Ravan, though a Brahmin and well-educated, was punished by Lord Ram because of his ‘adharmic’ deeds. It’s a historic fact that Lord Ram was very impressed with Ravan’s knowledge and wisdom—which is why after defeating him, he praised Ravan and deputed brother Lakshman to seek the blessings of the dying Ravan.
The story goes that after shooting the fatal arrow on the battlefield of Lanka, Ram told his brother, Lakshman, “Go to Ravan quickly before he dies and request him to share whatever knowledge he can. A brute he may be, but he is also a great scholar”. The obedient Lakshman rushed across the battlefield to Ravan’s side and whispered in his ears, “Demon-king, do not let your knowledge die with you. Share it with us and wash away your sins”. Ravan responded by simply turning away.
An angry Lakshman went back to Ram, “He is as arrogant as he always was, too proud to share anything”. Ram comforted his brother and asked him softly, “Where did you stand while asking Ravan for knowledge?” “Next to his head so that I hear what he had to say clearly”. Ram smiled, placed his bow on the ground and walked to where Ravan lay. Lakshman watched in astonishment as his divine brother knelt at Ravan’s feet. With palms joined, and with extreme humility, Ram said, “Lord of Lanka, you abducted my wife, a terrible crime for which I have been forced to punish you. Now you are no more my enemy. I bow to you and request you to share your wisdom with me. Please do that for if you die without doing so, all your wisdom will be lost forever to the world”. To Lakshman’s surprise, Ravan opened his eyes and raised his arms to salute Ram, “If only I had more time as your teacher than as your enemy.
Standing at my feet as a student should, unlike your rude younger brother, you are a worthy recipient of my knowledge. I have very little time so I cannot share much but let me tell you one important lesson I have learnt in my life. Things that are bad for you seduce you easily; you run towards them impatiently. But things that are actually good for you fail to attract you; you shun them creatively, finding powerful excuses to justify your procrastination. That is why I was impatient to abduct Sita but avoided meeting you. This is the wisdom of my life, Ram. My last words. I give it to you”.
After these words, Ravan died.
Valmiki describes Ravan as the greatest devotee of Shiv. In many folk versions of the epic, such as Ram-kathas and Ram-kiritis, we are informed that Ravan composed the Rudra Stotra in praise of Shiv, the ascetic-God. He designed the lute known as Rudra-Veena using one of his 10 heads as the lute’s gourd, one of his arms as the beam and his nerves as the strings.
Because Symbolism Of Ravan “Ravan is depicted as the king of Raakshasas. He is said to have ten heads. He was not born with ten heads.
Who is this Ravan and what are his ten heads?
Kama (lust), Krodha (anger), Moha (delusion), Lobha (greed), Mada (pride), Maatsyasya (envy), Manas (mind), Buddhi (intellect), Chitta (will) and Ahamkara (the ego) - all these ten constitute the ten heads.
Ravan is of all the ten qualities. Such is the wisdom of Ravan, no wonder Ram asked Laxman to learn from him.
Ravan tells about Politics and Niti which mainly says
1- do not be enemy of your charioteer, your gatekeeper, your cook and your brother, they can harm you anytime
2- do not think you are always a winner, even if you are winning always
3- Always trust the minister, who criticises you
4- never think your enemy is small or powerless, like i thought for Hanuman
5- never think you can outsmart the stars, they will bring you what you are destined to
6- Either love or hate god but both should be immense and strong
Ravan taught him that a king who is eager to win glory must suppress greed as soon as it lifts its head, and welcome the smallest chance to do good to others, without the slightest procrastination. He (Ravan) had learnt the lesson through bitter experience. Greed arises from attachment to the senses and catering to them. Put them in their proper place; they are windows for knowledge, not channels of contamination. First of all: Ravan, Dashanan, was a Pandit (son of maharishi Podassiya brother of Kuber actual god of money). He became an Assur because of his Mother and he died because of his Ahankar. Ram said Lakshman to learn some important lessons of the ART of WAR and lessons of LIFE. Infact the most important lesson was: "Don't tell anyone your secrets, even to your Brother... And if he betrayled you don't forgive him".
Monday, August 23, 2010
Saturday, August 21, 2010
Sonia is KGB Agent
Such has been the patronage from the beginning extended to Sonia Gandhi and her Italian family from the Soviets. When a Prime Minister of India’s son dates a girl in London, the KGB which valued Indo-Soviet relations, would naturally investigate her. They had, and found out that she was the daughter of Stefano, their old reliable Italian contact. Thus, Sonia married to Rajiv, meant deep access for the Soviets, into the household of the Indian Prime Minister. Hence cementing the Rajiv-Sonia relations was in the Soviet national interest and they went to work on it. And they did, through their moles in the Indira Gandhi camp.
After her marriage to Rajiv, the Soviet connection with the Mainos was fortified and nurtured by generous financial help through commissions and kick-backs on every Indo—Soviet trade deal and defence purchases. According to the respected Swiss magazine, Schweitzer Illustrate [November 1991 issue; see Annexure-10] Rajiv Gandhi had about $2 billion in numbered Swiss bank accounts—which Sonia inherited upon his assassination.
Dr. Yevgenia Albats, Ph.D[Harvard], is a noted Russian scholar and journalist, and was a member of the KGB Commission set up by President Yeltsin in August 1991. She was privy to the Soviet intelligence files that documented these deals and KGB facilitation of the same. In her book—“The State Within a State: The KGB in the Soviet Union”, she even gives the reference numbers of such intelligence files which can now be accessed by any Indian government through a formal request to the Kremlin.
The Russian Government in 1992 was confronted with the Albats’ disclosure by the media. The official spokesperson of the government confirmed the veracity of the disclosure [which was published in Hindu in 1992]. The spokesperson defended such financial payments as necessary in “Soviet ideological interest”. Part of the funds were used by the Maino family to fund loyal Congress party candidates in the General Elections.
