http://www.expressi ndia.com/ latest-news/ Baptized- south-Gujarat- tribals-reembrac e-Hinduism/ 251936/
Baptized’ south Gujarat tribals re-embrace Hinduism Surat, December 18 Around 2,000 tribal men and women from different villages in South Gujarat, who had converted to Christianity, re-embraced Hinduism on Monday evening at a religious ceremony ( sammelan) at the Shivaji ground in Tapi district.
They took an oath by the fire in the presence of Jagat Guru Acharya Narendra Maharaj and submitted affidavits that they won't convert to Christianity ever again in the future. The people had started gathering at the venue since Sunday night listening to the Jagat Guru's teaching before re-converting to Hinduism at the ceremony a day later.
Narayan Solanki, a disciple of Narendra Maharaj in Tapi district said, "There are many disciples of the Maharaj working in different villages of Vyara, Dharampur, Songadh, Mandvi, Ahwa-Dang, Vasda and so on. They visit these places and interact with the tribals who have been baptised earlier by various missionaries and convince them to return back to Hinduism."
According to Solanki, the Maharaj also runs an ashram at Naneej village in Ratnagiri district of Maharashtra. It was after a visit to one such ashram that they became motivated to become his disciples. "We visit different villages and persuade those, who have been baptised, to come back into the Hindu fold," said Solanki. Giving details about the sammelan (ceremony), another disciple, Mahipal Thakur, said, "We have been working for the sammelan for the past few months and contacted tribals in various villages, who had become fed up with Christianity.
These tribals gathered on Sunday night at Tapi district. They were provided with food and accommodation, and later they met the Maharaj during the night. On Monday, they assembled at the Shivaji ground where the Maharaj gave a religious sermon. Many of the tribal men also cut off their hair and took oaths, while all of them gave thumb impressions on the affidavits saying they have willingly returned to the folds of the Hindu religion." Deputy Collector of Tapi district N S Halbe said, "The organisers had taken prior permission to hold the sammelan. The district officials visited the venue and have submitted their report about it to me."
Dharmo Rakshati Rakshata
If you protect Dharma, Dharma will in turn protect you
Wednesday, December 19, 2007
MODI V/S MODI
Re:Very Good Analysis: Modi versus Modi
Performance creates enemies.
That is one of the central lessons of Modi's experiment. It is a lesson which we have to understand and accept. And then figure out a way around this paradox.
When you deliver power to all, and ensure that every one pays bills, or else ...., then that is good governance. But then it generates enemies.
There are millions, rich and poor, who would rather steal power than actually pay for it.
Similarly, when you go for anti-corruption drives, then it is good governance, but it hurts the interests of politicians, bureaucrats, and big-bizness. You end up generating enemies.,
When you insist that power meant for farmers is used by farmers only, and those who use this for other purposes are sent to jail, then this is good governance, but you generate enemies.
When you insist that Ganga should be clean, then you create enemies in the bizness class, who dump their wastes, wantonly in Ganga.
When you insist that we should have wide hi-speed roads in India, then you run into problems with farmers whose lands get acquired in the process.
An all-round wonderful performance in realm of governance generates enemies in all walks of life.So what is the way out? Surely, it will be idiotic to argue that do not shoot for performance.
But then, it is suicidal to generate a broad-band spectrum of enemies.
This dilemma exists not because of the acts of an individual. Rather, it exists because of the system which India hangs on to. It is a systemic issue.
And all the people of India have a stake in sustaining such a flawed system.
Nachiketa(deleted)
Performance creates enemies.
That is one of the central lessons of Modi's experiment. It is a lesson which we have to understand and accept. And then figure out a way around this paradox.
When you deliver power to all, and ensure that every one pays bills, or else ...., then that is good governance. But then it generates enemies.
There are millions, rich and poor, who would rather steal power than actually pay for it.
Similarly, when you go for anti-corruption drives, then it is good governance, but it hurts the interests of politicians, bureaucrats, and big-bizness. You end up generating enemies.,
When you insist that power meant for farmers is used by farmers only, and those who use this for other purposes are sent to jail, then this is good governance, but you generate enemies.
When you insist that Ganga should be clean, then you create enemies in the bizness class, who dump their wastes, wantonly in Ganga.
When you insist that we should have wide hi-speed roads in India, then you run into problems with farmers whose lands get acquired in the process.
An all-round wonderful performance in realm of governance generates enemies in all walks of life.So what is the way out? Surely, it will be idiotic to argue that do not shoot for performance.
But then, it is suicidal to generate a broad-band spectrum of enemies.
This dilemma exists not because of the acts of an individual. Rather, it exists because of the system which India hangs on to. It is a systemic issue.
And all the people of India have a stake in sustaining such a flawed system.
Nachiketa(deleted)
Gujrat and MODI
What Gujarat thinks today
...Ashok Malik
...Ashok Malik
- The PioneerDecember 19, 2007
Just before 4.00 pm on Thursday, December 13, a warm-up speaker at Ahmedabad's Sardar Patel Stadium announced Ms Sonia Gandhi was about to reach. It was a modest crowd that had gathered, no more than 15,000 -- never mind if a Congress leader later wrote the audience was "at least 50,000" strong and the city's leading English-language newspaper reported the stadium was "jam packed". Yet, this was the moment everyone had been waiting for: The arrival of the Congress president.
The warm-up speaker tried to rouse the crowd: "Congress party zindabad." "Zindabad, zindabad," answered the throng. "Sonia Gandhi zindabad ," he went. "Zindabad, zindabad," it came back. Now he delivered the coup de grace: "Narendra Modi murdabad." There was no response, only silence -- a long, very articulate silence. The warm-up speaker repeated the lines, but this time, wisely, dropped the denunciation of Mr Modi.
Depending on how you interpret it, this anecdote could mean nothing at all or sum up the Gujarat election. As was apparent to any visitor, Mr Modi's identification with Gujarat is now absolute. There is -- or was -- no hostility to him among mainstream voters, not even Congress partisans.
This is not to suggest that Mr Modi will win every single seat and the Congress can pack its bags and leave Gujarat for good. It is only to point out that the personality factor brought Mr Modi a uniform incremental vote across the State. What the uncommitted voter was telling him was: Give me a local candidate and caste/community coalition I can live with, and I have no problem voting you back to office.
Mr Modi has emerged as a pan-Gujarat phenomenon. He has not reduced the Gujarat BJP to a regional party, but has become a regional leader. It is crucial to understand the difference and an example would be illustrative.
In the 1980s, NT Rama Rao invoked "Telugu pride", built a movement out of nothing and swept to power in Andhra Pradesh. Between 2002 and 2007, Mr Mulayam Singh Yadav and the Samajwadi Party (SP) ruled Uttar Pradesh. NTR was a regional phenomenon, geographically located within a State but also symbolising a cultural identity. The SP was and remains a regional party, a State-specific political unit. Mr Yadav is not a pan-UP leader; he does not seek votes in the name of "UP pride".
Should he win in Gujarat -- and political assessment would suggest exit pollsters have been conservative in tabulating his mandate -- can the Modi model be replicated nationwide? There are two ways of addressing that question. The first is to wonder if Mr Modi can some day become the president or prime ministerial candidate of the BJP, whether he can work with the NDA partners; in a sense, it is to re-visit the tired debate between two equally spurious notions of secularism.
However, there is another aspect to the Modi/Gujarat model -- can it redefine the national party? In the coalition system that emerged in the 1990s, a national party -- focussed on 'national issues' -- joined hands with regional parties and regional leaders. Today, the space for what was considered 'national politics' and what constituted 'national issues' has declined. Short of war or perhaps terrorism, there is little possibility of a political theme uniting all India at election time. Even inflation affects different States differently, given their prosperity levels.
As such, national parties such as the BJP and the Congress are faced with two choices. They can slowly atrophy, ceding more and more ground to regional rivals. Alternatively, they can join the game and become umbrella groupings of strong regional/state leaders.
To some degree this is already happening. If the Congress defeated Mr N Chandrababu Naidu in Andhra Pradesh in 2004, a contributing factor was that it actively promoted Mr YS Rajashekhara Reddy as an alternative Telugu strongman, albeit under the Congress aegis. In Gujarat, the Congress refused to project a face, countering Mr Modi with Ms Sonia Gandhi: Straight-from-the-heart Gujarati with stilted Hindi, a local boy with a distant figure from Delhi.
That aside, India's political economy has become so consciously federalised that a 'one size fits all' approach is suicidal. Exemplary as it is, Modi-style governance cannot be easily repeated across India. The Gujarat Chief Minister has knocked down patronage raj. He offers electricity if you pay your power bills; and 280,000 defaulters have had cases filed against them. Rather than promise free education in moribund Government-dependent schools, he encourages self-financing schools that charge a modest fee.
This model can work in a self-starter society like Gujarat, where entrepreneurship and civic consciousness have reached critical mass, and where an enlightened, transactional view of public goods is possible. This model will be a non-starter in Bihar or Madhya Pradesh. Even in the reformist south -- Andhra Pradesh and Tamil Nadu -- business-friendly Chief Ministers have combined economic deregulation with vast doses of populism. The DMK courts Nokia's manufacturing plant but also gives away free television sets. It is possible that Mr Modi's success will encourage others to adopt a no-nonsense, freebie-free culture, but there is no guarantee.
In this situation, the national party of the future would need to allow regional leaders to blossom and occasionally dominate the institutional structure in their respective States. If you can accept a Naveen Patnaik outside the BJP, is there really a problem accepting a Naveen Patnaik inside the BJP? The national party's regional leaders will respond to political and socio-economic stimuli in a local context.
So if the national party becomes an integrated network of regional bosses, who is the 'national leader'? The Prime Minister (or prime ministerial candidate) will, in this case, be a genuine first among equals: A peer who works with his State colleagues, is an adept political manager and tempers contradictions. Even if Mr Modi were to come to Delhi, he would find himself performing this role.
Actually, such a matrix is no different from the Congress of the 1950s, when a BC Roy in Bengal or a K Kamaraj in Tamil Nadu were the sinews of the all-India party. To them, the Prime Minister was not Panditji placed on a pedestal, but simply Jawaharlal, a friend and comrade, a first among equals.
Can national parties come to terms with these federalising impulses? If they want to stay relevant, they have to. That is the lesson of the 2007 Modi election.
Monday, December 10, 2007
WHO CONTROLS THE WORLD
Bilderberg Group
The Bilderberg Group is a group of influential people, mostly politicians and business people, whose existence and activities are private, and due to its secretive nature is the subject of numerous conspiracy theories. The group meets annually at five-star resorts throughout the world, normally in Europe, although sometimes in America or Canada . It has an office in Leiden , South Holland .
Although the group has no official name, the "Bilderberg Group" title comes from what is generally recognized to be the location of its first official meeting in 1954: the Bilderberg Hotel in Arnhem , the Netherlands .
The group has been depicted as an international cabal of the influental and the affluent: politicians, financiers, and media and business moguls; the elite of the elite. Some believe that they have dictated national policies, rigged (or outright stolen) national elections, caused wars, recessions, and ordered murders and ousters of world leaders such as American president John F. Kennedy and British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher.
The original intention of the Bilderberg group was to further the understanding between Western Europe and North America through informal meetings between powerful individuals. Each year, a "steering committee" devises a selected invitation list with a maximum of 100 names; invitations are only extended to residents of Europe and North America . The location of their annual meeting is not secret, and the agenda and list of participants are openly available to the public, but the topics of the meetings are kept secret: they are not published, and attendees pledge not to divulge what was discussed. The official stance of the Bilderberg Group is that their secrecy prevents these individuals' discussions from being manipulated by the media. However, social class-related exclusivity is considered by many to be the primary motive. Security is managed by military intelligence.
Perspectives on the nature of the group
The stated reason for the group's secrecy is that it enables people to speak freely without the need to carefully consider how every word might be interpreted by the mass media. However, as many of the attendees have gained their power through the democratic process, it is debatable if it is morally desirable for them to exercise their power off the record. This secrecy has led conspiracy researchers to claim that the meetings have a sinister purpose; that they are merely a front for the Round table groups, or even a semi-public front for the Illuminati or assorted other secret societies.
The Bilderberg Group has been described as:
· A "discussion group" of politicians, media moguls, academics and business leaders
· An exclusive international lobby of the power elite of Europe and North America , capable of influencing international policy
· A capitalist secret society operating entirely through self-interest.
Attendees of Bilderberg include central bankers, defense experts, mass media press barons, government ministers, prime ministers, royalty, international financiers and political leaders from Europe and America.Some of the Western world's leading financiers and foreign policy strategists attend Bilderberg. Donald Rumsfeld is an active Bilderberger - so is Peter Sutherland from Ireland, a former European Union commissioner and chairman of Goldman Sachs and of BP. Rumsfeld and Sutherland served together in 2000 on the board of the Swedish/Swiss energy company ABB. Former US Deputy Defense Secretary and current World Bank head Paul Wolfowitz is also a member, as is Roger Boothe, Jr. The group's current chairman is Étienne Davignon, the Belgian politician and businessman.
Wikipedia
In the News ....
2005
Inside the secretive Bilderberg Group BBC - October 7, 2005
Bilderberg's head Viscount Davignon plays down the group's role in setting the international agenda.
How much influence do private networks of the rich and powerful have on government policies and international relations? One group, the Bilderberg, has often attracted speculation that it forms a shadowy global government. As part of the BBC's Who Runs Your World? series, Bill Hayton tries to find out more.
Every year since 1954, a small network of rich and powerful people have held a discussion meeting about the state of the trans-Atlantic alliance and the problems facing Europe and the US .
Organised by a steering committee of two people from each of about 18 countries, the Bilderberg Group (named after the Dutch hotel in which it held its first meeting) brings together about 120 leading business people and politicians.
At this year's meeting in Germany , the audience included the heads of the World Bank and European Central Bank, Chairmen or Chief Executives from Nokia, BP, Unilever, DaimlerChrysler and Pepsi - among other multi-national corporations, editors from five major newspapers, members of parliament, ministers, European commissioners, the crown prince of Belgium and the queen of the Netherlands .
"I don't think (we are) a global ruling class because I don't think a global ruling class exists. I simply think it's people who have influence interested to speak to other people who have influence," Viscount Davignon says.
"Bilderberg does not try to reach conclusions - it does not try to say 'what we should do'. Everyone goes away with their own feeling and that allows the debate to be completely open, quite frank - and to see what the differences are.
"Business influences society and politics influences society - that's purely common sense. It's not that business contests the right of democratically-elected leaders to lead".
For Bilderberg's critics the fact that there is almost no publicity about the annual meetings is proof that they are up to no good. Jim Tucker, editor of a right-wing newspaper, the American Free Press for example, alleges they organise wars and elect and depose political leaders. He describes the group as simply 'evil'. So where does the truth lie?
Professor Kees van der Pijl of Sussex University in Britain says such private networks of corporate and political leaders play an informal but crucial role in the modern world.
"There need to be places where these people can think about the main challenges ahead, co-ordinate where policies should be going, and find out where there could be a consensus."
'Common sense'
Will Hutton, an economic analyst and former newspaper editor who attended a Bilderberg meeting in 1997, says people take part in these networks in order to influence the way the world works, to create what he calls "the international common sense" about policy.
"On every issue that might influence your business you will hear at first-hand the people who are actually making those decisions and you will play a part in helping them to make those decisions and formulating the common sense," he says.
And that "common sense" is one which supports the interests of Bilderberg's main participants - in particular free trade. Viscount Davignon says that at the annual meetings, "automatically around the table you have internationalists" - people who support the work of the World Trade Organisation, trans-Atlantic co-operation and European integration.
Bilderberg meetings often feature future political leaders shortly before they become household names. Bill Clinton went in 1991 while still governor of Arkansas , Tony Blair was there two years later while still an opposition MP. All the recent presidents of the European Commission attended Bilderberg meetings before they were appointed.
