as a political concept. He
first came into spotlight for protesting against the emergency imposed
in 1975. He was one of the founding members of the Janata Party and is
its president since 1990. He was elected member of parliament 5 times
between 1974 and 1999. He has twice represented the city of Mumbai
North East during 1977 and 1980, Uttar Pradesh and Tamil Nadu in the
Parliament.
He is known for his efforts in normalizing relations with China and
Israel. In 1981, he persuaded Deng Xiaoping to open the Kailash
Mansarovar in Tibet to Hindu pilgrims from India[4]. In 1990-1991, he
was a minister in the Chandra Shekhar cabinet and was in charge of the
ministries of Commerce and Law and Justice.
He was also a member of the Planning Commission between 1990 and 1991.
Between 1994 and 1996, he held the position of Chairman of the
Commission on Labour Standards and International Trade (equivalent to
the rank of a cabinet minister) under the P. V. Narasimha Rao
government. Dr. Swamy has been subject to several defamation cases. He
is known to argue these cases himself without the agency of lawyers.
He has enjoyed a strange maverick relationship with J. Jayalalithaa.
He was perceived as instrumental in bringing the disproportionate
assets case of J. Jayalalithaa into public notice in the 1990s but by
1997, he had become her political adviser and was instrumental in
convincing her to withdraw support from the Vajpayee Government in
1999. The alliance with Jayalalithaa ended after she lost the General
Elections held in the same year.
In October 2004, he along with other members of the erstwhile Janata
Party established the Rashtriya Swabhiman Manch to oppose the policies
of the ruling UPA.
He has played an important role in fighting for the cause of
preventing the destruction of Rama Sethu bridge. He moved the Supreme
Court of India and successfully obtained a stay for the Sethusamudram
Shipping Canal Project at the final hours on August 31, 2007. The case
is under hearing before the Supreme Court.
Most recently Dr. Swamy has been crusading for proper electoral
governance in the use of Electronic Voting Machines (EVM) in the
Indian Elections. Dr. Swamy has been one of the few petitioners, who
has successfully petitioned the Indian Courts to look in to serious
electoral mis-management potential in the use of Electronic Voting
Machines (EVM) during the Indian Elections from 2001 through 2009.
Following a preliminary hearing in the Delhi High Court in late 2009,
the Chief Justice of the High Court concurred with Dr. Swamy's
petition and admitted the matter for a full hearing in early 2010. Dr.
Swamy has argued that any electoral mechanism such as an EVM must
provide full audit-ability, account-ability and transparency and that
Indian Election Commission's current EVM has neither of the three.
Additionally the technology is in direct violation of the Indian
Information Technology Act. The matter is currently under
consideration in the Indian Courts.
He has been very effective in the Courts fighting for justice and has
used the Courts effectively on issues of public importance. It is
worth noting that he is an economist but has been very successful
arguing PILs in Court for the public good.
Stance against the LTTE
He is noted for his consistent stance against the LTTE which is
proscribed as a terrorist organization by 31 countries
(see list)
Commenting:
“ LTTE is a terrorist organization which moreover killed Rajiv Gandhi
and has spewed poison online about India[5] ”
“ LTTE is a part of the Sri Lankan problem, and can never be a part of
the solution[6] ”
His stance against the LTTE has had five successive Indian governments
place him in the Z category of Indian security, with security cover of
at least 22 personnel because of the high LTTE threat to his life.[7]
Subramanian Swamy was attacked by a group of pro-LTTE lawyers .[8]
Violent clashes between the Tamil Nadu police and practicing lawyers
occurred on the 19th of February 2009 on the Madras High Court
premises.
Books
Dr. Subramanian Swamy is the author of numerous books and writes
regularly in various journals and newspapers, some of his books are :-
Economic Growth in China and India, 1989
Hindus Under Siege. (2006)
Notes
^ Boumans 167
^ Prospects for India-U.S. relations better: Swamy The Hindu - January
23, 2008
http://www.thehindu.com/2008/01/23/stories/2008012360151400.htm
^ About Dr. Subramanian Swamy
http://www.kamakotidevotees.org/london/dr-swamy.html
^ Pilgrims' route The Tribune - September 26, 1998
http://www.tribuneindia.com/1998/98sep27/spotlite.htm
^ Subramanian Swamy on LTTE, Defence Agreement and the right to
station Indian Troops in non-Tamil areas in Sri Lanka Asian Tribune -
June 28, 2004
^ India will Never Support Eelam; Dr Subramanian Swamy Says Nidahasa
News - October 8, 2007 http://news.nidahasa.com/news.php?go=fullnews&newsid=348
^ Transcripts - Parliament of India http://parliamentofindia.nic.in/lsdeb/ls12/ses2/0405089808.htm
^ [1] http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Chennai/Lawyer_arrested_for_pelting_eggs_at_Swamy/articleshow/4152259.cms
References
Boumans, Marcel (2005). How Economists Model the World Into Numbers.
Routledge. ISBN 0415346215.
External links
Biography on Janta Party site http://www.janataparty.org/president.html
Subramaniam Swamy's views on the influence of Hinduism
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DQhDXwZztSU
Subramaniam Swamy in Janata Party's website
An article by Dr. Subramanian Swamy on how to face defamation
litigation
http://www.hindu.com/2004/09/21/stories/2004092103551000.htm
Subramaniam Swamy fined Rs. 5 lakhs by the Delhi High Court for making
libellous allegations against Jayalalitha Jayaram
http://www.tribuneindia.com/2006/20060104/nation.htm#16
Basic Islam for Hindu Dhimmis - Subramanian Swamy
http://www.organiser.org/dynamic/modules.php?name=Content&pa=showpage&pid=159&page=31
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subramanian_Swamy"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subramanian_Swamy
Swamy sees insecurity among minorities
By Our Staff Reporter
RAMANATHAPURAM, FEB 26. The people belonging to minority communities
will always live in fear if the Bharatiya Janata Party is voted to
power again in the coming Lok Sabha elections, the Janata Party
president, Subramanian Swamy, told presspersons at Pasumpon village on
Thursday.
Dr. Swamy said the BJP-led National Democratic Alliance had failed to
ensure the welfare of minorities and it was evident from the fact that
Muslims were put to untold hardships in Gujarat. "They feel a sense of
insecurity throughout the country."
The Government should take necessary steps to arrest the general
secretary of the MDMK, Vaiko, if he continued to support the LTTE or
praise its leader in public meetings.
No party would get simple majority in the coming Lok Sabha elections,
he said and predicted a hung Parliament.
Dr. Swamy wondered how the DMK president, M. Karunanidhi, could
tolerate the issue of the foreign origin of the Congress president,
Sonia Gandhi, as he had termed the former Chief Minister, M.G.
Ramachandran, a Malayalee when the AIADMK formed the Government in the
State.
Dr. Swamy urged the Government to give no objection certificate to the
Central Government to name the Madurai airport as Pasumpon
Muthuramalinga Thevar Airport. The State Government had twice rejected
the requisition of the Central Government.
The Janata Party would approach the court to issue a direction to the
State Government in this connection after the elections.
Earlier, speaking at a function organised by the family of
Muthuramalinga Thevar in recognition of his (Dr. Swamy's) efforts in
installing the Thevar statue in Parliament House, Dr. Swamy said the
Janata Party would take the necessary steps to set up a modern
university in the name of Thevar at Pasumpon.
He appealed to the Government to include the life history of Thevar as
one of the subjects in the college curriculum in order to facilitate
the younger generation to know about the heroic deeds of Thevar and
his dedication towards the betterment of society.
http://www.hindu.com/2004/02/27/stories/2004022706661100.htm
Need for ‘Hindu vote bank’: Swamy
Special Correspondent
TIRUPATI: Janata Party leader Subramanian Swamy on Monday said the
only way to counter vote-bank policies blindly pursued by governments
and political parties was to develop a strong and formidable “Hindu
vote bank.” It was the only way to check the “continued neglect and
subjugation of Hindus and Hindu temples,” he said.
Dr. Swamy criticised the United Progressive Alliance government for
its attempt to “bend over backwards” to protect mosques and churches
while showing “utter indifference” to protect the Hindu shrines and
sentiments.
He was addressing a convention organised by the Andhra Pradesh Hindu
Temples Protection Committee.
Dr. Swamy said that though there were 42 mosques in Ayodhya where no
prayers were offered, Muslims were laying claim to the disputed Ram
Janmabhoomi alone.
http://www.hindu.com/2009/02/17/stories/2009021759811100.htm
GOVERNMENT
Pulls and pressures
The days leading up to the swearing-in of the BJP Government were
marked by hard bargaining by some of the party's allies.
V. VENKATESAN
in New Delhi
IMMEDIATELY after the Election Commission formally notified the
results of the Lok Sabha elections and informed President K.R.
Narayanan about it on March 10, the President began a consultative
process to constitute a new government. The Election Commission had
earlier announced that the new Lok Sabha would be constituted before
March 12, and the leaders of the Bharatiya Janata Party and its
allies, which had emerged as the largest combination of pre-election
allies but had fallen short of a majority in Parliament, were under
the impression that the numbers game would begin on or after March 12.
The initial public statements of leaders of the Congress(I) and the
United Front seemed to indicate that they would endeavour to prevent
the BJP from coming to power.
Thus, when the President invited BJP Parliamentary Party leader Atal
Behari Vajpayee for a discussion on government formation on March 10,
BJP leaders were taken by surprise. Vajpayee was holding talks with
the alliance partners when the President's invitation was received.
Vajpayee read out the contents of the letter to newspersons. In his
letter, Narayanan offered his felicitations to Vajpayee on his
election as the leader of the BJP Parliamentary Party. He gave
Vajpayee the first opportunity to let him know whether he would be
able and willing to form a stable government which could secure the
confidence of the Lok Sabha. The President noted that the BJP had
emerged as the single largest party in the Lok Sabha and the political
formation that it headed was the largest combination of pre-election
allies.
However, when Vajpayee gave a written undertaking to the President
that he was in a position to form a stable government that could
command the confidence of the House, the President asked for documents
to support the claim that the BJP and its allies had strength of 252
seats. The BJP had hardly expected the President to insist on
documentary proof of its parliamentary support.
Only a day earlier, the leaders of the BJP and its allies had met at
Vajpayee's residence in New Delhi to discuss the contents of the
National Agenda for Governance, a programme of action for a government
of the BJP and its allies. It did not occur to any of the BJP's
strategists that they should secure formal letters of support from the
leaders of the allies. The BJP took the support of its pre-election
allies for granted, when it publicised the letters of support given by
the post-election allies and some independents. With the assured
support of 12 more MPs - either independents or those belonging to
post-election allies - the saffron alliance was seemingly in a
position to secure 264 votes.
