Might this be the real cause of Muslim “backwardness”?

Only one out of every six Muslim children entering an Indian school stays till his matriculation. I use “his” deliberately; the figures are worse for girls—only two out of five Muslim girls enter schools, and fewer than one-tenth complete secondary education.

These stark dropout rates explain the malaise affecting Indian Muslims, and unless that’s addressed, all other solutions are ineffective.

Such low enrolment figures and high dropout rates mean that only one of 25 undergraduate students, and barely one out of 50 postgraduate students in Indian universities, is a Muslim. India defines literacy rather generously, and yet Muslim literacy rate is only 59.1%. According to the Rajinder Sachar committee’s report in 2006, Muslim enrolment at the Indian Institutes of Management was 1.3%, and at the Indian Institutes of Technology, out of 27,161 students, only 894, or some 3.3%, were Muslim.

The consequence? Inevitably restricted professional opportunities. Just about 5% of applicants for the civil service examinations are Muslim, and of the elite bureaucracy, only 3% of Indian Administrative Services, 1.8% of the Indian Foreign Service, and 4% of the Indian Police Service, are Muslim. The figures improve marginally in other government departments, but only just. Muslims form 4.5% of employees in the railways, and an astonishing 98.7% of them are employed at lower levels. In other departments, such as education, health, and transport, representation varies between 4% and 7% of the total number of employees.

Lacking education and skills, many Muslim men and women find it hard to get jobs, and many end up being self-employed. While 44% of Muslim women are economically active (in itself a low figure) only 25% work outside their homes. Many men work in small businesses. Such jobs typically have minimal protection—no unions, poor work conditions, limited probability of training or advancement and low wages.

Even if they become entrepreneurs, credit may be hard to access without paper qualifications. Figures bear that out: the loans that average Muslim borrowers get are smaller than the loans others get. Furthermore, between 2000 and 2006, of the Rs. 266 billion that the Small Industries Development Bank of India disbursed, Muslims received only Rs. 1.24 billion…

And what does the government do? It “promises” to keep madrassas outside the purview of the RTE Act, thus making sure that there is no move to reform and formalise madrassa education . As the report (in the link notes):

Almost 90% of underprivileged Muslim children attend madrassas. However, devoid of a modern curriculum, madrassas are unable to equip these students for the contemporary job market.  This in turn limits their economic opportunities. By bringing madrassas under the provisions of the RTE Act, the Islamic seminaries will be forced to submit to universal standards and modernise.

A Brief History of the Sino-Indian Border Dispute and the role of Tibet

On the 3rd of July, 1914, as Ivan Chen made his way down the steps of the Summit Hall building in Simla, he must have been aware of mixed feelings rising up inside him.  He had done something which would have far-reaching repercussions; and which would for years be remembered by many people on both sides of the Sino-Indian border, albeit in very different ways - He had just left the Simla conference.
After refusing to sign the agreement himself, he was made to sit in a separate room, and behind his back, was signed  one of the most controversial and bizarre treaties in human history – The Simla accord.

For over a century, the intricacies of the border between India and China have baffled scholars. The plot leading to the Simla conference and beyond is a textbook example of diplomacy and back-handed politics at work, and plays just like a thrillerbook or movie. The sheer complexity of this problem can be judged by the fact that 36 rounds of negotiations have taken place between India and China at different levels since 1981; but they have yet to reach a settlement.
 

Background

The era of the late 19th century and the early 20th century was ripe with the European colonial powers finding new ways of exerting their influence in Asia and dividing it up.
Tibet was no exception. For years, many kings and empires, from Muhammad Tukluq to the British, had tried to wrench Tibet from China, with no significant successes.
Finally, the British came up with an underhand ploy to divide Tibet from within; so as to create a buffer state between British India and China; just as Mongolia had been divided and part of it made into a buffer between Russia and China. Sir Henry McMahon proposed the division of Tibet into an ‘inner’ and ‘outer’ Tibet. The Chinese representative saw through British imperial designs and smelt a rat; and thus left the Simla conference.

But the matter didn’t end there. A note was appended to the Simla accord, thatcontained a map  showing a part of Tibetan (i.e. Chinese) territory as Indian, based on a thick red line known as the McMahon line. Furthermore, China was barred from any rights and privileges of the Accord with respect to Tibet.

Disputed Territories

The major territories disputed between these two countries can be divided into two distinct parts:

1) The Western Sector - Aksai Chin, which lies to the east of the Kashmir valley, covering an area of about 37,250 sq.km (14,380 sq.mi) - currently occupied by China.

Territories disputed between India and China

2) The Eastern Sector - Most of the Indian state of Arunachal Pradesh, that China calls South Tibet, covering an area of 83,743 sq.km (32,333 sq.mi) - currently occupied by India.

In addition to these, there are also a few small chunks of territory in between these two sectors, but they are largely irrelevant when compared to these two major distinct territories.

The McMahon Line

The McMahon line is the basis of the Indian claim to the area that was formerly known as the North-East Frontier Agency; and has since become the Indian state of Arunachal Pradesh.

It was drawn with a complete disregard for cartographic techniques and the geography of the area. The scale was - eight miles to an inch.

As Wikipedia makes clear, “The actual treaty map itself is topographically vague (as the treaty was not accompanied with demarcation), and the treaty includes no verbal description of geographic features nor description of the highest ridges.” There is no protocol or scientific method that uses cartographic techniques to identify the geographical location of the line.  The McMahon line was literally a line on paper.

Aksai Chin

Historical claims on the Aksai China area are even more dubious. There has never been any concrete demarcation of this region.

 

Britain was concerned about Russia's designs in this area, and hence proposed to make the Karakorum Pass as the boundary, so as to again create a buffer between Xinjiang/China and India.

As author Neville Maxwell states,

"In early 1880s, China and India agreed the Karakoram Pass as the fixed point of boundary, while leaving both sides of the pass indefinite. In the mid-1890s, China claimed Aksai Chin as its territory, and voiced the claim to Macartney in 1896, who drew part of the British boundary in the Himalayas. Macartney presented the claim to the British who agreed with his comment that part of Aksai Chin was in China and part in the British territory. Meanwhile, the forward school of British strategist in London suggested that the British should not only include the whole of Aksai Chin, but also all the territory given to Kashmir in 1865." 

In 1899, the British proposed to China that the whole of Aksai Chin would remain Chinese territory and the boundary would be along the Karakorum range; which is the status quo today. The Karakorum pass falls precisely on the boundary of territory controlled by India and China, marking northern end of Sino-Indian border, known as the Line of Actual Control.

