Global Indians for Bharat Vikas (GIBV), USA coordinator for Metro Washington, DC, Dr. Anju Preet appeals all to vote for Narendra Modiji. Please share. — at Us Capitol – Washington Dc.
Received fromWhatsApp-Author unkown.
आसमान में थूकने चले थे युगपुरुष | आसमान ने आज तक का सभी का थूका हुआ उन्ही पर पड़ा है |
स्वयं स्वघोषित फर्जी राजा हरिश्चंद्र जी ने एडमिशन लिया था जिंदल के मैनेजमेंट कोटे से | अरविन्द केजरीवाल का IIT- खड़गपुर में प्रवेश परीक्षा JEE के बजाय बिना नियमों का पालन किये जिंदल के सौजन्य से स्टाफ कोटे से हुआ था |
चला था प्रधानमंत्री की डिग्री के लिए RTI करने | उसी की डिग्री की असलियत पता चल गयी | बैक डोर से IIT में एडमिशन लेकर IIT करने का दम भरने वाला अरविंद फर्जीवाल केजरी बड़ा महारथी निकला | हिन्दुस्तान टाइम्स के एक रिपोर्टर ने RTI के जरिए से खुलासा हुआ कि 1985 में IIT में प्रवेश लेने वाले फर्जीवाल ने IITJEE परीक्षा नहीं दी थी | उसे एडमिशन दिलाया IIT खड़गपुर के तत्कालीन निदेशक प्रोफ़ेसर जी० एस० सान्याल और नवीन जिंदल के पिता के नज़दीकी संबंधों ने | दरअसल खड़गपुर में स्टाफ ने अपने आश्रितों के लिए प्रवेश के गैरकानूनी तरीके से रास्ता बना रखा था | जिसे सरकार ने गैरकानूनी मानते हुए 2005 में समाप्त कर दिया |
अरविन्द केजरीवाल के पिता गोविंद राम केजरीवाल 1985 में जिंदल स्टील में उच्च पद पर थे | उन्हीं ने जिंदल से कहलवा कर जी० एस० सान्याल के कोटे से IIT खड़गपुर में ऑल इंडिया रैंकिंग के न रहते हुए प्रवेश दिलाया था |
जो लोग फ़र्जीवाल के DNA की जाँच कराना चाहते थे, उनके लिए यह सूचना अत्यन्त महत्वपूर्ण है. बॉयोलॉजिकल फ़ादर जहाँ गोविंद राम केजरीवाल हैं वहीं IIIT खड़गपुर में प्रवेश लेते समय प्रोफ़ेसर जीएस सान्याल को बाप बना लिया था (केजरीवाल इतना नीचे गिर जाएगा कि बाप भी बदल लेगा ये तो सोचा भी न था) |
इसने किसी मेधावी छात्र का अधिकार मारा है | बड़ा भ्रष्टाचार भ्रष्टाचार करता रहता है न, सबसे बड़ा भ्रष्टाचारी यही है | क्योंकि जिसका जन्म ही भ्रष्टाचार से हुआ हो वो अच्छे आचरण कहाँ से ले आएगा | एक चोर को हर व्यक्ति में अपने जैसा चोर ही नजर आता है सबको संदेह की निगाहों से देखता है | मित्रों अब समझ में आया ये डिग्री डिग्री क्यों चिल्लाता रहता है, क्योंकि इसकी खुद की डिग्री ही फर्जी है |
इसके ऊपर दो-दो बाप रखने का भ्रष्टाचार का मामला बनता है
स्वघोषित नकली राजा हरिश्चंद्र अरविन्द केजरीवाल दिल्ली की जनता ने काम करने के लिए चुना है औकात से बढ़कर नौटंकी करने के लिए नहीं |
क्या इससे पहले देखा था ….
की किसी प्रधानमंत्री का सगा छोटा भाई….
बिना किसी सुरक्षा के….
आश्रम एक्प्रेस के जनरल बोगी में…
दिल्ली जाकर ….
राशन की दुकानदारो के मार्जिन बढ़ाने के लिए….
आन्दोलन करे ??