In the belief that the process of securing letters of support from the
alliance partners would be a mere formality, Vajpayee decided to get
back to the President on March 11 with the letters. But trouble arose
when four of the BJP's five allies in Tamil Nadu - the All India Anna
Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (AIADMK), the Pattali Makkal Katchi, the
Janata Party and the Tamizhaga Rajiv Congress - did not send in their
letters. (The fifth ally, the Marumalarchi Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam
(MDMK), had sent its letter of support by facsimile to the President
and a copy of it to Vajpayee.)
Unable to secure all the letters, Vajpayee postponed his meeting with
the President to March 12. Anxiety was writ large on the faces of BJP
leaders as AIADMK general secretary Jayalalitha, who was coordinating
the actions of the smaller parties in her alliance in Tamil Nadu,
continued to hold back although she had repeatedly made public
statements right up until March 9 to the effect that her party and its
allies would offer "unconditional support" to a Vajpayee-led
government. The BJP was also concerned that the perception of a
misunderstanding with a major alliance partner would not bode well for
its claim to form a stable government.
A senior leader in charge of party affairs in the southern States said
that the delay had been occasioned by the fact that Jayalalitha was
unwell on March 11. All of March 12, BJP leaders in Delhi desperately
tried to contact Jayalalitha in Chennai, but she was incommunicado.
More ominously for the BJP, she persuaded the MDMK to withdraw the
letter of support it had faxed to the President.
SHANKER CHAKRAVARTY
AIADMK general secretary Jayalalitha leaving Rashtrapati Bhavan after
the swearing-in ceremony.
The first indication of the reasons for the delay in the despatch of
the letters from Chennai came from Janata Party leader Subramanian
Swamy. Appearing on television, Subramanian Swamy said that
Jayalalitha had requested the BJP to appoint him Finance Minister and
TRC leader Vazhapadi K. Ramamurthy Home Minister. Subramanian Swamy
said that BJP leaders had refused to concede the request. Subramanian
Swamy's references to the demand for the dismissal of the Dravida
Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) Government in Tamil Nadu in the light of the
February 14 Coimbatore blasts seemed to indicate that a commitment on
that was a "pre-condition" for the AIADMK's "unconditional" support
for a BJP-led government.
Although some sections in the BJP were in favour of conceding
Jayalalitha's "demands", Vajpayee and party president L.K. Advani were
unwilling to appease her beyond a point. The BJP refused to concede
Jayalalitha's request on ministerial appointments, and were not quite
so categorical on the demand for the dismissal of the DMK Government.
It was for this reason that the AIADMK and the PMK said that they
would not join a BJP-led ministry.
BJP leaders were nevertheless optimistic that the letters of support
would arrive in Delhi with a special messenger on the morning flight
from Chennai on March 12. What they did not know was that the letters
of support had already been despatched to Delhi: they were in the
custody of a senior AIADMK leader who was waiting for a nod from
"Amma" in Chennai so as to deliver the letters to the President.
After waiting for nearly two days, Vajpayee virtually gave up his
efforts: he met the President at 7.30 p.m. on March 12 and furnished a
list of 240 MPs from whom he had letters of support. The names of the
three MDMK MPs who had withdrawn their letters of support, however,
figured in this list. In effect, as on March 12, Vajpayee had the
support of only 237 members of the Lok Sabha, considerably short of a
majority. Vajpayee, therefore, did not stake his claim, but left it to
the discretion of the President to decide whether he could be invited
to form a government. The President then announced that he would begin
consultations with leaders of the other political formations without
dismissing the BJP's claim.
Meanwhile, Subramanian Swamy stepped up his efforts to widen the gulf
between Jayalalitha and the BJP. He accused the Rashtriya Swayamsevak
Sangh (RSS) of blocking his appointment as Finance Minister - for
which, he claimed, he was eminently qualified, given his teaching
experience in Harvard. Ramamurthy suggested that the BJP was paying
the price for taking its allies in Tamil Nadu for granted.
Subramanian Swamy refused to concede that the AIADMK-led grouping's
alliance with the BJP had broken down or that it would have to explore
other alternatives. He, however, said that he believed that the door
was open for talks with the Congress(I) and that he expected
Congress(I) leaders to open channels of communication with Jayalalitha
in the changed political context. Subramanian Swamy envisaged a grand
alliance, which would include the Congress(I), the AIADMK and its
allies, all the United Front constituents except the DMK, the Tamil
Maanila Congress and the Telugu Desam Party, a few other minor parties
and some independents. Senior Congress(I) leader Sharad Pawar was
reportedly in touch with Jayalalitha, seeking her support for a
Congress-led government.
In their meetings with the President, leaders of the Congress(I) and
the U.F. reportedly sought four days' time to hold consultations and
explore the possibility of forming an alternative government. This in
effect gave the BJP and the AIADMK an opportunity to patch up. But
even on March 13, Jayalalitha showed no signs of relenting. She denied
that she had insisted on the allotment of key portfolios for her
allies or the dismissal of the DMK government in Tamil Nadu as a pre-
condition for extending support.
However, she accused the BJP leadership of displaying a "negative
attitude" when she raised issues that were of importance to Tamil Nadu
at a meeting of the BJP and its allies in New Delhi on March 9 (see
separate story). BJP leaders, in turn, wondered why Jayalalitha had
not raised the issue when she addressed newspersons and expressed her
total and unconditional support to a BJP-led government after the
meeting. They said that while all her demands could be negotiated, the
manner in which she had raised them - on the eve of the President's
invitation to Vajpayee to form a government - was somewhat mystifying.
"We expected her to behave in a mature way," a senior BJP leader from
the South said.
Finally, on March 14, Jayalalitha announced her decision to forward
the letters of support to the President. Relieved, the BJP prepared to
send a senior emissary on behalf of Vajpayee to meet her on March 15
in Chennai. Senior BJP leader Jaswant Singh, who met her in Chennai on
March 15 and showed her a draft of the National Agenda, succeeded in
persuading her to drop her demand to give Subramanian Swamy a
ministerial post; he also got her to agree to the AIADMK, the PMK and
the TRC joining the Ministry.
The draft of the National Agenda incorporated, even if only in
somewhat vague terms, all her publicly stated demands.
WHAT explains the turnaround by Jayalalitha? AIADMK leaders in Delhi
explained that she was persuaded to fall in line and support the BJP
in view of the adverse criticism in the media holding her responsible
for blocking Vajpayee's assumption of office as Prime Minister.
Jayalalitha's decision that the AIADMK and some of its allies would
join the Ministry was prompted by the knowledge that the President was
unlikely to invite Vajpayee to form a government unless these allies,
which command a combined strength of 27 MPs in the Lok Sabha, were
ready to join the Government.
On March 15, after Jayalalitha announced in Chennai that the AIADMK,
the PMK and the TRC would join the Government, the President contacted
the AIADMK's Parliamentary Party leader, G. Swaminathan.
He indicated that only if all the constituents of a coalition
participated in the government would the coalition remain cohesive; he
further indicated that his decision on whether to invite Vajpayee to
form a government would hinge on this.
Shortly after receiving her confirmatory message, the President
appointed Vajpayee Prime Minister and set March 19 as the date of the
swearing-in of the government. He also asked Vajpayee to seek a
confidence vote in the Lok Sabha by March 29.
Significantly, the President did not consider it necessary to insist
on a commitment from the Trinamul Congress, a member of the BJP-led
alliance, that it would participate in the government. The Trinamul
Congress has only seven MPs in the Lok Sabha, whereas the AIADMK-led
combine has 27 members.
In a communique issued on the night of March 15, in which he detailed
the consultation process he had initiated since March 10, the
President referred to Congress(I) president Sonia Gandhi's reported
remarks to newspersons that the party did not have the numbers to form
a government.
He also took into consideration the Telugu Desam Party's stand -
ascertained in a telephonic discussion with its leader N. Chandrababu
Naidu - that the party would remain neutral during the vote of
confidence.
It was these two factors that finally convinced the President that a
Vajpayee-led Government would be able to secure the confidence of the
House.
India's National Magazine
From the publishers of THE HINDU
Vol. 15 :: No. 07 :: Apr. 4 - 17, 1998
http://www.hinduonnet.com/fline/fl1507/15071180.htm
India's National Magazine
From the publishers of THE HINDU
Vol. 15 :: No. 10 :: May 09 - 22, 1998
COVER STORY
Dealing with Jayalalitha
After the Jaswant Singh-Jayalalitha meeting, the AIADMK has fallen
silent; Subramanian Swamy, however, has stepped up his offensive
against the BJP.
T.S. SUBRAMANIAN
in Chennai
GOING by the current mood in BJP circles in Tamil Nadu, the party will
adopt a tough stand with respect to the All India Anna Dravida
Munnetra Kazhagam (AIADMK). AIADMK general secretary Jayalalitha will
now have to choose between the BJP and Janata Party leader Subramanian
Swamy. The BJP is said to have indicated to her that she would have to
make her choice before the Budget session of the Lok Sabha begins on
May 27. BJP sources in Chennai told Frontline that the party would not
accept Subramanian Swamy's presence in the AIADMK-led front in Tamil
Nadu if he continued to say that he would topple the Vajpayee
Government.
BJP leader Jaswant Singh flew in from Delhi and met Jayalalitha at her
Payyanoor retreat, 60 km from Chennai, on April 25. Sources said that
Jaswant Singh did some "plain talking". He apparently told Jayalalitha
that the BJP would not accept her three major demands: dismissal of
the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) Government in Tamil Nadu; the
removal of Ram Jethmalani and Ramakrishna Hegde from the Union
Cabinet; and action against a private television channel based in
Chennai. The sources added that Jaswant Singh ruled out a place for
Subramanian Swamy in the coordination committee. He also told her to
put an end to attacks by some AIADMK functionaries on Jethmalani and
Hegde.
Jaswant Singh met Jayalalitha against the background of a slanging
match between Jethmalani and Hegde on the one hand and AIADMK
Ministers at the Centre, M. Thambi Durai, R. Janarthanan and R.K.
Kumar, on the other. The row followed the April 8 resignation of Union
Surface Transport Minister Sedapatti R. Muthiah of the AIADMK after a
Chennai court framed charges against him in a case of acquisition of
assets disproportionate to his known source of income during his
tenure as the Speaker of the Tamil Nadu Assembly from July 1991 to
October 1994.
VINO JOHN
Jaswant Singh outside Jayalalitha's Payyanoor Bungalow retreat near
Mamallapuram.