When the Soviet Union disintegrated in 1991, things changed for Ms. Sonia Gandhi. Her patron nation had been disbanded into 16 countries. The rump that became Russia was in a financial mess and disorder. So, Ms. Sonia Gandhi switched and became a supporter of another communist country much to the annoyance of the Russians.
The national security ramification of this ‘annoyance’ is now significant: The President of Russia today is Putin, a former dyed-in-the-wool KGB officer. Upon Dr. Manmohan Singh’s government taking office, Russia called back it’s career diplomat Ambassador in New Delhi and immediately posted in his place, as the new Ambassador, a person who was the KGB station chief in New Delhi during the 1970s.
In view of Dr. Albats revelation, it stands to reason that the new Ambassador would have known first hand about Sonia’s connections with the KGB. He may have in fact been her “controller” and local contact. The new Indian government today which is defacto Sonia’s, cannot afford to annoy him or even disregard Russian demands that come from him. The Sonia coterie will obviously seek to placate him so as not to risk exposure. Is this not a major national security risk for India and a delicate matter for the nation’s sovereignty?
Of course, all Indians would like good normal and healthy relations with Russia. Who can forget their assistance to us in times of need? Today’s Russia is the residual legatee of that Soviet Union which helped India. But just because of that, should we tolerate those in our government set up having clandestine links with a foreign spy agency? In the United States, the government did not tolerate an American spying for Israel even though the two countries are as close as any two countries can be. National security and friendship are as different as chalk and cheese.
In December 2001, I had filed a Writ Petition in the Delhi High Court with the photocopies of the KGB documents, and sought a CBI investigation which the Vajpayee Government was stoutly refusing. Earlier, Minister of State for CBI, Vasundara Raje[now Rajasthan CM], on my letter dated March 3, 2001, had ordered the CBI to investigate. But after Sonia Gandhi and her party stalled the proceedings of Parliament on this issue, the then Prime Minister Vajpayee overruled and cancelled Vasundara’s direction to the CBI.
The Delhi High Court in May 2002 issued a direction to the CBI to ascertain from Russia the truth of my charges. The CBI procrastinated for two years, and finally told the Court that without an FIR registered, the Russians will not entertain any such query. But who stopped the CBI from registering an FIR? The Vajpayee government! And why? Thereby hangs another tale.
The next hearing of the case is imminent. But now Sonia is in the driver’s seat, and the CBI has been reduced in independence even further.
After her marriage to Rajiv, the Soviet connection with the Mainos was fortified and nurtured by generous financial help through commissions and kick-backs on every Indo—Soviet trade deal and defence purchases. According to the respected Swiss magazine, Schweitzer Illustrate [November 1991 issue; see Annexure-10] Rajiv Gandhi had about $2 billion in numbered Swiss bank accounts—which Sonia inherited upon his assassination.
Dr. Yevgenia Albats, Ph.D[Harvard], is a noted Russian scholar and journalist, and was a member of the KGB Commission set up by President Yeltsin in August 1991. She was privy to the Soviet intelligence files that documented these deals and KGB facilitation of the same. In her book—“The State Within a State: The KGB in the Soviet Union”, she even gives the reference numbers of such intelligence files which can now be accessed by any Indian government through a formal request to the Kremlin.
The Russian Government in 1992 was confronted with the Albats’ disclosure by the media. The official spokesperson of the government confirmed the veracity of the disclosure [which was published in Hindu in 1992]. The spokesperson defended such financial payments as necessary in “Soviet ideological interest”. Part of the funds were used by the Maino family to fund loyal Congress party candidates in the General Elections.
When the Soviet Union disintegrated in 1991, things changed for Ms. Sonia Gandhi. Her patron nation had been disbanded into 16 countries. The rump that became Russia was in a financial mess and disorder. So, Ms. Sonia Gandhi switched and became a supporter of another communist country much to the annoyance of the Russians.
The national security ramification of this ‘annoyance’ is now significant: The President of Russia today is Putin, a former dyed-in-the-wool KGB officer. Upon Dr. Manmohan Singh’s government taking office, Russia called back it’s career diplomat Ambassador in New Delhi and immediately posted in his place, as the new Ambassador, a person who was the KGB station chief in New Delhi during the 1970s.
In view of Dr. Albats revelation, it stands to reason that the new Ambassador would have known first hand about Sonia’s connections with the KGB. He may have in fact been her “controller” and local contact. The new Indian government today which is defacto Sonia’s, cannot afford to annoy him or even disregard Russian demands that come from him. The Sonia coterie will obviously seek to placate him so as not to risk exposure. Is this not a major national security risk for India and a delicate matter for the nation’s sovereignty?
Of course, all Indians would like good normal and healthy relations with Russia. Who can forget their assistance to us in times of need? Today’s Russia is the residual legatee of that Soviet Union which helped India. But just because of that, should we tolerate those in our government set up having clandestine links with a foreign spy agency? In the United States, the government did not tolerate an American spying for Israel even though the two countries are as close as any two countries can be. National security and friendship are as different as chalk and cheese.
In December 2001, I had filed a Writ Petition in the Delhi High Court with the photocopies of the KGB documents, and sought a CBI investigation which the Vajpayee Government was stoutly refusing. Earlier, Minister of State for CBI, Vasundara Raje[now Rajasthan CM], on my letter dated March 3, 2001, had ordered the CBI to investigate. But after Sonia Gandhi and her party stalled the proceedings of Parliament on this issue, the then Prime Minister Vajpayee overruled and cancelled Vasundara’s direction to the CBI.
The Delhi High Court in May 2002 issued a direction to the CBI to ascertain from Russia the truth of my charges. The CBI procrastinated for two years, and finally told the Court that without an FIR registered, the Russians will not entertain any such query. But who stopped the CBI from registering an FIR? The Vajpayee government! And why? Thereby hangs another tale.
The next hearing of the case is imminent. But now Sonia is in the driver’s seat, and the CBI has been reduced in independence even further.