🌱ये सोचो की आज भारत में एक ऐसा प्रधानमंत्री है जिसके परिवार के सभी सदस्य अपने मेहनत का खाते है …
👍एक भाई पेंशनयाफ्ता है ..
👍एक भाई लेथ मशीन चलाता है ..
👍एक भाई सुबह से शाम तक सरकारी कोटे वाली राशन की दुकान में चीनी, गेंहू केरोसिन तौलता है ..
👍एक भाई सुचना विभाग में काम करता है …
👍 इकलौती बहन का पति एलआईसी में क्लास थर्ड से रिटायर है और वो गुजरात के एक छोटे से गाँव में रहता है ..
👉अब जरा आप भी तो बता दो की अरविन्द केजरीवाल के घर वाले क्या करते है ?
👉अब जरा आप भी तो बता दो की राहुल गांधी के घर वाले क्या करते है ?
👉अब जरा आप भी तो बता दो की लालू यादव के घर वाले क्या करते है ?
👉अब जरा आप भी तो बता दो की मुलायम यादव के घर वाले क्या करते है ?
👉अब जरा आप भी तो बता दो की मायावती के घर वाले क्या करते है ?
👉और जिसका नाम याद आता है उसके बारे भी जानकारी पता करो।🙏
🙏 नमन है इस सादगी को 🙏
Polls 2013 – And The Losers Are…
By Kishore Trivedi on March 11, 2013
It was not a Sunday morning that many editors in the print and electronic media would have liked. For starters, there was to be a Narendra Modi speech, which meant these editors would have to be personally involved in ‘puncturing’ every word Modi said, mere correspondents would do not. Second, the speech was to an audience based in the USA and the biggest shocker was that it was at 6:30 in the morning! The thought of Modi ruining their Sunday morning was high on the mind of every TV channel when they began to cover his speech at the OFBJP programme.
First, the true figures that no media would bother to present. Modi’s interaction with NRI’s was a resounding success. They thronged both the venues at New Jersey and Chicago in large numbers. In fact, there was a severe space crunch to accommodate more people. Millions of people were glued to their TV screens across the US and Canada. Back home, the fact that the speech was on an early Sunday morning did not deter lakhs of netizens to follow it live. Even in the wee hours of Sunday, Twitter was abuzz with excitement over Modi’s speech.
Modi’s speech, by all standards, was path-breaking. Here was a leader who spoke about development and nation-building. No, the audience did not get to know whether his mother cried, or whether someone had told him power was poison or, for that matter, whether the sky was dark or clear at 4 am. Instead, they got to hear about the need to put India first. They were inspired when they heard about Modi’s mantra of One India, Excellent India (Ek Bharat, Sreshtha Bharat) and they went back to their homes assured that here is a man who will take their motherland forward come what may.
Understandably, the success of Modi’s speech in terms of both response and numbers created a Sunday morning headache for TV editors. Clearly, they had their job cut out for the day – demolish Modi’s speech whatever it takes. Their brief was clear – to engage in hair-splitting so that by the end of the day Modi’s speech would be trashed across drawing rooms. What followed was a shameful attempt to misrepresent and create a discourse built not on the strong foundation of facts but the weak premise of lies and personal prejudice.
The first thing the media picked on was Modi’s statement that if Governments made commendable efforts to serve the people, their mistakes would be overlooked. This statement, if viewed objectively, is 100 per cent true. The media, of course, thought otherwise. “People will ‘forgive’ a good Government’s mistake,” is how a headline was titled. Few missed the sarcasm in the tone. Here was Modi talking about the determination of his Government and humbly admitting that being human beings, it is possible some expectation would be left unmet. Yet, the same apologists who do not bat an eyelid before seeking elaborate apologies from Modi were up in arms. So were the non-apologists. Even in a discussion on Governance, the media asked if Modi was sidetracking 2002. Where 2002 came from is a million-dollar question. This ‘heads I win, tails you lose’ approach smacks of nothing but ignorance and misplaced arrogance.
The Congress’s opposition (which has spread on the media) to the statement on performance, mistakes and victory by Modi is understandable when you see that their own Governments win elections without performance, with many mistakes and without ever having to be humble about it and freely discussing the same. Never has Sheila Dikshit apologised for the corruption in Delhi, YSR’s exploits had the backing of 10 Janpath and the DF Government in Maharashtra has broken all records of inefficiency. Thus, ‘if without being humble we can win, why go the hard way?’ thinks the Congress.