'Secret Government'
This has led to accusations that the group pushes its favoured politicians into high office. But Viscount Davignon says his steering committee are simply excellent talent spotters. The steering committee "does its best assessment of who are the bright new boys or girls in the beginning phase of their career who would like to get known."
"It's not a total accident, but it's not a forecast and if they go places it's not because of Bilderberg, it's because of themselves," Viscount Davignon says.
But its critics say Bilderberg's selection process gives an extra boost to aspiring politicians whose views are friendly to big business. None of this, however, is easy to prove - or disprove.
Observers like Will Hutton argue that such private networks have both good and bad sides. They are unaccountable to voters but, at the same time, they do keep the international system functioning. And there are limits to their power - a point which Bilderberg chairman was keen to stress, "When people say this is a secret government of the world I say that if we were a secret government of the world we should be bloody ashamed of ourselves."
Informal and private networks like Bilderberg have helped to oil the wheels of global politics and globalisation for the past half a century. In the eyes of critics they have undermined democracy, but their supporters believe they are crucial to modern democracy's success. And so long as business and politics remain mutually dependent, they will continue to thrive.
2004
The Ultimate Conspiracry - 50th anniversary
June 3, 2004 - BBC
The Bilderberg group, an elite coterie of Western thinkers and power-brokers, has been accused of fixing the fate of the world behind closed doors. As the organisation marks its 50th anniversary, rumours are more rife than ever.
Given its reputation as perhaps the most powerful organisation in the world, the Bilderberg group doesn't go a bundle on its switchboard operations.
Telephone inquiries are met with an impersonal female voice - the Dutch equivalent of the BT Callminder woman - reciting back the number and inviting callers to "leave a message after the tone".
Anyone who accidentally dialled the number would probably think they had stumbled on just another residential answer machine.
Leiden in Holland, the inauspicious base of the Bilderberg group
But behind this ultra-modest façade lies one of the most controversial and hotly-debated alliances of our times.
On Thursday the Bilderberg group marks its 50th anniversary with the start of its yearly meeting.
For four days some of the West's chief political movers, business leaders, bankers, industrialists and strategic thinkers will hunker down in a five-star hotel in northern Italy to talk about global issues.
What sets Bilderberg apart from other high-powered get-togethers, such as the annual World Economic Forum (WEF), is its mystique.
Not a word of what is said at Bilderberg meetings can be breathed outside. No reporters are invited in and while confidential minutes of meetings are taken, names are not noted.
The shadowy aura extends further - the anonymous answerphone message, for example; the fact that conference venues are kept secret. The group, which includes luminaries such as Henry Kissinger and former UK chancellor Kenneth Clarke, does not even have a website.
In the void created by such aloofness, an extraordinary conspiracy theory has grown up around the group that alleges the fate of the world is largely decided by Bilderberg.
In Yugoslavia , leading Serbs have blamed Bilderberg for triggering the war which led to the downfall of Slobodan Milosevic. The Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh, the London nail-bomber David Copeland and Osama Bin Laden are all said to have bought into the theory that Bilderberg pulls the strings with which national governments dance.
And while hardline right-wingers and libertarians accuse Bilderberg of being a liberal Zionist plot, leftists such as activist Tony Gosling are equally critical.
A former journalist, Mr Gosling runs a campaign against the group from his home in Bristol , UK .
"My main problem is the secrecy. When so many people with so much power get together in one place I think we are owed an explanation of what is going on.
Mr Gosling seizes on a quote from Will Hutton, the British economist and a former Bilderberg delegate, who likened it to the annual WEF gathering where "the consensus established is the backdrop against which policy is made worldwide".
"One of the first places I heard about the determination of US forces to attack Iraq was from leaks that came out of the 2002 Bilderberg meeting," says Mr Gosling.
But "privacy, rather than secrecy", is key to such a meeting says Financial Times journalist Martin Wolf, who has been invited several times in a non-reporting role.
"The idea that such meetings cannot be held in private is fundamentally totalitarian," he says. "It's not an executive body; no decisions are taken there."
As an up-and-coming statesmen in the 1950s, Denis Healey, who went on to become a Labour chancellor, was one of the four founding members of Bilderberg (which was named after the hotel in Holland where the first meeting was held in 1954).
His response to claims that Bilderberg exerts a shadowy hand on the global tiller is met with characteristic bluntness. "Crap!"
"There's absolutely nothing in it. We never sought to reach a consensus on the big issues at Bilderberg. It's simply a place for discussion," says Lord Healey.
Formed in the spirit of post-war trans-Atlantic co-operation, the idea behind Bilderberg was that future wars could be prevented by bringing power-brokers together in an informal setting away from prying eyes.
"Bilderberg is the most useful international group I ever attended. The confidentiality enabled people to speak honestly without fear of repercussions.
"In my experience the most useful meetings are those when one is free to speak openly and honestly. It's not unusual at all. Cabinet meetings in all countries are held behind closed doors and the minutes are not published."
That activists have seized on Bilderberg is no surprise to Alasdair Spark, an expert in conspiracy theories.
"The idea that a shadowy clique is running the world is nothing new. For hundreds of years people have believed the world is governed by a cabal of Jews.
"Shouldn't we expect that the rich and powerful organize things in their own interests. It's called capitalism."
Who runs the world and why you need to know immediately, By Carolyn Baker, Online Journal, Nov 21, 2007.
Book Review
The True Story of the Bilderberg Group
By Daniel Estulin
TrineDay
ISBN-10: 0977795349
It is difficult to re-educate people who have been brought up on nationalism to the idea of relinquishing part of their sovereignty to a supra-national body. --Bilderberg Group founder, Prince Bernhard
As a rhetorical question, can someone please explain to me how it is that progressive liberals such as John Edwards and Hillary Clinton, as well as do-gooder humanitarians with multiple social projects ongoing such as the Rockefellers and every Royal House in Europe, can perennially attend Bilderberg meetings apparently knowing that the final objective of this despicable group of hoodlums is a fascist One World Empire? --Daniel Estulin (P.318)
Daniel Estulin is a Madrid-based journalist and an investigative reporter who took on the daunting and dangerous task of researching the Bildeberg Group, and who offers his findings in The True Story Of The Bilderberg Group, recently published by TrineDay.
Equally intriguing as his harrowing tales of being followed and nearly killed on a couple of occasions while working on the book, is the manner in which Estulin connects the dots between the Bilderberg Group, world events, notable politicians and corporate tycoons and the two other secretive monsters of the ruling elite, the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) and the Trilateral Commission (TC). The project lasted 15 years and was motivated by Estulin's curiosity about how it is that the mainstream media have never covered in depth the meetings of the Bilderberg Group whose combined wealth exceeds the combined wealth of all U.S. citizens.
What Estulin's book makes clear is that the group, along with the CFR and TC, has become a shadow government whose top priority is to erase the sovereignty of all nation-states and supplant them with global corporate control of their economies under the surveillance of "an electronic global police state." [xv]
The author emphasizes that not all members of the group are "bad" people, and he implies that membership is structured somewhat like concentric circles in a target scheme with an inner core and various levels of relationship between that core and the outer circles of membership. Almost every famous player in politics and finance in the world is a member of one of the three organizations above mentioned, and their political affiliations range from liberal to conservative, for example, George W. Bush, George Soros, Gerald Ford, George McGovern, Jimmy Carter.
Of this private club, Estulin says: "This parallel world remains unseen in the daily struggles of most of humanity, but, believe me, it is there: a cesspool of duplicity and lies and double-speak and innuendo and blackmail and bribery. It is a surreal world of double and triple agents, of changing loyalties, of professional psychotic assassins, brainwashed black ops agents, soldiers of fortune and mercenaries, whose primary sources of income are the dirtiest and most despicable government-run subversive missions -- the kind that can never be exposed." [1]
This world, according to Estulin, is so perverse and evil that "it has left an indelible mark on my soul". [16] How not? Because the Bilderberg Group and its two other triplets, the CFR and the TC have set about to loot the entire planet. Their members run the central banks of the world and are poised to control discount rates, money-supply, interest rates, gold prices, and which countries receive or do not receive loans. Membership is by invitation only, many of the earliest members being handpicked, not from right-wing groups but from among none other than the Fabian Socialists who ultimately supported global government."
Another chilling quote Estulin includes is from William Shannon: "The Bilderbergers are searching for the age of post-nationalism: when we won't have countries, but rather regions of the Earth surrounded by universal values. That is to say, a global economy; one world government (selected rather than elected) and a universal religion.
To assure themselves of reaching these objectives, the Bilderbergers focus on a ‘greater technical approach' and less awareness on behalf of the general public."
The Bilderbergbaptism of Bill Clinton
In 1991 Bill Clinton attended the Bilderberg Conference in Baden-Baden, Germany, where Estulin asserts that he was "anointed" to the U.S. presidency, and shortly thereafter he took an unexpected, unannounced trip to Moscow. It appears, says Estulin, that he was sent there to get his KGB student-era, anti-Vietnam war files "buried" before he announced his candidacy for president which happened some two-and-a-half months later.
Today, Clinton is a member of all three groups: Bilderberg, CFR, and TC. Hillary Clinton is a member of the Bilderberg Group.
Estulin points out that "almost all of the presidential candidates for both parties have belonged to at least one of these organizations, many of the U.S. congressmen and senators, most major policy-making positions, especially in the field of foreign relations, much of the press, most of the leadership of the CIA, FBI, IRS, and many of the remaining governmental organizations in Washington. CFR members occupy nearly all White House cabinet positions."(80) When one considers that most prominent members of mainstream media are also members of what Edith Kermit Roosevelt, granddaughter of Theodore Roosevelt called "this legitimate Mafia", how can we assert that Americans obtain their news from independent sources?
For example, The News Hour with Jim Leher is the cornerstone of PBS's programming. Leher is a CFR member, and when one examines the funding of the news hour by Archer Daniels Midland (ADM), whose chairman. Dwayne Andreas. was a member of the Trilateral Commission; Pepsico, whose CEO, Indra Krishnamurthy Nooyi, is a Bilderberger and TC Executive Committee member; and Smith Barney which is interlocked with Citigroup, a global financial services company that is a member of the Bilderberg Group, the CFR, and the TC, what kind of "news" should one expect from Leher's News Hour? Consider also that many of the journalists on the News Hour: Paul Gigot, David Gergen, William Kristol, and William Safire are members of one or more of the three groups. [153]
Likewise, when we consider the membership in one or more of these groups of almost every American president since the inception of these organizations, we can no longer pretend that any Democratic or Republican presidential candidate offers the American people an alternative to ruling elite global hegemony.
In fact, Estulin's research reveals that "the Council on Foreign Relations creates and delivers psycho-political operations by manipulating people's reality through a ‘tactic of deception,' placing Council members on both sides of an issue. The deception is complete when the public is led to believe that its own best interests are being served while the CFR policy is being carried out." [117]
And what happens if the "anointed ones" become too autonomous? One chapter in the book, "The Watergate Con-Game", answers that question. In it Estulin suggests that Richard Nixon was set up by the Council on Foreign Relations of which he was a member because of his insubordination and unwillingness to submit to the shadow government. Presumably, Nixon's demise was carefully crafted to demonstrate to subsequent chief executives the price they would pay for disregarding the agenda of those who anointed them.
That was then,this is now
In the book's final pages, Estulin's research waxes increasingly relevant to the present moment in history. He asks: "Why would David Rockefeller and other U.S. Trilateralists, Bilderbergers and the CFR members want to dismantle the industrial might of the United States?" [184] He then launches into a summary of the economic history of the twentieth century and makes one of the most powerful statements of the entire book: "What we have witnessed from this ‘cabal' is the gradual collapsing of the U.S. economy that began in the 1980s." [187]
In case you haven't noticed, this "gradual collapse of the U.S. economy" is no longer gradual, and what Estulin is asserting confirms a great deal of the assertions made by Catherine Austin Fitts that the current housing bubble explosion/credit crunch/mortgage meltdown has its roots in the 1980s. James Howard Kunstler has also recently written an article on his blog, entitled "Shock and Awe," that the great American yard sale has begun. In other words, as an engineered economic meltdown drives hundreds of thousands and eventually millions of businesses and individuals into bankruptcy, key players in the Big Three ruling elite organizations can buy up the train wreck left behind for pennies on the dollar -- a brilliant fast-track strategy for owning the world.
In the final months of 2007, we are witnessing the stupendous success of the Big Three's strategy for planetary economic hegemony as the cacophony of their carefully engineered global economic cataclysm reverberates across America and around the world. It was never about buyers who didn't read the fine print when taking out liar loans. It was always about silver-tongued, ruling elite politicians and central bankers, anointed by the shadow government, who ultimately and skillfully stole and continue to steal governments from people and replace them with transnational corporations.
No one could have said it better than David Rockefeller, founder of the Trilateral Commission, a Bilderberg member and board member of the Council On Foreign Relations in his Memoirs: "Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as ‘internationalists' and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure-one world, if you will. If that's the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it."
If you want to know who really runs the world and the lengths to which they will go to establish their globalist hegemony, you must read Estulin's well-documented The True Story of The Bilderberg Group.
Carolyn Baker, Ph.D., is the author of Coming out of Fundamentalist Christianity and U.S. U.S. History Uncensored: What Your High School Textbook Didn't Tell You .Her website is www.carolynbaker.org where she may be contacted.
The Bilderberg Group is a group of influential people, mostly politicians and business people, whose existence and activities are private, and due to its secretive nature is the subject of numerous conspiracy theories. The group meets annually at five-star resorts throughout the world, normally in Europe, although sometimes in America or Canada . It has an office in Leiden , South Holland .
Although the group has no official name, the "Bilderberg Group" title comes from what is generally recognized to be the location of its first official meeting in 1954: the Bilderberg Hotel in Arnhem , the Netherlands .
The group has been depicted as an international cabal of the influental and the affluent: politicians, financiers, and media and business moguls; the elite of the elite. Some believe that they have dictated national policies, rigged (or outright stolen) national elections, caused wars, recessions, and ordered murders and ousters of world leaders such as American president John F. Kennedy and British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher.
The original intention of the Bilderberg group was to further the understanding between Western Europe and North America through informal meetings between powerful individuals. Each year, a "steering committee" devises a selected invitation list with a maximum of 100 names; invitations are only extended to residents of Europe and North America . The location of their annual meeting is not secret, and the agenda and list of participants are openly available to the public, but the topics of the meetings are kept secret: they are not published, and attendees pledge not to divulge what was discussed. The official stance of the Bilderberg Group is that their secrecy prevents these individuals' discussions from being manipulated by the media. However, social class-related exclusivity is considered by many to be the primary motive. Security is managed by military intelligence.
Perspectives on the nature of the group
The stated reason for the group's secrecy is that it enables people to speak freely without the need to carefully consider how every word might be interpreted by the mass media. However, as many of the attendees have gained their power through the democratic process, it is debatable if it is morally desirable for them to exercise their power off the record. This secrecy has led conspiracy researchers to claim that the meetings have a sinister purpose; that they are merely a front for the Round table groups, or even a semi-public front for the Illuminati or assorted other secret societies.
The Bilderberg Group has been described as:
· A "discussion group" of politicians, media moguls, academics and business leaders
· An exclusive international lobby of the power elite of Europe and North America , capable of influencing international policy
· A capitalist secret society operating entirely through self-interest.
Attendees of Bilderberg include central bankers, defense experts, mass media press barons, government ministers, prime ministers, royalty, international financiers and political leaders from Europe and America.Some of the Western world's leading financiers and foreign policy strategists attend Bilderberg. Donald Rumsfeld is an active Bilderberger - so is Peter Sutherland from Ireland, a former European Union commissioner and chairman of Goldman Sachs and of BP. Rumsfeld and Sutherland served together in 2000 on the board of the Swedish/Swiss energy company ABB. Former US Deputy Defense Secretary and current World Bank head Paul Wolfowitz is also a member, as is Roger Boothe, Jr. The group's current chairman is Étienne Davignon, the Belgian politician and businessman.