Thursday, August 12, 2010
Why India got freedom
Sunday, February 12, 2006
RIN mutiny gave a jolt to the British
The ratings mutiny in the Royal Indian Navy made the British realise it was time to leave India. Dhananjaya Bhat on the uprising that took place 60 years ago on February 18
RIN Mutineer’s Memorial in Mumbai
WHICH phase of our freedom struggle won for us Independence? Mahatma Gandhi’s 1942 Quit India movement or The INA army launched by Netaji Bose to free India or the Royal Indian Navy Mutiny of 1946? According to the British Prime Minister Clement Attlee, during whose regime India became free, it was the INA and the RIN Mutiny of February 18-23 1946 that made the British realise that their time was up in India.
An extract from a letter written by P.V. Chuckraborty, former Chief Justice of Calcutta High Court, on March 30 1976, reads thus: "When I was acting as Governor of West Bengal in 1956, Lord Clement Attlee, who as the British Prime Minister in post war years was responsible for India’s freedom, visited India and stayed in Raj Bhavan Calcutta for two days`85 I put it straight to him like this: ‘The Quit India Movement of Gandhi practically died out long before 1947 and there was nothing in the Indian situation at that time, which made it necessary for the British to leave India in a hurry. Why then did they do so?’ In reply Attlee cited several reasons, the most important of which were the INA activities of Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose, which weakened the very foundation of the British Empire in India, and the RIN Mutiny which made the British realise that the Indian armed forces could no longer be trusted to prop up the British. When asked about the extent to which the British decision to quit India was influenced by Mahatma Gandhi’s 1942 movement, Attlee’s lips widened in smile of disdain and he uttered, slowly, ‘Minimal’."
Strangely enough, like the chapattis which went all around India during the 1857 First War of Independence asking the nation drive away the British, it was 20 loaves of bread that started this so-called RIN Mutiny. It was a reaction against the high-handed behaviour by British officers of the RIN. On January 16, 1946, a contingent of 67 ratings of various branches arrived at Castle Barracks, Mint Road, in Fort Mumbai. This contingent had arrived from the basic training establishment, HMIS Akbar, located at Thane a suburb of Mumbai at four in the evening. The officer on duty informed the galley (kitchen) staff of this arrival. Quite casually, the duty cook, without winking an eyelid, took out 20 loaves of bread from the large cupboard and added three litres of tap water to the mutton curry as well as the gram dal which was lying already cooked before as per the morning strength of the ratings. On that day, only 17 ratings ate the watery, tasteless meals, while the rest went ashore and ate. When reported to senior officers present, this grievances practically evoked no response and the discontentment continued to build up.
These complaints continued to agitate the ratings and a naval central strike committee was formed on February 18, 1946. It was led by naval rating M.S Khan. Soon, thousands of disgruntled ratings from Mumbai, Karachi, Cochin and Vishakhapatnam joined them. They communicated with each other through the wireless communication sets available in HMIS Talwar. Thus, the entire revolt was coordinated. The unrest spread to shore establishments from the initial flashpoint in Bombay to Karachi and Calcutta, involving 78 ships, 20 shore establishments and 20,000 sailors.
The next morning, the Tricolour was hoisted by the ratings on most of the ships and establishments. The third day came charged with fresh emotions. Sardar Patel’s statement of assurance did improve matters considerably. However, an unruly guncrew of a 25-pounder gun fitted in an old ship, fired a salvo, without orders from the strikers, towards the Castle barracks and blew off a large branch of an old banyan tree. By this time the British destroyers fully armed to go into action arrived and had positioned themselves off the Gateway of India in Mumbai.
The RIN Mutiny was treated as a crisis of the empire by an alarmed British cabinet and Attlee Clement, ordered the Royal Navy to put down the revolt. Admiral Godfrey, the Flag Officer commanding the RIN, went on air with his order "Submit or perish".
The next day, the RAF (Royal Air Force) threatened the defiant RIN ships by flying a squadron of bombers low over Bombay harbour even as Admiral Rattray, Flag Officer, Bombay, RIN, issued an ultimatum asking the ratings to raise black flags and surrender unconditionally.
Both Muhammad Ali Jinnah and Sardar Patel successfully persuaded the ratings to surrender. Patel wrote, "Discipline in the army cannot be tampered with. We will want [the] army even in free India". Mahatma Gandhi, criticised the strikers for mutinying without the call of a ‘prepared revolutionary party’ and without the ‘guidance and intervention’ of ‘political leaders of their choice’.
The issue remained unresolved till the morning of February 23, when the hopeless situation produced a vote of surrender. The black flags went up at six on the morning of February 23.
The negotiations moved fast, keeping in view the extreme sensitivity of the situation and most of the demands of the strikers regarding welfare measures were conceded in principle. Immediate steps were taken to improve the quality of food served in the ratings’ kitchen and their living conditions. But these were followed up by court martials and large-scale dismissals from the service. None of those dismissed were reinstated into either of the Indian or Pakistani navies after Independence.
But the brave sailors had demonstrated to the British that they would rise in defence of their motherland, thus leaving the foreign imperialists little option but to quit.
Today a memorial to the brave RIN ratings, completed by the Indian Navy in 2002, stands in the busy Colaba area in Central Bombay. — MF
www.tribuneindia.com
Sunday, March 21, 2010
Sahadev knew about the Mahabharat War
Sahadeva was a great astrologer and was supposed to have known the events of the Mahabharata War beforehand but was cursed that if he disclosed the knowledge, his head would split in pieces. Hence, his relatively silent role in the epic compared to the other brothers. The Bhagavata Purana has a passage in which Sahadeva predicts events of future when asked by his elder brother Yudhisthira, the king.
Of the five Pandavas, Sahadeva was the youngest. He is nevertheless referred to as the wisest of all of them. Yudhishtra even speaks of him as wiser than Brihaspati, the divine teacher of the Devas. It is also believed that Sahadeva was an incarnation of the great planet, Sukracharaya, the Asura Guru. It is therefore not surprising to note that he was one of the few contemporaneous persons living with Lord Krishna, like Bhishma and Vidura, to realise that Lord Krishna was the almighty Para Brahman Himself. Lord Sukra is considered smarter than Brishapathi, as he would always discover and identify Lord Sriman Narayana, even when the Lord was in disguise, as it is his duty to protect Asuras. The true greatness of Sahadeva lies in the fact that it was he who performed Agrapuja to Lord Krishna, declaring openly amongst Kings, in the face of opposition, that Lord Krishna, being Parabrahma Swarupi, deserves the first respect.
As per the Bhagavata Purana, he is one of the greatest devotees of Lord Krishna. Lord Krishna once asked Sahadeva, what should be done to stop the war. Sahadeva told him that Krishna must be tied down and imprisoned and all the Pandavas along with Duryodhana must be sent to forest and Karna must be made the king. When Krishna challenged him to tie him down, Sahadeva started meditating and envisioned Krishna as a small baby and tied him down. Since Krishna could not move out of his bondage created by Sahadeva in his meditative trance, he blessed him with divine vision and Sahadeva released Krishna from the bondage.
At the time of Mahabharata War, both the sides were trying to give sacrifice to Goddess Durga seeking success. Duryodhana sought the most auspicious time from Sahadeva for performing the sacrifice. It is believed, in Hindu school of thought, that the time of sacrifice, denotes the commencement of war and thus decides the very outcome of the great war. Sahadeva advised him to perform the sacrifice on the new moon day to ensure success in war. When questioned by his brothers and Lord Krishna, Sahadeva gave the polite reply that he is ready to die doing his swadharama of being an astrologer. Probably, he was following the teaching of Lord Krishna even before the Bhagavad Gita was given out. Lord Krishna was supposed to have played a trick on the Sun and Moon gods to create the Bodhayana Amavasya which occurs one day earlier than the regulation Amavasya. The Pandavas performed the sacrifice on Bodhayana Amavasya day and obtained the boon of success from Goddess Durga
Of the five Pandavas, Sahadeva was the youngest. He is nevertheless referred to as the wisest of all of them. Yudhishtra even speaks of him as wiser than Brihaspati, the divine teacher of the Devas. It is also believed that Sahadeva was an incarnation of the great planet, Sukracharaya, the Asura Guru. It is therefore not surprising to note that he was one of the few contemporaneous persons living with Lord Krishna, like Bhishma and Vidura, to realise that Lord Krishna was the almighty Para Brahman Himself. Lord Sukra is considered smarter than Brishapathi, as he would always discover and identify Lord Sriman Narayana, even when the Lord was in disguise, as it is his duty to protect Asuras. The true greatness of Sahadeva lies in the fact that it was he who performed Agrapuja to Lord Krishna, declaring openly amongst Kings, in the face of opposition, that Lord Krishna, being Parabrahma Swarupi, deserves the first respect.
As per the Bhagavata Purana, he is one of the greatest devotees of Lord Krishna. Lord Krishna once asked Sahadeva, what should be done to stop the war. Sahadeva told him that Krishna must be tied down and imprisoned and all the Pandavas along with Duryodhana must be sent to forest and Karna must be made the king. When Krishna challenged him to tie him down, Sahadeva started meditating and envisioned Krishna as a small baby and tied him down. Since Krishna could not move out of his bondage created by Sahadeva in his meditative trance, he blessed him with divine vision and Sahadeva released Krishna from the bondage.
At the time of Mahabharata War, both the sides were trying to give sacrifice to Goddess Durga seeking success. Duryodhana sought the most auspicious time from Sahadeva for performing the sacrifice. It is believed, in Hindu school of thought, that the time of sacrifice, denotes the commencement of war and thus decides the very outcome of the great war. Sahadeva advised him to perform the sacrifice on the new moon day to ensure success in war. When questioned by his brothers and Lord Krishna, Sahadeva gave the polite reply that he is ready to die doing his swadharama of being an astrologer. Probably, he was following the teaching of Lord Krishna even before the Bhagavad Gita was given out. Lord Krishna was supposed to have played a trick on the Sun and Moon gods to create the Bodhayana Amavasya which occurs one day earlier than the regulation Amavasya. The Pandavas performed the sacrifice on Bodhayana Amavasya day and obtained the boon of success from Goddess Durga
Sunday, September 20, 2009
the story of BHU
Madan Mohan Malviya was trying to build a good university; he had to overcome many difficulties and barriers. He worked with determination to start the university. There was a funds crisis; but he did not get disheartened. He went from town to town, met many rich people and traders to collect donations. He went to the Nizam of Hyderabad to request him for funds.
The Nizam was furious, 'How dare you come to me for funds... that too for a Hindu university?' he roared with anger and took off his footwear and flung it at Malviya. Malviya picked up the footwear and left silently. He came directly to the market place and began to auction the footwear. As it was the Nizam's footwear, many came forward to buy it. The price went up.
When Nizam heard of this, he became uneasy. He thought it would be an insult if his footwear were to be bought by someone for a pittance. So he sent one of his attendants with the instruction, 'Buy that footwear no matter what the bidding price be!' Thus, Malviya managed to sell the Nizam's own footwear to him, for a huge amount. He used that money to build the Benares Hindu University.
Moral: It is not what you have, but it is how you use what you have that makes the difference in your life.
The Nizam was furious, 'How dare you come to me for funds... that too for a Hindu university?' he roared with anger and took off his footwear and flung it at Malviya. Malviya picked up the footwear and left silently. He came directly to the market place and began to auction the footwear. As it was the Nizam's footwear, many came forward to buy it. The price went up.
When Nizam heard of this, he became uneasy. He thought it would be an insult if his footwear were to be bought by someone for a pittance. So he sent one of his attendants with the instruction, 'Buy that footwear no matter what the bidding price be!' Thus, Malviya managed to sell the Nizam's own footwear to him, for a huge amount. He used that money to build the Benares Hindu University.
Moral: It is not what you have, but it is how you use what you have that makes the difference in your life.