Then, in his speech Modi described secularism as ‘India first’. For those editors who swear by an ideology that puts the family first and perhaps Italy second, these words came as hard punches. So they swung into action. “Modi going the Advani way, coining a new term ‘India first’ like Advani’s pseudo-secularism, and mixing nationalism with his agenda” is how a Congress-friendly journo who has authored a biography of the UPA chairperson put it. Some TV channels asked if Modi was changing track and adopting a more ‘tolerant line’!
The icing on the cake came when a Union Minister of State tweeted that Modi had copied ‘India first’ from his Twitter bio (doesn’t matter that he incorrectly wrote my ‘DP Profile’). The phrase ‘India first’ in the context of secularism is not new for Modi. In fact, he has used it back in 2011 and even before.
And finally, they had to drag in Wharton somewhere. A reputed news agency said Modi was addressing NRIs after the ‘Wharton snub’ and that is why he was presenting this softer image. The Indian media deserves the Man Booker Prize. This interaction between Modi and the OFBJP was planned months back. It was to have taken place on January 26 but had to be rescheduled. Where does Wharton come into this?
There is a major protest being planned with speakers across US Cross sections on Free Speech at the same time the event being held on the Wharton campus close to Penn Museum where this event is to take place
We are group of Indian American activists who are concerned with the recent developments in relation to Wharton India Economic Forum and their disinvitation of Narendra Modi. Among us there is NIAC ( http://niac.co ) that recently took high ranking US congress members such Peter Roskam to India to meet leaders such as Modi, our group worked with Indian teams and won recent battle on Electronic Voting Machines to provide paper receipt ( http://SaveIndianDemocracy.org ) by bringing in international experts from Germany, Denmark and US, we initiated a major conference on India Corruption with representatives from UN, Eurodad , Tax Justice Network and elite in India, Dr. Swamy, Kejriwal, Baba Ramadev, Supreme Court Justices (retd) etc ( http://SaveIndiaFromCorruption.org ). Our group includes Wharton alumni, academicians from US.
We are not here to go over the merits of Modi invitation or who is responsible for 2002 riots which is an ongoing debate, but the manner in which Wharton decided to invite a Chief Minister of 50 million people who was elected four times to give key note speech and then dis-invite him based on some petition or even possible pressure from India’s groups. America and its institutions pride itself on free speech, freedom of expression and open to voices of dissent. What kind of example Wharton is setting for its students who are going to be future leaders and entrepreneurs in the nation? This is insult to position of democratically elected Chief Minister of India and to 50 million people from his state who voted him four times to power. The unfortunate irony of all this is even the highest ranking Muslims in India praise Modi’s inclusive growth. Business leaders from all over the world make a beeline to invest in Gujarat state and Wharton being a business school, what kind of relations it is building with it? At a time when India is reeling with massive corruption scandals and India’s corruption ranking is among the lowest in Transparency International rankings, Mr. Modi has shown to the world what India is capable of. Would he not be the best person to speak to Wharton business students and learn from him?
Here is Wall Street Journal poll where out of 5875 polled, 5394 said Wharton made a wrong decision.
Here are links below on what US Congressmen, Ron Somers and many other leaders are saying about this unfortunate incident.
US lawmaker, Congressman, and Ranking member of Subcommittee on Asia Mr. Eni Faleomavaega chides Wharton – http://news.oneindia.in/2013/03/06/support-for-modi-grows-us-lawmaker-chides-wharton-1164907.html
The Economic Times and several Indian mainstream media, Marc 6, 2013, Wharton-Modi controversy unfortunate and disrespectful: USIBC Ron Somers
Huffington Post, The Hijacking of Wharton, Rajeev Malhotra, March 7, 2012 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rajiv-malhotra/the-hijacking-of-wharton_b_2814421.html
Sunday Guardian, Ram Jethmalini, Let truth be known about Modi, March 8, 2012
How Wharton Scored a Huge Self-Goal – Sandeep B
ITBL, Wharton MODIfied…!, March 4, 2013,
Wharton and Modi: Political gamesmanship won over business savvy – Dr Aseem Shukla, Hindu American Foundation http://www.rediff.com/news/column/wharton-and-modi-how-political-gamesmanship-beat-business-savvy/20130306.htm
Fiasco of Modi at Wharton – Rajeev Srinivasan
B-School basics: Why Wharton is wrong in disinviting Narendra Modi – Manish Sabharwal, Wharton Alumni http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2013-03-05/news/37469757_1_wharton-india-responsible-student-body-wharton-school
Wall Street Journal poll, March 5th, 2013, Out of 5875 polled, 5394 said Wharton made a wrong decision. http://blogs.wsj.com/indiarealtime/2013/03/05/poll-was-wharton-right-or-wrong-to-revoke-modis-invitation/
News about dropping from the forum by keynote speaker (former Union Minister) and a major sponsor
I was in Gujarat for a few days around Deepawali holidays. As a casual observer, I could see big billboards in Karnavati (that is Ahmedabad) put up by the Congress party to sway voters against Narendra Modi’s BJP government in the upcoming elections. I have reproduced a few of them here.
This is the height of negative and misleading propaganda by a party that is known for expertise in dirty deeds. Of course, anyone with commonsense would be able to see through this misinformation.
For example, one advertisement says, in Gujarat 29% people do not get clean drinking water. But that would also mean that 71% do get it!- Not a bad record in a country where there is acute water shortage.
First picture below cries out that 16,50,000 families are without affordable homes. It gives an impression that this is all BJP’s doing and as if when Congress ruled, all these 16,50,000 families had affordable housing!
Second picture has become a sort of poster child of Congress’s lies. It shows a malnourished baby and then goes on to give figures of malnourished babies in Gujarat. It is a different matter that these figures are from 2007 and things have improved a lot after that. But reason this has become an embarrassment for Congress is that it has come out that the photo is from a Tsunami relief camp in Sri Lanka!
After seeing all those billboards that concentrated on all the negatives, engineer that I am, I came up with an equation.
Gujarat Congress = Gutter Inspector
A gutter inspector can only see and smell sewage; he is oblivious to colorful flowers that might be around the landscape.
I am positive that Gujarat’s astute populace will throw the Congress and its minions like the Gujarat Parivartan Party in the gutters of history in coming elections.
Narendra Modi and the Muslim votebank
9 July 2012
Before, if ever, Narendra Modi becomes India’s prime minister, he will have to break the stranglehold of the Muslim votebank on Indian politics. His sadbhavna yatras (goodwill missions) to win the confidence of Muslims are good as far as they go. However, even hundreds of such yatras will not take him even an inch closer to the throne of Delhi. Hindus, and Hindus alone, can propel him to power at the Centre, if they choose to.
For BJP’s central leadership, Narendra Modi poses a dilemma: he is viewed as a great asset and also as a great liability. Modi’s popularity crossed the borders of Gujarat long ago. He emerged as a national leader on the back of resolute leadership, efficient administration and a clean image. He enjoys a good deal of support from the RSS, which in BJP is a trump card.
With ears close to the ground, easy accessibility and a sound track record of delivering on promises, Modi has acquired a measure of credibility and charisma which none of the BJP’s central leaders possess. Shivraj Singh Chauhan of Madhya Pradesh and Raman Singh of Chhattisgarh have also earned popularity on similar strengths, but neither appears to be keen, as of now, to play a leading role at the Centre. Modi is a different case. BJP bigwigs cannot ignore him or his ambitions.
However, if Modi is selected to command BJP forces in the forthcoming Lok Sabha election, many BJP leaders will have to forget their ambitions and rein in their lust for power. The pull of such lust should not be underestimated.
These leaders want Modi to campaign for the party, not only in Gujarat, but also in other states where his presence can make a difference, while expecting him to confine his own ambitions to Gujarat. Modi is unwilling to oblige them, unless he could augment his own political capital by campaigning outside Gujarat. He wants to be the commander, not a foot soldier. This subtle tug of war is slowly becoming visible and will emerge out in the open by the time of the Lok Sabha election.