Wikipedia
In the News ....
2005
Inside the secretive Bilderberg Group BBC - October 7, 2005
Bilderberg's head Viscount Davignon plays down the group's role in setting the international agenda.
How much influence do private networks of the rich and powerful have on government policies and international relations? One group, the Bilderberg, has often attracted speculation that it forms a shadowy global government. As part of the BBC's Who Runs Your World? series, Bill Hayton tries to find out more.
Every year since 1954, a small network of rich and powerful people have held a discussion meeting about the state of the trans-Atlantic alliance and the problems facing Europe and the US .
Organised by a steering committee of two people from each of about 18 countries, the Bilderberg Group (named after the Dutch hotel in which it held its first meeting) brings together about 120 leading business people and politicians.
At this year's meeting in Germany , the audience included the heads of the World Bank and European Central Bank, Chairmen or Chief Executives from Nokia, BP, Unilever, DaimlerChrysler and Pepsi - among other multi-national corporations, editors from five major newspapers, members of parliament, ministers, European commissioners, the crown prince of Belgium and the queen of the Netherlands .
"I don't think (we are) a global ruling class because I don't think a global ruling class exists. I simply think it's people who have influence interested to speak to other people who have influence," Viscount Davignon says.
"Bilderberg does not try to reach conclusions - it does not try to say 'what we should do'. Everyone goes away with their own feeling and that allows the debate to be completely open, quite frank - and to see what the differences are.
"Business influences society and politics influences society - that's purely common sense. It's not that business contests the right of democratically-elected leaders to lead".
For Bilderberg's critics the fact that there is almost no publicity about the annual meetings is proof that they are up to no good. Jim Tucker, editor of a right-wing newspaper, the American Free Press for example, alleges they organise wars and elect and depose political leaders. He describes the group as simply 'evil'. So where does the truth lie?
Professor Kees van der Pijl of Sussex University in Britain says such private networks of corporate and political leaders play an informal but crucial role in the modern world.
"There need to be places where these people can think about the main challenges ahead, co-ordinate where policies should be going, and find out where there could be a consensus."
'Common sense'
Will Hutton, an economic analyst and former newspaper editor who attended a Bilderberg meeting in 1997, says people take part in these networks in order to influence the way the world works, to create what he calls "the international common sense" about policy.
"On every issue that might influence your business you will hear at first-hand the people who are actually making those decisions and you will play a part in helping them to make those decisions and formulating the common sense," he says.
And that "common sense" is one which supports the interests of Bilderberg's main participants - in particular free trade. Viscount Davignon says that at the annual meetings, "automatically around the table you have internationalists" - people who support the work of the World Trade Organisation, trans-Atlantic co-operation and European integration.
Bilderberg meetings often feature future political leaders shortly before they become household names. Bill Clinton went in 1991 while still governor of Arkansas , Tony Blair was there two years later while still an opposition MP. All the recent presidents of the European Commission attended Bilderberg meetings before they were appointed.
'Secret Government'
This has led to accusations that the group pushes its favoured politicians into high office. But Viscount Davignon says his steering committee are simply excellent talent spotters. The steering committee "does its best assessment of who are the bright new boys or girls in the beginning phase of their career who would like to get known."
"It's not a total accident, but it's not a forecast and if they go places it's not because of Bilderberg, it's because of themselves," Viscount Davignon says.
But its critics say Bilderberg's selection process gives an extra boost to aspiring politicians whose views are friendly to big business. None of this, however, is easy to prove - or disprove.
Observers like Will Hutton argue that such private networks have both good and bad sides. They are unaccountable to voters but, at the same time, they do keep the international system functioning. And there are limits to their power - a point which Bilderberg chairman was keen to stress, "When people say this is a secret government of the world I say that if we were a secret government of the world we should be bloody ashamed of ourselves."
Informal and private networks like Bilderberg have helped to oil the wheels of global politics and globalisation for the past half a century. In the eyes of critics they have undermined democracy, but their supporters believe they are crucial to modern democracy's success. And so long as business and politics remain mutually dependent, they will continue to thrive.
2004
The Ultimate Conspiracry - 50th anniversary
June 3, 2004 - BBC
The Bilderberg group, an elite coterie of Western thinkers and power-brokers, has been accused of fixing the fate of the world behind closed doors. As the organisation marks its 50th anniversary, rumours are more rife than ever.
Given its reputation as perhaps the most powerful organisation in the world, the Bilderberg group doesn't go a bundle on its switchboard operations.
Telephone inquiries are met with an impersonal female voice - the Dutch equivalent of the BT Callminder woman - reciting back the number and inviting callers to "leave a message after the tone".
Anyone who accidentally dialled the number would probably think they had stumbled on just another residential answer machine.
Leiden in Holland, the inauspicious base of the Bilderberg group
But behind this ultra-modest façade lies one of the most controversial and hotly-debated alliances of our times.
On Thursday the Bilderberg group marks its 50th anniversary with the start of its yearly meeting.
For four days some of the West's chief political movers, business leaders, bankers, industrialists and strategic thinkers will hunker down in a five-star hotel in northern Italy to talk about global issues.
What sets Bilderberg apart from other high-powered get-togethers, such as the annual World Economic Forum (WEF), is its mystique.
Not a word of what is said at Bilderberg meetings can be breathed outside. No reporters are invited in and while confidential minutes of meetings are taken, names are not noted.
The shadowy aura extends further - the anonymous answerphone message, for example; the fact that conference venues are kept secret. The group, which includes luminaries such as Henry Kissinger and former UK chancellor Kenneth Clarke, does not even have a website.
In the void created by such aloofness, an extraordinary conspiracy theory has grown up around the group that alleges the fate of the world is largely decided by Bilderberg.
In Yugoslavia , leading Serbs have blamed Bilderberg for triggering the war which led to the downfall of Slobodan Milosevic. The Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh, the London nail-bomber David Copeland and Osama Bin Laden are all said to have bought into the theory that Bilderberg pulls the strings with which national governments dance.
And while hardline right-wingers and libertarians accuse Bilderberg of being a liberal Zionist plot, leftists such as activist Tony Gosling are equally critical.
A former journalist, Mr Gosling runs a campaign against the group from his home in Bristol , UK .
"My main problem is the secrecy. When so many people with so much power get together in one place I think we are owed an explanation of what is going on.
Mr Gosling seizes on a quote from Will Hutton, the British economist and a former Bilderberg delegate, who likened it to the annual WEF gathering where "the consensus established is the backdrop against which policy is made worldwide".
"One of the first places I heard about the determination of US forces to attack Iraq was from leaks that came out of the 2002 Bilderberg meeting," says Mr Gosling.
But "privacy, rather than secrecy", is key to such a meeting says Financial Times journalist Martin Wolf, who has been invited several times in a non-reporting role.
"The idea that such meetings cannot be held in private is fundamentally totalitarian," he says. "It's not an executive body; no decisions are taken there."
As an up-and-coming statesmen in the 1950s, Denis Healey, who went on to become a Labour chancellor, was one of the four founding members of Bilderberg (which was named after the hotel in Holland where the first meeting was held in 1954).
His response to claims that Bilderberg exerts a shadowy hand on the global tiller is met with characteristic bluntness. "Crap!"
"There's absolutely nothing in it. We never sought to reach a consensus on the big issues at Bilderberg. It's simply a place for discussion," says Lord Healey.
Formed in the spirit of post-war trans-Atlantic co-operation, the idea behind Bilderberg was that future wars could be prevented by bringing power-brokers together in an informal setting away from prying eyes.
"Bilderberg is the most useful international group I ever attended. The confidentiality enabled people to speak honestly without fear of repercussions.
"In my experience the most useful meetings are those when one is free to speak openly and honestly. It's not unusual at all. Cabinet meetings in all countries are held behind closed doors and the minutes are not published."
That activists have seized on Bilderberg is no surprise to Alasdair Spark, an expert in conspiracy theories.
"The idea that a shadowy clique is running the world is nothing new. For hundreds of years people have believed the world is governed by a cabal of Jews.
"Shouldn't we expect that the rich and powerful organize things in their own interests. It's called capitalism."
Who runs the world and why you need to know immediately, By Carolyn Baker, Online Journal, Nov 21, 2007.
Book Review
The True Story of the Bilderberg Group
By Daniel Estulin
TrineDay
ISBN-10: 0977795349
It is difficult to re-educate people who have been brought up on nationalism to the idea of relinquishing part of their sovereignty to a supra-national body. --Bilderberg Group founder, Prince Bernhard
As a rhetorical question, can someone please explain to me how it is that progressive liberals such as John Edwards and Hillary Clinton, as well as do-gooder humanitarians with multiple social projects ongoing such as the Rockefellers and every Royal House in Europe, can perennially attend Bilderberg meetings apparently knowing that the final objective of this despicable group of hoodlums is a fascist One World Empire? --Daniel Estulin (P.318)
Daniel Estulin is a Madrid-based journalist and an investigative reporter who took on the daunting and dangerous task of researching the Bildeberg Group, and who offers his findings in The True Story Of The Bilderberg Group, recently published by TrineDay.
Equally intriguing as his harrowing tales of being followed and nearly killed on a couple of occasions while working on the book, is the manner in which Estulin connects the dots between the Bilderberg Group, world events, notable politicians and corporate tycoons and the two other secretive monsters of the ruling elite, the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) and the Trilateral Commission (TC). The project lasted 15 years and was motivated by Estulin's curiosity about how it is that the mainstream media have never covered in depth the meetings of the Bilderberg Group whose combined wealth exceeds the combined wealth of all U.S. citizens.
What Estulin's book makes clear is that the group, along with the CFR and TC, has become a shadow government whose top priority is to erase the sovereignty of all nation-states and supplant them with global corporate control of their economies under the surveillance of "an electronic global police state." [xv]
The author emphasizes that not all members of the group are "bad" people, and he implies that membership is structured somewhat like concentric circles in a target scheme with an inner core and various levels of relationship between that core and the outer circles of membership. Almost every famous player in politics and finance in the world is a member of one of the three organizations above mentioned, and their political affiliations range from liberal to conservative, for example, George W. Bush, George Soros, Gerald Ford, George McGovern, Jimmy Carter.
Of this private club, Estulin says: "This parallel world remains unseen in the daily struggles of most of humanity, but, believe me, it is there: a cesspool of duplicity and lies and double-speak and innuendo and blackmail and bribery. It is a surreal world of double and triple agents, of changing loyalties, of professional psychotic assassins, brainwashed black ops agents, soldiers of fortune and mercenaries, whose primary sources of income are the dirtiest and most despicable government-run subversive missions -- the kind that can never be exposed." [1]
This world, according to Estulin, is so perverse and evil that "it has left an indelible mark on my soul". [16] How not? Because the Bilderberg Group and its two other triplets, the CFR and the TC have set about to loot the entire planet. Their members run the central banks of the world and are poised to control discount rates, money-supply, interest rates, gold prices, and which countries receive or do not receive loans. Membership is by invitation only, many of the earliest members being handpicked, not from right-wing groups but from among none other than the Fabian Socialists who ultimately supported global government."
Another chilling quote Estulin includes is from William Shannon: "The Bilderbergers are searching for the age of post-nationalism: when we won't have countries, but rather regions of the Earth surrounded by universal values. That is to say, a global economy; one world government (selected rather than elected) and a universal religion.
To assure themselves of reaching these objectives, the Bilderbergers focus on a ‘greater technical approach' and less awareness on behalf of the general public."
The Bilderbergbaptism of Bill Clinton
In 1991 Bill Clinton attended the Bilderberg Conference in Baden-Baden, Germany, where Estulin asserts that he was "anointed" to the U.S. presidency, and shortly thereafter he took an unexpected, unannounced trip to Moscow. It appears, says Estulin, that he was sent there to get his KGB student-era, anti-Vietnam war files "buried" before he announced his candidacy for president which happened some two-and-a-half months later.
Today, Clinton is a member of all three groups: Bilderberg, CFR, and TC. Hillary Clinton is a member of the Bilderberg Group.
Estulin points out that "almost all of the presidential candidates for both parties have belonged to at least one of these organizations, many of the U.S. congressmen and senators, most major policy-making positions, especially in the field of foreign relations, much of the press, most of the leadership of the CIA, FBI, IRS, and many of the remaining governmental organizations in Washington. CFR members occupy nearly all White House cabinet positions."(80) When one considers that most prominent members of mainstream media are also members of what Edith Kermit Roosevelt, granddaughter of Theodore Roosevelt called "this legitimate Mafia", how can we assert that Americans obtain their news from independent sources?
For example, The News Hour with Jim Leher is the cornerstone of PBS's programming. Leher is a CFR member, and when one examines the funding of the news hour by Archer Daniels Midland (ADM), whose chairman. Dwayne Andreas. was a member of the Trilateral Commission; Pepsico, whose CEO, Indra Krishnamurthy Nooyi, is a Bilderberger and TC Executive Committee member; and Smith Barney which is interlocked with Citigroup, a global financial services company that is a member of the Bilderberg Group, the CFR, and the TC, what kind of "news" should one expect from Leher's News Hour? Consider also that many of the journalists on the News Hour: Paul Gigot, David Gergen, William Kristol, and William Safire are members of one or more of the three groups. [153]
Likewise, when we consider the membership in one or more of these groups of almost every American president since the inception of these organizations, we can no longer pretend that any Democratic or Republican presidential candidate offers the American people an alternative to ruling elite global hegemony.
In fact, Estulin's research reveals that "the Council on Foreign Relations creates and delivers psycho-political operations by manipulating people's reality through a ‘tactic of deception,' placing Council members on both sides of an issue. The deception is complete when the public is led to believe that its own best interests are being served while the CFR policy is being carried out." [117]
And what happens if the "anointed ones" become too autonomous? One chapter in the book, "The Watergate Con-Game", answers that question. In it Estulin suggests that Richard Nixon was set up by the Council on Foreign Relations of which he was a member because of his insubordination and unwillingness to submit to the shadow government. Presumably, Nixon's demise was carefully crafted to demonstrate to subsequent chief executives the price they would pay for disregarding the agenda of those who anointed them.
That was then,this is now
In the book's final pages, Estulin's research waxes increasingly relevant to the present moment in history. He asks: "Why would David Rockefeller and other U.S. Trilateralists, Bilderbergers and the CFR members want to dismantle the industrial might of the United States?" [184] He then launches into a summary of the economic history of the twentieth century and makes one of the most powerful statements of the entire book: "What we have witnessed from this ‘cabal' is the gradual collapsing of the U.S. economy that began in the 1980s." [187]
In case you haven't noticed, this "gradual collapse of the U.S. economy" is no longer gradual, and what Estulin is asserting confirms a great deal of the assertions made by Catherine Austin Fitts that the current housing bubble explosion/credit crunch/mortgage meltdown has its roots in the 1980s. James Howard Kunstler has also recently written an article on his blog, entitled "Shock and Awe," that the great American yard sale has begun. In other words, as an engineered economic meltdown drives hundreds of thousands and eventually millions of businesses and individuals into bankruptcy, key players in the Big Three ruling elite organizations can buy up the train wreck left behind for pennies on the dollar -- a brilliant fast-track strategy for owning the world.
In the final months of 2007, we are witnessing the stupendous success of the Big Three's strategy for planetary economic hegemony as the cacophony of their carefully engineered global economic cataclysm reverberates across America and around the world. It was never about buyers who didn't read the fine print when taking out liar loans. It was always about silver-tongued, ruling elite politicians and central bankers, anointed by the shadow government, who ultimately and skillfully stole and continue to steal governments from people and replace them with transnational corporations.
No one could have said it better than David Rockefeller, founder of the Trilateral Commission, a Bilderberg member and board member of the Council On Foreign Relations in his Memoirs: "Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as ‘internationalists' and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure-one world, if you will. If that's the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it."
