In the next election whichever political party gets elected even then the worst condition of Bharat and Hindus will not change. To bring the change we have to continue our efforts for the establishment of Hindu Rashtra. - Dr. Athavle...When Governments consistently fail, it is Hindus who must get ready !...H.H.Dr. Jayant Athavale(Sanatan Sanstha)....There is no counter terror strategy except the one I have given in the DNA article...Dr. Swamy....Hindu vote must consolidate with those others who accept Hindu ancestry for a virat Hindustani sarkar...Dr.Swamy

Dr. Subramanian Swamy in support of Sant Shri Asaram Bapu

Anti-Hindu play "Sons of Babur" to be exhibitade in President House
on October 28

O Hindus Protest this Glorification of Mughal Invader Babur !
New Delhi 25 October : Central Law Minister Salman Khurshid written play "Sons of Babur" in which Mughal Invador Babar is unnecessarily glorified will be exhibited on October 28 in Presidential House in the presence of President  Smt. Pratibhatai Patil and Prime Minister Manmohan Sing. Salman Khurshid will also going to act in this play.Last time, even after protest by Hindus this play was exhibited in Goa in May month .

Hindus across india are requesting President to cancel this Mughal Invader play. 

Hindus are protesting against this play which is to be exhibited on October 28 on following address : 

President House office Contact : 
Fax : (011) 23017290/23017824
EPABX : 23015321
Email Address :

Prime Minister office contact No : (011) 23012312
Fax: 23019545, 23016857

Source : Daily Sanatan Prabhat

25 Oct : Dr. Swamy's Press Release on FIR against Sonia Gandhi

Oct 25 Press Release : 

Yesterday I posted to the SHO of the Crime Branch of Delhi Police, located in Rohini, Delhi a written complaint for registering a FIR against Ms.Sonia Gandhi, Chairperson of the National Advisory Commission (NAC) and 14 other unnamed persons who are members of the NAC.

The offences alleged to have been committed arises from a draft Bill prepared by the NAC and known as Prevention of Communal and Targeted Violence Bill of 2011.  This was widely circulated as also posted on the NAV website.

The charge is that Ms.Sonia Gandhi and her NAC members have by writing and drafting such a Bill for adoption by Parliament have incited the Christians and Muslims to attack the Hindus by rioting and mayhem of rape promising legislative protection to them as a “group”, and giving immunity under the provisions of the Bill when enacted, from prosecution even if the said “group” attacks the “dominant” Hindu community.

Hence, Ms.Sonia Gandhi and the members of the NAC are culpable under Section 153A & B, 295A and 505 (2) of the IPC.

If the Delhi Police does not register this FIR by November 10th, I shall approach the court to seek directions to the Delhi Police to register the FIR.

                          ( SUBRAMANIAN  SWAMY)

Breaking News : Dr. Subramanian Swamy files FIR against Sonia Gandhi with Delhi Crime Branch

Link to download Fir : FIR Against Sonia Gandhi 

From: Dr. Subramanian Swamy,                   
                 President of Janata Party                                
                 A-77, Nizamuddin East                                  
                 New Delhi-110013: Tel: 9810194279              
 To:  SHO/Insp: D.P. Singh
            Crime Branch,
            Sector 18, Rohini,
            New Delhi.

                         Registering of FIR u/s 153A & B, 295A & 505(2) of  Indian Penal Code. 

Dated: October 24, 2011.
1.         In public interest I am sending by Courier service a complaint in my name against Chairperson Ms. Sonia Gandhi of National Advisory Council, which has its office at 2 Motilal Place, New Delhi-110011, Tel: 23062582, and also against unnamed other members of the said NAC for committing offences of propagating hate against the Hindu community of India by circulating for enacting as law a Draft Bill described as PREVENTION OF COMMUNAL AND TARGETED VIOLENCE BILL OF 2011. This Draft Bill has been posted on the NAC official website, is dated July 21, 2011 and sent for adoption by Parliament. That this 2011 Draft Bill is mischievous in content of targeting the Hindu community, malafide, unreasonable and prejudicial to public order, is apparent from the second section of Explanatory Note [Annexed herein] to the Draft Bill titled “Key Provisions of the Bill”, thereby inciting crimes against the Hindu community with impunity, and thus committing offences u/s 153A & B, 295A and 505(2) of the Indian Penal Code.
2.         The UPA Government in December, 2005 had introduced earlier a Draft Bill [2005] in the Parliament described as THE COMMUNAL VIOLENCE (PREVENTION, CONTROL AND REHABILITATION OF VICTIMS)  BILL (2005).
3.         The Draft Bill however did not find favour with any Party.  Leaders of several political parties felt that the Draft Bill provided sweeping powers to the Central Government thus undermining the authority of the State Governments.  But the most vocal opposition to this draft Bill came from the Muslim, Christian and so called secular quarters.  Their contention was just the opposite of what the political leaders were saying.  The view of Muslim and Christian groups was that the 2005 Draft Bill was “completely toothless”.  They demanded that the powers of managing communal violence be vested in non-government actors and make governments and administration at all levels accountable them for communal violence.
4.         The All India Christian Council was in the forefront of this campaign against the 2005 Draft Bill as being “too weak”.  In a letter written to the Prime Minister, Ms Sonia Gandhi, herself a Christian, through  the AICC had  conveyed to the PM the Christian Council concerns about the  2005 Draft Bill, and then revised the same as the 2009 Draft Bill.
5.         The Muslim bodies too joined in the protest campaign against the draft as being too weak.  They wanted provisions to make police and civil administration and state authorities “accountable” to public bodies.  The Joint Committee of Muslim Organizations for Empowerment (JCMOE) made the demand on behalf of these organizations.  JCMOE also urged the government to convene a meeting of leaders of “targeted communities” to note their views on the Bill as follows:
            “The Bill does not make police or administration or state authorities accountable and provide for timely and effective intervention by the National Human Rights Commission, if the communal violence spreads or continues for weeks, or by the Central Government under Articles 355 and 356 of the Constitution, duly modified.  On the other hand, ironically, the Bill grants more power to the local police and administration, which, more often than not acts in league with the rioters by declaring the area as ‘communally disturbed area’ JCMOE statement said.
6.         It is interesting to note that these two statements, the Muslim and the Christian, come at around the same time as though they were premeditated.  They probably were.
7.         From their arguments in opposition to the Draft Bill, it is clear that they wanted a Bill that would consider only the Christians and Muslims as the “generally targeted” victims of communal violence; and that the word ‘communal violence’ be re-defined in such a way that only the Muslims and Christians are treated as victims and Hindus as predators, and that the local police and administration, including the State administration, considered hand-in-glove with the perpetrators of violence. Hence the Bill should empower the Central Government to invoke Art. 355 and 356 of the Constitution against any state in the event of such communal violence.
8.         Since the Prevention of Communal Violence Bill (2005) does not discriminate between the perpetrators and victims of communal violence on religious grounds and also it does not envisage the State administration as committed in preventing such violence, these groups wanted the Bill to be withdrawn.
9.         The National Advisory Council  (NAC) was re-constituted in 2009 by the UPA Government again under the chairmanship of Ms. Sonia Gandhi. The UPA Government promptly handed over the re-drafting of the Bill to the newly constituted NAC and asked it to come up with a fresh draft.
10.       The basic communally provocative premise of the re-drafted Bill is that: a) there is a non-dominant group in every State in the form of religious and linguistic minority which is always a victim of violence; b) the dominant majority (usually Hindus) in the State is always the perpetrator of violence; and c) the State administration is, as a rule, biased against the non-dominant group.
11.       The object of the re-drafted Bill thus was the basic premise of the NAC that the majority community – read Hindus – are the perpetrators of communal violence in India and the minority – read Muslims and Christians – are the victims, clearly  is  incitement of religious strife.
12.       What is more important is to conclude is that in all cases of communal and targeted violence, dominant religious and linguistic group at the State level is always the perpetrator and the other the victims.  Similarly the conclusion that the State machinery is invariably and always biased against the non-dominant group is a gross misstatement of the sincerity and commitment of millions of people who form State administration in the country.
13.       This dangerous premise is the incitement of communal strife in this Bill. 
14.       One can safely conclude that the script writers of this Bill are themselves blinded with religious biases.  In India communal violence happens mostly because of politico-communal reasons.  In many instances, as documented by several Commissions of Inquiry, it is the so-called minority group that triggers the trouble.  We hence need laws that can prevent such violence irrespective of whoever perpetrates it.  To argue that since the administration is always biased in favour of the dominant group we need acts that are biased in favour of the non-dominant group is imprudent and puerile.
15.       The final Draft is available on the NAC website now.  One is not sure when the same will be placed before the Parliament.  However, a close scrutiny of the Draft is essential to understand the serious implications of and threats from it to our national integration, social harmony and Constitutional Federalism.
16.       This Bill when it becomes an Act will apply to whole country except the State of Jammu and Kashmir.  Note that J&K is one of the two States in India (excluding the North East and other tiny UTs) that has Hindus as minority – the ‘non-dominant group’ according to this Bill. Punjab is the other State where the Sikhs constitute the majority, while in the rest of the entire country it is the Hindus who constitute ‘dominant group’ and by implication the perpetrators of communal violence, according to this Draft Bill.
17.       The mischief in the drafting primarily lies in the ‘Definitions’ part contained in Art.3 of the first chapter.  Art. 3 (c ) defines Communal and Targeted Violence as under:-
            “Communal and targeted violence” means and includes any act or series of acts, whether spontaneous or planned, resulting in injury or harm to the person and or property knowingly directed against any person by virtue of his or her membership of any group”.
18.       The mischief is centered round the word ‘Group’. Art 3(e) defines what constitutes a ‘Group’.
            “Group” means a religious or linguistic minority, in any State in the Union of India, or Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes within the meaning of clauses of the Constitution of India;
19.       Having thus established that the individual member of the Minority community is always considered a part of the Minority group the Draft Bill goes on to add several detrimental clauses subsequently.  Art.3 (f) defines ‘Hostile environment against a group’ thus:
            “Hostile environment against a group” means an intimidating or coercive environment that is created when a person belonging to any group as defined under this Act, by virtue of his or her membership of that group, is subjected to any of the following acts:
(i)                 boycott of the trade or business of such person or making it otherwise difficult for him or her to earn a living; or
(ii)               publicly humilitate such person through exclusion from public services, including education, health and transportation of any act of indignity; or
(iii)             deprive or threaten to deprive such person of his or her fundamental rights;
(iv)             force such person to leave his or her home or place of ordinary residence or livlihood without his or her express consent; or
(v)               any other act, whether or not it amounts to an offence under this Act, that has the purpose or effect of creating an intimidating, hostile or offensive environment.”
Note the Clause (v) – ‘Any other act, whether or not it amounts to an offence under this Act’.  The intention here seems to be to make anything and everything an offence, even if it doesn’t come under any definition of an offence.  It is clear that the entire definition of ‘hostile environment’ is malafide.
Clause (k) defines who is a ‘victim’. Here the draft makers are very explicit:
“victim” means any person belonging to a group as defined under this Act, who has suffered physical, mental, psychological or monetary harm or harm to his or hr property as a result of the commission of any offence under this Act, and includes his or her relatives, legal guardian and legal heirs, wherever appropriate;
“Victim” can only be belonging to a ‘group’ as defined under this Act.  And the group as defined under this Act is the Minority – the ‘non-dominant group’.  That means this act will consider only the Minority as the victims.  And he or she will become a ‘victim if he or she has suffered physical, mental, psychological or monetary harm….’ Now, physical harm is measurable, mental harm is difficult to gauge, but how on earth  can anyone define ‘psychological harm’?  The Bill does not define it.  Then how can be so-called ‘psychological harm’ be one of the reasons for victimhood?
            Similarly, Art. 4 (a) states as follows:
            4. Knowledge. – A person is said to knowingly direct any act against a person belonging to a group by virtue of such person’s membership of that group where;
(a)   he or she means to engage in the conduct against a person he or she knows belongs to that group;
20. Art 7 of the draft Bill defines ‘sexual assault’.  It is by far the most widely covered definition that is very much needed to protect women from becoming targets of sexual violence as part of communal violence.  But against the problem is that this definition is applicable to the women belonging to Minority group and women of the Majority community cannot benefit from it.  Secondly, it also states that in a case of communal violence sex by consent also can be construed as a crime.
21.       Patriotic Indians now realize that the present draft Bill is a standing proof that neo Jinnah-ism – the belief that the minority is perpetually oppressed in India by the Hindu majority – is still poisoning our minds even today by mischievous minds..
22.       The present Draft Bill will only promote disharmony. With these kind of laws the LeTs and Hujls across the border need not have to promote terrorism in our territory anymore.  All that they need to do is to encourage a minor communal riot and they can achieve what they want – huge rift between the Majority and Minority communities.
23.       Hence, the NAC, with Ms Sonia Gandhi as Chairperson, and other members have jointly committed offences under IPC Sections 153A & B, 295A, and 505(2).

24.       It is significant that even well known persons of secular credentials have condemned this Bill as divisive. The Tamil Nadu Chief Minister Ms. J. Jayalalitha has in a Press Release dated July 29, 2011 [Annexed] has concluded that “the remedy sought [in the Draft Bill] to be provided against communal and targeted violence is worse than the disease itself”.         
25.      Therefore, this complaint be taken as a basis to register an FIR and conduct investigation into the communal mentality of the NAC chairperson Ms. Sonia Gandhi and other members and take necessary action under the law to prosecute the offenders under the cited sections of the IPC.
                      ( SUBRAMANIAN  SWAMY - President of Janata Party )


Dr. Subramanian Swamy's plea on PC to be heard on Nov 8

New Delhi 24 Oct : A trial court in Delhi has deferred its decision till November 8 on the petition filed by Janata Party president Subramanian Swamy seeking a probe into Home Minister P Chidambaram's role in the 2G case. 
Mr Chidambaram was the Finance Minister when the telecom scam unfolded in 2008.

The trial court said it wants to wait for the Supreme Court's verdict on Mr Swamy's other plea seeking a CBI enquiry against Mr Chidambaram for failing to reign in Mr Raja. The CBI has, in the past, objected to this, stating that there is nothing to suggest that Mr Chidambaram could have acted differently, and that it is incorrect to single out a minister as culpable for Mr Raja's actions. Mr Chidambaram's party, the Congress, has also defended him staunchly.

In his petition before the trail court, Mr Swamy has said that Mr Chidambaram should be made a co-accused in the case.

Mr Swamy's petition says Mr Chidambaram deserves to be questioned on the basis of a note from the Finance Ministry that finds Mr Chidambaram did not act rigorously enough as Finance Minister in 2008 to ensure that valuable spectrum was sold at fair prices to companies.

The note - sent in March to the Prime Minister's Office - had turned into a searing controversy, mainly because notings establish it was "seen by" Pranab Mukherjee - suggesting that he endorsed its content. The Opposition had asked for Mr Chidambaram's resignation on the basis of this document.

The government has so far backed Mr Chidambaram vociferously, with the Prime Minister stating that the Home Minister enjoys his "complete confidence." Mr Mukherjee has described Mr Chidambaram as "a pillar of strength" to the government in what's being seen as an attempt to assuage his upset colleague. Mr Chidambaram reportedly had told the PM that the note against him is the result of an orchestrated campaign within the government against him.

Mr Swamy had urged the Supreme Court to monitor the investigation into the 2G scam, which is being conducted by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). Since November, the inquiry has cost a couple of Union ministers their jobs, and lodged several executives at some of India's biggest telecom companies in prison.

While the Supreme Court is monitoring the CBI's investigation into the telecom scam, the case is actually being tried by a lower court. The CBI and the Centre have defended Mr Chidambaram and have argued that it should be left to the trial court. The Centre had also said that the Supreme Court need not monitor the 2G case anymore.   

Source : NDTV

Article 370 can be abolished anytime: Subramanian Swamy

Jammu, Oct 23: Vouching for permanent resettlement of displaced Kashmiri Pandits in Kashmir, former Union Ministerand president Janta Party Subramanian Swamy on Sunday announced that 10 lakh armed ex-servicemen will be sent to the Valley prior to return of KPs for ensuing their safety.  
  “There is no need to be defensive and we need to be clear in our mind. We will send 10 lakh ex-servicemen (double than displaced KPs) equipped with weapons from different parts of the Country to Kashmir for ensuring the safety of the KPs. They will be paid money and will be asked to settle there,” Swamy said.
 Swamy was speaking at a function organised by Jammu Kashmir Peoples Forum (JKPF) to commemorate 64th year of “J&K’sAccession with India.”
 Swamy said there were one crore ex-servicemen “sitting idle at their homes” and they were waiting for an opportunity to serve the Country. “Why should we demand Panun Kashmir (separate homeland) if the entire Kashmir could be Panun Kashmir?” he asked.
He also described the Article 370 as a “temporary provision” and said it could be abolished at any point of time by the President through an Ordinance. “For this, we need a strong Government at the Centre and it is surely going to happen in near future,” he said. Come what may, India will never leave Kashmir since the instrument of accession was signed by Maharaja Hari Singh with Indian Government was full and final,” he said. 

 “We have historic past in Kashmir, many shrines and religious places are there. After the accession of J&K, the statements of Jawahar Lal Nehru and Mountbatten hold no weightage.”
 Taking a dig at the Chief Minister Omar Abdullah for his statement on revocation of Armed Forces Special Power Act (AFSPA), Swamy said he (Omar) had no right to speak on such sensitive issues. “And if any attempt was made by him (Omar) to repeal the law from J&K, he should be dismissed and the President’s rule should be imposed forthwith.
 He also castigated the statement of lawyer-activist Prashant Bhushan saying “there is no place for referendum on Kashmir in the Indian constitution as India possesses all rights on J&K’s each and every inch of land”.
 Swamy also opposed any dialogue with Pakistan on Kashmir issue, terming the problem as “internal matter” of India. He also expressed concern over growing “Talibanization” in Pakistan saying  “relationship between Taliban and Pakistan army is a sign of great danger to Indian union.” 
 “It is sure that the Pakistan Army will rule the country as the Army commanders are able to topple any democratic government there. There are eighty percent army officers, who are likely to be next army commanders in Pakistan, belong to Taliban. The situation itself becomes worrying in view of ISI and Taliban continuous support to Pakistan Army,” he said.
 Pertinently Swamy was Union Cabinet Minister for Commerce and Law in 1990-91. Prime Minister Manmohan Singh recently stated that Swamy was the first to envisage and articulate the need for reforms in the Country.
 Earlier, leaders of various political parties, including BJP MLA Jugal Kishore Sharma, JKNPP MLA Balwant Singh Mankotia, JSM MLA Ashwani Kumar Sharma, Congress leader Abdul Gani Kohli and JKPF convenor Ramesh Sabherwal also spoke on the occasion.

Source : Greaterkashmir

Sonia Gandhi’s Property to be Attached: Dr. Subramanian Swamy

Dr. Subramanian Swamy has referred to the 2G scam as the “biggest scam in the world” and said how he intended bringing back the money taken by Sonia Gandhi. “Attach their property. Once she gets convicted, I’ll file another case, and get her property attached. Her property all over the world will be attached”, said Dr. Swamy in an exclusive interview with Indiawires.
The Janata Party President spoke of how the Indian government could have been benefitted, if the auction of 2G licences had been conducted. The country would have got Rs. 1Lakh 76000Crore. Instead, those who benifitted on the sly got a bribe of Rs. 60,000 cr.
When asked about the alleged manipulation done by the Electronic Voting Machines, Dr. Swamy said that the court was completely convinced with the case filed by him and has permitted the way suggested by him. In what can be considered as multiple rays of hope for voters, Dr. Swamy said, “According to the Information Technology Act, Section 11, when users punch EVM, they must mandatorily be provided with a receipt that acknowledges the vote cast for the specific candidate, with serial number. This receipt must be cast into a ballot box. There for in case of any discrepancy, the paper slips must be used for recounting, and not the data in the EVM. The Election Commission has also agreed to this and will submit their report on December 14, 2011.”
Source : IndiaWires

Rahul Gandhi an Italian citizen, cannot be PM thinks Subramaniam Swamy

Bangalore, Oct 20 (ANI): Janata Party President Subramanian Swamy has said Congress General Secretary Rahul Gandhi is not qualified to become Prime Minister, as he still has Italian citizenship. 

Addressing an anti corruption seminar here, Swamy said: “”Rahul cannot compete with anybody. He cannot contest any election because he is an Italian citizen and there are a few more things about him, which are about to come out. I cannot divulge them as of now because my investigations are not yet over.
“They prove my statements in the same way when I had earlier said that Sonia Gandhi cannot be the Prime Minister and she could not become so. Later she gave the statement that she gave away that post. But he (Rahul) cannot become one himself as well. It will be better for all of them if they go back to Italy,” he added.
Recently there has been debate regarding the issue that Rahul Gandhi may be the Congress party’s Prime Ministerial candidate for the 2014 general elections in opposition to main Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) leader Narendra Modi who is touted to be the opposition’s choice for the post.
Swamy also said that the recent attacks on social activists like Prashant Bhushan and Arvind Kejriwal were being done by people who were desperate to get some media attention.
“Kejriwal’s attacker has been a member of the Congress in Jhansi for many years. Such people receive prominence as their names come in the papers. People keep doing these kinds of things. My opinion is that these people should get strict punishments and then such incidents will not happen in the future,” he said.
Swamy further said that he did not see the Jan Lokpal Bill getting passed under the rule of the Congress Party.
“I think with the Congress will not believe anything till it happens. And Congress stands to lose a lot if the Jan Lokpal Bill is passed,” he said.

Source : ANI

2G scam: No sleep till Chidambaram’s arrest, says Subramanian Swamy

Thursday, Oct 20, 2011 : 
Prime Minister Manmohan Singh might have given him a reprieve in the 2G spectrum scam, but it is temporary and there is no way Union home minister P Chidambaram could escape from the long arm of law, said Subramanian Swamy on Wednesday.
He was delivering a lecture on ‘Hidden Facts About 2G Spectrum’ organised by the Youth Against Corruption.
“I won’t sleep till Chidambaram is arrested,” said the Janata Party president whose legal and investigative work has fuelled prosecution of the various accused in the Rs1.76 lakh crore 2G scam.
Terming former Union telecom minister A Raja as a small fry in the big scam, Swamy said Chidambaram is the mastermind who guided Raja through the 2G spectrum allocation deal.
Describing the Rs1.76 lakh crore scam as the biggest in the world, he put the amount that was paid as bribes to key players in the scam at Rs60,000 crore.
“Poor Raja got just Rs5,000 crore, Chidambaram got a pocket money of Rs5,000 crore, former chief minister of Tamil Nadu M Karunanidhi was paid Rs14,000 crore and UPA chairperson Sonia Gandhi got a whopping Rs36,000 crore,” he said.
Explaining the hard work that he put in for ferreting out relevant documents and files to expose the scam, Swamy said he had strong evidence to nail Chidambaram too.
“Chidambaram has stashed away Rs50,000 crore in foreign banks. It was Chidambaram who guided Raja in framing the guidelines for spectrum allocation. He cannot escape. I will not sleep till Chidambaram is arrested,” he said.
Citing the Tamil Nadu connection of all those who are facing the music from CBI, Swamy hinted at Sonia, too, getting into trouble. “It is better the jail authorities in Tihar be ready to make pizzas and spaghetti,” he said taking a dig at her Italian origin.
The 2G spectrum licences, which were sold at a throwaway price, were later sold by the allottees for prices eight to 13 times the cost they bought it. The country lost revenue of about Rs1.76 lakh crore.
“It is not just about money, the scam has put the country’s security and economy at great risk,” he said.
One of the companies had links with global terrorist Dawood Ibrahim who is hiding in Pakistan and another company had close association with the Chinese army.
“The allotment has put India’s security at great risk as in the event of a war, Indian military communications could be jammed,” he said.
The hawala racket is being used to route the bribe to foreign bank accounts and most of the hawala agents have Pakistani connection. The huge money is then being brought back for investing in the country’s stock market. Swamy cited the frequent upheavals in stock market to this hawala influence.
“This has ruined our stock markets, led to huge inflation, thus making the life of millions of poor and middle class Indians miserable,” he said.
He wanted all the 2G licences cancelled. Swamy expressed confidence that the court would do it if the UPA government failed.
Source : DNA

Dr.swamy's letter to PM to drop the proposed Communal and Targeted Violence (Prevention) Bill

October 17, 2011.

Dr. Manmohan Singh,
Prime Minister of India,
South Block,
New Delhi.

Dear Prime Minister,

Patriotic Hindus who constitute the overwhelming majority of Indian population, feel that the draft of the Communal and Targeted Violence (Prevention) Bill as unconstitutional. I am writing therefore to you to drop from further consideration, the draft Bill of 2011 authored by Ms. Sonia Gandhi, Chairperson of the National Advisory Council. This Bill violates individual and State rights as well as the principles of equality under the law, separation of powers, innocent- until- proven- guilty principles underlying due process, and democracy.
Communal violence is a tragedy that must indeed be prevented. It mars India’s long history of religious pluralism and respect. No doubt India’s brand of pluralism is a direct extension of the inter-religious respect promoted by its indigenous and majority Hindu traditions and related faiths.

The Bill, while arguably intended to protect against and prevent such violence, unfortunately ignores obvious historical and contemporary realities, and will consequently only serve to further instigate inter-religious and communal tensions as it wrongly singles out a particular community – the Hindu majority for blame.

It is impossible to read the Bill without seeing the blatant politicization of the issue of protecting victims, with a “special focus on disadvantaged groups”: This Bill even on a quick reading exhibits the following flaws:

1. The Bill creates two “groups” of citizens. The language used in defining “group” is mischievously, vague. It is unclear as to whether a ‘group’ is a religious minority as determined by national demography or by state demographics –

(a) If the Bill intends to determine groups as religious minorities based on national demographics as seems to be the intention, it leaves unprotected large groups of religious and linguistic minorities, namely, the Hindu minority in the States of Jammu and Kashmir, Nagaland, Mizoram and Meghalaya -

Example : A dozen Hindu women in a small village are mass gang raped by a mob of Muslim men because of the women’s religious identity or ‘membership’ in the Hindu community, the Bill will fail to protect these victims.

(b): If however the Bill intends to determine groups as religious minorities based on State demographics (i.e. non-Sikhs in Punjab), it leaves unprotected religious and linguistic minorities that may constitute a minority in the context of smaller geographically definable regions such as a district, village, section of a city, despite being members of the majority according to State demographics -

Example: Two of the only Christian businesses in a predominantly Hindu village in Mizoram are boycotted by the Hindu villagers. Under the Bill, boycotts on the basis of group membership is a chargeable offence. Christians constitute a majority in Mizoram. If minority status is determined by the State demographics, the Bill fails to protect these victims.

© While linguistic minorities are presumably based on State demographics, the Bill’s language is unclear because it conjoins “religious” and “linguistic” without a logical qualifier.

(d) The way in which the Bill has defined “group” and afforded special protection on the basis fails to address and acknowledge the historical reality of communal and targeted violence perpetrated by minority groups against the majority and minority against another minority.

Example: In 2007, inter-communal violence erupted between Sikhs and followers of Dera Sacha Sauda, a distinct religious institution and followers from Hinduism, Sikhism and Islam. The Akal Takht, “the highest temporal seat of the Sikhs,” called for a “social boycott” of Dera Sacha Sauda members and of their leader, and called for a “closure of all deras” of the Sacha Sauda in the Punjab. The religious majority of Punjab is Sikh. The Bill does not deal effectively with such complex scenarios, especially where both groups can be considered minorities by national demographics or one group has members belonging to the majority, and both engage in offenses under the Bill. This Bill fails to address the complexities of communal relations.

2. The Bill will lead to uneven application across Indian States and fail to protect minority Buddhist, Sikh and SC/ST populations from communal and targeted violence in the State of Jammu and Kashmir, should the State not consent. Minority Hindus in Kashmir, who have been on the receiving end of communal and targeted violence for several decades and have been ethno-religiously cleansed from the Valley, according to this Bill would not be afforded protection as a member of the National majority, regardless of whether the State of Jammu and Kashmir consents to the Bill.

3. The Bill, in establishing a National Authority and various State Authorities, grants bodies of unelected citizens the power to interfere, obstruct, and override some of the essential functions of both National and State governments, namely law enforcement and adjudication of the law. The powers of these bodies violate basic principles of separation of powers and rights of States.

4. The Bill violates the basic common law principle of the right of the accused to confront one’s accuser by empowering the National Authority with duty to protect the identity of informants.

5. The Bill provides blanket immunity from criminal prosecution to any person who provides a statement before the National Authority, regardless of his/her role in engaging in or orchestrating violence related to the matter under investigation.

6. The Bill establishes parallel National and State Authorities creating unnecessary bureaucracy, conflicts of interest, as well as confusion, let alone violating basic principles of State autonomy and separation of powers and the rights of States.

7. The Bill usurps State police powers through broad and sweeping language, such as “through any means in whatsoever manner,” providing unchecked police and/or investigative powers to State Authorities under the Bill.

8. The Bill violates the basic common law principle of “innocent until proven guilty” by failing to provide an equivalent right for an accused to file a complaint of bias, lack of impartiality, or unfairness with the National or State Authority in general. This chapter does not lay out any procedures to protect the due process rights of the accused, including rights to a fair trial and legal representation, and ensuring investigations are conducted in a fair manner.

9. The Bill presumes that an offence is communal rather than a purely criminal act, based solely on the fact that the victim was a member of a particular community as defined under this Bill. It allows inferences to be made without imposing any burden of proof or requiring the prosecution to actually prove that the offence is a communal act.

10. The Bill removes the prosecutional burden to prove that the accused knowingly and intentionally committed an act of communal and targeted violence, and assumes, it was communal based simply on the victim’s membership in a protected group.

11. The Bill again violates the common law principle of “innocent until proven guilty,” by failing to provide any remedy to an accused in the event the Public Prosecutor shows bias against the interest of the accused.

12. The Bill provides relief and reparation to victims, whether or not they are minorities, and therefore contradicts other provisions of the Bill if the Bill provides relief to victims of the majority community, it should also provide for prosecution of minorities involved in communal and targeted violence.

13. The Bill denies legal remedies to any person (s) wrongfully accused prosecuted or convicted under this Bill. The Bill once again implements unnecessarily and sufficiently vague language such as “protection of action taken in good faith” by government, thus providing protection to government officials who may have acted negligently or improperly in accusing prosecuting or convicting a person (s) under the Bill.

I therefore urge the Government to reject this Bill.

The Prevention of Communal and Targeted Violence Bill as it is drafted is to target the Hindu community, and hence a blow to India’s democracy, which is secular because the Hindus of the country want it so. This Bill therefore might ignite a mass upheaval amongst Hindus that would jeopardize secularism and usher in a theocratic Hindu state. The Bill thus is a cure worse than the disease it claims to cure.

Yours sincerely,

Subramanian Swamy : Nepal''s political unrest poses big threat to India

Kanpur, Oct 17 (ANI): Commenting on the political unrest in Nepal, Janata Party President Subramanian Swamy has said that it posed a big threat to India.

"The situation in Nepal poses a big threat to our national security. The Maoists (Left-wing extremists) have made a base there. They are tilting in favour of China and have dismissed their Hindu ruled Constitution,'' Swamy told the media here.

"Pakistan''s Inter-Service Intelligence (ISI) is forging fake Indian currency notes in Nepal and sends them to India. Religion change is rampant in that country. And I believe that this competent Indian government should make some arrangements for Nepal," said Swamy.

Last month, the Nepalese Parliament elected Maoist leader Baburam Bhattarai as prime minister in a move seen as positive for the still fragile peace process.

The Maoists have been demanding 7,000 fighters be absorbed into the national army, and the rest be rehabilitated in the society. Rival political parties say only 5,000 could be integrated.

The future of the fighters is key to the stability of a country that acts as a buffer between China and India, who compete for influence. Nepal sits on the source of rivers supplying water to millions in South Asia.

Source : ANI


Link to watch more pictures of Protest by Arish Sahani


A Protest Demonstration was successfully organized by Indian Americans under the banner of Indian American Intellectuals Forum, Save India from Corruptions and several other associations in New York on Sunday, October 16th,  to express their disgust and abhorrence against the unwarranted harassment of Dr. Subramanian Swamy, President, Janata Party and a prominent Indian leader who has emerged as the embodiment of resistance against totalitarian and corrupt system.

The protesters,  many of whom flew from Chicago and drove 250-300 miles from neighboring states, carried  banners saying “Sonia Gandhi – Shame, Shame”, “Down with Sonia Gandhi”,  and Save Dr. Swamy – Save Indian Democracy”.  They shouted slogans:  “Mother of Corruption – Sonia Gandhi”, “Sonia Gandhi – Fake Gandhi”  and “Congress Hatao – Desh Bachao”.

A copy of the Memorandum submitted to the Consulate General of IndiaNew York was distributed to the media.  The Memorandum, inter alia, said that:

India is neither a Banana Republic nor a fiefdom of any Dynasty.  It is a full-fledged and vibrant democracy in which freedom of diverse views is constitutionally guaranteed to all the citizens.

Dr. Swamy is being hounded by the Governmental agencies for exposing corruption in high places and for writing an article three months ago in an Indian newspaper in which he had expressed his views as to how to solve the problem of Islamic terror in India.  In that article he had also appealed to all the Hindus to unite against the challenge of Islamic terrorism. 

“It is a matter of great regret and shame that truthful, bold and honest Indian leaders like Dr. Subramanian Swamy are being threatened by Congress volunteers and Jihadists”, the Memorandum stated.

The Memorandum also listed the series of attacks on Dr. Swamy’s residence, office and on him inMadurai.

“The intent behind all the above insidious activities is to muzzle Dr. Swamy’s voice, vilify him in the eyes of public and ultimately put him in jail”.

Narain Kataria, one of the organizer of the Protest said that “We are afraid that once Dr. Swamy is put in jail, sinister attempts would be hatched to immobilize him physically as well as mentally for ever.”

The protest was recorded and broadcast live on worldwide net.  It has been seen by thousands of people and can be watched at:

Narain Kataria
Arish Sahani
Satya Dosapati

Organizers of the Protest

Source : Indian American Intellectuals Forum

2G spectrum row: How did Swan get the deal? Dr. Swamy submits additional documents in Supreme Court

The Supreme Court reserved its verdict on examining the alleged role of home minister P. Chidambaram in the 2G scam case. And now, additional documents have been submitted to SC to show how the finance ministry under him permitted Swan, a 'front' company of Anil Ambani’s Reliance Telecom, to offload its shares in the nick of time to make it eligible for the 2G spectrum licence.

Petitioners Subramanian Swamy and Prashant Bhushan in the documents and their written submissions submitted to a bench of justices G.S. Singhvi and A.K. Ganguly drew the attention of the court to the fact that finance ministry under PC had given clearance to Swan for offloading shares in favour of UAE based Etisalat and Mauritius based Delphi (9.9 per cent stakes).

CBI submitted to the trial court that Anil Ambani “is majority shareholder and chairman of Reliance Telecom and Swan was a company set up by it with Rs 1,000 crore fund as disguise” to enable Reliance to get 2G licence for GSM service in 20 circles where it was operating CDMA service.

Similar permission was allowed by the then finance minister to Unitech to offload its equity in favour of Telenor, the petitioners’ documents stated.
This was the reason why CBI had roped in Reliance’s three top officials – Gautam Doshi, Hari Nair and Surendra Pipara, Swan’s Vinod Goenka and Unitech's Sanjay Chandra as alleged co-conspirators with Raja, his private secretary R.K. Chandolia and the then telecom secretary Siddhartha Behura, the papers said.
“Chidambaram had advised Raja that it was legal to ‘dilute’ the shares (mentioned in interlocutory application No. 24 on page 13). Swan Telecom and Unitech got a huge bonanza according to the CBI by releasing their 45 and 60 per cent equity respectively to two blacklisted firms – Etisalat and Telenor.”
Source : DC