However, China didn't reply to this proposal, something which it would regret for years. If it had, the fate of Aksai Chin would have been sealed then and there.

Nehru, for his part, appeared willing to play down the Indian claims to the Aksai Chin. He tried to delay disclosure if the news that the Chinese had built a road in the area. After the news had been revealed, he sought to play down the economic significance of the area, describing it as “barren tundra" and where "not even a blade of grass grows". He even went so far as to cast doubt on the validity of the Indian claim to Aksai Chin.

In statements to the Indian Parliament during early 1959, Nehru pointed out that 

"...during British rule, this area was neither inhabited: nor were there any outposts, .......this place, Aksai Chin area, is distinguished completely from other areas. It is a matter for argument which part belongs to us and which part belongs to somebody else. It is not clear".

Britain's Flip-Flops

Around that time, it was understood by the British government that Tibet forms part of Chinese territory. According to the Anglo-Russian Convention of 1907, both players of the so called ‘Great Game’, Britain and Russia, had decided to negotiate with Tibet only through China. According to the Anglo-Chinese Convention of 1906, Britain was "not to annex Tibetan territory". British Journalist Neville Maxwell states that McMahon had been instructed not to sign bilaterally with the Tibetans if China refused.
But that was exactly what McMahon did, previous promises be damned. Britain and Tibet signed the agreement themselves without Chinese knowledge, and was thus rejected at first by the British government in London. (Later however, its stance seems to have changed; and then changed again, as discussed below). Tibet welcomed this treaty because it would give further credence to what it thought was its ‘sovereignty’, even if it came at the cost of territory. Accordingly, the purpose and content of these exchanges had to be kept secret, and not only from the Chinese.

Britain seems to have taken upon itself the role of Tibet's Guardian. In the 1940s, British officials in India pointed out to Anthony Eden, the then British Foreign Secretary, that China had no rights in Tibet since it had not accepted the provisions of the Simla accord of 1914 (As if it was up to Britain to decide the extent of China's 'right' to Tibet!). Needless to say, the Tibetan government welcomed these intrusions.

Initially, London rejected the Simla accord as it was in contradiction with many previous agreements. But later, in 1935, some hardliners within the government convinced it to start using the line on official maps - thus officially accepting that the McMahon line was the official border between India and Tibet (and hence, later China too).

But recently in 2008, a historic statement was released by the British Foreign Office which would have far reaching consequences. The British government discarded the Simla agreement as an anachronism and a colonial legacy - a "position [the British] took based on the geo-politics of the time".  The British pulled away the only leg India had to stand on.
The statement says,

    ".......our position is unusual for one reason of history that has been imported into the present: the anachronism of our formal position on whether Tibet is part of China, and whether in fact we harbour continued designs to see the break up of China. We do not."

    "Our ability to get our points across has sometimes been clouded by the position the UK took at the start of the 20th century on the status of Tibet, a position based on the geo-politics of the time.  Our recognition of China's "special position" in Tibet developed from the outdated concept of suzerainty. "

(A New York Times article about this statement, entitled, 'Did Britain just sell Tibet?' (as if Britain owned it!) accused the British of 'rewriting history' in exchange for China's support during the financial crisis!)

Effectively, what Britain in fact was saying was that Tibet is a part of China and is not sovereign - which was the position of almost all countries by that time, including EU nations and the US. It even apologized for not having done so earlier. However, what is important in that statement is that the British seem to have completely discarded the Simla agreement - on which the whole of India's negotiating stance is based. Consequently, if we start with the assumption that the Simla agreement was illegal as Tibet had no right to conclude treaties separately, then we arrive at what the Chinese position has been all along! 

The Tibetan question and the cause of the dispute

The fact is that a large part of the border dispute hinges on the uncomfortable question of Tibet's sovereignty. If Tibet was sovereign at the time of the Simla conference, then the treaty is legal and it serves India's cause. If Tibet was not sovereign at that time, then the treaty is illegal and serves China's cause.

Some activists campaigning for a free Tibet often bring up the Simla conference as proof of Tibet's independence. Their arguments are mainly two fold -
a)The Tibetan representative signed the treaty even though he was instructed by the Chinese representative not to sign, a clear indication undermining (Tibetan acceptance of) Chinese suzerainty over Tibet.
b) More importantly, since Tibet concluded a treaty with a foreign power on its own,it was an independent country on that day.

At the time of the Simla conference, although the Tibetan government had driven out all Chinese officials from Tibet after the collapse of the Qing dynasty and declared independence, the Nationalist government did not accept this and neither has the PRC nor any other government.


India had enjoyed certain privileges with regard to Tibet under the Simla Agreement, including those regarding trade and commerce. However, when China 'annexed' Tibet in 1951, India under Nehru recognized it as Chinese territory, thus giving up those privileges and undermining Tibet’s sovereignty (which it may have momentarily enjoyed during the time of the Simla agreement). Thus in a sense the Indian government tacitly admitted that the Simla agreement was effectively illegal, which to this day remains China's official position. In doing so, India weakened its own position with respect to the border dispute.

The Simla agreement was signed between Britain, Tibet and China. Now, from this information, two questions present themselves -
1) If Tibet was sovereign, why was China invited at the conference at all? Why didn't the British negotiate directly with Tibet?
2) If Tibet was not sovereign, why was it invited at the conference? Why didn't the British negotiate directly with China? (In other words, why did China accept to attend a conference where Tibet was represented as a separate party?)

The answer to (1) is that, as stated above, Britain recognised Tibet to be under Chinese suzerainty. Hence, any bilateral agreement that Britain signed with Tibet (without Chinese agreement) would be illegal. (But ironically, that is exactly what the British did)
(2) is a bit more complicated. There are indications that the British had blackmailed the Chinese into attending by threatening to - 
a) withdraw their recognition of the new nationalist government, and,
b) sign the treaty with Tibet alone if China didn't participate, thus acknowledging that Tibet was in fact sovereign. (But later the British did exactly the same thing when China didn't agree to its terms during the conference).

Hence, it is clear that Britain's imperial designs and its policy of 'divide and rule' and double crossing everyone was in effect the cause of the entire dispute.