If you want to know who really runs the world and the lengths to which they will go to establish their globalist hegemony, you must read Estulin's well-documented The True Story of The Bilderberg Group.
Carolyn Baker, Ph.D., is the author of Coming out of Fundamentalist Christianity and U.S. U.S. History Uncensored: What Your High School Textbook Didn't Tell You .Her website is www.carolynbaker.org where she may be contacted.
Saturday, December 8, 2007
Gujrat Survey On Modi..
From: Vishal Sharma < vishalsharma01@gmail.com>Date: Dec 8, 2007 4:41 PM
Subject: Results of surveyDear Friends,The Bharatiya Janata Yuva Morcha in Gujarat
conducted a survey attempting to reach 100,000 respondents in a mere 5 days period, in the 182 Assembly constituencies in Gujarat.
It interviewed over 60,000 respondents.The 182 Yuva Morcha 'motorcycle' teams spent 5 days in every Assembly constituency, interviweing about 100 people per day.
The survey results show a tremendous support for Narendra Modi in Guajrat:
82% of the respondents know that Narendra Modi has no personal family of his own.
92% of the respondents are happy with Narendra Modi and want him to continue as Chief Minister.
86% of the respondents are aware of the fact, that the Congress party led UPA government had filed an affidavit in the Supreme Court of India denying the existence of Bhagwan Ram. Due to public pressure, the Congress party led UPA government withdrew this false affidavit the very next day.
85% of the respondents want the Congress party leaders arrested for this false affidavit.
87% of the respondents support Narendra Modi's zero tolerance policy against terrorism.
87% of the respondents support Narendra Modi's stance for the defense of the Ram Setu.
85% of the respondents say that Narendra Modi's Beti-Bachav Andolan (Save the female foetus/infant) has changed society.
76% of the respondents know that the Congress party wanted Narendra Modi arrested for giving land titles to landless tribals.
78% of the respondents are aware that the Congress party is advocating religion-based reservations in India .
86% of the respondents stated that there is peace & prosperity under Narendra Modi, and that their incomes have increased.
These phenomenal results show that Narendra Modi is undoubtedly Gujarat 's Hero No. 1
Regards,
Vishal Sharma
Subject: Results of surveyDear Friends,The Bharatiya Janata Yuva Morcha in Gujarat
conducted a survey attempting to reach 100,000 respondents in a mere 5 days period, in the 182 Assembly constituencies in Gujarat.
It interviewed over 60,000 respondents.The 182 Yuva Morcha 'motorcycle' teams spent 5 days in every Assembly constituency, interviweing about 100 people per day.
The survey results show a tremendous support for Narendra Modi in Guajrat:
82% of the respondents know that Narendra Modi has no personal family of his own.
92% of the respondents are happy with Narendra Modi and want him to continue as Chief Minister.
86% of the respondents are aware of the fact, that the Congress party led UPA government had filed an affidavit in the Supreme Court of India denying the existence of Bhagwan Ram. Due to public pressure, the Congress party led UPA government withdrew this false affidavit the very next day.
85% of the respondents want the Congress party leaders arrested for this false affidavit.
87% of the respondents support Narendra Modi's zero tolerance policy against terrorism.
87% of the respondents support Narendra Modi's stance for the defense of the Ram Setu.
85% of the respondents say that Narendra Modi's Beti-Bachav Andolan (Save the female foetus/infant) has changed society.
76% of the respondents know that the Congress party wanted Narendra Modi arrested for giving land titles to landless tribals.
78% of the respondents are aware that the Congress party is advocating religion-based reservations in India .
86% of the respondents stated that there is peace & prosperity under Narendra Modi, and that their incomes have increased.
These phenomenal results show that Narendra Modi is undoubtedly Gujarat 's Hero No. 1
Regards,
Vishal Sharma
Hate Speech.. Congress is No 1
From: "HARAN BR" <haran.br@gmail.com>
Subject: The Issue called "Hate Speech": -Only Modi! Why not Sonia, Farook, Karuna & Buddha?
ONLY MODI! WHY NOT SONIA, FAROOK, KARUNA & BUDDHA?
The Issue called "Hate Speech": -
The Gujarat Chief Minister Mr.Narendra Modi, stung by Sonia's attack, on the 1st of December, of calling him "Merchant of religion & death", gave her a befitting reply during his election campaign on the 4 th of December, in Gujarat. As he wanted to deliberate on the rampant terrorism in our country under the Congress led UPA government, he took the cases of Afzal Guru and Shorabbuidin. He charged Congress for dilly dallying on Afzal's hanging order given by the Supreme Court, and cited the example of Shorabuddin for, how such terror elements like him are responsible for terror attacks. When he asked the crowd, how one must deal with such a terror element, the crowd replied, "He must be killed" for which Modi has been alleged to have said, "he got what he deserved" or "That's what I did. I did what was necessary" or "Well that's it". During his speech, as per the media reports, he has not mentioned "Hindus" or "Muslims". But, when the entire national media made a top headline story saying, "Modi justifies Shorab killing" by deliberately misinterpreting his speech, he clarified his position and also said that Mrs.Sonia had provoked him to talk about terrorism, while he has been campaigning purely on development & achievements. He also reminded the media that, his government had already submitted to the Court of Law that Shorabuddin had been killed and subsequently the state police officers have also been arrested. He had also said that he had never supported fake encounters.
Repercussions of the issue: -
While the mainstream media went overboard repeatedly on this story, the self-styled activist Ms.Teesta Setalvad petitioned the Election commission on the 5th of December to take action against Mr.Modi for his "hate speech" on the grounds that, he has incited communal violence, misused religion for political ends, etc. Having received the complaint, the Election Commission had issued a show-cause notice to Mr.Modi on Thursday the 6th asking him to reply by Saturday the 8th.
In the meantime, Senior Lawyer Mr.K.T.Tulsi, who has been representing the Gujarat government in the Shorabuddin case, had said that he would withdraw from the case if Mr. Modi did not apologize for his remarks. It is a wonder that, Mr.Tulsi had not shown this "moral" standards, when he was representing Ms.Jayalalitha and TN government against Pujya Shree Kanchi Sankaracharyas! Now, he had been replaced by Advocate Ranjit Kumar.
Another Senior Lawyer Mr.Booshan had filed a petition at the Supreme Court for reinvestigation of all "encounter deaths". Shorabuddin's brother had also approached SC for shifting the Shorabuddin cae from Gujarat. Another self-styled activist Mr.Javed Akhtar had also petitioned SC for taking action against Mr.Modi. All these petitions are likely to be heard by the SC on Monday the 10th.
Meanwhile, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh in an election rally in Ahmedabad had said, "Modi is dividing the people on communal lines and creating an atmosphere of fear in the state and the law & order situation is not good". He had said that Mr.Modi is telling lies and making false claims on the development of the state, while Mrs. Sonia contradicted him by saying that the development in Gujarat is because of central funding. Referring to Shorabuddin case, the Prime Minister had said, "People are being killed without any reasons". What about the thousands of innocent people, who were killed by the likes of Shorabuddin? It is an irony that the nation's Prime Minister is publicly making statements in support of a known criminal and a terror suspect. But, what else can we expect from some one, who lost his sleep over the plight of the family of a terror suspect?
The former CM of Madhya Pradesh Mr.Digvijay Singh had aid, "Modi must be tried in the international court of law". Why an international court for an internal issue? Does it not show that Mr.Digvijay Singh doesn't have any respect for our Constitution and Judiciary? He had also said in the 'Election Manifesto' releasing ceremony on the 3rd of December, "Hindus have Hindu terrorism to counter Muslim terrorism. Gujarat is a state, which unleashes Hindu terrorism". He must answer the people in general and the Hindu majority in particular, which Hindu organization is indulging in terror acts, that too in the name of religion? He can never answer this question and hence legal actions must be taken against him.
BJP leader Mr.Adwani had shot off a letter to the Election Commission to take note of the petitions given to it on the 2nd of December regarding Mrs.Sonia's speech at an election rally, where in, she called the BJP leaders as "Merchants of religion & death". Mr.Adwani asked, "Why the EC had not issued show-cause notice to Mrs.Sonia?" Mr.Adwani said that the EC must not be partial and that it should be neutral. He felt that the EC should not have double standards.
The Left front, for its part, had also petitioned the EC to refrain Mr.Modi from contesting elections. As the Congress, UPA partners, Left front, mainstream media and the secular brigade are all firing against Mr.Modi from all sides, making much ado about nothing, that too in support of a terrorist, it becomes imperative for us to analyze some of the talks & statements of a few other leaders, in order to make a genuine comparison and arrive at a conclusion on who deserves prosecution, Mr.Modi or others.
Mrs.Sonia Gandhi: -
Congress President Mrs.Sonia, every time when she addresses election rallies, always talks about Hindu majority with contempt, and names the Hindu leaders as "Communalists" & "fundamentalists". Even during the recent UP Assembly elections, she had written a personal letter to thousands of Muslim clerics and leaders saying, "help me generously to fight against communalism (read majority Hindus), so that, I can build a society of your dreams". In the same way, on 2nd of December at an election rally in Gujarat, she had said, "The Gujarat government is being run by leaders who are liars, dishonest and merchants of religion & death". It is an arrogant and uncivilized statement meant to whip up communal passion. She had also made disparaging remarks about RSS & VHP many times in the past, with an aim of capturing Muslim votes. When the MP government issued an order allowing the state government staff to participate in RSS meetings, she immediately shot off a letter to the then President Dr.Kalam, making damaging remarks about the grand old organization, which strives hard to uphold the culture & heritage of our nation. Throughout her political life and particularly in the last three years, she had utilized every opportunity to ridicule Hindu community and its leaders, sometimes even at the rallies of other communities.
If these kinds of speeches and writings do not deserve legal actions, then what kind of a speech deserve?
Dr.Farook Abdullah: -
"Go ahead, Hang him! Face the consequences. The country will go up in flames. The harmony between Hindus & Muslims would be destroyed. The Judges, who ordered the hanging, would be murdered"! These were the statements of National Conference leader Mr.Farook Abdullah, while advocating clemency for dreaded terrorist Mohammad Afzal Guru, in the parliament attack case. This statement even amounts to blackmailing & threatening the establishment & the judiciary and it also invites contempt of Court! He was also supported by Chief Minister Azad and PDP leader Mehabooba Mufti . These leaders have supported a terrorist, who had masterminded the attack on our Parliament, which is the heart of our democracy and got away with it! Why & How? Because they are "secular" politicians belonging to the minority community! If the statement of Dr.Abdullah doesn't deserve legal actions, then what can we say about it?
Very recently, Dr.Farook Abdullah dropped another bomb shell in his characteristic style. That is, he said, "I regret Kashmir's accession to India. I cannot stand by the Army". Can such words come out of a truly nationalist leader? Is it enough to have the word 'national' only in the name of the party? Nationalism & Patriotism must be in one's blood and only then the heart would feel & mind would think on those lines, and such feeling & thinking only would come out in the form of words. Jammu & Kashmir are an integral part of our country and who is Dr. Farook Abdullah to deny that? At the time of independence & the unfortunate partition, millions of Hindus were living in Jammu & Kashmir and only later on, they were ethnically cleansed by the Islamic terrorists. Now, Dr.Abdullah talks as if J & K belongs only to Muslims! Previously he supported terrorists who attacked our Parliament and now he insults the Army, Nation and our Constitution. Who deserves legal actions, Dr.Abdullah or Mr.Modi?
Mr.M.Karunanidhi & other Dravidian Leaders: -
People, who are surprised at the war of words between Congress & BJP, must come to "Dravida Nadu" (Tamil Nadu) and see the ugly level of mud slinging done by the Dravidian Leaders. The Congress, BJP and other state leaders cannot match even 10% of the Dravidian leaders' vocabulary & word power. Let us look at some of the (un)quotable quotes.
First and foremost is our Chief Minister Mr.M.Karunanidhi who said, "Who is Rama? Does he exist? Was he an engineer to build this bridge? If so, in which engineering college he studied? Ramayana is a myth and Rama is an imaginative character". He said these words in massively organized public meetings in Salem & Erode. He did not stop with that. When the entire nation erupted like a volcano the next day over his anti-Ram remarks, he reiterated his statements again in Chennai with arrogance. Later on, he went on to deliberate on Valmiki Ramayana and said "Rama was a drunkard. Valmiki had written about Rama's drinking habits". This incited violence and two persons were burnt to death inside a bus by anti-social elements in the outskirts of Bangalore and his daughter's house in Bangalore was also attacked. Then, His party cadres led by a State Cabinet Minister, Chennai City Mayor and a few MLAs, attacked the BJP / VHP / Hindu Munnani offices and residential buildings through out the state in many places and ransacked them. Then they announced, "The cadres belonging to Sangh organizations will not be allowed to walk on the streets, alive!"
Then after a long gap, when Senior Journalist and Chief Editor of Indian Express Mr.Shekar Guptha interviewed him in the 'Walk the Talk' program for NDTV, he again reiterated the same statements with gumption. This time he deliberated on Thulsi Das Ramayana and aid, "Thulsi Das had written that Seetha was the younger sister of Rama". All these statements were made by him when the SSCP issue is subjudice. He had also said, "Communal Hindus and Aryans are attempting to spoil the benefits of the Tamils by attacking the SSCP through invoking religious hatred in the name of Rama, Ramayana & Rama Sethu".
Many times in the past, Mr.Karunanidhi and his colleagues have made scathing attack on Hindus, Hindu Gods, Hindu religion, Hindu culture, Hindu Temples & Traditions.
Can Mr.Modi's statement stand in front of these "golden" & "secular" words of Mr.Karunanidhi? Who deserves legal actions, Mr.Modi or Mr.Karunanidhi?
With regards to Tamil Nadu, it is not only Mr.Karunanidhi but also his alliance partners, who indulged in insulting Lord Rama and hurting the sentiments of Hindus, particularly while campaigning for the much hyped Sethusamudram Ship Channel Project. Dravidar Kazhagam President Mr.K.Veeramani said, "We will burn Ramayana & Bagwad Gita"! Viduthalai Chiruthai Katchi (VCK) Chief Mr.Thirumavalavan said, "There is nothing wrong in 'blasting' the mythical Rama Sethu for the benefit of the Tamils". These leaders repeat their statements in every meeting on SSCP. Are all these words 'secular'? Are these leaders not fit for legal actions? No one will bother, because, these leaders are secular!
On Thursday the 6th, TMMK Secretary Mr.Jawahirullah said, while addressing a gathering of Muslims on Babri anniversary, "If Modi comes to Tamil Nadu (he is likely to visit Chennai for the anniversary function of Mr.Cho.Ramaswamy's weekly magazine 'Thuglak') he will not go back to Gujarat alive!" What sort of a statement is this, sermon on non-violence or inciting violence? No action will be taken against him, because, he is a Muslim!
When the Srilankan Air Force bombarded a LTTE hide out, in which the former militant and political chief S.P.Tamilselvan got killed, almost all the Tamil leaders expressed sympathy & condolence and organized processions & demonstrations publicly in many places. DK president Mr.Veeramani, PMK president Dr.Ramadass, VCK president Mr.Thirumavalavan, MDMK president Mr.Vaiko and TNM leader Mr.Nedumaran have all openly supported the LTTE while mourning the death of the LTTE leader Tamilselvan. DMK president Mr.Karunanidhi went one step ahead and wrote an 'elegy' eulogizing the militant leader. Organizations like VCK, DK and Periyar Dravida Kazhagam pasted wall posters throughout the state in support of LTTE, in condolence for the militant's death. LTTE is a terrorist organization responsible for many terror activities on our soil including the assassination of former Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi and it is a banned organization. But, all these Dravidian leaders had the gumption to openly support the organization, and no one bothered, because, everything was done in the name of "Tamil and Tamil Blood"!