The situation worsened a week later. After a meeting of the AIADMK
executive committee on April 15, Jayalalitha demanded that all Union
Ministers who were charge-sheeted in corruption cases resign or be
dismissed by the Prime Minister. The next day, Jethamalani and Hegde
strongly criticised her and predicted that these "pinpricks" would end
soon.
On April 18 Jayalalitha wrote to Vajpayee naming three Ministers -
Communications Minister Buta Singh, Urban Development Minister
Jethmalani and Commerce Minister Hegde - as being involved in cases of
corruption and demanding their removal or the re-induction of Muthiah.
On April 19 Jethmalani again launched a broadside against Jayalalitha.
He took on Subramanian Swamy too. "It is clearly Dr. Subramanian Swamy
who is pushing her into making all these wild demands," he said. Hegde
wanted Vajpayee to go in for fresh elections instead of giving in to
Jayalalitha's "blackmail". In reply, Thambi Durai, Kumar and
Janarthanan, in a statement on April 23, asked Vajpayee to "advise Mr.
Hegde to either shut up or get out."
It was at this stage that the BJP high command intervened and sent
Jaswant Singh to meet Jayalalitha. Jaswant Singh had earlier come in
March to placate her when she delayed giving the letters of support
that would enable Vajpayee to form the government. BJP sources said
that this time Jaswant Singh made it clear that junior Ministers of
the AIADMK should not speak out of turn. If the AIADMK leadership had
something to say, Jayalalitha should be the one to say that, he said.
He also advised her against rushing to the media. The BJP high command
was annoyed that her letter to Vajpayee had been released to the
media.
Jaswant Singh was reportedly categorical about the BJP's decision not
to invoke Article 356 to dismiss the DMK Government. A senior BJP
source said: "We are tightening the screws. The idea is that this war
of words cannot go on... You will find a change from now on."
There was no word from Jayalalitha about the meeting. Sources in
Chennai indicated that there was no meeting ground between Jayalalitha
and Jaswant Singh. Jaswant Singh, however, claimed that the "mission
was a success". On the welter of charges and counter-allegations made
by Union Ministers, he said that the Prime Minister "will take such
action as he deems fit and proper."
The same day K.L. Sharma said in New Delhi that Subramanian Swamy
would not be included in the coordination committee because he had
failed to vote for the Government in the vote of confidence.
WHETHER by accident or design, a DMK executive meeting presided over
by Chief Minister M. Karunanidhi on April 25 condemned the demand for
the dismissal of the Government that emanated from an "enemy party"
and Union Ministers belonging to it as "blatant blackmail" and "devoid
of any merit at all". It added that the demand was made "to subserve
their vested interests, with palpable mala fides in order to avoid
accountability to the courts of law in the pending cases of
corruption."
The resolution also condemned the transfer of Union Special Secretary
for Home Ashok Kumar, one of two officials sent as part of the Central
team to study the law and order situation in Tamil Nadu, and said that
this was done because he told the "truth". The resolution said that
this approach amounted to "burying" federalism and marked a
"dictatorial trend in interfering in the State Government's affairs."
The resolution added: "In the event of any such proclamation (for
dismissal) being made in Delhi because of the blackmail of the vested
interests," it would be "resisted by constitutional, lawful and
peaceful methods in courts of law." The executive committee appealed
to all democratic forces "to support this resistance movement."
When a reporter asked Karunanidhi whether the resolution was driven by
the fear that his Government would be dismissed, he said: "This is
only a reply to the threats from some terrorists in Poes Garden."
The Chief Minister called the resolution "an advance notice to the
Centre that it should not give room to some people who have been
trying to paralyse the administration and disrupt law and order by
repeatedly claiming that the DMK Government will be dismissed."
AFTER the Jaswant Singh-Jayalalitha meeting, AIADMK leaders fell
silent. However, Subramanian Swamy stepped up the offensive once it
was known that he was not welcome to the coordination committee. He
alleged on April 26 that the BJP citing his not having voted for the
Government was an "excuse" to exclude him from the coordination
committee. According to him, the real reason for the crisis was the
"asymmetrical application of the criterion" on who should be a Union
Minister. He said that while Muthiah was asked to resign, "tainted"
Ministers such as Hegde and Advani were allowed to continue. Advani's
crime - he was charge-sheeted in the Babri Masjid demolition case -
was not a "political crime", he said, but "a crime against humanity
and the integrity of the nation..."
Swamy met Jayalalitha in Chennai on April 27 and said that he was
"free to explore the possibility of creating an alternative, secular,
patriotic front" at the Centre. He declared that henceforth "in
national politics, I am a free bird." He claimed that Jayalalitha had
told him that Jaswant Singh "never discussed the matter" of his
exclusion from the coordination committee. Although he would consider
breaking away from the BJP-led alliance, he asserted that he continued
to be part and parcel of the AIADMK-led front in Tamil Nadu.
Jayalalitha, BJP sources said, was faced with a difficult situation.
"If Swamy remains in the AIADMK front in Tamil Nadu, then there is
nothing wrong in the BJP getting close to somebody who is against her,
such as the DMK. She has to choose between the BJP and Swamy."
Meanwhile, Subramanian Swamy has been busy floating the idea of a
secular front to oust the BJP-led coalition Government at the Centre.
He met Congress president Sonia Gandhi, Samajwadi Party president
Mulayam Singh Yadav and Rashtriya Janata Dal leader Laloo Prasad
Yadav. Meanwhile, Congress(I) leader Madhavrao Scindia met Jayalalitha
in Chennai, apparently in a bid to build bridges between his party and
the AIADMK.
Political analysts believed that Jayalalitha was left with "no
choice". She could not part company with the BJP because the stakes
involved were high - there were corruption cases pending against her
and her former Ministers, and breaking away from the BJP would weaken
her.
The response of the other constituents of the AIADMK-led front to
Swamy's challenge will have a bearing on Jayalalitha's future course
of action. Of the three of them - Marumalarchi Dravida Munnetra
Kazhagam (MDMK), the Pattali Makal Katchi (PMK) and the Tamizhaga
Rajiv Congress (TRC) - the PMK and the TRC are participants in the
Central Government. The PMK had indicated its position when its leader
S. Ramadoss hinted that his party would not play along with
Subramanian Swamy.
http://www.hinduonnet.com/fline/fl1510/15100120.htm
Swamy seeks Manmohan’s sanction to prosecute Raja
Special Correspondent
CHENNAI: Janata Party president Subramanian Swamy has sought the Prime
Minister’s sanction to prosecute Union Communications Minister A. Raja
in the wake of CBI raids on Sanchar Bhavan offices to investigate
alleged irregularities in spectrum allotment.
In a statement, Dr. Swamy said he filed a petition for sanction as
early as on November 29, 2008 with Dr. Singh, as required under the
Prevention of Corruption Act, to launch a criminal investigation
against Mr. Raja under Sections 11 and 13 of the Act.
The CBI raids made the granting of permission by Dr. Singh a “mere
formality,” Dr. Swamy said.
An independent case filed by him in the designated sessions court for
trying cases under the Act would be the best recourse for a fair trial
of the spectrum deals and the CBI investigation could supplement the
legal process, he said.
Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Saturday, Oct 24, 2009
ePaper | Mobile/PDA Version
http://www.thehindu.com/2009/10/24/stories/2009102461211000.htm
Sanatana Dharma Foundation Honors Dr Subramanian Swamy and Dr S.
Kalyanaraman for their Courageous Effort in Protecting the Historic
Rama Sethu Sanatana Dharma Foundation, Dallas, Texas organized its
first Hindu Unity Day, at the DFW Hindu Temple, in Dallas on the 19th
and 20th of July, 2008. Symbolizing Hindu Unity, Representatives of
Dallas Chapters of several organizations like the Art of living
Foundation, Ammachi Satsang, Hare Krishna ISCKON group, Gayatri
Parivar, Brahmakumaris, Carribbean Mandir, Chinmaya Mission, Hanuman
Temple, Sathya Sai groups, Datta Yoga Peetam and other prominent Hindu
personalities from the local Dallas-Fort Worth community in Texas,
were present at this unique event. Dr Subramanian Swamy's latest book
"Rama Sethu Symbol of National Unity" was released and distributed at
the Event, to key members of these organizations and other prominent
members of the community.
Rama Sethu Symbol of National Unity
Hindu Dharma Rakshaka Kshatriya Award
This award, a first of its kind, has been instituted to honor and
celebrate the 'Kshatriya Spirit', specifically the courage shown by
Hindus in taking risks and standing up to fight for the protection and
preservation of Dharma. The word Kshatriya is a Sanskrit word that
refers to the royal and noble class of Hindus who historically
defended their nation, and the Dharma of the land.
Rama Sethu Symbol of National Unity
Dallas, Texas (PRWEB) July 26, 2008 -- Dr Subramanian Swamy, PhD,
visiting professor of Economics, Harvard University and former Union
Law Minister of India, and Dr S. Kalyanaraman, Director, Saraswati
River Research Center, and President of Sri Rameshwaram Rama Sethu
Raksha Manch, received awards in Dallas, Texas for their courageous
effort in protecting the historic Rama Sethu, from being destroyed by
the Government of India in the name of a development project.
NASA Photograph of Rama Sethu
Rama Sethu is the original Sanskrit name given to a bridge built by
the legendary King Rama, who crossed over to Sri Lanka from India to
fight the King of Lanka, Ravana, recover his wife Sita, and restore
Dharma (Order) in the land of India. While it is difficult to
establish the exact historical age of these events, the bridge is
thought to be at least 5000 years old, if not much older, making it
the oldest causeway built across an ocean channel. The Rama Sethu is
referred to in numerous ancient Sanskrit texts and scriptures, as a
man made structure, and in recent times, it has been vividly
photographed by both NASA and Indian Satellites.
When India fell under Colonial rule, the British renamed this
construction as "Adam's Bridge". The Government of India, in recent
years, has been trying to establish a Shipping Channel between India
and Sri Lanka, by breaking and destroying the continuity of this
ancient structure. Hindus in India and around the world have been
protesting and fighting this decision of the Government of India, and
have demanded that the Rama Sethu be declared a monument of historic
importance and a world heritage site. On May 8th, 2008, the Supreme
Court of India directed the Government of India to go back to the
drawing board to see if it can create an alternate shipping route, and
at the same time, study the Rama Sethu as a monument of historic
importance. It is yet to be seen if the Government of India will
comply with the Court's direction, and thereby uphold due
constitutional process, or continue on its path of destroying the Rama
Sethu, dis-regarding the Supreme court's direction.
Sanatana Dharma Foundation, (www.sdfglobal.org) a Dallas based Non-
Profit organization inspired by the Hindu Dharma Acharya Sabha,
(www.acharyasabha.org) the apex body of Hindus in India, presented the
"Hindu Dharma Rakshaka Kshatriya Award" to Dr Subramanian Swamy & Dr
S. Kalyanaraman on the occassion of the Hindu Unity Day organized at
the DFW Hindu Temple in Dallas, Texas on July 19, 2008. Speaking on
the occasion, the President of Sanatana Dharma Foundation, Kalyan
Viswanathan, said that "This award, a first of its kind, has been
instituted to honor and celebrate the 'Kshatriya Spirit', specifically
the courage shown by Hindus in taking risks and standing up to fight
for the protection and preservation of Dharma. The word Kshatriya is a
Sanskrit word that refers to the royal and noble class of Hindus who
historically defended their nation, and the Dharma of the land."
The Highlight of the Hindu Unity Day Event was the speech by Dr
Subramanian Swamy on his personal experiences during his defense of
Rama Sethu in the Supreme Court of India, which was greeted by a
spontaneous standing ovation. In presenting the "Hindu Dharma Rakshaka
Kshatriya" Award, his fearless defense in the Supreme Court of India,
getting a critical and timely stay order, the subsequent withdrawal of
the Government of India's petition, and the later Verdict of the
Supreme Court were all highlighted.
Dr S. Kalyanaraman made a scholarly presentation on the River
Saraswati, highlighting the recent research findings, the origins of
the Vedic civilization on the banks of River Saraswati and the fact
that it holds the central "Key" to the re-writing of the history of
India and re-establishing the real historicity of the Vedas. While
presenting the Award, his dedicated research in supporting the
struggle of the Rama Sethu, and his pioneering contributions in
researching and resurfacing the River Saraswati were lauded.
Symbolizing Hindu Unity, Representatives of Dallas Chapters of several
organizations like the Art of living Foundation, Ammachi Satsang, Hare
Krishna ISCKON group, Gayatri Parivar, Brahmakumaris, Carribbean
Mandir, Chinmaya Mission, Hanuman Temple, Sathya Sai groups and other
prominent Hindu personalities from the local Dallas-Fort Worth
community in Texas, were present at this unique event. Dr Subramanian
Swamy's latest book "Rama Sethu Symbol of National Unity" was released
and distributed at the Event, to key members of these organizations
and other prominent members of the community.
Smt. Ranna Jani, President, DFW Hindu Temple in Texas speaking on the
occassion on behalf of the Temple, thanked both Dr Subramaniam Swamy &
Dr S. Kalyanaraman for coming to Dallas and sharing their experiences
with the participants. On the second day, a workshop was organized,
where challenges facing Hinduism today, were discussed. Presentations
on the state of Hindu Temples in India, challenges posed by
Christianity and Islam were also discussed. The session was very
interactive, and educational, as per the feedback received.
http://www.prweb.com/releases/Sanatana/Dharma/prweb1146784.htm
CHENNAI, January 22, 2010 Swamy against Nalini’s release
Special Correspondent
Janata Party president Subramanian Swamy calling on Tamil Nadu
Governor Surjit Singh Barnala at the Raj Bhavan in Chennai on
Thursday. Photo: Special Arrangement
Janata Party president Subramanian Swamy on Thursday met Tamil Nadu
Governor Surjit Singh Barnala and urged him not to sign any
recommendation of the State government for freeing Nalini Sriharan, a
life convict in the Rajiv Gandhi assassination case.
Dr. Swamy told the Governor that the issue pertaining to premature
release of Nalini was still pending before the Madras High Court, and
any decision on the issue would amount to contempt of court.
He also made a mention before the First Bench to expedite the hearing
of his writ appeal in the matter.
Later speaking to journalists, Dr. Swamy said that he came to know
from a section of the media that the review board had reportedly
decided to release Nalini.
He said that he had mentioned before the bench comprising Chief
Justice H.L. Gokhale and K.K. Sasidharan that any decision of the
board would render infructuous his appeal against the single judge
order to the State government to reconstitute the board to decide the
case of Nalini.
The Chief Justice had asked him to file an application to the High
Court Registry for speeding up his appeal, he said.
He said the constitution of the board itself was illegal. He planned
to move for restoration of death penalty for Nalini. He said the State
government had earlier said that it would oppose the premature
release, now it cannot go back on its stand.
http://beta.thehindu.com/news/national/article87758.ece
Hindu's under SIEGE
aumprakash
January 14, 2007
it's fromt the talk given by Dr.subramanya swamy on the day of his
book relese "hindu's under siege- the way out" http://www.kksfusa.org/
it's fromt the talk given by Dr.subramanya swamy on the day of his
book relese "hindu's under siege- the way out"
http://www.kksfusa.org/
Hindu's under SIEGE
3:13
Added: 3 years ago
From: aumprakash
Views: 3,128
All Comments (30 total)
Loading...nazimquraishi (1
politicians since nehru and including him (the pundits alinged with
the raja of kashmir, who wanted kashmir to not be free like rest of
india)
found themselves out of power. so they figured out a formula to get
back in power in the democratic structure of india and it worked.
so wake the f up (my indians) my hindus. politicians are only about
themselves and their ideas. Not about you.
nazimquraishi (1 week ago) Hindu was a generic term used to refer to
anyone who lives south of hindukush mountains and south of Hindu River
(Indus per the brits).
Hindu = citizen of hindustan, indian = citizen of india & french =
citizen of france.
Prior to monotheism most countries were polytheists.Ancestors of
Indian Muslims were polytheists too.
The confusion between religion and nationality was caused and
encouraged by the british after they realized what a rebellion like in
1857 could do to them.
anirudhnandan (10 months ago) Comment removed by author
raghaa (3 weeks ago) thats what they learnt from birtish my friend.
What will a poor hindu will do if there is no basic fullfilment? he
will convert into christian. its happening right now ;)
winnerji (11 months ago) When his lips are pronouncing HINDUS...it's
all about only Brahmins....Will he do anything for Dalith
people....is he considering Dalith as Hindus.....?????? FRAUD....
NanakLove (1 year ago) stand up for dharma my brothers. the 9th Sikh
Guru even gave his life for kashmiri pundits.
ndshastri (1 year ago) Show S.Swamy orkut comm
search :::::: Sri Subramanian Swamy
Metaemipricus (1 year ago) Christian Evangelists, Islamic Jihadis and
leftist naxal terrorists - the three most violent sectarian cults have
come together to destroy India. Wake up Hindus.
Comment(s) marked as spam Show
Comment(s) marked as spam Hide
nmohan101 (1 year ago) this guy is a racist; Hinduism in not under
siege...
dd1857 (1 year ago) who say not.. Every where that is the case..
Christanity and Muslims...are book based.. attacking all
kafirpandit (1 year ago) Hindus are the bravest people on the earth.
All Muslims and Christian missionaries should be thrown out of
Bharatvarsh.
tonyshit80 (11 months ago) I saw Muruga last week, he motion less
pls help him my dear friends
TAPS711 (1 year ago) Leave the Hindus alone. They have a right to
believe what they want. They are peaceful people.
tonyshit80 (11 months ago) No, I will not allows the such things
happen....
Radian1991 (1 year ago) Hindu Society has been suffering a sustained
attack from Islam since the 7th century, from Christianity since the
15th century, and this century also from Marxism. The avowed objective
of each of these three world-conquering movements, with their massive
resources, is the replacement of Hinduism by their own ideology, or in
effect: the destruction of Hinduism.-Dr.Koenraad Elst
Comment(s) marked as spam Show
Comment(s) marked as spam Hide
arnotkaling (1 year ago) swamy bastard should be shot. He supports
sinhala terrosm in sri lanka. he fully supported indian terrost
invasion of sri lanka.
NanakLove (1 year ago) not just hindu's but sikhs too..we gotta stand
up together brothers
TAPS711 (1 year ago) You are right.
emperor0989 (1 year ago) sikhs are hindus only, and hindus are sikhs.
we are cousins, if not brothers.
haridham (1 year ago) Show Hide 0 Marked as spam Reply lol
haridham (1 year ago) Show Hide 0 Marked as spam Reply watch?
v=XcFA8iSXf2c
EXChristian0 (2 years ago) Excellent video clip! Thanks! DOWN WITH
ANTI-HINDU ELEMENTS (anti-hindu govt, pseudo-secular anti-hindu
media, Christlamist Communist thugs, deceitful and cunning missionary
pests). Come on Hindus, WAKE UP, UNITE AND FIGHT FOR DHARMA! Jai Hind!
EXChristian0 (2 years ago)
DOWN WITH ANTI-HINDU ELEMENTS (anti-hindu govt, pseudo-secular anti-
hindu media, Christlamist Communist thugs, deceitful and cunning
missionary pests, ISLAMIC jihadis etc). Come on Hindus, WAKE UP, UNITE
AND FIGHT FOR DHARMA! Jai Hind!
chocolayer (2 years ago)
Aumprakash a digital RSS propagandist. A muslim hater and non brahmin
hater. His lowly life is based on lies and he survived on lies.
humbleRaj (2 years ago)
Nice ideo Aumprakash Ji :)
badmashguy (2 years ago)
It might be true for Hinduism....but isn't it true for every other
religion too....
humbleRaj (2 years ago) Show Hide +3 Marked as spam Reply Nope,None
of American Politicians speak against christianity or None of The
leaders from Islamic Countries condemn Islam, but Indian politicians
abuse Hinduism in India.
Peenp (3 years ago)
I agree with you Aum.
http://www.youtube.com/comment_servlet?all_comments&v=IFU-iAP43M0&fromurl=/watch%3Fv%3DIFU-iAP43M0
Hinduism under siege, says Subramanian Swamy
Coventry, UK | December 07, 2005 8:11:13 PM IST
http://news.webindia123.com/news/showdetails.asp?id=184292&cat=India
Janata Party President and former Union Minister Dr. Subramanian Swamy
today told a large UK Hindu gathering at the Sri Krishna Temple here
that to combat the invisible and multi-dimensional siege against
Hinduism, all the Dharmacharyas of Hindu religion must come together
in a formal body with a permanent secretariat in New Delhi.
He said that Swami Dayananda Saraswati of Arsha Vidya Gurukulam, near
Coimbatore had already convened a Hindu Dharma Acharya Sabha in Mumbai
in mid-October last, and resolved to do so.