Conclusion

Surprisingly, in this complicated dispute, China has shown a remarkable tendency to restrain its own claims and even recognize the McMahon line in the eastern sector. It was willing to ignore history and had offered to recognize Indian claims on 74% of the total disputed territory (the eastern sector - currently controlled by India); provided India recognized Chinese claims on the remaining 26% (Chinese-controlled Aksai Chin). In other words, while China had taken a prudent first step and was willing to convert the current status quo 'borders' into the international boundary, India, on the other hand, was (and is) just not willing to even discuss the issue of mutual compromise.

In the western sector the claim is entirely a matter of perspective, as Nehru himself admitted. In the eastern sector, however, the entire disputed territory hinges upon one question - The legality, or not, of the Simla agreement. 

India has had two contradictory stances simultaneously  - a) Not recognizing Tibet's sovereignty and b) Recognizing the McMahon line as the international boundary; and thus the legality of the Simla agreement. However, if a country doesn't recognize Tibet's sovereignty, then consequently it is expected that it would also not recognize the legality of the Simla agreement and the McMahon line. 

The Indian position can also be construed to mean that regardless of whether or not Tibet is sovereign now , it was sovereign when the Simla agreement was signed; and consequently the McMahon line is legal. Which raises the question based on which 32,333 square miles of territory is disputed - Does signing a (bilateral) treaty with a foreign power on its own make a province sovereign?

HINDU DHARMA,’UNITY OF ALL RELIGIONS’. BY KANCHI PERIYAVAR.

Following are from the Book ‘ Hindu Dharma” , a book which contains English translation of certain invaluable and engrossing speeches of Sri Sri Sri Chandrasekharendra Saraswathi MahaSwamiji (at various times during the years 1907 to 1994).

Republished here with the Sri.Kanchi Mutt’s Permission.

May the Good Word Spread.

Kanchi Periyavar.

All religions have one common ideal, worship of the Lord, and all of them proclaim that there is but one God. This one God accepts your devotion irrespective of the manner of your worship, whether it is according to this or that religion. So there is no need to abandon the religion of your birth and embrace another.

The temple, the church, the mosque, the vihara may be different from one another. The idol or the symbol in them may not also be the same and the rites performed in them may be different. But the Paramatmanwho wants to grace the worshipper, whatever be his faith, is the same. The different religions have taken shape according to the customs peculiar to the countries in which they originated and according to the differences in the mental outlook of the people inhabiting them. The goal of all religions is to lead people to the same Paramatman according to the different attributes of the devotees concerned. So there is no need for people to change over to another faith. Converts demean not only the religion of their birth but also the one to which they convert. Indeed they do demean God.

“A man leaves the religion of his birth because he thinks there is something wanting in it,” so you may think. ‘Why does the Svaamigal say then that the convert demeans the new religion that he embraces? ” I will tell you why. Is it not because they think that God is not the same in all religions that people embrace a new faith? By doing so, they see God in a reduced form, don’t they? They presumably believe that the God of the religion of their birth is useless and jump to another faith. But do they believe that the God of their new religion is a universal God? No. No. If they did there would be no need for any change of faith. Why do people embrace a new faith? Is it not because that the continuance in the religion of their birth would mean a denial of the blessings of the God of the new faith to which they are attracted? This means that they place limitations on their new religion as well as on its God. When they convert to a new religion, apparently out of respect for it, they indeed dishonour it.

One big difference between Hinduism and other faiths is that it does not proclaim that it alone shows the path to liberation. Our Vedic religion alone has not practiced conversion and the reason for it is that our forefathers were well aware that all religions are nothing but different paths to realise the one and only Paramatman. The Vedasproclaim: “The wise speak of the One Truth by different names. ” Sri Krsna says in the Gita: “In whatever way or form a man worships me, I increase his faith and make him firm and steady in that worship. ” And says one of the Azhvars: “Avaravar tamatamadu tarivari vahaivahai avaravar iraiyavar“. This is the reason why the Hindus have not practiced- like adherents of other religions- proselytisation and religious persecution. Nor have they waged anything like the crusades or jehads.

Our long history is sufficient proof of this. All historians accept the fact of our religious tolerance. They observe that, an empire like Srivijaya was established in the East, people there accepted our culture and our way of life willingly, not because they were imposed on them by force. They further remark that Hinduism spread through trade and not through force.

In my opinion the Vedic religion was once prevalent all over the world. Certain ruins and relics found in various regions of the planet attest to this fact. Even historians who disagree with my view concede that in the past people in many lands accepted Indian culture and the way of life willingly and not on account of any force on our part.

All religions that practice conversion employ a certain ritual. For instance, there is baptism in Christianity. Hinduism has more ritual than any other religion, yet its canonical texts do not contain any rite for conversion. No better proof is needed for the fact that we have at no time either encouraged conversion or practiced it.

When a passenger arrives at a station by train he is besieged by the driver of the horse-cart, by the rikshavala, by the cabbie, and so on. He hires the vehicle in which he likes to be driven to his destination. It cannot be said with reason that those who ply different vehicles are guilty of competing with one another for the fare. After all it is their livelihood. But it makes no sense for the adherents of various faiths to vie with one another to take a man to the one and only destination that is God.

There is a bridge across a river, consisting of a number of arches, each of them built to the same design and measurement. To the man sitting next to a particular arch it would appear to be bigger than the other arches. So is the case with people belonging to a particular religion. They feel that their religion alone is great and want others to join it. There is in fact no such need for anyone to leave the religion of his birth for another.

That the beliefs and customs of the various religions are different cannot be a cause for complaint. Nor is there any need to make all of them similar. The important thing is for the followers of the various faiths to live in harmony with one another. The goal must be unity, not uniformity.

COMMUNAL VIOLENCE BILL

Media reports that the Centre is keen to introduce the controversial communal violence bill,  gathering dust in North Block for close to two years now, after Parliament re-assembles on April 22, are disturbing. The bill empowers the Centre to declare an area in a state as communally disturbed on its own and send Central forces without the state’s request. Such a legislation if enacted would play havoc with the federal structure of the Constitution and lead to avoidable tension between the Centre and the states. Political parties including the BJP, the Akali Dal, the Shiv Sena and the BSP that are opposing the bill see it as usurping the rights of the state. The bill also provides for transfer of cases outside the state concerned for trial with the avowed aim of protecting witnesses.
It aims to check targeted violence against the minorities and also proposes a body — the National Authority for Communal Harmony, Justice and Reparation — be constituted by the Centre. Significantly, the Bill, prepared by the National Advisory Council led by UPA chairperson Sonia Gandhi, has been cleared by the Home Ministry with virtually no changes. That the government is pushing the Bill without having sufficient numbers to pass it in both Houses only shows that the government’s intention is not to strike at the root of communal violence but to appease the minority community on the eve of the impending general elections.
The Congress must realise that it is playing with fire as such tactics would not only be counter-productive but could also threaten communal harmony. The Manmohan Singh government has been reduced to a minority after first Trinamool Congress and recently the DMK withdrew support to it. There is indeed no way it can get the Bill through unless it makes major changes to accommodate the opposition. Instead of playing the politics of divisiveness, the Congress must use the remaining months of its tenure to bring in worthy reforms that have a positive impact on the economic well-being of people at large and catalyse growth which is bogged down

Remove Congress if u wish to seek PROGRESS...