Mr.Buddhadeb Battacharjee:-
West Bengal Chief Minister Mr.Buddhadeb Bhattacharjee, while addressing a gathering of Muslims to mark the Babri demolition anniversary, had said, "Rama is a figment of a poet's imagination and Rama Sethu is a natural formation under the sea". He had also said, "The Sethusamudram project was being opposed by the Sangh Parivar on religious grounds, but it was vital for the economic development of the region". When SSCP is connected with Tamil Nadu, why should he talk about it at a gathering of Kolkata Muslims, who are in no way concerned about it ? He went on to question the existence of Lord Rama! How can Buddha ridicule a Hindu God in a Muslim gathering? Is it right on his part to make such a malicious statement in a meeting of minorities? Is it not an ugly & stinking 'secular' exercise of vote begging? Those who are crowing & harping on Mr.Modi's general talk on terrorism are keeping quiet now. Why? Does not Buddha deserve prosecution? Nobody will bother, because, he is a "secular leftist"!
Relevant Legal Procedures: -
By the above said actions, these leaders have rendered themselves liable to be prosecuted for various offences, such as defamation of Mr.Modi, insult to religion, treason etc. They have to be made to pay the price for defaming Hindus, Hindu Gods, Hindu Religion, Hindu Epics and talking against the interests of the Nation and its constitution. They would have to be disqualified from the present political & governmental status. They have to be disenfranchised for a minimum period of six years. Their parties must be derecognized.
Section 295A of the Indian Penal Code provides that whoever deliberately and with a malicious intention of outraging the religious feelings of an class of citizens of India, by words (spoken/written) or by signs and visible representations, insults or attempts to insult the religion or the religious beliefs of that class shall be punished with imprisonment for a term of up to 3 years with or without fine. Section 298 provides that any person who utters any word or sound or gesture with a deliberate intent to wound the religious feelings of any person is punishable with imprisonment for a term of up to 1 year with or without fine.
Section 499 of the IPC deals with defamation, that is, publication of any imputation with intent to injure the reputation of any person. The imputations made by these leaders against Mr. Modi and towards the Hindu religion and the various collections of persons and identifiable groups/bodies of devotees practicing the Hindu faith, would per se fall under the mischief of Section 499 and would be punishable.
Unfortunately, the powers-that-be which are charged with the enforcement of law are themselves the offenders in this case. It is therefore imperative that the Courts of Law which are the last recourse of justice and fair play in this country have to suo motu assume a pro-active role and take cognizance of such statements and punish the guilty, who are presently emboldened by their power and position and the docility of the Hindu Nation. They seem to have scant regard for the Indian Constitution.
The Anti-Climax: -
The Congress party conveyed through the media that Sonia's statements were not intended towards Mr.Modi, but the officers of Gujarat government. When the BJP came in full support of Mr.Modi and defended him and when Mr.Adwani shot off a letter to the EC and later on when Mr.Modi requested the EC for the extension of deadline for his reply from 11 am to 5.30 pm, the Congress Party thought that Mr.Modi and the BJP were caught on the wrong foot. Emboldened by this thought, the party again changed its stand and conveyed through the media that Sonia's statement 'merchant of death' was intended towards Mr.Modi and that the party stands by her statement.
Mr.Modi, in his reply based on the press clippings and CD issued by the Election Commission, had categorically brought to the notice of the EC that the concerned statements (hate speech) reported by the press were totally different from the speech shown in the CD. He had clarified to the EC that he is entitled to freedom of speech, especially to reply to the offending charges and malicious campaign made by his political opponents in the electoral market and requested that the EC would give him that freedom in order to conduct a "free & fair" election. He had also justified his speech on terrorism, which was the result of the provocation by Sonia calling him the merchant of death, by quoting relevant statistics and facts. Finally, while denying the charges in their entirety, he had requested the EC to withdraw its notice. In course of his reply, he had also reminded the EC about the complaints given b! y BJP against the speeches of Sonia & Digvijay Singh, which has made the EC to ask for the relevant reports on Sonia & Digvijay Singh from the Chief Electoral Officer. Now, the Congress, which committed that it stands by the statement of Sonia, is actually caught on the wrong foot!
Now, the Election Commission is duty bound not only to withdraw the notice against Mr.Modi, but also to reprimand Mrs.sonia for her uncivilized statement, which has violated the moral code of conduct. The campaigning for the first phase of elections ends tomorrow and Mr.Modi seems to be the clear winner and many more dramas may unfold during the campaigning for the second phase due to the never ending stupidity of the "secular brigade". So, keep watching Gujarat!
The so-called "secularism" being practiced in this country is nothing but "Anti-Hinduism" and the people of this Great Nation must understand the hypocrisy of the so called "secular Politicians" and the "secular media". This great land of Sanatana Dharma will withstand all kinds of Adharmic onslaughts and conquer them and Dharma will prevail for ever!
Vandemataram! Jai Hind! Bharat Matha ki Jai!
B.R.Haran,
Chennai.
Subject: The Issue called "Hate Speech": -Only Modi! Why not Sonia, Farook, Karuna & Buddha?
ONLY MODI! WHY NOT SONIA, FAROOK, KARUNA & BUDDHA?
The Issue called "Hate Speech": -
The Gujarat Chief Minister Mr.Narendra Modi, stung by Sonia's attack, on the 1st of December, of calling him "Merchant of religion & death", gave her a befitting reply during his election campaign on the 4 th of December, in Gujarat. As he wanted to deliberate on the rampant terrorism in our country under the Congress led UPA government, he took the cases of Afzal Guru and Shorabbuidin. He charged Congress for dilly dallying on Afzal's hanging order given by the Supreme Court, and cited the example of Shorabuddin for, how such terror elements like him are responsible for terror attacks. When he asked the crowd, how one must deal with such a terror element, the crowd replied, "He must be killed" for which Modi has been alleged to have said, "he got what he deserved" or "That's what I did. I did what was necessary" or "Well that's it". During his speech, as per the media reports, he has not mentioned "Hindus" or "Muslims". But, when the entire national media made a top headline story saying, "Modi justifies Shorab killing" by deliberately misinterpreting his speech, he clarified his position and also said that Mrs.Sonia had provoked him to talk about terrorism, while he has been campaigning purely on development & achievements. He also reminded the media that, his government had already submitted to the Court of Law that Shorabuddin had been killed and subsequently the state police officers have also been arrested. He had also said that he had never supported fake encounters.
Repercussions of the issue: -
While the mainstream media went overboard repeatedly on this story, the self-styled activist Ms.Teesta Setalvad petitioned the Election commission on the 5th of December to take action against Mr.Modi for his "hate speech" on the grounds that, he has incited communal violence, misused religion for political ends, etc. Having received the complaint, the Election Commission had issued a show-cause notice to Mr.Modi on Thursday the 6th asking him to reply by Saturday the 8th.
In the meantime, Senior Lawyer Mr.K.T.Tulsi, who has been representing the Gujarat government in the Shorabuddin case, had said that he would withdraw from the case if Mr. Modi did not apologize for his remarks. It is a wonder that, Mr.Tulsi had not shown this "moral" standards, when he was representing Ms.Jayalalitha and TN government against Pujya Shree Kanchi Sankaracharyas! Now, he had been replaced by Advocate Ranjit Kumar.
Another Senior Lawyer Mr.Booshan had filed a petition at the Supreme Court for reinvestigation of all "encounter deaths". Shorabuddin's brother had also approached SC for shifting the Shorabuddin cae from Gujarat. Another self-styled activist Mr.Javed Akhtar had also petitioned SC for taking action against Mr.Modi. All these petitions are likely to be heard by the SC on Monday the 10th.
Meanwhile, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh in an election rally in Ahmedabad had said, "Modi is dividing the people on communal lines and creating an atmosphere of fear in the state and the law & order situation is not good". He had said that Mr.Modi is telling lies and making false claims on the development of the state, while Mrs. Sonia contradicted him by saying that the development in Gujarat is because of central funding. Referring to Shorabuddin case, the Prime Minister had said, "People are being killed without any reasons". What about the thousands of innocent people, who were killed by the likes of Shorabuddin? It is an irony that the nation's Prime Minister is publicly making statements in support of a known criminal and a terror suspect. But, what else can we expect from some one, who lost his sleep over the plight of the family of a terror suspect?
The former CM of Madhya Pradesh Mr.Digvijay Singh had aid, "Modi must be tried in the international court of law". Why an international court for an internal issue? Does it not show that Mr.Digvijay Singh doesn't have any respect for our Constitution and Judiciary? He had also said in the 'Election Manifesto' releasing ceremony on the 3rd of December, "Hindus have Hindu terrorism to counter Muslim terrorism. Gujarat is a state, which unleashes Hindu terrorism". He must answer the people in general and the Hindu majority in particular, which Hindu organization is indulging in terror acts, that too in the name of religion? He can never answer this question and hence legal actions must be taken against him.
BJP leader Mr.Adwani had shot off a letter to the Election Commission to take note of the petitions given to it on the 2nd of December regarding Mrs.Sonia's speech at an election rally, where in, she called the BJP leaders as "Merchants of religion & death". Mr.Adwani asked, "Why the EC had not issued show-cause notice to Mrs.Sonia?" Mr.Adwani said that the EC must not be partial and that it should be neutral. He felt that the EC should not have double standards.
The Left front, for its part, had also petitioned the EC to refrain Mr.Modi from contesting elections. As the Congress, UPA partners, Left front, mainstream media and the secular brigade are all firing against Mr.Modi from all sides, making much ado about nothing, that too in support of a terrorist, it becomes imperative for us to analyze some of the talks & statements of a few other leaders, in order to make a genuine comparison and arrive at a conclusion on who deserves prosecution, Mr.Modi or others.
Mrs.Sonia Gandhi: -
Congress President Mrs.Sonia, every time when she addresses election rallies, always talks about Hindu majority with contempt, and names the Hindu leaders as "Communalists" & "fundamentalists". Even during the recent UP Assembly elections, she had written a personal letter to thousands of Muslim clerics and leaders saying, "help me generously to fight against communalism (read majority Hindus), so that, I can build a society of your dreams". In the same way, on 2nd of December at an election rally in Gujarat, she had said, "The Gujarat government is being run by leaders who are liars, dishonest and merchants of religion & death". It is an arrogant and uncivilized statement meant to whip up communal passion. She had also made disparaging remarks about RSS & VHP many times in the past, with an aim of capturing Muslim votes. When the MP government issued an order allowing the state government staff to participate in RSS meetings, she immediately shot off a letter to the then President Dr.Kalam, making damaging remarks about the grand old organization, which strives hard to uphold the culture & heritage of our nation. Throughout her political life and particularly in the last three years, she had utilized every opportunity to ridicule Hindu community and its leaders, sometimes even at the rallies of other communities.
If these kinds of speeches and writings do not deserve legal actions, then what kind of a speech deserve?
Dr.Farook Abdullah: -
"Go ahead, Hang him! Face the consequences. The country will go up in flames. The harmony between Hindus & Muslims would be destroyed. The Judges, who ordered the hanging, would be murdered"! These were the statements of National Conference leader Mr.Farook Abdullah, while advocating clemency for dreaded terrorist Mohammad Afzal Guru, in the parliament attack case. This statement even amounts to blackmailing & threatening the establishment & the judiciary and it also invites contempt of Court! He was also supported by Chief Minister Azad and PDP leader Mehabooba Mufti . These leaders have supported a terrorist, who had masterminded the attack on our Parliament, which is the heart of our democracy and got away with it! Why & How? Because they are "secular" politicians belonging to the minority community! If the statement of Dr.Abdullah doesn't deserve legal actions, then what can we say about it?
Very recently, Dr.Farook Abdullah dropped another bomb shell in his characteristic style. That is, he said, "I regret Kashmir's accession to India. I cannot stand by the Army". Can such words come out of a truly nationalist leader? Is it enough to have the word 'national' only in the name of the party? Nationalism & Patriotism must be in one's blood and only then the heart would feel & mind would think on those lines, and such feeling & thinking only would come out in the form of words. Jammu & Kashmir are an integral part of our country and who is Dr. Farook Abdullah to deny that? At the time of independence & the unfortunate partition, millions of Hindus were living in Jammu & Kashmir and only later on, they were ethnically cleansed by the Islamic terrorists. Now, Dr.Abdullah talks as if J & K belongs only to Muslims! Previously he supported terrorists who attacked our Parliament and now he insults the Army, Nation and our Constitution. Who deserves legal actions, Dr.Abdullah or Mr.Modi?
Mr.M.Karunanidhi & other Dravidian Leaders: -
People, who are surprised at the war of words between Congress & BJP, must come to "Dravida Nadu" (Tamil Nadu) and see the ugly level of mud slinging done by the Dravidian Leaders. The Congress, BJP and other state leaders cannot match even 10% of the Dravidian leaders' vocabulary & word power. Let us look at some of the (un)quotable quotes.
First and foremost is our Chief Minister Mr.M.Karunanidhi who said, "Who is Rama? Does he exist? Was he an engineer to build this bridge? If so, in which engineering college he studied? Ramayana is a myth and Rama is an imaginative character". He said these words in massively organized public meetings in Salem & Erode. He did not stop with that. When the entire nation erupted like a volcano the next day over his anti-Ram remarks, he reiterated his statements again in Chennai with arrogance. Later on, he went on to deliberate on Valmiki Ramayana and said "Rama was a drunkard. Valmiki had written about Rama's drinking habits". This incited violence and two persons were burnt to death inside a bus by anti-social elements in the outskirts of Bangalore and his daughter's house in Bangalore was also attacked. Then, His party cadres led by a State Cabinet Minister, Chennai City Mayor and a few MLAs, attacked the BJP / VHP / Hindu Munnani offices and residential buildings through out the state in many places and ransacked them. Then they announced, "The cadres belonging to Sangh organizations will not be allowed to walk on the streets, alive!"
Then after a long gap, when Senior Journalist and Chief Editor of Indian Express Mr.Shekar Guptha interviewed him in the 'Walk the Talk' program for NDTV, he again reiterated the same statements with gumption. This time he deliberated on Thulsi Das Ramayana and aid, "Thulsi Das had written that Seetha was the younger sister of Rama". All these statements were made by him when the SSCP issue is subjudice. He had also said, "Communal Hindus and Aryans are attempting to spoil the benefits of the Tamils by attacking the SSCP through invoking religious hatred in the name of Rama, Ramayana & Rama Sethu".
Many times in the past, Mr.Karunanidhi and his colleagues have made scathing attack on Hindus, Hindu Gods, Hindu religion, Hindu culture, Hindu Temples & Traditions.
Can Mr.Modi's statement stand in front of these "golden" & "secular" words of Mr.Karunanidhi? Who deserves legal actions, Mr.Modi or Mr.Karunanidhi?
With regards to Tamil Nadu, it is not only Mr.Karunanidhi but also his alliance partners, who indulged in insulting Lord Rama and hurting the sentiments of Hindus, particularly while campaigning for the much hyped Sethusamudram Ship Channel Project. Dravidar Kazhagam President Mr.K.Veeramani said, "We will burn Ramayana & Bagwad Gita"! Viduthalai Chiruthai Katchi (VCK) Chief Mr.Thirumavalavan said, "There is nothing wrong in 'blasting' the mythical Rama Sethu for the benefit of the Tamils". These leaders repeat their statements in every meeting on SSCP. Are all these words 'secular'? Are these leaders not fit for legal actions? No one will bother, because, these leaders are secular!
On Thursday the 6th, TMMK Secretary Mr.Jawahirullah said, while addressing a gathering of Muslims on Babri anniversary, "If Modi comes to Tamil Nadu (he is likely to visit Chennai for the anniversary function of Mr.Cho.Ramaswamy's weekly magazine 'Thuglak') he will not go back to Gujarat alive!" What sort of a statement is this, sermon on non-violence or inciting violence? No action will be taken against him, because, he is a Muslim!
When the Srilankan Air Force bombarded a LTTE hide out, in which the former militant and political chief S.P.Tamilselvan got killed, almost all the Tamil leaders expressed sympathy & condolence and organized processions & demonstrations publicly in many places. DK president Mr.Veeramani, PMK president Dr.Ramadass, VCK president Mr.Thirumavalavan, MDMK president Mr.Vaiko and TNM leader Mr.Nedumaran have all openly supported the LTTE while mourning the death of the LTTE leader Tamilselvan. DMK president Mr.Karunanidhi went one step ahead and wrote an 'elegy' eulogizing the militant leader. Organizations like VCK, DK and Periyar Dravida Kazhagam pasted wall posters throughout the state in support of LTTE, in condolence for the militant's death. LTTE is a terrorist organization responsible for many terror activities on our soil including the assassination of former Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi and it is a banned organization. But, all these Dravidian leaders had the gumption to openly support the organization, and no one bothered, because, everything was done in the name of "Tamil and Tamil Blood"!
Mr.Buddhadeb Battacharjee:-
West Bengal Chief Minister Mr.Buddhadeb Bhattacharjee, while addressing a gathering of Muslims to mark the Babri demolition anniversary, had said, "Rama is a figment of a poet's imagination and Rama Sethu is a natural formation under the sea". He had also said, "The Sethusamudram project was being opposed by the Sangh Parivar on religious grounds, but it was vital for the economic development of the region". When SSCP is connected with Tamil Nadu, why should he talk about it at a gathering of Kolkata Muslims, who are in no way concerned about it ? He went on to question the existence of Lord Rama! How can Buddha ridicule a Hindu God in a Muslim gathering? Is it right on his part to make such a malicious statement in a meeting of minorities? Is it not an ugly & stinking 'secular' exercise of vote begging? Those who are crowing & harping on Mr.Modi's general talk on terrorism are keeping quiet now. Why? Does not Buddha deserve prosecution? Nobody will bother, because, he is a "secular leftist"!
Relevant Legal Procedures: -
By the above said actions, these leaders have rendered themselves liable to be prosecuted for various offences, such as defamation of Mr.Modi, insult to religion, treason etc. They have to be made to pay the price for defaming Hindus, Hindu Gods, Hindu Religion, Hindu Epics and talking against the interests of the Nation and its constitution. They would have to be disqualified from the present political & governmental status. They have to be disenfranchised for a minimum period of six years. Their parties must be derecognized.
Section 295A of the Indian Penal Code provides that whoever deliberately and with a malicious intention of outraging the religious feelings of an class of citizens of India, by words (spoken/written) or by signs and visible representations, insults or attempts to insult the religion or the religious beliefs of that class shall be punished with imprisonment for a term of up to 3 years with or without fine. Section 298 provides that any person who utters any word or sound or gesture with a deliberate intent to wound the religious feelings of any person is punishable with imprisonment for a term of up to 1 year with or without fine.
Section 499 of the IPC deals with defamation, that is, publication of any imputation with intent to injure the reputation of any person. The imputations made by these leaders against Mr. Modi and towards the Hindu religion and the various collections of persons and identifiable groups/bodies of devotees practicing the Hindu faith, would per se fall under the mischief of Section 499 and would be punishable.
Unfortunately, the powers-that-be which are charged with the enforcement of law are themselves the offenders in this case. It is therefore imperative that the Courts of Law which are the last recourse of justice and fair play in this country have to suo motu assume a pro-active role and take cognizance of such statements and punish the guilty, who are presently emboldened by their power and position and the docility of the Hindu Nation. They seem to have scant regard for the Indian Constitution.
The Anti-Climax: -
The Congress party conveyed through the media that Sonia's statements were not intended towards Mr.Modi, but the officers of Gujarat government. When the BJP came in full support of Mr.Modi and defended him and when Mr.Adwani shot off a letter to the EC and later on when Mr.Modi requested the EC for the extension of deadline for his reply from 11 am to 5.30 pm, the Congress Party thought that Mr.Modi and the BJP were caught on the wrong foot. Emboldened by this thought, the party again changed its stand and conveyed through the media that Sonia's statement 'merchant of death' was intended towards Mr.Modi and that the party stands by her statement.
Mr.Modi, in his reply based on the press clippings and CD issued by the Election Commission, had categorically brought to the notice of the EC that the concerned statements (hate speech) reported by the press were totally different from the speech shown in the CD. He had clarified to the EC that he is entitled to freedom of speech, especially to reply to the offending charges and malicious campaign made by his political opponents in the electoral market and requested that the EC would give him that freedom in order to conduct a "free & fair" election. He had also justified his speech on terrorism, which was the result of the provocation by Sonia calling him the merchant of death, by quoting relevant statistics and facts. Finally, while denying the charges in their entirety, he had requested the EC to withdraw its notice. In course of his reply, he had also reminded the EC about the complaints given b! y BJP against the speeches of Sonia & Digvijay Singh, which has made the EC to ask for the relevant reports on Sonia & Digvijay Singh from the Chief Electoral Officer. Now, the Congress, which committed that it stands by the statement of Sonia, is actually caught on the wrong foot!
Now, the Election Commission is duty bound not only to withdraw the notice against Mr.Modi, but also to reprimand Mrs.sonia for her uncivilized statement, which has violated the moral code of conduct. The campaigning for the first phase of elections ends tomorrow and Mr.Modi seems to be the clear winner and many more dramas may unfold during the campaigning for the second phase due to the never ending stupidity of the "secular brigade". So, keep watching Gujarat!
The so-called "secularism" being practiced in this country is nothing but "Anti-Hinduism" and the people of this Great Nation must understand the hypocrisy of the so called "secular Politicians" and the "secular media". This great land of Sanatana Dharma will withstand all kinds of Adharmic onslaughts and conquer them and Dharma will prevail for ever!
Vandemataram! Jai Hind! Bharat Matha ki Jai!
B.R.Haran,
Chennai.
SArdar Modi's Reply To Elction Commission
From: Narendra D. ModiGandhinagar.
ToThe Election Commission of IndiaNirvachan Sadan, Ashoka Road,New Delhi.110001.
Subject: Your Notice dated 6th December 2007 to Shri Narendra Modi, Chief Minister, Gujarat State.
Sir,
I am in receipt of your notice dated 6th December 2007 wherein on the basis of the media reports and a complaint dated 5th December 2007 filed by Teesta Setalvad, I am alleged to have made an open exhortation to violence and misused of religion for political ends. The Election Commission has further stated that by linking the name of Sohrabuddin to terrorism in my speech amounts to indulging in activity which may aggravate existing differences, creating mutual hatred and causing tension between different communities. I deny this charge in its entirety.
1. The Commission has acted on the basis of a complaint which alleges that my stand is contrary to what the State of Gujarat has stated in its affidavit before the Supreme Court. The basis of the complaint appears to be a report dated 5th December 2007 of the Times of India by one Shri Prashant Dayal. The relevant extract in the Times of India reads as under: Modi…….you tell what should be done to Sohrabuddin?People at the rally: Kill him, kill him.Modi: Well, that is what I did. And I did what was necessary."
The last sentence of the report of the Times of India has generated controversy in the whole nation. Television Channels and News Papers have made comments to the effect that I have stated that 'Sohrabuddin got what he deserved', or that 'it is a confessional statement by me' or that 'Modi has justified a murder'. All other news papers cuttings which the Commission has taken into account are dated 6th December 2007, which do not report my speech delivered on 4th December, 2007 but are comments inspired by false imputation in the Times of India. This last sentence is not reflected in the CD as having been used by me.
2. 'The Statesman' dated 6th December 2007 quoted me as having said – "he (Sohrabuddin) has got what he deserved": The Hindustan Times of 6th December quoted me as saying "Well then, that's it." I had on 6th December 2007, immediately after receiving Election Commission's notice requested that I may be supplied copy of the CD of the speech and also various inputs which have influenced the issuance of the notice. I have since received the copy of CD on the evening of 7th December 2007 at 5.45 p.m. I find none of the above statements are contained in my speech as recorded in the CD. The E.C. notice is issued on the basis of unverified and false media reports.
3 As I am also involved in a campaign I am sending this as a preliminary reply, which I am sure would satisfy the Election Commission with regard to the contents of my speech. Before I answer specifics raised in the notice and the complaint, I wish to state that India is governed by Rule of law and Constitution. I am entitled to my right of free speech. Free and fair election involves a debate on the political issues in the market place of politics. When statements are made by political opponents, others are entitled to reply to them. The tone and content of the statement must necessarily adhere to the Model Code of Conduct. I wish to categorically state that I regard the Election Commission as a constitutional authority under an obligation to ensure free and fair election which will also defend my right of free speech against those who have started hate campaign against me.
4. On 1st December 2007, AICC President Mrs. Sonia Gandhi visited Gujarat and referred to me by suggesting those who are ruling Gujarat are "liars, dishonest and merchants of fear and death (Maut-ke-Soudagar) ." On 3rd December 2007, AICC General Secretary Mr. Digvijay Singh visited Gujarat and referred to it as a State which has unleashed "Hindu terrorism." The newspapers reported these statements extensively. Separate complaints with regard to the violation of the Code of Conduct were sent to the Election Commission by the Gujarat Unit of BJP. No action has been taken against those responsible for these statements by the Election Commission. I am sure the Election Commission would at least now proceed to take action on those reports.
5. One of the critical issues in our country is the problem of terrorism. India has lost the lives almost 90,000 of innocent citizens and security personnel in the last 17 years to terror. In the last four years, 5,619 innocents have been killed by the terrorist. The Government of Gujarat has a strong policy against terrorism. I believe that UPA and Congress party is indulging in Vote Bank politics and have sent soft signals on terrorism. My party and I have repeatedly made these charges against the Congress Party. In Gujarat only one life has been lost in the last four years through terror. This is a result of our strong policy against terrorism. The Nation and the people of Gujarat are entitled to witness a fair debate on terrorism. If any of the view point is censored or not permitted it will be interference in the right of free speech. Our Constitution and the election commission's obligation to conduct free and fair election will not extend to preventing me from expressing my strong views against terrorism..
6 My speech, therefore, has to be read entirely in this context. It was a political response to Mrs. Sonia Gandhi referring to me as those who rule the Gujarat as a 'Mout-ke-saudagar' . Surely it cannot be policy of the Election commission first to ignore the violation of the Code of Conduct in her statement and then censor my political response to that statement. I have gone through my speech on the CD supplied. It is merely a response to Mrs. Sonia Gandhi calling me "Mout-ka-Saudagar" .
7. This part of my speech was entirely against terrorism. I
8. Am I to be prevented from giving my point that terrorism will not be allowed on the soil of Gujarat or that Congress is soft on the terrors and thereby helping "Maut-ka-Sodagar" If Election Commission imposes any such regulation, it would offend our constitutional values and my right of free speech. At no stage I have controverted the affidavit filed by the Gujarat Government in the Supreme Court of India. I have already clarified my position that I do not support fake encounters. Encounters can occur but there should be no fake encounters. I have nowhere tried to prejudice any pending litigation. I am fully committed to the enforcement of the Model Code of Conduct by the Election Commission and shall comply with it. I believe that the Election Commission should not be misled by motivated media reports which are based on falsehood.
I, therefore, request the Election Commission to withdraw this notice.
------------ --------(Narendra Modi)
Date. 8.12.2007.
http://bjp.org/ Press/dec_ 2007/dec_ 0807_p.htm
ToThe Election Commission of IndiaNirvachan Sadan, Ashoka Road,New Delhi.110001.
Subject: Your Notice dated 6th December 2007 to Shri Narendra Modi, Chief Minister, Gujarat State.
Sir,
I am in receipt of your notice dated 6th December 2007 wherein on the basis of the media reports and a complaint dated 5th December 2007 filed by Teesta Setalvad, I am alleged to have made an open exhortation to violence and misused of religion for political ends. The Election Commission has further stated that by linking the name of Sohrabuddin to terrorism in my speech amounts to indulging in activity which may aggravate existing differences, creating mutual hatred and causing tension between different communities. I deny this charge in its entirety.
1. The Commission has acted on the basis of a complaint which alleges that my stand is contrary to what the State of Gujarat has stated in its affidavit before the Supreme Court. The basis of the complaint appears to be a report dated 5th December 2007 of the Times of India by one Shri Prashant Dayal. The relevant extract in the Times of India reads as under: Modi…….you tell what should be done to Sohrabuddin?People at the rally: Kill him, kill him.Modi: Well, that is what I did. And I did what was necessary."
The last sentence of the report of the Times of India has generated controversy in the whole nation. Television Channels and News Papers have made comments to the effect that I have stated that 'Sohrabuddin got what he deserved', or that 'it is a confessional statement by me' or that 'Modi has justified a murder'. All other news papers cuttings which the Commission has taken into account are dated 6th December 2007, which do not report my speech delivered on 4th December, 2007 but are comments inspired by false imputation in the Times of India. This last sentence is not reflected in the CD as having been used by me.
2. 'The Statesman' dated 6th December 2007 quoted me as having said – "he (Sohrabuddin) has got what he deserved": The Hindustan Times of 6th December quoted me as saying "Well then, that's it." I had on 6th December 2007, immediately after receiving Election Commission's notice requested that I may be supplied copy of the CD of the speech and also various inputs which have influenced the issuance of the notice. I have since received the copy of CD on the evening of 7th December 2007 at 5.45 p.m. I find none of the above statements are contained in my speech as recorded in the CD. The E.C. notice is issued on the basis of unverified and false media reports.
3 As I am also involved in a campaign I am sending this as a preliminary reply, which I am sure would satisfy the Election Commission with regard to the contents of my speech. Before I answer specifics raised in the notice and the complaint, I wish to state that India is governed by Rule of law and Constitution. I am entitled to my right of free speech. Free and fair election involves a debate on the political issues in the market place of politics. When statements are made by political opponents, others are entitled to reply to them. The tone and content of the statement must necessarily adhere to the Model Code of Conduct. I wish to categorically state that I regard the Election Commission as a constitutional authority under an obligation to ensure free and fair election which will also defend my right of free speech against those who have started hate campaign against me.
4. On 1st December 2007, AICC President Mrs. Sonia Gandhi visited Gujarat and referred to me by suggesting those who are ruling Gujarat are "liars, dishonest and merchants of fear and death (Maut-ke-Soudagar) ." On 3rd December 2007, AICC General Secretary Mr. Digvijay Singh visited Gujarat and referred to it as a State which has unleashed "Hindu terrorism." The newspapers reported these statements extensively. Separate complaints with regard to the violation of the Code of Conduct were sent to the Election Commission by the Gujarat Unit of BJP. No action has been taken against those responsible for these statements by the Election Commission. I am sure the Election Commission would at least now proceed to take action on those reports.
5. One of the critical issues in our country is the problem of terrorism. India has lost the lives almost 90,000 of innocent citizens and security personnel in the last 17 years to terror. In the last four years, 5,619 innocents have been killed by the terrorist. The Government of Gujarat has a strong policy against terrorism. I believe that UPA and Congress party is indulging in Vote Bank politics and have sent soft signals on terrorism. My party and I have repeatedly made these charges against the Congress Party. In Gujarat only one life has been lost in the last four years through terror. This is a result of our strong policy against terrorism. The Nation and the people of Gujarat are entitled to witness a fair debate on terrorism. If any of the view point is censored or not permitted it will be interference in the right of free speech. Our Constitution and the election commission's obligation to conduct free and fair election will not extend to preventing me from expressing my strong views against terrorism..
6 My speech, therefore, has to be read entirely in this context. It was a political response to Mrs. Sonia Gandhi referring to me as those who rule the Gujarat as a 'Mout-ke-saudagar' . Surely it cannot be policy of the Election commission first to ignore the violation of the Code of Conduct in her statement and then censor my political response to that statement. I have gone through my speech on the CD supplied. It is merely a response to Mrs. Sonia Gandhi calling me "Mout-ka-Saudagar" .
