Monthly Archives: February 2012

Union Law Minister Salman Khursheed Offending Bharat

Union Law Minister Offending Bharat – Dr Pravin Togadia

VHP Press Release
Gwalior, February 10, 2012
In an election public meeting in Azamgad- Uttar Pradesh, the Union Minister of Law Salman Khursheed has crossed all limits in his constant endeavour to offend the majority of Bharat. Criticizing Salman Khursheed’s remarks about Batla House encounter, Dr Pravin Togadia, International Working President of VHP said, “Salman Khursheed claims that the encounter was fake, the govt was going to take action against it but kept quiet due to election & Sonia Gandhi’s eyes were full of tears seeing the photographs of the encounter etc. To win Azamgad seat & dreaming of winning Uttar Pradesh election to save Rahul Gandhi’s image, people like Salman Khursheed are going to the extent of offending Bharat, our brave Army & Police. The PM cries seeing pregnant wife of Dr Haneef who was caught by Australia, PM also cries & begs to Kuwait when a Muslim man is punished with removal of his eyes per their own law, now Khursheed claims that Sonia Gandhi cried seeing dead Jehadis in Batla House encounter! Tears of the Govt representatives flow freely only for Muslims & never for Sanaatani Hindus, Sikhs, Jains, Buddhists, Tribals, OBCs, SCs & others! Neither PM, nor Soniaji nor Salman Khursheed or anyone ever cried for the thousands of army men & police killed at the hands of Jehadis in Kashmir, Assam, Mumbai, Delhi or at the hands of Naxals!
Now the time has come for all patriotic & truly nationalist citizens of Bharat to democratically stand up against such anti-national remarks & actions – be it elections or by democratic agitations. The same Salman Khursheed – Bharat’s sitting Law minister promised in his wife’s election campaign 9% snatching from OBC quota for Muslims & now like a serial offender he again insults Bharat & the late police officer who was rewarded for his bravery in Batla house for the same encounter. If Salman Khursheed, as a Law Minister is against his own Govt’s decision that the Batla House encounter was a brave deed by the police, then he has no right to be in the govt neither as a Law Minister nor even as an M.P. of Bharat. Those who have any sympathy towards Jehadis have no place in the democracy. Thousands of innocent Indians were brutally killed & maimed by Jehadi attacks from Delhi to Mumbai & Bengaluru to many places. But neither Salman Khursheed nor his superiors shown any sympathy for the victims, instead, they are siding with the Jehadis! After a conspiracy to snatch all castes’ Hindus’ Roti, Education, Employment, Bank Loans to be given to Muslims, now the govt is systematically moving towards persecuting majority of Bharat to appease Muslims. Muslim League did the same at the independence time & Bharat was forced into partition. Now this entire ‘I am with Jehadis; NOT with Bharat’ gang is breaking Bharat again. VHP condemns all these efforts & appeals all to protest against this behaviour democratically

For information, contact: drtogadia@gmail.com ; 098253 23406
Advertisements

Asha Bhosle’s slap on Shameless Delhi Elites(!) (Artilcle is in Hindi)