Dr. Swamy said that the siege has a religious dimension because of the
pernicious and subtle denigration of Hindu icons and Institutions such
as through filing bogus cases against the Kanchi Shankaracharya, a
psychological dimension by inculcating a confused mindset through a
one-sided secularism, a cultural dimension in propagating that Indians
are Caucasian invaders from beyond Afghanistan through the baseless
Aryan-Dravidian theory, and in the physical dimension by induced
conversions to Christianity and Islamic terrorism.
"Hindus are being driven out from their homelands in Kashmir,
Bangladesh and even Mau in UP, but the political leadership in India
lacks the virile mindset to challenge this denigration of Hindus in a
83 percent Hindu populated nation" he added.
Dr. Swamy further said that India is distinctive only because of it's
Hindu foundation and continuing civilisation. Hence India as Hindustan
means a nation of Hindus and those Muslims and Christians who accept
their ancestors are Hindus.
Parsis may have come from Persia but they accept Hindu culture as
their own. This is our Hindustani identity. Hence, those Christians
and Muslims who do not accept their ancestors as Hindus should go back
from where they came from or lose their voting rights.
Even Hindus who claim to be racially Aryans or Dravidians have no
place in Hindustan. In Rig Veda "Arya" only meant civilised, while
Dravida is a Sanskrit word coined by Adi Sankara to mean south India-
where three seas meet.
Dr. Swamy said that without demolishing the caste system a cogent
cohesive Hindu identity can not be forged. Hence the Acharya Sabha
should issue a nirdesh" (direction) that according to the Vedas and
Uttara Gita, varna and jati are not birth based but determined on
gunas (merits) and occupation.
"Varna is a choice not a compulsion," he added. (ANI)
http://www.nchtuk.org/content.php?id=288
December 21, 2008
Out of the box
By Subramanian Swamy
The India of today would not have been in existence had the attempts
to divide Hindus succeeded. In the 20th century, a sinister attempt to
divide the Hindu community on caste basis was made in 1932 when the
British imperialists offered the scheduled castes a separate
electorate.
What does the despicable terror and mayhem in Mumbai on November 26
signify for India? Shorn of the human tragedy, wanton destruction, and
obnoxious audacity of the terrorists, it signifies a challenge to the
identity of India from radical Islam. Cinema actor Shahrukh Khan may
wax eloquent about the ?true Islam? on TV, but it is clear that he and
other such Muslims have not read any authoritative translations of the
Koran, Sira and Hadith which three together constitute Islam as a
theology, and which is a complete menu of intolerance of peoples of
other faiths derisively labeled as kafirs. Hence, instead of talking
about the ?correct interpretation? of Islam they ought instead be
urging for a new Islamic theology consistent with democratic
principles.
In 2003, two years after the 9/11 murderous and perfidious Islamic
assault on USA, resulting in killing of more than 3000 persons within
two hours, and which was perpetrated by leveraging the democratic
freedoms in USA, the Saudi Arabian Embassy in the website of its
Islamic Affairs Department [www.iad.org] laid down what a ?good?
Muslim is expected to do. Dr. Steven Stalinsky of the Middle East
Media Research Institute[MEMRI] based in Washington DC accessed it and
published it in issue No.23, of the Institute newsletter, dated
November 26[what irony!] 2003. I have to thank a NRI in US, Dr.
Muthuswamy for this reference. In that site it is stated:
?The Muslims are required to raise the banner of Jihad in order to
make the Word of Allah supreme in this world, to remove all forms of
injustice and oppression, and to defend the Muslims. If Muslims do not
take up the sword, the evil tyrants of this earth will be able to
continue oppressing the weak and helpless?
Now who is more authoritative?Sharukh Khan or Saudi Arabia ? Obviously
the latter. The above quote is what in substance is being taught in
every madrassa in India, and can be traced back to the sayings of
Prophet Mohammed. I can quote a plethora of verses from a Saudi
Arabian translated Koran [e.g., verses 8:12, 8:60, and 33:26] which
verses justify brutal violence against non-believers. If I delved into
Sira and Hadith for more quotes, then I could risk generating much
hatred, so it will suffice to say that Islam is not only a theology,
but it spans a brutal political ideology which we have to combat
sooner or later in realm of ideas.
Some may quote back at me verses from Manusmriti about brutality to
women and scheduled castes. But as a Hindu I have the liberty to
disown these verses [since it is a Smriti] and even to seek to re-
write a new Smriti as many, for example, Yajnavalkya have done to
date. Reform and renaissance is thus inbuilt into Hinduism. But in
Islam, the word of the Prophet is final. Sharukh Khan and other gloss
artists cannot disown these verses, or say that they would re-write
the offensive verses of the Koran. If they do, then they would have to
run for their lives as Rushdie and Taslima have had to do. Leave alone
re-writing, if anyone draws a cartoon of Prophet Mohammed, there will
follow world-wide violent rioting. But if Hussein draws Durga in the
most pornographic posture, the Hindus will only groan but not
violently rampage.
We Hindus have a long recognised tradition of being religious liberals
by nature. We have already proved it enough by welcoming to our
country and nurturing Parsis, Jews, Syrian Christians, and Moplah
Muslim Arabs who were persecuted elsewhere, when we were 100 per cent
Hindu country.
Moreover, despite a 1000 years of most savage brutalisation of Hindus
by Islamic invaders and self-demeaning brain washing by the
Christians, even then, Hindus as a majority have adopted secularism as
a creed. We have not asked for an apology and compensation for these
atrocities. But the position of Hindus in this land of Bharatmata,
where Muslims and Christians locally are in majority, in pockets?such
as in Kashmir and Nagaland, or in small enclaves such as town
panchayats of Tamil Nadu, is terrible and despicable. Even in Kerala
where Hindus are 52 per cent of the population, they have only 25 per
cent of all the prime jobs in the state, and are silently suffering
their plight at the hands of 48 per cent who vote as a vote bank.
The 26/11 Mumbai slaughter therefore should teach us Hindus that the
time has come to wake up and stand up?it is now or never. If we do not
stand up now to Islamic terrorism, then India will end up like Beirut,
a permanent battlefield of international terrorists, buccaneers,
pirates and missionaries.
What does it mean in the 21st century for Hindus to stand up ? I mean
by that a mental clarity of the Hindus to defend themselves by
effective deterrent retaliation, and also an intelligent co-option of
other religious groups into the Hindu cultural continuum.
Mental clarity can only come if we are clear about the identity of the
nation. What is India? An ancient but continuing civilisation or is it
a geographical entity incorporated in 1947 by the Indian Independence
Act of the British Parliament ? What then does it mean to say ?I am an
Indian?? A mere passport holder of the Republic of India or a
descendent of the great seers and visionaries of more than 10,000
years ? Obviously our identity should be of a nation of an ancient and
continuing Hindu civilisation, legatees of great rishis and munis, and
a highly sophisticated sanatana philosophy.
If Hindu culture is our defining identity then how can we co-opt non-
Hindus, especially Muslims and Christians ? By persuading them by
saam, dhaam, bheda and dand that they acknowledge with pride the truth
that their ancestors are Hindus. If they do, it means that they accept
Hindu culture and enlightened mores. That is, change of religion does
not mean change of culture. Then we should treat such Muslims and
Christians as part of our Brihad Hindu family.
Noted author and editor M.J. Akbar calls this identity as of ?Blood
Brothers?. It is an undeniable fact that Muslims and Christians in
India are descendents of Hindus. In a recent article in the American
Journal of Physical Anthropology, an analysis of genetic samples [DNA]
show that Muslims in north India are overwhelmingly of the same DNA as
Hindus proving that Muslims here are descendents of Hindus who had
been converted to Islam, rather repositories of foreign DNA deposited
by waves of invaders.
Akbar thus asks rhetorically: ?When have the Muslims of India gone
wrong?? and answers: ?When they have forgotten their Indian roots?.
How apt ! Enlightened Muslims like Akbar therefore must rise to the
occasion and challenge the reactionary religious fundamentalists. That
is India is not Darul Harab to be trifled with. In a conciliatory
atmosphere the minorities would willingly accept this. It is also in
their interest to accept this reality. Hindus must persuade by the
time honoured methods Muslims and Christians to accept this and its
logical consequences.
This identity was not understood by us earlier because of the
distorted outlook of Jawaharlal Nehru who occupied the Prime Minister?
s chair for seventeen formative years after 1947 and for narrow
political ends, had fanned a separatist outlook in Muslims and
Christians.
The failure to date, to resolve this Nehru created crisis, has not
only confused the majority but confounded the minorities as well in
India. This confusion has deepened with winter migratory birds such as
Amartya Sen descending on the campus of the India International Centre
to preach inane taxonomies such as ?multiple identities?.
There has to be an over-riding identity called national identity, and
hence we should not be derailed by pedestrian concepts of multiple or
sub-identities.
?Without a resolution of the identity crisis today, which requires an
explicit clear answer to this question of who we are, the majority
will never understand how to relate to the legacy of the nation and in
turn to the minorities. Minorities would not understand how to adjust
with the majority if this identity crisis is not resolved. In other
words, the present dysfunctional perceptional mismatch in
understanding who we are as a people, is behind most of the communal
tension and inter-community distrust in the country.
?In India, the majority is the conglomerate or Brihad Hindu community
which represents about 81 per cent of the total Indian population,
while minorities are constituted by Muslims [13 per cent] and
Christians [3 per cent]. Sikhs, Jains, Parsis, and some other
microscopic religious groups, represent the remaining three per cent.
Though also considered minorities, but really are so close to the
majority community in culture that they are considered as a part of
Hindu society. Unlike Islam and Christianity, these minority religions
were founded as dissenting theologies of Hinduism. Even Zoroaster can
be traced to leader of Vahikas in Mahabharata who migrated to Persia.
Kaikeyi in Ramayana was from Persia when that country was hundred per
cent Hindu. Thus these religions share the core concepts with Hindus
such as re-incarnation, equality of all religions, and ability to meet
God in this life. That they feel increasingly alienated from Hindu
society nowadays is also the consequence of India?s identity crisis
caused by British historians and their Indian tutees in JNU.
The India of today would not have been in existence had the attempts
to divide Hindus succeeded. In the 20th century, a sinister attempt to
divide the Hindu community on caste basis was made in 1932 when the
British imperialists offered the scheduled castes a separate
electorate. But shrewdly understanding the conspiracy to divide India,
Mahatma Gandhi by his fast unto death and Dr. Ambedkar by his
visionary rejection of separate electorate, foiled the attempt by
signing the Poona Pact.
But the possibility that such attempts at dividing India socially may
be made again in the future, a possibility that cannot be ruled out.
Indian patriots will have to watch such attempts very carefully.
Segmentation, fragmentation, and finally balkanisation have been part
of the historical process in many countries to destroy national
identity and thereby cause the political division of the nation
itself. Yugoslavia is a recent example of this, which has now been
divided into four countries, largely due to Islamic separatism and
Serbian over-reaction.
Virat Hindutva can be achieved in the first stage by Hindu
consolidation, that is achieved by Hindus holding that they are Hindus
first and last, by disowning primacy to their caste and regional
loyalties. This would require a renaissance in thinking and outlook,
that can be fostered only by patient advocacy and intellectual
ferment.
For this we need a new History text, and a proper understanding of the
distinction between the four varnas [not birth based but by codes of
behavior for devolution of power in society] and jati [which is birth
based and mostly for marriages]. Just as Valmiki and Vyasa are
regarded as Maharshis despite being of different jati from Parasuram,
hence Dr. Ambedkar should be called a Maharishi for his sheer depth of
knowledge of Indian history. That he had become bitter because of
Nehru systematically sidelining him is no reason not to do so.
India thus needs a Hindu renaissance today that incorporates modern
principles, e.g., of the irrelevance of birth antecedents, fostering
gender equality, ensuring equality before law, and accountability for
all. It is also essential to integrate the entire Indian society on
those principles, irrespective of religion. Uniform Civil Code for
example, is something that the vast majority of Muslim women want, but
because this demand has been usurped by those who deny the equality of
nationality to the Muslims, hence comes the resistance to a eminently
reasonable value. The Muslims think that this is the first step in
several to subjugate them or wipe out their identity. But Muslims have
quietly accepted Uniform Criminal Code [the IPC] despite that it
contradicts the Sharia.
In other words, Hindutva has two components?one that Hindus can accept
[such as caste abolition, eradication of dowry etc.] without any other
religion?s interests to consider. The other is the embracing by
minorities of the core secular Indian values which have Hindu roots.
This would require, particularly Muslims and Christians, to
acknowledge that their ancestry is Hindu, and thus own the entire
Hindu past as their own legacy, and to thus tailor their outlook on
that basis. This would integrate Indian society and make the concept
of an inclusive[Brihad] Hindutva and rooted in India?s continuing
civilisation.
Thus, if India has to decide to have or not have good relations with
Israel, Pakistan, Iran or US, it cannot be on the basis how it will
impact on India?s Muslims and Christians, but on what India?s national
interests require. If India has to dispatch troops to Afghanistan,
Iraq, Sri Lanka or Nepal to combat terrorism, that policy too has to
be decided on what is good for India, and not what any religious or
linguistic group identifies as it?s interest.
Thus such an Hindutva is positive in outlook, while raw Hindu
xenophobia is negative and based on Hindu hegemony which will frighten
all. Such a Hindutva will resolve our current energy-sapping identity
crisis, which otherwise will completely emasculate India in the long
run. The choice for the patriotic Indian is thus clear: We need a
clear and positive view of our national identity based on our Hindu
past and a Hindu renaissance to unite the Hindus with constructive
mind-set as well as persuade the minorities to be co-opted culturally
with Hindu society.
Once being Indian means Virat Brihad Hindutva, we can tackle terrorism
by an effective strategy of defence. What are the components of that
strategy is the subject matter of my next column here.
(To be concluded)
http://www.organiser.org/dynamic/modules.php?name=Content&pa=showpage&pid=268&page=10
December 28, 2008
Out of the Box
Isolate and confront the rogue state, war no option
By Subramanian Swamy
Hindus and such Muslims and Christians together constitute the
Hindustan nation. All others are either permanent residents or
foreigners, but therefore should have no voting rights. NRIs abroad
who also acknowledge to be of Hindustani descent can be permitted to
be voters in India.
Since the UPA chairperson Sonia Gandhi has yet not condemned Pakistan
for allowing its territory to be used by ?non-state actors?, such a
Commission is all the more necessary. Pakistan cannot be allowed to
wash its hands off responsibility in this by silence of those who are
paid to speak in Parliament by the tax-payer on behalf of the Indian
nation.
Coming back to the question of retaliation for the Mumbai 26/11
attack, I advocate US-Israel-India coordinated aerial strikes at all
the prominent training bases of the LeT and JeM in PoK, which action,
since it is on a part of India, will not mean an act of war, whatever
Pakistan may think. This is the mirror-image of the argument that
Pakistan itself has used while invading India in 1999 in the Kargil
sector i.e., since they consider J&K not a part of India, hence
Pakistan can invade it!
Terrorist attacks such 26/11 Mumbai carnage can be deterred only by
effective retaliation which will serve as a deterrence against future
attacks. What is an effective retaliation for the 26/11 attacks ? In
my view, it is bombing of LeT camps in Pakistan and Pakistan-held
territories. That means war declared by Pakistan. War is however a
terrible event in human affairs. It is against the finer and civilised
instinct of the human being and a temporary triumph of the base
emotions. Wars are imposed either on evil intentions or by
miscalculations. Civilised societies to survive have to be prepared
for such wars. My quick answer thus to the question whether war with
Pakistan is then inevitable is: Yes!
My substantive answer is that the war will be imposed on us anyway
whether we retaliate or not, by the compulsions of Pakistan?s polity,
and we should prepare for a formal war with that country which could
come anytime within the next four years. The terror genie is now out
of the bottle in Pakistan, and an informal ad hoc proxy war is already
on between India and Pakistan through Pak-trained terrorists. It
cannot be ended without a decisive formal war. We cannot also go on
bleeding like we have during last 20 years, each occasion at the time
and place of choosing of the terrorists of Pakistan. To top it all, we
are being dished out Pakistan?s inane argument on the need providing ?
proof?, by a government which is a puppet of the trainers of these
terrorists.
Unlike the 1965, 1971, and 1999 wars with Pakistan, this time we
should first prepare instead react by reflecting on who are our real
allies in this coming war, and what the post-war situation of a
destructed and disarmed Pakistan should be. In 1971, USSR was claimed
to be our ally, but it would not let us smash the West Pakistan
military machine when the Pakistan army was on all fours on the
floor.
This time, because of nuclear weapons on both sides, the war has to be
decisive. Pakistan must be sanitized and/or further dismembered beyond
recognition. The new Pakistan or the former Pakistans must be led by
those who understand India?s retaliatory capacity.
One thousand years of the foreign invasions of this land have proved
that Hindus will not submit, no matter what the tribulation and
personal tragedy. Iran, Babylonia, Turkey, Egypt and others of the
Middle East had in contrast submitted and became majority Muslim
countries within a few decades. But Hindus as a whole, despite 1000
years of brutality and impoverishment, have stood defiantly. In Akhand
Hindustan, we are still 75 per cent of the total population despite
all the atrocities.
But now defiance is no more enough. Now we must decisively and finally
settle the issue and defeat our centuries? old tormentors and the
violent theology behind it.
In my last column I had stated that Islamic terrorism cannot be fought
unless we adopt a virat brihad Hindutva concept of identity for
Indians, which identity I defined as the mindset of Hindus, who are
proud of their Hinduness, and ready to co-opt Muslims and Christians
as blood brothers and sisters if they too proudly acknowledge the
truth that their ancestors are Hindus and that despite change of
religion their culture does not change [Culture is a secular concept
defined on the myriad of human relations and attitudes].
Hindus and such Muslims and Christians together constitute the
Hindustan nation. All others are either permanent residents or
foreigners, but therefore should have no voting rights. NRIs abroad
who also acknowledge to be of Hindustani descent can be permitted to
be voters in India.
This mindset in responding to terror must focus on retaliation as a
deterrent against terrorism, which is the real meaning of ?zero
tolerance? for terrorism. The retaliation cannot be confused with
vengeance but has to be defined as effective actions to nullify the
political objectives of the patrons of terrorists.
What is, for example, the retaliation for the 26/11 terrorist attack
on Mumbai? Or for that matter, the ?menu? of retaliation for all the
terrorist attacks since 1989 beginning with when 500,000 Hindus and
Sikhs were driven out by terrorists from the Kashmir valley?
The retaliation has to be tailored in each terrorist attack to nullify
the political objective of the patrons which objective motivates that
attack.
In the 26/11 attack, the political objective was to demonstrate to the
world that India is a wobbly, flabby, and corrupt country that cannot
defend itself, that anyone can bribe his way with Indians to achieve
his nefarious goal. Hence, they want to demonstrate that India is a
corroding civilisation, and unworthy being a reliable ally of any
country. That is why foreign tourists of friendly countries, such as
US and Israel, were chosen for murder.
The terror patrons of Pakistan have, in my opinion, achieved
substantially this objective by putting a question mark on our
integrity as a people. How could such an operation, foreigners now
ask, be put through without the intelligence having a clue? Is it
because India ignored timely US intelligence of September that made
the LeT postpone its dastardly project scheduled of September 27th to
26/11?
The truth is more bizarre: Intelligence Bureau and RAW did know, but
the information was not acted on by the Maharashtra government. Why?
It is rubbish to say that the information was not ?actionable?, i.e.,
not specific enough to take counter measures. I have had access to
some of the intelligence supplied to the Maharashtra government, some
of it are dated two years ago, which disproves this claim.
One such advisory actually states that LeT-trained terrorists
numbering about a dozen are likely to enter from the sea in the
Gateway area, and take control of high profile targets such as hotels!
Is this not actionable? Or was the Maharashtra Police prevented from
taking action by Ahmed Patel on behalf of Sonia Gandhi as alluded to
by former Chief Minister of the state, Mr. Narayan Rane?
I thought therefore the Opposition in Parliament would have demanded
at least a Commission of Inquiry headed by a sitting judge of the
Supreme Court to go into all the lapses. Instead they wallowed in
talking of national unity. This is not the time to talk of unity with
the government. We are not yet in a formal war to need to talk of
unity with the government. A horrible incident had taken place, and it
is over now. Hence, it is the duty of the Opposition to put the
government in the dock, and at least demand a Commission to go into
the lapses. When a formal war is launched we can at that stage unite
with the government in a show of unity.
But not now. Since the UPA chairperson Ms. Sonia Gandhi has yet not
condemned Pakistan for allowing its territory to be used by ?non-state
actors?, such a Commission is all the more necessary. Pakistan cannot
be allowed to wash its hands off responsibility in this by silence of
those who are paid to speak in Parliament by the tax-payer on behalf
of the Indian nation.
Considering that the first employer in London in 1965 of Ms. Sonia
Gandhi was a Pakistani called Salman Thassir, a dubious business
magnate with perhaps ISI connection, and that the guest of honour at
the select gathering of just 35 invitees to her daughter Priyanka?s
wedding, was Farida accompanied by her husband Munir Ataullah, both
known bag persons of prominent Pakistan politicians with ISI
connections, hence, it is a matter of concern that Ms. Sonia Gandhi
has not condemned Pakistan for the 26/11 attack, and in fact she has
not condemned even one terrorist attack starting Mumbai 1993.
Coming back to the question of retaliation for the Mumbai 26/11
attack, I advocate US-Israel-India coordinated aerial strikes at all
the prominent training bases of the LeT and JeM in PoK, which action,
since it is on a part of India, will not mean an act of war, whatever
Pakistan may think. This is the mirror-image of the argument that
Pakistan itself has used while invading India in 1999 in the Kargil
sector i.e., since they consider J&K not a part of India, hence
Pakistan can invade it!
The US and Israel will probably not agree at present to help in a
military strike since India has never come to the assistance of US or
Israel in their hour of grief. In fact when on the day Saddam Hussein
was toppled in 2003, a joint BJP-Congress resolution was passed by the
Lok Sabha condemning US ?imperialism? in Iraq! Nor have we ever
offered Israel help whenever a terrorist attack took place in that
country?
Hence, to get the US and Israel effectively on our side in this war on
terror, we too have to commit to help them in this war, not merely by
ministers paying a visit to Washington and waxing eloquent about
being ?natural allies?. For all their duplicity, Pakistan under
Musharraf in contrast had made a world of difference to the US in its
war on terror. Hence the soft corner for Pakistan in US and Europe.
For example, when New York Times reporter Daniel Pearl?s throat was
slit by LeT, the Pakistan government caught the mastermind Omar Sheikh
[whom we had released in the IC hijack matter at Kandahar] and sent
him to Guantanomo prison without making noises about ?proof?. More Al
Qaeda leaders have been captured or killed by the US with the
cooperation of Pakistan than by direct action of the US. Nor can the
US keep the Taliban out of Afghanistan without the active support of
Pakistan. Hence, it is understandable that the US is in a catch-22
situation on Pakistan and we in India, if we want US cooperation, have
to concretely provide a way out of that.
If we strike at the terrorists camps in PoK, the various governments
of Pakistan cannot sit quiet. There are four other governments of
Pakistan besides one headed by Zardari. In addition to his government,
there is the Army government operating through the seven corp
commanders, the ISI government working abroad through fake currency
and beautiful women, the Mullah government through Friday prayers in
mosques and by brainwashing in madrasas, and the de facto Taliban
government in the frontier areas. Anyone of these four governments can
declare a war against India on the war cry of jehad, and the other
four will have to follow. So war is the outcome of any retaliatory
action of India.
http://www.organiser.org/dynamic/modules.php?name=Content&pa=showpage&pid=269&page=6
Opinion - Leader Page Articles
Defamation litigation: a survivor's kit
By Subramanian Swamy
The Supreme Court judgment in the Nakkeeran case is the main tool in
the survival kit for honest media and other critics of politicians
against libel litigation.
ON SEPTEMBER 17, the Tamil Nadu Government filed an affidavit in the
Supreme Court stating that it had ordered the withdrawal of 125
defamation cases filed against The Hindu and various other
publications. This is a tribute especially to The Hindu `parivar' for
showing guts and challenging the constitutionality of the cases filed
against its representatives. The Jayalalithaa Government chose
discretion over valour by not risking the Supreme Court striking down
the libel statute itself as unconstitutional. Rather than lose
permanently the weapon of state harassment of critics that defamation
law represents, the Government chose to back down.
This is the second time that the AIADMK State Government has directed
a carte blanche withdrawal of defamation cases. The first time was on
January 1, 1994 when the Tamil Nadu Government withdrew numerous
defamation cases filed against me in several Sessions Courts in the
State. The reason then was the same: the Supreme Court Bench of Chief
Justice M.N. Venkatachalaiah and Justice B.P. Jeevan Reddy had heard
extensive arguments from me as petitioner in person and the Tamil Nadu
Government counsel on the defamation law, and then orally asked why
the law should not be struck down. The Government counsel then asked
for time, and came back a week later to say that all the cases against
me had been withdrawn. Hence, the cause of action for my petition
disappeared, and my petition became infructuous. I was personally
relieved but the law survived for use on another day.
But Justice Jeevan Reddy, who had listened to me with great care, went
on to write a landmark judgment in the Nakkeeran case [1994] that
incorporated the core of my arguments and citations from the United
States Supreme Court and the United Kingdom's House of Lords. That
judgment today c. The judgment however needs to be developed further
by more decided cases further clarified by continued challenge to
state-sponsored defamation litigation that has become far too frequent
in the country, so that freedom of speech and expression can become
more deep and extensive than at present.
Under the Indian Constitution, the fundamental right to free speech
(Article 19) is subject to "reasonable restrictions." What is
reasonable is subjective in a society; it can only be developed to
some objectivity by cases decided in courts [`case law'] and according
to the political culture of the times. At present, reasonableness is
codified in two laws — first, in exceptions to criminal culpability
incorporated in Sections 499 and 500 of the British colonial statute
known as the Indian Penal Code (1870), and second, the limits to civil
liability incorporated as tort law. In India, defamation proceedings
can be initiated under either or both, together or in sequence. Most
democratic countries have however done away with the criminal law,
which is archaic and draconian. But India has not yet done so.
What is one to do if one receives a court summons for alleged
defamation? For example, I once received a summons from a Delhi court
because I had called a BJP leader, V.K. Malhotra, "an ignoramus." The
remark was made by me during the Lok Sabha proceedings, but lifted by
a sub-editor and inserted in a column I wrote for the magazine.
Under the law, I had to prove that it was true — or face imprisonment.
Now, how does one prove that a person is an ignoramus in a court of
law? Add to that the harassment I would have to suffer of travelling
to court at least 10 times a year for at least five years to attend
the case or face a warrant for my production in court. Or I would have
to engage a lawyer who would charge me a hefty sum. All this for a
mild rebuke of a political leader? The editor of the magazine decided
he could not stomach it, so he apologised for printing the remark. I
was left holding the bag.
However, I fought the case and won. Mr. Malhotra was directed to pay
me Rs.8,000 as compensation for my petrol bills, which he paid with
some reluctance. Now how did I do it?
I pulled out of my survival kit the first tool of defence: in a
defamation case, the aggrieved person must prove "publication," which
means Mr. Malhotra would have to prove first that I had, in the
original text given to the magazine, written what was printed. The
onus was on him to produce the original. Now which magazine keeps the
original? He failed to produce it and I won.
In a 1997 press conference, I made some charges against Chief Minister
M. Karunanidhi. He used Section 199 of the Criminal Procedure Code to
get the Public Prosecutor to file a defamation case. This meant the
contest in court was between me and the state, and not between me and
the Chief Minister personally. Thus the Government would spend the
money out of the public exchequer and use Government counsel to
prosecute me, a totally unequal contest and wholly unfair (even if
legal).
If Section 199 had not been there, the Chief Minister would have
personally been the complainant and I would have had the right to
cross-examine him. Now which busy politician would like that? Hence, I
pulled out the second tool in my survival kit. I filed an application
before the judge making the point that the alleged defamation related
to the personal conduct of the Chief Minister and not to anything he
did in the course of public duty. I argued that Section 199 would not
apply. Thereafter, the State Public Prosecutor quickly lost interest
in the case. Had the judge rejected my prayer, I would have gone in
appeal to the Supreme Court and got Section 199 struck down. But alas,
I could not.
In 1988 another Chief Minister, Ramakrishna Hegde, filed a suit
against me under tort law for Rs.2 crore damages for my allegation
that he was tapping telephones and using his office to benefit a
relative in land deals. Although ultimately, the Kuldip Singh
Commission and a parliamentary committee studying the Telegraph Act
upheld my contentions, I would have had a problem had the court
decided the case before these inquiry reports came out.
So I pulled out the third tool in my survival kit, namely the U.S.
Supreme Court case laws, the most famous of which was The New York
Times case decided in 1964. Contrary to popular impression, U.S. case
laws on fundamental rights are applicable to India following a Supreme
Court judgment in an Indian Express case in 1959.
Furthermore, since 1994, these U.S. case laws have become
substantially a part of Indian law, thanks to Justice Jeevan Reddy's
judgment in the Nakkeeran case.
The principle in these case laws, restricted to public persons suing
for damages, is wonderfully protective of free speech: if a person in
public life, including one in government, feels aggrieved by a
defamatory statement, then that person must first prove in court that
the defamatory statement is not only false, but that the maker of the
statement knew it to be false. That is, it must be proved by the
defamed plaintiff to be a reckless disregard of the truth by the
defamer defendant. This principle thus reversed the traditional onus
on the defamer to prove his or her allegation, and placed the burden
of proof on the defamed.
This reversal of burden of proof is just, essentially because a public
person has the opportunity to go before the media and rebut the
defamation in a way aggrieved private persons cannot do. If criticism
and allegations against a public person have to be proved in a court
of law, what is likely to happen is that public spirited individuals
will be discouraged and thus dissuaded from making the criticism. This
is what the U.S. Supreme Court in the famous New York Times case
characterised as a "chilling effect" on public debate; it held this to
be bad for democracy.
Hence the need to balance the protection of reputation in law with the
democratic need for transparency and vibrant public debate. The U.S.
Supreme Court admirably set the balance for freedom and democracy.
Since Mr. Hegde was an intelligent man, he recognised what my survival
strategy meant. He would have come on the stand in court. He would
have been examined and cross-examined on why what I said was not true,
and how he knew that I had known all along that my charges were false
and yet I made them. He therefore sent me a message one day wanting to
know if I would call it quits. So his defamation case went from one
adjournment to another, until it lapsed upon his death. Before his
passing, Hegde and I met. Both of us agreed that it was unwise for
politicians who have so much access to the media to rebut charges to
file defamation cases and waste the time of already overburdened
courts. I got the impression that some sharp lawyer was behind his
temporary loss of judgment in filing the case.
Today, with developing case laws, defamation litigation has become a
toothless tiger for politicians to use against the media. There are
enough dental tools in my survival kit to ensure this. I am therefore
writing a full Manual on how to expose dishonest politicians and get
away without being harassed in court. I hope honest critics will no
more hesitate to speak their minds about what they know to be the
truth even if they cannot prove this in court beyond a reasonable
doubt.
I am happy therefore that The Hindu chose to fight it out rather than
capitulate. More should follow its lead for a better democracy and a
freer media.
(The author, an economist, is a former Union Law Minister. As a rule
he argues his own cases in court without the agency of lawyers.)
http://www.hindu.com/2004/09/21/stories/2004092103551000.htm
Swamy fined for charge against Jaya
New Delhi, January 3
The Delhi High Court today imposed a fine of Rs 5 lakh on Janata Party
President and former Union Minister Subramaniam Swamy for levelling
charges against Tamil Nadu Chief Minister J. Jayalalithaa that she
knew about the plan of the LTTE to assassinate former Prime Minister
Rajiv Gandhi at Sriperumbudur in May 1991.
Mr Justice Pradeep Nandrajog said Mr Swamy had failed to establish
that Jayalalithaa had received information and money from the banned
LTTE for the assassination of Gandhi.
“The defendant (Swamy) had exceeded the limits of qualified privilege
as his statement was quite unconnected with and irrelevant to the
situation and suffers from redundancy of the expression,’’ said the
order.
The M.C. Jain Commission of Inquiry was constituted on August 23, 1991
by the Centre to look into the circumstances leading to the
assassination of Gandhi.
Appearing before the commission, Mr Swamy had said Ms Jayalalithaa was
tipped by the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) about the
assassination of Gandhi by its suicide bombers on April 17, 1991. —
UNI
http://www.tribuneindia.com/2006/20060104/nation.htm#16
December 03, 2006
Thinkpad
Basic Islam for Hindu Dhimmis
By Subramanian Swamy
Temples have been demolished in the Valley on a daily basis. The world
could not care less. An American had once told me: ?Why should we
care? Indian democracy is led by the majority who are Hindus and you
want us to talk about the human rights of the community of rulers??
We do not have much time, in fact about 45 years, as the X-graph of
statistical regressions estimated by J.S. Bajaj and colleagues shows. ?
X? represents the two trends?Hindu percentage declining and Muslim
percentage rising, and intersecting in the year 2061.
We Hindus must understand the true nature of Islam before we can
formulate a strategy to defeat those who threaten us.
Thanks to Shri Vedantamji of the VHP, I had visited Thondi and
Rasathipuram Municipalities of Ramanathapuram and Vellore districts
respectively, and was truly shocked by what I saw. Both these
municipalities are in Muslim-majority areas, and the local bodies
election had empowered the Muslims with their capture of the
municipalities.
The Muslim-ruled municipalities have thereafter converted these areas
into mini Dar-ul-Islams, in a Hindustan of 83 per cent Hindus! The
minority Hindu areas of the municipality were thus denied civic
amenities, funds for schools, garbage clearing etc., and sent notices
in Urdu. Hindus were bluntly told convert to Islam if they wanted
civic facilities.
I could not believe that in South India this was possible where Hindus
are actually above national average at 90 per cent of the population.
I know that in Kashmir Valley, Muslims who are in majority have
actively or passively connived in driving out half a million Hindus
out of their homes and made them refugees in their own country.
Temples have been demolished in the Valley on a daily basis. The world
could not care less. An American had once told me: ?Why should we
care? Indian democracy is led by the majority who are Hindus and you
want us to talk about the human rights of the community of rulers??
Such atrocities are happening not only in Kashmir, but in other parts
of India as well in pockets wherever Muslims are in majority, e.g.,
Mau and Meerut. In pocket boroughs of India, thus, Dar-ul-Islam has
today returned to India after two centuries. Considering that a
demographic re-structuring is slowly but surely taking place, with
Hindu majority shrinking everywhere, Dar-ul-Islam in pockets might
indeed, like amoeba, proliferate, coalesce, and jell into a
frightening national reality?unless we Hindus wake up and take
corrective action now, actions for which we shall of course not get a
Nobel Peace Prize.
Dar-ul-Islam is a Muslim religious concept of a land where Muslims
rule, and the non-believers in Islam are termed as Dhimmis. The term
Dhimmi was coined after the Jews were crushed in Medina [Khaybar to be
exact], and the defeated Jews accepted that if they did not convert to
Islam, then they would accept second-class status politically,
culturally, and religiously. This included zero civil rights including
the right to modesty of women, and the special tax jaziya.
There is thus no scope for Muslims and non-Muslims uniting as equals
in the political, cultural, or social system in a Dar-ul-Islam where
Muslims rule. Secular order in India thus is possible only when
Muslims are not in power. Thondi, Rasathipuram and other places prove
that the Muslim mind suffers from a dangerous duality?of seeking
secularism when out of power and imposing a brutal demeaning theocracy
for non-Muslims when in power.
It is this duality that patriotic Hindus must re-shape by modern
education and other means, as also retain its demographic overwhelming
majority in India. We do not have much time, in fact about 45 years,
as the X-graph of statistical regressions estimated by J.S. Bajaj and
colleagues shows. ?X? represents the two trends?Hindu percentage
declining and Muslim percentage rising, and intersecting in the year
2061.
The dhimmitude of Jews in Medina and later in Mecca represents the
beginning of religious apartheid inherent and basic to Islamic mores,
and practised long before what we saw in South Africa on the basis of
colour and race, and that which became prevalent during the Islamic
imperialist rule in parts of India. Hindus had been dhimmis for six
hundred years in those parts of India despite being a bigger majority
in the country than even today. Hence, a majority is not enough.
Hindus need also a Hindu mindset to be free.
In his presidential address to the Muslim League in Lahore in 1940,
Mohammed Ali Jinnah had articulated this concept of apartheid in his
own inimitable way:
?To visualise Hindus and Muslims in India uniting to create a common
nation is a mythical concept. It is only a fancy dream of some
unawakened Hindu leaders?. The truth is that Hindus and Muslims are
two different civilisations?. since their thought process grow on
different beliefs.?
Large sections of Muslims in India then had rejected Jinnah and his
concept of non-compatibility of Muslims with Hindus. But after
Independence and Partition, instead of building on this rejection by
many Muslims, the Nehru era saw increasing pandering precisely to the
religious element that believed in this apartheid. Indira Gandhi
vigorously continued this appeasement thereby nurturing the apartheid
mentality of Muslim orthodoxy.
But the final undermining of the enlightened Muslim came when the
government capitulated in the Shah Bano case. Thousands of Muslims had
demonstrated on the streets demanding that the government not bring
legislation that would nullify the Supreme Court?s judgment in the
Shah Bano case but in vain. Rajiv Gandhi, I learnt later, on counsel
from his Italian Catholic family, had surrendered to the hard line
clerics who protested that the Supreme Court had no right to interfere
and to de facto amend the Shariat, the Islamic law code. These
relatives on a directive from the Vatican thought that if secular law
would be applied to Muslims, it can be to the Christians too.
This was a nonsense argument of the Muslim clerics, since the Shariat
had already been amended, without protest, in the criminal law of
India. The Indian Penal Code represents the uniform criminal code that
equally applies to all religious communities. I therefore ask the
clerics: if a Muslim is caught stealing, can any court in India direct
that his hand at the wrist be cut off as the Shariat prescribes? If
Muslims can accept a uniform criminal code what is the logic in
rejecting the uniform civil code?
In India, Dhimmi status for Hindus during Islamic imperialist rule has
had other social implications. Defiant Brahmins and Kshatriyas, who
had refused to convert and chose to remain Hindus, were forced to
carry night-soil and suffer great indignities for their women folk. Or
it meant gross mental torture. Guru Tegh Bahadur, for example, had to
see his sons sawed in half, before the pious Guru?s own head was
severed and displayed in public.
The debasement of Hindu society then was such that those targeted
valiant Brahmins and Kshatriyas, who had refused to convert and thus
made to carry night-soil, were disowned by other Hindus and declared
to be asprashya or ?untouchable?. The ranks of the Scheduled Caste
community, which was not more than 1 per cent of the population before
the advent of Islam in India, swelled to 14 per cent by the time
Mughal rule collapsed.
Thus, today?s SC community, especially those who are still Hindus,
consists mostly of those valiant Brahmins and Kshatriyas who had
refused to become Muslims but preferred ostracization and ignominy in
order to remain Hindus. Hindu society today should offer koti koti
pranams to them for keeping the Bhagwa Dhwaj of Hindu religion flying
even at great personal cost and misery.
I have already written enough in these columns about Hindus being
under siege from Islamic fanatics and Christian proselytizers. I have
suggested that we can lift this siege only if we develop a Hindu
mindset, which is a four dimensional concept. But that mind must be
informed, and understand why others do what they do to Hindus before
we can defeat their nefarious designs. Here I suggest therefore that
we Hindus must understand the true nature of Islam before we can
formulate a strategy to defeat those who threaten us. In a later
column I will write about the true nature of Christianity and how to
combat the menace of religious conversions of Hindus.
At this juncture let me add even though I oppose conversion as
violence, as Swami Dayanand Sarasvati boldly wrote to the Vatican
Pope, nevertheless if an Indian Muslim or Christian changes his
religion to Hinduism today, I will not regard it as conversion because
it is a return to the Hindu fold of those whose ancestors had been
forcibly converted.
Unlike Hinduism, which says not a word against non-believers, in fact
says that other religions also lead to God, Islam is harsh on them,
and justifies violence against them as sacred. The choice to non-
believers in Islam is: convert or accept dhimmitude. Hence, the
explanation for Thondi, Rasathipuram, Mau etc., and the duality in
ethics practised by Muslims everywhere. A true Muslim is Dr. Jekyll
when in minority, and Mr. Hyde when in majority.
So what should we Hindus do? First, recognise that being a pious Hindu
is not enough. Hindus must unite and work to install a Hindu-minded
government. If 35 per cent of the 83 per cent Hindus unite to vote for
a party, absolute majority is attainable. If Hindu Dharma Acharya
Sabha, RSS, and VHP decide to mobilise the voter to support a party
that espouses an approved Hindu agenda, then the union government is
within reach through the ballot box. Second, search for those Muslims
who are ready to openly and with pride declare that their ancestors
were Hindus. My guess is that about 75 per cent of Muslims will be
ready to do so. These are the Muslims who can be co-opted by Hindus to
fight Islamic fundamentalism. If we do not do so, then the Muslim
clerics will have a free run of their fanaticism.
For this a required reading is Sri Sri Ravishankar?s Hinduism & Islam:
Dedicated to the People of Pakistan Who have Forgotten Their Own Roots
[www.artofliving.org]. In this Sri Sri Ravishankar has shown how ?
Muslims have completely forgotten that their forefathers were Hindus,
so they have every right to Vedic culture?. He in fact traces the pre-
Islam origins of the K?aaba. Third, invest heavily in primary
education to make it world class, ban the madrasas for any student
below 21 years, and make Sanskrit a compulsory language for all
students.
(The writer is a former Union Law Minister.)
http://www.organiser.org/dynamic/modules.php?name=Content&pa=showpage&pid=159&page=31