7. This part of my speech was entirely against terrorism. I
criticized the Congress President for calling me a 'Maut Ka Saudagar´. I responded that the "Maut Ka Saudagar" are all those who attacked parliament. It is the Congress party which is delaying the execution of the guilty accused.I have made a reference to the Sohrabuddin' s case and mentioned the allegations against him. I have accused the Congress of suggesting that I have engineered a fake encounter. I said that I am open for any action on this count. At no point of time I have either justified the specific encounter of Sohrabuddin' s case, nor have I used the specific inculpatery sentences used in the Times of India Report. It is clear that my comment is a part of my speech where on several occasions I have put questions to the audience which the audience has answered. It is my political response to Smt. Gandhi's allegation that I am Maut-ka-Sodagar. I have replied back alleging that the Congress party is helping those who have spread terrorism in the country. It is clear that Times of India's article which began this controversy, invented my comment to the effect "Modi: Well that is what I did. And I did what was necessary". The CD clearly indicates that this sentence was an invention of author and not the orator. The comments in the media that 'Modi justified murder' or that 'he made confessional statement' as being privy to murder or that Modi declared in the meeting that 'Sohrabuddin got what he deserved' do not find a mention in the CD. These are journalistic inventions intended to engineer a 'Hate Modi' campaign and not evidenced in the CD supplied by the Election Commission. My criticism in the media was concocted and engineered by this 'Hate Modi' Campaign. No where in my speech have I explicitly referred to the religion of any person. I have spoken against terrorism. It is not my speech but the complaint which assumes terrorism is linked to a religion.
8. Am I to be prevented from giving my point that terrorism will not be allowed on the soil of Gujarat or that Congress is soft on the terrors and thereby helping "Maut-ka-Sodagar" If Election Commission imposes any such regulation, it would offend our constitutional values and my right of free speech. At no stage I have controverted the affidavit filed by the Gujarat Government in the Supreme Court of India. I have already clarified my position that I do not support fake encounters. Encounters can occur but there should be no fake encounters. I have nowhere tried to prejudice any pending litigation. I am fully committed to the enforcement of the Model Code of Conduct by the Election Commission and shall comply with it. I believe that the Election Commission should not be misled by motivated media reports which are based on falsehood.
I, therefore, request the Election Commission to withdraw this notice.
------------ --------(Narendra Modi)
Date. 8.12.2007.
http://bjp.org/ Press/dec_ 2007/dec_ 0807_p.htm
Friday, December 7, 2007
Islam's Silent Moderates http://www.nytimes. com/2007/ 12/07/opinion/ 07ali.html
By AYAAN HIRSI ALIPublished: December 7, 2007
The woman and the man guilty of adultery or fornication, flog each of them with 100 stripes: Let no compassion move you in their case, in a matter prescribed by Allah, if you believe in Allah and the Last Day. (Koran 24:2) IN the last few weeks, in three widely publicized episodes, we have seen Islamic justice enacted in ways that should make Muslim moderates rise up in horror. A 20-year-old woman from Qatif, Saudi Arabia, reported that she had been abducted by several men and repeatedly raped. But judges found the victim herself to be guilty. Her crime is called "mingling": when she was abducted, she was in a car with a man not related to her by blood or marriage, and in Saudi Arabia, that is illegal. Last month, she was sentenced to six months in prison and 200 lashes with a bamboo cane.
Two hundred lashes are enough to kill a strong man. Women usually receive no more than 30 lashes at a time, which means that for seven weeks the "girl from Qatif," as she's usually described in news articles, will dread her next session with Islamic justice. When she is released, her life will certainly never return to normal: already there have been reports that her brother has tried to kill her because her "crime" has tarnished her family's honor.
We also saw Islamic justice in action in Sudan, when a 54-year-old British teacher named Gillian Gibbons was sentenced to 15 days in jail before the government pardoned her this week; she could have faced 40 lashes. When she began a reading project with her class involving a teddy bear, Ms. Gibbons suggested the children choose a name for it. They chose Muhammad; she let them do it. This was deemed to be blasphemy.
Then there's Taslima Nasreen, the 45-year-old Bangladeshi writer who bravely defends women's rights in the Muslim world. Forced to flee Bangladesh, she has been living in India. But Muslim groups there want her expelled, and one has offered 500,000 rupees for her head. In August she was assaulted by Muslim militants in Hyderabad, and in recent weeks she has had to leave Calcutta and then Rajasthan. Taslima Nasreen's visa expires next year, and she fears she will not be allowed to live in India again.
It is often said that Islam has been "hijacked" by a small extremist group of radical fundamentalists. The vast majority of Muslims are said to be moderates. But where are the moderates? Where are the Muslim voices raised over the terrible injustice of incidents like these? How many Muslims are willing to stand up and say, in the case of the girl from Qatif, that this manner of justice is appalling, brutal and bigoted — and that no matter who said it was the right thing to do, and how long ago it was said, this should no longer be done? Usually, Muslim groups like the Organization of the Islamic Conference are quick to defend any affront to the image of Islam.
The organization, which represents 57 Muslim states, sent four ambassadors to the leader of my political party in the Netherlands asking him to expel me from Parliament after I gave a newspaper interview in 2003 noting that by Western standards some of the Prophet Muhammad's behavior would be unconscionable.
A few years later, Muslim ambassadors to Denmark protested the cartoons of Muhammad and demanded that their perpetrators be prosecuted. But while the incidents in Saudi Arabia, Sudan and India have done more to damage the image of Islamic justice than a dozen cartoons depicting the Prophet Muhammad, the organizations that lined up to protest the hideous Danish offense to Islam are quiet now. I wish there were more Islamic moderates.
For example, I would welcome some guidance from that famous Muslim theologian of moderation, Tariq Ramadan. But when there is true suffering, real cruelty in the name of Islam, we hear, first, denial from all these organizations that are so concerned about Islam's image. We hear that violence is not in the Koran, that Islam means peace, that this is a hijacking by extremists and a smear campaign and so on. But the evidence mounts up. Islamic justice is a proud institution, one to which more than a billion people subscribe, at least in theory, and in the heart of the Islamic world it is the law of the land.
But take a look at the verse above: more compelling even than the order to flog adulterers is the command that the believer show no compassion. It is this order to choose Allah above his sense of conscience and compassion that imprisons the Muslim in a mindset that is archaic and extreme. If moderate Muslims believe there should be no compassion shown to the girl from Qatif, then what exactly makes them so moderate? When a "moderate" Muslim's sense of compassion and conscience collides with matters prescribed by Allah, he should choose compassion. Unless that happens much more widely, a moderate Islam will remain wishful thinking. Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a former member of the Dutch Parliament and a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, is the author of "Infidel."
__._,_.___
By AYAAN HIRSI ALIPublished: December 7, 2007
The woman and the man guilty of adultery or fornication, flog each of them with 100 stripes: Let no compassion move you in their case, in a matter prescribed by Allah, if you believe in Allah and the Last Day. (Koran 24:2) IN the last few weeks, in three widely publicized episodes, we have seen Islamic justice enacted in ways that should make Muslim moderates rise up in horror. A 20-year-old woman from Qatif, Saudi Arabia, reported that she had been abducted by several men and repeatedly raped. But judges found the victim herself to be guilty. Her crime is called "mingling": when she was abducted, she was in a car with a man not related to her by blood or marriage, and in Saudi Arabia, that is illegal. Last month, she was sentenced to six months in prison and 200 lashes with a bamboo cane.
Two hundred lashes are enough to kill a strong man. Women usually receive no more than 30 lashes at a time, which means that for seven weeks the "girl from Qatif," as she's usually described in news articles, will dread her next session with Islamic justice. When she is released, her life will certainly never return to normal: already there have been reports that her brother has tried to kill her because her "crime" has tarnished her family's honor.
We also saw Islamic justice in action in Sudan, when a 54-year-old British teacher named Gillian Gibbons was sentenced to 15 days in jail before the government pardoned her this week; she could have faced 40 lashes. When she began a reading project with her class involving a teddy bear, Ms. Gibbons suggested the children choose a name for it. They chose Muhammad; she let them do it. This was deemed to be blasphemy.
Then there's Taslima Nasreen, the 45-year-old Bangladeshi writer who bravely defends women's rights in the Muslim world. Forced to flee Bangladesh, she has been living in India. But Muslim groups there want her expelled, and one has offered 500,000 rupees for her head. In August she was assaulted by Muslim militants in Hyderabad, and in recent weeks she has had to leave Calcutta and then Rajasthan. Taslima Nasreen's visa expires next year, and she fears she will not be allowed to live in India again.
It is often said that Islam has been "hijacked" by a small extremist group of radical fundamentalists. The vast majority of Muslims are said to be moderates. But where are the moderates? Where are the Muslim voices raised over the terrible injustice of incidents like these? How many Muslims are willing to stand up and say, in the case of the girl from Qatif, that this manner of justice is appalling, brutal and bigoted — and that no matter who said it was the right thing to do, and how long ago it was said, this should no longer be done? Usually, Muslim groups like the Organization of the Islamic Conference are quick to defend any affront to the image of Islam.
The organization, which represents 57 Muslim states, sent four ambassadors to the leader of my political party in the Netherlands asking him to expel me from Parliament after I gave a newspaper interview in 2003 noting that by Western standards some of the Prophet Muhammad's behavior would be unconscionable.
A few years later, Muslim ambassadors to Denmark protested the cartoons of Muhammad and demanded that their perpetrators be prosecuted. But while the incidents in Saudi Arabia, Sudan and India have done more to damage the image of Islamic justice than a dozen cartoons depicting the Prophet Muhammad, the organizations that lined up to protest the hideous Danish offense to Islam are quiet now. I wish there were more Islamic moderates.
For example, I would welcome some guidance from that famous Muslim theologian of moderation, Tariq Ramadan. But when there is true suffering, real cruelty in the name of Islam, we hear, first, denial from all these organizations that are so concerned about Islam's image. We hear that violence is not in the Koran, that Islam means peace, that this is a hijacking by extremists and a smear campaign and so on. But the evidence mounts up. Islamic justice is a proud institution, one to which more than a billion people subscribe, at least in theory, and in the heart of the Islamic world it is the law of the land.
But take a look at the verse above: more compelling even than the order to flog adulterers is the command that the believer show no compassion. It is this order to choose Allah above his sense of conscience and compassion that imprisons the Muslim in a mindset that is archaic and extreme. If moderate Muslims believe there should be no compassion shown to the girl from Qatif, then what exactly makes them so moderate? When a "moderate" Muslim's sense of compassion and conscience collides with matters prescribed by Allah, he should choose compassion. Unless that happens much more widely, a moderate Islam will remain wishful thinking. Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a former member of the Dutch Parliament and a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, is the author of "Infidel."
__._,_.___
Why Modi will score a landslide win again
Arvind J Bosmia December 07, 2007 20:16 IST
With the Congress's electoral strategies formulated in terms of its golden bygone era, the Hindutva mascot, Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi, is all set to score a massive landslide victory in the coming assembly election -- much bigger than the one he scored in 2002.
This is the most one-sided election I have covered in my 28-year journalistic career, where there is no electoral issue except the incumbent chief minister who looms larger than life before the Congress's has-been and would-be small-timers. When a Tendulkar faces gali-mohalla bowlers a double century is certain.
In Gujarat, the Congress's electoral brahmastra was KHAM (Kshatriya, Harijan, Adivasi and Muslim). Major non-Muslim components of KHAM have migrated to the Bharatiya Janata Party under the compulsions created by the serial communal riots since 1985. The Congress has failed to reclaim them as its aggressive wooing of Muslims has put off the other three communities.
In this communal polarisation, Modi has built a halo of Hindu taranhar (saviour) around himself, further consolidated by highly focused publicity campaigns like Vikas Purush, a leader with a difference.
This special chemistry with the people has allowed him to get away with riding rough-shod over BJP workers, fellow leaders and other wings of the Sangh Parivar. The Kisan Sangh's hostility cannot lose him farming community votes because farmers have prospered under Modi Raj. The Bajrang Dal and Vishwa Hindu Parishad cannot challenge him because he is perceived as Bajrang Dal Plus. Other Sangh Parivar constituents need him for survival, but the reverse is not true.
This special bond with the public helped him overcome the boycott resorted to by BJP workers during the last panchayat, municipality and municipal corporation elections. The refrain was, who will get the public to the voting booth if the party workers are not around? The voters came on their own initiative, and voted for the BJP. Through sheer charisma Modi single-handedly scored landslide victories in all three elections.
Modi's direct-dial relationship with his voters will hold good in the assembly election, bypassing the need to depend on the party to deliver the votes. If landslides could be scored in elections where he was indirectly involved, there has to be a bigger response where his leadership is directly on offer.
No one understands the hyper-Muslim phobia of Gujarat voters than Modi, who with his Sohrabuddin comment has launched a well-crafted strategy to create a situation where voters will turn up at the voting booths on their own to reveal which side they are on. Modi knows it will be on his side. If there is penal action by the Election Commission or if a criminal case is registered against Modi, the backlash will be even bigger.
The Patel-Thakur castes' alienation is more media hype than ground reality. Modi's appeal to Hindus cuts across caste lines. Though Modi is an OBC, high caste darbar kshatriyas regard him as their leader.
Yet, there are some voters who will be overwhelmingly against Modi. They are government servants and school teachers; Muslims; BJP workers who feel Modi has totally neglected them in power-sharing.
The government servants have borne the brunt of Modi's high-geared publicity campaigns while the teachers were punished for habitual absenteeism and poor examination results of their students. Used to lax ways for years, they really detest Modi.
Muslims, for obvious reasons, do not want him as they view him as the ultimate shaitan (devil).
BJP workers realised they were no longer treated as members of the ruling party. They could not peddle influence nor were they appointed as directors in public corporations. Modi was quite happy to use bureaucrats instead. Ordinary voters who far outnumber these Modi-haters will overwhelmingly favour Modi.
Arvind J Bosmia is an Ahmedabad-based freelance journalist
Arvind J Bosmia December 07, 2007 20:16 IST
With the Congress's electoral strategies formulated in terms of its golden bygone era, the Hindutva mascot, Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi, is all set to score a massive landslide victory in the coming assembly election -- much bigger than the one he scored in 2002.
This is the most one-sided election I have covered in my 28-year journalistic career, where there is no electoral issue except the incumbent chief minister who looms larger than life before the Congress's has-been and would-be small-timers. When a Tendulkar faces gali-mohalla bowlers a double century is certain.
In Gujarat, the Congress's electoral brahmastra was KHAM (Kshatriya, Harijan, Adivasi and Muslim). Major non-Muslim components of KHAM have migrated to the Bharatiya Janata Party under the compulsions created by the serial communal riots since 1985. The Congress has failed to reclaim them as its aggressive wooing of Muslims has put off the other three communities.
In this communal polarisation, Modi has built a halo of Hindu taranhar (saviour) around himself, further consolidated by highly focused publicity campaigns like Vikas Purush, a leader with a difference.
This special chemistry with the people has allowed him to get away with riding rough-shod over BJP workers, fellow leaders and other wings of the Sangh Parivar. The Kisan Sangh's hostility cannot lose him farming community votes because farmers have prospered under Modi Raj. The Bajrang Dal and Vishwa Hindu Parishad cannot challenge him because he is perceived as Bajrang Dal Plus. Other Sangh Parivar constituents need him for survival, but the reverse is not true.
This special bond with the public helped him overcome the boycott resorted to by BJP workers during the last panchayat, municipality and municipal corporation elections. The refrain was, who will get the public to the voting booth if the party workers are not around? The voters came on their own initiative, and voted for the BJP. Through sheer charisma Modi single-handedly scored landslide victories in all three elections.
Modi's direct-dial relationship with his voters will hold good in the assembly election, bypassing the need to depend on the party to deliver the votes. If landslides could be scored in elections where he was indirectly involved, there has to be a bigger response where his leadership is directly on offer.