02 फरवरी 2012 : आशा भोंसले और तीजन बाई ने दिल्लीवालों की लू उतार दी| ये दोनों देवियाँ ‘लिम्का बुक ऑफ रेकार्ड’ के कार्यक्रम में दिल्ली आई थीं| संगीत संबंधी यह कार्यक्रम पूरी तरह अंग्रेजी में चल रहा था| यह कोई अपवाद नहीं था| आजकल दिल्ली में कोई भी कार्यक्रम यदि किसी पांच-सितारा होटल या इंडिया इंटरनेशनल सेंटर जैसी जगहों पर होता है तो वहां हिंदी या किसी अन्य भारतीय भाषा के इस्तेमाल का प्रश्न ही नहीं उठता| इस कार्यक्रम में भी सभी वक्तागण एक के बाद एक अंग्रेजी झाड़ रहे थे| मंच संचालक भी अंग्रेजी बोल रहा था|
जब तीजनबाई के बोलने की बारी आई तो उन्होंने कहा कि यहां का माहौल देखकर मैं तो डर गई हूं| आप लोग क्या-क्या बोलते रहे, मेरे पल्ले कुछ नहीं पड़ा| मैं तो अंग्रेजी बिल्कुल भी नहीं जानती| तीजनबाई को सम्मानित करने के लिए बुलाया गया था लेकिन जो कुछ वहां हो रहा था, वह उनका अपमान ही था लेकिन श्रोताओं में से कोई भी उठकर कुछ नहीं बोला| तीजनबाई के बोलने के बावजूद कार्यक्रम बड़ी बेशर्मी से अंग्रेजी में ही चलता रहा| इस पर आशा भोंसले झल्ला गईं| उन्होंने कहा कि मुझे पहली बार पता चला कि दिल्ली में सिर्फ अंग्रेजी बोली जाती है| लोग अपनी भाषाओं में बात करने में भी शर्म महसूस करते हैं| उन्होंने कहा मैं अभी लंदन से ही लौटी हूं| वहां लोग अंग्रेजी में बोले तो बात समझ में आती है लेकिन दिल्ली का यह माजरा देखकर मैं दंग हूं| उन्होंने श्रोताओं से फिर पूछा कि आप हिंदी नहीं बोलते, यह ठीक है लेकिन आशा है, मैं जो बोल रही हूं, उसे समझते तो होंगे? दिल्लीवालों पर इससे बड़ी लानत क्या मारी जा सकती थी?
इसके बावजूद जब मंच-संचालक ने अंग्रेजी में ही आशाजी से आग्रह किया कि वे कोई गीत सुनाएँ तो उन्होंने क्या करारा तमाचा जमाया? उन्होंने कहा कि यह कार्यक्रम कोका कोला कंपनी ने आयोजित किया है| आपकी ही कंपनी की कोक मैंने अभी-अभी पी है| मेरा गला खराब हो गया है| मैं गा नहीं सकती|

क्या हमारे देश के नकलची और गुलाम बुद्घिजीवी आशा भोंसले और तीजनबाई से कोई सबक लेंगे? ये वे लोग हैं, जो मौलिक है और प्रथम श्रेणी के हैं जबकि सड़ी-गली अंग्रेजी झाड़नेवाले हमारे तथाकथित बुद्घिजीवियों को पश्चिमी समाज नकलची और दोयम दर्जे का मानता है| वह उन्हें नोबेल और बुकर आदि पुरस्कार इसलिए भी दे देता है कि वे अपने-अपने देशों में अंग्रेजी के सांस्कृतिक साम्राज्यवाद के मुखर चौकीदार की भूमिका निभाते रहें| उनकी जड़ें अपनी जमीन में नीचे नहीं होतीं, ऊपर होती हैं| वे चमगादड़ों की तरह सिर के बल उल्टे लटके होते हैं| आशा भोंसले ने दिल्लीवालों के बहाने उन्हीं की खबर ली है|

Time for PM to sanction prosecution of Ms. Sonia Gandhi- S. Gurumurthy

An ominous sign for government

By S Gurumurthy
31 Jan 2012 11:31:00 PM IST

Here is a telling contrast in fighting corruption. The nation has seen in the last couple of years two distinct endeavours to fight corruption. One is the fight for a new anti-corruption law with the blessings of even the suspects. And the other is identifying the suspects and fighting them under existing laws. Anna Hazare and his team have launched an agitation for an anti-corruption law — the Lokpal Bill — without which, they told the nation, corruption could not be fought or contained. In their enterprise against corruption they first appealed to Sonia Gandhi for her support to fight corruption! And she also wrote to Anna offering her support! Subramanian Swamy, on the other hand, took the view that corruption could well be fought under the existing anti-corruption law provided the corrupt are targeted directly. First, he filed an application with the prime minister for prosecuting A Raja for his role in the 2G scam. Next he applied to the prime minister for sanction to prosecute Sonia Gandhi, whose support Anna had sought to stop corruption. Swamy, a seasoned politician and accomplished intellectual, knew that without the visible picture of the corrupt, corruption is a theoretical issue — a point which the apolitical Anna and team had missed.