Saturday, December 6, 2008
I accuse Sonia
Sonia's presence in Delhi is costing India dearly By François Gautier 02 Dec 2008 02:37:00 AM IST New Indian Express
In 1898, the French writer Emile Zola wrote an open letter to the then French president in the newspaper L'Aurore, titled j'accuse ('I accuse'), where he accused the French government of anti- Semitism towards Captain Alfred Dreyfus, a Jewish officer unfairly condemned for treason.
Now it is time for the people of India to say openly that which many, including within the Congress, think secretly and may utter in the privacy of their chambers.
It is not about Manmohan Singh, it is not even about Shivraj Patil, the fall guy; it is about that one person, the Eminence Grise of India. She who pulls all the strings, She whose shadow looms menacingly over so many, She who holds no portfolio, is just a simple elected MP, like 540 others, but rules like an empress.
Sometimes, one's very physical presence at the top is enough to move things, to influence the course of events. One word from Her, a glance, a frown, are enough to put the whole heavy, inert, unwilling machinery of India's bureaucracy and political system in full motion. Sometimes She need not say anything: in the true tradition of Bhakti, Her ministers, Her secretaries, interpret Her silences and rush to cater to Her western and Christian identity.
Nevertheless, she has said and acted enough so that one day she may stand accused on the pages of History for what she must have done to India.
I'accuse Sonia Gandhi as being responsible for the tragedy of Mumbai, having emasculated India's intelligence agencies by stopping them from investigating terror attacks in the last four years, including the Mumbai train blasts. She has also neutralised the ATS by ordering them at all costs to ferret out 'Hindu terrorism', which if it exists, has wrought minuscule damage compared to what Islamic terror has done since 2004. Did the US send a warning to India that there may be an attack on Mumbai and that the Taj would be one of the targets? Were these ignored because the ATS was too busy chasing Hindu 'terrorists' on Sonia's orders? I accuse Sonia and her government of having made the NSG the laughing stock of the world. How many times did the NSG (who took ten hours to reach Mumbai) claim that it had "sanitised the Taj and that the operation was over" and how many times did a bomb go off immediately after? For the last 20 years, the NSG has guarded VIPs and has become soft. See the comments of Israeli terror specialists, who said the NSG should have first sanitised the immediate surroundings of the places of conflict, kept the bystanders and press (who gave terrorists watching TV in the Taj rooms a perfect report of the security forces' whereabouts) out of the place, gathered enough information about the position of the terrorists and hostages before taking action, instead of immediately engaging the terrorists, and ensuring the deaths of so many hostages.
I accuse Sonia of having let her Christian and Western background, in four years, divide India on religious and caste lines in a cynical and methodical manner.
I accuse Sonia of weakening India's spirit of sacrifice and courage, so that 20 terrorists (or less) held at ransom the financial capital of India for more than three days.
I accuse Sonia Gandhi of always pointing the finger at Pakistan, when terrorism in India is now mostly homegrown, even if it takes help, training, refuge and arms from Pakistan; of not warning Indians of the grave dangers of Islamic terror for cynical election purposes.
I accuse Sonia of being an enemy of the Hindus, who always gave refuge to persecuted minorities, and who are the only people in the world to accept that God may manifest under different names, in different epochs, using different scriptures.
I accuse Sonia Gandhi of taking advantage of India's respect for women, its undue fascination with the Gandhi name, and its stupid mania for White Skin.
I'accuse Sonia of exploiting the Indian Press' obsession with her. She hardly ever gave interview in 20 years, except scripted ones to NDTV, yet the Press always protects her, never blames her and keeps silent over her covert role.
I'accuse Sonia and her government of trying to make heroes of subservient and inefficient men to hide the humiliation of Mumbai 26/11. Before going to his death, Hemant Karkare, the ATS chief, was shown on television clumsily handling his helmet, as someone who uses it very rarely. Why did he die of bullet wounds in the chest when he was wearing a bullet-proof vest? Either Indian vests are inferior quality or he was not wearing one.
How did the terrorists who killed him and his fellow officer escape in the same vehicle used by the ATS chief ? Why did he and his officers go into Cama Hospital without ascertaining where the terrorists were? We honour his death, but these facts say a lot about the ATS' battle-readiness.
Will someone in the Congress, someone who feels more Indian than faithful to Sonia, stand up and speak the truth? Who said, "Go after Hindu terrorists"? Who insisted on putting pressure on BJP governments in Karnataka or Orissa for so-called persecution of Christians, when Christians have always practised their faith in total freedom here, while their missionaries are converting hundreds of thousands of innocent tribals and Dalits with the billions of dollars given by gullible westerners? Who said, "Go soft on Islamic terrorism"? Who wants to do away with India's nuclear deterrence in the face of Pakistani and Chinese nuclear threats, by pushing at all costs the one sided Indo-US nuclear deal, which makes no secret of its intention to denuclearise India militarily? I am sure Sonia Gandhi has good qualities: she probably was a good wife to Rajiv, a good daughter in law to Indira and by all accounts, she is a good mother to her children. One also hears first-hand reports about her concern for smaller people, her dignity in the suffering that befell her when her husband was blown to pieces, and her courtesy with visitors.
Nevertheless, she is a danger to India.
Her very presence, both physical and occult, open the doors to forces inimical to India. Even Indian Christians should understand that she is not a gift to them: her presence at the top has emboldened fanatics like John Dayal or Valson Thampu, who practise an orthodox Christianity prevalent in the West in the early 20th century, but no longer, to radicalise their flock. Indian Christians should recognise that they have a much better deal here than Christians or Hindus have in Pakistan, Bangladesh, Indonesia or Saudi Arabia.
Under Sonia's rule, Indian Muslims, too, have been used as electoral pawns. They have been encouraged to shun the Sufi streak, a blend of the best of Islam and Vedanta, for a hard-line Sunni brand imported from Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Afghanistan.
For the good of India, her civilisation, her immense spirituality and culture, Sonia Gandhi has to go and a government that thinks Indian, breathes nationalism and will protect its citizens must be voted to power.