No one understands the hyper-Muslim phobia of Gujarat voters than Modi, who with his Sohrabuddin comment has launched a well-crafted strategy to create a situation where voters will turn up at the voting booths on their own to reveal which side they are on. Modi knows it will be on his side. If there is penal action by the Election Commission or if a criminal case is registered against Modi, the backlash will be even bigger.
The Patel-Thakur castes' alienation is more media hype than ground reality. Modi's appeal to Hindus cuts across caste lines. Though Modi is an OBC, high caste darbar kshatriyas regard him as their leader.
Yet, there are some voters who will be overwhelmingly against Modi. They are government servants and school teachers; Muslims; BJP workers who feel Modi has totally neglected them in power-sharing.
The government servants have borne the brunt of Modi's high-geared publicity campaigns while the teachers were punished for habitual absenteeism and poor examination results of their students. Used to lax ways for years, they really detest Modi.
Muslims, for obvious reasons, do not want him as they view him as the ultimate shaitan (devil).
BJP workers realised they were no longer treated as members of the ruling party. They could not peddle influence nor were they appointed as directors in public corporations. Modi was quite happy to use bureaucrats instead. Ordinary voters who far outnumber these Modi-haters will overwhelmingly favour Modi.
Arvind J Bosmia is an Ahmedabad-based freelance journalist
Gujart elections .Poor Seculars .Hindus Rise
Only the people of Gujrat will tell to the so called secular parties and the person like Tista that who is Secular, who is Anti Hindu , who is spreading harted in India for political gain and who is Anti National ?Anil wrote:
Who harvested whose hate in Gujarat?
The Gujarat election result will hit the
`seculars' like a thunderbolt.
They are howling
``Harvest of hate'';
``Moditva at work'';
``program on minorities'' . Days before the Gujarat elections
the secular media will virtually written off the BJP.
But the election results will proved an electric shock.
It demonstrated not just disconnect between the
`seculars' and the Hindus.
It will show that the seculars were blind
to a rising tornado of Hindu reaction.
Against not the Muslims,
but the seculars themselves.
Look at how the rising Hindu political
consciousness turned into a tornado. The Hindus saw secular parties,
media and intellectuals work in tandem.
They saw
this triumvirate even egg
on a constitutional authority like the
Election Commission
to sidestep laws to advance the cause of secularism.
They saw
a clear contrast in the EC's conduct.
EC holding elections in Kashmir amid gunfire,
but refusing to conduct elections
in Gujarat almost on flimsy grounds;
EC virtually sacrificing
the 3 lakh displaced Kashmiri Pandits
of their right to vote;
but deferring the elections in Gujarat citing
the few thousand Muslims
who were not at their usual address to vote;
EC banning the VHP yatra,
prohibiting reference to Godhra
and singling out Modi's speeches for monitoring.
They saw the media enjoy
and support every word and action of the EC.
The Hindu mind
was silently watching all this.
Now comes the election proper.
The Hindus did not hear the BJP even utter the word
Hindutva
during the campaign.
But they saw Congress engage in duplicity.
They read its Gujarati manifesto espousing
`soft' Hindutva,
with the English version the other way round.
They saw
Sonia starting her campaign at Ambaji temple,
but accusing the BJP of using religion.
They saw
the Congress party asking its Muslims leaders
not to campaign in Gujarat,
Muslim visitors to the party office
not to wear their identity cap.
They also saw 200 saffron-clad sadhus and sants
abuse the BJP as anti-Hindu party.They saw the media approve,
even encourage the duplicity.
They read the media write wrote ad-nauseum:
``Not a single Muslim will vote for the BJP.
KHAM
[meaning the 'Kshatriya, Harijan, Adivasi and Muslim]
combination will work.' '
They read the secular logic,
which proceeded thus:
that Muslims as vote bank is not just acceptable,
but imperative to protect secularism;
that different castes being persuaded to vote
on caste lines is necessary to save secularism;
but
Hindus voting as such even on
what the whole world
perceives as Islamic terrorism is
anti-secular,
communal,
even Hindutva laboratory;
so to appeal to Hindus to unite to save the nation
from Islamic terror is communal;
but
to appeal to Muslims
to defeat a party fighting Islamic terror is secular;
to recall and observe annual
'shrardh'
for Babri structure is a sacred secular duty;
but to recall the roasting of over 50 Ramsewaks
in the first election held after one of the
greatest human tragedies is not anti-secular,
but against the law of the EC. They also saw the secularists cultivate
a dangerous view among minorities.
That is, only those insensitive to majority
sentiments are secular;
that merely being appreciative of minority
sentiments is not secular enough.
The Hindus clearly saw
the secular-double standards,
their dangerous logic.
Also the one point of agenda of the seculars:
to secure the BJP's defeat at any cost. The Gujarat electorate have massively
and pointedly rejected this duplicitous,
divisive, Hindu-hate politics of seculars.
If secularism means consolidating Muslims
as ballot papers and splitting the
Hindus as this caste and that,
they thought it was their national duty to resist
such pernicious deconstruction of India.
This is precisely what the Gujarat voters have done.
They have performed a national duty. Decades back,
Gandhiji showed the way
when he staked his life to resist the
British attempt to sever the Harijans from Hindu society.
Then,
who harvested whose hate in Gujarat?
Did Modi harvest the hate the seculars created?
Or
did the seculars harvest the hate
they themselves created?-- Sriram SavarkarHinduism is more a way of life than a method of worship. Dharmo Rakshati RakshithahaIf you protect Dharma, Dharma will in turn protect you
-- "O Shirdi Sai Nath, Give me the guidance to know when to hold on and when to let go and the Grace to make right decision with dignity"
Who harvested whose hate in Gujarat?
The Gujarat election result will hit the
`seculars' like a thunderbolt.
They are howling
``Harvest of hate'';
``Moditva at work'';
``program on minorities'' . Days before the Gujarat elections
the secular media will virtually written off the BJP.
But the election results will proved an electric shock.
It demonstrated not just disconnect between the
`seculars' and the Hindus.
It will show that the seculars were blind
to a rising tornado of Hindu reaction.
Against not the Muslims,
but the seculars themselves.
Look at how the rising Hindu political
consciousness turned into a tornado. The Hindus saw secular parties,
media and intellectuals work in tandem.
They saw
this triumvirate even egg
on a constitutional authority like the
Election Commission
to sidestep laws to advance the cause of secularism.
They saw
a clear contrast in the EC's conduct.
EC holding elections in Kashmir amid gunfire,
but refusing to conduct elections
in Gujarat almost on flimsy grounds;
EC virtually sacrificing
the 3 lakh displaced Kashmiri Pandits
of their right to vote;
but deferring the elections in Gujarat citing
the few thousand Muslims
who were not at their usual address to vote;
EC banning the VHP yatra,
prohibiting reference to Godhra
and singling out Modi's speeches for monitoring.
They saw the media enjoy
and support every word and action of the EC.
The Hindu mind
was silently watching all this.
Now comes the election proper.
The Hindus did not hear the BJP even utter the word
Hindutva
during the campaign.
But they saw Congress engage in duplicity.
They read its Gujarati manifesto espousing
`soft' Hindutva,
with the English version the other way round.
They saw
Sonia starting her campaign at Ambaji temple,
but accusing the BJP of using religion.
They saw
the Congress party asking its Muslims leaders
not to campaign in Gujarat,
Muslim visitors to the party office
not to wear their identity cap.
They also saw 200 saffron-clad sadhus and sants
abuse the BJP as anti-Hindu party.They saw the media approve,
even encourage the duplicity.
They read the media write wrote ad-nauseum:
``Not a single Muslim will vote for the BJP.
KHAM
[meaning the 'Kshatriya, Harijan, Adivasi and Muslim]
combination will work.' '
They read the secular logic,
which proceeded thus:
that Muslims as vote bank is not just acceptable,
but imperative to protect secularism;
that different castes being persuaded to vote
on caste lines is necessary to save secularism;
but
Hindus voting as such even on
what the whole world
perceives as Islamic terrorism is
anti-secular,
communal,
even Hindutva laboratory;
so to appeal to Hindus to unite to save the nation
from Islamic terror is communal;
but
to appeal to Muslims
to defeat a party fighting Islamic terror is secular;
to recall and observe annual
'shrardh'
for Babri structure is a sacred secular duty;
but to recall the roasting of over 50 Ramsewaks
in the first election held after one of the
greatest human tragedies is not anti-secular,
but against the law of the EC. They also saw the secularists cultivate
a dangerous view among minorities.
That is, only those insensitive to majority
sentiments are secular;
that merely being appreciative of minority
sentiments is not secular enough.
The Hindus clearly saw
the secular-double standards,
their dangerous logic.
Also the one point of agenda of the seculars:
to secure the BJP's defeat at any cost. The Gujarat electorate have massively
and pointedly rejected this duplicitous,
divisive, Hindu-hate politics of seculars.
If secularism means consolidating Muslims
as ballot papers and splitting the
Hindus as this caste and that,
they thought it was their national duty to resist
such pernicious deconstruction of India.
This is precisely what the Gujarat voters have done.
They have performed a national duty. Decades back,
Gandhiji showed the way
when he staked his life to resist the
British attempt to sever the Harijans from Hindu society.
Then,
who harvested whose hate in Gujarat?
Did Modi harvest the hate the seculars created?
Or
did the seculars harvest the hate
they themselves created?-- Sriram SavarkarHinduism is more a way of life than a method of worship. Dharmo Rakshati RakshithahaIf you protect Dharma, Dharma will in turn protect you
-- "O Shirdi Sai Nath, Give me the guidance to know when to hold on and when to let go and the Grace to make right decision with dignity"
ULTA CHOR KOTWAL KO CHOR BOLE
Subject: SONIA GANDHI AND DIGVIJAY SINGH MUST BE ARRESTED
From: chessplayer <chessplayer35@yahoo.com>
Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2007 20:53:11 -0800 (PST)
As the old saying goes, "Ulta chor kotwal ko chor bole". What people must realize is that it is Sonia Gandhi who must be charged for making provocative statements against Mr. Modi. Mr. Modi actually showed tremendous restraint in not
personally insulting Mrs. Gandhi by calling her the wife of a mass murderer. Neither did he say anything even 10 percent as derogative as she is saying about him. Even though the track record of her party is far worse. This shows statesmanship on Mr. Modi's part. Something unfortunately the congress had little or none of. What is more shocking is Mr. Digvijay's statements. What he has stated is not only provocative but also criminal.
He can easily be charged under the Indian Penal code for his statements against Gujarat. He has called Gujarat a land of Hindu terrorists. He can be charged with extreme provocative statements and more importantly on the charge of derogatory statements against a particular religion. If one hears Mr. Modi's speech one will see that at NO TIME did he target any particular religion. All he said was that TERRORISTS like Shabuddin should not be spared. Why is it that the congress always jumps to the defence of terrorists when they are from a particular community. It is the congress that always communalises the issue. Read and understand for yourselves my friends. Just who is communalising the issue. Not the BJP. It is the congress that wants to try and divide this country. That is how they have ruled for so many years.
We in Gujarat have seen through the hypocrisy of the Congress party. It would indeed be a travesty of justice if this election resulted in any kind of victory (no matter how small) for this useless congress party. We hope that Mr. Modi comes back to power but unfortunately the press is targetting Mr. Modi because they have been bought over by th e congress party. Everyone outside of Gujarat wants to see Mr. Modi fall because they are jealous of Gujarat's success. This is the real tragedy.
Rather than see what is lacking in their particular states they want to target a state that actually has the best record not just in terms of development but even in peace and law and order.
The muslims in Gujarat are amongst the best of when compared to the plight of muslims in other states. The so called protectors of minorities in states like UP and Bihar actually have the worse records. Under Lalu Prasad just what did he do for muslims. Even UP's record is pathetic. These states have over 15 percent of muslims yet they have less than half that number (in percentage terms) working in government jobs etc. Yet in Gujarat the percentage of muslims in government
jobs etc. is very close to their overall percentage in the population. So, just who actually does for the welfare of muslims is there for all to see. Just who acts in a prejudiced
manner is there for all to see. Just who are the real communal elements in our society is there for all to see.
Friends wake up and smell the coffee. The congress is the worse party and remember that if they have absolute power India has never progressed. Even the current government is a coalition governemnt and one will find that whenever the BJP NDA have ruled or a coalition government with the congress
the country has really prospered vs a congress dominated rule. Do not give the congress absolute power not just over the country but even amongst states. They will never allow progress.
- chessplayer <chessplayer35@yahoo.com>
Pioneer News
In the thick of controversy over his remarks on Sohrabuddin encounter killing, Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi has accused Sonia Gandhi of provoking him by calling him the "merchant of death". He also opposed fake encounters and said he was a law-abiding citizen who would uphold the supremacy of the Indian Constitution.
From: chessplayer <chessplayer35@yahoo.com>
Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2007 20:53:11 -0800 (PST)
As the old saying goes, "Ulta chor kotwal ko chor bole". What people must realize is that it is Sonia Gandhi who must be charged for making provocative statements against Mr. Modi. Mr. Modi actually showed tremendous restraint in not
personally insulting Mrs. Gandhi by calling her the wife of a mass murderer. Neither did he say anything even 10 percent as derogative as she is saying about him. Even though the track record of her party is far worse. This shows statesmanship on Mr. Modi's part. Something unfortunately the congress had little or none of. What is more shocking is Mr. Digvijay's statements. What he has stated is not only provocative but also criminal.
He can easily be charged under the Indian Penal code for his statements against Gujarat. He has called Gujarat a land of Hindu terrorists. He can be charged with extreme provocative statements and more importantly on the charge of derogatory statements against a particular religion. If one hears Mr. Modi's speech one will see that at NO TIME did he target any particular religion. All he said was that TERRORISTS like Shabuddin should not be spared. Why is it that the congress always jumps to the defence of terrorists when they are from a particular community. It is the congress that always communalises the issue. Read and understand for yourselves my friends. Just who is communalising the issue. Not the BJP. It is the congress that wants to try and divide this country. That is how they have ruled for so many years.
We in Gujarat have seen through the hypocrisy of the Congress party. It would indeed be a travesty of justice if this election resulted in any kind of victory (no matter how small) for this useless congress party. We hope that Mr. Modi comes back to power but unfortunately the press is targetting Mr. Modi because they have been bought over by th e congress party. Everyone outside of Gujarat wants to see Mr. Modi fall because they are jealous of Gujarat's success. This is the real tragedy.
Rather than see what is lacking in their particular states they want to target a state that actually has the best record not just in terms of development but even in peace and law and order.
The muslims in Gujarat are amongst the best of when compared to the plight of muslims in other states. The so called protectors of minorities in states like UP and Bihar actually have the worse records. Under Lalu Prasad just what did he do for muslims. Even UP's record is pathetic. These states have over 15 percent of muslims yet they have less than half that number (in percentage terms) working in government jobs etc. Yet in Gujarat the percentage of muslims in government
jobs etc. is very close to their overall percentage in the population. So, just who actually does for the welfare of muslims is there for all to see. Just who acts in a prejudiced
manner is there for all to see. Just who are the real communal elements in our society is there for all to see.
Friends wake up and smell the coffee. The congress is the worse party and remember that if they have absolute power India has never progressed. Even the current government is a coalition governemnt and one will find that whenever the BJP NDA have ruled or a coalition government with the congress
the country has really prospered vs a congress dominated rule. Do not give the congress absolute power not just over the country but even amongst states. They will never allow progress.
- chessplayer <chessplayer35@yahoo.com>
Pioneer News
In the thick of controversy over his remarks on Sohrabuddin encounter killing, Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi has accused Sonia Gandhi of provoking him by calling him the "merchant of death". He also opposed fake encounters and said he was a law-abiding citizen who would uphold the supremacy of the Indian Constitution.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)