How Subramanian Swamy has cornered the UPA finally is not a complex story. The 2G licence issue had all the trappings of an open air theatre scam from the day the licences were fraudulently issued, namely, on January 10, 2008. When the government was covering up the 2G issue, everyone was merely wondering how to fix the government. But Swamy acted. He filed an application on November 24, 2008, with Prime Minister Manmohan Singh for permission to prosecute A Raja who had issued the 2G licences. At that time Raja was a powerful minister in the ministry of UPA-I, being from the DMK that was dominant in the alliance. The anti-corruption law mandates that no court can look at a complaint against a public servant “except with the previous sanction” of the authority competent to remove the public servant from office. Since Raja was a minister, who could be removed by the PM, Swamy approached the PM for the sanction.

The likes of Sibals and Chidambarams were perhaps laughing at Swamy. But Swamy persisted. He kept on writing letters to the prime minister reminding him about his application. He ceaselessly kept talking about it in public and through the media. But the prime minister, as he is sworn to in most matters, kept silent. The silence of the PM had made the government and the ruling party happy. But Swamy moved the Delhi High Court for a direction to the PM to take a decision on his plea. The high court dismissed Swamy’s petition. The ruling government and party were in ecstasy. But, undeterred, Swamy moved the Supreme Court. The PM had written to Swamy on March 10, 2010, that Swamy’s plea for prosecuting Raja was premature as the CBI was investigating the matter — a response authored by amateur legalism. After having trivialised Swamy thus, on April 26, 2010, the PM told the media — which asked him whether Raja’s statement that he had the approval of the PM to do what he did — that Raja had consulted him before issuing the licences. That what the PM had accepted as consultation, Raja has asserted as permission.

Swamy also complained to the Supreme Court about the inordinate delay by the PM in deciding the matter. Meanwhile, the 2G issue had exploded on the face of the government with the report of the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) of India saying that the loss to the government was, on the lower side, some `69,000 crore and could be as high as `1,75,000 crore. The Supreme Court, seeing the government prevaricating at all levels, began monitoring the CBI investigation of the scam. The petition by Swamy too became part of the 2G scam litigation in the Supreme Court. The CBI did file charge-sheets in some cases of scam, including Raja as an accused in all except one. But Swamy’s plea to the PM to prosecute Raja and the PM’s inaction on it survived for consideration by the Supreme Court. The apex court did go deep into the matter, called for the records of the PMO and asked for an explanation from the PMO for the delay. By now, the ruling party and the government stopped laughing at Swamy. It became the turn of Swamy to laugh at them. It is the plea of Swamy to the PM to allow him to prosecute Raja which has been decided by the Supreme Court on January 31, 2012, in a landmark judgment.

First, the court has set aside the judgment of the Delhi High Court that had refused to direct the PM to decide on Swamy’s plea. Second, it has ruled that it is the constitutional right of a citizen to move to prosecute any public servant. Third, the authority to whom the application is made for permission to prosecute should take a decision within three months and if, within four months, no decision is taken, the permission shall be deemed to be granted. The import of the Supreme Court judgment is evident. The court has clearly indicted Prime Minister Manmohan Singh for delaying the decision on Swamy’s plea. It has also directed him to decide on Swamy’s plea in 90 days. The court has also said that Parliament should lay down the guidelines for 2G prosecution. Finally, the court has said that for ordering inquiries into corruption against any public servant, criminal courts do not need sanction.

It may appear at the first sight that the judgment is against Raja and the PM. But, in substance, it is just an ant-bite on Raja and an embarrassment for the PM. Raja, already charge-sheeted, is in jail. The PM will have no difficulty in allowing one more complaint — that of Swamy — against Raja. But the real danger lies in the other application by Swamy — for permission to prosecute Sonia Gandhi — which the PM has labelled as “premature” and ducked. Under the anti-corruption law, the PM can sack Sonia, the chairperson of National Advisory Council, even though he himself may be removed by her. Swamy can now ask the PM whether the complaint has matured. He can also move the criminal court for inquiry against Sonia Gandhi for which, the Supreme Court has ruled, no sanction is needed. Swamy’s statement that he “can bypass Vadra and go straight to Sonia” is ominous. The Congress cannot laugh at him now.