— fgautier@auroville.org.in http://www.expressbuzz.com/edition/print.aspx?artid=LNnjswClsuc=
In 1898, the French writer Emile Zola wrote an open letter to the then French president in the newspaper L'Aurore, titled j'accuse ('I accuse'), where he accused the French government of anti- Semitism towards Captain Alfred Dreyfus, a Jewish officer unfairly condemned for treason.
Now it is time for the people of India to say openly that which many, including within the Congress, think secretly and may utter in the privacy of their chambers.
It is not about Manmohan Singh, it is not even about Shivraj Patil, the fall guy; it is about that one person, the Eminence Grise of India. She who pulls all the strings, She whose shadow looms menacingly over so many, She who holds no portfolio, is just a simple elected MP, like 540 others, but rules like an empress.
Sometimes, one's very physical presence at the top is enough to move things, to influence the course of events. One word from Her, a glance, a frown, are enough to put the whole heavy, inert, unwilling machinery of India's bureaucracy and political system in full motion. Sometimes She need not say anything: in the true tradition of Bhakti, Her ministers, Her secretaries, interpret Her silences and rush to cater to Her western and Christian identity.
Nevertheless, she has said and acted enough so that one day she may stand accused on the pages of History for what she must have done to India.
I'accuse Sonia Gandhi as being responsible for the tragedy of Mumbai, having emasculated India's intelligence agencies by stopping them from investigating terror attacks in the last four years, including the Mumbai train blasts. She has also neutralised the ATS by ordering them at all costs to ferret out 'Hindu terrorism', which if it exists, has wrought minuscule damage compared to what Islamic terror has done since 2004. Did the US send a warning to India that there may be an attack on Mumbai and that the Taj would be one of the targets? Were these ignored because the ATS was too busy chasing Hindu 'terrorists' on Sonia's orders? I accuse Sonia and her government of having made the NSG the laughing stock of the world. How many times did the NSG (who took ten hours to reach Mumbai) claim that it had "sanitised the Taj and that the operation was over" and how many times did a bomb go off immediately after? For the last 20 years, the NSG has guarded VIPs and has become soft. See the comments of Israeli terror specialists, who said the NSG should have first sanitised the immediate surroundings of the places of conflict, kept the bystanders and press (who gave terrorists watching TV in the Taj rooms a perfect report of the security forces' whereabouts) out of the place, gathered enough information about the position of the terrorists and hostages before taking action, instead of immediately engaging the terrorists, and ensuring the deaths of so many hostages.
I accuse Sonia of having let her Christian and Western background, in four years, divide India on religious and caste lines in a cynical and methodical manner.
I accuse Sonia of weakening India's spirit of sacrifice and courage, so that 20 terrorists (or less) held at ransom the financial capital of India for more than three days.
I accuse Sonia Gandhi of always pointing the finger at Pakistan, when terrorism in India is now mostly homegrown, even if it takes help, training, refuge and arms from Pakistan; of not warning Indians of the grave dangers of Islamic terror for cynical election purposes.
I accuse Sonia of being an enemy of the Hindus, who always gave refuge to persecuted minorities, and who are the only people in the world to accept that God may manifest under different names, in different epochs, using different scriptures.
I accuse Sonia Gandhi of taking advantage of India's respect for women, its undue fascination with the Gandhi name, and its stupid mania for White Skin.
I'accuse Sonia of exploiting the Indian Press' obsession with her. She hardly ever gave interview in 20 years, except scripted ones to NDTV, yet the Press always protects her, never blames her and keeps silent over her covert role.
I'accuse Sonia and her government of trying to make heroes of subservient and inefficient men to hide the humiliation of Mumbai 26/11. Before going to his death, Hemant Karkare, the ATS chief, was shown on television clumsily handling his helmet, as someone who uses it very rarely. Why did he die of bullet wounds in the chest when he was wearing a bullet-proof vest? Either Indian vests are inferior quality or he was not wearing one.
How did the terrorists who killed him and his fellow officer escape in the same vehicle used by the ATS chief ? Why did he and his officers go into Cama Hospital without ascertaining where the terrorists were? We honour his death, but these facts say a lot about the ATS' battle-readiness.
Will someone in the Congress, someone who feels more Indian than faithful to Sonia, stand up and speak the truth? Who said, "Go after Hindu terrorists"? Who insisted on putting pressure on BJP governments in Karnataka or Orissa for so-called persecution of Christians, when Christians have always practised their faith in total freedom here, while their missionaries are converting hundreds of thousands of innocent tribals and Dalits with the billions of dollars given by gullible westerners? Who said, "Go soft on Islamic terrorism"? Who wants to do away with India's nuclear deterrence in the face of Pakistani and Chinese nuclear threats, by pushing at all costs the one sided Indo-US nuclear deal, which makes no secret of its intention to denuclearise India militarily? I am sure Sonia Gandhi has good qualities: she probably was a good wife to Rajiv, a good daughter in law to Indira and by all accounts, she is a good mother to her children. One also hears first-hand reports about her concern for smaller people, her dignity in the suffering that befell her when her husband was blown to pieces, and her courtesy with visitors.
Nevertheless, she is a danger to India.
Her very presence, both physical and occult, open the doors to forces inimical to India. Even Indian Christians should understand that she is not a gift to them: her presence at the top has emboldened fanatics like John Dayal or Valson Thampu, who practise an orthodox Christianity prevalent in the West in the early 20th century, but no longer, to radicalise their flock. Indian Christians should recognise that they have a much better deal here than Christians or Hindus have in Pakistan, Bangladesh, Indonesia or Saudi Arabia.
Under Sonia's rule, Indian Muslims, too, have been used as electoral pawns. They have been encouraged to shun the Sufi streak, a blend of the best of Islam and Vedanta, for a hard-line Sunni brand imported from Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Afghanistan.
For the good of India, her civilisation, her immense spirituality and culture, Sonia Gandhi has to go and a government that thinks Indian, breathes nationalism and will protect its citizens must be voted to power.