What was Rajiv Gandhi’s fatal error in politics? It does not need a seer to say that it was his claim to honesty — branding himself as ‘Mr Clean’ — that proved fatal to him. Indira Gandhi was his contrast. Asked about corruption in her government, she said nonchalantly, ‘it was a global phenomenon’. This was in 1983. An honest Delhi High Court judge even lamented how could corruption be controlled when someone holding such a high position had almost rationalised it. The result, no one could ever charge Indira Gandhi with corruption, because she never claimed to be clean. But, ambitious to look ideal, Rajiv proclaimed honesty and so provoked scrutiny; in contrast, Indira, opting to be practical, immunised herself against scrutiny. Eventually, Rajiv’s claim to honesty became the very cross on which he was crucified in the 1989 elections when the Bofors gun shot the Congress out of power. The lesson to the political class was: don’t claim to be honest, if you really are not so. The hard lesson seems forgotten now by the Gandhi family itself. Sonia Gandhi, instead of following Indira’s safe path, is wrongly caught on Rajiv’s risky steps. The consequences seem to be ominous. Will the politics of 1987 to 1989 repeat?

Following Rajiv and forgetting Indira, Sonia Gandhi proclaimed ‘zero tolerance’ to corruption at a party rally in Allahabad in November 2010. She repeated it at the Congress plenary in Delhi weeks later. Asking the cadre to take the corrupt head on, she said that her party was ‘prompt’ in acting against the corrupt; ‘never spared the corrupt’ because corruption impedes development’. This was almost how Rajiv Gandhi spoke in the Congress centenary in Mumbai 25 years ago. Two crucial differences marked Rajiv away from Sonia. First, when Rajiv claimed to be ‘Mr Clean’, he had no scams to defend against. But, Sonia claims to be honest amidst huge and continuing scams — CWG, Adarsh, 2G Spectrum allocation scam…. Next, Rajiv had a clean slate to begin with, with no known skeletons in his cupboard till the Bofors scam smashed his ‘Mr Clean’ image. In contrast, Sonia’s slate is full of credible exposures of bribes and pay-offs in billions of dollars secreted in Swiss bank accounts, not counting Quattrocchi’s millions from Bofors. To make it worse, for almost two decades now, she has not dared to deny the exposures or sue the famous Swiss magazine or the Russian investigative journalist who had put out evidence of bribe against the Sonia family. Seen against this background, Sonia’s vow to act against the corrupt seems like a suspect hooting ‘catch the thief’ and scooting away. This is the main story that unfolds here.

$2.2 billions to 11 billions!

A stunning exposure on Sonia Gandhi’s secret billions in Swiss banks came, surprisingly, from Switzerland itself, where the world’s corrupt stash away their booty. In its issue of November 19, 1991, Schweizer Illustrierte, the most popular magazine of Switzerland, did an exposé of over a dozen politicians of the third world, including Rajiv Gandhi, who had stashed away their bribe monies in Swiss banks. Schweizer Illustrierte, not a rag, sells some 2,15,000 copies and has a readership of 9,17,000 — almost a sixth of Swiss adult population. Citing the newly opened KGB records, the magazine reported ‘that Sonia Gandhi the widow of the former Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi was controlling secret account with 2.5 billion Swiss Francs (equal to $2.2 billion) in her minor son’s name’. The $2.2 billion account must have existed from before June 1988 when Rahul Gandhi attained majority. The loot in today’s rupee value equals almost Rs 10,000 crore. Swiss banks invest and multiply the clients’ monies, not keep them buried. Had it been invested in safe long-term securities, the $.2.2 billion bribe would have multiplied to $9.41 billion (Rs 42,345 crore) by 2009. If it had been put in US stocks, it would have swelled to $12.97 billion (Rs 58,365 crore). If, as most likely, it were invested in long-term bonds and stocks as 50:50, it would have grown to $11.19 billion (Rs 50,355 crore). Before the global financial meltdown in 2008, the $2.2 billion bribes in stocks would have peaked at $18.66 billion (Rs 83,900 crore). By any calculation the present size of the $2.2 billion secret funds of the family in Swiss banks seems huge — anywhere between Rs 43,000 plus to some Rs 84,000 crore!

KGB papers

The second exposé, emanating from the archives of the Russian spy outfit KGB, is far more serious. It says that the Gandhi family has accepted political pay-offs from the KGB — a clear case of treason besides bribe. In her book The State Within a State: The KGB and its Hold on Russia-Past, Present, and Future, Yevgenia Albats, an acclaimed investigative journalist, says: “A letter signed by Victor Chebrikov, who replaced Andropov as the KGB head in 1982 noted: ‘the USSR KGB maintains contact with the son of the Premier Minister Rajiv Gandhi (of India). R Gandhi expresses deep gratitude for the benefits accruing to the Prime Minister’s family from the commercial dealings of the firm he controls in co-operation with the Soviet foreign trade organisations. R Gandhi reports confidentially that a substantial portion of the funds obtained through this channel are used to support the party of R Gandhi’.” (p.223). Albats has also disclosed that, in December 2005, KGB chief Victor Chebrikov had asked for authorisation from the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, “to make payments in US dollars to the family members of Rajiv Gandhi, namely Sonia Gandhi, Rahul Gandhi and Ms Paola Maino, mother of Sonia Gandhi.” And even before Albats’ book came out the Russian media had leaked out the details of the pay-offs. Based on the leaks, on July 4, 1992, The Hindu had reported: “the Russian Foreign Intelligence Service admits the possibility that the KGB could have been involved in arranging profitable Soviet contract for the company controlled by Rajiv Gandhi family”.

Indian media

Rajiv Gandhi’s sad demise delayed the Swiss and Russian exposé on Sonia being picked up here. But Indian media’s interest in it actually coincided with Sonia Gandhi assuming leadership of the Congress. A G Noorani, a well-known columnist, had reported on both Schweizer Illustrierte and Albats’ exposés in Statesman (December 31, 1988). Subramanian Swamy had put out the photocopies of the pages of Schweizer Illustrierte and Albats’ book in his website along with the mail of the Swiss magazine dated February 23, 2002 confirming that in its article of November 1991 it had named Rajiv Gandhi with a total of Swiss Franc 2.5 billion ($2.2 billion) in secret account; it had also offered to supply a original copy of the magazine to Swamy. (See: http://www.janataparty.org/annexures/ann10p43.html) These facts were again recalled in my article in The New Indian Express (April 29, 2009) written in response to Sonia Gandhi speech at Mangalore (April 27, 2009) declaring that, “the Congress was taking steps to address the issue of untaxed Indian money in Swiss banks”. The article had questioned her about her family’s corrupt wealth in Swiss banks in the context of her vow to bring back the monies stashed away abroad. Rajinder Puri, a reputed journalist, has also earlier written on the KGB disclosures in his column on August 15, 2006. Recently, in India Today (December 27, 2010) the redoubtable Ram Jethmalani has referred to the Swiss exposé, asking where is that money now? So the Indian media too has repeatedly published the details of the secret billions of the Gandhi family investigated by the Swiss and Russian journalists. Amal Datta (CPI(M)) had raised the $2.2 billion issue in Parliament on December 7, 1991, but Speaker Shivraj Patil expunged the Gandhi name from the proceedings!

Self-incriminating

But, what has been the response of Sonia or Rahul, major after June 1988, to the investigation by Schweizer Illustrierte and Albats and to the Indian media’s repeated references to their investigation? It can be summed up in one word: Silence. Thus, apart from the exposés, the deafening silence of the Gandhis itself constitutes the most damaging and self-incriminating evidence of the family’s guilt. When Schweizer Illustrierte alleged that Sonia had held Rajiv Gandhi’s bribes in Rahul’s name in Swiss banks, neither she nor the son, protested, or sued the magazine, then or later; nor did they sue A G Noorani or Statesman when they repeated it in 1998, or later; nor would they sue Subramanian Swamy when he put it on his website in 2002; neither did they sue me, or the Express when the article was carried in April 2009. When major papers, The Hindu and The Times of India included, had carried the expose on KGB payments in the year 1992 itself adding that the Russian government was embarrassed by the disclosures, neither of the Gandhis challenged or sued them; nor did they sue Yevgenia Albats when she wrote about KGB payments to Rajiv Gandhi in 1994. Neither did they act against  Swamy when he put Albats’ book pages on his website or when Rajinder Puri, a well-known journalist, wrote about it in his column on August 15, 2006. However, a feeble but proxy suit was filed by Sonia loyalists to defend her reputation when Albats’ exposé was made part of the full-page advertisement in The New York Times in 2007 issued by some NRIs to ‘unmask’ Sonia to the US audience, as they claimed. The suit was promptly dismissed by a US court because Sonia herself did not dare file the suit. Shockingly even that suit did not challenge the $2.2 billion Swiss account at all!



Imagine that the report in Schweizer Illustrierte or in Albats book was false and Sonia Gandhi did not have those billions in secret accounts in Rahul Gandhi’s name or the family was not paid for its service to the KGB as alleged. How would they, as honest and outraged people, have reacted? Like how Morarji Desai, then retired and old at 87, responded in anger when, Seymour Hersh, a Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative journalist, had mentioned in his book that Morarji Desai was a ‘paid’ CIA mole in the Indian Cabinet. Morarji Desai forthwith filed a libel suit. Commenting in The American Spectator, Rael Jean Isaac wrote in 2004, five years after Morarji Desai had passed away, that Hersh habitually indulged in character assassination; and in his attempt to do down Henry Kissinger, Morarji Desai became the victim. Isaac added that Desai, 87, calling it a “sheer mad story”, reacted in outrage with a libel suit seeking $50 million in damages. When the suit came up, as Desai, 93, was too ill to travel to US, Kissinger testified on Desai’s behalf, flatly contradicted Hersh’s charge and stated that Desai had no connection to the CIA. That is how even retired and old persons, honest and so offended and outraged, would act. But see the self-incriminating contrast, the complete absence of such outrage, in Sonia, who is reigning as the chairperson of the UPA now, neither retired or tired like the nonagenarian Morarji Desai, being just 41 when the story broke out in Schweizer Illustrierte. Imagine, not Sonia or Rahul, but Advani or Modi had figured in the exposés of Schweizer Illustrierte or Albats. What would the media not have done to nail them? What would the government of Sonia not have done to fix them?

Rs 20.80 lakh-crore loot

The billions of the Gandhi family being both bribes and monies stashed away in Swiss banks, they are inextricably linked to the larger issue of bringing back the huge national wealth stashed abroad. All world nations, except India, are mad after their black wealth secreted in Swiss and like banks. But India has shown little enthusiasm to track the illicit funds of Indians in Swiss and other banks. Why such reticence?

When during the run-up to the 2009 Lok Sabha elections, the BJP leader L K Advani promised to bringing back, if voted to power, Indian monies estimated between $500 billion and $1.4 trillion stashed abroad, the Congress first denied that there was such Indian money outside. But when the issue began gathering momentum, Manmohan Singh and Sonia Gandhi had to do damage control and promise that the Congress too would bring back the national wealth secreted abroad. Global Financial Integrity (GFI), a non-profit institution working against global black funds, has recently estimated that the Indian wealth secreted away is about $462 billion, approximately equal to Rs 20.80 lakh-crore. The GFI says that more than two-thirds of it was looted away under the liberalisation regime. This is what the GFI says about the character of the loot: “From 1948 through 2008, India lost a total of $213 billion in illicit financial flows (or illegal capital flight)” through “tax evasion, corruption, bribery and kickbacks, and criminal activities”. Does one need a seer to say under what head would the $2.2 billion in Sonia family’s secret account (which would have grown to $9 to $13 billion by now) fall? But accretions, if any, from the loot in 2G and CWG where the numbers are even bigger are not still accounted. Now comes the more critical, yet practical issue. When the Sonia Gandhi family is among the suspects who have secreted away monies abroad, how will it affect the efforts to bring back the wealth stashed away by others?

Looters safe


Just a couple of examples will demonstrate how the government is unwilling to go after Indian money secreted abroad. As early as February 2008 the German authorities had collected information about illegal money kept by citizens of different countries in Lichtenstein bank. The German finance minister offered to provide the names of the account holders to any government interested in the names of its citizens. There were media reports that some 250 Indian names were found in the Lichtenstein Bank list. Yet, despite the open offer from Germany to provide the details, the UPA-II government has never showed interest in the Indian accounts in Lichtenstein Bank. The Times of India reported that “the ministry of finance and PMO have, however, not shown much interest in finding out about those who have their lockers on the secret banks of Liechtenstein which prides itself in its banking system”. But under mounting pressure the Indian government asked for details not under the open offer but strategically under India’s tax treaty with Germany. What is the difference? Under the tax treaty the information received would have to be kept confidential; but, if it were received openly, it can be disclosed to the public. Is any further evidence needed to prove that the government is keen to see that the names of Indians who had secreted monies abroad are not disclosed?

The second is the sensational case of Hasan Ali, the alleged horse-breeder of Pune, who was found to have operated Swiss accounts involving over Rs 1.5 lakh-crore. The income tax department has levied a tax of Rs 71,848 crore on him for concealing Indian income secreted in Swiss accounts. This case is being buried now. The request sent to the Swiss government was deliberately made faulty to ensure that the Swiss would not provide details. Some big names in the ruling circles are reportedly linked to Hasan Ali. That explains why the government would not deepen the probe. It is Hasan Alis and the like who transport through hawala the bribes of the corrupt from India. If Hasan Ali is exposed, the corrupt will stand naked. This is how the hawala trader and the corrupt in India are mixed-up.

Is it too much to conclude that thanks to Sonia family’s suspected billions in Swiss accounts the system cannot freely probe the $462 billion looted from India at all? Tail-pieces: The total wealth of both Gandhis, as per their election returns, is just Rs 363 lakh, Sonia owning no car. Sonia lamented on November 19, 2010, that graft and greed are on the rise in India!! Rahul said on December 19, 2010, that severe punishment should be given to the corrupt!!! Amen.


Published in New York Times on, October 6, 2007

Sonia has never been in power. So if there are any money in Swiss accounts, they have to be inherited from husband, or more likely, from Mother-in-law. Indira, the shrewd person that she was could have kept money abroad in name of Sonia because she was a European and was totally a domestic person then. She could easily migrate and lay hand on money if crisis happended in India. Many accounts are there blaming Indira Gandhi of visiting the airfield where her son died, to take away his wrist watch which had details of the swiss account.

The bank and it’s officials/lawyers deliberately withheld crucial documents requested under a High Court order. The bank and it’s officials/lawyers deliberately withheld evidence from the Police, and one of it’s account managers Susan Broadhead gave a false witness statement to the Police.
Another one of it’s managers Nicholas Campiche ( Now Head of Pictet – Alternative Investments.) concocted a letter pretending to be a client and closed his account. The senior partner (Ivan Pictet.) sought to have numerous documents destroyed,along with those copies held in their London office’s of Pictet Asset Management. Initially stating that they were forgeries then their lawyers Peters & Peters – Monty Raphael –and the barrister Charles Flint.Q.C. later had to admit in Court that the documents were genuine.
British Parliament. Hansard .29th March 2007.
Barry Sheerman .M.P.—quote.
———“ Constituents of mine have lost £2 million through fraud. The fraudster used Pictet & Cie – - a French Bank – - and Pictet Asset Management to back the fraud being perpetrated.””
(1) It is a criminal offence for a bank to knowingly act for an undischarged criminal bankrupt in so far as it seeks to assist that criminal bankrupt in the fraudulent movement of monies. ( Money Laundering.)
(2) It is a criminal offence for a bank to lie to the police and the bankrupts trustee in bankruptcy in so far as any knowledge of, or dealings with the bank was refuted .
(3) A bank can be guilty of Contempt of Court if it fails to comply fully with the Courts order for discovery .
(4) The banks contempt is further compounded if it fails to address its error after it is specifically drawn to the to its solicitors attention. ( Monty Raphael).
(5) It is a criminal offence under the Financial Services Act to seek to destroy evidence that might be relevant to an investigation .
(6) It is a criminal offence not to relinquish control of funds to the Trustee immediately the fact of the bankruptcy is drawn to the banks attention.
(7) It is a criminal offence to lie or otherwise obfuscate the lawful and proper enquiries of the F.S.A.
In the F.S.A. cover up , they concluded that there had been “ Rogue” elements in Pictet & Cie’s , London operations . They had been moved from their London Office so who was there left to prosecute. “ Unbelievable.”
On Dec 9th,2008. the complaint was sent to 150 Members of the House Of Lords and 230 Members of Parliament.
*** We thank –David Cameron. M.P. ( Canary Wharf Speech.) Dec. 15th. 2008.
Now— PRIME MINISTER.
(1) Bankers who behave irresponsibly should face professional consequences.
(2) If anyone is found to have behaved criminally they must be prosecuted.
(3) The F.S.A and the Serious Fraud Office should be following up every lead,
investigating every suspect transaction .
(4) We need to make it 100% clear –those who break the law should face
prosecution.
(5) That we make sure we root out any wrongdoing that may have happened, whoever
is involved, however high or well connected they may be.
Ivan Pictet.
Member of the Law Society of England & Wales.
International Bar Association Member.
Written Parliamentary Questions received by the table office ..
(1) To ask the secretary of state what steps he is taking to ensure that Swiss Banks such as Pictet & Cie do not evade criminal prosecution under EU law even when the illegal act is committed by a London based subsidiary.
(2)To ask the secretary of state what steps he is taking to protect the rights of UK citizens who seek redress following criminal activities by Swiss banks with subsidiary offices located in London.

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 11, 2010

Dark Secrets of India - Nehru Family Tree
Who was the first prime minister of India?
Who was her son to become Prime Minister of India?

Who was the Catholic Prime Minister of India?
Who was the first Muslim Prime Minister of India?

Jawahar Lal Nehru's father was Motilal Nehru. His wife Kamla Nehru died of tuberculosis. Their only daughter was Indira Nehru, whom we more appropriately know as Indira Gandhi, was married to Feroz Gandhi.

Who is this Feroz? He was the Nehru family's kirana store guy's son who used to supply them groceries in their home named Anand Bhavan (previously known as Ishrat Manzil).

In Indian context, the paternal grandfather is deemed to be more important. Then why do we only hear about Jawahar Lal Nehru who was Rajiv Gandhi's maternal grandfather, and never about his paternal grandfather? We do not even know his name! considering the history of the family and their socio-political stature in the country.

Rajiv Gandhi's paternal granfather was Nawab Khan, a muslim who married a Parsi (surname Gandhy - associated with Parsis) woman after getting her converted to Islam for marriage. This is why the myth about Rajiv being a Parsi was derived. Therefore, Rajiv's father was actually Feroz Khan before marrying Indira against her mother's wishes. His name was changed to Feroz Gandhi before his marriage with Indira using an affidavit.

Now how did Indira Nehru get married to Feroz Khan, being the daughter of the Prime Minister, especially in a conservative Indian society?

Indira Nehru used to study in Shantiniketan University started by Rabindra Nath Tagore. She was expelled for her misdemeanor. Indira went to England when her father Jawahar was too busy in politics and illicit sex. In England, where their grocer's son Feroz was present at that time, she changed her religion to Islam and got married to Feroz Khan.

Upon this, realizing that it would not be positive for the Congress party, Mahatma Gandhi ordered Jawahar Lal Nehru to get Feroz's name changed to Feroz Gandhi. Now, only the name was changed and not the religion. And for public consumption, an institutional vedic marriage was mocked. Such an inter religious and inter caste marriage was not allowed by law at that time. So in reality, Indira was never married to Feroz.

Indira had only one child with Feroz, Rajiv, thereafter they both lived separately, and Feroz died of reasons unknown.

Then where did Sanjay Gandhi come from? He was Rajiv's brother, or Indira's son. Sanjay Gandhi was actually Sanjiv, rhyming with Rajiv. He was born when Indira Gandhi had illicit sexual relationship with Mohammad Yunus. Sanjay was even circumcised according to Muslim traditions. His name was changed to Sanjay upon being charged with theft in England and being given a new passport under political influence from Jawahar Lal Nehru.

Now Sanjay made Menaka, a sikh girl who was a model, pregnant. Her father colonel Anand forced Sanjay to marry her. Indira Gandhi changed Menaka's name to Maneka. Menaka meaning dancer in Lord Indra's court did not appeal to Indira Gandhi.

Mohammad Yunus cried the most, publicly, upon Sanjay Gandhi's death in a plane crash because he was his biological father.

Both Sanjay and Rajiv Gandhi were bastards. And their mother Indira Gandhi..gave birth t two kids with different fathers, without being married.

Further Rajiv Gandhi went to Italy and fell in love with Sania Maino. To get married to her, Rajiv changed his religion and became a Catholic, changed name to Roberto. They gave birth to Bianka and Raul. Quite cleverly these names are presented to the public as Sonia, Priyanka and Rahul.

The surprise of surprises, Rajiv, even though he was a catholic, was cremated as per vedic rites in India.

Nehru family tree:

Source: http://mithhilarora.blogspot.in/2010/02/dark-secrets-of-india.html

Book exposes late Indian Prime Minister's personal life secrets

New Delhi: Nearly 24 years after her death, the dark secrets of the late Indian Prime Minister Indira Gandhi have began to come to light, beginning with her alleged "love affair" with Punjab's present CM Prakash Singh Badal. Journalists who interviewed Mrs. Gandhi sometime in the beginning of 1984 also report to have heard her say that Sukhbir Singh Badal, son of the Punjab CM was like a son to the late Prime Minister. Congress President Sonia Gandhi has brushed aside any such claims and stated that her late mother-in-law was a woman of strong character and high morales.

Meanwhile wide spread protests have been raging in the Indian capital following the release of the book, entitled "When Gandhi met Badal". Rioters clashed with police who had to resort to using tear gas.

-Reuters


Sukhbir Badal Files Multi million dollar defamation case against internet poster Mehtab

Chandigarh(ANI): Sukhbir Badal, President Akali Dal (Badal) has filed a defamation case against an internet poster known by the name of Mehtab Singh on various internet forums. Initial sources revealed that Mehtab Singh has been particularly active in gossiping around various political leaders of Punjab. Brushing aside the allegations made by Mehtab Singh ,Sukhbir said that if he an ilegitmate child , then so is Rajiv Gandhi.
Insiders reveal that Mehtab Singh is now facing a multi-million dollar case which he is likely to loose. But when we spoke to some Badal Dal workers who wish to be kept anonymous , they said that the news was indeed true and what Mehtab Singh has said what they couldnt say for a long time.More than two -third of Akali Dal(badal) workers have sought resignation from Sukhbir and now want Mehtab Singh to head Akali Dal.Apparently they want the new party be named as Akali Dal( MehtabAprilSingh)

www.mehtabfirstofapril.com/news/newstoday/punjab/mehtab_million_dollar.html

New Delhi- After receiving summons from the Patiala High Court for defaming the name of the Badals, Mehtab Singh has challenged Punjab CM's son Sukhbir Singh Badal to get his DNA tested and prove that his mother is not the late Indian Prime Minister Mrs. Indira Gandhi. Mehtab claims to have medical evidence that Sukhbir's mother is the slain PM who gave birth to him an year after his father, the Punjab CM Prakash Singh Badal assisted her in ousting the then PM of India, the late Shri Morarji Desai. Speculations have started arising as to what exactly the assistance was. Unclaimed reports also indicate towards suspicion of Indira having another illegitimate child from General Kuldeep Singh Brar who was the main hand behind Operation Bluestar, the assault on the holiest Sikh shrine, the Golden Temple. Brar has denied any such report and states that he was diagnosed as impotent soon after the assasination of Mrs. Gandhi.

- Reuters

DARK SECRET OF NEHRU FAMILY
JAWAHAR LAL NEHRU:—Jawahar Lal’s father was Moti Lal and Moti Lal’s father was Gangadhar Nehru. His wife was Kamala Kaul Nehru, who died in Switzerland of Tuberculosis. M. O. Mathai in his book– “Reminiscences of the Nehru Age”– which opens secret of Jahawarlal Nehru relationship with a Beneras girl. His relationship with several teens ,  drinking wine, smoking with Edwina Mountabattien & others secretly. (Link:– http://www.sikhsundesh.net/nehru_dynasty.htm )


Nehru wrote letters to Edwina , after she left India, until her death. In his letters, Nehru often sought Edwina’s advice on matters of governance and strategy, according to British author Janet Morgan who was given access to the correspondence by the Mountbatten family. Morgan was given a small box weighing more than five pounds. The box contained all the letters Nehru wrote to Edwina between 1948 and 1960. A few of them even had a rose pressed between the pages.According to Morgan, in one of those letters, Pandit Nehru apparently wrote about the embarrassment VK Krishna Menon, India’s first high commissioner to the Court of St. James, had become.Pamela Mountbatten, daughter of Lord Mountbatten and Edwina, in an interview to Karan Thapar on Devil’s Advocate on CNN-IBN news channel, said that the Edwina-Nehru relationship was also of use to her father. And that Lord Mountbatten often appealed to Nehru given the influence Edwina had; this was particularly useful while handling tricky situations like Kashmir.

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edwina_Mountbatten,_Countess_Mountbatten_of_Burma)

(http://ridingtheelephant.wordpress.com/2008/10/07/nehru-was-lost-for-years-in-a-trunk-%E2%80%A6%E2%80%A6%E2%80%A6/)

In 1929 Nehru father Motilal made a report , after that Muslims in India demanded new country.Then Jinnah who was in Congress Party was forced to join Muslim League.Nehru was so eager to take position of Prime Minister,created differences with Jinnah.Nehru even didn`t thought of poor people who died in civil war between Hindus Vs Muslims.
(Link:– http://www.activeboard.com/forum.spark?aBID=11931&p=3&topicID=5230238 )

Nehru is responsible for division of India. Jinnah wanted some reservations on Muslim minority but Nehru`s only vision was to be Prime Minister of India. In 1929 , that happened due to Nehru report Vs Jinnah report .  Sardar patel was the prime and senior candidate for Prime Minister position but Nehru got Vote & support of Mahatma Gandhi .

In 1931 Nehru & his congress party could save to BHAGAT SINGH , but he didn`t. At that time he ignored the matter.

In 1934 when Mahatama Gandhi isolated from Indian National Congress due to bad policy , Nehru was president of congress who decided to support Britishers in 2nd World War. This took 10 years time from 1934-1944 , delayed in freedom.

Why Jinnah Joined Muslim League, because protested Congress support to join with Britain on World war 2—
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Day_of_Deliverance_(India)

The truth is Gandhiji resigned from Indian National Congress in 1934 & never joined. Nehru wanted to be the Prime Minister of India. He had vote of just 2 persons out of 14, congress voted 12 votes to Sardar Patel. At that time Nehru blackmailed Gandhi that he will breakup Congress & then Britishers will divide India into 536 Princely States.Also , Gandhiji was not in Delhi at the time of Independence Day either on 14th Jan or 15th Jan. Gandhiji was in Kolkata,he said that is not a full independence. That greed brought division of India.

In 1948 he foolishly gave Kashmir matter to United Nations without caring people. He was waiting for social unrest in Kashmir in 1947 ..It was Sardar Vallavbhai patel who made India as a Republic merged Hyderabad & Junagadh.
( Link:– http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_47 )

He also refused to join UN offer of India`s permanent membership & gave this to China.
(Link:– http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/2009/09/16/stories/2009091650380800.htm )

He was scared of truth, was trying to weak Indian Army. In 1961 he went to China & gave statement that Tibet is not a part of China but part of Indian occupied Tibet(Sikkim) is part of India , without boosting Indian Army, that brought China attack on India on 1962.
(Link:– http://www.hindustantimes.com/StoryPage/Print/339559.aspx)

CIA war Analysis on 1962 Indo-China war– http://www.foia.cia.gov/CPE/ESAU/esau-15.pdf

******************************************************************************

INDIRA GANDHI:—Jawaharlal Nehru only daughter was Pridarshani Nehru (Lalbahadur Shastri gave her name Indira) who later married to Feroz Khan ,was from the Junagadh

Reality of Maoists

Before we start to speak in the tome of the paid media and the political parties , it is important for all of us to know who actually a Maoist is and what made him do what he is doing today.

In reality they are just common men like anyone of us, some of them are equally educated . The major reason which lead them to this type of a life is the way these political ministers treat the people. The fault is of those people whom we elect.
Today there are very few genuine ministers in the political parties whereas the others are thief's , murderers , liars , rapists and what all. This is indeed very very sad for all of us. We have no genuine person coming ahead to take the command and fulfil all the promises made by him better the elections. If you go deep into the way how these people live you will be shocked to know that these Maoists live a very pathetic lifestyle and there are no efforts done by our government to even listen to them. Our governments use them for their own interests and then leave them alone to die. Later on these people are termed as terrorists and made to be killed so that the reality and the truth is not out in front of the public at large. How shameful it is that we behave like hooligans and then sit for the chair which was once respected but no one knows how much bloodshed helped these people to make one single chair.
If you think this is not the reason then just put 1 question in your mind that why did they target the minister this time and then gave a proof of as to what they wanted and why did the same government of urs didn't take any action before when the innocent men died... ????

KEEP THINKING AND YOU WILL REALISE THE REALITY OF THESE FAKE POLITICIANS SOON....... JAI HIND

Increase in Rape dipicts Decline in moral values...

It is shameful to read such articles as on rape on small children and old women... How ruthless animals have we all become which is now being depicted.. Is this what we all wanted , is this the moderanisation and development of what we tal about... Are these the moral values and social duties being performed by the society as well as the government of the so called Indipendent India... Is there nothing that we as a common man or the biggest body , The Supreme court do to help prevent this.. We all know the real cure and punishment for the accused then why are we still treating them as HUMANS.

A simple question which we all must ask ourselves : "Do we think that today what all is going around is right and we are hopless and cant do anything to bring in a change" ? why is that we need a nirbhaya or another guddi or a granny to sacrifise a life so that we become united. Unfortunatly een after this we are not united for more than 3-4weeks.... Which means that now to awaken this blind nation 1 female must sacrifise her life every month.? Is the the respect for women we talk about.. ?
And now our politicians who BEG for VOTES everytime the elections is near, just becaue they get a Vip status they forget who elected them and just fool the people same is the case with the female politicians . No strict action has yet been taken on such a henious crime why ?

The increase in crimes depicts the lack of education. There are no more of moral education lessons being taught in homes, tutions and schools. Which is why the children's mind is now getting filled with dirt and which is leading to such crimes each day. Other reasons to this crime are the misuse of power, the want for more , non satisfaction, being impressed by the outer world, absense of a good culture etc.

Its time that we all look deep inside ourselves and kill the beast in us so that we may soon unite to help clear this crap from this nation along with the accused in this crime and other crimes related to rape like the rape of nation etc.