It is equally certain that if BJP selects Narendra Modi as its prime ministerial candidate, it will have to forget not only about the few (if any) Muslim votes it gets, but also about allies who are mortally scared of annoying Muslim votebanks. Therein lies the rub. Barring the Akali Dal and the Shiv Sena, all other parties in the NDA are enamoured of the ‘secular’ label. The hypocrisy of leaders like Nitish Kumar is infuriating. By insisting that the NDA candidate for prime minister must have a ‘secular’ image, he is playing to the green gallery while trying to keep a powerful rival off the field. The ploy is too transparent to be missed, but, unfortunately, it threatens to work.
Muslims are naturally amused to watch the game. In their view, their security (actually, political clout) lies in keeping out of power any party or leader who enjoys any credibility – real or fake – among the Hindus. And if Hindu leaders can articulate that position for them in as many words, so much the better.
This is a decisive moment, not just for the BJP or NDA, but for Hindu society. The modern Hindu intelligentsia has failed to grasp a basic fact: clout, influence, power or authority is central to human relations. Power that is not exercised eventually wears off and vanishes. Hindu intellectuals rarely examine any issue, development or trend in terms of Hindu influence or power. For most of them, such an exercise is weird and anti-secular if not anti-national. They think it is beneath them to indulge in it. Hindu society has paid, and continues to pay, a heavy price for this failure of its intelligentsia.
In the post-independence period, Hindus have never asserted primacy of their civilisational identity at the political level. They have never claimed to be the essential national society, the fulcrum of the polity around which every institution and organization must arrange itself. In contrast, Muslims realize the centrality of power in relations with non-Muslims. They can and do use their votes as an effective political weapon. I do not criticize Muslims for doing so, just as I do not applaud Hindus for neglecting power equations in post-independence India.
Hence it is that Hindus have become political orphans in the only country they can call their own. Hence it is they are still maligned for Gujarat riots ten years after the event, while the original provocation (burning alive of 59 Hindus by a Muslim mob without any provocation) is all but forgotten. Hence it is that heartrending tales of Kashmiri pundits, who have suffered far greater atrocities for much longer, hardly ever evokes any sympathy at all from any political party – not even the BJP. Hence it is that Hindus can speak as Dalits, Adivasis, Jats, Yadavs, Kurmis, Lingayats, Reddys, Vanniars and Nairs, but not as Hindus. Hence it is that 12 per cent Muslims, without uttering a word, can frighten mighty Hindu politicians into rejecting anyone with Hindu credentials…
In the pre-independence period, a con game was played in the name of nationalism. Only that party, that leader was national (and could speak for the whole country) which was not opposed by the Muslim League. In this reckoning, the Congress was an organization of Hindu banias, but the Communist Party of India was a national organization. After independence, the same game is played in the name of secularism. Only that party, that leader, that programme or proposal is secular which is not opposed by Muslims. The name has changed, participants have changed, but the game remains unchanged. And so does its objective: to keep the Hindus on the defensive.
How history repeats itself! Congress is now saying about BJP whatever Jinnah used to say about Congress in 1940s: that it is a party of Hindu banias, that Muslims can never expect justice from it, that if it ever came to power then Muslims will have to fear for their lives and so on. Again the object is the same: to use Muslims as political pawns to delegitimize and checkmate nationalist sentiments.
Narendra Modi has the power to break this game. Without a single Muslim vote, without making any special or specific gesture to Muslims, he has swept assembly elections, not once, but twice, in Gujarat. He has demonstrated that if Hindus stand solidly behind any leader, he does not have to flatter Muslims. This is why he is regarded as a mortal enemy by most Muslims, all brokers of Muslim votes, and all parties hankering after the Muslim votebank.
If Modi can replicate at the national level what he has done in Gujarat, it will decisively break the stranglehold of Muslim votebanks on Indian politics, breathe a new self-confidence in Hindu society and force a rethink among Hindu politicians in non-BJP parties. Muslims will become just one of the many groups in Indian politics and thus join the national mainstream.
Whether Modi is interested in attempting this feat, whether BJP will give him an opportunity to make such an attempt is, of course, another matter. His sadbhavna yatras have aroused speculation that he, too, may be craving acceptability among circles that want BJP to shed every trace of Hinduness. As to BJP, it does not deserve a single Hindu vote as of now as a party of Hindu nationalism. But that does not affect the position outlined in the earlier passages.
If the BJP really regards itself as a party of Indian nationalism, it should distance itself from those hankering after the 12 per cent votebank and announce Narendra Modi as its prime ministerial candidate for 2014 Lok Sabha election.
The author is Executive Editor, Corporate India, and lives in Mumbai
Not ‘Secularism’ again
Posted online: Sun Jun 24 2012
Now that the Chief Minister of Bihar has dragged ‘succularism’ into the political discourse, it is time to deconstruct it so that we can end this pointless debate once and for all. I have deliberately misspelt the word because when said in Hindi that is how it is usually pronounced. It is a hard word to write in devnagri and the Hindi and Urdu equivalents do not quite mean what secularism has come to mean in the Indian political context. It is a foreign word that evolved in a European context when the powers of the church and the state were separated. In India, since none of our religions were led by pontiffs who controlled armies, or had vast temporal powers, we had no need to make this separation.
But, the word secularism is used in India more than almost any other country. Why?
Well, because when we entered our current era of coalition governments, political parties of leftist disposition found it convenient to keep the BJP out of power by saying they would only ally with ‘succular phorces’. The BJP became a pariah after the Babri Masjid came down and so whenever someone like Nitish Kumar wants to hurl abuse at the party he is in alliance with in Bihar, or one of its leaders, the ‘secularism’ debate gets revived.
Currently, he appears to be positioning himself for prime minister in 2014 and seems to believe that he will only be in the running for this job if he can eliminate Narendra Modi before the race begins. He is not alone in this endeavour. On my wanderings in Delhi’s corridors of power last week, I ran into journalists and politicians who went on and on about how Modi could never be prime minister because of the violence in Gujarat in 2002.
They said pretty much what the Chief Minister of Bihar, and his cohorts, have said which is that the prime minister must be a man who is ‘clean and secular’. So how do we explain Rajiv Gandhi? How should we understand why he was given the biggest mandate in Indian parliamentary history after justifying the pogroms that killed thousands more Sikhs in 1984 than Muslims were killed in Gujarat in 2002? Were Indian voters un-secular when they gave him more than 400 seats in the Lok Sabha?
If there were still a chance of major communal riots in the future, there may have been some point to reviving this talk of secularism. But, there has not been a single major Hindu-Muslim riot since 2002 despite Muslims from next door having been responsible for the worst terrorist attack on Indian soil in 2008. Before 26/11, there were other attacks by Islamists on Hindu temples, commuter trains in Mumbai, stadiums in Hyderabad and bazaars in Delhi. None of these ugly acts of violence caused riots. Our 24-hour news channels have made communal riots impossible and the average Muslim has begun to understand this. I noticed this while travelling in Uttar Pradesh during the recent elections.
So let us stop this silly talk of secularism and communalism and start demanding from those who want to become India’s next prime minister that they tell us what they can do for this country.
Here is my own list of questions.
What will the next Prime Minister do to end the licence raj that prevents the education system from achieving its full potential? What will he do to fix our broken public healthcare system? What will he do to make sure that every Indian has enough electricity to at least light a few bulbs and run a ceiling fan in his home? What will he do to create new jobs for the estimated 13 million young Indians who enter the job market every year? What will he do to revive the Indian economy? What steps will he take to ensure that India becomes a fully developed country by the middle of this century?
When I heard Aung San Suu Kyi’s address to both houses of Britian’s Parliament in Westminster hall last week, what impressed me was the clarity with which she spelt out her vision for her country. But, throughout her speech, something kept bothering me and by the time she finished, I discovered what it was. What bothered me was that I could not think of a single Indian leader who could make such a speech.
The Indian political landscape today has become a desert in which only the stunted progeny of stunted political leaders bloom. We need our political parties to throw up real leaders and we need a political discourse in which real political problems are discussed.
So can we stop fishing ‘secularism’ out of the dustbin of history and holding it up as a shining ideal? Its relevance faded a long time ago.
Follow Tavleen on : Twitter @ tavleen_singh