— fgautier@auroville.org.in http://www.expressbuzz.com/edition/print.aspx?artid=LNnjswClsuc=
Sonia's presence in Delhi is costing India dearly By François Gautier 02 Dec 2008 02:37:00 AM IST New Indian Express
In 1898, the French writer Emile Zola wrote an open letter to the then French president in the newspaper L'Aurore, titled j'accuse ('I accuse'), where he accused the French government of anti- Semitism towards Captain Alfred Dreyfus, a Jewish officer unfairly condemned for treason.
Now it is time for the people of India to say openly that which many, including within the Congress, think secretly and may utter in the privacy of their chambers.
It is not about Manmohan Singh, it is not even about Shivraj Patil, the fall guy; it is about that one person, the Eminence Grise of India. She who pulls all the strings, She whose shadow looms menacingly over so many, She who holds no portfolio, is just a simple elected MP, like 540 others, but rules like an empress.
Sometimes, one's very physical presence at the top is enough to move things, to influence the course of events. One word from Her, a glance, a frown, are enough to put the whole heavy, inert, unwilling machinery of India's bureaucracy and political system in full motion. Sometimes She need not say anything: in the true tradition of Bhakti, Her ministers, Her secretaries, interpret Her silences and rush to cater to Her western and Christian identity.
Nevertheless, she has said and acted enough so that one day she may stand accused on the pages of History for what she must have done to India.
I'accuse Sonia Gandhi as being responsible for the tragedy of Mumbai, having emasculated India's intelligence agencies by stopping them from investigating terror attacks in the last four years, including the Mumbai train blasts. She has also neutralised the ATS by ordering them at all costs to ferret out 'Hindu terrorism', which if it exists, has wrought minuscule damage compared to what Islamic terror has done since 2004. Did the US send a warning to India that there may be an attack on Mumbai and that the Taj would be one of the targets? Were these ignored because the ATS was too busy chasing Hindu 'terrorists' on Sonia's orders? I accuse Sonia and her government of having made the NSG the laughing stock of the world. How many times did the NSG (who took ten hours to reach Mumbai) claim that it had "sanitised the Taj and that the operation was over" and how many times did a bomb go off immediately after? For the last 20 years, the NSG has guarded VIPs and has become soft. See the comments of Israeli terror specialists, who said the NSG should have first sanitised the immediate surroundings of the places of conflict, kept the bystanders and press (who gave terrorists watching TV in the Taj rooms a perfect report of the security forces' whereabouts) out of the place, gathered enough information about the position of the terrorists and hostages before taking action, instead of immediately engaging the terrorists, and ensuring the deaths of so many hostages.
I accuse Sonia of having let her Christian and Western background, in four years, divide India on religious and caste lines in a cynical and methodical manner.
I accuse Sonia of weakening India's spirit of sacrifice and courage, so that 20 terrorists (or less) held at ransom the financial capital of India for more than three days.
I accuse Sonia Gandhi of always pointing the finger at Pakistan, when terrorism in India is now mostly homegrown, even if it takes help, training, refuge and arms from Pakistan; of not warning Indians of the grave dangers of Islamic terror for cynical election purposes.
I accuse Sonia of being an enemy of the Hindus, who always gave refuge to persecuted minorities, and who are the only people in the world to accept that God may manifest under different names, in different epochs, using different scriptures.
I accuse Sonia Gandhi of taking advantage of India's respect for women, its undue fascination with the Gandhi name, and its stupid mania for White Skin.
I'accuse Sonia of exploiting the Indian Press' obsession with her. She hardly ever gave interview in 20 years, except scripted ones to NDTV, yet the Press always protects her, never blames her and keeps silent over her covert role.
I'accuse Sonia and her government of trying to make heroes of subservient and inefficient men to hide the humiliation of Mumbai 26/11. Before going to his death, Hemant Karkare, the ATS chief, was shown on television clumsily handling his helmet, as someone who uses it very rarely. Why did he die of bullet wounds in the chest when he was wearing a bullet-proof vest? Either Indian vests are inferior quality or he was not wearing one.
How did the terrorists who killed him and his fellow officer escape in the same vehicle used by the ATS chief ? Why did he and his officers go into Cama Hospital without ascertaining where the terrorists were? We honour his death, but these facts say a lot about the ATS' battle-readiness.
Will someone in the Congress, someone who feels more Indian than faithful to Sonia, stand up and speak the truth? Who said, "Go after Hindu terrorists"? Who insisted on putting pressure on BJP governments in Karnataka or Orissa for so-called persecution of Christians, when Christians have always practised their faith in total freedom here, while their missionaries are converting hundreds of thousands of innocent tribals and Dalits with the billions of dollars given by gullible westerners? Who said, "Go soft on Islamic terrorism"? Who wants to do away with India's nuclear deterrence in the face of Pakistani and Chinese nuclear threats, by pushing at all costs the one sided Indo-US nuclear deal, which makes no secret of its intention to denuclearise India militarily? I am sure Sonia Gandhi has good qualities: she probably was a good wife to Rajiv, a good daughter in law to Indira and by all accounts, she is a good mother to her children. One also hears first-hand reports about her concern for smaller people, her dignity in the suffering that befell her when her husband was blown to pieces, and her courtesy with visitors.
Nevertheless, she is a danger to India.
Her very presence, both physical and occult, open the doors to forces inimical to India. Even Indian Christians should understand that she is not a gift to them: her presence at the top has emboldened fanatics like John Dayal or Valson Thampu, who practise an orthodox Christianity prevalent in the West in the early 20th century, but no longer, to radicalise their flock. Indian Christians should recognise that they have a much better deal here than Christians or Hindus have in Pakistan, Bangladesh, Indonesia or Saudi Arabia.
Under Sonia's rule, Indian Muslims, too, have been used as electoral pawns. They have been encouraged to shun the Sufi streak, a blend of the best of Islam and Vedanta, for a hard-line Sunni brand imported from Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Afghanistan.
For the good of India, her civilisation, her immense spirituality and culture, Sonia Gandhi has to go and a government that thinks Indian, breathes nationalism and will protect its citizens must be voted to power.