(Views expressed in the column are the author’s own)
S Gurumurthy is a well-known commentator on political and economic issues.
E-mail: comment@gurumurthy.net

India’s dubious Secularists- S. Gurumurthy

India’s dubious Secularists 

S. Gurumurthy

30 Jan 2012

www.gurumurthy.net


Maqbool Fida Husain and Salman Rushdie are a telling comparison and contrast to capture the true character of secular India. Both are Muslims by birth. Both were born in colonial India’s Bombay Presidency. Husain, some 32 years when Rushdie was a child, died last year. Husain was an artist. Rushdie is a writer. Both had become famous, globally — Husain through his paintings and Rushdie through his writings. Husain lived all his life in India before he exiled and became a Qatari in 2006. But Rushdie lives in the UK as a British citizen. While Rushdie excited the highly sensitive Muslims to turn against him, Husain managed to irritate the not-so-sensitive Hindus. Take Husain first.
This is how Husain annoyed the soft Hindus. He used his fertile imagination and painting skills to undress all well-dressed Hindu gods, goddesses, depict them naked and used his popularity to market them. He drew a naked Goddess Lakshmi sitting on Lord Ganesha’s head. He painted Durga in sexual union with a tiger. He portrayed a naked Goddess Saraswati holding a veena. He painted a naked Parvati with her son Ganesha. He depicted a naked Hanuman, seeing a naked Sita sitting on the thigh of naked Ravana. He painted a naked Bharatmata twice — once in the shape of India with names of the states of India on her naked body, alongside a naked sadhu in the Bay of Bengal. But his art on Muslims was a telling contrast. He drew a fully clad Muslim king alongside a naked Brahmin. He completely covered, even with purdah, the Muslim women he drew, which of course included his mother and daughter. He fully attired the Muslim poets he painted.
Some Hindus, who saw his perverted art demeaning the Hindu divinities, began protesting at his exhibitions and filing criminal cases. Seeing mounting protests and cases, Husain moved out of India. The government of India, judiciary, political parties and, of course, the media, all rushed to defend Husain’s right to freedom — his right to offend Hindus and demean their gods. There were protests against Husain. But no one issued an order to kill him. No one was injured, no one was hurt and none was killed. Yet, the protests were labelled by ‘seculars’ as ‘saffron terror’.
Now come to Rushdie, a contrast. His life is living hell since he wrote his controversial book The Satanic Verses. Though living, he has, by now, died a million times since February 4, 1989 when Ayatollah Khomeini issued a fiat (fatwa) to Muslims to kill him. But, why should Khomeini order the killing of a fellow Muslim? With almost a generation gone since 1988 when Rushdie wrote the infamous book, it is time to recall some history. Rushdie’s book was about a disputed tradition in Islam. According to it, Mohammed (depicted in Rushdie’s book as Mahound) had first added three verses (Sura) in the Quran, accepting three goddesses that used to be worshipped in Mecca as divine beings, but later revoked the verses saying that Devil (Satan) had tempted him to utter the verses to appease the Meccans — so the title ‘Satanic Verses’ for the disputed verses. The Rushdie book set off violent reaction from Muslims.
Mustafa Mahmoud Mazeh blew himself up in a central London hotel while making a bomb intended to kill Rushdie in 1989. Hitoshi Igarashi, the Japanese translator of Rushdie’s book was stabbed to death in July 1991. Ettore Capriolo, the Italian translator, was stabbed and seriously injured in the same month. And Aziz Nesin, the Turkish language translator, was the target in the events that led to massacre of 37 people in July 1993. William Nygaard, a Norway publisher, was almost killed in Oslo in October 1993. In Belgium, two Muslim leaders who had opposed Khomeini’s ‘Kill Rushdie’ fiat, were killed. Two bookstores in California, and five in England, were fire-bombed. Twelve people died during rioting in Mumbai. This list does not exhaust the violence.
Starting from then and till now, Rushdie has been hitting headlines for the wrong reasons. Now again Rushdie is in the news. Rushdie had been invited to the Jaipur Literature Festival 2012, Asia’s largest, a week back. Muslims threatened agitations and Rushdie’s presence would have meant violence. So the Indian Intelligence Bureau invented an input saying that four hired assassins were roaming around to kill Rushdie. This was proved fake, calculated to prevent Rushdie from coming to India. The four participants who had read out from The Satanic Verses at the meet ran away from India to escape arrest. William Dalrymple, the festival director, got death threats. Finally, Rushdie’s video address to the Jaipur festival was dropped as, according to organisers, it risked the lives of the participants from the Muslim protesters outside.
The contrast is self-evident. Rushdie, who just wrote about a disputed tradition in Islam, was hounded for decades and is on a death threat even now, and people who had nothing to do with either the book or Rushdie have been butchered. Even today the fear of slaughter in his name haunts the world, as the Jaipur meet shows. But, all that Husain, who, in the name of freedom hurt the Hindus — “considered as the gentlest and most civilised on the earth” according to Mahatma Gandhi — faced were normal protests. The protests by Hindus against Husain were ant-bite compared to the scale of violence against Rushdie’s book, even though the hurt to the Hindu sentiments by the perverted paintings of Husain were explicit and undeniably monumental.