— fgautier@auroville.org.in http://www.expressbuzz.com/edition/print.aspx?artid=LNnjswClsuc=
In 1898, the French writer Emile Zola wrote an open letter to the then French president in the newspaper L'Aurore, titled j'accuse ('I accuse'), where he accused the French government of anti- Semitism towards Captain Alfred Dreyfus, a Jewish officer unfairly condemned for treason.
Now it is time for the people of India to say openly that which many, including within the Congress, think secretly and may utter in the privacy of their chambers.
It is not about Manmohan Singh, it is not even about Shivraj Patil, the fall guy; it is about that one person, the Eminence Grise of India. She who pulls all the strings, She whose shadow looms menacingly over so many, She who holds no portfolio, is just a simple elected MP, like 540 others, but rules like an empress.
Sometimes, one's very physical presence at the top is enough to move things, to influence the course of events. One word from Her, a glance, a frown, are enough to put the whole heavy, inert, unwilling machinery of India's bureaucracy and political system in full motion. Sometimes She need not say anything: in the true tradition of Bhakti, Her ministers, Her secretaries, interpret Her silences and rush to cater to Her western and Christian identity.
Nevertheless, she has said and acted enough so that one day she may stand accused on the pages of History for what she must have done to India.
I'accuse Sonia Gandhi as being responsible for the tragedy of Mumbai, having emasculated India's intelligence agencies by stopping them from investigating terror attacks in the last four years, including the Mumbai train blasts. She has also neutralised the ATS by ordering them at all costs to ferret out 'Hindu terrorism', which if it exists, has wrought minuscule damage compared to what Islamic terror has done since 2004. Did the US send a warning to India that there may be an attack on Mumbai and that the Taj would be one of the targets? Were these ignored because the ATS was too busy chasing Hindu 'terrorists' on Sonia's orders? I accuse Sonia and her government of having made the NSG the laughing stock of the world. How many times did the NSG (who took ten hours to reach Mumbai) claim that it had "sanitised the Taj and that the operation was over" and how many times did a bomb go off immediately after? For the last 20 years, the NSG has guarded VIPs and has become soft. See the comments of Israeli terror specialists, who said the NSG should have first sanitised the immediate surroundings of the places of conflict, kept the bystanders and press (who gave terrorists watching TV in the Taj rooms a perfect report of the security forces' whereabouts) out of the place, gathered enough information about the position of the terrorists and hostages before taking action, instead of immediately engaging the terrorists, and ensuring the deaths of so many hostages.
I accuse Sonia of having let her Christian and Western background, in four years, divide India on religious and caste lines in a cynical and methodical manner.
I accuse Sonia of weakening India's spirit of sacrifice and courage, so that 20 terrorists (or less) held at ransom the financial capital of India for more than three days.
I accuse Sonia Gandhi of always pointing the finger at Pakistan, when terrorism in India is now mostly homegrown, even if it takes help, training, refuge and arms from Pakistan; of not warning Indians of the grave dangers of Islamic terror for cynical election purposes.
I accuse Sonia of being an enemy of the Hindus, who always gave refuge to persecuted minorities, and who are the only people in the world to accept that God may manifest under different names, in different epochs, using different scriptures.
I accuse Sonia Gandhi of taking advantage of India's respect for women, its undue fascination with the Gandhi name, and its stupid mania for White Skin.
I'accuse Sonia of exploiting the Indian Press' obsession with her. She hardly ever gave interview in 20 years, except scripted ones to NDTV, yet the Press always protects her, never blames her and keeps silent over her covert role.
I'accuse Sonia and her government of trying to make heroes of subservient and inefficient men to hide the humiliation of Mumbai 26/11. Before going to his death, Hemant Karkare, the ATS chief, was shown on television clumsily handling his helmet, as someone who uses it very rarely. Why did he die of bullet wounds in the chest when he was wearing a bullet-proof vest? Either Indian vests are inferior quality or he was not wearing one.
How did the terrorists who killed him and his fellow officer escape in the same vehicle used by the ATS chief ? Why did he and his officers go into Cama Hospital without ascertaining where the terrorists were? We honour his death, but these facts say a lot about the ATS' battle-readiness.
Will someone in the Congress, someone who feels more Indian than faithful to Sonia, stand up and speak the truth? Who said, "Go after Hindu terrorists"? Who insisted on putting pressure on BJP governments in Karnataka or Orissa for so-called persecution of Christians, when Christians have always practised their faith in total freedom here, while their missionaries are converting hundreds of thousands of innocent tribals and Dalits with the billions of dollars given by gullible westerners? Who said, "Go soft on Islamic terrorism"? Who wants to do away with India's nuclear deterrence in the face of Pakistani and Chinese nuclear threats, by pushing at all costs the one sided Indo-US nuclear deal, which makes no secret of its intention to denuclearise India militarily? I am sure Sonia Gandhi has good qualities: she probably was a good wife to Rajiv, a good daughter in law to Indira and by all accounts, she is a good mother to her children. One also hears first-hand reports about her concern for smaller people, her dignity in the suffering that befell her when her husband was blown to pieces, and her courtesy with visitors.
Nevertheless, she is a danger to India.
Her very presence, both physical and occult, open the doors to forces inimical to India. Even Indian Christians should understand that she is not a gift to them: her presence at the top has emboldened fanatics like John Dayal or Valson Thampu, who practise an orthodox Christianity prevalent in the West in the early 20th century, but no longer, to radicalise their flock. Indian Christians should recognise that they have a much better deal here than Christians or Hindus have in Pakistan, Bangladesh, Indonesia or Saudi Arabia.
Under Sonia's rule, Indian Muslims, too, have been used as electoral pawns. They have been encouraged to shun the Sufi streak, a blend of the best of Islam and Vedanta, for a hard-line Sunni brand imported from Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Afghanistan.
For the good of India, her civilisation, her immense spirituality and culture, Sonia Gandhi has to go and a government that thinks Indian, breathes nationalism and will protect its citizens must be voted to power.
— fgautier@auroville.org.in http://www.expressbuzz.com/edition/print.aspx?artid=LNnjswClsuc=
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