But what is distressingly shameful is the politics of contrast. See how the secular media, parties, leaders and state glorified Husain’s right to abuse Hindu gods and goddesses to wound Hindus and how the same secular actors repeatedly decried Rushdie’s similar right to hurt Muslims. Now something even more shameful. The ‘seculars’, including the media, had ceaselessly condemned the normal protests against shows displaying Husain’s painting and pontificated to Hindus about the need for tolerance. But they wouldn’t utter a word against the violence by Muslims nor ask them to be tolerant. The reason is obvious. They are dishonest.

Muslims rightly felt offended by Rushdie’s reckless literary work. And Hindus were justly hurt by Husain’s perverted art. Muslims, highly excitable, however reacted violently. Instead of holding both Rushdie and Husain wrong, the seculars faulted Rushdie and praised Husain. Why? Because, being insensitive to Hindus and pretending to be sensitive to Muslims is enough to make one secular. QED: Such secularism is perversion — and a dangerous one.

(Views expressed in the column are the author’s own)
S Gurumurthy is a well-known commentator on political and economic issues.
E-mail: 
comment@gurumurthy.net

http://expressbuzz.com/opinion/columnists/india%E2%80%99s-dubious-secularists/358494.html

Hildaraja's Blog

about my reactions and responses to men and affairs

બોઝિલ

EXISTANCE ON THE EARTH IS STILL BOZIL ..

રઝળપાટ

- મારી કલમ ના પગલા

World Hindu Economic Forum

Making Society Prosperous

Suchetausa's Blog

Just another WordPress.com weblog

Guruprasad's Portal

Inspirational, Insightful, Informative..

Aksharnaad.com

Read, Listen, Feel Gujarati.

Ramani's blog

Health Mantras Hinduism Research Global Hinduism History Science Vedic Texts

Jayshree Merchant

Gujarati Writer & Poet

churumuri

swalpa sihi, swalpa spicy

થીગડું

તૂટી-ફૂટી ગયેલા વિચારો પર કલમ થી માર્યું એક થીગડું.....

Swami Vivekananda

Let noble thoughts come to us from all sides, news too..

Acta Indica › The St Thomas In India History Swindle

Articles on the dubious Saint Thomas in India legend by noted historians, researchers, and journalists

2ndlook

Take a 2ndlook | Different Picture, Different Story

उत्तरापथ

तक्षशिला से मगध तक यात्रा एक संकल्प की . . .

Stories from the Heartland

One Californian's life as a Midwest transplant

Vicharak1's Weblog

My thoughts and useful articles from media

%d bloggers like this: